We obtained internal $TSLA documents from a number of whistleblowers that prove that Tesla and Elon Musk have been defrauding investors for years in a variety of different ways. But the most important is that Tesla has been lying about how many cars it sells.
The word "deliveries" is a nonsense word. A lie. It has no consistent meaning within Tesla. Different systems at different times have defined the term differently. There are a lot of different systems at Tesla, and the definition has gone through material changes over time.
It gets worse. $TSLA's systems are a mess. They have duplicate ways of storing information, some algorithmic (2 + 2 = 4) and others manual (write down "4"). So, for example, there might be an "Is Delivered" column and an "Is Delivered?" column. For real. But there's more.
In about 2017, $TSLA introduced the "Delivery Count Type," a new way to store information about whether vehicles have been delivered. There are two options: New and Used. But since it's a manual setting, used cars can be "delivered" as "New."
Have they really done that? Oh yes.
The auditors at PwC have been looking at something completely different, meanwhile: scanned paper of signatures from actual drop-offs of cars. The customer has to sign something, right? So that's what gets audited while $TSLA plays database games.
How do we know? $TSLA revolves around a product called JIRA, a bug database commonly used at software companies. At Tesla, JIRA tracks more than just software—it tracks *everything*. Weird A/C smell? JIRA ticket. Console glitch? JIRA ticket. Car catch on fire? JIRA ticket.
Here's what some of those JIRA tickets look like when it comes to "deliveries." And $TSLA has over 150 categories of matters to track within JIRA with approximately tens of thousands of tickets.
So it is now confirmed: $TSLA has been including used cars in its "delivery" reports each quarter for years. The numbers are not new vehicle sales. It's not even clear what they are because the definition keeps on changing, and $TSLA has never defined it.
The documents we received cover much, much more than just deliveries. They also cover $TSLA's accounting software, general ledger, safety issues, Autopilot, and more. Read Documents 178 and 179 (link above) in full to fully understand the scope of these revelations.
Thank you *SO MUCH* to the brave whistleblowers who came forward. $TSLA
It is worth explicitly reiterating for $TSLA's and Elon Musk's benefit that this information has been provided to various federal regulators, which has triggered multiple whistleblower protection statutes.
Don't even think about it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The "nobody could have known" framing was predictable, but it's still offensive for how obviously stupid and wrong it is.
"Risky," yes. "Unregulated," no. Just because the journalists don't understand the regulatory environment (or its many failings) does not mean that it doesn't exist.
District Judge James Donato has dismissed Greenspan v. Qazi et al in a four-page opinion.
Musk's and Tesla's lawyers—both the old ones and the new ones—have been paying Judge Donato's wife's firm, Solutus Legal, the entire time. CC: @JamesVGrimaldi
@JamesVGrimaldi In this case, still ongoing, two of the law firms and one of the parties are clients of Judge Donato's wife's small company. And Donato used to work at one of those firms himself. CC: @JamesVGrimaldiplainsite.org/dockets/37bq0u…
@JamesVGrimaldi Predictably, even Qazi's celebratory post about the court's decision is wrong.
- It wasn't ever a SLAPP lawsuit
- Qazi's anti-SLAPP motion failed
- Only the federal claims were dismissed with prejudice
- None of the allegations are lies
As usual, the SEC wasted months redacting information that is already public. Names that were pointlessly redacted include Sam Teller, Jared Birchall, and the Elon Musk Revocable Trust, who all received subpoenas in December 2019.
Elon Musk is about 5% away from a margin call pursuant to his agreement to borrow $12.5 billion from a consortium of banks. $TSLA was trading over $1,000 per share on April 21, 2022. Now it's down 30% to about $700 per share. $TSLA $TWTR plainsite.org/markets/musk-e…
To be clear, that is only pursuant to that agreement, which was a commitment to loan funds, not a reflection of the loan having taken place. So no margin call yet. Had Musk *then* borrowed the money, he'd be close. Now he just needs to put up more shares.
Someone should apprise @carsonight of the risks involved in libeling others while acting as an ostensible agent of $TSLA under California law, given that his "friends and family" work there, if he doesn't himself. Perhaps one of Tesla's lawyers, if any are still around?
@carsonight admits to basing his views on his friends and family working for $TSLA and Panasonic, claiming that he's just an "attentive listener."
Hopefully he hasn't been investing based on any material non-public information he's been attentively listening to.
Ironically, Elon Musk is correct about something. The SEC *has* known about fake accounts at social networks since 2019, and it has done absolutely nothing.