
Aaron Greenspan sues Facebook, Sequoia, Andreesen, YC, others - pbreit
http://www.scribd.com/doc/139975904/20130506-complaint
======
grellas
The key to understanding this lawsuit lies in a technical point having nothing
to do with the merits of the claims and which appears at pages 35 through 37
of the complaint.

In that section, the plaintiff, Think Computer Corporation, "respectfully
requests that Civil Local Rule 3-9(b) be retired, or that Plaintiff be
exempted from the Rule given its particular ownership [i.e., owned 100% by one
individual] and tax structure [i.e., status as a Sub S corporation]."

The Civil Local Rules are the rules used by the federal court in the Northern
District of California to regulate its proceedings procedurally, specifying
who needs to do what in connection with the filing and prosecution of lawsuits
in this court. These rules have the force of law and litigants who ignore them
do so at their peril.

Rule 3-9(b), which the plaintiff asks be "retired," states that a "corporation
. . . or other such entity may appear only through a member of the bar of this
Court."

In other words, a corporation cannot represent itself in a lawsuit of this
type and Think Computer Corporation has filed this action without an attorney
representing it while purporting to represent itself in obvious violation of
this rule.

A few comments about what I think this signifies:

1\. The plaintiff's principal is a spirited individual who has very definite
ideas about the money transmission laws and who feels highly aggrieved by the
impact that California's 2010 law has had on his company.

2\. Those ideas about these laws are, in my view, quirky ones that take
significant liberties in interpreting how laws work. In other words, without
detailing particulars, I believe that Mr. Greenspan's views of these laws will
likely not hold up when tested formally in a court of law.

3\. Point 2 above, coupled with the complaint's wild swinging out at multiple
parties on dubious theories of liability, is the most probable explanation of
why there is no lawyer representing the plaintiff in this action.

4\. To sue investors basically for having chosen to fund high-profile startups
that the plaintiff deems "unlicensed money service businesses" is flaky and
will never hold up. If the action is not bounced for violation of Rule 3-9(b),
it will be out the gate as to these defendants on grounds that it does not
state a cognizable claim for legal relief.

5\. To sue the startups themselves for allegedly providing unlicensed money
services is also quite dubious. The money transmitter laws are basically laws
that give state governments the authority to require that bonds be provided,
that minimum capitalization requirements be met, and that other precautions
taken, to ensure that whoever handles escrowed monies takes prudent steps to
protect those whose funds are entrusted to them. If these laws are violated,
the state authorities have the power to take legal actions to enforce them.
Nowhere is there any express private right of action that gives any private
citizen the right to file suit complaining about alleged violations of these
laws. Therefore, it is a stretch for any private party such as Think Computer
to seek damages, injunctive relief, or any other form of legal remedy owing to
alleged violations of the money transmitter laws.

6\. There are conceivably some legal remedies that might work if the facts
support them, one of them being for false advertising claims under the Lanham
Act (which is one of the claims asserted here). One competitor can indeed sue
another competitor for private damages and other relief if the other
competitor is gaining an unfair competitive advantage by falsely advertising
that its products or services do something that is material to the customer's
decision to use that product or service. Here, the result would turn on the
ability to show that the parties sued are in fact engaged in false or
deceptive advertising. Even here, however, the case is likely sketchy, in my
view, from a quick review of the allegations made.

All in all, this is a most unusual case filed by an unrepresented party that
cannot legally represent itself in the forum chosen and resting on legal
theories that are a real stretch in most cases. I believe Mr. Greenspan is
both sincere and passionate about what he believes but what he asserts is
really a case to be made to the legislative policy-makers, not to the courts.
There may indeed be incredible unfairness in the way in which these laws are
framed and applied. But that does _not_ mean a private party should be able to
indiscriminately sue anyone around who happens to be offering services that
involve some form of money handling, or their investors, for the results of
the existing system. That in itself in not only a stretch but an abuse. Wrong
parties, wrong framing. The action should therefore be dismissed forthwith by
the plaintiff as having been ill-considered. If it is not, it will be
dismissed by the court in fairly short order.

~~~
greatreorx
> Nowhere is there any express private right of action that gives any private
> citizen the right to file suit complaining about alleged violations of these
> laws.

I thought California 17200 allows for private citizens to sue on behalf of the
general public and that no actual injury against the plaintiff is required. Is
there something different about this case?

(below quote and link for other HN readers, I'm sure grellas is familiar.)

"Thus the statutory language allowing actions to be brought "by any person
acting for the interests of itself, its members or the general public"
effectively deputizes the world to find and bring environmental violators to
the bar of justice."

<http://www.envirolaw.org/Library/17200tools.html>

~~~
tzs
The page you link to at envirolaw.org is out of date by almost a decade. It is
discussing the law as it was before Proposition 64. Proposition 64, which
passed in 2004, among other things changed the part of section 17204 which
said "any person acting for the interests of itself, its members or the
general public" to "a person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost
money or property as a result of the unfair competition".

------
ISL
Perhaps I'm new here, but any chance the title might get 's/Greenspan/Aaron
Greenspan/'? I got real confused as to why Alan Greenspan might be suing tech
companies...

~~~
eridius
Unfortunately this change didn't help. I thought it said "Alan Greenspan"
until I started reading the lawsuit, saw "Think Corp", and went back to re-
read the HN headline.

I agree with pedalpete, the headline really should just say "Think Corp".

~~~
mpyne
That would have helped me out a bit... I have no effin' clue who Aaron
Greenspan is. Well, except that now I know he's the guy who is suing YC and a
bunch of others.

~~~
mbreese
He's been making the same rants in the comments here for a long time... and he
hasn't found many sympathetic to his cause. I can't imagine suing YC
(frivolously) will gain many friends.

His username is thinkcomp.

<https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=thinkcomp>

------
EarthLaunch
Since title changes are being done anyway, this one should be changed to
"Aaron Greenspan". There's only one famous Greenspan, and it's not this one.

~~~
buro9
My first thought was why Alan Greenspan would do this and what his incentive
would be.

------
Jd
Even though I'm not a huge Greenspan fan (are there any?), I find this money
transmitter stuff incredibly fascinating. I haven't reviewed the relevant
legal code, but I strongly suspect that Greenspan is right in that:

(1) there are lots of little annoying laws related to money transmitters that
makes it very difficult to get new payment stuff off the ground

(2) If you have deep pockets and good lawyers you can pretty much ignore these
laws

I strongly suspect that the correct solution is to change the laws, but that
this is also an even greater pain in the ass than protecting yourself with
highly paid lawyers, esp. since relevant laws vary significantly from state to
state. What exactly Greenspan is attempting to prove here is beyond me, but
I'm still quite curious as to the results.

~~~
igravious
Ahh, is this why all these tech giants use a non-money credit system for their
stores and networks: Sony, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon(?), ... there must be many
more.

~~~
georgeecollins
The reason why companies use points instead of $ is: 1) Easy to keep the price
consistent world wide 2) There is a casino chip theory that you spend more
money when it is abstracted. People spend more when they use their credit
cards as opposed to cash, etc. 3) You can sell point cards at retailers to the
unbanked. In the Xbox case this is important because a lot of your audience is
kids.

~~~
bobsoap
2) is on the spot. As soon as you introduce an abstract that is one step
removed from money, people are more willing to gamble with that abstract. This
is true for everything from credits to casino chips and from stock/shares to
options and derivatives. Also, the word "willing", in this context, is
actually an intended pun, since this happens on a subconscious level.

There is a lot of literature on the topic; some pieces even establish a tie
between that notion and the most recent banking crises and scandals. For
example, stock options are not just one step removed from currency, but at
least two or more.

Interesting stuff indeed.

~~~
caf
I suspect that even applies to foreign hard currency that you're not familiar
with.

------
apaprocki
[http://ia801700.us.archive.org/20/items/gov.uscourts.cand.26...](http://ia801700.us.archive.org/20/items/gov.uscourts.cand.265908/gov.uscourts.cand.265908.docket.html)

"2013-05-08 Order to Show Cause ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE.

If, by 5/22/2013, an attorney qualified to practice in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California does not appear in this
action to represent Plaintiff, the court will dismiss the action without
prejudice. No hearing will be held on the order to show cause unless otherwise
ordered by the court. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 5/8/2013. (ejdlc1,
COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/8/2013) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/8/2013:
# (1) Certificate of Service) (ecg, COURT STAFF)."

~~~
dangrossman
He has to hire a lawyer or the case won't move forward, because you can't
represent yourself when filing as a corporation. We'll find out within 14 days
if Greenspan actually intended to take this case to court, or if it's just
about the awareness/PR it creates.

~~~
X-Istence
He asked the court to waive that requirement ...

~~~
dangrossman
What you're reading above my comment is the response to that request. He has
until the 22nd to retain a qualified attorney or the case will be dismissed.

------
soup10
lol

78\. Defendant Yishan Wong, in response to an article authored by Plaintiff on
the website Quora, wrote the following comments (among others) indicating his
knowledge of payments-related laws and regulations on June 15, 2011:

“Yeah, I am constantly amazed at how people haven’t yet learned that the
paymentsindustry is really hard to get into. It was okay for first-wave
companies like PayPal to besurprised by it, but anyone who does their due
diligence before starting a paymentsstartup should know everyone – literally
everyone, including regulators and thegovernment – is going to be working
against you. If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen and go start a
photosharing startup.”

“Payment startups face a far more adversarial environment, including utter and
totalhostility. It was okay for PayPal to whine about this (though they
didn’t), because itwasn't known. But now it’s known. If you run a payments
startup, you are fightingagainst thugs, actual criminals – both real ones and
government ones. It is not normalbusiness. It is like trying to start a
business in an actual warzone. Complaining aboutthis is just whining. There is
no actual solution than to win. Anything else is, in fact, justwhining.”

Presumably with the hope of “winning,” Defendant Wong proceeded to invest his
own personalfunds in Unlicensed MSB Defendant Balanced (part of a $3.4 million
seed financing round)

~~~
wisty
Trying to create political pressure against these "thugs" isn't necessarily a
bad move. Let's say you want to start a company which bypasses Taxi
medallions. It's in your interest to create a PR storm over the unfairness of
the medallion system. It's _not_ OK to be surprised when the entrenched powers
try to bite you (though it may not hurt to _act_ surprised). Of course, if you
don't have the stomach for it, you shouldn't be getting into the space.

------
jluxenberg
Some context:

(1) Think Computer Corporation built FaceCash (<https://www.facecash.com/>) a
mobile payment solution

(2) Aaron Greenspan is Think's President and CEO

Maybe he's trying to get these companies to lobby against "money transmitter"
regulation.

~~~
Moto7451
Some additional context about past litigation:

[http://abovethelaw.com/2012/06/facebook-litigation-
continues...](http://abovethelaw.com/2012/06/facebook-litigation-continues-a-
closer-look-at-aaron-greenspan/#more-167565)

~~~
prostoalex
For fuller context don't forget Aaron Greenspan vs Google, Inc.
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-greenspan/why-i-sued-
goo...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-greenspan/why-i-sued-google-and-
won_b_172403.html)

------
debergalis
I'm one of the parties to this: I founded ActBlue back in Cambridge before
coming to SF and building Meteor.

The funny thing is it came to my house yesterday as a single cover sheet plus
a CD-ROM full of files, and I literally don't have a way to read a CD-ROM
anymore.

~~~
gridscomputing
If you don't have a way to read a CD-ROM, how do you know that it is "full of
files"? Couldn't it be an audio CD?

~~~
dangrossman
Probably from the cover sheet attached to the CD. It's a safe assumption he
hasn't been served with a mix tape.

~~~
natrius
It could be a DVD of _You Got Served_.

~~~
MWil
or if he was feeling really generous the entire Burn Notice series

------
nostromo
There is something to be said about how in the US it's often best not to
contact regulators at all, and to simply fly under the radar for as long as
possible.

That said, this guy is seriously toxic. Just by responding to his emails in a
friendly manner can get you named in a lawsuit... and to blame competitors
instead of regulators... Seems like someone to be avoided at all costs.

~~~
ricardobeat
Bear in mind this guy has spent a fortune and has been severely screwed over
by regulators, while dozens of startups operate in the clear with similar
services. He could probably get over the hurdles with funding, but who's going
to put his feet into this mess? I'd be freaking out too.

Makes me wonder, if had he operated under the radar for a while, and gradually
complied with newly imposed regulations, things would be ok. Even if he got a
massive fine, that'd be good publicity, and he must be spending a ton on
lawyers anyway.

~~~
nemothekid
Apparently that was first avenue of action. He says here :
<https://www.facecash.com/legal/brown.html>

that he applied, but they required his company to raise 80 million dollars
before he could pay $5,000 fee.

Strangely enough however, he also claims to have built facebook (although the
language keeps it vague enough that you aren't aware of his contribution)

~~~
ricardobeat
Not strange at all. See
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook#Aaron_Gre...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook#Aaron_Greenspan_and_houseSYSTEM)

For some perspective, Stripe has only raised $40M to date.

------
rdl
Somehow I suspect suing everyone, including those who would otherwise be your
friends/allies, isn't in the Dale Carnegie book...

~~~
Alex3917
To be fair, you'd be surprised by some of the stuff that's in the original
version.

------
yabbadabbadoo
Reason for including YC in this nonsense:

 _The YCFunds share common management and are venture capital funds invested
in a number of unlicensed money transmitters._

Can that really hold up? Can an investor be held liable for the decisions of a
company they invested in? By that logic, what's to stop someone from suing
Facebook shareholders?

~~~
wmf
The whole reason for this mess is that VCs refused to invest in his "legal"
startup (didn't want to waste money on compliance costs?) and invested in a
bunch of "illegal" competing companies instead.

------
jstalin
California's money transmission business statute is quite broad:

2030\. (a) A person shall not engage in the business of money transmission in
this state, or advertise, solicit, or hold itself out as providing money
transmission in this state, unless the person is licensed or exempt from
licensure under this division or is an agent of a person licensed or exempt
from licensure under this division.

. . .

(m) "Monetary value" means a medium of exchange, whether or not redeemable in
money.

(n) "Money" means a medium of exchange that is authorized or adopted by the
United States or a foreign government. The term includes a monetary unit of
account established by an intergovernmental organization or by agreement
between two or more governments.

(o) "Money transmission" means any of the following: (1) Selling or issuing
payment instruments. (2) Selling or issuing stored value. (3) Receiving money
for transmission.

. . .

(v) "Stored value" means monetary value representing a claim against the
issuer that is stored on an electronic or digital medium and evidenced by an
electronic or digital record, and that is intended and accepted for use as a
means of redemption for money or monetary value or payment for goods or
services. The term does not include a credit card voucher, letter of credit,
or any stored value that is only redeemable by the issuer for goods or
services provided by the issuer or its affiliate, except to the extent
required by applicable law to be redeemable in cash for its cash value.

\-------

This appears broad enough to include Facebook Credits, bitcoins, etc.

------
staunch
houseSYSTEM failed -> Sue Facebook

FaceCash failed -> Sue Facebook + everyone

Aaron got rich by filing a frivolous lawsuit against Zuck, might as well try
it again, huh? This time with even more victims.

Building successful companies is hard, let's go lawyering.

~~~
yekko
Why not, it seem to be a great business model, that's what America is all
about lately.

~~~
staunch
Not in the world of startups it's not.

~~~
yekko
As long as there can be great exits, the VC will fund it.

------
kevingadd
It seems strange to file one suit against a ton of defendants, making it more
likely that they will pool resources for defense. Or is that not possible in
this context because of the nature of the complaint?

~~~
dangrossman
I don't think Greenspan actually cares about winning anything. This is about
making everyone play by the same rules -- bringing attention to the fact that
California makes it near-impossible for a startup to get licensed as an MTA,
essentially shut down his company for trying to get licensed, while all these
other startups just ignore the problem and operate illegally.

------
shaddyz
Can someone please translate this lawsuit into common language. It looks
pretty interesting, but I'm not familiar with the laws on money transmission.
Thanks!

~~~
RyJones
This group of people knowingly broke the law and profited from it. I chose to
obey the law and forgo profits. I would like some profits, hopefully conveyed
by legal means, to make me whole.

------
rdl
I wonder if HN user thinkcomp (i.e. Aaron Greenspan) is willing/able to
comment here. It would be interesting to know his motivations for doing this.

~~~
SurfScore
Probably legal reasons why he won't. Most companies make it a policy not to
comment on ongoing litigation. Usually nothing good comes of it. Although
there are exceptions...

~~~
darkarmani
> Most companies make it a policy not to comment on ongoing litigation.
> Usually nothing good comes of it. Although there are exceptions...

This might be the only case where the only good that could possibly come of it
would be to comment.

------
tzs
I'd give my initial opinion based on a first light reading of the complaint,
but I'm afraid Greenspan might find a way to construe that as money
transmission and add me to the suit.

------
Atropos
Pretty weird. On the one hand, there clearly went some effort into this. On
the other hand, they are not represented by counsel (p.36), which makes the
likelihood of the case being thrown out for procedural reasons regardless of
the merits around 99%. All in all I'm leaning more towards publicity stunt...

------
rantee
Like others predict, I think this will get booted because of lack of standing.
Interesting that Greenspan makes the broad First Amendment argument about
being able to represent his corporation as legal counsel based on political
speech rights found in Citizens United.. but that case is not on point and
won't help here. The court is unlikely to explain why and probably will
dismiss it for reasons Grellas notes in the first comment too. The complaint
isn't as long as it looks for non-lawyers - just skim over the parts where he
lists all the defendants. After page 37 it's just copies of the laws,
regulations and screenshots.

Assuming he hired a lawyer to file his other case claiming arbitrary
enforcement of the CA law against his company (discussed in paragraph 4 of the
complaint linked to above), that one seems much more likely to go somewhere
although relief at this point is pretty unclear.

Also the first time I've noticed someone use "pivot" in the Lean Startup sense
in a legal complaint (fn. 3).

------
gojomo
On page 35, in order to represent his own company as a non-lawyer, Greenspan
appeals for an exception to the rule that his corporation, as the plaintiff,
must retain legal counsel. He bases this request on (among other reasoning)
the _Citizens United_ decision.

Like Greenspan, IANAL, but I suspect his complaint will die quickly on that
basis alone.

~~~
apaprocki
The court replied on 5/8 that he has until 5/22 to retain qualified counsel or
it will be dismissed without prejudice.

------
jarrett
Did anyone read the part where he explains that he is not being represented by
a lawyer? ("REQUEST FOR CIVIL LOCAL RULE 3-9(b) EXEMPTION AND RETIREMENT.")
That seems a very unusual decision indeed. Does anyone have any idea why he
would do it that way? Is it probably a money issue?

~~~
wpietri
Funny! After reading the first few pages, I said, "What lawyer is willing to
put his name on this garbage?" and paged around in the document. Only to find
no lawyer's name at the bottom, just his own. And now you confirm it.

Is there some way that this isn't idiotic? I have seen a federal judge in
full-on "this case is a waste of my time" mode, and it is fearsome. I would
never file a document with a federal court without having a very experienced
lawyer involved.

Of course, I _also_ wouldn't step to all of those rich and powerful people
without a clear and sensible plan of action. If Greenspan has one, I can't
extract it from this document. Is he a total loon?

~~~
pjg
Have you looked at Aaron Greenspan's legal credentials ? He is (or atleast
claims) a fellow of Stanford Law School. Has build a site for searching legal
articles and in general spent considerable time researching this issue

~~~
wmf
But real lawyers know not to represent themselves. It's too easy to get
emotionally wrapped up in the case and lose perspective.

~~~
hedgie
a friend dated someone who was a new lawyer and tried representing him/herself
in a divorce. after crying on the stand it did not end well.

------
gsibble
Well, that's one way to get blacklisted by everyone in SV.

------
stevenwei
It seems really odd to me that AirBnb is being included in this list.

    
    
        57. Defendant Airbnb, Inc. allows its customers to rent the homes of other
        customers for varying durations, in lieu of a hotel. To process each 
        transaction it holds onto the customer’s funds, and remits those funds
        to the property owner at the conclusion of the stay, minus its fee.
    

Well, okay, but wouldn't this apply to every company that acts as a
marketplace between buyers and sellers?

Is the point of this to show the absurdity of the scope of the Money
Transmission Act?

~~~
dangrossman
In most marketplaces, the buyer pays the seller. In this marketplace, the
buyer pays the marketplace and the marketplace pays the seller. Any business
that engages in the transfer of funds between people is a money transmitter
and needs a license. Escrow service has always been regulated.

------
stfu
Probably should add the first name to the title. That family name is usually
associated with somebody else...

~~~
ryanhuff
Yes. For some reason, I assumed it was Alan Greenspan.

------
bzalasky
Does this have anything to do with this patent (listing Greenspan as the
inventor), which has a publication date of March this year?
<http://www.google.com/patents/US8396808>

------
sjg007
It is better to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission. It is easier
to get a money transmitters license after you IPO than before. Taxi
medallions, asinine sublet and renter laws are all examples of this. Legal
gray areas make great businesses. The CA law he references was sponsored by
the big financial companies to favor protectionism and so if enforced will
raise hell and probably be overturned by the Feds and currency/interstate
commerce laws.

------
wmf
"Fake it till you make it" as unfair competition? Interesting theory, but it
seems like it would cause a lot of damage in the startup world.

~~~
jacoblyles
The law would do a lot of damage to the startup world if it were enforced as
written.

------
masonhensley
I don't have time to read much of the lawsuit, but is Think Computer suing for
some sort of injunction to require all the companies listed to use Face Cash
as only it has a California Money Transfer Act license?

And for those double taking at the name, Aaron Greenspan is the CEO of Think
Computer.

<http://www.thinkcomputer.com/>

~~~
kevingadd
From reading the complaint, it seems more likely that the expected result here
is something like:

* State is forced to fairly enforce the rules that caused Think Computer so much trouble (re money transmitter regulations)

* Fairly enforcing the rules causes incredible amounts of grief & overhead for companies large enough to comply, and drives smaller companies out of business

* The grief drives those larger companies (and investors into the smaller companies) to push for these laws to actually get fixed

I could see there also being an interest here in having investors be penalized
for knowingly investing in companies that were violating the law (having a
board seat seems like it would give you enough access to realize that a
portfolio company is a money transmitter and be able to ask them whether
they're licensed).

~~~
hollerith
>The grief drives those larger companies (and investors into the smaller
companies) to push for these laws to actually get fixed

Huh? The law just got rid of many of their competitors, and they're going to
push to change the law?

------
rdl
I wonder if the smaller companies named in that should just do the absolute
minimum and free ride on the HNW and big company/funds who will fight this
without being hurt as much by the legal expenses. I know Coinbase raised $5mm,
but they shouldn't burn even $250k on this suit. All the individuals are
pretty high net worth, at least.

------
teej
Interestingly enough, Stripe and WePay are not named while Balanced and Square
are. Can anyone comment on why?

~~~
zackzackzack
1\. They might actually know what they are doing or 2. they aren't doing
payments of the sort that needs this sort of license.

~~~
count
Stripe is backed by Wells-Fargo, aren't they?

~~~
pjg
Stripe uses Wells Fargo as an underwriter for the Merchants it on-boards.
Wells Fargo did not invest in their earliest rounds but may take an equity
stake in later/future rounds.

------
tomrod
Who is Aaron Greenspan?

------
larrys
On the list USV, a dwolla investor is missing.

------
bitteralmond
This doesn't seem as much like an actual attempt to gain compensation as it
does to simply get a law changed.

~~~
mdlevinson
I believe you're absolutely correct. It seems rather obvious that he has no
standing here, and was not injured by the defendants' actions. But he is
extremely knowledgable about these regulations and has a very valid set of
complaints regarding the lack of clarity of the law and the lack of
predictability in how it is enforced.

------
saltyknuckles
Well all of those companies are welcome to come move to Miami. Lots of office
buildings and land for sale.

------
gnuvince
Who?

------
michaelochurch
I can't speak on the legal merits of the case, but this does seem like a
direct hit (that, it sounds like, won't work) on VC-istan.

They should start giving him EIR offers. He's earned it several times over.
That might be the best way to make everyone happy.

~~~
kkowalczyk
He earned what "several times over"?

What logic compels you to conclude that if you get viciously and frivolously
sued by someone and publicly badmouthed by him (on his weblog) you should give
him a lucrative and prestigious employment (i.e. the Entrepreneur In
Residence)?

Do you think a sane SV VC should employ a toxic person that publicly calls
Zuckerberg a psychopat?

So far he filed a bunch of frivolous lawsuits against anyone who came into
contact with him and looked at him funny. He always represents himself, so
there's no cost for him but it hurts the defendants because they have to hire
and pay for real lawyers.

His previous lawsuit has been dismissed by the judge
<http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/case.html?id=716057>

His other lawsuit (<http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/case.html?id=716056>)
is in shambles on procedural grounds because his California lawyer wants to
withdraw from the case which would leave Greenspan as the only lawyer and,
just like in this case, he sues on behalf of his company and a company can't
represent itself, so his has to have an outside counsel to proceed.

~~~
michaelochurch
_What logic compels you to conclude that if you get viciously and frivolously
sued by someone and publicly badmouthed by him (on his weblog) you should give
him a lucrative and prestigious employment (i.e. the Entrepreneur In
Residence)?_

Let's start with the fact that his startup (lawsuit) actually does more good
for society than 95% of these VC-istan social media companies (that are just
excuses to waste young peoples' careers). If nothing else, he's drawing
attention to the "we'll fund your competitors if you don't play our way"
aspect of VC-istan, pointing out the problems with a law, and one could argue
that he's (indirectly) shining light on the VC-istan collusion problem.

I'm not saying that Greenspan deserves to be a billionaire, but he's _way_
past having earned EIR-- if VC-istan were the meritocracy it claims to be.
That's an obvious fact at this point.

 _Do you think a sane SV VC should employ a toxic person that publicly calls
Zuckerberg a psychopat?_

Wait, so having a disagreement with one powerful person means that someone
deserves to be completely blacklisted? Isn't this the kind of antiquated
corporate conformity that people went to California (back when it was great;
before conformist corporate asshats got in) to escape?

I've been called worse and I, frankly, don't think a person deserves not to
have a career just because he says something nasty, about me or anyone. That's
just a ridiculous and mean-spirited idea.

 _His other lawsuit
(<http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/case.html?id=716056>) is in shambles on
procedural grounds because his California lawyer wants to withdraw from the
case which would leave Greenspan as the only lawyer and, just like in this
case, he sues on behalf of his company and a company can't represent itself,
so his has to have an outside counsel to proceed._

The courage alone that Greenspan has shown proves him to have superior courage
to 95+ percent of the VC-istan cool kids, most of whom are useless, morally
redundant, corporate shills.

If nothing else, Greenspan has established that he's _intelligent_. That alone
confers merit in a world where it can't be assumed.

------
L0j1k
I sincerely hope this guy kicks the door in at the heart of this financial
industry in-crowd fortress.

