Arnold Panz
Model Sig 304, VIN 542
All fair points, and I definitely don't have any knowledge first or second hand of ME's financial situation. The reason I sensed a clash of egos reading the Complaint was that a lot of extraneous stuff was included that any decent lawyer, without client control issues, would never want to include. It dilutes your core arguments to include (legally) irrelevant facts because it gives the impression that your entire argument is legally irrelevant. Someone else here referred to it as throwing as much stuff against the wall as possible and hoping something sticks.
It's possible the lawyers wanted to include all of the extraneous "facts", but usually it's the client who insists on adding stuff like that, even if it has no relevance whatsoever to the legal case, and can oftentimes hurt your case as much as help it. I don't know if ME felt desperate enough to sue because EM's alleged usurpation of the term "founder of Tesla" from ME was causing him problems in the marketplace (he mentions no specific examples in the Complaint, which would have been highly relevant and advisable to do if such examples existed), but regardless, I stand by my original statement which is that the only people who are likely to benefit from this case are the lawyers who get paid their fees regardless.
A lawsuit like this one should always be an absolutely last resort. I can't say if ME was at that point or not, but I have seen too many examples of people confusing questions of right and wrong with what can get remedied by our court system. Right and wrong generally have little or nothing to do with who wins or loses a court case.
