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."

Comments

Stupid Zuckerberg

[ackthpt]

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?

Re:Stupid Zuckerberg

[Telvin_3d]

Well, depending on when this happened University mail systems may have been involved. One or both parties or someone that was forwarded or copied on the messages may have be using a commercial e-mail provider. There are a lot of scenarios where there could be independent 3rd party copies of these messages.

Even if no copies come to light immediately Zuckerberg's lawyers are going to be very, very careful about claiming they are false if there is ANY chance they are real. Nothing would go worse for them than claiming the messages as forgeries and then having someone come forward with third party proof.

Re:Stupid Zuckerberg

[iamhassi]

The $1,000 check that Zuckerberg cashed, hard to fake that.

Zuckerberg has got to be one of the biggest con-artists of the 21st century, why doesn't he just admit it and give these people 10 billion and move on? What's 10 billion when you already have 50 billion? Still more money than he could spend in his lifetime.

Re:Stupid Zuckerberg

[ackthpt]

This is what sickens me. These people have more money than anyone could ever possibly spend, yet STILL manage to be greedy, cheap bastards.

I mean holy shit, if I had $50 billion dollars, I could make sure that not a single one of my close friends would ever have to work again, and I would hardly notice.

We think alike. But we're rational. We're also not billionaires (or potential billionaires.)

Money changes people. Anyone who doubts it should read up the sad tales of lottery jackpot winners - the first to win a $40m jackpot in Pennsylvania (IIRC) was broke in a couple years, more so, he was called by his bank as they inquired as to when he would make good on the last few checks he had written as he was seriously overdrawn (but being a man of means and an account which once hosted several figures to the left of the decimal point, they were keeping him covered.) He was, of course, ruined and all his family and friends he showered with gifts were reluctant to return the cars and houses.

Bill Gates may have been a decent enough fellow at one time, but even he wanted to RUIN Java as he saw it as a threat to his empire. Really. The man was already worth more than a billion and he wanted more, more, moar.

I think the same intoxicant caught up with Mark Zuckerberg. At one time he probably would have been thrilled to have enough to by a modest house and a sports car. Now it's snowballing and he wants to keep in snowballing for himself. Looks rather like it's beginning to melt.

Re:Stupid Zuckerberg

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't get $50 billion by not being a greedy bastard. No one earns $50 billion honestly.

Re:Stupid Zuckerberg

[UnknowingFool]

The only thing I don't understand is why the guy waited so long to sue. He says it's because he only recently found the contract while looking for other papers. I see. I forget that I own a large majority of a major corporation all the time.

Re:Stupid Zuckerberg

[metlin]

Your two statements are not mutually exclusive. One could be honest, yet greedy. A famous example would be Warren Buffett, who is perhaps the anti-thesis of the "evil, rich men" stereotype. However, he has quite honestly admitted that he is greedy, not because he covets wealth but because to him, money is a scorecard. And even so, he has shown himself to be a man of integrity - for instance, he has openly stated his disagreement with the concept of inheritance, and keeping in line with his beliefs, he has slated for most of his wealth (~90%) to be given away to various charitable organizations.

And unlike Zuckerberg, he is completely self-made, and is worth just as much (and has much more tangible holdings to his name, too).

Zuckerberg more sinister than portrayed

[It's the tripnaut!]

Like!

What is facebook?

[s-whs]

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.

Re:What is facebook?

[swanzilla]

Also, I want a normal phone that makes phone calls. Now get off my lawn.

Re:money can't buy you love :)

[Anonymous Coward]

It can buy you an "It's complicated" relationship status though.

Three possibilites

[gnasher719]

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.

Re:money can't buy you love :)

[CrimsonAvenger]

"If you think money can't buy you love, then you don't know where to shop"

Uh, no, character evidence is inadmissible

[unassimilatible]

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)

Re:money can't buy you love :)

[BiggerIsBetter]

Should Zuckerberg lose big here it is comforting to know the Winklevoss twins will be there to give him two shoulders to cry on.

Four shoulders. They're not co-joined twins.