In which the centi-billionaire CEO wishes to bully the federal government personally.
The SEC specifically identified $TSLA lawyer Yun Huh as "Securities Counsel/Disclosure Counsel," making him a prime candidate for the official Twitter Sitter, at least at the point in time the letter was written on May 8, 2020.
Confirmed. Yun Huh was the $TSLA Twitter Sitter as of May 8, 2020.
"Unanimous" here means that these three stooges voted the same way. $TSLA
This is the SEC's way of telling star attorney Alex Spiro that he is a stupid clown and he is getting on their nerves. $TSLA
These letters from the SEC to $TSLA and Musk show near-infinite patience by the Commission's Enforcement Division—patience that would virtually never be extended to any other company or individual. It will help in court if and when explaining to Judge Nathan why they're back.
A few words in one of the SEC's letters to $TSLA highlight a big problem lurking underneath all of this: legal representation. It's complicated. As the SEC points out, the company and its CEO have separate legal obligations, have separate consent decrees, and separate cases.
And yet! In Musk's litigation with Randeep Hothi, Attorney Alex Spiro represents Musk. But before the SEC, Spiro represents $TSLA; Hueston represents Musk. But a Tesla attorney is Musk's Twitter Sitter. In Greenspan v. Qazi et al, John Dwyer represents *both* Tesla and Musk.
The underlying assumption is that Elon Musk's interests will always align with the company's. The underlying assumption there is that the company will never get in trouble for anything Elon Musk does.
That's starting to look like a really bad assumption.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
After a year of preparation for response, key words in the SEC's cover letter:
"in anticipation of litigation" $TSLA
These documents reveal that as expected, Elon Musk's Twitter Sitter changed over time. It wasn't always Yun Huh. $TSLA
They also reveal John Hueston, Musk's former lawyer who disappeared mid-SEC case without formally withdrawing, writing in a manner consistent with someone who was fired (and also highlighting the conflict problem between Musk and $TSLA).
Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered $TSLA to file less redacted versions of some of the documents in its dispute with McKechnie Vehicle Components USA, Inc. They are now posted as the attachments to Document 38, here: plainsite.org/dockets/4hr0ar…
Tonight, we discovered that on March 8, 2021, a Santa Barbara County judge ruled against $TSLA, finding that a plaintiff had sufficiently alleged that its Autopilot marketing was deceptive.
There's no public access to this opinion.
...unless you visit the court in person or know to request it in advance by mail or e-mail. But how could you?
As it happens, we have been pressing the California Courts for months on records on Santa Barbara and Kern Counties. They are stalling.
Meanwhile, as the California Courts blame unspecified technical difficulties (that do not seem to plague Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Mateo, Stanislaus, Fresno, or other counties that provide electronic access), here are some of the relevant portions of the opinion.
There needs to be a new term for "technologies" like NFTs and central-bank-backed cryptocurrencies—perhaps something like "confusionware." These products are perpetual-motion-machine-type vaporware that exist *purely* based on the confusion of those who read about them.
It is disturbing when they attract the buy-in of mainstream media and government officials. But that is exactly what has been happening.
For example, this article by @macrocredit should be considered a wild joke—the article literally starts with the argument that "everybody's doing it"—but it's actually printed on Bloomberg's masthead. Key question: does Alberto Gallo know what a hash is?