Jump to content

Elon Musk: Officially a fraud and piece of shit. Official or unofficial war criminal?


MaybeACoordinator

Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, Captain Ron said:

 

You took a month to come up with this?

Actually, no that was the judge that did that. From https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-rules-favor-plaintiffs-challenging-musks-tesla-pay-package-2024-01-30/

you also say that his pay package was 

Actually, that was one of the key arguments of the case brought against them. The lawsuit outlined how the pay package was designed by Musk and basically rubber-stamped by the board. The ruling agreed.

Also ...

Again, this was argued as not the case by the man who brought this suit

 

 

 

And exactly what political interests? Please, enlighten me. Remind me who brought this case. I'll hang up and listen.

all you're doing is rehashing arguments from a judge who (read her ruling) sees herself as a crusader against greedy corporate interests and in this case, the richest man in the world.  in what world is it fair to void a contract, approved by 70+ percent of shareholders which didn't include elon's or his family's shares, a decade later after he'd satisfied the terms?  unless you just have a vendetta against him, it's not.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

in what world is it fair to void a contract, approved by 70+ percent of shareholders which didn't include elon's or his family's shares, a decade later after he'd satisfied the terms?  unless you just have a vendetta against him, it's not.

In what world?  Ummm, in the world where the court applied a long-standing and recognized legal standard (the "entire fairness test"), finding - based on specific facts - that Musk functionally controlled Tesla and the grant-approval process, and further made specific reasonable and supported factual findings that the shareholders were not fully informed because of misleading statements and omissions in the relevant proxy statement.  It doesn't matter what percentage of shareholders approve of something if that something was predicated on lies of both commission and omission.  That's the law pretty much wherever you go.

So....that world.  A world where legal standards and evidence rule the day.  

Yes.  We know that our oligarchs HATE that world, because it brings them down to the level of the rest of us peons who have to follow the law.  Elon and his fanbois HATE this image of justice:

shutterstock_1420924517-scaled-e16346709

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

all you're doing is rehashing arguments from a judge who (read her ruling) sees herself as a crusader against greedy corporate interests and in this case, the richest man in the world.  in what world is it fair to void a contract, approved by 70+ percent of shareholders which didn't include elon's or his family's shares, a decade later after he'd satisfied the terms?  unless you just have a vendetta against him, it's not.

there you go, i think you hit every one of his talking points on this front

1) activist judge

2) crusader against greedy corporate interest

3) vendetta against richest man in the world

4) approved by 70% of stakeholders!

5) how is fair to void it years after approved?

 

Curb Your Enthusiasm Bingo GIF by Jason Clarke

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

In what world?  Ummm, in the world where the court applied a long-standing and recognized legal standard (the "entire fairness test"), finding - based on specific facts - that Musk functionally controlled Tesla and the grant-approval process, and further made specific reasonable and supported factual findings that the shareholders were not fully informed because of misleading statements and omissions in the relevant proxy statement.  It doesn't matter what percentage of shareholders approve of something if that something was predicated on lies of both commission and omission.  That's the law pretty much wherever you go.

So....that world.  A world where legal standards and evidence rule the day.  

 

the problem is there isn't a singular long-standing recognized standard for what constitutes independence.  in finance the SEC looks at compensation-  if you and your family members are far enough removed from any compensation from the company you've satisfied that standard of independence.  maybe my knowledge is lacking but as far as i'm aware that's been the standard for corporate governance as it deals with finance for at least the past 20 years.  

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

In what world?  Ummm, in the world where the court applied a long-standing and recognized legal standard (the "entire fairness test"), finding - based on specific facts - that Musk functionally controlled Tesla and the grant-approval process, and further made specific reasonable and supported factual findings that the shareholders were not fully informed because of misleading statements and omissions in the relevant proxy statement.  It doesn't matter what percentage of shareholders approve of something if that something was predicated on lies of both commission and omission.  That's the law pretty much wherever you go.

So....that world.  A world where legal standards and evidence rule the day.  

Yes.  We know that our oligarchs HATE that world, because it brings them down to the level of the rest of us peons who have to follow the law.  Elon and his fanbois HATE this image of justice:

shutterstock_1420924517-scaled-e16346709

 

 

needs to throw a weekly cheeseburger into the salad and avocado toast diet. 

 

still wood tho. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gsoda3 said:

the problem is there isn't a singular long-standing recognized standard for what constitutes independence.

Kind of correct.  See the "entire fairness" rule (which encompasses more than mere "independence") -- it is fact dependent.  It's not a numerical, strictly quantifiable thing.  A huge number of things in the law are not empirical, clearly one way vs. clearly the other (FFS, the civil standard of judgment is "more likely than not" -- so something that a fact-finder decides was 55-45 the likely course of events is how that jury finds).

What we have here is simple: exhibit eleventy billion in the oligarch bedrock belief of "rules for thee, not for me."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, gsoda3 said:

all you're doing is rehashing arguments from a judge who (read her ruling) sees herself as a crusader against greedy corporate interests and in this case, the richest man in the world.  in what world is it fair to void a contract, approved by 70+ percent of shareholders which didn't include elon's or his family's shares, a decade later after he'd satisfied the terms?  unless you just have a vendetta against him, it's not.

Elon’s not going to fuck you either. 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, gsoda3 said:

you cherry picked from that article you linked.  yes there were market cap milestones-  about a dozen of them, but there were also several dozen OTHER milestones that were specifically designed to be independent factors not related to market cap-  important things like revenue targets, profit targets, income targets, specifically designed by the board, whom you claim to be musk cronies, to ensure the healthy growth of the company.  at the time these were negotiated CEO manipulation of stock price was already a concern.  the board's negotiation of these factors in the contract was seen as a moonshot scenario that almost everyone on the street mocked them for, our trading group included.  we've spent lots of time looking at TSLA over the years and this was one of the most outlandish scenarios we'd ever come across.  this was a most unfair ruling spurred by political interests. 

 

7 hours ago, gsoda3 said:

all you're doing is rehashing arguments from a judge who (read her ruling) sees herself as a crusader against greedy corporate interests and in this case, the richest man in the world.  in what world is it fair to void a contract, approved by 70+ percent of shareholders which didn't include elon's or his family's shares, a decade later after he'd satisfied the terms?  unless you just have a vendetta against him, it's not.

This has to be the saddest simping I've ever seen and I've read The Great Gatsby.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was too busy chortling to read gsoda's words as closely as I'm sure they deserve. A bit of punctuation and capitalization on his end would have helped. However, Judge McCormick's ruling forcing Mosk to return his $85B bonus was clear in logic and seemingly addressed all aspects of law.

This being the US, Elmo has the opportunity to appeal McCormick's ruling to a higher court.  Bear in mind, McCormick is the very same judge who stepped in when Elmo tried to renege on his offer to purchase twitter, and she forcefully kicked his ass all over the place. I'm sure we'll get to see how he does in a rematch!

 

7 hours ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

I don't know about the demands, but in this particular instance, Musk may have a salient point.  It would seem having startups begin as non-profits for tax purposes and then "re-launch" as a profit seeking venture seems wrong.  Not sure what can be done, but yeah.

I regret to inform you that Musk doesn't have much of a point. He filed a lawsuit basically alleging breach of contract. Here's a pdf of Musk's complaint where you can read it all for yourself. https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rYCUmwA4Xxpw/v0

If you do read it I suggest you immediately search for a contract between Altman and Musk, or OpenAI and Musk, or indeed Musk and anyone pertaining to OpenAI.

Can't find a contract? Oh, that's right...interestingly, there isn't one. The burden he'll have to meet to prove contractual breach is very high and for a person with his resources and experience to not have a contract at the inception of a business or charitable enterprise will be extremely difficult to overcome when he's suing over an alleged breach. He attempts to assert some sort of informal agreement but his claims border on ludicrous.

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was too busy chortling to read gsoda's words as closely as I'm sure they deserve. A bit of punctuation and capitalization on his end would have helped. However, Judge McCormick's ruling forcing Mosk to return his $85B bonus was clear in logic and seemingly addressed all aspects of law.
This being the US, Elmo has the opportunity to appeal McCormick's ruling to a higher court.  Bear in mind, McCormick is the very same judge who stepped in when Elmo tried to renege on his offer to purchase twitter, and she forcefully kicked his ass all over the place. I'm sure we'll get to see how he does in a rematch!
 
I regret to inform you that Musk doesn't have much of a point. He filed a lawsuit basically alleging breach of contract. Here's a pdf of Musk's complaint where you can read it all for yourself. https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rYCUmwA4Xxpw/v0
If you do read it I suggest you immediately search for a contract between Altman and Musk, or OpenAI and Musk, or indeed Musk and anyone pertaining to OpenAI.
Can't find a contract? Oh, that's right...interestingly, there isn't one. The burden he'll have to meet to prove contractual breach is very high and for a person with his resources and experience to not have a contract at the inception of a business or charitable enterprise will be extremely difficult to overcome when he's suing over an alleged breach. He attempts to assert some sort of informal agreement but his claims border on ludicrous.
 
 

“Gentleman’s Agreement.” FFS, Elmo is aggy.
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going back to grapejuice's issue - Once the judge rules how much the lawyers for the plaintiff are to be paid, Elmo may appeal.

Precedent would have allowed for the attorneys to ask for 15% of the amount clawed back - the "canceled reward" - but they only asked for 11%, and asked for it to be paid in stock free of lockup. Which means they could dump it into the market immediately upon transfer. :insert gif of maniacal laughter here:

https://www.ft.com/content/1512d925-7ded-4d67-993a-4fc03f2735fc

image.thumb.png.a039dad8d855c19a96c7c97aae05dbd9.png

 

image.thumb.png.8a161e3a7f33a1864489f340222e11dc.png

image.thumb.png.479cac37efeaa7b1c74fefb6f1182090.png

 

Edited by Chopper
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


“Gentleman’s Agreement.” FFS, Elmo is aggy.

Did you get to the Prayer for Relief?

You'd think his attorneys wouldn't make his neediness so obvious and prominent. I guess his own AI company, not to mention Tesla's AI, could use some help.

image.png.8e64fc9f47056cba656d8c6c1bb89304.png

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Chopper said:

I was too busy chortling to read gsoda's words as closely as I'm sure they deserve. A bit of punctuation and capitalization on his end would have helped. However, Judge McCormick's ruling forcing Mosk to return his $85B bonus was clear in logic and seemingly addressed all aspects of law.

This being the US, Elmo has the opportunity to appeal McCormick's ruling to a higher court.  Bear in mind, McCormick is the very same judge who stepped in when Elmo tried to renege on his offer to purchase twitter, and she forcefully kicked his ass all over the place. I'm sure we'll get to see how he does in a rematch!

 

I regret to inform you that Musk doesn't have much of a point. He filed a lawsuit basically alleging breach of contract. Here's a pdf of Musk's complaint where you can read it all for yourself. https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rYCUmwA4Xxpw/v0

If you do read it I suggest you immediately search for a contract between Altman and Musk, or OpenAI and Musk, or indeed Musk and anyone pertaining to OpenAI.

Can't find a contract? Oh, that's right...interestingly, there isn't one. The burden he'll have to meet to prove contractual breach is very high and for a person with his resources and experience to not have a contract at the inception of a business or charitable enterprise will be extremely difficult to overcome when he's suing over an alleged breach. He attempts to assert some sort of informal agreement but his claims border on ludicrous.

 

 

Thanks, I had not dug into deep.  Guess I was more into the idea of non-profits and tax breaks and knee jerked a bit.

The non-profit issue  apparently is why he went the contractual route:

Quote

Does Musk even have standing to sue? “One of the differences with nonprofits compared to other companies is that, generally, no one other than the state attorney general has standing to sue for the kind of stuff that he’s complaining about, like not following your mission,“ Peter Molk, a professor of law at the University of Florida, said of Musk’s lawsuit. That’s most likely why Musk’s lawyers are presenting the case as a breach of contract instead of attacking the company’s nonprofit status.


But as you noted:

Quote


Was there actually a contract to breach? The lawsuit puts forth a sprawling agreement that is made up of conversations and documents, and that makes it harder to show whether there was a binding contract — and what it might have involved.

And again, as you note, the whole thing probably isn't going to work out for Musk.

Quote

What was required of OpenAI? Noah Feldman, a professor at Harvard Law School who advised the A.I. company Anthropic on its corporate governance structure, said the contract Musk claims OpenAI and Altman breached contains “a hole you can drive a truck through.” OpenAI’s certificate of incorporation, which Musk’s lawyers claim is part of the deal, says the A.I. maker will seek to open its work to the public for its benefit “when applicable” — and OpenAI can easily argue that it is adhering to this term, which is vague.


This all from an NYT summary.  And I know I make an assumption that I can trust that summary or even fully understand it all.  As a side note, your archive link didn't load for me. But truthfully I'm not going to read a 35 page document.  I have no sympathies or rooting interests for any billionaires.  But from the same NYT summary this was more what piqued my interest:
 

Quote

 

Will this case help catch the attention of the California attorney general? OpenAI’s new board was appointed after the previous board briefly removed Altman as the company’s chief executive. The short-lived mutiny raised questions over whether the company’s corporate structure allowed OpenAI’s for-profit arm to creep away from the parent company’s nonprofit obligation to focus on civic duties over shareholders. The progressive consumer rights advocacy group Public Citizen has already petitioned California’s attorney general, seeking OpenAI’s dissolution for failing to “carry out its nonprofit purposes.”

“That petition and Musk’s lawsuit have a more than trivial overlap,” said Joseph Grundfest, a corporate governance expert at Stanford Law School and a former S.E.C. commissioner.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/1/2024 at 11:01 AM, NoName said:

 

the demands are really and truly incredible, even based on the dumb lawsuits Elon has fired off lately.

GHloNpKW4AAVH5p?format=jpg&name=large

 

 

I never came back to this like I planned to. The idea that he wants GPT-4 declared AGI is hilarious. Anyone knowledgeable in AI knows it isn’t close. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

This all from an NYT summary.  And I know I make an assumption that I can trust that summary or even fully understand it all.  As a side note, your archive link didn't load for me. But truthfully I'm not going to read a 35 page document.  I have no sympathies or rooting interests for any billionaires.  But from the same NYT summary this was more what piqued my interest:

Understood. I don't know why the link dithers. However if you cut and paste instead of just click, it's solid.  assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rYCUmwA4Xxpw/v0 -- again, pdf warning. Fwiw, bwbx.io is a bloomberg site

Without getting all into the issue of AI, here's a couple other things I find interesting about this. When OpenAI was trying to raise $$ for their work in order to run it entirely as a non-profit, they received less than $150 Million in donations. They required a far greater sum to build and so created a for profit subsidiary, which raised something like $13 Billion to fund their efforts.

I think once again Elmo made a bad deal for himself and he's having remorse, and so we see him acting out. For example, as posted above the first thing he's asked for is that OpenAI show him their work. They're not obligated to do so Just Because the parent company is a non-profit. Also IF if that were part of any deal Elmo made with them then that would be a central part of his lawsuit against them. But, as they say, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

I can't wait to read OpenAI's response, they will almost certainly light him up. I'm no OpenAI or Altman fan so I have some mixed emotions about it but watching Elmo lose is much more fun. For now.

 

Edited by Chopper
removed link
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Chopper said:

 

I think once again Elmo made a bad deal for himself and he's having remorse,

 

Fair points, and I think this point in particular is true.  I guess I'm more interested in potential side effects of this suit, but even then that's pure speculation. Intersting HN discussion the suit:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39559966

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, very unrelated subject but I saw a YouTuber posit that the message from Elon and Twitter is that you can fire 75% of your staff and still run your company.  Sadly, I think that  is definitely the message tech CEO's took from it, regardless of the quality ( or lack) on the platform itself.

Edited by MC Fresh Breath
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

Fair points, and I think this point in particular is true.  I guess I'm more interested in potential side effects of this suit, but even then that's pure speculation. Intersting HN discussion the suit:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39559966

I think one thing lost here is that OpenAI has 2 different organizations here. There is the OpenAI nonprofit that still exists. And they own a for profit organization now. Many organizations work this way (an example used was the Philly inquirer which is for profit owned by a nonprofit that manages them). I think Elon is completely grasping at straws here because he got out early and has no control.

And this doesn’t even point out the other ridiculous demands. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

Also, very unrelated subject but I saw a YouTuber posit that the message from Elon and Twitter is that you can fire 75% of your staff and still run your company.  Sadly, I think that  is definitely the message tech CEO's took from it, regardless of the quality ( or lack) on the platform itself.

I don’t think they took the 75% away, but they certainly got them message to cut staff and raise profits. I don’t think this 5-10% RIF we are seeing is by accident. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Would

At courthouses all across the world, there’s images of absolute goddesses with their boobs out wielding swords and scales.  Then you get inside and this complete letdown for what actually goes on. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

At courthouses all across the world, there’s images of absolute goddesses with their boobs out wielding swords and scales.  Then you get inside and this complete letdown for what actually goes on. 

image.png.59dcd8e67bb2042de6285593293253e2.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

google legitimately just pushed out an update that wouldn't put white people in historically accurate places. What the fuck else do you need? Do I think it was nefarious and some mechanism to wipe out white people. No, I'm not a moron. I do think it's a manifestation of being run by a bunch of fucking morons who care more about metrics and feel good DEI than they do about reality. 

If I worked at google I would do this shit too, just to amuse myself as morons got triggered and interpreted the tea leaves.
  • Haha 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NoName said:

There are bad investments, then there is TWTR

Kara Swisher will be speaking at SXSW Saturday with mark cuban. If you have a chance; I highly recommend seeing that chat. I have tickets to here Boston (well Cambridge really) event, but it’s only with our governor, Maura Healy. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Captain Ron said:

Kara Swisher will be speaking at SXSW Saturday with mark cuban. If you have a chance; I highly recommend seeing that chat. I have tickets to here Boston (well Cambridge really) event, but it’s only with our governor, Maura Healy. 

Thanks, Mr. Galloway.

cant-believe-i-just-did-that-ace-trainer

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nivek said:

For a genius he is kind of an idiot.

He’s been hanging out with Trump. Not surprised if Trump pulls an Amber Heard and gets Elon to pay all of his court fines with all of his imaginary money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/29/2024 at 7:48 PM, Captain Ron said:

Elon won't fuck you dude.

None of the fanbois want to be fucked by Elon.  That would be gay.  They just want to blow him to completion to absorb some of his greatness via jizz.

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elon’s Musk sounds like a nice grift opportunity. Each bottle contains exactly a minimum of 1 sperm cell.

Smell the success. Taste the success. This product is not endorsed by the FDA and is not suitable for human use. But you dumbfucks ate apple flavored horse dewormer and you don’t read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...