Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Man Claiming Half Ownership of Facebook Is Now a Fugitive

Posted by samzenpus on from the poke-on-the-run dept.

alphadogg writes Paul D. Ceglia, who was arrested in 2012 for defrauding Facebook on the claim that he owns half the company, is now a fugitive. Ceglia cut off his electronic monitoring bracelet some time around last Friday and left home in violation of the conditions of his bail, court papers said. Ceglia claimed in a 2010 lawsuit that he was entitled to half ownership of Facebook under a 2003 contract with Mark Zuckerberg, who had done programming work for Ceglia's StreetFax.com.

163 comments

  1. Like many former facebook users.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe he just had enough of being monitored all the time?

    1. Re:Like many former facebook users.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't it be funny if he cut the tracker off then just hid in his closet or something for a few days?

    2. Re:Like many former facebook users.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no

    3. Re:Like many former facebook users.. by penguinoid · · Score: 2

      No, what would be funny is if he had been charged for espionage, privacy violations, or something along those lines.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    4. Re:Like many former facebook users.. by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Funny

      It was probably that 43,278,965th Candy Crush friend request that did it to him.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    5. Re:Like many former facebook users.. by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      No, like many surprised iPhone users, he discovered that extra smurfberries are NOT free, and someone has to pay the bill.

      It's just unlike Apple, Facebook wasn't so willing to refund all that accidentally-spent money.

    6. Re:Like many former facebook users.. by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Funny

      He'll be caught soon . . . when he logs on to Facebook to brag about being a fugitive, the cops will know where he is . . .

      . . . with Facebook providing free info to the cops!

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    7. Re:Like many former facebook users.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Only if he's stupid.

      I was a "fugitive" (as the morons in government might call it) for over a decade. Laid low, stayed off of the grid and eventually all of the "legal" entanglement disappeared. The reason I did it was because I didn't recognise the charges, sentence nor the authority behind it.

      I can honestly say "I fought the law and _I_ won". They didn't even stand a chance.

    8. Re: Like many former facebook users.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you are an Anonymous Coward

    9. Re: Like many former facebook users.. by xevioso · · Score: 1

      He is literally an anonymous coward. Literally.

    10. Re: Like many former facebook users.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      He is literally an anonymous coward. Literally.

      It always makes me smile when some clever little boy like you tries to claim a person is
      a coward because they didn't use a user ID.

      Not everyone wants a user ID, and not wanting one doesn't make them cowards, any more than
      not wanting to use Facebook makes someone antisocial.

    11. Re: Like many former facebook users.. by ruir · · Score: 2

      Were you born so dense, or was it the TV that did that to you? Could you read that tagline up your comment? Are you able to recognise dark humor and sarcasm? Do you have social skills?

    12. Re: Like many former facebook users.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Would if he fled years ago and the person wearing the bracelet was his 90 year old grandma who just passed away and her jewlery and the bracelet were removed at the morgue? Meanwhile Paul is staying in a trailer near mark Zuckerberg's house watching him eat his bagel every morning. Then Mark notices him and they talk it out over more bagels. Then they go shopping for the new iPhone watch. Paul pays for both because he was always the gentleman-type.

    13. Re: Like many former facebook users.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a CIA site silly or big brother, they are a little paranoid in Washington as they loot the government, I thought everyone new that! They have a larger force to deal with, that would be their judgement day or moment. John Walsh, Founder of Occupy Wall Street, A Jesus Movement, Spiritual War on Stupid, Please pass it on, Thank you!

    14. Re:Like many former facebook users.. by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Maybe he just had enough of being monitored all the time?

      Maybe this will turn him into a terrorist - you know like all the Muslims say that they only become terrorists because they are monitored so it must be true

    15. Re: Like many former facebook users.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, the irony!

    16. Re:Like many former facebook users.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... what were the charges then?

  2. Poor Mr. Ceglia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    He should have known: There's far too much money on the table for justice to be allowed. Did he really think he was going to take billions of dollars of value away from the people who quite literally run the world?

    1. Re:Poor Mr. Ceglia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Somebody has allowed "them" to rule the world. They aren't really smart, actually most of them are pretty stupid, they are just very good at lobbying, they've been doing it for 2000 years. Americans let "them" in after WWII. Now have fun living in a country whose financial, media, and internet industries are controlled by "them".

    2. Re:Poor Mr. Ceglia by ruir · · Score: 0

      Would please would someone with mod points mod this insightful?

    3. Re:Poor Mr. Ceglia by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      Justice? Even if his claim is legit, his involvement has been nonexistent and he has done nothing to build the company.

      It's quite difficult to describe as "just" anything resulting in a person gaining billions of dollars for such a small effort.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    4. Re:Poor Mr. Ceglia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are mixing the economic systems. If your rewards are proportional to your effort, it's called socialism. If they are proportional to money invested, it's called capitalism. If they are disproportional to anything that remotely makes sense, it's called ... well, whatever -ism we happen to inhabit. facebookism?

    5. Re:Poor Mr. Ceglia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm afraid you don't know how the capitalistic system works. If you own half of the common shares of a company, you have a 50% voting power at the shareholders meeting and the right to get half of the dividends, whether you also work for it or not. Not that I consider it fair, but that's how it works.

      I don't know whether Ceglia's claim is legit or not, however it should be noted that no other company has ever had so many ownership claims as facebook in the last few years. It seems that several businessmen had to do with zuckerberg and claim they were fraud victims. Are they really all liars? I don't know, but honestly I think would never do business with mark zuckerberg.

    6. Re:Poor Mr. Ceglia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Funny, a divorce means the woman gets half even if she did nothing, that's OK though.

    7. Re:Poor Mr. Ceglia by K10W · · Score: 1

      Somebody has allowed "them" to rule the world. They aren't really smart, actually most of them are pretty stupid, they are just very good at lobbying, they've been doing it for 2000 years. Americans let "them" in after WWII. Now have fun living in a country whose financial, media, and internet industries are controlled by "them".

      In fairness they do have their detractors but it is the same media that is tar & feathering critics who dare point out such lack of fairness and abuses as antisemitic. There are some like that but many are pretty tolerant decent people just calling out various human rights abuse, endemic child abuse that rivals catholic church, conflicts of interest and biased media coverage. One of the critics is a rabbi for goodness sake so he is hardly anti Jew. Rabbi Nuchem Rosenberg is worth looking up, he's had bleach thrown in his face and completely ostracised for whistleblowing on child abuse cases but nothings been done but like he says these people are one of the biggest donators and have family and friends in most the national government and regulatory boards to financial sectors from banking to IMF. The conspiracy BS annoys me as most the info is public knowledge and boils down to bring but simple answer of it is all about money and control.

  3. Lesson... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Don't fuck with powerful people.

  4. Is he dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Why the heck did he have a tracking bracelet to begin with? He was convicted of being a fraudster and financial criminal, but was he convicted of violent crimes? Do they really give tracking bracelets to non-violent criminals in the USA?
    That's truly fucked up if so.

    I'm not even convinced that the guy is guilty of anything other than pissing off a rich, white, entitled douchebag.

    1. Re:Is he dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      What does being white have to do with it? Are you racist?

    2. Re:Is he dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      House arrest often has them wearing it.

    3. Re:Is he dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      lol, you think jewish = white, cute.

    4. Re:Is he dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because as part of his punishment, he has to obey certain terms and conditions. The monitoring bracelet allows police to ensure he's abiding by some of those terms and conditions.

    5. Re:Is he dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The US's private prison system is stuffed to the gills with drug criminals and violent felons, so someone who does a crime that:

      A: Is not drug related.
      B: Is not weapons/firearms related.
      C: Is not violent.
      D: Doesn't fall under some "terrorism" catch-all

      will likely see house arrest, or just be out on bail. In fact, people who do white collar crimes are almost celebrities in the US. White collar crimes are almost never enforced unless there is a major collapse of a market... then someone gets scapegoated.

    6. Re:Is he dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Because non-white people don't end up entitled douchebags. It's not racism - it's acknowledgement of white privilege.

    7. Re:Is he dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Yeah, there were black Jews. They were the ones in the back of the gas chamber.

    8. Re: Is he dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus of Nazareth was a black jew.

    9. Re:Is he dangerous? by Xenkar · · Score: -1, Flamebait

      Most people don't understand the shape shifter aspect of the Jewish people. When they do something good they say they are Jewish. When they do something bad they say they are White.

      When it comes time for them to get a job, they are Jewish and thus get minority hiring status. But when it comes time for a non-Jewish white to get a job, they are counted as whites.

      Same thing with college admissions. Yet I am an anti-semite for complaining about it. I just think I have a bad case of Jew fatigue.

    10. Re:Is he dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      ..or systemic negative generalization of people on the basis of their skin tone, in this case, white skin tone. You attribute the negative trait 'entitled douchebag' to the fact he is white. This is no better than calling someone a 'stupid nigger', which implies he's dumb because he's black.

      I wouldn't take your 'sociology' classes in school very seriously. They're no better than classes run by scientology.

    11. Re:Is he dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because non-white people don't end up entitled douchebags.

      Are you really that fucking stupid?

    12. Re:Is he dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

      Not all white people are douchebags, but all douchebags are white. Acknowledging this is acknowledging that racism exists and is alive and well. It is not a racist statement - it's simply fact, because it's part of what douchebag means.

    13. Re:Is he dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just replace the word Jewish with whatever the race/nationality/religion you are, and you will see how its offensive. So fuck off idiot.

    14. Re:Is he dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At one point in his lawsuit with Facebook he went to Ireland. He was considered at risk of leaving the country.

    15. Re:Is he dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was out on bail for fraud. You are arguing that he should have been out on his own recognizance, yet he cut his tracking bracelet and fled. You should be his lawyer when they find him and bring him back for another hearing. I'm sure the judge could use a good laugh.

    16. Re:Is he dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He wasn't convicted of anything. Bail is when you pay money to get out of prison before your trail. If you run away then you lose your bail money. Bail was needed because he traveled out of the country during his lawsuit. Not sure why they need a tracker. They could of taken his bail money when he didn't show up at court.

    17. Re:Is he dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      cite please? I know many douchebags who are not white... heck Kanye West is perhaps one of the biggest entitled douchebags around...

    18. Re:Is he dangerous? by Ichijo · · Score: 2

      Because the main purpose of justice in the USA is revenge, which legal types call "retribution." If the main purpose of justice was to protect the public, drunk drivers would lose their licenses instead of being thrown in prison (prison should be reserved for those who drive without a license), and they wouldn't automatically get their licenses back (or become eligible to be re-licensed) after serving their time. Instead, they would be required to pass a medical-psychological assessment as in Germany.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    19. Re:Is he dangerous? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Bail is generally fronted by a bondsman, since most people don't have large amounts of money just sitting around to give to the court. Bail is supposed to be a fee that you pay while you are awaiting trial. Of course, since you are innocent until proven guilty, bail is unconstitutional, but that is another topic. Anyway, you usually pay the bondsman a percentage of the bail, like 10%. If they consider you a flight risk, then they (not the court) will put a tracking device on you. You may even be able to opt to do so yourself in exchange for a smaller percentage.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    20. Re:Is he dangerous? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      You're insane.

      Non-violent criminals are exactly the ones you want to use tracking bracelets on. The violent criminals you put in prison so that they can't just remove their tracking bracelet and go and do some violence (or not bother removing it and skipping to the violence part).

      Of course in this case he isn't convicted, he's only been charged. So he accepted those bail conditions, he could have sat in jail for two years awaiting trial instead if he has something against those conditions.

    21. Re: Is he dangerous? by Redmancometh · · Score: 2

      They just get drunk and stop caring about not having a license. Then drive drunk again.

    22. Re:Is he dangerous? by Zibodiz · · Score: 1

      I'll just leave this here....
      http://christiannews.net/2015/...

    23. Re:Is he dangerous? by Existential+Wombat · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why the heck did he have a tracking bracelet to begin with? He was convicted of being a fraudster and financial criminal, but was he convicted of violent crimes? Do they really give tracking bracelets to non-violent criminals in the USA?
      That's truly fucked up if so.

      I'm not even convinced that the guy is guilty of anything other than pissing off a rich, white, entitled douchebag.

      Ask Martha Stewart...

    24. Re:Is he dangerous? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2

      Because as part of his punishment, he has to obey certain terms and conditions. The monitoring bracelet allows police to ensure he's abiding by some of those terms and conditions.

      Only it did not ensure that at all. He cut it off.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    25. Re:Is he dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sir or Madam,

      I am writing to you today to inquire as to the methods and procedures by which I might be able to claim minority hiring status using my Jewish heritage. This question of my religious orientation sadly has never arisen during an interview, possibly because many of the companies to which I have applied respect hiring laws.

      However, if, as you say, there are provisions that would allow me to gain further traction with a potential employer simply by virtue of a religious status, I should be most interested in pursuing this venture.

      Kindly reply at your earliest convenience to this cyber "e-address" with this exceedingly interesting and potentially life-altering knowledge. By doing so, you may even relieve yourself of your self-proclaimed "anti-semite" status and may then redefine yourself as "pro-semite."

      Also, I do hope you recover soon and swiftly from your mentioned fatigue. Some days I struggle with languor myself and must motivate myself repeatedly to accomplish my tasks.

      Thank you for your time and gracious attention to this matter.

      Respectfully yours,

      Herzog Zwei

    26. Re:Is he dangerous? by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Of course, since you are innocent until proven guilty, bail is unconstitutional, but that is another topic.

      Bail is clearly allowed by the constitution. In particularly read the 8th amendment.

    27. Re:Is he dangerous? by Dereck1701 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Bail is supposed to be a fee that you pay"

      Not quite. Its supposed to be a guarantee that you'll show up for your court case, and if you don't you either lose a significant chunk of change far in excess of your crime or you have a bail bondsman with a very good reason to hunt you down. The problem is that bail has been corrupted beyond all reason, people who would have no cause (minor crimes, roots in the community, etc) to flee are held under tens of thousands of dollar bail. People with minor DUI crimes will sometimes have bail in excess of $100K. Its become more of a pre-punishment then a guarantee that you'll return to court, if you have the money you're effectively paying hundreds to thousands of dollars (in lost interest, both investment and inflation) if you don't you're paying a bail bondsman ~10% on your bond. And with court cases dragging on more and more each year (its not uncommon for trial to take 2 years) people are paying more and more.

    28. Re: Is he dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That has to be one of the best posts I've ever read on a message board. Hope you had a great Purim

    29. Re:Is he dangerous? by Ziest · · Score: 1

      Wait a minute, as a Jew I can get a minority hiring status ?? I really need to start paying attention at the monthly meeting of ZOG. Thanks for the information but I have to run now. It's time to kill christian babies for the their blood to mix in the Passover matzah.

      For the clueless out there, THAT was sarcasm.

      --
      Another day closer to redwood heaven
    30. Re:Is he dangerous? by Xenkar · · Score: 2

      Obviously by giving the jewish interviewer the secret jewish handshake. You'll need to ask your parents or rabbi about it since they forgot to teach you about it.

    31. Re:Is he dangerous? by ihtoit · · Score: 0, Troll

      uh... Kanye West
      Whitney Houston (yeah. Bite me, women can be douchebags, too. Women doubly so, in fact. Ask Bobby, and don't forget to duck, they were as bad as each other.)
      LeBron James
      Chris "Tell Me I'm Pretty" Bosh (can go sit on a fucking railroad spike)
      LaVar "Stole mah jerb!" Arrington
      Tiger "Tag the cunt with a Titleist" Woods

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    32. Re:Is he dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do they really give tracking bracelets to non-violent criminals in the USA?

      Give? He was being charged for the service. Probably at a fair cut over what the operating expenses are.

      That's another way people get robbed in America. By the justice system.

      And even if he was completely exonerated, they'd keep the money, for services rendered, and good luck with a claim against whoever was responsible.

    33. Re:Is he dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, see, stewart's problem was that when the IRS first approached her to fix a Little Tax Problem (not even $50K IIRC), she said f*ck off I'm martha stewart. I believe she did that twice, and the fed finally said, yes, but WE'RE the feds...

    34. Re:Is he dangerous? by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      bail is entirely constitutional. EXCESSIVE bail is not.

      Apart from that, bail predates the United States Constitution by about five hundred years.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    35. Re: Is he dangerous? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      They just get drunk and stop caring about not having a license. Then drive drunk again.

      This has been the motivation for my preferred policy: One drunk driving arrest, one fucking bullet in the brain.

      It's the only way to be safe.

    36. Re: Is he dangerous? by BlueTrin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That seems an awful system. You mean that even if you are innocent you will end up losing the interest on the bail ? That probably lead to all kind of bullying from the police and law officers.

      --
      Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
    37. Re: Is he dangerous? by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Oh yes, I keep thinking we still believe in "innocent until proven guilty." Thanks for the correction.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    38. Re:Is he dangerous? by khallow · · Score: 1, Insightful

      it's acknowledgement of white privilege.

      In other words, yes, you are racist.

    39. Re:Is he dangerous? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      He was caught on the prison phone while conspiring to hide assets from seizure before his sentencing ... he kinda proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he needed the supervision, also that he is a bit of a moron.

      The structuring laws are a bit insane, but this case is the exception to prove the rule where they were justified.

    40. Re: Is he dangerous? by youngone · · Score: 1

      Jesus of Nazareth was a black jew.

      I'm not convinced Jesus of Nazareth existed at all.

    41. Re: Is he dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Erm, how about simply lose their car? And only if they were actually driving and actually drunk, instead of arrests which are often bullshit? Too many arrests occur with people who were simply trying to sleep it off in their car, parked at the place they got drunk at (thus they never moved it while drunk). Or people who left a meal with proper reaction times, but due to delayed metabolism of alcohol when ingested with food, cross the threshold into "slightly drunk" while on their way home. The responsible types would pull over and park upon realizing they were not OK to drive, but this is punished since you clearly had to have been "driving drunk" to get the car there. The socially irresponsible thing of driving while knowing you are drunk also happens to be the way in which you are less likely to get hit with a DWI arrest.

    42. Re:Is he dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Along with Will.I.am.

    43. Re: Is he dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calm your tits. That's not what he's talking about. He means even if they didn't get their licenses back automatically or couldn't drive until a psyche evaluation, it wouldn't matter. They'd just get shitfaced and drive anyway. Hell people who lose their licenses for any number of non-DUI offenses just drive any damned way. People have jobs and have bills to pay. Redmancometh didn't even propose anything. You were the one who wants to treat them as lepers and make them jump through hoops to get licensed. I can understand that. Drunks are a danger to society, but I believe you're the one suggesting legislative actions to cause blanket treatment of any DUI offender. Blanket, zero-tolerance type policies are what defeat the "innocent until proven guilty". I believe either you are a complete moron, or you thought you were replying to Doofus who is, indeed, a complete goddamned moron.

    44. Re:Is he dangerous? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      but all douchebags are white

      And Idi Amin was a double douchebag for wearing blackface while being a douchebag. And Robert Mugabe still is. Riiight.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    45. Re: Is he dangerous? by BevanFindlay · · Score: 2

      I'm just going to leave this here:

      "The Christ myth theory is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed... This theory has very little support among scholars."

      The Wikipedia article that quote is from gives a lot more sources. The only people I have ever heard say they don't believe Jesus was a real person are those who don't want him to have existed - never from anyone who has actually studied the subject. You can debate what he did and said, but trying to say he didn't exist shows you haven't studied near-East first century history at all.

    46. Re: Is he dangerous? by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Please explain how the length of time of license revocation and the means of getting it back is all the difference between zero-tolerance and not-zero-tolerance.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    47. Re: Is he dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What? The employment part?

    48. Re: Is he dangerous? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      How about not drinking if you're going to be driving a vehicle, period?

      Why should other people be at risk because someone wants to drink?

    49. Re: Is he dangerous? by ruir · · Score: 0

      And that wikipedia article gives as "historical" and documental support the bible, and very conventionally fails to mention Jesus is not part of the any accounts of contemporary historians at all. Are you for real? If I write an wikipedia article about Batman being real, will you use it too as reference?

    50. Re: Is he dangerous? by The+Rizz · · Score: 2

      If I write an wikipedia article about Batman being real, will you use it too as reference?

      I'm not sure about that, but if given the choice I'd definitely choose Batman as my personal Lord and Savior over the zombie guy.

    51. Re:Is he dangerous? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Bail is required to be paid by a bondsman. I found out my gf at the time was wanted for an unpaid ticket, when she was pulled over for having out of state plates (failure to properly signal was what he said, but the actual infringement was never mentioned, once they saw they could extort bail from someone). Being in a foreign state, they arrested her and were going to ship her back to TX for trial later. We were driving through, so I emptied the bank account and tried to pay the bail. The police refused, and handed me the card of a bondsman. I paid him $5500 for a $5000 bail, for a $200 traffic ticket that was forgotten years ago. The was the only way to get her out, when the charge back in TX was dealt with, the charge in GA was cleared, and the bondsman sent back the $5000. He made $500 for about 10 minutes work. Feels more like a shakedown than a public safety issue.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    52. Re:Is he dangerous? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Maybe the 10th.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    53. Re:Is he dangerous? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The police in Atlanta refused to take cash (or an out of state check) for bail. So I paid an out of state check check to a bondsman of $5500 on a $5000 bail for a $200 traffic ticket that my gf at the time had long since forgotten about. Bail was more than 30x the maximum fine of the original offense. Isn't that justice?

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    54. Re: Is he dangerous? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Unless you nuke them from orbit.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    55. Re: Is he dangerous? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      It might work just to amputate their arms, too.

    56. Re: Is he dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but white people just use a C case to make him white.

      WhiteJesus = (WhiteWithRedBeard) BlackJesus;

      I love telling the ultra religious white people who also happen to be racist (why does religious=racist too, I've noticed that) that their Jesus is Black. Really pisses them off.

    57. Re: Is he dangerous? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      It might work just to amputate their arms, too.

      I guess give them a choice, although I'm not sure I'd want them to collect welfare.

    58. Re: Is he dangerous? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Gosh, what is the chance if you take away their car they could get another one? Or just borrow one from another drunk at the bar?

      Your nonsense about metabolism really sounds like a drunk driver trying to justify it. I'll make it easy for you: if you drank enough to get you over the limit, and drove anyway, you should be shot. Whining about, "gosh, I thought if I just ate and drank some coffee, it would be fine. And then when I realized I was drunk, I had to keep driving, because *waves hands*" just makes you look pathetic.

      No, the socially irresponsible thing is drinking, and then driving.

      It is that simple. If you're trying to drink right up to where you think the line is, you're already doing it wrong, and driving drunk on purpose.

      You're a great example of the cause of the sentiment: drunk drivers are willing to murder people just to be drunkards, so just kill them and they'll be off the road. Nothing of significance is lost.

    59. Re:Is he dangerous? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      She also told the truth, and the truth was she broke the law.

      She was widely panned for having done that, because everything that she admitted to could have been phrased as a different thing by lawyers, without changing the actual true physical actions she was admitting to.

      She basically screwed herself by admitting her intent, which is what they needed to prove, when all they had otherwise was facts about what she actually did; which is not enough to convict under that law.

    60. Re:Is he dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So Africans are African or Black? Isn't that the same thing?

      Indians are either Indian or dark-skinned-indians? Same thing?

      I think the OP has a point.....

    61. Re:Is he dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or add lots of "Shh" sounds to the end of words... instantly gives you credibility...

    62. Re:Is he dangerous? by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 2

      It must be different there. Tracking bracelets here are not just track violent offenders, they are also used for low-risk house arrest types ie white collar crims. Instead of expensive incarceration in a low security hotel like facility, the offender is forced to stay at home. It serves a similar purpose (ie restriction of freedom) but costs the taxpayer a whole lot less.

    63. Re:Is he dangerous? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      The same way you get things on any small circle. You go to the meetings and talk to people. We call this "networking". Other people call it cronyism but what do they know.

      If it is being Jewish, Mormon, or a member of Skull and Crossbones is irrelevant.

    64. Re:Is he dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someday your tyranny will be overthrown.
      There will be revenge, God willing.

    65. Re: Is he dangerous? by devyn58 · · Score: 1

      Actually, people that are being tried of both non-violent and violent crimes can be put on house arrest for the duration of their trial instead of being out on bail or sitting in a jail cell. For you to think that is a dumb decision is your opinion, but it is a commonly used practice.

    66. Re:Is he dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I must be broken because when I hear "entitled douchebag" or "stupid nigger" or just about any "adjective noun" combination, it occurs to me that the adjective (entitled/stupid) is in place as it shouldn't be assumed to automatically apply to the noun; Like you wouldn't say something was wooden wood or grassy grass.

    67. Re: Is he dangerous? by devyn58 · · Score: 1

      Yes, they do put people on house arrest while they are on trial. You can be put on house arrest if you are a violent or non-violent offender. This is an alternative to jail or posting bail. Although this can be a very costly alternative, because you have to pay for the ankle monitor, monitoring equipment, and each day that you are on house arrest.

    68. Re: Is he dangerous? by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

      People shouldn't be punished for sleeping it off in their car. I was under the impression that it wasn't a DUI if the keys weren't in the ignition though.

      The issue I was getting at in response to the person I responded to was pretty simple: alcohol destroys your judgement. So you may care about the license being lost when sober, but then your inhibitions are gone, and you don't.

      Some of the folks responding got a little crazy with it o-o

    69. Re:Is he dangerous? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      White collar crimes are almost never enforced unless there is a major collapse of a market... then someone gets scapegoated.

      Often times not even then.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    70. Re:Is he dangerous? by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      It's absolutely a shakedown. The Bail industry was an early exploiter of campaign finance loopholes and cronyism.
      For more information: http://www.npr.org/series/1229...

      --
      Cheap storage VM.
    71. Re:Is he dangerous? by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Martha Stewart sounds like a case study in, "take a lawyer when you talk to the police."

      --
      Cheap storage VM.
    72. Re:Is he dangerous? by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

      People with minor DUI crimes ...

      Wait what? "Minor DUI crime", what the hell is that? You're.. sort of drunk and sort of driving? Haha, this about made me fall out of my chair laughing. You betcha bro, drink and drive and the bail goes through the roof, and rightly so.

    73. Re: Is he dangerous? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 2

      Semites are not Blacks.

      That Jews from a region look like non-Jews from the same region is due to intermarriage. At the time Jesus lived, or is purported to live, it is very unlikely that his family tree would have contained enough African genes to make him what we would call a Black.

    74. Re: Is he dangerous? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The evidence given is largely the gospels, which were written by people who wanted to prove something considerably after the event (one of them makes claims to show Jesus as fulfilling Jewish prophecy), two mentions by a dishonest blowhard in a document we know was modified later by Christians, and one quick Tacitus reference that gives no details. I'm not real impressed. It's as good evidence as we have for quite a few things in ancient history, but ancient historians seem to me to trust their sources more than they should.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    75. Re: Is he dangerous? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      It can and probably does lead to bullying. However, it's possible for a lot of very unpleasant things to happen to you even if you're found innocent. If there's good reason to suspect you (probable cause), the police can raid your home, tear it up while searching for evidence, and haul you off to jail. There are other things that can happen that I consider illegitimate, but they've been held as legal. Basically, it sucks to be accused of a crime when there's genuine evidence that you have likely done it.

      I'm open to suggestions as to how to make it better, but there's other things the authorities can do that strike me as worse.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    76. Re: Is he dangerous? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There are lots of other things that can impair a driver. Should it be legal to drive on too little sleep? (There goes the ability to run out and buy more newborn diapers.) If your spouse has just filed for divorce or a parent died? If you're having a real bad time at work? If you're clinically depressed? (Try and get out of depression while they're hitting you because you're down.)

      Why should it be illegal to consume little enough alcohol to keep you safer than one of them?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    77. Re: Is he dangerous? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I've read of cases around here where somebody did get drunk, tried to sleep it off in their car, and were held to be in control of the vehicle because they were in it and had the keys available. I think it's a stupid law, and encourages actual drunk driving, but as far as I know that's still the law here.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    78. Re: Is he dangerous? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Should it be legal to drive on too little sleep?

      No. I'm told that studies have shown it's as dangerous as drunk driving.

    79. Re: Is he dangerous? by nobuddy · · Score: 1

      I will join this religion.

    80. Re: Is he dangerous? by nobuddy · · Score: 1

      True, he would look more like an Arab than a black man. Jesus Ackbar!

    81. Re:Is he dangerous? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Yeah, she made the same mistake people often make; they assumed because they're a good person inside, and they weren't trying to steal or kill or anything, that they must not have broken the law, and if they just explained what they did to the police they'll realize she's not a bad person.

      And the cop then arrests them, thinking, "gosh, they're not a bad person, they'll probably learn a valuable lesson from all this."

      Even if you're ready to plead guilty before they catch you, still.. what you say could affect your sentence. Wait for the lawyer. Didn't do it? Wait for the lawyer. The only time it is useful to talk to the cops is when it is a witness statement. And even then, have a lawyer if you can afford it. If not... know it is a gamble and the victim is often the one cited for something.

    82. Re:Is he dangerous? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Because non-white people don't end up entitled douchebags

      Let me introduce you to a man named Kanye West.

    83. Re:Is he dangerous? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Not all white people are douchebags, but all douchebags are white. Acknowledging this is acknowledging that racism exists and is alive and well. It is not a racist statement - it's simply fact, because it's part of what douchebag means.

      You're the first person I've ever heard who uses a definition of douchebag that contains race.

    84. Re:Is he dangerous? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Dammit, I really should have read through the whole thread before posting.

      I thought I was making an insightful point, but turns out that for most people "entitled non-white douchebag? Oh, we're probably talking about Kanye West" was the first thing that came to mind.

    85. Re:Is he dangerous? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      lol, you think jewish = white, cute.

      Yes, most people think jewish people are white, just like they think Poles are white, or Germans, or Irish, or any number of white groups that have faced discrimination in the past.

      Yeah, I know KKK members may not like Jews, but that doesn't make jews non-white.

    86. Re:Is he dangerous? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      At times our entire legal system seems to revolve around the idea of "let's find any way to weasel out of punishment for our actions. The truth is the enemy, no one should know the truth. What we really want is a way to get away with it."

    87. Re:Is he dangerous? by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, it's more like, let's find any way to close this case and pin it someone so I can be done.

      --
      Cheap storage VM.
    88. Re:Is he dangerous? by Dereck1701 · · Score: 1

      Most DUI's are victimless "crimes", no one was harmed, no property was damaged and quite often even past the "legal limit" the person was more in control of the vehicle than someone who hadn't got enough sleep or was too busy stuffing their face with a cheeseburger or doing their makeup, both perfectly legal. It has the POTENTIAL to cause harm (injury/property) but so do a lot of things including but not limited to hunting, fishing, bowling, racing, eating large portions, sleeping around, snowmobiling, etc and yet even when those things do cause harm often their punishments (if any) are less than simply being caught with a 0.08 BAC in the drivers seat of a parked car. When it progresses to actual harm then yes the person should get a hefty sentence from the courts but until then its worthy of no more than fines and maybe a suspended license and definitely shouldn't involve significant bail.

  5. Gn4a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    it attempts to are attending a worthwhile. So I The above is far Please moderate own agenda - give all; in order to go say I'm packing Fucking percent of it there. Bring the above is far the project as a FreeBSD's anybody's guess and has instead fun to be again. *BSD is dying Yet has steadily perspective, t4e Of reality. Keep and sold in the a previously and financial gains market share It transforms into *BSD is dying Yet

    1. Re:Gn4a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

    2. Re:Gn4a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The parent text appears to be machine-generated based on a sample of Slashdot posts. Although the use of 'FreeBSD' seems like a pretty good indicator, the real smoking gun for me was that it includes the 'F' word at approximately the right density. Look for 'Bitcoin' and 'Snowden' in posts to follow - and of course, more 'F' words.

  6. So did he write facebook or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So did he write facebook or not?

    1. Re:So did he write facebook or not? by TWX · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I worked for a boss once that would attempt to claim anything and everything that an employee did that was in any way possibly related to the field that the business was in could be his property as a work-for-hire, even when his employees were hourly so there couldn't even be a claim that any work in the field of computers could be applicable to a salaried staff member.

      I do not know the man in question, but I imagine that it is not impossible that his claim against Zuckerberg was something along this line. I don't say this out of any appreciation for Facebook either, for what it's worth.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:So did he write facebook or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Of course not. Zuck shat Facebook out of his anus fully formed.

    3. Re:So did he write facebook or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was the boss Eric Schmidt?

    4. Re:So did he write facebook or not? by jandrese · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, the claim was that he loaned Zuckerberg $1000 in exchange for half of the company, and that both of them forgot about this until he stumbled across the contract while doing a little housecleaning or something. It should be noted that this guy has a history of contract fraud and forgery.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    5. Re:So did he write facebook or not? by tompaulco · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I wouldn't doubt that Zuckerberg did promise him some share in the company. This is a standard business practice. Executives will promise shares of the company to the developers, who then toil day and night in hopes of a payoff. The executives are very careful never to put this in writing, and every time you ask about it, they never can seem to get around to putting it in writing, but their word is golden. Then, when the company finally starts to make money, they conveniently forget about all of their promises. In fact, I recently got terminated from one such place because they finally started to make money and could no longer dance around the fact that they hadn't given me the shares in the company that they had been promising for the previous 9 years.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    6. Re:So did he write facebook or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you have it backwards. zuckerberg was the developer. ceglia was the executive.

    7. Re:So did he write facebook or not? by ckatko · · Score: 4, Funny

      But... but... we're supposed to hate Zuckerberg! Next thing you'll tell me Bill Gates was a programmer!

      ... crap.

    8. Re:So did he write facebook or not? by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      You of course coded in the backdoors and blackmail material about 2 years into this 9 year farce, right? Or at least stole a lifetime supply of office materials? I can't see putting up with that for 9 whole years without becoming really, really suspicious.

      --
      The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
    9. Re:So did he write facebook or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google "Evan Brown Alcatel"

    10. Re:So did he write facebook or not? by superdave80 · · Score: 1

      ... they hadn't given me the shares in the company that they had been promising for the previous 9 years.

      NINE YEARS?!?!??! You went without a written contract for your work for nine years? How many years were you going to work like this? Twenty? Thirty?

    11. Re:So did he write facebook or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is exactly why I would never work for a "startup". They routinely fuck the people who actually do all of the hard work.

    12. Re:So did he write facebook or not? by Ziest · · Score: 1

      Sorry dude, but it's your own damn fault of not getting the agreement in writing. First lesson in adult life is it's all bullshit UNTIL you have a written, signed and witnessed contact.

      --
      Another day closer to redwood heaven
    13. Re: So did he write facebook or not? by BlueTrin · · Score: 1

      I think that if it is not written, it does not exist and so should you.

      --
      Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
    14. Re:So did he write facebook or not? by penguinoid · · Score: 2

      In fact, I recently got terminated from one such place because they finally started to make money and could no longer dance around the fact that they hadn't given me the shares in the company that they had been promising for the previous 9 years.

      Would you like to work for my company? We can't pay too much right now, but you'll get shares in the company, work hard and we'll make your rich beyond your wildest dreams.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    15. Re:So did he write facebook or not? by tompaulco · · Score: 2

      To be honest, the people who were first in charge were probably trustworthy but had no authority to grant shares. Then after about 3 years, they started getting weeded out and replaced with people who had no intentions of ever following through but continued to say they would. After three years, they were so far in my debt that I had to let it ride in hopes that it would payoff. I guess it was kind of like gambling. I figure altogether they owe me about $1 million in overtime, COLA, raises and vacation days.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    16. Re:So did he write facebook or not? by ruir · · Score: 1

      I always cringe when I read in an advert "startup mentality"

    17. Re:So did he write facebook or not? by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      To be honest, the people who were first in charge were probably trustworthy but had no authority to grant shares. Then after about 3 years, they started getting weeded out and replaced with people who had no intentions of ever following through but continued to say they would. After three years, they were so far in my debt that I had to let it ride in hopes that it would payoff. I guess it was kind of like gambling. I figure altogether they owe me about $1 million in overtime, COLA, raises and vacation days.

      Complete nonsense. If they were too far in debt to pay it off, and you sued them, you'd end up with the whole thing. The reality is unlikely to be thus, though. It is never too late for them to issue real shares to pay off their debt, if you'll accept those shares. Even if they had to split the stock to get it done.

      Another reality is that instead of meaning you "had to let it ride," you should have understood that you "had to take legal action immediately."

    18. Re:So did he write facebook or not? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Don't worry we can still hate them all for being douche bags.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    19. Re:So did he write facebook or not? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      The company I once worked for got bought up by a bigger company that tried to pull this stunt in their new employee contract. I and most of the other developers simply refused to sign the contract. I suppose they could have fired us, but that would have sank the company fast. So they continued to pay us and we continued to work for them.

      Years later they tried to sue some former employees that went to work for a competitor. The company lost badly.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    20. Re:So did he write facebook or not? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Next time, cut your losses and threaten a lawsuit. You'll never be in better shape for negotiation or a lawsuit than shortly after you don't get what you were owed, since the courts are likely to think you should have complained fairly promptly, and the bosses are going to figure they can continue shafting you without complaint. If they can get away with exploiting you, that'll just encourage them.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    21. Re:So did he write facebook or not? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Which is exactly why I would never work for a "startup". They routinely fuck the people who actually do all of the hard work.

      I was glad that I was a contractor during the Dot-Com boom.
      Always work for cash. Stock and stock options are nice, but they should be considered as having absolutely zero value until you convert them into cash.

  7. What about all the others claiming to own it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, if this guy was convicted of fraud for trying to take ownership of it falsely, what about everyone involved in the original facebook lawsuit? The Winklevoss' and Zuckerberg's original partner. Surely someone from that group should be convicted?

  8. you're all horrible people and should be punished. by Thud457 · · Score: 0

    Surely someone from that group should be convicted?

    D. All of them.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  9. OMG your right! by Gription · · Score: 1

    It would so TOTALLY make more sense to keep non violent criminals in prison where it costs $60k a year to house them. (Uhhh, yeahhh....)

    Wait...
    Or were you trying to say you don't think there should be sentencing of confinement for anything except violent offenses? (Because white collar crime doesn't really count does it ...)

    1. Re:OMG your right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He did say private prisons. And even if it does require $60K to house them, they make a lot more than the $60k. Do a search on -prisons traded on the stock exchange-
      You may be surprised,

    2. Re:OMG your right! by ihtoit · · Score: 2

      there are three companies running 14 prisons in the UK. Yes, I said companies. Her Majesty's Prison Service runs places like The Maze, still, which houses the most violent prisoners, but for just about all the "low risk", they're in Hotel Sodexo (which is really more of a Gulag, ask Melanie Shaw if you can get a visit - they're not letting ANYONE in to see her at the moment, not even a legal adviser or a family member), Group 3 (one got away - old joke, now better known as G4S, a throwback acronym to one of their previous names - Group 4 Securicor - they do most of the prisoner transport to and from court as well, and they're particularly famous for not only fucking up the security for the Olympics in 2012 and trying to fuck off with the money paid to them to run the security, they got their no-bid contract to run the prisons and transport renewed!), Serco (who do a lot of police desk work and probation as well as manage a few of the Category C (low risk) prisons).

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  10. Better lesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Don't do business or anything else with jews. Just avoid them, always. After all, there must be a reason why they have been despised all over europe for 2K years, and no, it's not racism (they are white!). It's because they are fraudsters. And sometimes they can even make people believe that their fraud victims are the fraudsters.

  11. nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Apparently he didn't fully pay Zuck for the StreetFax.com project. Zuck threated to sue, so he sent a scan of the StreetFax.com contract to his lawyer. Later after Cegilia sued Zuck, the courts got a hold of that contract and noticed it wasn't the same as the one saying Cegilia owned "the facebook".

  12. Paul D. Ceglia by Hey_Jude_Jesus · · Score: 1, Interesting

    is an idiot. BTW, I own half of Microsoft too and I have an email from 1976 from Bill Gates that said so. :rolleyes: Now Paul is going to spend a lot of time in prison instead of being treated like a first time offender by the US Attorney.

    1. Re:Paul D. Ceglia by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      We can hope he has gone underground to murder the Zuck. If he's going to be in prison a long time it might as well be for a cause that will benefit all humanity.

  13. shady italian scumbag tries to shake down rich jew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    welcome to america

  14. Weird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't believe that guy turned out to be a fugitive... He sold me a bridge!

    1. Re:Weird by BevanFindlay · · Score: 1

      Looks like you're just going to have to get over that loss... :-p

  15. I feel sorry for him... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    ... This is a sad situation.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:I feel sorry for him... by Adambomb · · Score: 1

      gotta agree, sounds like someone building self-delusion around himself then cracking when it all comes falling down.

      --
      Ice Cream has no bones.
  16. Re:shady italian scumbag tries to shake down rich by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Firstly, Ceglia is american, not Italian. It's a desperate american hobby to try to find the foreign ancestry of your own american scumbags. Secondly, the shadiest of the Italians will always be cleaner than the cleanest of the american jews. And it's your fault if they rule your country, you let them in after WWII.

  17. Re:shady italian scumbag [shakes down rich jew] by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Stop correcting ethnic details, you are ruining good bar jokes

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  18. Relationship status: by DulcetTone · · Score: 1

    "It's complicated"

    --
    tone
  19. Zuck Needs To Lay Low by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back in the day, Zuck was notorious for theft of others code!

    Best move for Zuck would be to head to central China with his girlfriend aka wife and lay low for a decade.

    No Ha U Ha

  20. Good. He should fight to the death if captured. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is good when a man disobeys this woman's cuntry.
    I pray that he gets atleast 1 for 1 or more when they come for him.

  21. Re:shady italian scumbag tries to shake down rich by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a desperate american hobby to try to find the foreign ancestry of your own american scumbags.

    ... the cleanest of the american jews. And it's your fault if they rule your country, you let them in after WWII.

    Unless you claim that the same jews that fled away from WWII are still ruling the country, there's a nice contradiction you got there.

  22. Re:shady italian scumbag tries to shake down rich by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No contradiction at all. The poster wrote "american jews", in this case the nationality is correct. As for the fact that (most of) american jews moved to the US after WWII, that's just history.

  23. Re:shady italian scumbag tries to shake down rich by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

    That's absolutely ridiculous. The vast majority of American Jews were born in the US. The vast majority of Jews who moved to the US after WWII are dead.

  24. Re:shady italian scumbag tries to shake down rich by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The vast majority of American Jews were born in the US.

    Fine. Poster should have said: "You've let their fathers and mothers in after WWII...". Unfortunately, that doesn't really change the main point of the post: they rule america anyways, or at least its most strategic industries (finance, media, and now internet).

    Thanks for the ENORMOUS value you added to the discussion.