My prediction - Elon is getting married.
And the bride's name is ... Tesla ?
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
My prediction - Elon is getting married.
Hmm that’s a lot of RWD...
My prediction - Elon is getting married.
FC you are correctThat's wrong, the SEC's memorandum did not cite the 'willfulness' argument in support to issue an order to show cause ordering a reply by Elon Musk, they made the argument in favor of finding Elon Musk in contempt, which separate issue will be decided after Tesla and Elon replies.
To quote the SEC's memorandum:
https://www.heise.de/downloads/18/2...ssachtung_gov.uscourts.nysd.501755.18.0_2.pdf
"Significantly, a violation need not be willful in order to find contempt."
Note the "to find contempt" qualifier the SEC used: i.e. your claim that the judge used that argument to sign the simple procedural step to order Elon and Tesla to reply to the SEC's filing (i.e. ' order to show cause') is blatantly false.
The SEC's legal argument was not relied on by the judge to make her minimal ruling ordering Elon to reply. The willfulness argument is the SEC's legal theory, and the judge did not make any ruling on the merits of the case.
Furthermore, even cursory review of the SEC's legal theory shows that it's flawed, because the case they cited (Donovan v. Sovereign Sec. Ltd., 726 F.2d 55, 59 (2d Cir. 1984)) relied on a defendant's undisputed, voluntary admission that he violated a settlement.
No such admission exists in this case (the SEC only purports that such an admission exists and I fully expect Tesla to dispute it), so the SEC's case law citation is inapposite (i.e. will probably be rejected by the judge) on its face.
The federal judge presiding over the case did not decide on the merits of the memorandum that outlines the SEC's views about finding Elon Musk in contempt, the order instructing Elon Musk to show cause was a minimal procedural step allowing Tesla their first filing to defend themselves against the SEC's accusation.
A judge deciding on the merits without giving Tesla a chance to defend themselves would be blatantly prejudicial, a clear procedural error and a cause for reversal on appeal.
I.e. your claims are, as usually, blatantly false. I expect Tesla to mount a strong legal defense against the SEC's memorandum in their March 11 filing.
TL;DR: it was pretty clear from your posts so far that you aren't working in the financial industry and that you don't have any accounting background either, now it's also clear that you have no legal background either, whatsoever.
The "Trolls For Hire" firms must be really scraping the bottom of the barrel to hire staff:
why can't they be midrange RWD?This sounds like Standard Range is coming very soon. That is my guess for today's news.
why can't they be midrange RWD?
Yup, and they will also claim that Tesla is actually losing money on each car they sell and the only reason they are releasing it is to improve their image and increase demand.yeah, evidence is leaning towards the announcement of the SR for $35k.
it's a huge step forward for the company and humanity!
by the way, spoiler alert: the media, who have been clubbing Tesla for not delivering the promised $35k Model 3, will now club Tesla for delivering the $35k Model 3, claiming it means there are demand problems.
They could. It's just a guesswhy can't they be midrange RWD?
It's possible, but that's a LOT of lemurs...
It would depend on who Elon is marrying.Tesla News no people news !
So this means some of us guessed it right what Tusk means and he saw it.He’s back to Elon Musk on Twitter.
It would depend on who Elon is marrying.