Tesla Executive manager Elon the Mask Looks forward to keeping his former girlfriend Graimes and the alleged forgery of Azealia Banks from the official record of a lawsuit related to him "420" "joke" that Bring it SEC. An attempt to summon both Graemes and Banks was met with stiff opposition from Mosk's lawyer, who accused prosecutors of trying to raise the case.
As you may recall – although it seems so long ago – Musk Tweeted Said he was "considering taking Tesla for $ 420," adding "finance is guaranteed."
Those that started in herbal culture nod to the official time of the day to get high, and soon came after the words instagram posts from banks Azealia claim She stayed in place at that time at the invitation of Graemes, and it was high in a tweet time, and the stock price was chosen as a clumsy joke to impress his girlfriend.
There were also questions about the actual existence of finance, the wisdom of advertising something important on Twitter without telling its board, etc., which led to action by the Securities and Exchange Commission and shareholders. As part of a lawsuit filed by the latter, plaintiffs wanted to summon the banks and Graemes (real name Claire Ellis Boucher), who suggested he had relevant evidence. Mosk's lawyer, Dean Christie, pushed opposition opposition.
Complains first that the plaintiffs did not follow the procedure, but suggest that Graemes is not involved and the banks are a "rap singer" (in the shadow marks) and Crank. Here are the relevant excerpts:
Moreover, by targeting Mr. Misk's girlfriend at the time (who never worked in Tesla), according to published reports, the "rap singer" who, based on the articles presented by the plaintiff, has "a history of making bold and sometimes not done Checked claims, "is" veteran of beef long and illogical [and has] She returned with everyone from Sarah Palin to Nick Cannon, "banned from Twitter" (see Pl. Exs. A, B), obviously this is more an effort to provoke these actions than serious and legitimate effort to keep "electronic documents" To third parties with direct knowledge of important facts.
This is followed by a history of the banks' greatest blows to social media, which I do not need to summarize here.
Not only that, but there is no evidence, as Christie wrote, that Graemes, or banks or named media are also likely to ignore any relevant evidence (Gizmodo, for example, will not delete his post on the whole case, which is no doubt It still gets traffic), an additional reason the request should be rejected.
Whether the plaintiffs will succeed in engaging the parties formally concerned is not me to say, but it seems clear that at least they have unofficial Share it. Whether it proves the benefit or hindrance in their cause in the end is likewise in the air.