Thread by @PlainSite

Elon Musk's sur-reply has been posted. $TSLA plainsite.org/dockets/3cioda…

"The only logical reading of the SEC’s position is that if Musk tweets about Tesla and does not obtain pre-approval, he risks another contempt motion." DING DING DING!

Okay, first problem. This is not eight pages. It's actually ten. The judge granted eight, and they started counting pages on page two. So a motion to strike would be in order. Idiots. Just obey the judge!

Second problem: these are garbage arguments. Musk's lawyers want their completely irrelevant negotiated drafts to trump a legally binding consent judgment signed off on by a federal agency AND a federal judge? How stupid do you have to be to argue this for real in court?

Musk wasn't in there pro se. He was represented by how many lawyers and how many law firms? MANY. If he didn't understand something he had plenty of people to ask. This is just outrageously bonkers.

"Musk Has Complied with the Order Because He Has Complied with the Policy." No! Aside from being obviously wrong, this has the potential to make the judge absolutely furious. The sur-reply is practically in contempt itself. They violated another order to make asinine arguments.

Isn't being a white-collar criminal great? When you get to politely suggest to the government through your lawyers how your punishment should be much lighter, and the government just agrees? Except in this case that's *not what happened*. Pre-approval was *still required*.

Even if you give Musk the benefit of the doubt that negotiations were complex and he didn't understand what pre-approval really meant, HE HAD LAWYERS. He could have asked them. They could have asked the SEC. He did not.

Instead he just gave every securities plaintiff free ammo.