dqd88
Member
It doesn't matter. It's just semantics. Obviously it's not criminal fraud so I suppose its civil fraud. In either case, if you read the actual complaint, I don't see any crime that the DOJ can go after, if that's any consolation.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
It doesn't matter. It's just semantics. Obviously it's not criminal fraud so I suppose its civil fraud. In either case, if you read the actual complaint, I don't see any crime that the DOJ can go after, if that's any consolation.
Seems reckless to me. ;-)
DragonWatch
Small FootPrint
Very good, thanks for clarifying. Wish I had had just three like you in my second batter command, would not have felt like I was relieved of the command as opposed of relief when it was all said and done.
It was during the fielding of the new weapon system as a lowly battery commander that the light came on that said I could do anything I wanted to as long as it was not unethical, immoral or illegal. I later used that quote in my classroom trying to ignite the spark the love of learning.
Most paper tigers stuck with just one battery command in my day, the old army
Lodger, to you I would say your country does not know what it lost when you left your service!
dqd88
Member
bhtooefr
Active Member
Link to the tweet in question: Charles Gasparino on Twitter
Also worth reading: Twitter
That goes beyond what the CNBC report said. That - ban from chairman for two years in combination with two independent directors - was bad enough, and worthy of fighting it. Ban from CEO as well? Yeah, that's door-in-the-face tactics from the SEC.
That hundreds of news titles with fraud in the title matter. Given the disconnect here from the SEC's official duties, to plain old not verifying their press statements through their lawyers, I wonder if Elon has a case against them.
I think it helps since it supports that Elon was not acting in the capacity of CEO/ Tesla rep when he tweeted.
Update on Taking Tesla Private
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
So when do I buy my options to maximize the dip and still try to leverage deliveries a week from now and also earnings?
Is there no longer a point in hoping for a squeeze on deliveries announced next week? Should I just focus on Nov12 calls?
Is there no longer a point in hoping for a squeeze on deliveries announced next week? Should I just focus on Nov12 calls?
11.6 million shares and basically flat this morning. Safe to assume a large number of sell orders around 271 and no one selling at market?
If it is possible to file suit against the SEC for this, I would join it.
After reading all the pages, as an ultra long I am amazed by the responses of the longs.
Most people are following malicious shorts theory, trying to defend what Elon did. But that is exactly the narrative shorts want. Why we not simply ask for fairness? If Elon was fraudulant/manipulating the SP, how many shorts should be charged with the same crime by creating so much FUD, constant lies, character assassin and illegal leaks? I am not legal expert. But somebody pointed the SEC lawsuit filing used a lot of shorts' theory. Is it possible shorts are more real activists than longs that they actually follow up and send complaints to SEC leading to this and used as a input source?
Elon is a genius who tries his best to do the right thing and fight the right fight, but he could have some eccentric behaviors by wall street standards. We are asking for a perfect guy who has all his strength but not his shortcomings. Are we asking for a GOD? On the other hand, if he was perfect in the wall street standard, what would be the odds tsla had the current achievement?
I have no doubts shorts are doing their job. I am losing my confidence in longs.
Most people are following malicious shorts theory, trying to defend what Elon did. But that is exactly the narrative shorts want. Why we not simply ask for fairness? If Elon was fraudulant/manipulating the SP, how many shorts should be charged with the same crime by creating so much FUD, constant lies, character assassin and illegal leaks? I am not legal expert. But somebody pointed the SEC lawsuit filing used a lot of shorts' theory. Is it possible shorts are more real activists than longs that they actually follow up and send complaints to SEC leading to this and used as a input source?
Elon is a genius who tries his best to do the right thing and fight the right fight, but he could have some eccentric behaviors by wall street standards. We are asking for a perfect guy who has all his strength but not his shortcomings. Are we asking for a GOD? On the other hand, if he was perfect in the wall street standard, what would be the odds tsla had the current achievement?
I have no doubts shorts are doing their job. I am losing my confidence in longs.
I can't remember from who and when I heard it. But I remember someone fairly "important" in business say something like " If the scandal/case doesn't bring the company or the person down in the first few days, that means it won't go through...".
Something around those lines.
Something around those lines.
Right on time.
Added some calls to my portfolio (mostly normal TSLA stock). Couldn't resist. Looked so cheap from yesterdays perspecitve.
Added some calls to my portfolio (mostly normal TSLA stock). Couldn't resist. Looked so cheap from yesterdays perspecitve.
Typically, in the stock market or anywhere else, the malicious people are a few minority. In case of TSLA, the longs seem to imply that the entire media, analyst community, big hedge funds, sovereign wealth fund and even SEC is malicious. How can so many people be malicious and only a small bunch of retail investors trying to save Earth are righteous? Just doesnt add up.
Based on the 600- 800
edit: Thanks to @W84M3 for the correction below
3+4 = 7 = week, so I got confused. More like 600-800 a day, 1,800-2,400 additional.
Last edited:
I disagree with your legal opinion here. That is not SEC's position. Their entire 23-page complaint contains ZERO instances of the words intent, intended, intentionally, etc. Zero. SEC's position is that Musk knowingly misled with known false statements. They are silent regarding intent. Clearly, they do not believe intent is relevant to the violation alleged. A court could disagree, but SEC's position on the matter is clear.
dqd88
Member
Yeah it's a crappy title. But after you get over that, you can see that there's no real fraud. Fraud probably can be defined as civil or criminal. And elon can be "accused" of fraud. Anyone can be accused of anything. Doesn't make it libel.
No; 800 is the high-end for Model 3 a day; 1,100 a day includes S/X.
I agree with the notion that defending Elon's actions is a waste of time. Let's stick to the fact that the SEC brought a frivolous suit against Musk at a turning point in the company's history, and has been colluding with shorts very obviously. FUKK the SEC
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
