Slashdot Mirror
Ceglia Sues For 50% Facebook, Old Emails as Evidence
Kamiza Ikioi writes "A lawsuit by Paul Ceglia contains never-before-seen emails from Mark Zuckerberg. The emails, if they prove to be real, could be the most damning evidence to date against Zuckerberg's business dealings in the time leading up to 'The Face Book' and just after. They paint a picture of a Zuckerberg more sinister than portrayed in the movie The Social Network, actively out to sucker his investors about the site, including Ceglia. FTA: 'Zuckerberg writes Ceglia an email telling him he's thinking of shutting down the Facebook site, because he's too busy to work on it and there's little interest in it among students. (This is while Facebook is growing like crazy). Ceglia gets really pissed off, and starts accusing Zuckerberg of pulling "criminal stunts."' Among the emails is one where Mark Zuckerberg agrees to split Facebook with Ceglia 50/50. If the emails are proven legitimate, Ceglia may own 50% of Facebook."
a consolation for us non-billionaires
To put any of his swindles into writing.
Still, we know how to fake an email header, right? What's going to prove these are genuine?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Like!
They paint a picture of Mark Zuckerberg which is more sinister than that portrayed in the movie "The Social Network", seeming to suggest that he was actively out to sucker the investors on that site, including this "Ceglia" character (I assume he's the jock?).
There, FTFY.
This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
I've not registered with facebook so I can't see much of it. Perhaps good.
In any event, I wish slashdot would go back to the old days of more tech stuff, with more about programming etc. The latest version of afterstep, new C compilers, and of course other stuff such as physics. But too much business crap just and stuff about drivel level science (e.g. global warming deniers, which anyone can show as being nutters with nearly zero time spent) takes much of the fun away.
Perhaps I'm misremembering, perhaps I'm getting different interests and don't want to select rubbish any more.
Being philosophical: I think that's actually what old people have: They are tired of hearing the same old crap again and again from people. They see through the BS and have had enough...
And all this business stuff is such BS, that will always remain, just like politicians are always bad, in just about all countries. These are given.
1. Ceglia has e-mails that can be proven to be genuine. 2. Ceglia has e-mails that can neither be proven to be genuine nor to be forged. 3. Ceglia has e-mails that can be proved to be forged.
According to an article on www.businessinsider.com, "Paul and Iasia Ceglia are charged with 12 counts each of fourth-degree grand larceny and one count each of first-degree scheme to defraud" in what looks like a not very clever scam to get $200,000. That would destroy his credibility and therefore any chance to collect in case (2). And if the emails are forged, then I'd expect them to be provably forged, since Ceglia doesn't seem to be exactly a criminal mastermind.
if he's smart, he's already bought a few shares, so when he gets his 50%, he has complete control.
If Ceglia can produce copies of the emails from independent third parties like Harvard's email logs from 7 years ago, that's pretty good proof. As a felon already convicted of fraud, Ceglia has zero credibility, but if Harvard produced identical copies and said "these came from our archives in 2003", then the burden of proof is on Zuck that Harvard is either lying or somehow insecure in its logs.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
According to an article on www.businessinsider.com, "Paul and Iasia Ceglia are charged with 12 counts each of fourth-degree grand larceny and one count each of first-degree scheme to defraud" in what looks like a not very clever scam to get $200,000. That would destroy his credibility and therefore any chance to collect in case (2).
No, character evidence is inadmissible, even in civil trials (unless defendant opens the door via testimony, i.e., "I'm a good person and would never fake e-mails.").
IAALBNYLSDNROTALA (I Am A Lawyer But Not Your Lawyer So Don't Rely On This As Legal Advice)
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Arron Sorkin has a legitimate excuse to start writing the script for "Social Network 2: Payback Time" :)
The Sarah Palin hacker did less than this, and he was sentenced to hard time:
...At one point, Mark appears to have exploited a flaw in ConnectU's account verification process to create a fake Cameron Winklevoss account with a fake Harvard.edu email address.
How Mark Zuckerberg Hacked Into Rival ConnectU In 2004
Mar. 5, 2010
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-mark-zuckerberg-hacked-connectu-2010-3
In this new, fake profile, he listed Cameron's height as 7'4", his hair color as "Ayran Blond," and his eye color as "Sky Blue." He listed Cameron's "language" as "WASP-y."
Next, Mark appears to have logged into the accounts of some ConnectU users and changed their privacy settings to invisible. The idea here was apparently to make it harder for people to find friends on ConnectU, thus reducing its utility. Eventually, Mark appears to have gone a step further, deactivating about 20 ConnectU accounts entirely...