First thing that stood out was venue. Why Fort Worth? Is there a particular judge there favorable to these COAs?

quote:

---

Don't forget the direction MM was receiving from their dark money

RICO criminal conspiracy please

---

I think getting RICO will be a stretch, unless they have been extremely sloppy with their internal docs and communications. If they are found to have done this through political bias though... there goes their 501c3 status.

In any other case I think a settlement would be reached (like the NBC/GMC case). I don't think Elon gives a frick about reaching a settlement, I think he wants a verdict (and he has the money to fight for it as long as it takes).

quote:

---

… I haven’t read the underlying article. If MM presented it as widely viewed knowing how they manufactured it then it could come into play regarding liability and possibly punitives.

---

Basically Eric Hananoki articles are the trail of breadcrumbs, but this Hananoki hit piece gets to origins.

That’s an odd federal district. You need a “local attorney” within a certain number of miles to function there even if you are admitted.

Read the filing, it explains jurisdiction in detail

Advertisement

Here is XiNN's takedown.

quote:

---

Legal experts on technology and the First Amendment widely characterized X’s complaint on Monday as weak and opportunistically filed in a court that Musk likely believes will take his side.

“It’s one of those lawsuits that’s filed more for symbolism than for substance—as reflected in just how empty the allegations really are, and in where Musk chose to file, singling out the ultra-conservative Northern District of Texas despite its absence of any logical connection to the dispute,” said Steve Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas and a CNN legal analyst. “The choice of venue can best be described as trying to shore up a weak claim on the merits with a bench more likely to be sympathetic even to weak claims.”

“This reads like a press release, not a court filing to me,” said Joan Donovan, a professor of journalism and emerging media studies at Boston University. “X does admit the ads were shown next to hateful content, but argues it was ‘rare.’ This is the same strategy employed by advertisers that got YouTube to demonetize political content in 2017.”

One legal expert said the lawsuit could backfire.

“This lawsuit is riddled with legal flaws, and it is highly ironic that a platform that touts itself as a beacon of free speech would file a bogus case like this that flatly contradicts basic First Amendment principles and targets free speech by a critic,” First Amendment attorney Ted Boutrous told CNN. “And in some ways it’s a dream come true for the people at Media Matters because it could allow them to use the litigation discovery process to force X to divulge all sorts of embarrassing, damaging private information that it would much rather keep secret.”

Ken White, a First Amendment lawyer and criminal defense attorney based in Los Angeles, said the decision to file in Texas may have been intended to circumvent laws passed by California, the District of Columbia and dozens of states barring frivolous lawsuits meant to stifle public criticism.

“X filed this in federal court in Texas to avoid application of an anti-SLAPP statute,” White said on the X alternative BlueSky, using the acronym that refers to so-called “strategic lawsuits against public participation.”

In the federal appeals court that oversees Texas, anti-SLAPP statutes do not apply, White added.

“X’s purpose is to harass and abuse and maximize the cost of litigation, and anti-SLAPP statutes interfere with that aim,” he wrote.

---

LINK

quote:

---

Legal experts on technology and the First Amendment widely characterized X’s complaint on Monday as weak and opportunistically filed in a court that Musk likely believes will take his side.

---

The Lawfare anti Trump tactics cannot be used against progressives.

The horror!!!

Interesting quotes on the choice of venue

Musk may also have a causation problem given his own recent activity on X.

quote:

---

This tactic might have been less effective on businesses that didn't already have a pre-existing business relationship with Hitler.

---

You mean like Media Matters being funded by Hitler's boy the Sorosfuhrer?

quote:

---

Referring to his critique of the ADL?

The ADL came to his defense, FWIW.

---

Referring to his dialectical hatred comment. If AT&T says they pulled their ads because of that comment and not the MM story, what are X’s damages from MM?