Ceglia v. Zuckerberg et al

Filing 654

OBJECTIONS to REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re (318) MOTION to Dismiss filed by Facebook, Inc., Mark Elliot Zuckerberg, (320) MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Facebook, Inc., Mark Elliot Zuckerberg Objections due fourteen days from receipt.(651 in 1:10-cv-00569-RJA-LGF) filed by Plaintiff Paul D. Ceglia.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Paul D. Ceglia, # 2 Certificate of Service Certificate of Service)Associated Cases: 1:10-cv-00569-RJA-LGF, 1:13-cv-00256-RJA(Argentieri, Paul)

LINITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
PAUL D. CEGLIA,

Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-00569RJA

v.

MARK ELLIOT ZUCKERBERG
FACEBOOK,INC.,

ANd

Defendants.

DECLARATION OF PAUL D. CEGLIA IN OPPOSITION TO REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
I, Paul D. Ceglia, submit this Declaration and hereby declare:

1.

I make this declaration based upon personal knowledge.

2.

I

reaffirm and verify that paragraphs 13 through 58 of the amended complaint

(Doc. 39) are true and corect and happened on or about the dates indicated.

3.

At no time did

Defendant Zuckerberg inform me that he was about to receive

funding from other angel investors and was in the process of meeting with venture capital funds
to provide additional capital.

4.

At no time did Defendant Zuckerberg inform me that he either incorporated or

participated in the incorporation of an entity under the laws of the State of Delaware now known
as Facebook, Inc.

5.

Defendant Ztckerberg misrepresented to me that he was not continuing to work

on further development of The Face Book, further expanding of The Face Book to a larger
audience or cofilmercializing The Face Book for profit.

6.
and July

In fact, Defendant Zuckerberg misled me by telling me the opposite on April

6

22,2444.

7.

I personally wrote the emails attributed to me and received the emails attributed to

Defendant Zuckerberg that were included in the amended complaint and sent or received them
on the dates indicated to the persons indicated in the regular and ordinary course of my business

with Mark Zuckerberg, and the emails are what I claim and purport them to be.

8.

Similarly, the emails included in Document 224

-

1 are what

I claim

and purport

them to be.

9.

ln the record, I proved that Defendant Zuckerberg deleted numerous emails that

would have confirmed the authenticity of the emails I submitted to the court. The clear and
convincing proof was included

in Documents 199, 397 and 623. The magistrate failed to

acknowledge that these emails were deleted.

10.

In November 2011,

I

discovered that original computers and forensic copies

of

Defendant Zuckerberg's computers from the 2003 and 20A4 time periods had been retained in

prior litigations. Copies of the emails that

I

received from Mark Zuckerberg that were not

retained by Harvard were clearly contained on these computers.

My request for discovery

on

these computers was denied and the magistrate failed to examine them himself.

11.

The Work for Hire agreement between me and Mark Zuckerberg is the authentic

unaltered conffact goveming our relationship. My world renowned experts have performed
scientific forensic analysis that proves its authenticity.

12.

Defendant Zuckerberg was given one of the two original copies of the Work for

Hire agreement. He has not produced his copy.

13.

I did not before or after the lawsuit began ever forge, alter or'obake" the Work for

Hire agreement between myself and Mark Zuckerberg.

14. I

voluntarily underwent and passed

determine whether

a polygraph examination designed

to

I had fraudulently forged or doctored the Work for Hire agreement, the

results of which affirm the truthfulness of this declaration and are contained in the declaration

of

Michael Pliszka, Doc. 63.

15.

Neither

I nor Mark Zuckerberg have

ever authenticated the so called StreetFax

images as representations of an authentic contract between me and

him. The magistrate

erred

when he authenticated the StreetFax images as evidence without either signer ever attesting to its
authenticity.

16.

Other than some self selected emails, Defendant Zuckerberg has proffered no

documentation whatsoever of the business relationship he admits we entered into on

April

28,

2003. He has offered no contract to the contrary.

17. I

produced multiple checks that were deposited

personal checking account that a.)

verif,

in

Defendant Zuckerberg's

consideration for the Work for Hire contract and b.)

support the authenticity of the emails.

18.

The StreetFax images do not represent the agreement between Mark Zuckerberg

and me.

19. I did not destroy any USB devices that were ever in my possession,

custody or

control and I never deleted any electronic files or emails that were relevant to the lawsuit.

20.

The magistrate failed to review the proof

Defendants' experts spoliated the Work for Hire contract.

I

provided

in Doc. 189 that

the

21.

Discovery was intentionally denied by the magistrate that

business relationship documented

will

corroborate the

in the Work for Hire agreement, including but not limited to

the Facebook parbrership. This discovery includes, a.) comparing the original Facebook code to
the StreetFax code; b.) reviewing Defendant Zuckerberg's computers and the forensic copies

of

those computers maintained from prior litigations; c.) prior sworn statements and declarations
submitted to the court in prior litigation between Defendant Zuckerberg (and/or Facebook) and
ConnectU and Eduardo Saverin that are currently sealed by the court; and d.) the deposition

of

Defendant Ztckerberg.

22.

The magistrate failed to understand the events precedent to March 3, 2004 when

he said "The idea that Zuckerberg, in March 2A04, anticipated being sued six years later by
Plaintiff in connection with Zuckerberg's creation of Facebook, such
steps

to

Plaintiff

sabotage any such prospective legal action

*nt

Zuckerberg then took

by planting the StreetFax Document in

s computer, is beyond absurd."

23.

I presented the magistrate with

an uncontested email from Defendant Zuckerberg

on February 28, 2004, wherein he threatened and subsequently, in fact, hacked into my
StreetFax.com website. Doc. 623-1.

24. In response to Defendant

Zuckerberg's threats, Karin Petersen

(a

StreetFax

employee) informed Defendant Zuckerberg by uncontested email date February 28, 2004, such
email was preserued by Harvard, that his actions would constitute a felony.

25.

On March

l,

2004, Karin Petersen emailed our corporate counsel James Kole

about the hacking incident to take legal action. Doc. 623-1. The email account used to send
such email was administered by DefendantZuckerberg.

26.

Defendant Zuckerberg has a documented history of hacking into private email

accounts, previously hacking into the email accounts

of reporters at the Harvard

(http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-03-05ltecU29973321

newspaper.

1_tyler-winklevoss-thefacebook-

com-cameron-winklevoss) Doc. 1 99.

27.

Defendant Zuckerberg had both access and control over the email server used to

send the March 1,2004 email, without any need to hack into it to review

28.

Karin's email.

Subsequent emails described in detail the legal actions that were being considered

against Defendant Zuckerberg for hacking into the StreetFax website and threatening

to

take

down the entire website.

29.

The magistrate failed to understand or consider the hacking that occurred four

days prior and the then current legal disputes as being relevant when he described my claims

of

Defendant Zuckerberg's hacking as being "beyond absurd".

30.

The magistrate in his report and Recommendation states that at my bail hearing

I

admitted that the computer containing the degraded StreetFax images was mine. This is not
accurate and my words were bent completely out of context.

I was under great duress listening

to the prosecution make up lies to attempt to keep me in prison without bail and I was attempting

to quote what they had stated earlier in the hearing. This is why my sentence began with "the so

called". I believe this makes it clear that these were not intended to be my words. I believe the
Court could easily resolve this by retaining it's own expert to determine once and for all that the
computer is my parents.

I hereby certify and declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and accurate.

DATED: April 15,2013