Ceglia's latest lawyer bungled child porn lawsuit
Facebook botherer scrapes bottom of legal barrel
Paul Ceglia - the alleged half-owner of Facebook - has enlisted yet another lawyer in his increasingly desperate case brought against Mark Zuckerberg.
The latest attorney to represent Ceglia has reportedly been ordered, in a separate suit, to cough up $300,000 after he "morphed" stock images of minors and used them to defend individuals charged with possessing child porn.
“The court concludes that a constitutionally effective defence to a child pornography charge does not include the right to victimise additional minors by creating new child pornography in the course of preparing and presenting a defence,” said US District Judge Dan Polster in an opinion dated 20 October, according to Bloomberg.
The judge dismissed lawyer Dean Boland's claim that such usage of the images was constitutionally protected. He plans to appeal the judgment.
According to Boland's website, he "is a former computer crime prosecutor who worked on cases of nationwide notoriety broadcast on Court TV while a prosecutor. He now represents criminal and civil clients facing technology issues in cases in federal and state courts throughout the entire country".
Boland is Ceglia's fourth lead counsel since Ceglia filed his original lawsuit on 2010.
Earlier this month the firewood salesman, who lives in Ireland, lost lawyer Jeffery Lake after he instructed him "not to comply" with a court order issued by a judge in August.
Lake had been told to hand over details of email accounts and passwords relating to a revised complaint Ceglia issued against Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg in April this year. He refused and dumped the case.
Ceglia has claimed to have email evidence that showed he was entitled to ownership of half of Facebook.
That's an allegation repeatedly rejected by the social networking supremo, who has labelled Ceglia a "fraudster". ®
I don't know anything about this lawyer or the specifics of what he did, but I'm immediately suspicious of anyone who says children are "victimized" remotely by fiddling their pixels.
@Marvin the Martian
Whatever anyone fantasises about is their own business, as long as no-one is hurt by it. A person can fantasise about minors, animals, plants, or you as long as that does not hurt anyone else. In the mind, consent is an irrelevant issue.
Fantasy has nothing to do images or actions.
"The legal view is that fantasizing about violating minors is never a good idea, under any circumstances"
Please point to what lawyers have stated this "legal view", their qualifications, and in what jurisdiction.
"those who can never [give consent] --- animals and children"
Define 'children'. In the US, that's anyone under 18 (for actual sex), but in the UK it's 16, and in some countries not far away from us it's 14 (in some further away it's even younger). Then there are the laws about pictures which mean that it's fine for a 16 year old couple to have sex (and have children) as long as they don't take pictures of each other until they are 18. And then there are even laws which say that if a person -- or even a totally imaginary drawing -- /looks/ under 18 it's illegal to take unclothed pictures of them.
Which of those would you say can and cannot give consent -- and which countries' courts would agree or disagree with you?
As for fantasies, until someone develops a way of reading minds reliably they belong to the person fantasising. If they want to fantasise about sex with whatever, that's their own business and no one else's. Or if they want to fantasise about killing whoever, or blowing things up, or anything else. There is no evidence that fantasising about such things causes actions, and actions alone are punishable.
Mein Gedanken sind frei...