Slashdot Mirror
Man Claiming Half of Facebook Suffers Setbacks
itwbennett writes "Slashdot readers will remember Paul Ceglia, the man who says Mark Zuckerberg agreed to split Facebook with him and has the email to prove it. Well, his case took a turn for the worse this week. Two law firms representing him resigned, the judge refused to postpone a hearing to allow his new lawyers to get caught up, and the judge ordered him to turn over computers and electronic and paper evidence."
when you threaten to close down the Judge's Facebook account.
Enough is enough! Stop with the news about Facebook!
Zuckerberg may be a twit but he did code. Paul Ceglia is a pure bullshit artist.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Whatever the real score is, either of them should present evidences that will prove which party is saying the truth.In Paul Ceglia side, if he has all the evidences, then there's no second thought of showing it as what the judges had ask him to do.
how to delete file
>Last I checked, emails weren't legally binding, as a contract is
Check again.
Congress passed the ESIGN act to prevent people from repudiating contracts that were made electronically. That was the foundation of the e-commerce boom (otherwise, how would you expect companies to sell on the Internet when people could just say "Oh, that wasn't a real contract, it was just electronic.")
Btw, a contract doesn't need to even be written to be a contract. The written form helps in establishing what was contracted, though.
A contract requires an offer, an acceptance, and consideration (exchange of value).
If you hash out terms for a business deal over email, and at the end you accept it, you just made a contract.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
This reminds me of the fake will awarding Melvin Dummar about half of the Howard Hughes estate for allegedly picking up a hitch hiking Mr. Hughes in the desert some time in the '60s. Like the Face Book email, this didn't go anywhere.
If the money hungry lawyers won't represent him why were they representing him in the first place why bail out right before the hearing? Why won't the judge delay the hearing so the new lawyers can get up to speed? Judges delay things all the time even on the biggest bull shit cases. And emails are admissible in court an email is basically a written form of a conversation. How about emailing or faxing a contract I do it all the time.
For example many years ago I walked out of a bar rubbed my eye and my contact fell out. Then I walked right into a cop rounding the corner of the building because I couldn't see. Cops hassled me and then told me to be on my way. I was walking to my tuck to get my glasses and was jumped by two cops hit in the stomach and face several times forced into the cop car without being arrested in from of several witnesses. The next day I was charged with a bunch of bullshit. Point is the prosecutor delayed the trial 6 times in his hunt for evidence against me finally my lawyer made a motion that the prosecutor was intentionally delayed the trial because there was no evidence and the judge set a finale trial date. On the day of the trial the prosecutor approached my lawyer and tried to make a deal 'you give me this trial and I'll give you one latter on' my lawyer said no I had been assaulted, unlawfully confined and had false charges filed . At that point to prosecutor decided to drop the charges and I didn't have to even go in the court house. Mind you I had to live under very strict bail condition for 8 months it cost me thousands in lawyers and I couldn't even charge the cops with assault because there is a three month statute of limitations for police in my area and I couldn't press charges until after my day in court which took 8 months. The cops even threatened me after court and the matter had to be brought up to their supervisor.
Being legally binding is a separate issue from the burden of proof. A written contract is legally binding, but if you can't prove who wrote the signature on it, it's not enforceable. Conversely, you may not be able to prove who clicked on the "I accept" button, but it's still legally binding in theory (so if, for example, someone testifies they saw you click it, the contract is enforceable).
He is the plaintiff!
Basically this guy is trying to sue Zuckerberg. He's had two legal teams quit. The judge doesn't think he, as the plaintiff, deserves any more time to prepare his case: he either has a case or he doesn't.
He's not defending a case, he's not being "prosecuted". He's litigating against Facebook and Zuckerberg.
Nick