Paul Ceglia Arrested and Charged With Fraud Over Facebook Ownership Claims

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Paul Ceglia Arrested and Charged With Fraud Over Facebook Ownership Claims

Posted by Soulskill on Friday October 26, 2012 @08:34AM from the know-when-to-fold-'em dept.

whoever57 writes "The man who claimed ownership of 50% of Facebook has been arrested and charged with fraud in connection with his claims. The United States attorney in Manhattan said, 'Ceglia's alleged conduct not only constitutes a massive fraud attempt, but also an attempted corruption of our legal system through the manufacture of false evidence.' 'Dressing up a fraud as a lawsuit does not immunize you from prosecution.'"

109 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Respect the First Amendment! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-26 08:34 · Score: -1, Troll

Wow, this has really gone too far! Our freedom of speech has been completely revoked! What is so wrong with saying that I own half of Facebook? Whatever happened to a right to free speech?! It's now illegal to randomly assemble words on a piece of paper and hand them to another man!? What next? Will it be illegal to joke about me owning half of Oracle? Or illegal for me to distribute Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" to a passerby?

What? Wait, I'm sorry is this ... wait, this is the kind of censorship Slashdot likes? God, I've read all the books on it but I'm so bad at this doublespeak. I'm sorry guys, geez, this is just like that time I stood up for Westboro Baptist Church's rights. Does anyone have a list of good versus bad censorship list for me so I can fit in?
1. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by Synerg1y · 2012-10-26 08:36 · Score: 2, Insightful
 
 This is the kind of free speech limitation that prevents you from yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater.
2. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by tonywong · 2012-10-26 08:37 · Score: 5, Insightful
 
 You can say what you want, but I guess it crosses the line when you try to sue someone over a false claim, and then falsify evidence as well.
 
 Comparing this to freedom of speech is a bit facetious.
3. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by rahvin112 · 2012-10-26 08:41 · Score: 5, Insightful
 
 He lied in court papers, he prepared and filed fraudulent documents as part of evidentiary filings and then covered up their creation. Filing false statements to any court is a crime, and it's a very serious crime in federal court.
 He can say whatever he wants in private or public, but he can't lie in court. Lieing to the courts has ALWAYS been illegal. Filing false documents in court has ALWAYS been illegal. The justice system can't work if people are allowed to lie and fake documents in court without punishment.
 He's going to be lucky if he doesn't get 40 years in PMITA Federal prison.
4. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by masternerdguy · 2012-10-26 08:41 · Score: 1
 
 Yeah it seems to me that using fake evidence to sue a someone is fraud no matter who the actors are. So assuming that the evidence was fake a crime was committed.
 
 --
 To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
5. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by SleazyRidr · 2012-10-26 08:43 · Score: 2
 
 We like free speech when it is the truth.
 
 --
 Is 1563649 a prime number?
6. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-26 08:44 · Score: 1
 
 More like yelling fire in a crowded court room
7. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-26 08:49 · Score: 0
 
 All true, and this guy deserves whatever he gets... but, I have to wonder if the Feds would bring the same heat against some scam artist suing over ownership rights of Joe's Coffee Shop and Bike Repair down the road, or if the zeal with which this is being prosecuted is just another reflection of the "better" justice that the rich in this country receive.
8. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-10-26 08:55 · Score: 5, Funny
 
 If you happen to yell "I own half of Facebook!" in a crowded movie theater full of Slashdot geeks, will a stampede ensue as they will be trying to get as far away from you as possible?
 
 --
 Ezekiel 23:20
9. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-26 09:05 · Score: 0
 
 Am I the only one wondering why this wasn't modded Funny?
10. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by Russ1642 · 2012-10-26 09:12 · Score: 2
 
 Nope. But I think it's funnier to see how many people have no ability to detect sarcasm.
11. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by 19thNervousBreakdown · 2012-10-26 09:19 · Score: 3, Insightful
 
 No, probably not.
 If you were a cop, would you put as much effort into a case where it's very unlikely anyone would ever hear about it as you would into a case where it's likely the entire country is watching? Nobody wants to screw up when everyone's eyes are on you, but nobody outside of Littleplace, OH cares about Joe's Bike Shop. Do well, screw up, not a huge difference in rewards. But doing well or screwing up on the Facebook case can set the tone for the rest of your life.
 I can understand not being happy that the "nobodies" of the world don't get the same special attention, but the fact is that it's not just the human nature of the people doing their jobs that you're railing against, it's the nature of all the people who hear about big and little stories that lead the people doing their jobs to treat those cases differently. No conspiracy necessary for celebrities to get more attention than you or I. The extra attention is what makes them celebrities.
 
 --
 <xml><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></xml>
12. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by Wrexs0ul · 2012-10-26 09:23 · Score: 2
 
 If he'd stopped at saying: "I own 50% of Facebook" it'd probably be protected speech. Crazy, pitied, ridiculous speech, but free and protected nonetheless.
 Once opinion becomes action (like the lawsuit) you're damaging someone. The harm those actions commit should never be considered free speech because even damage on paper has a real effect on someone's life.
 -Matt
 (Billionaire's problems, I know, but the biggest downside of democracy is you spend most of your time defending scoundrels)
 
 --
 --- Need web hosting?
13. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-26 09:24 · Score: 0
 
 You don't seem to realize that sarcasm is a lot harder to detect in a text medium (no tone-of-voice or body-language indicators), and even harder to detect when the communication is largely anonymous (they don't know enough about you to know if you are stupid enough to believe what you are saying).
 Remember, any sufficiently optimistic statement is indistinguishable from sarcasm.
14. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by clonehappy · 2012-10-26 09:28 · Score: 1
 
 Yeah it seems to me that using fake evidence to sue a someone is fraud no matter who the actors are. So assuming that the evidence was fake a crime was committed.
 But using fabricated evidence to imprison people is what Police and District Attorneys do across these United States every day. So, it only matters whether or not you are part of the power structure. So, basically, it's cool to lie to a judge as long as you're doing it for "good".
15. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by JonySuede · 2012-10-26 09:28 · Score: 3, Informative
 
 about your Sig, you are wrong by more than 20 years!!!
 
 Alexander Sawchuk estimates that it was in June or July of 1973 when he, then an assistant professor of electrical engineering at the University of Southern California Signal and Image Processing Institute (SIPI), along with a graduate student and the SIPI lab manager, was hurriedly searching the lab for a good image to scan for a colleague's conference paper. They got tired of their stock of usual test images, dull stuff dating back to television standards work in the early 1960s. They wanted something glossy to ensure good output dynamic range, and they wanted a human face. Just then, somebody happened to walk in with a recent issue of Playboy.
 The engineers tore away the top third of the centerfold so they could wrap it around the drum of their Muirhead wirephoto scanner, which they had outfitted with analog-to-digital converters (one each for the red, green, and blue channels) and a Hewlett Packard 2100 minicomputer. The Muirhead had a fixed resolution of 100 lines per inch and the engineers wanted a 512×512 image, so they limited the scan to the top 5.12 inches of the picture, effectively cropping it at the subject's shoulders.
 
 --
 Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
16. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by Bryansix · 2012-10-26 09:29 · Score: 2
 
 Everything you said is true, but that doesn't make it right. Every officer or detective in the force may WANT to be involved in the high profile cases. Its the job of management to put them back at their desks doing the work that NEEDS to be done.
17. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by Em+Adespoton · 2012-10-26 09:44 · Score: 1
 
 No, it's not. And those who slip up while doing it eventually get found out and get in plenty of trouble -- usually beyond the "relocated after a paid vacation" type of penalty (but not always, if what they did was in "good faith").
18. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-26 09:45 · Score: 0
 
 Libertarian Analysis:
 We don't need laws like that. Free speech doesn't mean you get to say whatever you want, wherever you want. It means you get to say whatever you want on your own property. Theater owners can simply add conditions to the ticket i.e. "you agree not to yell 'fire' in the theaters unless there is an actual fire and if you do then you consent to letting us break your kneecaps (or more likely private arbitration where your guilt is decided by a neutral third party)." Most of the shit that people think we need laws for, we don't.
19. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by Fwipp · 2012-10-26 09:55 · Score: 2
 
 1987 - 1973 > 20 ???
20. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by 19thNervousBreakdown · 2012-10-26 09:57 · Score: 5, Insightful
 
 Management which has as much or more (usually more) to gain or lose from high-profile cases than the beat cop, and so will understandably put their best people on it. It goes all the way up until you finally reach somebody with a position so high that they won't be significantly affected by the outcome, and as long as they're not hearing complaints from the public, they don't care.
 Right and wrong are great, but they're a lot more fungible when it's you that it's affecting.
 Say you're a low-level investigator, on the edge of losing his house, with a wife and kids. You can spend an hour or two here and there that should have been spent on Joe's Bike Shop on the Facebook case instead to do a really bang-up job where it's going to be noticed, and maybe turn it into a promotion, or at least ensuring that you're not someone picked for the next round of layoffs. Is that such a big deal? One little hour? For your kids?
 And let's be honest, that one little hour isn't a big deal, especially if it's you that's taking that one little hour, and we probably wouldn't begrudge that one guy his chance to finally get out from under his debt even if we weren't imagining that we are that guy. But, that story plays out a thousand times, and it adds up, and people try harder on the important cases.
 And then, finally, what the fuck are you doing for Joe's Bike Shop? Because whether you know it or not, you're contributing to the attention the Facebook case is getting just by posting in this thread, or even reading it. You're eyes are seeing ads, or if you've got adblock on, by commenting in the story you're at the very least adding content to a site that's selling ads, who gets money from Facebook, who gets money from countless advertisers, who gives that money to people all over, including politicians, wh... you get the idea. You, personally, are adding to the motivation to give Facebook better justice, and are not adding that same motivation to Joe's Bike Shop, and are therefore contributing to the imbalance. The only possible way out of that is to expect people to treat two people who have vastly different potential effects on their future the same, and that's just not rational to expect of an actual person, and not just the abstraction who's not doing his job that you're probably imagining.
 Everybody acts in perfectly reasonable, understandable and if not perfectly moral, certainly not what most would call immoral ways, and aggregate effects end up shafting the little guy. That's not to say that sometimes there aren't more sinister activities and motivations, but usually, it's just emergent behavior from a whole lot of people acting the exact same way you would in their situation. High-profile people get more attention. That's not to say that we shouldn't do what we can to ensure that the little guy gets justice, we absolutely should do what we can to even things up. But there's no sense in getting all self-righteous about it. You might as well get mad that electrons orbit protons, it's just the way things are.
 
 --
 <xml><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></xml>
21. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by Frodo · 2012-10-26 09:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
 
 It's even simpler than that. 1st Amendment protects you from prosecution by the government for the fact and the content of your speech. It does not imply that you speech will have no consequences at all, including legal ones. If you damaged somebody by your speech - or intended to damage - you still can be prosecuted and sued. If, for example, you wrote a program and used it to steal money from the bank - you can not avoid prosecution claiming programming is like speech so it's protected by 1st amendment. It may be like speech, but stealing money isn't. In the same vein, saying "I own Facebook" is protected speech. Undertaking fraudulent legal actions with intent to steal Facebook's money under false premises of owning Facebook is not protected at all. Ceglia is getting a lesson about it right now.
 
 --
 -- Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
22. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by geekoid · 2012-10-26 10:12 · Score: 1
 
 " It means you get to say whatever you want on your own property."
 no, it doesn't. Freedom of Speech implies you are talking to someone. If that speech poses an immediate threat to others, or libelous, then you don't have a right to that.
 "owners can simply add conditions..."
 Really, you want owners to put the rule for every social contract on a ticket? Robber Baron and company stores, that where it goes. We have seen it in history many times.
 Once again, ladies and gentlemen, we see more libertarian stances are unthinking bullshit.
 Why don't you take you head out of Rand's ass long enough to actually think about what you spew out of you pie hole?
 
 --
 The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
23. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by geekoid · 2012-10-26 10:13 · Score: 0
 
 "Police and District Attorneys do across these United States every day."
 no they don't. It happens, and it usually end bad in the few cases it does happen
 
 --
 The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
24. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-26 10:13 · Score: 0
 
 All true, and this guy deserves whatever he gets... but, I have to wonder if the Feds would bring the same heat against some scam artist suing over ownership rights of Joe's Coffee Shop and Bike Repair down the road, or if the zeal with which this is being prosecuted is just another reflection of the "better" justice that the rich in this country receive.
 It also begs the question of whether this is fraudulent at all. Would Joe's Coffee Shop have the resources to flip a claim of ownership into a fraud? I think not; but Facebook -- or any large firm for that matter -- does. Ceglia's claims were arguably grotesque, but the whole thing now reeks of "your case wasn't strong enough so we'll put you in jail to teach you a lesson." If I had the slightest bit of trust in the US justice system, I'd give Ceglia the benefit of the doubt until a court settles the case. But things being the way they are, I've no idea who to believe.
25. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by Synerg1y · 2012-10-26 10:49 · Score: 1
 
 Wouldn't he then be getting charged with perjury?
26. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by HiThere · 2012-10-26 10:51 · Score: 2
 
 You are making a strong assumption. You are assuming that you know about the times when it happened, and they weren't caught. But that is not what one should expect.
 The real answer is "We don't have any real idea how often it happens and isn't found out." We know that it happens, because it occasionally is found out. What we don't know is what fraction of the time is it found out. My guess would be a very small fraction. Probably considerably less than 1%. But I must acknowledge that a guess is all this is.
 OTOH, I consider that anyone who asserts definitely any particular percentage is misrepresenting the truth. I suspect that most of them are not intentionally lying, but the action they are performing is lying, even if that isn't their intent.
 I doubt that it's possible to come up with a reasoned estimate. To assert that it's a common activity is, probably, more plausible than to assert that it almost never happens. The truth is likely to lie somewhere in between, but just where is not determinable without evidence that has been carefully hidden in diverse ways by diverse people (and NEVER centrally collected).
 
 --
 
 I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
27. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by fm6 · 2012-10-26 10:52 · Score: 1
 
 Thank you for demonstrating what a waste of space AC posts are. Past time we did away with them.
28. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2012-10-26 11:01 · Score: 2
 
 effectively cropping it at the subject's shoulders.
 Everybody's got their kinks, but who ever heard of "shoulder porn?"
 
 --
 When information is power, privacy is freedom.
29. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-26 11:06 · Score: 0
 
 He repeated some of those years!
30. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by Guru80 · 2012-10-26 11:25 · Score: 1
 
 Most sensible thing I've read in a long time. Wish I still had those +mod points.
31. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-26 11:43 · Score: -1
 
 I'm not allowed to yell 'fire'?
 I'll have to try to remember that next time I'm in a movie theater that's on fire.
32. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by AthanasiusKircher · 2012-10-26 12:38 · Score: 1
 
 He can say whatever he wants in private or public, but he can't lie in court. Lieing to the courts has ALWAYS been illegal. Filing false documents in court has ALWAYS been illegal. The justice system can't work if people are allowed to lie and fake documents in court without punishment.
 What I find curious is that Ceglia was represented by a number of different lawyers, including major lawfirms who made public statements about how the evidence was NOT fraudulent.
 From TFA:
 
 In his original complaint, filed in 2010, Mr. Ceglia was represented by Paul Argentieri, a sole practitioner in upstate New York. An amended lawsuit was filed in April 2011 by Robert W. Brownlie of DLA Piper, the world's largest law firm, and Dennis C. Vacco, a former New York attorney general now in private practice at Lippes Mathias Wexler Friedman in Buffalo.
 In 2011, Mr. Brownlie of DLA Piper declined a request by The New York Times to produce the original documents backing his client's legal claims. "That will come out during the course of litigation," Mr. Brownlie said. "Anyone who claims this case is fraudulent and brought by a scam artist will come to regret those claims."
 Yet court records indicate that another law firm, Kasowitz Benson Friedman & Torres, had been hired by Mr. Ceglia before DLA Piper and Lippes Mathias becoming involved. Kasowitz Benson withdrew from the case and put DLA Piper and Lippes Mathias on notice that it had determined that the purported contract was a fraud.
 Mr. Brownlie and Mr. Vacco later withdrew from the case. They did not return calls and e-mails seeking comment.
 When are we going to see these lawyers charged with something? (If not intentional, at a minimum, they should be sanctioned for incompetence and misrepresentation.)
 And, if they withdrew from the case after they found out about the fraud, and they didn't immediately report it... that is even worse. Frankly, no one would have paid attention to Ceglia in the first place if it weren't for the fact that he had attorneys with good reputations backing him up. If they knew about any of this or even had a hint of it, they deserve a severe punishment as well.
33. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by shentino · 2012-10-26 13:18 · Score: 1
 
 I believe it's already called perjury though.
34. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by shentino · 2012-10-26 13:23 · Score: 1
 
 I can only base my decisions on what I know and what I can control.
 Personally, I think making myself aware of the issues is worth whatever chump change my eyeballs give slashdot to boot the way of their sponsors.
 Thinking is not free.
35. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-26 13:49 · Score: 0
 
 Try randomly assembling the words "I have a bomb. Put $100,000 in this bag." on a piece of paper and handing it over to a man working at a bank. Moron.
36. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-26 13:56 · Score: 0
 
 Exactly what kind of horrible mental handicap do you have?
37. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by A+nonymous+Coward · 2012-10-26 14:01 · Score: 1
 
 Once again, ladies and gentlemen, we see more libertarian stances are unthinking bullshit.
 Why don't you take you head out of Rand's ass long enough to actually think about what you spew out of you pie hole?
 No, he's just some drunk who overheard a word he didn't understand and made a half-hearted weak attempt at satire. He's no more libertarian than the owners of the basement he occupies.
 
 --
 Infuriate left and right
38. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-26 14:45 · Score: 0
 
 I own 100% of Facebook, but it's cool, I let the Zuckster do whatever he wants. I'm too busy posting captioned pictures of cats to care about the small stuff.
39. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by gnasher719 · 2012-10-26 14:46 · Score: 1
 
 And, if they withdrew from the case after they found out about the fraud, and they didn't immediately report it... that is even worse. Frankly, no one would have paid attention to Ceglia in the first place if it weren't for the fact that he had attorneys with good reputations backing him up. If they knew about any of this or even had a hint of it, they deserve a severe punishment as well.
 Not sure how this works with lawyer/client privilege.
40. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by 19thNervousBreakdown · 2012-10-26 16:46 · Score: 1
 
 Absolutely true, expecting individuals to act in the best interest of millions of strangers is just unrealistic. Of course, it doesn't make you any less a part of the problem. But hey, we're all part of a whole lot of problems. The tragedy of the commons isn't caused by "everyone but me", it's caused by everyone. The only real solution is to make it individually unprofitable to be a part of that tragedy, without making the cost of implementing the solution outweigh the savings gained from the solution's effects.
 And what we definitely shouldn't do is demonize others for acting the same way we all act.
 
 --
 <xml><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></xml>
41. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by chrismcb · 2012-10-26 22:39 · Score: 1
 
 Wow, this has really gone too far! Our freedom of speech has been completely revoked! What is so wrong with saying that I own half of Facebook?
 
 Nothing really. Except when you fabricate evidence, and then sue someone over it. And then of course, there is lieing under oath...
42. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by wannabe · 2012-10-27 01:17 · Score: 2
 
 It is obvious you have never worked in an investigative agency or really understand the politics involved.
 First, this is a case that is being brought by the federal government. A high profile case. This means that the political stakes are very high, which can play a huge role in the prosecution of this case. So let's put things in order, shall we?
 As a federal case in the Western District of New York, this falls under the prosecutorial purview of the United States Attorney's Office. Currently, that would be William Hochul and his deputies. For those unaware, the USA is an appointed post by the President. In a little over a week, this man is going to know if he has a job or not since his position is tied to Obama's success or failure. Contrary to popular opinion, many of the higher level government officials are pretty smart cookies. They know how to take an opportunity and they know how to position themselves. Having one of the highest profile civil cases taking place in your district with one of the highest profile companies on the planet is like a gift from above. Don't piss off Facebook and there might be a nice position with them either directly or indirectly through the big law firm you'll become a partner with after you leave the USA's office.
 This up's the stakes. Now, the deputy in charge of the criminal prosecution division will be getting pressure from his boss to look into this Ceglia guy. After all he's a bad apple having previously been charged by Andrew Cuomo when he was the AG of NY. So the criminal prosecutor tells the Special Agent in Charge of the local FBI office in Buffalo to look into this. A case agent is assigned, along with the other bundle of cases already assigned to him or her, which could be anywhere from 10 to 40 in various stages of closure. So the case agent makes a couple calls to obtain the evidence, in this case the hard drive images and other bits and pieces, which are probably in the safe keeping of Facebook's attorneys, Ceglia's attorney's, or both. They may even do a warrant for new evidence.
 All the computer evidence will get shipped off to the FBI computer lab, which in this case would be the regional computer forensics lab in Buffalo. There, a multi-agency task force works that sifts through submitted computer evidence for forensic artifacts and puts together a report on their findings. And that's exactly what they will do. The Ceglia case will get put into the queue among the cases dealing with child exploitation, terrorism, homicide, etc, and will be given a schedule for completion of somewhere around 6 - 15 months, since after all, this is just a fraud case. But with a little prompting from some highly placed prosecutors, the case will be fast tracked for completion in probably 30 days or less.
 So, with the information back from the lab, the FBI agent now compiles the data, meets with the prosecutors and decides options. Do they have enough to go on? Do they need to dismiss the case? Can they bring it to the grand jury? Do they need more? Is the game plan to really bring this to trial or is it to force a plea or to simply destroy credibility?
 Sometimes, in a high profile case, a perp-walk is more than enough to satisfy political goals. Ceglia was arrested and the Slashdot hivemind has already convicted him and believed 100% all the claims of the prosecution. Send him to jail now - no need for a trial or to have the evidence reviewed by a forensic examiner on the defense side. The perp-walk worked again. It's more than enough to let the USA be known as a friend of facebook in the event this election doesn't go down the way he would like.
 But what about everyone else? The criminal prosecutors? They are career prosecutors so regardless of the administration, they will have a federal job until they decide to retire. The FBI agent(s)? They aren't in much danger of layoff. They will simply keep marching along until their next case comes up or until they rotate to a different duty station or have to go to
 
 --
 "Draw them in with the prospect of gain, take them by confusion." Sun Tzu
43. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by dissy · 2012-10-27 01:44 · Score: 1
 
 What is so wrong with saying that I own half of Facebook? Whatever happened to a right to free speech?!
 
 The same thing that's wrong with me using photoshopped pictures of you and that three year old child as evidence in a court case.
 Oh wait, that is exactly what you are arguing should be allowed isn't it?
44. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-27 06:10 · Score: 0
 
 Comparing this to freedom of speech is a bit facetious.
 you mean "fallacious" not facetious.
45. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by AK+Marc · 2012-10-27 08:24 · Score: 1
 
 The Dallas police DWI squad did for years. They were night shift (to catch drunks) so any court time was overtime. The more they sent to jail, the more cash the cops made. So they'd lie about the field sobriety test so when people fought it, the cops would get OT. Some were making close to double-pay (40 hours catching "criminals" and 25 hours OT (at time and a half) is about the same as 80 hours). It wasn't until they caught a rich person in their scam that was able to pay thousands of dollars privately investigating before it came out. And lots of guilty drunk drivers were let go after that.
 
 Yes, it did end bad, but it was an entire department doing it for years before it was discovered, and the government couldn't even figure it out, it took a private citizen to investigate the police to uncover the massive fraud.
 
 --
 Learn to love Alaska
46. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-27 13:29 · Score: 0
 
 Does your intention apply also when it comes to "Innosence of Muslims" because that guy spelled out his intentions to "prove" what muslims were. Resulting in big losses for USA diplomatically, economical and in life.
47. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by JonySuede · 2012-10-28 09:05 · Score: 1
 
 On LSD times stretches....
 
 --
 Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
48. Re:Respect the First Amendment! by SleazyRidr · 2012-10-29 03:45 · Score: 1
 
 That is very cool. I will start looking for something more factual to use a a signature.
 
 --
 Is 1563649 a prime number?
thumbs up by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-26 08:39 · Score: 5, Funny

Mark Zuckerberg liked this.
1. Re:thumbs up by Pieroxy · 2012-10-26 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I really like it too.
  
  --
  Write boring code, not shiny code!
2. Re:thumbs up by tolkienfan · 2012-10-26 11:07 · Score: 1
  
  Why is there no "dislike"?
3. Re:thumbs up by davester666 · 2012-10-26 16:05 · Score: 1
  
  Because Zucker hates you and everything about you with a passion that knows no bounds.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
4. Re:thumbs up by hawk · 2012-10-27 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  It's right next to the "oops!" button
  hawk
Unfortunately. by masternerdguy · 2012-10-26 08:40 · Score: 1, Insightful

We won't be able to have a good conversation about this because most people only know the history of facebook from the "The Social Network" perspective which has been thoroughly refuted.

--
To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
1. Re:Unfortunately. by Alomex · 2012-10-26 08:57 · Score: 2
  
  "The Social Network" perspective which has been thoroughly refuted.
  [citation needed]
  In fact, the movie was thoroughly vetted by lawyers from Columbia Pictures, so I seriously doubt this would ever be the case in any substantive way.
2. Re:Unfortunately. by MightyMartian · 2012-10-26 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  There were details that were certainly wrong, but in general it got the larger details right, or reasonably so. And anyone familiar with Facebook's history knows Ceglia was a lying nobody trying to extort money by being such a big pain in the ass that he would just be handed a big check to shut the fuck up. Now, it appears, he's about to find out what happens when you commit fraud.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
3. Re:Unfortunately. by Alomex · 2012-10-26 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  Further to that, since /. doesn't have an edit button:
  From IMDB:
  
  Much of the film is based on testimony given at a number of depositions related to the lawsuits brought by Eduardo Saverin, the Winklevoss twins, and Divya Narendra. To this extent, the film might be considered very accurate. However, as the character Mark points out in the film, people do lie in depositions. [However if those lies are proven you could be charged with perjury]
  Both Eduardo Saverin and the Winklevoss twins claim the film is very accurate while Zuckerberg and Parker maintain that it is a work of fiction.
4. Re:Unfortunately. by UnknowingFool · 2012-10-26 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  Well from the outside it looked highly suspicious. Ceglia didn't sue until 2010 when Facebook started in 2003. He claimed he only recently "found" the contract. He went through a lot of lawyers during the course of the suit.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
5. Re:Unfortunately. by geekoid · 2012-10-26 10:14 · Score: 0
  
  It's called preview, use it.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
6. Re:Unfortunately. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-26 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  Typical *nix f**ktard. The software is flawed and rather than fixing it blame the user.
  I guess Edit functionality is just too advanced for you.
7. Re:Unfortunately. by gstoddart · 2012-10-26 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  In fact, the movie was thoroughly vetted by lawyers from Columbia Pictures, so I seriously doubt this would ever be the case in any substantive way.
  Oh, I'm sure they vetted it to be sure that nothing could come back on them ... but I suspect there's a lot of rainbows and kittens in there they let slide by which don't quite match up to reality .
  Making sure they can't get sued for libel or defamation in no way ensures that it's entirely factual. I don't doubt that a few things got tarted up or made to look better without opening them up to liability. But I strongly suspect some of it paints Peckerburg in a much better light than reality would.
  But don't lose sight of whose interests those lawyers were there to protect. It sure as hell isn't the truth in all cases.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
8. Re:Unfortunately. by Alomex · 2012-10-26 11:20 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, I'm sure they vetted it to be sure that nothing could come back on them ...
  Correct, which is why the movie goes to great pains to emphasize that the story is as told in depositions. They are not claiming that's what happened, they are claiming that is what was said in the depositions, which is entirely factual.
  but I suspect there's a lot of rainbows and kittens in there they let slide by which don't quite match up to reality .
  To the contrary, given that they are dealing with people with ample access to funds, I'm sure dramatic license is comparatively minor.
What is a "main" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-26 08:41 · Score: -1

Summary: The main who claimed ownership of 50% of Facebook
What is a "main"? Just a miserable little pile of secrets! But enough talk! Have at you!
1. Re:What is a "main" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-26 08:48 · Score: -1
  
  Go fuck yourself.
2. Re:What is a "main" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-26 08:53 · Score: -1
  
  with your mom's penis I'm sure.
Moral by CimmerianX · 2012-10-26 08:42 · Score: 1, Insightful

Don't try to defraud a company that works hand in hand with law enforcement to track and search people's patterns. Stick with defauding investors by selling bad mortgage instruments and nearly destroying the world economy. No one ever goes to jail for that, they just get a bailout.
1. Re:Moral by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-26 09:34 · Score: 0
  
  I do wish those people would go to jail for that kind of thing, but I also wish people would stop bitching about the bank bailouts.
  When to the two craziest, hardcore, powerful Randians on planet earth are forced to swallow hard, admit that free market principles have limits in application, and beg for the biggest financial intervention by the federal government in the history of our nation, under their watch, moral hazard be damned... you know we had our eyes pressed up to both barrels of a loaded shotgun.
2. Re:Moral by MickLinux · 2012-10-26 12:16 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sorry, I thought Ron Paul was against TARP. The whole time. Almost everyone else involved was pushing for massive government theft, and giving it to the loo^H^H^Hreserve bankers who began the whole thing and executed it.
  
  --
  Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
3. Re:Moral by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-27 02:51 · Score: 0
  
  Nobody was talking about Ron Paul.
  Alan Greenspan and Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson. They were the last two people on earth that ever would have been for interventionist bailouts, but they had to bite the bullet and do it anyway. They were preventing an economic calamity beyond the worst of our great depression.
  Later, Greenspan had to tell congress and the American people that many of the very basic tenants of his economic philosophies of the last 40 years turned out to be tragically wrong.
  http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/greenspans-mea-culpa/
O rly? by ilsaloving · 2012-10-26 08:42 · Score: 4, Interesting

"Dressing up a fraud as a lawsuit does not immunize you from prosecution"
Then please explain patent trolls to me?
1. Re:O rly? by masternerdguy · 2012-10-26 08:44 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Patent trolls acquire obscure or forgotten patents that actually exist. Those trolls OWN the patent to "a cylinder shaped electrolytic capacitor" or something stupid like that and sue people for infringement. Patent trolls abuse the patent system but they don't commit fraud.
  
  --
  To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
2. Re:O rly? by ddxexex · 2012-10-26 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  "Dressing up a fraud as a lawsuit does not immunize you from prosecution"
  Then please explain patent trolls to me?
  Well, Manhattan isn't in a certain part of Texas...
3. Re:O rly? by composer777 · 2012-10-26 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  In that situation the government is participating in the fraud, by granting the patent in the first place, which means it's ok. :) I say this tongue in cheek, and also, this problem might end with the patent office/court, but begins with wealthy "inventors" who have sought to bribe legislators into creating the system of "intellectual"*
  "property"** that we have today.
  * last time I checked rounded corners don't require much intellect
  ** using property as a metaphor for ideas is intellectually dishonest
4. Re:O rly? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2012-10-26 08:50 · Score: 2
  
  Then please explain patent trolls to me?
  Patent trolling isn't fraud. Unless the troll really doesn't own the rights to the patents . . . oops, what about SCO . . . ?
  Patent trolling is more like a Mafia style shakedown. So it should be prosecuted using RICO laws, in my opinion.
  
  --
  Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
5. Re:O rly? by cez · 2012-10-26 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  I will be patenting the "Steal ideas and designs from Star Trek and patent them business process" mwhuahahahaha... HA!
  
  --
  Walk with Music;
6. Re:O rly? by Skapare · 2012-10-26 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, but it is fraud when there is a claim that it is innovation when in fact it is not. The court system just looks the other way.
  
  --
  now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
7. Re:O rly? by chill · 2012-10-26 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  No, that would be the USPTO looking the other way. Different branch of the gov't entirely.
  
  --
  Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
8. Re:O rly? by SecurityGuy · 2012-10-26 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  The short version is that patent trolls to something that's amoral and harmful to business and consumers....but it's legal. That's the difference. You can't prosecute someone for doing something legal, but morally repugnant. You can refuse to patronize their business, of course, but being patent trolls they don't actually make anything or have any customers. They have only victims.
9. Re:O rly? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-27 05:25 · Score: 0
  
  all mods up on this are intended to be an extra to the parent (this post not by parent but someone who thinks 5 is not high enough for their comment)
If only... by PatPatrson · 2012-10-26 08:43 · Score: 0

If only they could do this to patent trolls.
:%s/Ceglia/McBride/ by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-26 08:53 · Score: 0

"Ceglia's alleged conduct not only constitutes a massive fraud attempt, but also an attempted corruption of our legal system through the manufacture of false evidence"
so when is the SCO indictment coming?
1. Re::%s/Ceglia/McBride/ by RobertLTux · 2012-10-26 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  well since TSCOG is dead and buried at this point there does not need to be any further action.
  wanna bet that Harvard Law Professors use Groklaw as a resource in the courses it would apply to??
  Hint when you are on the opposite side from lawyers nicknamed MOFO and Nazgul be very very careful with what you are doing.
  
  --
  Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
The main? by iONiUM · 2012-10-26 08:55 · Score: 0

The main who claimed ownership of 50%...
How did nobody notice that doesn't say man?
1. Re:The main? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-26 08:58 · Score: 0
  
  It still works. The main function that created him hasn't returned yet.
2. Re:The main? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-26 09:00 · Score: 0
  
  Someone already mentioned it above. Secondly, the editors are grossly incompetent at their jobs.
Don't mess with Jews by Dainsanefh · 2012-10-26 08:59 · Score: -1, Troll

This guy is going to jail for trying to get back what he deserved for his efforts. Unfortunately Mark Zuckerberg is Jewish.
This is a warning shot for those of you having business relations with Jews.
It is OK for them to defraud gentiles. It is capital punishment for the other way around.
This rule is well written in the Talmud.
This guy don't know what's coming.
Another evidence of the United States Zionist Occupied Government.

--
Twitter: @dainsanefh
1. Re:Don't mess with Jews by Tastecicles · 2012-10-26 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  What exactly does Zuckerberg's cultural heritage have to do with the blindingly obvious fact that this individual has tried (and failed) to defraud him out of ten Billion Dollars!?
  
  --
  Operation Guillotine is in effect.
2. Re:Don't mess with Jews by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-26 09:10 · Score: 0
  
  It is not cultural heritage. It is a protected race.
3. Re:Don't mess with Jews by Tastecicles · 2012-10-26 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  wonder where that leaves me, then? Half my family are Roman Catholic, half are Jewish. I subscribe to neither.
  
  --
  Operation Guillotine is in effect.
4. Re:Don't mess with Jews by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-26 09:19 · Score: 0
  
  Ten nillion dollars is chump change for Mr. Suckerberg, should have just give it to Paul as a form of welfare/charity.
5. Re:Don't mess with Jews by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-26 09:35 · Score: 0
  
  is your mommy Jew? If yes even if your father not Jew you are still Jew. The genetics pass on teh female side.
6. Re:Don't mess with Jews by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-26 09:50 · Score: 0
  
  I LOLed hard at that. Are you for real?
7. Re:Don't mess with Jews by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-26 13:10 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, yes he is. He doesn't mean literally though. He means, in the Jewish culture, you are a Jew is your mother was a Jew. If you're father was a Jew but you're mother was not, you're a Jew depending on which Jewish community you're in. Some communities are so exclusive that they never recognize converts to Judaism as real Jews.
8. Re:Don't mess with Jews by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-27 08:02 · Score: 0
  
  Well said. Recently, here in Budapest, Hungary, a bunch of jewish realtors bought a small parcel of land and then tried to bribe their way through the courts to have an adjacent cement factory demolished on most spurious charges and have its land transferred to them, so they can build a shopping mall right there, while hundreds would lose their jobs. The previous ex-communist + libertine hungarian government was all pro the jews in all aspects, including this, but luckily, in 2010 the christian-conservatives came to power and the jewish fraudsters were foiled in their plans by reversal of the court judgement. The involved judges went to prison and the factory is still producing cement for export, so we can keep paying the huge hungarian national foreign debt, that is kept by nastiest jews like George Soros...
  In another case, jewish "investors" essentially tried to possess the shore area of Lake Velencei in Hungary for free and build a casino, that would enjoy extra-territorial status (!) and pay no taxes, while being able to take bets from hungarians, as well as foreigner tourists. Luckily, after ex-commies were sacked from gov't, this plan was foiled. Unsuprisingly, the investigators found piles of falsified documents submitted by the jews and their lawyers. The main would-be investor actually testified in writing that he lives on the lake's shore, to take advantage of local's prenotation rights, except the address turned out to be an adobe hen-house and he never ever set foot there...
  There is no race or tribe more mean, stingy and outright evil than the israelite. In their view, the ishmaelite (~arabs) and the goyim (~ everybody else) are dust figures made out of the mud of the soil, therefore have no souls and can be defrauded, oppressed and culled at will. We hungarians have great symphaty for the palestinians, because their fate since 1948 is a mirror of what happened to us in 1920 and since.
  Anyhow, Zuckerberg is a puppet. Facebook was dreamt up by the hidden Elders of the Sanhedrin as a "Tesco Value NSA". I hope Mr. Ceglia has good connections with the most respected Dons, otherwise he is facing an uphill battle against the Mossad. Historically, Italy has a good track record of keeping jews at bay, after all, they venetians invented the gated Ghetto, so jews could not stay out for the night and conspire in the dark to incite the goyim to rise against the Serenissima's government. No wonder the Republic of Venice managed to remain independent for a full 1000 years, until Napoleon arrived.
MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-26 09:02 · Score: -1

Rajat Gupta (an Indian) is going to jail for Goldman Sachs. The Jewish Bankers behind it is getting off scot-free. Gentiles always become a scapegoat and gets the shaft.
First clue by Tastecicles · 2012-10-26 09:06 · Score: 1

Where is the header information in these so-called emails?
Without that information (which is verifiable once you have it), I could write any crap and say it's an email from the Pope and you would absolutely have to treat it with the same evidential weight as you would this.

--
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
1. Re:First clue by Raistlin77 · 2012-10-26 15:26 · Score: 1
  
  Additionally, it is trivial to forge email headers. There are only two ways to verify email headers: matching them up with the headers of emails at the other end of the correspondence or by comparing them to server logs, neither of which is likely to exist any longer. With or without header information, the email cannot be verified at this point anyway.
2. Re:First clue by Tastecicles · 2012-10-26 22:46 · Score: 1
  
  What's non-trivial is forging a message UID* and matching it to a known existing message UID* on the server and making sure the message is identical. Because *that* *will* still exist on the server (you think "deleting" a message from the server scrubs it from existence??)
  *It's called a *U*ID for a reason - the string is *unique*, never to be used again once issued. If that UID doesn't appear on the database attached to a message then it wasn't issued.
  
  --
  Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2012-10-26 09:21 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Re:No such claim by DM9290 · 2012-10-26 09:34 · Score: 1

Is it unethical? Sure!

Calling a corporation unethical makes as much sense as deliberately injecting ebola virus, and then calling the virus unethical. It is the entire corporatist system which is unethical. every legal market niche where there is money to be made will be occupied by some corporation. The patent system is simply being used for exactly what it was set up to do - enrich patent owners.

--
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
You Can't Really Say What You Want by Greyfox · 2012-10-26 10:15 · Score: 1

Fraud is not protected by the first amendment either. If you try to make a first amendment defense when being charged with fraud, the judge will laugh at you*.
* IANAL but I've seen every episode of "Ally MacBeal." Twice.

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Harvard’s e-mail servers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-26 10:56 · Score: 0

>And Harvard’s e-mail servers had no record of the supposed e-mails.
Hmmm... because Harvard normally keeps records of all e-mails dating back to at least 2003???
Innocent by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-26 11:11 · Score: 0

Until proven guilty. I urge everyone to keep that in mind. As of this moment he has been arrested and charged, but he has not been found guilty. Is he? Probably, but until it is proven in a court of law (and not in the court of public opinion) then he is still innocent. Too often we allow the news outlets to convict people without trial and it has made a mockery of the justice the USA was once so proud of.
Why hasn't Facebook been investigated? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-26 13:24 · Score: 0

Remember the virtual Bagels test the BBC did?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18822971
They created a fake company called virtual bagels, nothing real, it did nothing, it offered nothing, ships no product, and placed dummy adverts for it. Within 1 day it was 'liked' by 1600 people. Egypt and Philippines being the biggest clickers of the adverts.
I think I've seen these, they're 'work from home' jobs in the Philippines where you click Facebook likes and receive money per click, I've seen them advertised on posters in cyber cafes in Angeles. But then where does that money come from if it doesn't come from Facebook? Who else has a financial interest in clicking Facebook likes that pay Facebook money for adverts?
It's just crying out for a fraud investigation.
You can't even pretend very well by A+nonymous+Coward · 2012-10-26 13:59 · Score: 1

A true libertarian response is ... nothing. Actions have consequences, and using forged documents to back up a lawsuit is nothing any libertarian would defend. No libertarian would say that every individual property owner would list all manner of restrictions like you suggest.
The real puzzle is why you would come up with such a pale imitation of either a real libertarian or a statist imitation thereof. It's really piss poor. I dunno. Maybe you heard someone bashing libertarians, looked the word up in a dictionary or asked an Obamneyite what it meant, and came up with that sorry rant. Pretty pathetic. You need to get a life or sharpen your sarcasm to include actual content.

--
Infuriate left and right
Michael E. Mann Caught Red Handed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-26 14:52 · Score: 0

Another fraudster, this time Michael E. Mann has been caught red handed.
And for what?
He is the 'Hockey Stick Guy'.
A "Ph.D." at Penn. State.
What got him caught.
He was a contributor to the 2007 AR4 Report from the IPCC (also the AR3 from the IPCC).
Well, he took an image of the Nobel Committee's Award to the IPCC, and photoshoped his
name on it, put it on his web site and cv and claims that the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize is
part his.
Trouble!
Someone called the Nobel Organization in Geneva and asked them about this.
The Nobel Organization emphatically and unequivocally states that Michael E. Mann
does not have a claim to the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize in any form or function.
Michael E. Mann is a fraud. Very simple. He did it. And Hit Girl will bestow some hits
to Michael E. Mann in the coming days.
stock by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-26 21:56 · Score: 0

I believed this.....after all I figured there has to be one idiot out there buying all that Facebook stock.
Misleading story by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-27 01:30 · Score: 0

There was a contract, and I am guessing that in some terms it did stipulate work undertaken in those times - and I am guessing Zuckerberg did take advantage of this guy, and now just has a bunch of venture capital paid lawyer dogs to go after him with now.
Little shit.