Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Facebook The Courts

Man Claiming Half of Facebook Suffers Setbacks 127

Posted by samzenpus
from the kiss-your-friends-list-goodbye dept.
itwbennett writes "Slashdot readers will remember Paul Ceglia, the man who says Mark Zuckerberg agreed to split Facebook with him and has the email to prove it. Well, his case took a turn for the worse this week. Two law firms representing him resigned, the judge refused to postpone a hearing to allow his new lawyers to get caught up, and the judge ordered him to turn over computers and electronic and paper evidence."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Man Claiming Half of Facebook Suffers Setbacks

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    when you threaten to close down the Judge's Facebook account.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    I take it that Mr Ceglia didn't "like" this update.

  • Stop (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 03, 2011 @09:22AM (#36646448)

    Enough is enough! Stop with the news about Facebook!

    • Re:Stop (Score:4, Insightful)

      by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Sunday July 03, 2011 @09:27AM (#36646470)
      With a half a billion Facebook users, a story about someone who is trying to wrest control of the system from Mark Zuckerberg seems newsworthy.
    • Re:Stop (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Elbereth (58257) on Sunday July 03, 2011 @09:40AM (#36646530) Journal

      I agree, but what else is Slashdot going to report on? Most stories get complaints that they don't belong on the main page. If we listened to those people complaining loudest and hardest, banned all Facebook, Twitter, iterative product releases, generic rants and blogs, flamebait and troll articles, and reviews, what would be left? One story per day, which half the people on Slashdot didn't even understand, because it was too technical?

      I agree that there's too much boring, extraneous crap being posted to Slashdot, but this is the way it's always been. There was no glorious, crapless time when everything was relevant, interesting, and geeky. Half the fun of Slashdot has always been trolling the stupid articles, while you wait for a good one to be posted.

      And, let's face it, for every article that you consider relevant and interesting, there's someone out there, thinking, "Why the fuck was this posted?" Windows users don't give a shit about Linux 3.0, Libertarians don't give a shit about some Marxist interpretation of The Matrix, graphics designers don't care about the latest I.T. management fad, and teenagers don't understand why anyone would want to talk about the banking industry.

      • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        The Slashdot I remember had no "Politics" section. Then came 9/11 and this place turned into the FOX NEWS of tech.

        Just look up slashdot.org at Google/Trends. This isn't what Slashdot used to be.

        This place is an asshole now with asshole editors who prefer asshole troll news because they think what works for FOX NEWS must work for this place too.

        They're wrong. "News for nerds. Stuff that matters." is long history now. 4chan is more relevant to Nerds that this asshole now.

        • by Lanteran (1883836)
          Block politics then. *shrug*
        • by lucm (889690)

          > Just look up slashdot.org at Google/Trends. This isn't what Slashdot used to be

          Go Canada!

        • Slashdot is an asshole. That's great! Thanks for the lulz.
        • fox news of tech? Are you fucking kidding me? Read any submission talking about wikileaks, The readers of slashdot are overwhelmingly in support of wikileaks and assange.
      • by petsounds (593538)

        I've noticed a downward trend in the number of science articles posted here. Nowadays it seems heavily skewed towards YRO and general news tech stories (as opposed to serious geek stories). Bring back the science and nerdery!

        On an OT tangent, why the F does logging in send me back to the main page every time? That's amateur hour. Half the time I don't even bother to post a comment because I don't want to have to log in, find the story I was going to comment on, and then find the comment I was going to reply

        • by vlueboy (1799360)

          Regarding your posting problem, just do what I've mastered:

          1. Right-click on Reply and then Open Link in New Tab
          2. Travel to the new tab where your comment is now the history root.
          3. Ignore the Captcha
          4. Enter your nick / password combo
          5. Click on Preview for the page to refresh with YOUR logged in data
          6. Scroll down and click on submit.

          The beauty of it is twofold, really:

          1. If and when you mess up any of the steps, your browser's back button for that new tab still knows EXACTLY what comment your eye was set on.
          2. also, your OLD
      • by jeek (37349)

        If we listened to those people complaining loudest and hardest, banned all Facebook, Twitter, iterative product releases, generic rants and blogs, flamebait and troll articles, and reviews, what would be left? One story per day, which half the people on Slashdot didn't even understand, because it was too technical?

        I postulate that there would be an upsurge, relatively, in articles relating to the female lead of V for Vendetta, possibly in the nude and lathered in some sort of warmer-than-lukewarm breakfast product.

        Just a theory... although I, for one, salute our former meme overlords.

      • by xtracto (837672)

        these days, news.ycombinator.com/ >>>>> /.

    • This isn't even news. It's several days old. It's like an editor is dipping into the Wayback machine to post something for July 4 weekend readers to have something to complain about.

  • by WD (96061)

    Only half of Facebook suffers setbacks?

  • Whatever the real score is, either of them should present evidences that will prove which party is saying the truth.In Paul Ceglia side, if he has all the evidences, then there's no second thought of showing it as what the judges had ask him to do.
  • ...in a right associative sense: (Man Claiming (Half of Facebook Suffers Setbacks))
  • by bkmoore (1910118) on Sunday July 03, 2011 @10:51AM (#36646794)
    This reminds me of the fake will awarding Melvin Dummar [wikipedia.org] about half of the Howard Hughes estate for allegedly picking up a hitch hiking Mr. Hughes in the desert some time in the '60s. Like the Face Book email, this didn't go anywhere.
    • I think people claiming that Mark Zuckerburg gave them half of Facebook or stole their idea or et cetera is going to become the Howard Hughes will of this era. I think my e-mail from Mark Zuckerburg saying I own half of Facebook is in the same document file as my will saying Howard Hughes gave me half of his estate...
      • by mwvdlee (775178)

        Seems with all those people claiming half of Facebook, we can be certain of only one thing; Mr. Zuckerberg doesn't own ANY part of Facebook.

  • These events are typical. Although it is rough for the new lawyers to lack time to prepare, it is not uncommon for judges to refuse to give more time by delaying hearings. Judges have a lot of cases and need to keep all of them moving along.

    As for turning over original documents, that is merely part of the discovery process in U.S. litigation. In fact, it would be exceptionally sloppy, indeed, perhaps even malpractice, for the defendants to fail to insist on the production of the originals whenever authe

    • by jonbryce (703250)

      Usually they resign because they have become "professionally embarrassed". In other words, they have discovered that their client was telling them lies.

  • So, suddenly TWO law firms representing some person, resigns. ok. even if it is a stretch, it can still be explained and justified.

    but, there is nothing to justify the judge postponing the hearing in this situation. with this, basically that citizen's right to defend his case is effectively being denied. the only situation in which he could be expected to defend his case would be that he was a lawyer himself or had legal training. and since he hired legal help as per law because he wasnt, he cannot be r
    • by Anonymous Coward

      This is a civil litigation case, he doesn't have the "right" to a lawyer. He can choose to have a legal representative on his side, but it is not a criminal trial... That comes after he gets indicted for attempted fraud. Then, yes, there would be a cause to delay the trial because his lawyers suddenly quit on him.

      • by xkuehn (2202854)

        (I don't really know your legal system, but I think you're right.)

        Morally speaking, I find it abhorrent. A man can be ruined by a lawsuit. Both in the sense that a plaintiff can take everything he owns and in the sense that he can be cheated out of everything and unable to recover it in court. One should have rights in a civil case, as one does in a criminal case.

        • by Nick Ives (317)

          He is the plaintiff!

          Basically this guy is trying to sue Zuckerberg. He's had two legal teams quit. The judge doesn't think he, as the plaintiff, deserves any more time to prepare his case: he either has a case or he doesn't.

          He's not defending a case, he's not being "prosecuted". He's litigating against Facebook and Zuckerberg.

          • by xkuehn (2202854)

            Both in the sense that a plaintiff can take everything he owns and in the sense that he can be cheated out of everything and unable to recover it in court

            I know this guy is a liar. That's not the point. A plaintiff should have rights too. It's common enough for crooks to cheat people, knowing they won't be able to take the matter to court.

            • He has a right to make his case. The judge isn't coming down hard on plaintiff's rights, he is likely doing his best to keep the court system moving. In this instance, he believes the plaintiff has had enough time to sort his stuff out and doesn't have any mercy that his lawyers quit since that is not a right and he has already wasted enough time. The judge wants him to present his evidence so basically, these likely-forged emails haven't even hit the courtroom yet. The judge is just trying to expedite thin

              • by xkuehn (2202854)

                I don't disagree with you, I was responding to the AC who said this:

                This is a civil litigation case, he doesn't have the "right" to a lawyer

                I do find that abhorrent.

            • by Nick Ives (317)

              I'm going to to assume that English isn't your first language, because that's not a sensible reading of what you originally said.

              A man can be ruined by a lawsuit. Both in the sense that a plaintiff can take everything he owns and in the sense that he can be cheated out of everything and unable to recover it in court.

              this parses as:

              A man can be ruined by a lawsuit in the sense that a plaintiff can take everything he owns.
              A man can be ruined by a lawsuit in the sense that he can be cheated out of everything and unable to recover it in court.

              The first instance suggest that a plaintiff can ruin a man through a lawsuit. The second instance suggest that a plaintiff can cheat a man through a lawsuit, i.e. ruin a man with a lawsuit that has no merit.

              Your reply also makes little sense with regards to your initial argument.

              It's common enough for crooks to cheat people, knowing they won't be able to take the matter to court.

              Surely the problem then would be the lack of a lawsuit? I.e. a crook can cheat a man out

              • by xkuehn (2202854)

                The second instance suggest that a plaintiff can cheat a man through a lawsuit, i.e. ruin a man with a lawsuit that has no merit.

                ???

                A man can be ruined by a lawsuit in the sense that he can be cheated out of everything and unable to recover it in court.

                This means that 1) Someone cheats you out of everything you own 2) You, the plaintiff, can't recover said things in a court (and additionally end up with legal fees). I.e., you are ruined by the lawsuit that you filed.

                Perhaps I could have written more clearly, but it most certainly does mean what I said it does.

                • by Nick Ives (317)

                  Perhaps I could have written more clearly, but it most certainly does mean what I said it does.

                  Clarity and precision in language is necessary for clarity and precision in thought. :)

        • by Rich0 (548339)

          I've always felt that there is a simple way to allow for fairness in civil cases.

          1. Based on the amount at issue, the court declares a budget for legal fees (say 5% of what is at stake - how's that for reform!).
          2. Both sides select legal counsel. The court pays half the budget to the lawyers for each side in accordance with some schedule, with the lawyers having to show that they're being effective/etc.
          3. The case is decided - so far the court is the only one to pay a dime to anybody.
          4. The loser is then li

    • but, there is nothing to justify the judge postponing the hearing in this situation.

      The judge didn't postpone the hearing.

  • Man claiming *ownership of* half of Facebook *has* suffered *a* setback....

    Anyone else not get that the first time you read the headline?
    • by dzfoo (772245)

      No, silly. A man is claiming that half of Facebook has suffered setbacks.

      The other half may be down as well, but someone else must lay claim to that. Slashdot needs to fill it's daily quota of headlines. News for nerds, stuff that matters, and all that.

            dZ.

  • Regardless of the honest status of his claim, he is not going to get anything but a lawyer bill. Why is this so obvious or should be? Simply look around at whats been going on in the cyber world of leaks and the ramping up of taxpayer funded cyber security and social network infiltration forces. i.e. http://www.seankerrigan.com/docs/PersonaManagementSoftware.pdf [seankerrigan.com] or do a search on "us gov fake people" and wonder how many are here on Slashdot? But the point is why would this guy be allowed to challenge face

  • With the MySpace-like down-trending that Facebook is going through, Mr. Ceglia might end up being awarded nothing if he wins outside of worthless stock.

    • Myspace still was values 35 million. If you would give me half of that value in stocks i still would not complain.

      The whole point probably was to get a quick settlement from facebook, a sort of, why would facebook risk 50% of 250 Billion if they could settle for some millions. Even if the odds of winning for paul ceglia were only 1% the settlement still could be a good deal.

  • It's conceivable that he just can't get along with his lawyers, but the odds are that the simultaneous resignations of two law firms mean that they have discovered that there is something seriously wrong with the case. Most likely that means that they now think the documents he has produced are forgeries. If they know that, they can't continue as they would be suborning fraud and perjury.
  • Paul Ceglia: The Man Who Owns 84% of Facebook? link [businessweek.com]

    "Ceglia sifting through old files in his western New York home to find assets to pay back his clientele. He says he came across a document signed in 2003 by Mark Zuckerberg, then a freshman at Harvard and now chief executive of Facebook. He says the document is a valid contract that entitles him to an 84 percent stake in Facebook"

    "Mr. Ceglia's high-profile representation .. recently withdrew from the case at a critical juncture .. Mr. Ceglia is carrying on

Our policy is, when in doubt, do the right thing. -- Roy L. Ash, ex-president, Litton Industries

Working...