Elon Musk 'to be sued in Thailand, London and US’ by cave diver he called 'paedo' in baseless remark

[lamyai3]

1 hour ago, JLCrab said:

Wood, Unsworth's attorney, said via email that his firm is "representing Mr. Unsworth pursuant to a written engagement agreement and are not providing services pro bono."

Pro bono means no fee at all, so presumably this refers to a contingency arrangement, Unsworth would still not have to put up his own money. 

[Tarteso]

Who’s bad?

 

[Esso49]

10 hours ago, Acharn said:

I'm an American and I think suing in America would be very risky. American libel law is very uncertain. Since Mr. Musk is a celebrity special rules apply, usually protecting him. I'm not sure how it would work in this case, with Musk the defendant. Great Britain would be a good choice since they still have effective libel and slander laws. Musk has made things worse for himself by repeating the slander, and again accusing accusing Mr. Unsworth of child rape. No, Mr. Unsworth does not have to prove himself innocent of the libel; Musk has the burden of proving that his defamatory statements are true, which I don't believe he can do. Musk is apparently suffering from a mental breakdown. He also made a clearly illegal announcement that he was going to take the company private at a price of $420 a share when the stock was trading at $340, and that he had funding. That caused a lot of people to lose money, and he should be prosecuted for it, but he's rich and probably won't be. The American government is very like the Thai government that way.

And now he is smoking pot whilst live streaming.   It may well not be illegal but really is this the  correct image of a sane billionaire ?   Howard Hughes must have been his role model.

[JLCrab]

14 minutes ago, lamyai3 said:

Pro bono means no fee at all, so presumably this refers to a contingency arrangement, Unsworth would still not have to put up his own money. 

Most likely but Mr. Wood is a lawyer who  presumably chooses his words carefully and that is not what he said.

[Elad]

A billionaire should have better things to do with his life than tweet crap about a cave diving expert. 

[hobz]

11 minutes ago, Esso49 said:

And now he is smoking pot whilst live streaming.   It may well not be illegal but really is this the  correct image of a sane billionaire ?   Howard Hughes must have been his role model.

He took on puff and didn't even inhale. He looked at Joe Rogan and and said it had no effect on him.

This tells us he never smoked pot. A good thing for him probably. Shows how innocent he is. Cute really.

[lamyai3]

11 minutes ago, JLCrab said:

Most likely but Mr. Wood is a lawyer who  presumably chooses his words carefully and that is not what he said.

Agree, the lawyer knows to ensure he's meticulous in his phrasing. But a contingency basis (involving a substantial percentage) is the most likely arrangement given that Unsworth would almost certainly stipulate at the outset that he would only proceed if there was no personal financial risk involved. I recall that Unsworth also had previously been a financial advisor, so it's very unlikely he'd sign up to something that could bite him in the arse... 

[JLCrab]

Mr. Unsworth's lawyers (solicitors?) in UK if you look at the cc: at the bottom of the August 6 Lin Wood letter to Mr. Musk is Howard Kennedy LLP so that complicates the issue.

Edited September 8, 2018 by JLCrab

[Artisi]

34 minutes ago, Elad said:

A billionaire should have better things to do with his life than tweet crap about a cave diving expert. 

Caver, not cave diver. 

[lvr181]

On 9/6/2018 at 6:21 PM, JLCrab said:

So even if Unsworth might win his case(s),  collecting on damages might not be easy.

That is the crux of the matter! Unless you have some lawyers working on a "fee of the winnings paid" basis.

 

Unsworth should only initially pursue the matter in a Thai court - will be cheaper than U.S.A. or the U.K.

 

In the event of a court case or more, the only "winners" will be the blood suckers - lawyers (there not all the same but too many of them are)!

[JAG]

1 hour ago, hobz said:

He took on puff and didn't even inhale. He looked at Joe Rogan and and said it had no effect on him.

This tells us he never smoked pot. A good thing for him probably. Shows how innocent he is. Cute really.

Ah, the "I didn't inhale defence"!

 

Now where have I heard that before?

?

[NanLaew]

1 hour ago, lvr181 said:

Unsworth should only initially pursue the matter in a Thai court - will be cheaper than U.S.A. or the U.K.

Yes, the Thai courts where lawyers will happily roll over for a paltry couple of million baht, ie. there's cheap and then there's not so cheap legal.

Edited September 8, 2018 by NanLaew

[lvr181]

4 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Yes, the Thai courts where lawyers will happily roll over for a paltry couple of million baht, ie. there's cheap and then there's not so cheap legal.

I think I understand what your saying.

 

A really smart legal brain in Thailand is still going to cost (more than your usual Thai 'lawyer') a helluva lot less than the same in USA or UK. 

[hobz]

1 hour ago, JAG said:

Ah, the "I didn't inhale defence"!

 

Now where have I heard that before?

?

It's not a defence. It's just what I saw. I know what it looks like when someone inhales.

[sanemax]

5 hours ago, Wake Up said:

Calling someone a pedo is wrong. But how much is it worth?  Rich men don’t pay lots of money easily and if I was on the jury I would give Vern one USA dollar and be upset with all the wasted legal fees and time spent on this child like war of grown men. Hope they both lose. To those that think this is a million dollar lottery you are mistaken.  The only winner will be the lawyers, Elon’s will get paid cash and Vern’s will get free advertising that would otherwise cost them a  fortune. So the lawyers win on both sides and the plaintiff and defendant get to wage a war. What a freaking waste of time and resources.  

Maybe Vern just wants to clear his name , instead of having those accusations hanging over him for the rest of his life

[side]

Ah, internet forums, where researching your opinion is for snowflakes and facts are optional. What I said many pages ago remains fundamentally correct:

 

1) It's a Defamation Lawsuit. Both sides have a burden in civil cases. It has nothing to do with "insulting someone"

2) It’s up to Vernon's lawyers to prove a. Musk said something defamatory, b. it was published, c. Vernon was identifiable as the target, d. Vernon suffered or will suffer reputational and/or material damage.

3) And conversely, it’s up to Musk to prove what he wrote was factual. 

4) In a civil case, you need only meet a preponderance of the evidence, ie 49/51 on the scale. Can Musk get to 51% on the evidence scale that Vernon is a paedo? 

 

So no one here needs to waste internet bandwidth on suggesting Vern toughens up to this simple insult, or that Musk is too big to be sued (plenty of famous people are sued). Insult is not illegal, defamation of character IS. Vern needs to present evidence that points 2)a. to d. are fulfilled. Seems relatively obvious that they are. If Musk cannot demonstrate that Vern is in fact a paedo, then it's done. 

 

It's also incorrect that Vern is not a public figure as some on here say. He most certainly is now (not as famous as Musk but still a public figure) and he stands to make money from his cave saving contributions. Book anyone? documentary? Talk show circuit? Whatever. He can do none of that if the world thinks he's a paedo.

 

Our personal opinions don't enter into it.

 

 

 

[digger70]

17 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

I am not your helper or teacher, google it yourself and be more polite.

Why,,,,  I asked , you didn't provide  any proof or gave me a decent answer , Bit up yourself ain't we.   ?

[FritsSikkink]

7 minutes ago, digger70 said:

Why,,,,  I asked , you didn't provide  any proof or gave me a decent answer , Bit up yourself ain't we.   ?

If you don't believe, up to you, I couldn't care less.

[transam]

7 minutes ago, digger70 said:

Why,,,,  I asked , you didn't provide  any proof or gave me a decent answer , Bit up yourself ain't we.   ?

Keep on Digging....?

[FritsSikkink]

14 hours ago, cyborgx said:

Actually it's not, it comes under the frequently used Defamation of Character laws...

Read my response properly, I said the same.

[digger70]

4 minutes ago, transam said:

Keep on Digging....?

Nah,,, no need Trans, someone send me the Defamation Law in Thailand      Section 326 of the Thai Criminal Code

[transam]

6 minutes ago, digger70 said:

Nah,,, no need Trans, someone send me the Defamation Law in Thailand      Section 326 of the Thai Criminal Code

Oh, I got suspended too...?

[Artisi]

2 hours ago, side said:

Ah, internet forums, where researching your opinion is for snowflakes and facts are optional. What I said many pages ago remains fundamentally correct:

 

1) It's a Defamation Lawsuit. Both sides have a burden in civil cases. It has nothing to do with "insulting someone"

2) It’s up to Vernon's lawyers to prove a. Musk said something defamatory, b. it was published, c. Vernon was identifiable as the target, d. Vernon suffered or will suffer reputational and/or material damage.

3) And conversely, it’s up to Musk to prove what he wrote was factual. 

4) In a civil case, you need only meet a preponderance of the evidence, ie 49/51 on the scale. Can Musk get to 51% on the evidence scale that Vernon is a paedo? 

 

So no one here needs to waste internet bandwidth on suggesting Vern toughens up to this simple insult, or that Musk is too big to be sued (plenty of famous people are sued). Insult is not illegal, defamation of character IS. Vern needs to present evidence that points 2)a. to d. are fulfilled. Seems relatively obvious that they are. If Musk cannot demonstrate that Vern is in fact a paedo, then it's done. 

 

It's also incorrect that Vern is not a public figure as some on here say. He most certainly is now (not as famous as Musk but still a public figure) and he stands to make money from his cave saving contributions. Book anyone? documentary? Talk show circuit? Whatever. He can do none of that if the world thinks he's a paedo.

 

Our personal opinions don't enter into it.

 

 

 

Reasonable summary, with exception "if the world thinks he's a peado" that's equivalent to personal opinions and irrelevant. 

Edited September 8, 2018 by Artisi

[side]

10 minutes ago, Artisi said:

Reasonable summary, with exception "if the world thinks he's a pseudo" that's equivalent to personal opinions and irrelevant. 

Fair enough point though a lawyer would have to question whether, say, a school would ask him to come speak about the cave experience if there were the suspicion of being a pedophile hanging over his head. I guess what I'm saying with that is that a lawyer must demonstrate a level of certainty that the defamatory statements will have/have had a negative on Vern's public persona's ability to make some sort of gain.

 

I phrased it wrong so it kinda sounded like my opinion. Hope that makes more sense.

Edited September 8, 2018 by side

[JLCrab]

Published 7:26 AM ET Wed, 5 Sept 2018  Updated 11:22 AM ET Wed, 5 Sept 2018

 

"A lawsuit against Musk could be ready for filing as early as next week, CNBC understands."

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/05/tesla-ceo-elon-musk-calls-british-cave-diver-child-rapist.html

 

Stay tuned.

[Artisi]

2 minutes ago, side said:

Fair enough point though a lawyer would have to question whether, say, a school would ask him to come speak about the cave experience if there were the suspicion of being a pedophile hanging over his head. I guess what I'm saying with that is that a lawyer must demonstrate a level of certainty that the defamatory statements will have/have had on Vern's public persona's ability to make some sort of gain.

 

I phrased it wrong so it kinda sounded like my opinion. Hope that makes more sense.

Suspicion counts for little - just personal opinion. Charged - with the charge upheld in a court of law makes him a paedophile. 

What the world thinks, Musk thinks, or you and I think - accounts for bugger-all. 

[sanemax]

5 minutes ago, Artisi said:

Suspicion counts for little - just personal opinion. Charged - with the charge upheld in a court of law makes him a paedophile. 

What the world thinks, Musk thinks, or you and I think - accounts for bugger-all. 

I do disagree , unless you are sat at home in isolation , it will effect your daily life .

People, friends avoiding you , your childrens friends not visiting your house on their parents orders , kids avoiding you in the street .

   Your family back home having no contact with you .

Media not wanting to get involved with Vern .

   Just people having their suspicions is one thing , but its very different when those suspicions are upheld by a famous public figure and those allegations are broadcast around the world

[Just Weird]

22 hours ago, Miss Pickle said:

If I was him I would ignore it.I recon that Musk has done a bit digging on him to come out with these remarks.Lets be honest he has been going to Pattaya for years and I am sure he has been with plenty young girls not saying they would be under age but sure would be young enough to be his grandchild. I have been going to Thailand for years the flights are full of single older men on the hunt for love ❤️ and are willing to pay a high price for it. He will open a can of worms for sure. 

"I have been going to Thailand for years the flights are full of single older men on the hunt for love and are willing to pay a high price for it".

 

Really? That's a fact, is it?  How exactly did you establish that, conducted an in-flight survey on all the "single, older men that filled the flight (what?)", did you?  Jesus...

Edited September 8, 2018 by Just Weird

[Artisi]

56 minutes ago, sanemax said:

I do disagree , unless you are sat at home in isolation , it will effect your daily life .

People, friends avoiding you , your childrens friends not visiting your house on their parents orders , kids avoiding you in the street .

   Your family back home having no contact with you .

Media not wanting to get involved with Vern .

   Just people having their suspicions is one thing , but its very different when those suspicions are upheld by a famous public figure and those allegations are broadcast around the world

I was referring to it as a fact in law, not what people believe, the very reason why Unsworth should go for Musk's jugular to establish what Musk said is not true. 

[LingLek]

On 9/6/2018 at 11:19 AM, racket said:

Is Vern going to court just to prove he's not a pedo? It's not illegal to call somebody a pedo, but since there's a dispute he needs to prove he isn't. Elon could easily just funnel some cash to his thai girlfriend and endup turning against him. He could also slide off future investments in thailand, and will thai authorities be happy with that? Could Vern perhaps risk being blacklisted? 

 

I'm getting sick of this Vern guy who's nothing more but a looser hiding in Chiang Rai thinking he was the only hero in the cave rescue operation. I first thought he was reasonable and did a great job, but I'm done supporting the guy. Now we all understand he's doing everything he can to squeeze some cash out of Musk. 

Keep in mind that he has a family (not in Thailand) who have had to put up with the same ugly smears. He probably wishes to prove himself libelled to protect theirs as much as his own reputation. Musk also suggested he was a 'child-rapist,' which is surely something even you would wish to have proven libellous were the same claim directed at you. You call him a 'looser' (you probably meant 'loser') 'hiding away in Chiang Rai' (from what, exactly?) with opinions about himself and his role in the cave rescue you can't possibly be party to. And why assume he's doing it for the money? Without any substantiation from you, I can only conclude that you're transferring much of your own ignoble thoughts and wishes on to him.