Don't take it personally. I am busy (these are 16 hr days, 5-yrs now, less sick time and funerals). I generally stop reading a comment after the first incorrect assumption. I'll reread your entire statement... You began with the 1st-Person voice, as if stating your own opinion. Perhaps if you'd described this as the SEC's position rather than your own, we would not be here right now (sidebar follows).
Were you a high school debater? Here's an example* of the basic structure of an argument:
- Major Premise: ie: "All Men are Mortal"
- Minor Premise: "Plato is a Man"
- Conclusion: "Therefore Plato is Mortal"
In debate (the classical form is based on the study of Greek rhetoric), if you can demonstrate that either the major or minor premise is false, the argument is not made (not compelling; not agreed upon).
You missed the mark, while attempting distraction with a strawman argument. Your additional statements (which I did
not quote in my first reply) also did not address the actual issue I raised, which is SEC's "
valid contract" basis for denying Elon's 1st Amendment right to free speech. BTW, the link to your complete comment did appear in my reply, for anyone with the time and interest to follow up.
The SEC used duress to force Elon to accept a
multi-million dollar penalty (which he knew was unjust) to avoid the death of his
multi-billion dollar company. The SEC knew that too, that's the '
intent' part of their misconduct, which itself should be reviewed by the Courts. This is not a valid contract under basic tort law (also at the high school level). To continue the dissection of the SEC argument, their position is that:
- Constitutional 1st Amendment rights can be surrendered via contract,
- Elon entered a valid contract with the SEC to accept limits on his free speech, and
- Therefore Elon surrendered his first Amendment rights.
I hold that the Minor Premise #2 above is false: The contract is not valid because it was entered into under duress.
"A party who is forced into an act or contract under duress can rescind the contract, rendering it null and void. In a duress defense, the party admits to committing an act, but unwillingly. Even though the act was illegal, the act was entered into under extreme pressure or threat to cause bodily harm or even death."
BTW, the Major Premise #1 above is
also likely false (due to the "
certain unalienable rights" phrasing of the preamble to the US Contitution. As in, "No, SEC you don't have the legal right to place limits on free speech" regardless of the mechanism. But as a strategy in Court, you'd likely focus on your strongest argument.
Pro Tip: this is not about you or me. This is about the SEC, their dubious conduct, and how it continues to have negative effects upon Tesla investors. It's at times like this when I miss
@Fact Checking (top-notch amateur legal mind, now lost to the twits...).
Why not just say it outloud then? These are mafia-like crooks in expensive suits, and need to be held accountable. Big Carbon is paying these big legal bills, along with the Wall St. banksters who finance them. It's obvious now (has been since 1978) that the root cause of enviromental, climate, and human rights issues world-wide is Wall St. greed and avarice, with their unquenchable thirst for more dirty fuels, moar dirty money, dirty lawyers and dirty politics.
Do you think Big $$$ can be beaten at the game they invented and rigged, at the Casino they built? I don't (Elon won two legal cases last week; the losers have already refiled the same suits). It's endless, like their greed. The trick with these groups is that they don't actually give a *sugar* about whether or not something is true, or if their case is false. The trial is just for show, the results are decided in advance. They just keep going no matter what, as long as they have $$$. And their casino lets them print unlimited money, no wonder they love the game. They won't stop, or accept defeat.
Gloomy? No! The secret is to change the game.
HOW!? Make a
better game! One which is
sustainable. Changing the Game is Elon's superpower. Rockets? Reuse 'em! Dirty Cars? Electrify 'em? Boring Traffic? Boring-Co! Wi-Fried? Sky-Net! Save the Earth? Make a backup! That's how we win, by challenging assumptions, and proving them false (they said we
couldn't but we
did it anyway).
This is
why I fight (Artful Dodger | TMC, March 11, 2020).
Cheers!
#SEC #DIRTYCOLLARCRIME #REFUSETOLOSE #CHANGETHEGAME
*BTW, wrt Plato the Major Premise is false because all Men haven't died yet, so it is TBD if all men are mortal (even though Big Carbon may tries hard as they might)