Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook: We Have Proof Ceglia's Contract Is Fake

Posted by timothy on from the oj-had-it-in-db-cooper's-basement dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Facebook says it has found the proof that shows Paul Ceglia, a man that claims he owns half of the company over a 2003 contract, is a fraud. Facebook says it has found the original 'authentic contract' between Zuckerberg and Ceglia."

178 comments

  1. It took this long to "find" a contract? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They must have partied hard if they can't find the contracts defining the ownership of a company like Facebook.

    1. Re:It took this long to "find" a contract? by deains · · Score: 4, Funny

      They just forgot to tag themselves when they uploaded it.

    2. Re:It took this long to "find" a contract? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Here's what I understand: Back in 2003, Celigia contracted Zuckerberg to code for his website which was not related to Facebook. Celigia and Zuckerberg do not dispute that they had a contract. Zuckerberg does not have a copy of this contract. Celigia says his version of the contract which he "found" last year says that he (Celigia) is entitled to 85% of Facebook because the clauses of the contract which say Celigia got a percentage of Facebook for every day Zuckerberg was late with his work. Zuckerberg was late completing his work.

      I found it suspicious that Celigia forgot for years that he owned a majority of Facebook. The other thing that is suspicious is the contract calls for Zuckerberg to surrender ownership of Facebook if he was late. Normally penalties are assessed in monetary values because Celigia is sacrificing hard cash for ownership of a company not related to his business nor guaranteed to bring in future money. It is also not clear whether Celigia knew about the existence of Facebook as it was much smaller back.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:It took this long to "find" a contract? by flyingsquid · · Score: 2

      I found it suspicious that Celigia forgot for years that he owned a majority of Facebook. The other thing that is suspicious is the contract calls for Zuckerberg to surrender ownership of Facebook if he was late. Normally penalties are assessed in monetary values because Celigia is sacrificing hard cash for ownership of a company not related to his business nor guaranteed to bring in future money. It is also not clear whether Celigia knew about the existence of Facebook as it was much smaller back.

      It's hard to believe that Zuckerberg acted in the way that Ceglia claimed. It's not a question of character- Zuckerberg's dealings with the Winklevoss twins suggest he's a tough businessman, maybe even a ruthless one- it's one of competency. Whatever you think of the guy as a person, he managed to start a company in his dorm room and turn it into an internet giant valued at tens of billions of dollars, one that even Google has struggled to compete with. So whatever else he may or may not be, Zuckerberg's clearly not an idiot when it comes to business. And you'd have to be a complete idiot to sell half interest in your taco stand for a thousand dollars, let alone half your internet startup, unless you thought the company had zero chance of succeeding. A few years later, Zuckberberg's deal with Peter Thiel, who co-founded PayPal, was $500,000 for just over 10% of the company. Admittedly it was a lot further along, but still, Zuckerberg clearly wasn't in a hurry to surrender ownership of his company.

    4. Re:It took this long to "find" a contract? by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Facebook was worthless at the time. Kids don't have the greatest filing habits.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    5. Re:It took this long to "find" a contract? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      And you'd have to be a complete idiot to sell half interest in your taco stand for a thousand dollars, let alone half your internet startup, unless you thought the company had zero chance of succeeding.

      http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2368770&cid=37017536

      Facebook was worthless at the time. Kids don't have the greatest filing habits.

    6. Re:It took this long to "find" a contract? by sribe · · Score: 1

      Your understanding is mostly correct, with the exception of one detail: Celigia lost in court once, and only after having his case thrown out for total lack of evidence, did he then "remember" this contract and come back with it for another try.

  2. Now it comes down to by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Informative

    Now it comes down to who can make a better forgery. Or who needs to.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:Now it comes down to by Yvanhoe · · Score: 2

      I wonder why in this day and age cryptographic signature is not more prevalent.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    2. Re:Now it comes down to by Arancaytar · · Score: 5, Funny

      Because the people whose job it is to determine what is authentic in the world of documents are mostly officials who have only just come to terms with fax machines.

    3. Re:Now it comes down to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know why Facebook didn't just offer a settlement of a few million many years ago.

      I'm so tired of Mark acting like he is personally responsible for social networking and therefore deserves $13,500,000,000 dollars. The movie showed that lots of people held his hand and Myspace paved the way years before Facebook showed up. There are a lot of people who deserve to be paid for what they contributed.

    4. Re:Now it comes down to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me help you out...regardless of what the facts may or may not be the billionaire can make a better forgery.

    5. Re:Now it comes down to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That reminds me of a case I saw where the two attorney's argued over what something in a photograph represented and whether the area was in a uniform color or not. They argued for hours until they noticed that the first year associate of one of them (the one, incidentally, that wanted to use the picture and claimed that it was not uniform in color) was shaking his head at his desk. The judge asked him why he was shaking his head and he responded that it was obviously a JPEG artifact caused by bad compression. The judge looked a little perplexed and asked to to explain it again. He did by analogy to a fax machine. The judge threw out the picture as not the best evidence AFTER HE LOOKED AND COMPARED A FAXED DOCUMENT TO THE ORIGINAL.

    6. Re:Now it comes down to by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      That reminds me of a case I saw where the two attorney's argued over what something in a photograph represented and whether the area was in a uniform color or not. They argued for hours until they noticed that the former first year associate of one of them (the one, incidentally, that wanted to use the picture and claimed that it was not uniform in color) was shaking his head at his desk. The judge asked him why he was shaking his head and he responded that it was obviously a JPEG artifact caused by bad compression. The judge looked a little perplexed and asked to to explain it again. He did by analogy to a fax machine. The judge threw out the picture as not the best evidence AFTER HE LOOKED AND COMPARED A FAXED DOCUMENT TO THE ORIGINAL.

      There. Fixed that for you.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    7. Re:Now it comes down to by Roachie · · Score: 1

      Yea, it really about Wired Magazine. It's one thing to have a cover with the Zuk on it. Quite another if Zuk has to share it with some old school coder.

      Not quite as 'cool', for some reason.

      --
      This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
  3. Again! by cultiv8 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ceglia’s lawyers are claiming the “authentic contract” is shielded from use in the suit because it is designated as “confidential” under the rules of an agreement between the two parties. Facebook is asking the federal judge overseeing the case in New York to overrule that designation.

    Damn Zuckerberg, it must be hard to actually *ask* people if you can change their priva... I mean, overrule their confidentiality settings.

    --
    sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
    1. Re:Again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whuh. Sense this does not make.

      Why on earth would the actual contract, central to a contract dispute, be considered so "confidential" that it cannot be used in a lawsuit about the contract.

      "Your honor, I claim that Mr. Zuckerberg has violated our contract."

      "No, your honor, I do not want you to see contract because it's confidential. I'm requesting that you rule based on hearsay, <mumbles>because the contract happens to be damaging to my case</mumbles>."

    2. Re:Again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I predict that Ceglia's lawyers won't get very far with this argument in front of a judge, assuming both parties agree that it is, indeed, a valid contract (which they seem to have done by this particular argumentative approach). I'll leave it to my fellow barristers to give the reasoning -- heck, a 2L or 3L student could probably do a fairly decent job. :)

    3. Re:Again! by mwvdlee · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So it's a contract so confidential that it cannot be legally enforced?

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    4. Re:Again! by KGIII · · Score: 1

      heck, a 2L or 3L student could probably do a fairly decent job. :)

      2L or 3L? Does this cause a decrease in THAC0?

      I want to attack the darkness! /only a little tired

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    5. Re:Again! by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 2

      The tale of the contract that cannot be enforced, for it contains the the name that must not be spoken, it is written on the parchment that cannot be seen, and was signed with the pen of ink that does not dry, by mysterious and powerful figures in a darkened room on a moonless night at the stroke of midnight!

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    6. Re:Again! by JamesP · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I think Zuckberg signed one of those in a moonless night.

      And after that, proceeded to cross the other party on that contract.

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    7. Re:Again! by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Do Ceglia's lawyers not know that you can mark stuff as confidential so that only the lawyers, judge, and jury can see it? How can it be more confidential than that?

    8. Re:Again! by Mike_EE_U_of_I · · Score: 1

      You wrote "Do Ceglia's lawyers not know that you can mark stuff as confidential so that only the lawyers, judge, and jury can see it? How can it be more confidential than that?"

          Easy, don't let anyone see it! Can't get more confidential than that! Take our word for it, the contract says you owe us lots of money. And also take our word for it that the contract says you can't see what the contract says.

    9. Re:Again! by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      ... a 2L or 3L student ...

      You measure your students by volume?

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    10. Re:Again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In an upcoming episode of, "Will It Blend"...

  4. dun dun ? by unity100 · · Score: 1

    you mean, Dun-dun-dun-dun-dun Taicho ?

    --
    Read radical news here
    1. Re:dun dun ? by JustOK · · Score: 2

      thought it was Do wah Diddy diddy dumm Diddy do

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
  5. Why do I get the feeling... by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 2

    that Ceglia is just looking for a settlement.

    1. Re:Why do I get the feeling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      its because he is. i live in wellsville, everyone around here knows that man is a POS. he's been caught scamming people many times before

    2. Re:Why do I get the feeling... by derGoldstein · · Score: 1

      That's how the "game" is played. It's not like some judge is going to say "well, this evidence means that 30% of the company is now his". This is the same as the Winklevy twins -- they were somewhere within farting distance of zuckerberg when he started stealing peoples' informat....erm, I mean, started facebook, and they want cash. So far at least 2 parties have managed to get hush-money out of him, so why not try again?

      --
      Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
    3. Re:Why do I get the feeling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that Ceglia got the settlement.

      fixed that for ya.

  6. Most misleading story in the history of /. by salesgeek · · Score: 4, Informative

    From the last paragraph of the article:

    Facebook says all the evidence required to prove Ceglia’s contract is a forgery is in his computers and hard drives.

    Wow.

    --
    -- $G
    1. Re:Most misleading story in the history of /. by derGoldstein · · Score: 1

      Strictly speaking, this doesn't contradict the headline. The headline merely states that "We Have Proof Ceglia's Contract Is Fake", it doesn't say "and we have it right here". The proof could be on Mars, for all we know. They just said "We Have Proof", they didn't say what the location of the proof is.

      Seriously though, facebook had to respond somehow. Not saying anything would have seemed suspicious. Even if this is just an ad hominem ("Facebook insists Ceglia is a known con artist. Ceglia, as has been well-documented, has a history of forgery."), it gives the media something to chew on.

      --
      Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
    2. Re:Most misleading story in the history of /. by salesgeek · · Score: 1

      it gives the media something to chew on.

      Right up to the part where someone in the media bothers to read the article they were handed.

      --
      -- $G
    3. Re:Most misleading story in the history of /. by derGoldstein · · Score: 1

      They couldn't care less. They want clicks, and this headline achieved that purpose. When they got the claim from Ceglia, it just gave them an excuse to stick a microphone in facebook's...um..."face", and await their reaction. It doesn't matter if the reaction made sense, just that there is a reaction, which they can now post. I'm sure that if you posed the question to them, they'd say "it's our job/responsibility to report".

      --
      Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
    4. Re:Most misleading story in the history of /. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      (putting on tinfoil hat)

      How does FB know that all evidence required to prove it's a forgery is on his computer?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Most misleading story in the history of /. by black3d · · Score: 1

      Because they actually have the evidence. The issue is that it can't be released because they agreed the contents of his computers was confidential. They're now asking for that finding to be overturned so they can release the documents.

      --
      "The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
    6. Re:Most misleading story in the history of /. by salesgeek · · Score: 1

      They're now asking for that finding to be overturned so they can release the documents.

      It looks like Facebook's lawyers found a document that is better for Facebook in an area that was off limits for discovery as agreed by both parties. It's going to be sad if this case turns on Ceglia outlawyering Facebook over discovery. We'll see how it goes in the hearing.

      --
      -- $G
    7. Re:Most misleading story in the history of /. by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 1

      Could still be true.

      Facebook "knows" that the copy they've found is genuine. Therefore, to them, it proves that Ceglia's is a forgery.

      However, we *don't* know that Facebook's copy is genuine. Therefore, to prove to *us* that Ceglia's is a forgery (and theirs isn't), Facebook needs his hard drive. Probably they want to check the date modified on the file...

    8. Re:Most misleading story in the history of /. by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Presumably the way Facebook lawyers are hinting, the evidence was found on the HDs that Celigia had to turn over. However, Celigia is marking whatever evidence as "confidential" and FB wants this designation changed so that they can release it public. I assume that Celigia left another copy of this contract on his HD that is significantly different than the version he released publicly.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    9. Re:Most misleading story in the history of /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heaven forbid that they could take a day or so to do some journalism about the story rather than tripping over the other rats in the gutter to get a sound bite published before anyone else.

    10. Re:Most misleading story in the history of /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strictly speaking, you're talking out of your ass. The headline's statement is that they possess it. They do not. To be somewhat accurate, the headline would have to be, "We believe we know where proof that the contract is fake can be found, but we don't have it."
       
      Go back two spaces to 6th grade grammar.

    11. Re:Most misleading story in the history of /. by 7-Vodka · · Score: 1
      If it's not in an accessible location then they don't have it.

      "We have proof" is very well accepted to mean that the person is IN POSSESSION of such evidence AND prepared to show it.

      --

      Liberty.

    12. Re:Most misleading story in the history of /. by jamesh · · Score: 1

      It looks like Facebook's lawyers found a document that is better for Facebook in an area that was off limits for discovery as agreed by both parties.

      which can almost be reduced to:

      Lawyer: Objection!
      Judge: On what grounds?
      Lawyer: The truth is really damaging to my case!

    13. Re:Most misleading story in the history of /. by Ambvai · · Score: 1

      Phoenix Wright, is that you?

    14. Re:Most misleading story in the history of /. by salesgeek · · Score: 1

      Lawyer: The truth is really damaging to my case!
      Probably, but you never know. Funny thing how evidence can look very damning until related facts come out. I absolutely hate it when litigants drop stuff like this to the press because it gives the appearance that the case will be easily won... which usually does not follow in the courtroom (see the SCO Novell dustup). If you have the upper hand far better to just be quiet, wait until AFTER the hearing on the 17th and then have a little press conference AFTER the judge rules on the motion.

      --
      -- $G
    15. Re:Most misleading story in the history of /. by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      The computer hard drive may well contain correspondence with his lawyer, which is legally privileged and can't be shown in court. I think that is most likely the issue.

    16. Re:Most misleading story in the history of /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know they don't have it? They claim that they DO possess it. However, they claim that the evidence to prove that Ceglia's contract is fake is on his hard drives.

      Those are not mutually exclusive claims.

      Possessing a copy of the original contract doesn't prove anything. They also have to prove that his is fake, and theirs is the real thing. THAT is why they need his hard drives.

  7. This again... by derGoldstein · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Isn't it interesting that whenever there's a new development in the "facebook chronicles", somebody "finds" some new documents? It's like this is some archeological expedition, and every now and then one of the people carefully excavating the digsite finds a piece of pottery and says "Hey guys! Look what I found! It's got writings on it!". Then facebook has to defend itself, so it sends its own archeologists to the deep dark dungeons of their corporate basement and they come back with a carbon-dated bit of clay with hieroglyphs on it -- "no, see, this is older than the piece you found, and it says the opposite!".

    At least we know this won't last forever. Just until Google+ turns facebook into myspace.

    --
    Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
    1. Re:This again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least we know this won't last forever. Just until Google+ turns facebook into myspace.

      Actually, that's when it starts again. I will then dust off the contract I had with Larry and Sergey that gives me ownership of all of Google's data. Muwahahaha

    2. Re:This again... by sgbett · · Score: 1

      Are these stone tablets? Are we in Narnia?

      --
      Invaders must die
    3. Re:This again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen!

    4. Re:This again... by Klintus+Fang · · Score: 1

      Or you could read the article and realize that the place the facebook lawyers are searching for their evidence is on Ceglia's computer, which he has provided due to a court order.

      --
      In a minute there is time For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. -T.S. Eliot
  8. And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why should I care? I never even signed up to Facebook, and even if I did, would it make any difference?

    1. Re:And? by Yvan256 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I guess a lot of Slashdot readers would like nothing better than to see Facebook fade away into history like MySpace, Geocities and whats-its-name. Since it's based in the USA, contracts and lawyers have a pretty good chance of making it happen.

    2. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no reason at all for you to care.

      Those of us who are interested in this sort of business shenanigans do care though, so are interested in the story. It makes no significant difference to any one of us apart from those with some sort of investment in facebook. It's just interesting to some of us.

    3. Re:And? by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      I guess a lot of Slashdot readers would like nothing better than to see Facebook fade away into history like MySpace, Geocities and whats-its-name.

      Wait a minute...Geocities was great! The rest is shit, though, you're right about that.

      And to lead this thread entirely off topic, does anyone remember how this BBS style commercial software for the Mac was called that people could use for free to meet in sort of "chat rooms" (on a central server) and trade pirated software? It's height was about the same time as Geocities. I just can't remember the name of it and was wondering what happened to this company. Is it still around?

  9. Re:Just Like Obama "Found" His Birth Certificate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Deity fucking shit, your country is in the deep end of shit and you care about the birth certificate of your elected leader?

    No wonder the U.S.A. is going nowhere fast.

  10. Re:Here's a question. by Calos · · Score: 1

    It's been open to the public for a while now.

    --
    I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
  11. I'm in Howard Hughes' Will by inkscapee · · Score: 2

    And I just now found my copy. He left me everything.

    1. Re:I'm in Howard Hughes' Will by syousef · · Score: 1

      And I just now found my copy. He left me everything.

      I found you! Your the one who owes us for 60 years of storage of one large wooden aircraft!

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  12. Re:Here's a question. by derGoldstein · · Score: 1

    https://plus.google.com/up/start/ -- "Google+ is in limited Field Trial". So no, it's not.

    --
    Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
  13. ROI by gfody · · Score: 1

    Ceglia invested $1,000 in 2003 and is now expecting a 25,000,000% return on his investment. Get in line, Ceg even expecting your $1,000 back would be unreasonable.

    --

    bite my glorious golden ass.
    1. Re:ROI by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Why the nerve of asking profits from investments! Don't investors know they're only entitled to profits if the profits are very small?
      Assuming the increasing unlikeliness of Ceglia actually having invested.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    2. Re:ROI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There has to exist profits first! Raising billions in series B, C, D funding is not profit

    3. Re:ROI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well assuming Ceglia made the investment, then he is entitled to a share of Facebook, which at the moment is valued for quite a sum of money, and if his share has already been sold off, then he is entitled to the money from the sale at the very least.

  14. When ever by JustOK · · Score: 3, Funny

    Whenever I see Zuckerberg, I think Zoidberg, and it all kinda makes sense.

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
    1. Re:When ever by Warhawke · · Score: 2, Funny

      Only if we can get Zuckerberg to shift his assets into a more conservative, sandwich-heavy portfolio!

    2. Re:When ever by antdude · · Score: 1

      Do you have proof of that? [grin]

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    3. Re:When ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if we can get Zuckerberg to shift his assets into a more conservative, sandwich-heavy portfolio!

      *Slurp*

      I'm ruined! Whyyyyyy????

    4. Re:When ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wah-Wah-Wah-Wah!

  15. Re:How convenient of Facebook... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Obama produced a legitimate birth certificate back before he was elected. The problem was people refused to believe him or the State of Hawaii that it was legitimate because they couldn't accept that he might be elected as President for their own personal reasons. Even now some would rather believe in a huge conspiracy that everything has been faked rather than accept that he was legitimately elected.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  16. Re:Just Like Obama "Found" His Birth Certificate by Omnifarious · · Score: 0

    Talk about blind faith in a shattered concept. Here's to hoping the depths of Obama's incompetence don't transcend Jimmy Carter's.

    I note, with interest, that while you bring up several valid points and things I am very concerned about myself, you are making assumptions that the grandparent's author has stated that (s)he doesn't believe any of those things h(im/er)self.

    So, your post is simply a distraction from the actual point, and actually about your own issues, and has nothing to do with the grandparent post at all. This makes you look like a rabid idiot. And so I strongly question a few of the things you talk about and provide no documentation for because the nature of your post destroys your credibility.

    --
    Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
  17. Re:Just Like Obama "Found" His Birth Certificate by Lehk228 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Not faith, hate. The entire birther "movement" is made up of folks so put off by the thought of a black man as president that they will cling to any shred of hope that he isn't "really" the president

    --
    Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  18. Re:First Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dun dun duh would fit the story better.

  19. Re:Just Like Obama "Found" His Birth Certificate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Even more curious is that he never mentioned being a dirty foreigner, being black, or having a funny name. You did.

  20. Re:Here's a question. by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    Because we need friends for it to work right!

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  21. Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't use facebook and even if I did, why should I care about the internal conflicts of a company? Not really 'News for Nerds', unless, of course, you're looking to increase page views. Perhaps /. can run a story about 'flash mobs' and how they're ruining society. Oh wait.

  22. Does it matter? by BlackRabbitWhite · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't see why people care about Facebook's legal battles anymore. It's not going to really change anything one way or another. Facebook wins, then there might be an appeal, if they lose there might be an appeal, and either way it's about money that none of us will ever see, and a decision that will not effect our lives in any way significant or insignificant.

    1. Re:Does it matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You clearly don't understand.... Look at Jersey Shore.

      In fact, if the subject does not impact their lives at all, they are *MORE* likely to "like" it.

      This shit should blow up- Oh wait it's on slashdot's front page.

      Proof in point.

    2. Re:Does it matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think about it.... What if someone else than jerk.... ahem... CEO of the Facebook would gain the ruling status of the company and its privacy settings?
      What if new owner would stand up and say "Stop this fucking privacy shitting and GIVE THE DAMN PRIVACY TO PEOPLE".

      Wouldn't that be a cool?

    3. Re:Does it matter? by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1

      I personally wouldn't feel bad if Zuckerberg loses it all. I don't like what he's done with it. And it's not like he'll run out of money or anything.

  23. Re:Just Like Obama "Found" His Birth Certificate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who modded this guy insightful? He is clearly trolling since not once were any of those things mentioned.

  24. Good luck Ceglia, you're gonna need it buddy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    by the time ceglia possibly gets anything out of this, facebook will be past history, people are already leaving it for services like google plus because they're tired of being reamed.

    or maybe people will get over this stupid social network horseshit and go back to running individual websites or using instant messengers. At the risk of sounding like a luddite, things were better on the internet before social networks took hold. You could create a handle, talk to people on a messenger, and that was it. "here's a list of my friends I will barely talk to with just screen names" vs. "Here's a list of my friends, family, and coworkers who I will barely talk to, with all of my information out in the open as well as theirs and hey every website out there has a facebook app that essentially tracks what I do, and one might post info about a news story I read to everyone I know! or some malicious fuck will use the facebook apps to hack my account or use a trap site to say that I look at goatse or child porn to all my friends to ruin me"

    I prefer the instant messengers, it leaves it to the users to disclose how much info they want.

    even with if you do minimal disclosure on facebook or G+ about who you are, your real name is still tagged to something that tracks you through the internet.

  25. Re:Just Like Obama "Found" His Birth Certificate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even more curious is that he never mentioned being a dirty foreigner, being black, or having a funny name. You did.

    What he did mention was that obama "found" his BC which, along with most of the other statements he made, was basically self-serving story telling, bending the facts to fit his personal reality. You can't blame a guy for coming to the conclusion that a nut is a nut.

  26. Re:Here's a question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If someone needs an invite, post the address.

    Someone here will invite you.

  27. No DORK - 50Bln Facebook is the FRAUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook Value 'Plummets' to $70 Billion - CBS MoneyWatch.com

    CIA.B.S.

  28. Re:Just Like Obama "Found" His Birth Certificate by iamhassi · · Score: 0

    He's trolling, Don't Feed The Troll!

    and apparently someone else is trolling too because they modded him Insightful

    --
    my karma will be here long after I'm gone
  29. Re:Here's a question. by Calos · · Score: 1

    When I go there, I get "Join Google+ Just sign in with your Google account to start using the new parts of Google."

    Maybe it's geographically based?

    --
    I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
  30. Hotline! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And to lead this thread entirely off topic, does anyone remember how this BBS style commercial software for the Mac was called that people could use for free to meet in sort of "chat rooms" (on a central server) and trade pirated software?

    Hotline! It was one of the few reasons I was in some ways jealous of my Mac-using friend in 1997/1998. I never understood why they didn't make clients for other OSes...

    1. Re:Hotline! by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      "Remember Hotline, the red H was incredible / Shareware app cracks, my server was indelible" - from MC Lars verse in MC Lars/YTCracker/int80 track "Original Digital Gangsters"

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    2. Re:Hotline! by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      When I worked Mac tech suport in the early-to-mid 90's we used to say in the workshop "Mr Hotline is my friend", it was great for getting install images of software when rebuilding computers for customers who had 'lost' their original disks.

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
    3. Re:Hotline! by tomthegeek · · Score: 1

      What? They totally made a client for Windows. I used it 1999 - 2001 ish.

  31. leaving such data around seems odd by belmolis · · Score: 1

    I find it strange that, if Ceglia forged the version of the contract on which he is relying in court, he kept around old versions or word processor change logs or whatever it is that Facebook has found. He doesn't seem to be the kind of naive non-technical user who wouldn't think of such things.

    1. Re:leaving such data around seems odd by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 1

      It's pretty obvious (to me, at least) that what Facebook has done is found the *original* contract, which proves that his is a fake, as long as they can prove that their copy is the original.

      So they want his hard drive, probably to show that the date modified on the file is too recent to be original.

    2. Re:leaving such data around seems odd by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Maybe Celigia isn't extremely tech savvy enough to know that deleting a file doesn't mean the file is gone forever or that caches can exist or that he had another copy in a different folder he forgot about.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:leaving such data around seems odd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, you don't get out much. The ability of "clever" people to be complete idiots about how word processing actually works is pretty amazing. And It's not like Ceglia, or Zuckerberg, actually showed any signs of having any clue about *security* in any of their work.

    4. Re:leaving such data around seems odd by johnnyb · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't expect intelligence agencies to be "naive non-technical" workers either, but in the UK numerous government secrets were released accidentally, because the agency simply changed the background color to black for top-secret data, and then published it to the web.

      --
      Engineering and the Ultimate
    5. Re:leaving such data around seems odd by AlienIntelligence · · Score: 1

      It's pretty obvious (to me, at least) that what Facebook has done is found the *original* contract, which proves that his is a fake, as long as they can prove that their copy is the original.

      So they want his hard drive, probably to show that the date modified on the file is too recent to be original.

      This is not highly techy... changing CMOS time, booting
      into a runtime CD linux and touch[ing] the file... or having
      the thought of changing the CMOS time before creating the
      file... would probably obviate that issue.

      -AI

      --
      For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
  32. Jewish Contract Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Under Jewish contract law, only one copy of any contract may be produced, and it must be written in an extremely strict, tamper-proof manner. This is intended to prevent just this type of contract-forgery claim.

    1. Re:Jewish Contract Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, you must exchange sandals to seal the deal.

    2. Re:Jewish Contract Law by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      And it is against the law to forge a contract in the US, that law would not keep a dishonest person from creating a forged contract because by definition the dishonest person is breaking the law.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  33. Re:How convenient of Facebook... by steelfood · · Score: 0

    What's new is his birth video.

    --
    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  34. important document? by Sebastopol · · Score: 1

    I have a dedicated file tote for all important legal contracts with my signature on them. I would think anyone with half a brain would keep copies of something as important as a business contract. WTF?

    --
    https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    1. Re:important document? by dcollins · · Score: 1

      Thinking that legally-signed contracts make a difference (and spending time organizing them) may be part of the reason why you're not a billionaire. And same for me.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    2. Re:important document? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you had any sense at all, those documents would all be notarized and stored at your lawyer's office. Duh!

    3. Re:important document? by Sebastopol · · Score: 1

      Hah! True that. I'll get my team of lawyers to draw me up some documents this afternoon, just for the hell of it...

      --
      https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
  35. Re:Here's a question. by crossmr · · Score: 1

    Moved, google ruined it with their "personalization" I cannot do a useful news archive search logged in anymore. This means I'll no longer use it.

  36. Unfortunately it seems to happen here too often by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they hate success in all its form crowd has way too many adherents on this site. It really gets to be depressing. Perhaps its a side of the wealth envy that far too many people have these days. I cannot honestly figure it out, but damn sometimes its downright embarrassing.

  37. Re:Just Like Obama "Found" His Birth Certificate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What do you expect from a country that went apeshit over the question whether a prez got a blowjob in the oval office?

    That is not what the issue was, the issue was that he lied under oath.

  38. Re:Just Like Obama "Found" His Birth Certificate by Stormthirst · · Score: 1

    What do you expect from a country that went apeshit over the question whether a prez got a blowjob in the oval office?

    That is not what the issue was, the issue was that he lied under oath.

    Another way to look at it: He should never have been put in the position where he could have denied it. Seriously - who cares if he did or didn't. It's not like he campaigned on moral purity. They leave that to the Republicans - who when caught with their pants down carry on as normal.

  39. Re:Just Like Obama "Found" His Birth Certificate by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 1

    Another-nother way to look at it: If he shouldn't have ever been put in the position to answer it, he should have just said that. Blah blah moral purity, Republicans, etc.

    The issue was that he lied under oath.

    Given the opportunity to deny it, he did. And he shouldn't have.

    If he'd instead said:

    "Yes, I did it. Why does everyone care so much? It's not like I campaigned on moral purity."

    Well, who knows how things would have played out. But one thing I do know: he wouldn't have been impeached for lying under oath.

  40. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  41. Re:Just Like Obama "Found" His Birth Certificate by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 1

    Another way to look at it: He should never have been put in the position where he could have denied it.

    You know his lying under oath had nothing to do with Republicans or politics, right? It was in a sexual harassment suit. He lied under oath to prevent a woman he previously mistreated from getting justice after the Supreme Court told him being the President of the United States does not make one immune from civil suits.

    --
    Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
    Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
  42. Yep... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're doomed.

  43. VERY CONVENIENT by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 1

    the “authentic contract” is shielded from use in the suit because it is designated as “confidential” under the rules of an agreement between the two parties

    WHAT. THE. FUCK.

    Isn't the whole point of a contract that it's legally binding?

    To be legally binding, mustn't it be cited in court?

    A contract that can't be used in court is NO CONTRACT.

    Who the fuck are these lawyers? And why can't they be dis-barred?

    1. Re:VERY CONVENIENT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ceglia is protecting himself from a tidal wave of bought credibility.

      If a facsimile of the authentic contract is released, Ceglia and his lawyer know that billions of dollars can buy a lot of witnesses and blood oaths that the contract was merely a unproven copy of one of the hundreds of decoys that Zuckerberg could reproduce --- right down to old Mrs. Crenshaw who taught him history in the third grade and was a decorated nurse who saved the lives of 12 people from a bombed schoolhouse in WW2.

      Ceglia is waiting to produce the original in court and demand Zuckerberg to admit signing it under the threat of perjury. Everything else Zuckerberg presents is a smoke show to avoid that moment. Then the fur will fly.

      Billions buys a lot of sworn testimony.

    2. Re:VERY CONVENIENT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Who the fuck are these lawyers?

      Jews.

    3. Re:VERY CONVENIENT by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 2

      Your entire argument hinges on the assumption that Ceglia DOES have the original contract. (And hasn't modified it.) Zuckerberg just contested that assumption. You're not allowed to assume it any more. Proof is required from one side or the other.

      And really - you're so confident that Ceglia can convince all these people to commit perjury for these billions that he has, and you completely ignore the fact that Zuckerberg also has billions?

      What on earth do you think he'll do if Ceglia produces a fake contract, complete with signature in blood and fifteen witnesses who claim to have been present in spirit when Zuckerberg signed it under a full moon? Obviously he'll deny signing, if he didn't. And he'll have his own copy of the contract, with his own fifteen witnesses who claim that IT was the one that he signed.

      Now what, smarty pants?

      Answer: get his damn hard drives and see if his copy is a fake.

    4. Re:VERY CONVENIENT by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      The contents of his hard drive are designated as confidential, because they may contain correspondence with his lawyers which is legally privileged, and lots of other information which is not relevant to the case at hand, such as his Internet Explorer favourite sites list and his photo collection.

    5. Re:VERY CONVENIENT by tmarsh86 · · Score: 1

      And really - you're so confident that Ceglia can convince all these people to commit perjury for these billions that he has, and you completely ignore the fact that Zuckerberg also has billions?

      He's talking about Zuckerberg buying the tidal wave of credibiltiy, not Ceglia. If Facebook had a copy of the contract now they could run around and find tons of people to discredit it, but by waiting until the right moment- IN COURT- to release it, Ceglia will get Zuckerberg in a position where he has to admit or deny it is real on the stand, without any chance to vet the contract or discredit it beforehand.

    6. Re:VERY CONVENIENT by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 1

      The hard drive might be confidential, but the original contract is not. And I'm sure that high-priced lawyers could figure out a way to ensure that no confidential information is revealed. Otherwise anybody could ensure that the contents of their hard drive could never see the inside of a courtroom just by storing all of their correspondence with their lawyer on it.

    7. Re:VERY CONVENIENT by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 2

      If Facebook had a copy of the contract now they could run around and find tons of people to discredit it

      So Zuckerberg has no earthly idea what terms are laid out in a contract that he SUPPOSEDLY SIGNED.

      Is he completely stupid, or just really forgetful?

      Keeping the contract hidden from the person who supposedly signed it only benefits Ceglia if it's fake. If it's real, Zuckerberg should already have a copy of it.

    8. Re:VERY CONVENIENT by canajin56 · · Score: 1

      You're misunderstanding the situation. Ceglia was forced by court order to turn over all of his hard drives. These hard drives could potentially contain private information not related to the case. So, Ceglia's lawyers have say over what is confidential. The facebook team in charge of looking through them has to check with Ceglia before they can use any of it. And so Ceglia has so far declared that 100% of everything is confidential. Even stuff that the Facebook team is saying is related to the case, Ceglia says "NOPE". And so since the lawyers cannot agree, they need to go to the judge to get a ruling on whether or not each specific document is privileged. Facebook's lawyers are saying he is abusing the process by declaring everything privileged, which certainly may be true, but of course since they are under NDA nobody but them has any idea what's in them. One of these documents is allegedly the original contract. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's not privileged. Here's just one reason why it could be: It's not the original, it's Zuckerberg's forgery. It's on Ceglia's hard drive because his lawyers emailed it to him and said "This is what was presented by Facebook in court". As attorney client communication that would be privileged. It also wouldn't be a smoking gun, obviously. On the other hand, that situation doesn't seem likely. The other "smoking gun" is evidence that he has other hard disks and/or backups that he didn't turn up, in violation of court order. Again, if the "smoking gun" is that he emailed his lawyers and mentioned his secret cache of documents he's illegally withholding, then that's still attorney client privilege, however damning it may be. Or, it might just be a reference to a box that wasn't turned over, and that could be because it was sold or destroyed years ago, not because it's hidden. But we don't know what the situation is until the judge rules on it. Because they're not allowed to tell anybody. But how do we know they found the original if they're not allowed to comment on what they find unless Ceglia says it's not privileged? Well, when they filed the papers, the version sent to the public was supposed to be redacted, but they "accidentally" forgot to redact "authentic contract", a "mistake" they quickly "fixed" but not before the journalists who watch court filings found it. In fact, quickly redacting it helped the journalists pinpoint it without having to look!

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    9. Re:VERY CONVENIENT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Socks,

      Your whole emotional tirade hinges on the premise that Zuckerberg is innocent.

      What leads you to that assumption?

    10. Re:VERY CONVENIENT by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 2

      That's not my premise; it's my conclusion.

      Unless someone has a better explanation for why he'd want a second original copy of a contract that he signed and which he claims to have an original copy of.

      There are only two possibilities, which raise two questions.

      Assuming Ceglia's contract is real, why would Zuckerberg want it?

      Assuming it's fake, why would Zuckerberg want it?

      Only one of those questions has an obvious answer.

    11. Re:VERY CONVENIENT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are only 2 possibilities:

      Socks has a very short attention span and doesn't understand logic.
      or
      Socks is a troll.

      Which is it socks?

      Have a nice day.

    12. Re:VERY CONVENIENT by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 1

      Option 3: Anonymous Coward is a moron.

      Feel free to try to come up with a better explanation for why Zuck needs a copy of a contract that he read and signed.

      Hell, I'd even settle for a halfway-coherent explanation of why my attention span or logical abilities are doubtful. But I know I won't get one.

      From what information I have, it appears that Zuckerberg is more likely to be innocent. So yes, until I have information to other effects, my conclusion is and will remain that he's innocent. I realize that you have an irrational hatred of Zuckerberg, but the guy who's suing him is a proven lying scumbag and I really don't think you should be putting much stock in him to take down the evil Zuck.

    13. Re:VERY CONVENIENT by realsilly · · Score: 1

      Let's not forget that any evidence that one side brings into court, must be shared with the other side in advance of the case. A contract in this case is evidence that supports the claim that Ceglia is entitled to ownership.

      Zuckerberg's lawyers may try to refute the evidence in court.

      In any case, if the contract is legit and Zuckerberg didn't retain a copy of it, then he's is more the fool. If Ceglia's claim is proven false, then this battle will likely soon come to an end...... until something else magically come to light...

      Stay tuned, it's only going to get more interesting from here.

      --
      Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
  44. Re:Just Like Obama "Found" His Birth Certificate by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 0

    How's that faith in Hopenchange working out for you?

    Great. Thanks for asking. I'm way better off. I take it your not? Oh well...

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  45. Re:Here's a question. by arth1 · · Score: 1

    Moved, google ruined it with their "personalization" I cannot do a useful news archive search logged in anymore. This means I'll no longer use it.

    Why don't you just stop logging in?

  46. Re:Just Like Obama "Found" His Birth Certificate by NiceGeek · · Score: 4, Informative

    Obama never claimed to "find" his birth certificate. He claimed all along that it was in the safekeeping of the Hawaiian State Government, and lo and behold, it was.

  47. Re:Just Like Obama "Found" His Birth Certificate by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

    More importantly, then-Governor Clinton shouldn't have put himself in a position where he could be accused of sexual assault, which led to his lying about a blowjob while testifying to a grand jury about the sexual assault charge. It wasn't just a blowjob or a lie about it, it was deception in a sexual assault case in front of a grand jury.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  48. Re:Here's a question. by crossmr · · Score: 1

    1. I shouldn't have to
    2. Google remembers the login to plus and uses it across all services. This means I also have to manually log-out which also forcibly logs me out of sites like youtube. This becomes a giant inconvenience

  49. Re:Just Like Obama "Found" His Birth Certificate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "No wonder the U.S.A. is going nowhere fast."

    It's going somewhere, fast.
    Down the drain.

  50. Re:Just Like Obama "Found" His Birth Certificate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I can only say that it's better to have a prez who gets a blowjob than one who needs one direly."

    I can only say that it's better to have a prez who gets a blowjob than one who sucks direly.

  51. Re:How convenient of Facebook... by benzapp · · Score: 0

    No, he produced a certificate of live birth. These are provided to anyone, and you can get them saying you were born wherever.

    The long form birth certificate signed by the doctor who delivered him was not produced until May.

    Are you such an Obama fanatic that you missed this? It was pretty big news.

    --
    I don't read or respond to AC posts
  52. Re:How convenient of Facebook... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 0

    No, he produced a certificate of live birth. These are provided to anyone, and you can get them saying you were born wherever.

    Citation please. In Hawaii as in most states, birth certificates are called "Certificates of Live Birth". Don't ask me why they chose the name. I'm sure your local government has names for things that could be much simpler. As such not anyone can get them.

    The long form birth certificate signed by the doctor who delivered him was not produced until May.

    Yes that is true but my point is when you ask for a "birth certificate" in your state or in the state of Hawaii, your state will give most likely give you a simplified printed form with no doctor's signature. For purposes of proof of birth for citizenship, that simplified form is all that is required. And that is what Obama provided. Birthers focused on irrelevant details like the certificate appeared to be printed by a laser printed therefore it was a forgery ignoring logic that when you ask for an fresh copy of a state record, states these days do not hand copy such records; they print them on modern equipment.

    Are you such an Obama fanatic that you missed this? It was pretty big news.

    Are you such a denier that you missed my statement as well as statements by the State of Hawaii that confirmed multiple times that they have the original on file.

    October 31, 2008: Dr. CHIYOME LEINAALA FUKINO
    "Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."

    So either Obama forged a birth certificate, put it for the world to see, and the Republican led state of Hawaii ignored that felony, and then lied about having the original on file in some grand conspiracy of your design
    or
    Obama was born in Hawaii.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  53. Re:How convenient of Facebook... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

    No, he produced a certificate of live birth. These are provided to anyone, and you can get them saying you were born wherever.

    Saying words in a different order does not make them a different thing. A 'certificate of live birth' is, indeed, a 'live birth certificate'.

    In fact, almost no government certificate at all, says 'X certificate'. They mostly say 'certificate of X'. Go look at a marriage certificate if you don't believe me. The fact it says words in the 'wrong order' does not make it not a 'birth certificate', anymore than something saying 'certificate of marriage' does not mean it's not a 'marriage certificate'.

    That is literally what it is saying, in English you can put the words in either order. A 'birth certificate' is 'certificate of birth'. Anyone who argues otherwise is simply too dumb to be allowed to comment politically, and probably should be in some sort of home for the mentally incompetent.

    Nor is it important it puts the word 'live' before that, which is just to distinguish it from being born dead, which would be a 'certificate of birth resulting in stillbirth'. Or a 'stillborn birth certificate'. These are combination birth/dead certificates. (That's rather moot, I don't think anyone's arguing Obama was not alive when he was born, but who knows what sort of stupid conspiracies have show up.)

    And you can't just go and invent any of those. They are birth certificates. They aren't things 'sorta like birth certificates', they aren't 'we'll use it in place of a birth certificate', they are actual, real, true, birth certificates. They are so valuable, that criminals have a black market in existing ones where the person is dead, for fake identities.

    What Obama produced in May was simply the long form. That's it. The short form, which he produced years ago, is a one without all the hospital stuff on it, intended to be use for authentication, which is record in a database and gets printed out when people need a certified copy.

    This is opposed to what Obama eventually produced in May, which is a photocopy of the hospital birth certificate, which has a bunch of other, random stuff on it. (And is not kept by the state, but rather the hospital you were born in. The state cares not one bit who delivered you.)

    And, I should point out, the long form also says 'certificate of live birth'. (In fact, almost all of them do. Mine does.)

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  54. Re:He should have been warned by Lehk228 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    How about Fuck You, neo-nazi sack of shit.

    --
    Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  55. Re:Just Like Obama "Found" His Birth Certificate by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

    That is not what the issue was, the issue was that he lied under oath.

    Ah this again. Don't you get tired of fighting lost battles?

    Clinton was asked if he had sex with Lewinsky. "Sex" can mean a whole lot of different acts, so his lawyers asked the judge to define sex. Which she defined as intercourse.

    Clinton only got a blowjob, so he could answer "no" without perjuring himself. Which is why he was never charged with perjury.

    On the other hand, it's a slimy enough maneuver that the AR state bar felt it violated their ethics rules. In their opinion, he should have said "No, but I got a blowjob". Which is why they disbarred him.

  56. Ceglia's contract by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shades of Mark William Hofman and LDS "lost" documents

  57. If they can just hold off a couple more years..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they can give him his half of nothing.

  58. Re:How convenient of Facebook... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Video was allight until Morgan Freedman showed up.

  59. Re:He should have been warned by a_hanso · · Score: 0

    Talmud-reciting mutants are +1 Insightful. Well done /., well done.

  60. Re:Just Like Obama "Found" His Birth Certificate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But let me guess, lying about weapons of mass destruction in order to start an optional war is A-OK, right?

  61. Re:Just Like Obama "Found" His Birth Certificate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like you're getting your wish, someone is downrating all of my posts in this thread.
    Quite reasonably IMO. It's all trolls and offtopic (and please feel free to mod me down too)

  62. Re:Just Like Obama "Found" His Birth Certificate by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

    Is there a way to prevent yourself from being ACCUSED of sexual assault? Short of killing yourself?

  63. Re:Just Like Obama "Found" His Birth Certificate by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Of the accusation? No. Of enough evidence to convene a grand jury? Sure - don't go into hotel rooms with single women and ask your guard detail to take a walk... Don't do it several times so that half a dozen women all report the same thing.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  64. Re:Just Like Obama "Found" His Birth Certificate by murdocj · · Score: 1

    Well, in the case being discussed, yes, he simply could have kept his pants zipped. It's not like it would have required some enormous sacrifice on his part. He's the chief executive of the most powerful country in the world, and he makes himself and his policies vulnerable because he has to have sex with some intern in the White House. Whatever you think about his policies, it was just plain dumb.

  65. Re:Just Like Obama "Found" His Birth Certificate by DaVince21 · · Score: 1

    Way to ever mention Zuckerberg, Facebook or Ceglia in your post.

    --
    I am not devoid of humor.
  66. Re:Just Like Obama "Found" His Birth Certificate by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

    How would that prevented someone from accusing him?

  67. Facebook is irrelevant by ponos · · Score: 1

    Facebook will soon be irrelevant. People will migrate to other services, probably Google+. We've seen it happen before: myspace, hi5 etc. I give it 2 more years before it fades away.

    1. Re:Facebook is irrelevant by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      We've seen it happen before: myspace, hi5 etc.

      I haven't. Looks like they both still have an healthy amount of users on both too?

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  68. Re:Just Like Obama "Found" His Birth Certificate by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

    Accuse, nothing. But he wasn't simply accused, he was accused of ***something he did***.

    It's a trivial detail to some, not so trivial to others.

  69. Re:How convenient of Facebook... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    That is literally what it is saying, in English you can put the words in either order. A 'birth certificate' is 'certificate of birth'. Anyone who argues otherwise is simply too dumb to be allowed to comment politically, and probably should be in some sort of home for the mentally incompetent.

    That's not what people were saying. They were demanding a Certificate of Live Birth, not a Certification of Live Birth. Those are two different things. Both are valid 'birth certificates' according to Hawaiian law, but they have different information.

    Presumably Obama's political adversaries thought the Certificate did not exist or that it contained damning information.

    I can't tell if you were intending to beat down a strawman or if you really didn't know the difference.

    The outlying datapoint I haven't heard explained is why Hawaii's Governor (a Democrat at that), said a few months before the White House release that he had ordered a thorough search of the archives and there was no Certificate.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  70. enough already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been watching this case from the beginning wait to see who's telling the truth, but its a child's game and its getting old with the two of them going back and forth throwing insults and nothing more. Repeatedly Ceglia has claimed Mark has used such clever tactics, but truthfully he's done nothing more than say he never discussed it with him. Sure there's still reason to believe Mark might be lying, but Ceglia, despite my disdain for media as attention seeking vultures noone has any reason to believe you based on evidence that could've been easily manufactured. Show the contract and maybe then we'll believe you! Until then you're no less a scam artist than the nutjob that claimed to have Hitler's will.

  71. What? by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    Apparently Ceglia posted on his FB page, 'Lolz, shopping zoidberg's contracts, I am teh 733tz0r!'

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  72. The movie? by unassimilatible · · Score: 1

    . The movie [imdb.com] showed that lots of people held his hand and Myspace [wikipedia.org] paved the way years before Facebook showed up.

    Well if it was in a movie, it must be true.

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you