Slashdot Mirror
Paul Ceglia Fined $5,000 In Facebook Case
An anonymous reader writes "U.S. Magistrate Judge Leslie Foschio has sanctioned Paul Ceglia, a man that claims he owns half Facebook, and ordered him to pay $5,000 to the court. The judge also ordered Ceglia to pay for part of Facebook's attorney fees and expenses, an amount which will likely be much higher. The social networking giant hopes to have Ceglia's lawsuit dismissed early this year."
Five minutes and nobody's posted yet. That says a lot about what people think of Ceglia :)
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
What a blatant abuse of the legal system. Now if the RIAA and MPAA were hit with more fines like this for their abuse of the legal system.
Zutterberg or Ceglia?
I have a book. In fact, I have several. And now that I think about it, I also have a face. I'm the owner of all of Facebook.
samzenpus for posting it
In the long have a feeling it would have been better for everyone if Pauls retarded scheme had worked.
Facebook IPO = company turn into rich brats with infinite senses of entitlement overnight.
Both, but I was referring to Ceglia. It seems he refused to give up the details because he knew the contents would be further proof the documents were fakes. How hes been forced to provide access and has to pay a fine for being a douche.
Does this have to be an either/or sort of question?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I mean, three law firms have dropped him, FB or their lawyers planted forged evidence on his computer. Why does no one believe him? Sure, he has a history as a con-man, and he presented an original 8 yr old contract in court, but even the forensic analysts are against him and they claim the ink is less than 2 years old. Can't a guy get a break?
Anyone who looks at this case can see he's being cheated out of his half of FB.
PS. In case you missed it, yes, that's sarcasm.
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
He is paying legal expenses because he pissed off the judge by telling his lawyers to ignore the Judges order. This caused a delay in the proceedings. The $5000 is for wasting the judges time. The legal expenses are for the opposing sides time during that delay.
Seems fair. But, why don't companies, like Microsoft, get in trouble when they defy the court's orders?
I live near Ceglia, and his lawyer asked me to be an expert witness in this case. It was a short high paying job, but the lawyer was being secretive about what the project was. I was told it was to check some emails to see if they were authentic.
I didn't sign the NDA right away because the lawyer was acting strangely about my requests to have everything in writing. After doing some googling, I found the lawyers name associated with Ceglia. I told the lawyer about the on-line news articles that saw about Ceglia, that he looked like the scourge of the earth (ripping people off before in some heating scam), and I wanted no part of it. I'm glad I didn't blacken my companies reputation with that crap- if I were to be in the news.
From what I was told, the emails they wanted me to 'verify' were several years old, had no encryption, and no digital signatures of any kind. They wanted to validate the authenticity of plain-text emails, that everyone knows are easy to spoof, and even easier to edit your own copies.
Yes.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Another episode of "Posts that would get modded up if the poster knew how to use apostrophes."
Yeah, never mind that it's racist bollocks, let's concentrate on the grammar.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Xors not.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere