ELON Musk failed to appear at a required hearing regarding a case in Philadelphia challenging the US$1 million-a-day lottery. His absence could have risked being held in contempt of court if the case had remained in Pennsylvania court, but the trial was moved to federal court after his attorney, who was present at the hearing, filed a request for transfer. At this time, there is no hearing scheduled in the federal case.
Judge Angelo Foglietta agreed Musk, as a named defendant in the lawsuit filed by District Attorney Larry Krasner, should appear in person, but he declined to sanction Musk. Musk’s lawyer said his client could not “show up” in court with notice given only the night before.
Tim Krasner questioned the reason for the SpaceX founder’s absence in Philadelphia, which was met with immediate response from the judge.
“Lawyer, he’s not going to get on a rocket and land in this building,” Foglietta said.
On Wednesday, the judge ordered all parties, including Musk, to appear in court Thursday morning. However, Musk’s attorneys filed a request to move the case from Pennsylvania state court to federal court later in the day, and the request was granted shortly after Musk failed to appear.
Lawyers for the Philadelphia district attorney’s office asked for the case to be returned to state court, calling the transfer to a higher court a “cowardly delay” tactic to “extend the time until election day.”
The federal judge appointed in the case ordered Musk’s lawyers to respond by Friday morning. Musk’s lawyers argued that state court was not the proper venue and that the Philadelphia district attorney was carrying out thinly-veiled political maneuvering.
“While disguised as a state law claim, the focus of this lawsuit is to prevent defendants’ alleged ‘interference’ in the upcoming federal presidential election at all costs,” the Tesla CEO’s attorneys wrote.
In his initial lawsuit, Krasner alleged that Musk’s petition and contest “undeniably violated” Pennsylvania’s law on illegal lotteries. Musk’s lawyers said their client was engaging in legally protected activities as part of free speech and political spending.
John Summers, a lawyer for the district attorney’s office, told the judge Thursday that Musk’s PAC (political action committee) “blatantly” continued the sweepstakes despite the lawsuit, having handed out about 13 $1 million checks since the contest began, including one check given on the day of the hearing.
“They do things behind the scenes. We don’t know the rules they follow. We don’t know how they pick people at random,” Summers said. “This is complete nonsense.”
The cash distribution came from Musk’s political organization, which aims to support Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in key states seen as key to victory by both Trump and his opponent, Kamala Harris.
Krasner, a Democrat, filed a lawsuit Monday to stop America PAC’s sweepstakes that were scheduled to run through Election Day and were open to registered voters in key states who signed a petition supporting the Constitution. Musk had tweeted a photo of the winners holding large checks.
Krasner stated that he could still consider criminal charges, saying he has a duty to protect the public from illegal lotteries and “interference with election integrity.”
Election law experts question whether Musk’s lottery violates a federal law that prohibits someone from paying another person to vote. Musk called the money a gift as well as payment for their role as spokespeople for the group. (The Guardian/Z-3)
#Attending #Court #Elon #Musks #US1 #Million #Lottery #Case #Continues #Federal #Court
**Interview with Legal Analyst Jane Doe on Elon Musk’s Recent Court Case**
**Editor**: Thank you for joining us today, Jane. There’s quite a stir surrounding Elon Musk’s absence in the Philadelphia court for his US$1 million-per-day lottery case. Can you explain the implications of his no-show?
**Jane Doe**: Absolutely, and thank you for having me. Musk’s absence certainly raised eyebrows. While it was initially risky for him, given that he could have faced contempt in state court, his attorney’s swift action to move the case to federal court effectively sidestepped that immediate risk. This transfer can often signal a strategic decision to leverage a different legal environment.
**Editor**: The judge seemed somewhat skeptical about Musk’s excuse for not attending. Can you share your thoughts on the judge’s remarks?
**Jane Doe**: The judge’s comment was quite pointed, reflecting frustration over Musk not appearing in person. Judges often expect defendants, especially high-profile ones like Musk, to take their legal obligations seriously. By highlighting that Musk wouldn’t simply “rocket” to the courthouse, it emphasizes an expectation that he should prioritize his legal responsibilities. However, the judge opted not to impose sanctions, indicating a bit of leniency, likely considering the circumstances of the case transfer.
**Editor**: The Philadelphia District Attorney’s office has termed the transfer to federal court as a “cowardly delay” tactic. Why might they feel this way?
**Jane Doe**: That language suggests a deep frustration with what they perceive as an attempt to postpone the inevitable. They believe moving to a federal court might allow Musk more time to avoid immediate repercussions associated with the case. The DA’s office appears to think that Musk is leveraging his resources and influence to create delays rather than facing the allegations directly. This perspective is common in high-stakes legal battles, where one party may feel that the other is trying to manipulate the judicial process.
**Editor**: In light of this situation, how do you see the case evolving, especially with both sides preparing their legal arguments for the federal court?
**Jane Doe**: The upcoming legal responses will be crucial. Musk’s attorneys are framing this as a free speech issue, arguing that it’s a matter of political expression. Conversely, the DA’s office, portrayed as politically motivated, will need to present a solid case that Musk’s actions constitute illegal lottery interference. The outcome may be influenced heavily by the federal judge’s interpretation of state versus federal jurisdiction and how they view the intersection of law and political activity.
**Editor**: Thank you, Jane, for your insights on this developing case. It certainly adds layers to both the legal proceedings and our understanding of high-profile defendants navigating the justice system.
**Jane Doe**: Thank you for having me. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds!
