by Mike Masnick

Filed Under:
equity, mark zuckerberg, ownership, paul ceglia, scam


Original Contract Used By Paul Ceglia To Claim Facebook Ownership... Doesn't Mention Facebook

from the falling-apart dept

The latest chapter in the bizarre story of Paul Ceglia claiming a right to more than half of Facebook is that Facebook -- who has previously claimed that Ceglia is nothing but a fraud -- says that in the discovery process it found the original contract, and that contract doesn't even mention Facebook. Facebook pretty clearly is suggesting that Ceglia doctored the contract he did have with Mark Zuckerberg, to work on a Ceglia project called StreetFax, and changed it to supposedly cover Facebook. If you look at the two documents side by side you can see clearly that the original was changed. The fact that both have handwriting and both MZ and PC's initials on it show that this is the same document:
Given this evidence, and how this case has gone so far, especially with multiple lawyers dumping Ceglia (including some big names who surprised a lot of people in taking his case originally), it doesn't look like Ceglia has much of a chance here. I'm still a bit mystified that Zuckerberg and Facebook didn't come out more vehemently originally. When the story first came out, Facebook's lawyers simply said they were unsure if the contract was legit. You would think that if he'd never signed any such thing, the denials would have been a lot more upfront. Still, in the end, this case looks dead in the water.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    G Thompson (profile), 17 Aug 2011 @ 12:01am

    Highly suspicious

    From Left side (down bottom under handwriting):

    "The Face Book" shall be Janruary 1 2004.

    Notice how the word Janruary has an extra R in it? Sort of like if someone scrubbed out February

    Also notice the missing comma between 1 and 2004 (on date) whereas the comma is on date above (May 31, 2003)

    the next line has a strange extra space between 'the' and 'business'

    Not to mention the actual costing figures of both contracts are completely different.

    I'd be of a mind to make a professional opinion that one is definitely altered just looking at this photo, especially after noticing that the handwritten notes and sign-off are exactly the same and in same position. Very suspicious

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.