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.
0 comments :
Post a Comment