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
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?