Musk takes the stand in first day of �pedo guy?trial

[GGG Gloveking]

it's very hard to quantify the damage of having one of the most famous people in the world call you a pedophile, but it's not tough to believe that it would damage your reputation. this isn't criminal court, the burden of proof isn't all that high. keep in mind that this isnt' just a personal insult, it took place on twitter and was broadcasted. and then he followed up with a journalist and gave him specifics [turned out to be false,] who will obviously publish anything he finds unless you make him sign something stating otherwise.


this will get settled out of court. i'm surprised elon took teh time out of his day to deal with it and hasn't just paid the guy an undisclosed amount of money. they probably tried and were met with resistance because dude has a leg to stand on. you can't be a billionaire with that kind of portfolio and not get sued, never mind when you use twitter to call a guy a pedophile based on fraudulent claims made by your private investigator [who turned out to be a total hack.]


FFS the guy's wife was 33 and elon said she was 12 . he's losing some money for this one but i doubt he loses a wink of sleep or it's anything more than a drop in a giant bucket.

The claimant still has the burden of proving damages. He has to prove that someone believed those words and his reputation suffered as a result. I don't see it being actionable.

[New England]

The claimant still has the burden of proving damages. He has to prove that someone believed those words and his reputation suffered as a result. I don't see it being actionable.

he does not have to prove anything in the conventional sense that you are talking about [unless you want to elaborate, which you are not!] he he is not in criminal court, this is a civil case. he needs a preponderance of evidence, IE he has to provide evidence that something is more likelt than not to have occured. that is not a "smoking gun," it's either a stack of evidence, or some clear and concise evidence to support his claims.

he will also sue damages for pain and suffering. one of the most powerful business leaders in the world called him a pedophile and he was flat out lying. then he told a journalist he had a 13 year old, mail order wife, which was again a lie! thius is not rocket science, it's civil court, which is a f#cking **** show if you've ever been involved with it!


cases like this one are precisely the reason you don't need to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" in a civil case. it's literally impossible to quantify the implication of a tweet that goes out to 20 million followers, or the story a journalist publishes based on your misinformation. so you provide evidence in support of your claim, you don't have to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt. i doubt very much that this guy has a letter from anybody stating that they're going to take X amount of business away from him because of elon's claim that he's a pedophile. he doesn't need it. elon will settle this out of court and move on, he knew the score when the journalist published the paper and you can read between the lines and you can see that fairly clearly. he tried to cover his butt when he said it was a personal conversation and not something he expected to go public, IE something he din't want to go public.

elon will probably pay this guy a few hundred thousand dollars behind the scenes and that will be the end of it. 20 bux says they settle out of court for an undisclosd amount of money, adn it leaks to the press that it's six figures.

[GrandmasterWang]

This Pedo Unsworth guy sounds a lot like you Impeacher, and the rest of your brain dead crowd in the Trump thread.

What a ****** post I've quoted here.

Unsworth helped save lives you fool.

If Elon knew then what he does now he would no doubt have stfu.

Anyway, Elon will pay this guy some $$ and this will all go away.

[GGG Gloveking]

he does not have to prove anything in the conventional sense that you are talking about [unless you want to elaborate, which you are not!] he he is not in criminal court, this is a civil case. he needs a preponderance of evidence, IE he has to provide evidence that something is more likelt than not to have occured. that is not a "smoking gun," it's either a stack of evidence, or some clear and concise evidence to support his claims.

he will also sue damages for pain and suffering. one of the most powerful business leaders in the world called him a pedophile and he was flat out lying. then he told a journalist he had a 13 year old, mail order wife, which was again a lie! thius is not rocket science, it's civil court, which is a f#cking **** show if you've ever been involved with it!


cases like this one are precisely the reason you don't need to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" in a civil case. it's literally impossible to quantify the implication of a tweet that goes out to 20 million followers, or the story a journalist publishes based on your misinformation. so you provide evidence in support of your claim, you don't have to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt. i doubt very much that this guy has a letter from anybody stating that they're going to take X amount of business away from him because of elon's claim that he's a pedophile. he doesn't need it. elon will settle this out of court and move on, he knew the score when the journalist published the paper and you can read between the lines and you can see that fairly clearly. he tried to cover his butt when he said it was a personal conversation and not something he expected to go public, IE something he din't want to go public.

elon will probably pay this guy a few hundred thousand dollars behind the scenes and that will be the end of it. 20 bux says they settle out of court for an undisclosd amount of money, adn it leaks to the press that it's six figures.

You want me to elaborate, ok, I will a little. Let me preface this by saying my knowledge of torts is limited, I don't take Civil Procedure and Torts until next fall or spring. Further, I have finals to study for, so I didn't research the topic to deeply, but I'll cite a couple cases that speak on the topic.

Firstly, like in any tort claim, there have to be actual damages. Not the "preponderance" of possibilty of damage (I'll talk about the actual legal threshold later), but rather the possibility of causation of actual damages. The question is "Is the defendant more likely than not to have caused actual damage?"

To illustrate this, I'll cite a Washington case, Mark v Seattle Times, 635 P.2d 1081 (1981). "Under our cases a defamation plaintiff must show four essential elements: falsity, unprivileged communication, fault, and damages. Sims at 233, 580 P.2d 642 (1977)." A subsequent federal case, also out of Washington, cites this rule. "A defamation plaintiff must show four essential elements: falsity, an unprivileged communication, fault, and damages. (citation omitted) Defendant asserts that plaintiff cannot meet the second and fourth elements of this cause of action." Hennick v Bowling, 115 F.Supp.2d 1204 (2000). Here, the defendant actually asserts as part of his defense that there are no actual damages. The opinion continues, "Defendant also argues that plaintiff is unable to show damage as a result of defendant's statements..." id at 1209. So, clearly the lack of actual damage is a defense in a defamation suit.

Now, onto the threshold of proof. Since this is a defamation suit, and henceforth a First ********* issue by proxy, the burden of proof is higher than a simple preponderance of the evidence. Here, the legal standard is "clear and convincing" evidence. Going back to the Mark case, "The function of the trial court in ruling on a defense motion for summary judgment in a defamation action is to determine if the plaintiff's proffered evidence is of a sufficient quantum to establish a prima facie case with convincing clarity. Unless it has done so, the motion must be granted. Chase v Daily Record, Inc., 515 P.2d 154 (1973)." Mark at 1088. In this case, the Plaintiff asserts incorrectly that his burden of proof is only a preponderance of the evidence. "Mark contends that Taskett, in establishing a negligence burden for private persons alleging defamation, requires only that a plaintiff meet a preponderance of the evidence standard and thus that the convincing clarity standard is not approved by this court. Taskett did not discuss the standard of proof, however, but only the standard of liability (negligence rather than malice). Taskett v KING Broadcasting Co., 546 P2.d 81 (1976). Furthermore, the policy reasons, rooted in the First *********, for an early testing of plaintiff's evidence by a convincing clarity burden continue to be persuasive. Chase v Daily Record Inc.; Washington Post Co. v Keogh; Tait v KING Broadcasting Co (citations omitted). Accordingly, we do not retreat from the rule announced in Chase and followed in Sims, and we adher to the requirement that a defamation plaintiff resisting a defense motion for summary judgment must establish a prima facie case by convincing clarity." id at 1088, 1089. Here, the court shows that the standard of proof is higher than a mere preponderance.

So, what we've learned today is that defamation requires actual damages, and that the standard of proof is clear and convincing evidence, which is a somewhat higher threshold than a preponderance of the evidence, since the issue is rooted in the First *********.

[alexguiness]

Musk is a total douche bag.

A smug, narcissistic pr1ck.

The fact he is crazy wealthy does nothing to change the above.

[QueensburyRules]

Musk is a total douche bag.

A smug, narcissistic pr1ck.

The fact he is crazy wealthy does nothing to change the above.

- -See the fates of the ENRON progenitors!

[Anthony342]

So Musk called a "cave explorer" a pedophile? That's a hell of a coincidence. I guess he thought he was doing some cave exporing with kids. Since this has led to a lawsuit, maybe Elon Musk should be one of those people that has someone make his twitter posts for him.

[GGG Gloveking]

Update: Elon Musk found not liable

[QueensburyRules]

- -Musk tried to exploit his celebrity and business in the midst of a very tricky, large scale cave rescue with little room for error as one rescuer paid with his life.

He'll be sued again and again because people now know what a viscious jerk he is. Eventually he'll drag his companies down to be sued by investers and even given the boot as has already happened with his autos.

[DoubleLeftH00k]

it's very hard to quantify the damage of having one of the most famous people in the world call you a pedophile, but it's not tough to believe that it would damage your reputation. this isn't criminal court, the burden of proof isn't all that high. keep in mind that this isnt' just a personal insult, it took place on twitter and was broadcasted. and then he followed up with a journalist and gave him specifics [turned out to be false,] who will obviously publish anything he finds unless you make him sign something stating otherwise.


this will get settled out of court. i'm surprised elon took teh time out of his day to deal with it and hasn't just paid the guy an undisclosed amount of money. they probably tried and were met with resistance because dude has a leg to stand on. you can't be a billionaire with that kind of portfolio and not get sued, never mind when you use twitter to call a guy a pedophile based on fraudulent claims made by your private investigator [who turned out to be a total hack.]


FFS the guy's wife was 33 and elon said she was 12 . he's losing some money for this one but i doubt he loses a wink of sleep or it's anything more than a drop in a giant bucket.

Cant blame musk
Them asian women looks like 12