Facebook proved if you pay clever attorneys enough money, they can at least trick a lay jury; but is such conduct “clear and convincing” evidence?
Interrogatory No. 9 was doctored.
Facebook’s lawyers paid almost $500 to about 70 Delaware citizens to participate in a two-day pre-trial focus group. That’s not so unusual (well maybe the size of the fee was). What was unusual, and unsettling to at least one participant who has come forward, is the amount of time spent on bits and pieces of evidence taken out of context and focused on character assassination of inventor Michael McKibben. (Facebook consumed 17 pages of their appeal brief trashing McKibben instead of arguing the law. Appeal attorneys tell me this is very unusual.) Also remarkable is the fact that the judge disallowed any evidence regarding Mark Zuckerberg’s conduct or character from being introduced during the trial. Was turnabout not fair play in this court? Apparently not.
This 3 min. video appeared several months ago in the blogosphere and caught my attention. All my research affirms its perspective and accuracy. It describes both what the jury saw . . . and what they did not see. Watch and think.
Fig. 1 – How Facebook (attorneys) tricked the jury in Leader v. Facebook.