Philadelphia Lawsuit Against Elon Musk on Hold After It Moved to Federal Court
Musk’s lawyers filed to move the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Judge Angelo Foglietta put the Philadelphia lawsuit against Elon Musk’s $1 million giveaways on hold.
America PAC awards the money to those who signed a “petition in support of the First and Second Amendments.” It doesn’t require the person to vote.
Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner claimed the giveaway “violates election and consumer protection laws.”
Musk’s lawyers filed to move the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania:
To explain, while the Complaint purports to raise only state-law claims relating to public nuisance and consumer protection, DA Krasner’s claims, asevident on the face of the Complaint, turn principally on the allegation that Defendants are somehow unlawfully interfering with a federal election. This central theme recurs throughout the Complaint. For example, Paragraph 8 of the Complaint alleges that “America PAC and Musk must be stopped, immediately, before the upcoming Presidential Election on November 5. That is because America PAC and Musk hatched their illegal lottery scheme to influence voters in that election.” Indeed, although the Complaint insists that it does not concern federal election laws in Paragraph 9, that sentiment is immediately undermined by Paragraph 10, which states that, “[i]f not enjoined, [the Defendants] lottery scheme will irreparably harm Philadelphians – and others in Pennsylvania[] – and tarnish the public’s right to a free and fair election.” (Emphasis added). Once again, in Paragraphs 18 and 19, the Complaint avers that America PAC “is spending money in Pennsylvania targeted to influence Pennsylvania voters” and Elon Musk “has directed that substantial sums be spent in Philadelphia to influence Pennsylvania voters.”
During Thursday’s hearing, Foglietta told the lawyers and DA “that he was divested of jurisdiction because of the move.”
It’s not guaranteed that the case will stay in federal court. The assigned judge “can decide whether to keep them in federal court or remand them back to state courts.”
The PAC doesn’t require the people to vote. All they have to do is sign the petition.
In other words, America PAC and Musk are lulling Philadelphia citizens – and others in the Commonwealth (and other swing states in the upcoming election) – to give up their personal identifying information and make a political pledge in exchange for the chance to win $1 million. That is a lottery.
And it is indisputably an unlawful lottery. Under unambiguous Pennsylvania law, all lotteries in Pennsylvania must be regulated by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Commonwealth’s lottery law establishes a lottery to be operated and administered by the state, for the benefit of those 65 years of age or older. 72 P.S. § 3761-101; 3761-303; 61 Pa. Code § 801.3. State regulations govern many aspects of the lottery, including the procedures for claiming prizes, the use of lottery funds, and even require the disclosure of the odds of a participant’s chances of winning. See 61 Pa. Code § 801.1, et seq. (regulations).
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Translation: Democratic Party operatives are panicking.
Not sure what Musk’s lawyers are angling at.
Are they claiming the “lottery” is about influencing the presidential election and is therefore a matter for a federal court? Or are they angling for a First Amendment argument – attempting to influence an election is an objective of many people who voice an opinion about the election and/or the candidates, and such attempts at influencing others are protected activities the State cannot enforce with its lottery laws? Or both?
They have “removed” the state court litigation to federal court. Since federal jurisdiction is limited to certain grounds as opposed to the general jurisdiction of state courts, they are trying to establish a “federal question” (statutory and/or constitutional) to convince the federal judge to keep the case and not “remand” it to the state court.
Musk’s lawyers are arguing that – despite claims to the contrary by the people suing – the complainants (the state) are saying right in their filing that it’s about a “free and fair election” and therefore belongs in a federal court.
The plaintiff’s are saying it’s just about a state lottery law. But they mention multiple times that it’s about holding a “free and fair election.”
I love seeing competent lawyers on “our” side this time.
The whole “he HAS to be stopped NOW because Elections!” shtick blows apart their “this is just about lottery laws” argument. And Musk’s lawyers caught it.
This. Especially after the lengths Dems went to last time to punish any lawyer on our side of the electoral lawfare.
Leave a Comment