In April 2011, Paul Ceglia brought suit against Facebook for a second time, but this time with bigger and better representation. He says he has solid evidence in the form of emails from Facebook creator, Mark Zuckerberg, and that the emails will show that he that he owns 50% of Facebook. His claim is a 34% decrease from the initial ownership claim he made in his July 2010 lawsuit.
Last week Facebook fired back, staying strong in its stance that Ceglia is an outright fraud. The social media giant says that this time Ceglia didn't just change counsel - he also changed material points in his story and he has inserted "new facts and new legal theories" all of which are phony and fabricated.
Facebook's motion goes to the jugular of Ceglia's credibility and they aren't stopping with the inconsistencies in his timeline. They also cite physical incongruity in the contract saying by its margins, language and terminology show that it is "cut and paste" job. They have hired a linguistics expert who says the contract was written at two different times, and they have consulted a well-known background checking company for record of Ceglia's criminal behavior, which spans more than a decade.
When I first read about Ceglia's (second) lawsuit, I was intrigued. If you've seen "The Social Network" or read about any of other ownership cases connected to Facebook, its not hard to imagine that this scenario might be at least partially true. But reading Facebook's motion really does bring Ceglia's assertions into question. Who do you think is telling the truth - Facebook or Ceglia?
Read more here.