

Ceglia: Facebook planted a fake contract on my computer - narad
http://www.wellsvilledaily.com/news/x1852619595/Ceglia-Facebook-planted-a-fake-contract-on-my-computer

======
dctoedt
My guess is that this case is going to boil down to how the evidence gets
authenticated in court.

1\. Before trial, Ceglia's lawyer might file what's called a motion _in
limine_ (meaning "at the threshhold"). The motion would be a request that the
judge exclude the alleged smoking-gun contract document---which I'll call the
SGC document---from being introduced into evidence at trial, that is, from
being given to the jury or discussed in front of the jury.

The motion likely would argue that there had been no evidentiary showing that
the SGC document was what Facebook claimed it was. Ceglia's attorney would
almost certainly want to put on _evidence_ \---assuming he has any---that
Facebook's attorneys planted the SGC document, as Ceglia claims. That's
because the judge will almost surely dismiss Ceglia's claim about evidence-
planting as being mere speculation, unless someone having first-hand knowledge
were to testify to that effect, or unless there's documentary evidence to that
effect. (And such documentary evidence would itself have to be authenticated;
it's almost a recursion problem.)

2\. Whether or not Ceglia's lawyer put on evidence that the SGC document was
planted, it would then be up to Facebook's attorneys to offer evidence
supporting the proposition that yes, the SGC document is indeed what Facebook
claims it is. They likely would do this through testimony about how they came
to be in possession of the SGC document; this likely would include testimony
from whoever examined the computer(s) where the SGC document was found.

Such evidence of authenticity wouldn't have to be iron-clad; it would only
need to be enough that reasonable minds _could_ agree with Facebook on that
point.

3\. The judge likely would rule before trial on Ceglia's motion _in limine_ ,
that is on whether the jury would be allowed to see the SGC document.

If memory serves, such evidentiary rulings by a trial judge are usually
reviewed by appellate courts under a very lenient standard, namely "abuse of
discretion." The theory is that trial judges have to be given some leeway to
manage their cases.

I can easily imagine that the judge might punt: Instead of ruling on
admissibility, the judge might have the jury decide whether the SGC document
was authentic.

3\. Depending on what Ceglia said under oath in court (in a sworn affidavit or
in testimony), he might be in danger of perjury charges.

------
s1rech
geez, Am I the only one that thought that this guy made an ass of himself with
this "interview"?

~~~
craigmc
as long as others don't start aping him, I am sure that this particular monkey
will swing off into the sunset soon enough...

"on like Donkey Kong".... FFS.

------
Slimy
Original article (posted yesterday):
[http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/exclusive-paul-ceglia-
say...](http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/exclusive-paul-ceglia-says-
facebook-is-doing-the-forgery/2707)

