web analytics

Why Elon Musk’s Motion to Dismiss Defamation Claims Should be Denied: The Sociopathic Business Model™

Why Elon Musk’s Motion to Dismiss Defamation Claims Should be Denied: The Sociopathic Business Model™

UPDATED: April 26, 2019

Almost four months to the day, Elon Musk was DENIED his motion to dismiss the defamation casere where he called Thai cave diver, Vernon Unsworth, a pedo. Bad day for Musk who also settled contempt charges with SEC as well. It’s refreshing to see criminals punished properly.

December 27, 2018

Elon Musk, the multi-company CEO with a pathological history of unethical and illegal behavior, has in his own words experienced “the most difficult and painful year in my career.” Musk, lacking in self-awareness or the ability to take accountability is without doubt, a #ProfessionalVictim.  

In August 2018, public figure, Elon Musk pathologically continued to publicly taunt private citizen cave diver Vernon Unsworth on Twitter.  Musk suggested that Unsworth would sue or else Musk’s allegations about him being a pedo (pedophile) were true.

September 2018 Vernon Unsworth sues Elon Musk for Defamation.

December 2018 Elon Musk files a Motion to Dismiss Unsworth’s Defamation Claims

Defendant Elon Musk’s Notice of Motion And Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Vernon Unsworth’s Complaint

Filing a Motion to Dismiss is legal; but, it doesn’t make it any less abusive when inconsistently weaponized in the hands of  Elon Musk who is now contradicting his previous taunts for Unsworth to sue him.

Inconsistent & contradictory language to action is one of the first Red Flags, that a company is engaged in unethical and illegal behavior that initially harms employees then consumers and ultimately the public. Or as using tactics from The Sociopathic Business Model™ Fraud Formula. 

Elon Musk makes this Motion on the grounds that the statements identified in Vernon Unsworth’s complaint are not actionable.

Musk’s motion to dismiss is the equivalent of starting a playground fight then running to the school guard for help when he realized he picked a fight he couldn’t win. Expect this instance Musk is running to his high-priced attorneys at Hueston Hennigan LLP. Musk’s cowardliness in filing the motion to dismiss is just the latest example of wealthy people abusing the legal system to systematically punish those in a lesser financial position who exposing negative truthful information. The goal of unethical people engaged in illegal activity is often to file motions not because they’re not guilty but to try and create  financial hardship for their victims.  It’s using the court system to revictimize their victims in hopes of making the lawsuit go away without their need to take accountability.

In arguing Musk’s points his attorneys actually did more to make Vernon Unsworth’s case than they did  helptheir own client’s. Musk’s arguments for the motion to dismiss are listened in the seven points below. Using The Sociopathic Business Model™ Checklist against those arguments should prove that Musk’s motion to dismiss will be denied by Judge Stephen V. Wilson.

“Unsworth must prove that the reasonable reader would believe Musk possessed private facts implicating Unsworth as a pedophile”

A reasonable reader would assume billionaire Elon Musk who previously doxxed anonymous online Tesla accountability critic, Montana Skeptic; and, then proceeded to call his boss to complain, would have facts about Unworth being a pedophile.

A reasonable reader would assume billionaire Elon Musk who knowingly, willingly and aggressively attempted to intimidate a female reporter Linette Lopez on Twitter, would have facts about Unsworth being a pedophile.

It is reasonable to presume that billionaire Elon Musk, who has the financial means, used his considerable wealth to obtain information previously unknown to the public about Montana Skeptic, Linette Lopez and Vernon Unsworth.

Musk’s attorneys make the following seven arguments:

  1. Statements on unmoderated Internet forums are presumably opinion
    1. That’s an inconsistent & contradictory statement in that Elon Musk as CEO of Tesla previously claimed Twitter is an acceptable way to alert shareholders of updates.  Musk’s failure to use different accounts for personal & professional does not mean that he can inconsistently claim that one tweet was fact while another was opinion. 
  2. Musk’s statements were made in the midst of a back-and-forth argument and in direct and response to personal and legal attacks
    1. That’s Elon Musk shifting blame on to someone else on Twitter while not taking accountability for his own actions. 
  3. Musk disclosed the basis for his personal opinion: Thailand’s documented problems with sex tourism
    1. That’s a manipulation of facts while not recognizing the rights of Vernon Unsworth.  Musk bet someone a signed dollar that Unsworth was a pedo. 
  4. Musk’s over-the-top insults are not statement of fact
    1. That’s a manipulation of facts, it was not Musk’s opinion he stated it as fact.
  5. Musk’s colloquial statements are not reasonably interpreted as statements of fact
    1. Perhaps Musk calling people pedos is part of his everyday language but that’s not how the law works.
  6. Musk’s expressions of uncertainty show that his statements did not have concrete factual foundation and were therefore opinion
    1. Betting someone a dollar that another is in fact a pedo is inconsistent & contradictory to uncertainty.
  7. Readers did not interpret Musk’s statements as factual assertions
    1. What the-ever-loving fuck? Musk is making a determination only a jury could make.

Those engaged in unethical behavior will continue to escalate to dangerous levels of illegal behavior until they are met with #ForcedAccountability: 1 public exposure of negative truthful information + 2  legal intervention = forces accountability from the otherwise unaccountable while creating positive change for their victims.

No Comments

Post a Comment