Which is a good deal more than either Biden or Harris have done.
Elon can expect more legal challenges if he continues to not play along with the status quo.
By leading with his advocacy of greatly increased legal immigration, Musk’s being suckered into playing the private sector rent seeking game. Musk’s tax burden would be slashed in half by replacing the 16th Amendment with a single tax on liquidation value of net assets. Yet he enters into public arguments with Elizabeth Warren over her brain-damaged sniping at his wealth without so-proposing such a shift in the tax base to send her back where she came from (ie: protecting the middle class cost of family formation).
What I meant by that is simply this: If Charlie Munger’s argument about the absurdity of “Cost of Capital” is correct, then Berskshire Hathaway’s shareholders should be suing Munger for breach of fiduciary responsibility for not advocating the replacement of the 16th Amendment with a single tax on the liquidation value of net assets (at the interest rate on the national debt as I proposed in 1992 in response to the capital market failure to finance technology risk).
An image of “The Laughing Mao” comes to mind.
“If the first amendment doesn’t work, there’s always the second.”
Not really the proper place. X Corp. hit with trademark infringement. Musk would likely have it tougher as an outsider in almost any other country:
Not really the proper place.
He’s credited in quite a few games:
California state court:
“The investigation by Reuters found that SpaceX has had at least 600 previously unreported worker injuries since 2014, including eight accidents that led to amputations.”
Amputation-level industrial injuries that had never been reported to various State & Federal bodies? Frankly, that sounds rather improbable.
But it is an “investigation” done by Reuters – which probably means the investigator was a 20-something liberal arts graduate using her smartphone from her cubicle in an office building far from any SpaceX work site.
Tesla dress code win at 5th Circuit:
Another wrong country:
Munger’s book is now accessible online, and showcases some digital publishing wizardry:
“Polly wants a cracker!”
Lawyers for Elon Musk’s SpaceX alleged in a lawsuit Thursday that the National Labor Relations Board’s in-house courts are unconstitutional and the agency should be prohibited from taking enforcement actions against it.
The company has been embroiled in employment-related complaints with the NLRB and other federal agencies. If successful, the suit would immediately throw the NLRB’s authority to police the workplace into chaos and create a thorny political issue in an area that for decades has divided Congress.
The complaint, filed in the southern district of Texas, relies heavily on a case currently pending before the Supreme Court, Jarkesy v. SEC. The plaintiff in that case alleges agency tribunals infringe on the constitutional right to a jury trial in civil cases and if administrative law judges — as utilized by the NLRB and many other federal agencies — violate the constitution’s separation of powers.
⋮
The filing comes on the heels of NLRB prosecutors issuing a complaint against the company accusing it of illegally firing eight employees who had circulated a letter in 2022 criticizing Musk, its combative CEO. The letter criticized him “for issuing inappropriate, disparaging, sexually charged comments on Twitter,” their lawyers told the NLRB. (Musk also owns the social media platform and rebranded it as X.)
SpaceX is seeking an injunction against the NLRB barring it from moving forward with that case against the company while the constitutional concerns are litigated.