 |
Aaron Greenspan
It's rather odd that there has been what I would call a modest degree of concern over the simultaneous Twitter suspension of my business and personal accounts, for which I'm thankful, but nearly no media coverage of the only *lawsuit* Elon ever filed against any person—me—earlier this year.
Elon filed a lawsuit against me in February, which didn't get served until April, and was dismissed in May. It was, in a word, bogus. I wrote about it here: http://www.aarongreenspan.com/writing/20230416/i-dont-think-elon-likes-me/
Soon after I wrote about it, it was dismissed. The main reason why is that it was essentially a derivative of another lawsuit filed by a different critic of Tesla, and that underlying case settled. But it settled on the very day the grace period on my motion for sanctions against Elon ran out. So.
Once Elon's lawsuit against me was officially voluntarily dismissed, I filed a counter-suit alleging that Elon and his lawyers had engaged in malicious prosecution and abuse of process, not to mention libel and a number of other legal violations. (Again, not a peep from the media.)
I waited until after it had been dismissed because California law *requires* the suit that you're alleging was maliciously prosecuted to have been completely dismissed before you can file your claim. But this is kind of weird, because you don't normally file a cross-complaint *after* dismissal.
There's no law that says you can't. And the court accepted it. And then the court issued summonses on my cross-complaint. But Elon's lawyers took the position that because their complaint had been dismissed, the court—which they chose—no longer had jurisdiction. Case closed, they said.
Well, it's not quite that simple. Courts retain some jurisdiction post-dismissal to handle things like determining attorney's fees. And there is an exception in California caselaw for...wait for it...cross-complaints. Which is exactly what I filed.
So Elon & Co.'s position was that I couldn't hold him to account for his frivolous and malicious lawsuit before it was dismissed—California caselaw says so—and I couldn't hold him to account for his frivolous and malicious lawsuit after it was dismissed. Does anyone see the problem here?
Fortunately, there is a case called Loomis v. Murphy (1990) 217 Cal. App. 3d 589, 593-595, which basically says I'm right. In the court's words, "we find no reason for permitting the separate filing of such an action and yet prohibiting it as a cross-complaint."
So who cares about all of this? Well, I've been fighting Elon in court for three years with both hands tied behind my back. Hand 1: no lawyer. Hand 2: no discovery.
This lawsuit means I get discovery. Right now.
So Elon and his lawyers probably do not love that idea.
They shouldn't.
I don't know why my Twitter accounts were suspended today, of all days. I've been writing publicly—and as far as I know, accurately, I might add—about what Elon is really up to since 2018. But this context may matter because I don't think it's the kind of thing he wants people to be talking about.
My lawsuits get to the heart of why Elon is actually so wealthy. They ask the questions the media has failed to ask and force him to address the allegations that could undo his net worth.
Stay tuned.
Federal Lawsuit:  Greenspan v. Qazi et al, California Northern District Court Case No. 3:20-cv-03426-JD
Federal Appeal: Aaron Greenspan v. Omar Qazi, et al, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Case No. 22-16110
California Counter-Suit: MUSK, AN INDIVIDUAL v. GREENSPAN, AN INDIVIDUAL, et al., Superior Court of California, County of Alameda Case No. 23CV028370 |
|
June 14, 2023 at 11:12 AM EDT •  Reply |
|
Aaron Greenspan
As proven by Trump and Musk, but also Zuckerberg and Dorsey and now Altman, it doesn't matter how stupid whatever you say is. As long as people think you have money—actual money isn't even required—it will be widely believed.
In the words of Tevye, "When you're rich, they think you really know." |
|
May 18, 2023 at 11:42 PM EDT • Reply |
Get E-Mail Alerts
