Elon Musk angles to keep his ex and ‘420’ Twitter drama out of lawsuit

Tesla CEO Elon Musk is seeking to maintain his ex-girlfriend Grimes and alleged acquaintance Azealia Banks from this official list of a lawsuit concerning his “420” “joke” that brought the SEC down . An effort to subpoena the two Grimes and Banks was met with stiff opposition by Musk’therefore attorney, who accused the plaintiffs of trying to sensationalize the case.

Because you might remember — although it seems long ago now — Musk tweeted he had been “considering taking Tesla personal at $420,” adding “Funding secured. ”

Those pioneered in weed culture comprehended that the nod to the official time of day for getting large, and shortly afterwords arrived Instagram articles from Azealia Banks asserting she had been staying in his location in the time in the invite of Grimes, he had been high in the time of the tweet and the share price has been chosen as a clumsy joke to impress his girlfriend.

The 7 eyebrow-raising details in the Elon Musk fraud criticism

There were questions concerning the true existence of funding, the intellect of announcing such an important thing on Twitter telling his plank, etc, leading to actions by the SEC and acquaintances. Within a lawsuit filed by the latter, the plaintiffs needed to subpoena Banks and Grimes (actual name Claire Elise Boucher), whom they suggested had pertinent evidence. Musk’s lawyer, Dean Kristy, pushed right back in a movement of opposition.

He first complains that the plaintiffs did not follow procedure, but suggests that Grimes is uninvolved and Banks is a “rapper” (in color quotes) and a twist. Here’s the important excerpt:

Additionally, by targeting Mr. Musk’s girlfriend at the time (who hasn’t worked for Tesla) and, according to published reports, a “rapper” that, depending on the content plaintiff has submitted, has an “history of making bold and at times unverified maintains,” is a “veteran long and nonsensical beefs [and has] feuded with everybody from Sarah Palin to Nick Cannon,” also has been “banned” from Twitter (see Pl. Exs. A, B), it is readily evident that this is more of an effort to sensationalize these proceedings than a serious, legitimate effort to preserve “electronic documents” of parties with firsthand understanding of important facts.

A history of Banks’s greatest hits on interpersonal websites followedclosely, which I need not recap here.

Not only that, but there isn’t any proof, Kristy wrote, that Grimes, Banks or even the media outlets named were likely to shed some appropriate signs (Gizmodo, as an instance, isn’t likely to delete its own post on the whole affair, which is no doubt still getting traffic), for which further reason the request should be denied.

When the plaintiffs will succeed in officially involving the parties in question isn’t for me to state but it seems clear that in the very least they have unofficially included them. Whether this demonstrates a benefit or hindrance for their situation in the end is similarly up in the air.