Slashdot Mirror
Man Claiming Half Ownership of Facebook Is Now a Fugitive
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.
Maybe he just had enough of being monitored all the time?
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?
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.
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.
Of course not. Zuck shat Facebook out of his anus fully formed.
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
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.
cite please? I know many douchebags who are not white... heck Kanye West is perhaps one of the biggest entitled douchebags around...
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
They just get drunk and stop caring about not having a license. Then drive drunk again.
But... but... we're supposed to hate Zuckerberg! Next thing you'll tell me Bill Gates was a programmer!
... crap.
I'll just leave this here....
http://christiannews.net/2015/...
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...
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.
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
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.
"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.
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
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
... 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?
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.
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
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
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.
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?
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.
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?
it's acknowledgement of white privilege.
In other words, yes, you are racist.
... 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.
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.
Jesus of Nazareth was a black jew.
I'm not convinced Jesus of Nazareth existed at all.
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
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
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.
Looks like you're just going to have to get over that loss... :-p
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.
Stop correcting ethnic details, you are ruining good bar jokes
Table-ized A.I.
"It's complicated"
tone
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.
What? The employment part?
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?
I always cringe when I read in an advert "startup mentality"
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.
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
Maybe the 10th.
Learn to love Alaska
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
Unless you nuke them from orbit.
Learn to love Alaska
It might work just to amputate their arms, too.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Don't worry we can still hate them all for being douche bags.
Time to offend someone
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.
Martha Stewart sounds like a case study in, "take a lawyer when you talk to the police."
Cheap storage VM.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
No. I'm told that studies have shown it's as dangerous as drunk driving.
I will join this religion.
True, he would look more like an Arab than a black man. Jesus Ackbar!
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.
Because non-white people don't end up entitled douchebags
Let me introduce you to a man named Kanye West.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.