Ceglia v. Zuckerberg et al
DECLARATION signed by Dean Boland re 348 Order on Motion to Stay, Scheduling Conference, Oral Argument,,,,,,,,,,,, filed by Dean Boland Summary of Plaintiff's Expert Reports. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Boland, Dean)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
PAUL D. CEGLIA,
Civil Action No. : 1:10-cv-00569-RJA
AND EXPERT REPORT
SUMMARY OF DEAN BOLAND
MARK ELLIOT ZUCKERBERG, Individually, and
DECLARANT, submits this declaration and hereby declares under penalty of
perjury and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746 and under the laws of the United States
that the following is true and correct:
I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Ohio and admitted to
practice before this Court. I make this declaration based upon personal
knowledge and to provide the Court with a brief summary of Plaintiff’s expert
reports filed today.
This declaration first provides the Court, as a convenience, with a summary of
the Plaintiff’s experts’ reports. These reports include the following:
Report of James Blanco (Forensic Document Examiner, Handwriting
Report of Larry Stewart (Forensic Document Examiner, Ink Analysis
Report of Walter Rantanen (Paper expert).
Report of Neil Broom (Computer Forensics Analyst).
Report of Jerry Grant (Computer Forensics Analyst).
Authenticity of the Facebook Contract
In James Blanco and Larry Stewart’s expert reports, they completely refute
every claim of fraud about the authenticity of the Facebook contract made
in the Motion to Dismiss and accompanying defense expert reports.
The results of the expert testing of James Blanco, Larry Stewart and
Walter Rantanen each show that the Facebook Contract is authentic.
Plaintiff can now demonstrate the following:
Mark Zuckerberg signed page two of the Facebook Contract.
evidence is undisputed by Defendants’ experts).
Mark Zuckerberg wrote his initials on page one of the Facebook
Contract. (This evidence is undisputed by Defendants’ experts).
The toner on page 1 of the Facebook Contract is the same as the toner
on page 2.
The ink from the initials of the interlineation on page 1 is the same as
the ink from the signatures on page 2.
The paper comprising page one and page two of the Facebook Contract
originated from the same paper mill and same production run from that
paper mill. (This evidence is undisputed by Defendants’ experts).
The handwritten interlineation on page 1 made indentations on page 2
proving the two pages were together when Mark Zuckerberg initialed
page one and signed page two.
(This evidence is undisputed by
vii. The indentations on page two of the Facebook Contract do not and
cannot match the claimed interlineations in the blurry page one of the
Street Fax document.
(This evidence is undisputed by Defendants’
viii. The existence of the authentic paper Facebook Contract proves that the
so-called “smoking gun” digital image document is a fraud.
Detailed analysis of the staple holes proves that no pages have been
substituted in the Facebook Contract and that the two pages were
together when signed and initialed by Mark Zuckerberg.
Plaintiff’s computer forensics experts Neil Broom and Jerry Grant agree
that the evidence presented does not support the Defendant’s experts’
conclusions of fraud.
Broom’s expert report proves by simple math that the unauthenticated
digital image that Defendants allege is the StreetFax contract and a
“smoking gun” in the case never existed as a paper document.
Broom’s expert report proves the Street Fax document is inconsistent with
it being a scan of an original document.
The Seagate computer, which was never owned or operated by the Plaintiff,
where the unauthenticated digital image of the alleged StreetFax contract
was found, was infected with malware, viruses, trojans, and most
disturbingly a rootkit.
Rootkits are used by hackers to allow repeated,
unregulated, undetected full access to a compromised system via a backdoor
that could be used to falsify documents, change settings, alter dates and
take full control of a computer without the knowledge of its owner.
Plaintiff’s experts discredited Defendant’s expert Stroz Friedberg for
relying heavily on metadata timestamps as the basis for many of their
fraud allegations, even though Microsoft generally discredits their
reliability and Stroz Friedberg themselves have published opinions stating
the very same conclusion of unreliability.
The Defendant’s experts remained willfully blind to the mountain of
evidence that supports the authenticity of the digital evidence while
pointing out those needles in a haystack anomalies that the Plaintiff’s
experts have now shown are not conclusive proof of fraud, but rather
explainable by ordinary computer operations.
It is now objectively, scientifically and indisputably the case that dueling
experts reside on both sides of every defense Defendants’ have mounted.
This indisputable fact eliminates the legal basis upon which one sided
expedited discovery was granted.
The court’s concern about “the proverbial marching up the mountain only to
have to march down again” (June 30, 2011 Hearing, page 35) has now been
The overwhelming objective, indisputable evidence now proves that
Defendant’s counsel Orin Snyder was wrong when he stated, “I don’t regard
there to be dueling experts in this case” (June 30, 2011 Hearing, page 38).
Defendants cannot meet the high standard of clear and convincing evidence
in the midst of dueling experts on every issue in the case.
Not only do the Plaintiff’s expert reports refute every allegation of fraud
presented by the Defendants, they present undisputed evidence proving the
authenticity of the Facebook Contract and the fraudulent nature of the
StreetFax document despite the lack of full discovery to this point.
I hereby declare under penalty of perjury and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746 and
under the laws of the United States that the following is true and correct:
DATED: June 4, 2012.
/s/ Dean Boland
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?