Slashdot Mirror
Facebook: We Have Proof Ceglia's Contract Is Fake
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."
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."
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.
that Ceglia is just looking for a settlement.
They just forgot to tag themselves when they uploaded it.
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
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.
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.
And I just now found my copy. He left me everything.
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.
thought it was Do wah Diddy diddy dumm Diddy do
rewriting history since 2109
Whenever I see Zuckerberg, I think Zoidberg, and it all kinda makes sense.
rewriting history since 2109
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.