skabooshka defense fund

Dear Friends of Skabooshka (Randeep Hothi):

I am Lawrence J. Fossi, and wrote at Seeking Alpha under the pseudonym of Montana Skeptic.

Latest Update: October 27, 2022

It’s very likely last call on Twitter to raise funds for @skabooshka (Randeep Hothi) in his defamation lawsuit against Elon Musk. Anything you can contribute will be most gratefully received. A summary of the case follows.

Hothi is a citizen journalist. His documentation of the construction of the tent in which to build the $TSLA Model 3 cars attracted a wide viewership. His skepticism about Musk’s Full Self-Driving claims was cogent and, obviously, well-founded.

In April of 2019, Musk caused Tesla to obtain a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against Hothi for alleged workplace violence. What had Hothi done? He had followed a Tesla test car, which was on the roadways a few days before “Autonomy Day.”

You remember Autonomy Day, right? The one where Musk promised a million robotaxis on the roads by the end of 2020? And said your Tesla would make money for you while you slept?

Hothi vigorously denied Tesla’s accusations. And, guess what: Tesla had numerous video & audio recordings that could prove whether Tesla was telling the truth.

Hothi sought those recordings in advance of the injunction hearing. Tesla pitched a fit, urging and re-urging to the Court that no discovery is allowed under California’s workplace violence statute.

The courageous CA Superior Court Judge, Jeffrey Bland, saw it otherwise. Here was evidence that, according to Tesla, would prove its case. He ordered Tesla to produce it. Then ordered it again after Tesla begged him to change his mind.

What did Tesla do? Drop the case. Crawl away. Pretending it was doing so to protect the privacy of its employees. That was a lie. We already had offered to protect any truly private information.

What could Hothi do? Any social media search of his name turned up Tesla’s lurid accusations. He had been viciously attacked by Musk acolytes. Some of them had tried to get the university where he was engaged in graduate studies to expel him.

He could do nothing. Tesla made its false accusations in legal pleadings. Under well-settled law, pleadings are “privileged” from any defamation attack.

But then Elon Musk, adored by so many, followed on Twitter by millions, in a widely publicized email exchange accused Hothi of having “actively harassed” and “almost killed” Tesla employees. Criminal acts under California law.

Hothi sued for defamation. Just publicly apologize, he told Musk, and I’ll drop the suit. No money paid, no questions asked. Musk’s answer? Silence.

Then, a so-called anti-SLAPP motion, arguing that Hothi was interfering with his crucial free speech rights in matters of public importance. Intense (and expensive) briefing followed.

No, said the Honorable Julia Spain of the trial court. Moreover, it appears Hothi has a case that you not only defamed him, but acting with malice in doing so.

Okay, then I’ll appeal, said Musk. Appeal he did. More intense and expensive briefing. No, said the appeals court. All three judges on the panel.

Now, we are back in the trial court. In August, we sought production of the audio & video recordings in question. What we got instead were absurd blanket objections to very single production request and every single interrogatory.

And now, Musk wants to change lawyers. He wants his “hardcore litigators” in-house at Tesla to represent him. You can imagine how independent they will be. Whatever Musk demands in terms of delay and obfuscation, Musk will get.

So, we will have difficult (and expensive) discovery battles. We need your help. We need your contribution. Any amount helps.

I am working “pro bono” (for free) on the case. However, we must pay our (magnificent) California lawyer, just as we had to pay our talented appellate lawyer who assisted with the anti-SLAPP appeal.

It is David v. Goliath. Please, I ask, help David.

(earlier updates below)

Dear Friends of Skabooshka:

In 2019, you rallied to Skabooshka (Randeep Hothi), a longtime Tesla critic, and raised $118,538 after Tesla sued him alleging workplace violence. Randeep prevailed in that battle, was then smeared by Elon Musk, and sued Musk for defamation. I write to ask for your support in pursuing the defamation claim.

As many of you will remember, in the 2019 lawsuit, Tesla – with no notice to Randeep – obtained a temporary restraining order by making various sensational accusations. Thanks to your help, Randeep was able to secure capable California legal counsel.

Randeep vigorously denied Tesla’s accusations. In preparing for the evidentiary hearing to determine whether Tesla could obtain the injunction it sought, Randeep persuaded the Court to require Tesla to produce video recordings of the events about which Tesla was complaining. Forced to “put up or shut up,” Tesla immediately dropped its lawsuit.

After Tesla dropped its suit, Tesla’s CEO, Elon Musk, in a widely-publicized email exchange, accused Randeep of criminal behavior, including “almost killing” several Tesla employees. Hoping to clear his name from the vicious and well-publicized smears, Randeep filed the defamation action.

As detailed below, we recently won a crucial first battle when the Court denied Musk’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The Court ruled that Musk’s accusations are not protected by the First Amendment, and determined that Randeep has demonstrated a probability he can succeed on the merits of his claim. Musk is now appealing this decision.

I am asking you to lend your financial support in our fight against Musk. Even though I am not billing Randeep for my time, my capable co-counsel understandably is doing so. We have exhausted all the funds from the last fund-raising effort, have unpaid legal bills totaling approximately $10,000, and face substantial additional expense in defending against the appeal.

Randeep himself, who has modest means, is contributing $5,000 to the cause. But we need much more.

This is a David v. Goliath battle. We are up against one of the wealthiest men in the world, who is defended by a phalanx of big firm lawyers using every tool at their disposal to make the case more expensive.

Randeep is not a famous man. He will never host Saturday Night Live. He will never be a multi-billionaire or a charismatic cult figure. He will never have the power to move markets in something as farcical as Doge coin merely by pumping it on Twitter. But he is willing to stand up against a bully.

Once again, I wish to convey the continuing gratitude of Randeep to all who have supported him in these trying times and now during his standing up against Musk.

For those interested, here are some details of the two legal battles, (1) Tesla’s workplace violence suit against Randeep, and (2) Randeep’s defamation suit against Musk

Tesla sued Randeep in April of 2019, accusing him of harassing and endangering Tesla employees, first in a February 2019 parking lot incident in which Tesla claimed Randeep’s car had sideswiped a Tesla security guard in a Fremont factory parking lot, and second in an April 2019 incident when Tesla claimed Randeep had dangerously swerved toward a Tesla-owned Model 3 that was gathering data in advance of Tesla’s upcoming “Autonomy Day” (at which Musk promoted Tesla’s supposed full self-driving abilities and promised one million “robotaxis” on the road by the end of 2020).

Tesla obtained a temporary restraining order with no notice to Randeep and, obviously, no opportunity for Randeep – who then denied and to this day denies Tesla’s allegations – to defend himself. There followed an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Tesla had evidence to support its claims. In advance of the hearing, Randeep sought to have Tesla produce both its security camera recordings from the parking lot and the numerous audio and visual recordings that the Model 3 and its occupants had made when Randeep was in its vicinity.

If Tesla’s claims were truthful, such recordings would have vindicated Tesla’s claims. And yet, Tesla refused to produce the recordings, urging the Court to deny Hothi’s request. The Court, although it recognized discovery is not typically allowed in injunction proceedings of the type Tesla had filed, ordered Tesla to produce the recordings. Tesla resisted again, filing a motion asking the Court to change its ruling (and this time adding a request that the press be excluded from attending the evidentiary hearing).

The Court held its ground. So, late in the afternoon on the day it was required to produce the recordings, Tesla dropped its lawsuit, feigning concern about the privacy of the occupants of the Model 3.

Although Tesla had viciously smeared him, Randeep was without any legal remedy because Tesla’s accusations were made in a judicial proceeding, and therefore were “privileged” and thus immune from a defamation claim.

However, not long after Tesla dismissed its case, its CEO, Elon Musk, in a widely-publicized email exchange, stated that Randeep had “actively harassed” and “almost killed Tesla employees” because “[w]hat was a sideswipe when Hothi hit one of our people could easily have been a death with 6 inches of difference.” In other words, Musk amplified the claims Tesla had made, accusing Hothi of criminal activity.

To the extent Tesla’s cowardly dismissal of its baseless lawsuit had in some measure vindicated Randeep’s name, Musk now dragged it through the mud again, but this time without judicial proceedings to shield Musk from a defamation claim.

Randeep sued for defamation in California state court. Shortly after filing his lawsuit, Randeep offered to drop the lawsuit for no payment whatsoever if Musk would state that he was mistaken in his accusations and would offer a simple apology.

Musk never responded to the offer. Instead, his attorneys (the same firm that represented him in the Vernon Unsworth case) sought dismissal of Randeep’s lawsuit by means of a so-called anti-SLAPP motion. Musk argued his email statements were protected speech relating to an issue of public interest, and argued further that Randeep could not show the statements were untrue or made with actual malice.

In late February, the Honorable Julia Spain handed down her written opinion denying Musk’s motions. Her opinion rejected every argument that Musk advanced. To Musk’s claim that his statements were about Tesla’s autopilot feature, and therefore made in connection with a matter of public interest, the Court said, no, actually, the statements were instead accusations against an individual.

Musk also claimed that because Tesla has a high public profile, the manner in which it treats its critics is of public interest. The Court, citing the governing case law, again said, no, Musk’s comments did not concern Tesla’s conduct, but rather Randeep’s conduct.

In another line of attack, Musk said he was expressing opinions rather than asserting facts. No, said the Court, Musk’s statements – which essentially accused Randeep of criminal activity – went beyond mere opinions.

To Musk’s claims that that the defamatory statements were true, the Court noted that while Musk had presented evidence that Randeep might have grazed a single employee in the parking lot, “the subject statements accuse [Randeep] of almost killing multiple Tesla employees.”

The Court also rejected Musk’s argument that Randeep is a “public figure,” which would mean Randeep would have to show actual malice to prevail. While Randeep might be a limited public figure for purposes of commenting on Tesla’s operations, Musk’s accusations “do not concern [Randeep’s] opinion on the operations of Tesla.”

Finally, even assuming Randeep is required to show actual malice, the Court pointed both to a vulgar Twitter post made by Musk on the same day Tesla sued Randeep and to the statement by Musk’s lawyers that Randeep is a “conspiracy theorist obsessed with spreading misinformation online about Tesla.”

Musk is appealing the anti-SLAPP decision to the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate Division. As required by the anti-SLAPP statute, the appeals court will consider anew all the evidence in the case, essentially ignoring the Judge Spain’s factual findings and legal conclusions, and making its own findings and conclusions. This will create additional delay and, more significantly for us, additional expense in briefing and arguing the case.

Once again, we have sought to minimize the expense. After Judge Spain handed down her well-reasoned decision, rejecting every argument advanced by Musk, we offered to settle the case for an apology and a reimbursement of the legal fees to date. The offer was open for 10 days and, as you might have guessed, Musk did not accept the offer.

With Musk’s appeal now filed, we will soon face more legal bills as the appellate briefing begins. And, assuming we prevail in the appeal, we will then need to conduct discovery and prepare to try the case in the trial court.

Again, every dollar you contribute will be appreciatively received. And, you may be certain, we will post updates here as the case proceeds.