1) The guy said it took so long for him to come forward because he "forgot" about the contract/emails.
2) Selling 50% of the company for $2k seems like an odd move... I don't know my facebook history perfectly, but didn't Zuck have a business partner with a lot of money already?
Being convicted of a felony does not make you forever an untrustworthy lout, nor a compulsive, criminal liar. It means you committed a crime once and were prosecuted for it.
That's what we call a "straw man argument"-- I never claimed otherwise. I offered it up as a data point (among several) that caused people to dismiss the claim. Statistically speaking, I imagine people who've been convicted of fraud are liklier to commit fraud than those who haven't been.
Doesn't change the fact that it's a colorable claim. It doesn't look to me like any of the defenses you list would lead to summary judgment based on the facts.
1) The guy said it took so long for him to come forward because he "forgot" about the contract/emails.
2) Selling 50% of the company for $2k seems like an odd move... I don't know my facebook history perfectly, but didn't Zuck have a business partner with a lot of money already?
3) The guy has a history of fraud convictions.