Tesla's Musk says British Thai cave rescuer's defamation case should be dismissed

[JLCrab]

The above were comments from Unsworth's attorney and writer at ZeroHedge. 

[sanemax]

18 minutes ago, ChipButty said:

There were even some whispers and murmurs at the time that Musk may have flexed his power and resources to somehow drum up evidence to support his accusations based on Unsworth's past.

That was quite blatant though , Musk told the journalists to go and find some evidence to back-up his claims , go to Chaing Rai and speak to his neighbors , try and get something on him .

  Musk also sent off-the record false allegations to the media . hoping that they would publish those allegations without naming him as the source .

  And if that wasnt devious enough , Musk then publicly questioned why Vern hadnt began taking legal action and Verns lack of taking legal action was proof of his guilt and Musk said he wanted Vern to take legal action .......... whereas the reality that Vern had already begun legal proceedings and Verns lawyer had already stated to Musks lawyers that legal action had began  .

   That shows what a dishonest , deceptive liar that Musk is 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

I think Musk is in trouble here.

 

A lot of the U.S. law on these kinds of issues comes down to whether or not Unsworth is considered a "public figure" or a private citizen.

 

If he's considered a public figure, then to be liable, the accuser would have to have knowingly stated a patently false allegation with the specific intent to damage. On the other hand, if Unsworth is judged a private citizen, then the bar is much lower and it's much easier to obtain a verdict/judgment in these kinds of cases.

 

My guess would be that despite the temporary cave rescue publicity, Unworth will be considered a private citizen and not a public figure by the court... But who knows....

 

[JLCrab]

3 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

My guess would be that despite the temporary cave rescue publicity, Unworth will be considered a private citizen and not a public figure by the court... But who knows....

 

Great -- do you only get one guess?

[KneeDeep]

7 hours ago, JLCrab said:

If the Musk defense team shows this video in court, the case might end right there.

 

 

Why? On what basis?

 

You seem to be making these posts, but they appear to have no correlation to Musk's statement.

The British guy gave an opinion. Whereas Musk made an accusation that the British is a paedophile(and might I add with no evidence whatsoever) and then incited a reporter to find such evidence to back up his baseless claim.

 

There is no doubt that Musk will have to pay up. He is a lying idiot with a big mouth.

[KneeDeep]

2 hours ago, JLCrab said:

Yes your're right - I wrote that at 5 AM. I would note that Lin Wood's defamation cases have usually involved his clients being accused of murder -- especially the Richard Jewell case -- or criminal activity.

 

And regardless of what were the chances of Musk's aiding the rescue, the comment by Unsworth that it was a publicity stunt I would think more problematic than his "stick it" comment.

 

 

??

 

What on earth are you talking about? Unsworth's comments will have no bearing on the trial.

Musk isn't counter claiming against Unsworth and would get nowhere if he did.

 

No 5am excuse this time.

[KneeDeep]

2 hours ago, JLCrab said:

OOPs computer hiccup

 

 

But OK I certainly do not know if Musk's lawyers have the goods to have the case dismissed or if Unsworth and attorney Lin Wood would prevail in a jury trial. I just don't think the case is the slam-dunk that many on here seem to think that it is.

 

 

??

 

You seem to be all over the place on this one. Clutching at straws. Somewhat like Musk and his team.

The goods? What goods? If they had 'the goods', they wouldn't be claiming that it was all a 'juvenile prank'.

Instead they would be presenting evidence to back up his original claim. They have none and believe me, they are looking, as it is their only chance.

He will pay. No doubt.

[KneeDeep]

2 hours ago, DJ54 said:

Never know what will happen....  it might be seen provoked 

 

To prove defamation in California, you must establish four elements:

That someone made a false statement of purported “fact” about you:

That the statement was made (“published”) to a third party;

That the person who made the statement did so negligently, recklessly or intentionally; and,

That as a result of the statement, your reputation was damaged.

California law recognizes two types of defamation: libel and slander. The main difference is whether a statement was made verbally (slander) or in writing (libel).

 

Rubbish.

[JLCrab]

8 minutes ago, KneeDeep said:

 

You seem to be all over the place on this one.

Sure -- because next to no one here has mentioned next to anything about the US law and precedent as to how a libel cases like this would be handled.

[KneeDeep]

5 hours ago, ttrd said:

As a response to mr nobody who said on the direct in the middle of an interview on a News channel "he could stick the submarine where it hurts" kinda deserve it....... 

 

Wow..... how old are you? Only a child would consider that as acceptable reasoning.

 

Somewhat akin to shooting someone in the head for queue jumping. Not an appropriate response and he will pay for it.

The only question is how much.

[scorecard]

2 hours ago, JLCrab said:

OOPs computer hiccup

 

 

But OK I certainly do not know if Musk's lawyers have the goods to have the case dismissed or if Unsworth and attorney Lin Wood would prevail in a jury trial. I just don't think the case is the slam-dunk that many on here seem to think that it is.

 

Well you've now taken your position down about 3 notches.

[JLCrab]

8 minutes ago, scorecard said:

Well you've now taken your position down about 3 notches.

No I have been consistent -- anyone who can tell you in advance what a judge or a jury might decide doesn't know what's going on.

 

Even if the case proceeds and is not dismissed, it might be with a judge's procedural ruling that would make it very difficult for Unsworth to win.

 

But maybe this is all a stalling tactic by Musk so that he can move any assets of his either off-shore out of reach of any court judgment against him.

Edited December 28, 2018 by JLCrab

[racket]

Unsworth is doing this because of the money, I really hope he loses the case and eventually get to pay Musk for his arrogant statement on CNN. Why would he first ask for $75,000 and not let the judge decide the fine? Well, there you have it and the media doesn't mention the fact that it was Unsworth who started it. 

 

Remember, Musk already apologized but Unsworth didn't apologize for his ridicule saying. One would have thought the latter would have reacted the same way.. but no I guess...

[KneeDeep]

11 minutes ago, JLCrab said:

Sure -- because next to no one here has mentioned next to anything about the US law and precedent as to how a libel cases like this would be handled.

 

So post the precedents, not nonsense. 

 

It matters not what Unsworth stated. That is his professional opinion and there is no case to answer.

The issue is Musk's statements and his ongoing attempts to smear Unsworth.

 

His habit of taking up figures(to investors) and then hoping to reach them doesn't work in this case and like with the SEC, he is going to have to pay for it.

 

[Wake Up]

9 hours ago, Katipo said:

I like Musk for the most part, but yeah, nah, the dude was totally in the wrong here, and deserves to be judged as such in a court of law. 

I agree with you. But money damages IMO are not but warranted. USA defamation law are not same as Thailand. Would have been good if the two grown men could have sat down and Musk apologize and make some reconciliation effort and Vern accept it and move on. By hiring lawyers it looks like a greed move on Vern’s part. No one believe Vern is a Pedo and just because you are wealthy does not mean you owe money to someone for insulting them.  If Musk had no money there would not be a lawsuit. Frankly I am not proud of either one of these men in this situation.  

[KneeDeep]

3 minutes ago, racket said:

Unsworth is doing this because of the money, I really hope he loses the case and eventually get to pay Musk for his arrogant statement on CNN. Why would he first ask for $75,000 and not let the judge decide the fine? Well, there you have it and the media doesn't mention the fact that it was Unsworth who started it. 

 

Remember, Musk already apologized but Unsworth didn't apologize for his ridicule saying. One would have thought the latter would have reacted the same way.. but no I guess...

 

Nope. He did nothing at first, but Musk dared him to sue.

So now there he is, swimming in his own bullshit with no one but himself to blame.

 

Unfortunately, you let your fingers do the talking before reading what has gone before, otherwise you would understand why US$75,000.

I'm sure Unsworth offered Musk the opportunity to donate something to charity in the first instance.

Edited December 28, 2018 by KneeDeep

[Nyezhov]

34 minutes ago, KneeDeep said:

 

Try to write in English.

Sure, I thought that was pretty clear. Ill simplify it:

 

Vernon sue Musk.

Musk ask Court to throw out lawsuit

If Musk lose, he no can ask higher court to look at case.

If Musk win, Vernon can.

[JLCrab]

4 minutes ago, KneeDeep said:

 

So post the precedents, not nonsense. 

No -- it's much more fun to read your stuff.

[sanemax]

3 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

 

If Musk lose, he no can ask higher court to look at case.

 

Do you mean , *If Musk loses , he cannot ask a higher Court to judge the case* ?

[KneeDeep]

11 minutes ago, Wake Up said:

I agree with you. But money damages IMO are not but warranted. USA defamation law are not same as Thailand. Would have been good if the two grown men could have sat down and Musk apologize and make some reconciliation effort and Vern accept it and move on. By hiring lawyers it looks like a greed move on Vern’s part. No one believe Vern is a Pedo and just because you are wealthy does not mean you owe money to someone for insulting them.  If Musk had no money there would not be a lawsuit. Frankly I am not proud of either one of these men in this situation.  

 

Nope...another who does not bother to read what has gone before.

 

Quote

But Mr Unsworth accused Musk of trying to hijack the tragedy and said the businessman could "stick his submarine where it hurts".

In screenshots of a now-deleted tweet from Mr Musk's verified account, Musk said: "Sorry pedo guy, you really did ask for it."

But, on July 17, Mr Musk tweeted an apology to Mr Unsworth and "the companies he represents".

But he took to Twitter again on August 28, this time to question why diver Vern hadn't sued him in wake of the remarks.

 

So why is he wriggling now? He just repeated his claims, so now he has to produce the evidence to back them up or pay reparation.

 

As to whether he is wealthy or not..... If he wasn't wealthy and well known, no one would have even known about the comments. So he used his wealth and status against Mr Unsworth. So fittingly, his wealth and status should be included in the lawsuit.

 

Edited December 28, 2018 by KneeDeep

[KneeDeep]

5 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Sure, I thought that was pretty clear. Ill simplify it:

 

Vernon sue Musk.

Musk ask Court to throw out lawsuit

If Musk lose, he no can ask higher court to look at case.

If Musk win, Vernon can.

 

Is that English? Apologies if English is not your first language, but that is just as muddled as your other post.

[Nyezhov]

2 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Do you mean , *If Musk loses , he cannot ask a higher Court to judge the case* ?

Oh I dont need to simplify for you, sorry. Here is where it stands. Musk has made a pretrial motion to dismiss. If he loses, he cannot appeal to the 9th Circuit absent extraordinary circumstances because it is a pre trial or "interlocutory" order. If Vernons case is dismissed though, he can appeal because the dismissal would be a "final order". Musks remedy upon losing on a motion to dismiss is to go to trial.

[sanemax]

10 minutes ago, racket said:

Unsworth is doing this because of the money, I really hope he loses the case and eventually get to pay Musk for his arrogant statement on CNN. Why would he first ask for $75,000 and not let the judge decide the fine? Well, there you have it and the media doesn't mention the fact that it was Unsworth who started it. 

 

Remember, Musk already apologized but Unsworth didn't apologize for his ridicule saying. One would have thought the latter would have reacted the same way.. but no I guess...

IMO , Vern is doing this to clear his name .

Vern isnt in court in regards to the video that he made .

Vern didnt ask for $75 000 , that is the minimum that you can sue for .

It doesnt matter what Vern said previously .

Musk didnt opologise , he went on to make further unsubstantiated claims about the age of Verns Wife (12) 

[racket]

7 minutes ago, KneeDeep said:

 

Nope. He did nothing at first, but Musk dared him to sue.

So now there he is, swimming in his own bullshit with no one but himself to blame.

 

Unfortunately, you let your fingers do the talking before reading what has gone before, otherwise you would understand why US$75,000.

I'm sure Unsworth offered Musk the opportunity to donate something to charity in the first instance.

Reuters never mentioned that.., besides that wasn't a tweet at all, it was a response to another tweet as I remember it. By calling somebody a "pedo guy" doesn't mean that you have right to $75,000. 

[JLCrab]

4 minutes ago, KneeDeep said:

so no he has to produce the evidence to back them up or pay reparation.

That is your opinion?

[ocddave]

I would have asked the court to put us both in the same room for an hour, and to let what happens, happens. That way when I exit the room carrying a severed head, they don't get too upset.

[Nyezhov]

3 minutes ago, KneeDeep said:

 

Is that English? Apologies if English is not your first language, but that is just as muddled as your other post.

well try reading my response to Sanemax, above. Does that help? Googling Rule 12 would help too, as would studying the statutes regarding appeals from interlocutory orders.

[Nyezhov]

2 minutes ago, racket said:

By calling somebody a "pedo guy" doesn't mean that you have right to $75,000. 

The amount is a jurisdictional requirement that has to be pled IIRC

[KneeDeep]

3 minutes ago, racket said:

Reuters never mentioned that.., besides that wasn't a tweet at all, it was a response to another tweet as I remember it. By calling somebody a "pedo guy" doesn't mean that you have right to $75,000. 

 

It wasn't just Pedo Guy. If left at that, there might have been no response. But Musk went on to make other damaging statements and appealed to reporters to find damaging evidence on Unsworth.

Once again, the US$75,000 isn't for Unsworth. Pay attention to what has been written before.

[sanemax]

12 minutes ago, Wake Up said:

No one believe Vern is a Pedo and just because you are wealthy does not mean you owe money to someone for insulting them.

Even posters were on TV believed Musk , well, stating that theres no smoke without fire .

Why do you think that people would just dismiss Musks allegations as being lies ?