Elon Musk doxxed and accused a college student of being a part of an
Antifa/Government false flag operation.
Rather unsurprisingly, the student, Ben Brody, sued, and as a part of this
lawsuit, Musk was deposed, and despite attempts to seal the record,
this deposition is has been released as a part of the public record.
It appears that Musk knowingly made a number of false statements that were
materiel to the case, which appears to my non-legal mind to fit the definition
of perjury.
Denying that he knows, or even knows of, the plaintiff, and trying to assert
that it's actually the lawyer that is suing him, is perhaps the biggest one.
He aggressively doxxed and defamed the Brody, and was then sued. Having
no knowledge of him is so patently false that it buggers the mind.
After Elon Musk was
accused of defaming Ben Brody—a 22-year-old Jewish man falsely linked to a neo-Nazi brawl in tweets that
Musk responded to last year—the owner of X (formerly Twitter) sat for a
heated Zoom
deposition
where he repeatedly denied ever knowing who Brody was.
When
Brody's attorney, Mark Bankston, asked Musk if he thought he ever did
anything "wrong" to Brody, Musk replied, "I don't know Ben Brody."
"You're aware that Ben Brody is somebody who's sued you, right?"
Bankston asked.
"I think you're the one suing," Musk said,
adding that he views "many cases and probably this one too that the real
plaintiff is the lawyer seeking money like you." Continually, Musk
emphasized, "what I think" the defamation case is "really about is about you
getting a lot of money."
While I think that the intellect of the Apartheid Era Emerald Heir Pedo Guy™
has consistently been overstated by much of the media, and by Musk himself, it
is clear, given his long history of litigation, that he knows what a counsel
is, and what a plaintiff is, and what a defendant is.
While this sort of statement won't fly with a judge, and it probably won't fly
with a jury, it probably got compliments from the sycophants that he surrounds
himself with, so he felt clever lying.
Which brings us to another term, "Self defenestration," which means throwing
one's self out of a window:
Musk filed a
motion to dismiss
Brody's case in January, accusing Brody of targeting "Musk’s exercise of his
freedom of speech for the improper purpose of obtaining a payment
'exceed[ing] $1,000,000,' to which Brody is not entitled from Musk." In the
deposition, Musk accused Bankston of attacking his free speech rights, and
in the motion to dismiss, Musk argued that "the public’s discussion of the
identity of perpetrators of crime would be unduly trampled by the fear of
liability for merely negligent speech," if Brody won his defamation suit.
In that petition, Musk accused Brody of targeting him because
he's a billionaire, repeatedly pointing out that Brody had not sued other X
users who had specifically named Brody as an alleged brawler in blogs and on
X.
Silly rabbit, you don't sue poor people.
Also, we need to understand that it is likely, Musk has on occasion made
statements to this effect, that he believes that he is the only human being in
the world, and that
everyone else are avatars generated in a simulation, which means that he as a human has a right to free speech, and it is unfair
for there to be consequences for his speech.
If this sounds nuts, it is because it is.
Even if the theory were true, the resultant simulation would have to be
treated as reality in order to preserve the integrity of the simulation.
So the rules of the simulation would require the defamation suit.
………
Bankston told Musk that his X post garnered more than a
million views, asking Musk, "Do you think you owed it to Ben Brody to be
accurate as you could?"
Musk told Bankston that he aspires "to
be accurate no matter who the person is," suggesting that while it's
possible to be harmed by people posting false information, he did not think
Brody was harmed by his tweet.
"I don't think he has been
meaningfully harmed by this," Musk said, insisting to Bankston that he could
not have defamed Brody because "I have no ill will to Ben Brody. I don't
know Ben Brody."
Brody's
complaint
alleged that Musk boosting a post linking him to the neo-Nazi brawl has
caused permanent reputational damage and severe emotional harm. Bankston
declined Ars' request to comment on whether Brody continues to be a target
for harassment and death threats.
Mr. Bankston, the term is Stochastic Terrorism. Use it.
………
Musk's deposition is a painful read, with Bankston and [Musk counsel Alex]
Spiro continually trading barbs as Spiro attempts to limit the scope of the
deposition. Spiro claims early on that "this isn't like a real case,"
suggesting the suit is "stupid," and Musk tells Bankston, "I've rarely met a
lawyer with less decorum than you, if you could be called a lawyer."
Throughout, Spiro asks Bankston to stop "yelling," while Musk repeatedly
urges Bankston to "calm yourself." At one point, Bankston expresses feeling
"disturbed" by the exchanges, and as if tensions weren't heightened enough
by the circumstances, because it's all going down on Zoom, there are also
moments when the Internet cuts in and out or Musk drops off the call.
………
It's unclear what exactly was so problematic
about the deposition that prompted Spiro to push for the transcript to be
confidential. But near the end of the deposition, Spiro accused Bankston of
"teasing out" Musk's response that he had no "ill will" to Brody. Bankston
also seemed to trip Musk up when discussing whether Musk's X account should
be considered a personal account or perhaps a business account that benefits
X's bottom line.
Bankston started by asking Musk if prior to his
acquisition, Twitter received a "free benefit" from Musk driving engagement
on the platform as one of its top influencers.
"Essentially,
yes," Musk agreed.
But when Bankston then pivoted to ask if
"after the acquisition," Musk "personally" benefits "from the engagement"
that he creates because X is his company, Spiro tried to stop Musk from
responding, demanding to know how the question was relevant, since obviously
Musk owns X.
Seemingly getting the response he wanted, Bankston
explained that "if you're willing to just go ahead and stipulate he is the
owner of Twitter, that is not a purely personal account, that account also
advances the interest of the company, we're done, and I won't have to ask
any more questions."
Ultimately, Spiro allowed Musk to answer
that X is "not necessarily" benefiting from his posts.
Musk
admitted that he was sometimes guilty of "self-inflicted wounds," telling
Bankston that with his controversial posts, "I may have done more to
financially impair the company than to help it, but certainly I—I do not
guide my posts by what is financially beneficial but what I believe is
interesting or important or entertaining to the public."
So, he just admitted that his account is now an official voice of the company,
and of Musk, and that he ignores his responsibilities as an officer of the
organization in order to get his kicks.
Is that the sound of glass breaking above my head?
………
Bankston has
asked
the court to order sanctions over what he described as Spiro's
"unprofessional behavior," including allegations that Spiro "continually
interrupted the deposition with commentary, gave numerous improper
instructions not to answer, berated opposing counsel, insulted plaintiff’s
claims, mocked counsel’s questions, and attempted to derail damaging
testimony."
It should be noted here that the argumentative behavior from Alex Spiro is the icing on the cake Mark Bankston's request for sanctions. The biggies are, practicing law in Texas without a Texas law license by signing filings, practicing law in Texas without a Texas law license by acting as counsel during the deposition,that he showed up at the deposition unannounced, that he answered questions directed toward the defendant.
I lack sufficient legal knowledge to even guess whether sanctions will be taken against Spiro, but this behavior is a total mind-f%$#.
I'd like to see Musk and his attorney spending a few days in jail, but the chance of that approaches 0.