Winklevoss Tweets His And Ceglia's Facebook Gripes

Tyler Winklevoss has been Tweeting, line by line, the entire contents of yesterday's ruling that the $65 million settlement will have to stick, even though he and his twin have just filed for a rarely-granted rehearing of the case.

We highly doubt that legal counsel to Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss haven’t repeatedly cautioned the twins against seeking (re-) trial in the (new) media.

Tyler Winklevoss has been tweeting, line by line, the entire contents of yesterday’s ruling that the $65 million settlement will have to stick.

He has followed that up with a line-by-line tweeting of Paul Ceglia’s latest lawsuit just filed in the U.S. District Court in the Western District of New York.

Any attorney — hell, any paralegal or legal secretary — will tell you not to talk to the media when you’ve got a pending case. Always let your lawyer handle all publicity requests — or decline them — during the entire period between filing a suit or petition and a decision coming down.

We remember that the Winklevii sued their previous legal counsel for malpractice after the initial awarding of the $65 million settlement; the complaint had to do with the law firm accepting the amount offered — but perhaps the twins’ victory in the suit against their prior representation may have helped them rationalize flouting advice against talking to the media when you’ve got a case pending.

And the twins now have a pending petition that’s historically difficult to win and rarely granted. Only the U.S. Supreme court, or what’s called an en banc hearing — which is what they just filed for — can overturn a ruling by a Federal panel like that handed down yesterday.

Petitioning for an en banc hearing asks for 11 judges to rehear the case — compared to the three that heard the oral arguments resulting in yesterday’s ruling.

What will an additional eight judges do for the Winklevii that three couldn’t already do? Perhaps the twins think that additional sets of judiciary ears would have a similar effect on the outcome of the case that Paul Ceglia believed he might have achieved by getting a local court to hear his case instead of a federal one.

Certain cases really do benefit from a change in court or expansion of the number of deciding parties. But both the Ceglia and the Winklevii cases have so many other inherent problems that mere location or number of judges probably won’t change the outcome.

We recall how the three judges that heard the Winklevii appeal earlier this year limited the oral arguments to an hour-and-a-half and asked questions that made clear how poor the twins’ case looked. Would 11 judges mean that the repeat-appellants would get up to six hours instead? Tyler’s Tweets seem motivated by a belief that he hasn’t gotten heard enough. If only he’d listen to legal advice!

Readers, what do you think of the latest chapter in the Winklevii and Ceglia sagas?

Publish date: April 12, 2011 © 2020 Adweek, LLC. - All Rights Reserved and NOT FOR REPRINT