Tesla lawsuit complaint

Those are degrees to the level of evidence needed to reach guilt or liability, but they are still working under the 'innocent until prove guilty' assumption.

The plaintiff has to work to show they were wronged in a civil trial. It is not automatically assumed they were with just their filing, as would be the case if the system was working under a 'guilty until proven innocent' assumption.

 

Exactly as others have said. The defendant did not need to prove his innocence. The state needed to prove his guilt.
Yes, the proof doesn't need to reach as high a bar as in a criminal case, but it must still be proved.

Edit--- Trollbait beat types faster than I do

 

In our service, it was made clear that for civil cases, the standard was not at all equivalent to 'proof', but closer to 'much more likely'.

 

As James Comey pointed out in his book, there are plenty of non-celebrities in prison for the same thing. Letting her go would have smacked of VIP privilege.

After a bit of fuss, she dropped the appeals and stepped up to take her medicine. Her brand ended up rising during her stay.

 

Yes, but a staement along the lines of "innocent until proven guilty does nto apply," implies that the opposite is true, and the defense has to prove they did nothing wrong instead of the plaintiffs needing to prove, albeit with less proof than in a criminal trial, that they were wronged.

But without the public knowing of those others in prison, it smacked of her being held up as an example because of her VIP status.

 

Except when it is accompanied by "Lawsuits are handled in civil courts, where a lower standard applies."

 

Which I and others are reading as, "the defendant has to prove they aren't at fault(the opposite of innocent until proven guilty), but they need to meet a lower standard."

The presumption of guilty or innocence is separate from the level of evidence.

 

one other important issue to consider is that after making all sorts of going private mussings, the stock has not gone up. The stock not going up after the announcement works to Musk's advantage because it can't be argued he bought on information that cause the stock to Skyrocket. I'm still wondering how much of all this hubbub isn't stories getting planted that the media pick up, then other Talking Heads simply pass it on.
.

 

... only to readers prone to logical fallacies.

But now that you mention it ...

Searching around a bit, I find that the vast bulk of material on 'presumption of innocence' applies exclusively to criminal trials, not civil trials. Among the very few on the later, I found this:

Presumption of innocence - Wikipedia
"Under the Justinian Codes and English common law, the accused is presumed innocent in criminal proceedings, and in civil proceedings (like breach of contract) both sides must issue proof." [Emphasis added.]

(Under the Civil Law heading is a single sentence about this maxim being applied in some civil law systems, but all the examples are in non-English-speaking jurisdictions.)

And this:

In a civil case, is a defendant considered innocent until proven guilty? - Quora
"Civil cases normally do not operate in terms of guilt or innocence. The standard of proof is called “preponderance of the evidence” meaning that the majority of the evidence must show that the defendant is legally liable for the tort alleged. If the plaintiff has evidence and the defendant has no evidence to offer in defense, then the plaintiff wins. [emphasis added] If the defendant has more evidence in his/her favor then the judgment would be in favor of the defendant, ..."

So, from these, and from the juror video I was shown, civil 'defendants' essentially must put up a 'defense', or they will lose the case and be held liable.

This contrasts to criminal cases where in theory the defense can merely assert that the prosecution's case does not amount to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A high profile example of this was the Ruby Ridge trial back in 1993, where defense counsel Gerry Spence shredded the prosecution's evidence and humiliated the government during cross examinations in the first phase. Then when it was time to present the defense case, he simply asserted that the prosecution had no case, and immediately rested. He prevailed.

Perhaps you can point me to some additional writings in regards to civil matters, to support your viewpoint.

 

A very simple Google search finds pages and pages of names.

I'd wager that the group of people believing she was held up as an example because of her VIP status, is very disproportionately weighted towards those who are beneficiaries of not just white privilege, but wealthy (and upper middle class) white privilege.

 

Ah, but the stock did go up briefly, then lost all its gains as more information came out. If Musk wanted to punish the shorts, this would be a good way to do it, as the spike, however brief, would require them to pay money to cover their short positions (to the extent that I understand how shorting works). But to your point, if Musk didn't sell immediately after the spike, then it would be evidence in his favor that he wasn't making short term manipulations for his personal financial gain.

A traditional company doing a going-private transaction would get its plan straight first, then make a press release or SEC filing after trading hours. This would allow some time for investors to digest the information before trading resumes the next day.

Tesla is not traditional, so we get an "I'm thinking.." tweet during the middle of trading hours. The question is, does that establish a level playing field for all investors? No stories getting planted here, I'm just looking at what Musk has done publicly vs how a more traditional company (like mine) does business. Thankfully my company's founder doesn't use Twitter, because it probably would be pretty Musk-like. True story: We had a good quarter, he was talking up the stock in a conference call, and then someone asked him about if we were going to buy back more stock. His answer: "no, the stock is overpriced for that right now" (paraphrase from memory, not an exact quote). Of course we plummeted when trading opened the next day, despite the stellar results.

 

And most people likely wouldn't bother going to Google who were following just the evening news bits.

I'm not wealthy, don't associate with people working in the financial sector, and feel large scale white collar crimes that have a large impact on society should have the death penalty as a possibility, and it seemed from the news that she was being singled out for this.

 

yep .... legal justice is very ad hoc. Consider VW facing billions of fines, & at least one doing jail time. Then consider the economic & environmental disaster @ the Mexican Gulf after BP polluted 1,000's of cubit acres of toxic dino juice into the sea.
.

 

I'm not so sure that "most people" even watch the TV evening news anymore. Many other information channels are gobbling up its share, with Facebook leading the insurgency.

"The news" has long had its own selection bias leaning heavily towards whites and privilege, I've pointed out numerous examples over the years in various fora. From the recent surveys, it seems that older educated white folk are the least likely to have shifted away from traditional news outlets.

 

Maybe someone will advise him, that maybe he needs to shut up, and just build cars. (There goes my investment! )

Tesla shares are getting slammed after Elon Musk's off-kilter interview with the NYT

 

Today Elon revealed the fact that he didn’t consult with Anyone else....before releasing his tweet last week, down 9%+- today.

If he illegally manipulated his stock to punish certain stock traders, which it seems he did....Well, will He get a pardon?

 

he needs medical care sooner than later if he's taking ambien, that's what almost finished tiger woods.
we cannot afford to lose this guy, possibly one of the greatest minds of our time, and we will be a poorer society without him.
the good guys need to save him from the sharks.

 

How can you say that, @Lucifer wants him in jail .... so he can be pardoned. Or maybe he doesn't even want to have a trial .... just assume guilt & then probably no trial.
Guilty! manipulating stocks! Hurting shorters! oh wait - stock is down ... doesn't matter! guilty!

.

 

lucifer does not want the oil companies to die, it's his long range plan for killing off the planet. among many others.