Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Man Claiming Half of Facebook Suffers Setbacks

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the kiss-your-friends-list-goodbye dept.

Facebook 127

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."

cancel ×

127 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

nothing to see here... (-1, Troll)

xTantrum (919048) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646434)

....so now facebook is big enough to buy judges. And the reign of the corporate overlords continues. *yawn*

Re:nothing to see here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36646482)

yeah, that's probably what happened...

Or the judge got sick of this stupid case (2)

Weezul (52464) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646500)

Zuckerberg may be a twit but he did code. Paul Ceglia [wikipedia.org] is a pure bullshit artist.

Re:Or the judge got sick of this stupid case (5, Insightful)

Nick Ives (317) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646548)

Having your legal team resign is a bad sign. Despite most peoples view of lawyers, they are bound to act ethically and if they have reason to believe you're engaging in a fraud they won't represent you.

Re:Or the judge got sick of this stupid case (5, Insightful)

sribe (304414) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646668)

Having your legal team resign is a bad sign.

Yeah, considering the suspicions surrounding the legitimacy of Ceglia's contracts and emails, this is very likely a sign that the lawyers figured out that his evidence is indeed forged. I'm sure that's (at least part of) what you meant. But I'm equally sure that there are readers who are unfamiliar with the case and the suspicions that Ceglia's evidence trail consists of forgeries.

Re:Or the judge got sick of this stupid case (5, Interesting)

Nick Ives (317) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646742)

Yea, that's pretty much what I'm saying. I'm wondering how much of a compulsive liar this guy must be if he honestly thinks he can forge an email trail. I guess it's worth a shot for a few hundred million dollars though.

Re:Or the judge got sick of this stupid case (2)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647056)

Actually I hope the evidence DOES get shown in court.

Then when Facebook shows it up for the forgery it is, he can kiss his original settlement goodbye for putting "a fraud upon the court".

And then, my favorite part, the feds clap him in irons on perjury charges and he spends a few years behind bars.

Re:Or the judge got sick of this stupid case (1)

sribe (304414) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647186)

Then when Facebook shows it up for the forgery it is, he can kiss his original settlement goodbye for putting "a fraud upon the court".

Yeah, I hope so too... But I think it's beyond our hopes already, in that the way in which he got a new case going was to show his "new evidence". And I'm pretty sure that if he is forging evidence, Lord Zuckerberg is not going to let this go at having the case dismissed ;-)

BTW, are you confusing this with the Winkelvoss twins? I don't think there was a prior settlement with Ceglia, just a case that he lost?

Re:Or the judge got sick of this stupid case (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36646958)

Lawyers do sometimes resign due to the facts in the case. Here, it is much more likely they resigned because they wouldn't get paid. Let's be honest: none of us wants to do full time work for free, so this isn't lawyer bashing. They need to put food on the table too and continuing to work cases where the odds of getting any remuneration are minuscule is a fools game.

Re:Or the judge got sick of this stupid case (2)

Oligonicella (659917) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646998)

They figured out that he wouldn't be able to pay them because they figured out that they wouldn't win the case because they figured out his evidence wasn't worth shit.

They figured out the facts in the case.

Re:Or the judge got sick of this stupid case (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36647158)

Why do I suspect that the parent here and most of this thread of replies are from the Facebook Astoturf Team?

Re:nothing to see here... (1)

Maestro4k (707634) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647268)

....so now facebook is big enough to buy judges. And the reign of the corporate overlords continues. *yawn*

As much as I dislike Zuckerberg, in this case it sounds like this guy is a total scam artist. Facebook hired a linguistics expert to compare the E-mails Ceglia claims prove his case against known E-mails written by Zuckerberg during the same time period. The results are not encouraging [time.com] for Ceglia, and are quite convincing. There's some significant differences in writing style, and there's well established research that writing styles are mostly fixed, people write the same way routinely unless deliberately trying to do otherwise. You'd have to believe that Zuckerberg deliberately wrote differently in the Ceglia E-mails, something which is very hard to buy into. After that his lawyers resigned on him, a very, very bad sign for him. Sounds like the judge concurs, he's not buying it either.

Re:nothing to see here... (1)

RKBA (622932) | more than 3 years ago | (#36648188)

I'm actually replying to your "signature" line advertisement for Dreamhost. Their claim of 180GB storage and 1.8TB of monthly traffic is complete and total BS. I opened an account with them once when I actually had over 100GB of video data (legitimately my own files, not copyrighted or pirated stuff) to upload. Within a few hours of my beginning to upload all this data I began to receive "urgent" emails from Dreamhost telling me to cease and desist uploading files because I had exceeded both my allocated storage space and my traffic limit. When I did not comply (because after all, their claim to provide all that storage was the only reason I had opened an account with them in the first place), they deleted my account and refused to refund my first years payment. They're all crooks at Dreamhost.com as far as I am concerned.

It's amazing what happens (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36646440)

when you threaten to close down the Judge's Facebook account.

Just a thought (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36646446)

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

Re:Just a thought (1)

JohnRoss1968 (574825) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646654)

lol

Stop (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36646448)

Enough is enough! Stop with the news about Facebook!

Re:Stop (3, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#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 (5, Insightful)

Elbereth (58257) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646530)

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:Stop (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36646696)

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.

Re:Stop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36646738)

At least your spelling and grammar is better that this asshole though.

Re:Stop (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36646978)

Walk into a gas chamber you whore.

Re:Stop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36647176)

Hear, Hear!

Join me in demanding the return of Jon Katz. Slashdot needs more hellmouth!

Re:Stop (1)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647384)

Block politics then. *shrug*

Re:Stop (1)

lucm (889690) | more than 3 years ago | (#36648604)

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

Go Canada!

Re:Stop (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649142)

Slashdot is an asshole. That's great! Thanks for the lulz.

Thanks for the reality check. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36646704)

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?

Basically, you just pointed out to me that Slashdot is a waste of time - at most, all one needs is the RSS feed for the headlines and if you see something interesting, google it yourself. Such as new releases of important things: books, software, security updates, .... that's about it.

Re:Stop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36647238)

Oh, for the halcyon days of the Hellmouth stories.

Re:Stop (1)

petsounds (593538) | more than 3 years ago | (#36648936)

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 to.

Re:Stop (2)

vlueboy (1799360) | more than 3 years ago | (#36649130)

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 tab still has recollection of where on the story you were prior to logging in, so that you may continue browsing.

    BIG PLUS of this last one? Slashdot 2.0 has some Javascript magic so that the non-logged-in tab will automatically read your browser cookie and prepare a logged-in reply --without needing to lose your place reloading that page.

Re:Stop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36646564)

Enough is enough! Stop with the news about Facebook!

They're just trying to fill the void after everyone complained about too many Bitcoin stories.

Re:Stop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36646988)

Agreed. We need more commentary opinions from /. blogger Bennett Haselton.

Re:Stop (1)

ralphdaugherty (225648) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647190)

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.

Re:Stop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36648002)

If this was Canonical or Oracle, would it be newsworthy? As another poster mentioned, we're talking about possibly the most influential site on the Internet. Moreover, there's plenty of geek cred with FB. Look at what they're doing with Hadoop [blogspot.com] , some of their open source contributions [github.com] , or their code deployment process [wordpress.com] .

Personally, I feel you on wasting space on non-technical articles. However, it's no different than reading what Bill Gates has to say about vaccines [slashdot.org] or reading about a Steve Jobs comic book [slashdot.org] .

Re: Judge hate (-1, Flamebait)

Lysander7 (2085382) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646466)

Last I checked, emails weren't legally binding, as a contract is, yet people here are posting about how Facebook is corrupting the judge? The dude made the right choice, especially considering money-hungry lawyers won't even represent the obviously nutty client. I'm not fan of Facebook (in fact, I hate it), but come on, if you're going to stand up for the ultra-liberals, at least do so intelligently.

Re: Judge hate (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646506)

>ultra-liberals,

How the *fuck* does political proclivity come into play here?

Explain, in detail.

--
BMO

Re: Judge hate (0)

Lysander7 (2085382) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646518)

Referring to the anti-corporation, anti-government posts on /., which is what the responses have been thus far in this thread in regards to Facebook.

Re: Judge hate (1)

LordNimon (85072) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646546)

Liberals are anti-government? That's news to me.

Re: Judge hate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36646568)

That would be news to them, too. Maybe OP meant ultra-libertarians? Or maybe they just blame liberals for everything? I know someone like that (emphasis on everything), which is sad because otherwise he's reasonably intelligent.

Re: Judge hate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36646662)

Yeah, it reminds me too much of the years I spent reading and laughing at Conservapedia. It's worrying when terms like "liberal" and "conservative" are bandied around in a way that'd sound very familiar if those words were replaced with nigger or jew.

The core issue is that extreme conservatives and liberals are most often very fond indeed of government - so long as it's their guy in office. They'll only get antsy when the other side gets in - as we saw with Clinton, Bush Jr. and now Obama. This partisan bullshit is one of the many things screwing up America.

Then of course we have the unaffiliated nutjobs who won't let party lines get in the way of stockpiling ammunition and conspiracy theories.

Re: Judge hate (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36646596)

The term Liberal was hijacked by the socialists, so yeah Liberals are for limited government, but that term isn't used that way anymore. Now days it just means someone willing to keep spending peoples money in hopes that something will change.

Re: Judge hate (1)

Lysander7 (2085382) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646670)

This. I meant for my statement to include Libertarians and intended for it to be implied as such, but perhaps I should have been more specific, as people look for any excuse to attack minutiae rather than the core argument that was originally proposed

Re: Judge hate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36646730)

Neither liberals nor conservatives are anti-government. The difference lies in what each wishes the govenment to do. Conservatives wish the government to enforce private morality and to create and defend property rights. (No government, no property beyond immediate use and occupation.) Liberals wish the government to defend and care for the poor and disadvantaged.

Re: not legally binding (1)

roguegramma (982660) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646610)

In my opinion, emails can be legally binding, if it is an established communication channel, or if both parties act in accordance with the agreement described in the emails.

If you really want to have it your way, what do you think about EULAs being binding?

Re: not legally binding (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646626)

what do you think about EULAs being binding?

They should not be. How do you prove that a particular person was the person who clicked on "I Agree?" It is not like you have a copy of a contract, with the person's signature on it.

Re: not legally binding (1)

diamondmagic (877411) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646746)

what do you think about EULAs being binding?

They should not be. How do you prove that a particular person was the person who clicked on "I Agree?" It is not like you have a copy of a contract, with the person's signature on it.

They can't be, because it's not in exchange for anything -- you've already bought the product, you own it free and clear, so violation of the EULA would not be theft of anything.

Re: not legally binding (2)

metacell (523607) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646830)

Being legally binding is a separate issue from the burden of proof. A written contract is legally binding, but if you can't prove who wrote the signature on it, it's not enforceable. Conversely, you may not be able to prove who clicked on the "I accept" button, but it's still legally binding in theory (so if, for example, someone testifies they saw you click it, the contract is enforceable).

Re: not legally binding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36647780)

But if you actually did click on it, and then testify that you didn't, then you're lying under oath and it's considered perjury.

Electronic contracts (5, Informative)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646630)

>Last I checked, emails weren't legally binding, as a contract is

Check again.

Congress passed the ESIGN act [wikipedia.org] to prevent people from repudiating contracts that were made electronically. That was the foundation of the e-commerce boom (otherwise, how would you expect companies to sell on the Internet when people could just say "Oh, that wasn't a real contract, it was just electronic.")

Btw, a contract doesn't need to even be written to be a contract. The written form helps in establishing what was contracted, though.

A contract requires an offer, an acceptance, and consideration (exchange of value).

If you hash out terms for a business deal over email, and at the end you accept it, you just made a contract.

Re:Electronic contracts (3, Interesting)

zoomshorts (137587) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646752)

A contract requires an offer, an acceptance, and consideration (exchange of value).
Well that is part of it, a contract must be for something that is Legal, and both
parties need the mental capacity to enter into the contract. Even Business Law 101
teaches that.

Re:Electronic contracts (0)

sunderland56 (621843) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646926)

Boy, it sure is a good thing that it's impossible to fake an email, isn't it? Otherwise there would be a huge potential for fraud.

Re:Electronic contracts (1)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647024)

Not nearly as big a problem as with verbal contracts.

Yes, verbally agreeing is also legally binding contract. It is just harder to prove which is why people making contracts prefer something that is harder to run away from, but legally there is nothing magic about a signature or a fax.

Re:Electronic contracts (1)

perryizgr8 (1370173) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646952)

truly informative and accurate.

Re:Electronic contracts (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647008)

Except that it's a state by state definition, not federal.

Re:Electronic contracts (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647050)

What constitutes a contract. A flurry of e-mails probably won't cut it in some states and conversational terms don't always fly either.

Re:Electronic contracts (1)

Theovon (109752) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647172)

I notice how a lot of people responding to you are going on and on about states and statutes (although I'm not sure they know what statutes are), etc. What they don't seem to know is that, except in certain extreme circumstances, contracts are a civil matter. Although there may be some local laws that make certain kinds of contracts weaker or stronger, when there is a dispute, it is the job of an arbiter or court to decide the matter.

Re: Judge hate (2)

SquirrelDeth (1972694) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646810)

If the money hungry lawyers won't represent him why were they representing him in the first place why bail out right before the hearing? Why won't the judge delay the hearing so the new lawyers can get up to speed? Judges delay things all the time even on the biggest bull shit cases. And emails are admissible in court an email is basically a written form of a conversation. How about emailing or faxing a contract I do it all the time.
For example many years ago I walked out of a bar rubbed my eye and my contact fell out. Then I walked right into a cop rounding the corner of the building because I couldn't see. Cops hassled me and then told me to be on my way. I was walking to my tuck to get my glasses and was jumped by two cops hit in the stomach and face several times forced into the cop car without being arrested in from of several witnesses. The next day I was charged with a bunch of bullshit. Point is the prosecutor delayed the trial 6 times in his hunt for evidence against me finally my lawyer made a motion that the prosecutor was intentionally delayed the trial because there was no evidence and the judge set a finale trial date. On the day of the trial the prosecutor approached my lawyer and tried to make a deal 'you give me this trial and I'll give you one latter on' my lawyer said no I had been assaulted, unlawfully confined and had false charges filed . At that point to prosecutor decided to drop the charges and I didn't have to even go in the court house. Mind you I had to live under very strict bail condition for 8 months it cost me thousands in lawyers and I couldn't even charge the cops with assault because there is a three month statute of limitations for police in my area and I couldn't press charges until after my day in court which took 8 months. The cops even threatened me after court and the matter had to be brought up to their supervisor.

Re: Judge hate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36647168)

Are you for real?

If the money hungry lawyers won't represent him why were they representing him in the first place why bail out right before the hearing?

This morning I was planning on taking a bike ride but then it started to rain so I didn't. Things change.

As for why the prosecutor was able to get the judge to delay trial in your case, you do realize that even though the judge, DA and cops are supposed to serve the people, they're mostly on the same side, not your side.

The summary and the blog seem to be biased towards Facebook but the actual AP and NYT report don't make it seem like such a landslide for them.

Re: Judge hate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36647170)

Even a verbal agreement is BINDING it's just difficult to prove it existed. I would say if you had an agreement in writing (as an email) that was authentic then that would be binding. So check again.

Wait, what? (1)

WD (96061) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646480)

Only half of Facebook suffers setbacks?

Re:Wait, what? (1)

alphatel (1450715) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646498)

Only half of Facebook suffers setbacks?

Only the good half.

Re:Wait, what? (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646520)

Only half of Facebook suffers setbacks?

Yes, well... That seems to be what mankind has claimed...

Re:Wait, what? (1)

Roduku (950552) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646524)

Yes. The other half are completely retarded.

Re:Wait, what? (1)

JohnRoss1968 (574825) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646674)

Completely retarded wouldn't be a setback ..It would be an UPGRADE.

Re:Wait, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36646806)

You laugh - but as a non-native speaker I really read it like that the first time.

Re:Wait, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36646840)

As a native speaker, so did I.

Re:Wait, what? (1)

Dekker3D (989692) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646868)

I tend to be better at English than at Dutch (my native language) and I read it as such too. "Man claiming half of Facebook" sounds more unreal than "half of facebook suffers setbacks".

Re:Wait, what? (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647098)

I'm a native speaker, and that's how I read it at first.

PedanticMan to the rescue! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36646484)

I don't care about any of this Facebook crap, but I'm pretty sure it's "catch up" and not "get caught up".

Re:PedanticMan to the rescue! (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646494)

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Truth will come out base on evidences (2)

shergen (2333046) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646554)

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.

Re:Truth will come out base on evidences (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36648262)

The Winklevoss Twins need to file a pre-emptive lawsuit against Mr. Ceglia that should he win anything a great portion rightfully belongs to the them. See how he likes being on the receiving end of expensive and lengthy litigation.

He's ABSOLUTELY right (1)

gwstuff (2067112) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646736)

...in a right associative sense: (Man Claiming (Half of Facebook Suffers Setbacks))

Re:He's ABSOLUTELY right (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647272)

And I read that trying to figure out what the ManClaiming() function would do.

Re:He's ABSOLUTELY right (1)

lennier (44736) | more than 3 years ago | (#36648720)

And I read that trying to figure out what the ManClaiming() function would do.

Return a documentation page for the Claiming() function, of course. Sheesh.

Re:He's ABSOLUTELY right (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#36648750)

What's the parameter?

Or maybe.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36646748)

-there was a payoff somewhere to someone.. 'Would you rather work for him? O-o-or, would you rather ~not work for him?' Before anyone gets to thinking of ethical, notable and chivalrous action by lawyers, remember they do follow the money. 'Is there `something I'm holding in my left hand that might look better in the right hand(s)?'
  >:-D

The Howard Hughes will (2)

bkmoore (1910118) | more than 3 years ago | (#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.

Re:The Howard Hughes will (1)

weweedmaniii (1869418) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647516)

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...

Re:The Howard Hughes will (2)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647578)

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.

Not Exactly "Setbacks" (1)

Compulawyer (318018) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646808)

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 authenticity of a document (paper or electronic) is at issue.

The resignations of his law firms may be true setbacks, but there are lots of reasons why that could have happened. We'll probably never know why because of client confidentiality and privilege rules.

Re:Not Exactly "Setbacks" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36646890)

I admire the Devil's Advocate approach, but...

The resignations of his law firms may be true setbacks, but there are lots of reasons why that could have happened. We'll probably never know why because of client confidentiality and privilege rules.

One law firm resigning from your case can be easily explained away. Two law firms independently deciding to withdraw from the case is a lot more suspicious. There may still be an explanation that is not detrimental to his case, but it'll take a pretty good one to avoid suspicion. He better hope that the third one's the charm, because I doubt there's any good reason for a third law firm to distance themselves from this case.

Re:Not Exactly "Setbacks" (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647592)

Either the law firms both independantly came to the conclusion that Ceglia's claims were, to put it delicately, without merit.
Or both law firms were given some less than honest incentive to drop the case.

Wow. WAY too fishy. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36646994)

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 reasonably expected to defend his case.

the judge in this case should be prosecuted. there is no excuse for this.

Re:Wow. WAY too fishy. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36647198)

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.

Re:Wow. WAY too fishy. (1)

xkuehn (2202854) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647314)

(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.

Re:Wow. WAY too fishy. (2)

Nick Ives (317) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647600)

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.

Re:Wow. WAY too fishy. (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647294)

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

The judge didn't postpone the hearing.

Fishy is right, but for Celiga. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36648214)

but, there is nothing to justify the judge [not] postponing the hearing in this situation.

I'm going to guess by the bit about prosecuting the judge for his decision that you meant to say the "not" I included above.

If so, then you're probably just not familiar with the discovery process in US courts. Generally speaking, the discovery process (in which parties to a case are required to turn over certain evidence to the other side to avoid "trial by ambush") is handled entirely between both parties' attorneys with the court getting involved. This is because discovery is a time-consuming process and courts are generally too busy to get involved in every little lawyers' tiff. So, for a court to get involved must mean that one side (i.e. Ceglia's) has been behaving very badly by refusing to do discovery requests. In cases where people refuse to produce documents required for the other side to defend their case, courts are usually harsh once they wade in.

Worse, the fact that his own law firms have resigned at such a time probably means one of three things: (a) firm malpractice for which the client will suffer at first before bringing a later malpractice suit, (b) client misbehavior that risks professional sanctions for his lawyers if they don't drop him like a radioactive hot potato, (c) stalling tactics by the client to beg for more time. Either way, Celiga's case isn't looking too good if he's lost his attorneys and has a judge on top of him for refusing discovery of evidence central to his entire case.

Or.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36647018)

Zuckster the bastard Huckster and his team got to the other teams and paid them off. Happens all the time.

half of facebook users suffer setbacks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36647278)

i would claim this too

Ohhhhh I see.... (1)

poly_pusher (1004145) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647368)

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

Anyone else not get that the first time you read the headline?

Re:Ohhhhh I see.... (1)

dzfoo (772245) | more than 3 years ago | (#36648886)

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.

The end for Facebook. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36647390)

Google+ will end the non-sense.

Either way he's not going to get anything... (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647502)

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 facebook when he clearly would be an exposure threat to any involvement FB has in such manipulations. Manipulations for which people are getting tired of https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=231576206868906&id=123257617694097 [facebook.com]
And for what its worth, if anything at all, Facebook had representation at Bilderberg group this year. Certainly Facebook is not a company to be both invited to such a gathering and also be threatened by what would be considered a punk to those of such a group. Perhaps his lawyers came to realize this.
.

Please learn to write unambiguous headlines (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36647772)

"Man claiming half of facebook suffers setbacks".

I read that as "there is a man who is claiming that half if Facebook is suffering settbacks".

How about "man claims half of facebook, suffers setbacks"?

Facebook's Setbacks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36647888)

Facebook's at a $80,000,000,000 valuation. If half of Facebook is suffering setbacks then Google and Apple are in deep shit.

One thing we're forgetting... (1)

luke923 (778953) | more than 3 years ago | (#36647988)

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.

Only half? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36648774)

I claim that all of facebook is suffering from setbacks.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?