Want to know where this shit started? It started with Sandy Hook parents. My clients have dealt with this nonsense every single day for over 10 years. 🧵
In 2018, I filed the first defamation lawsuits against Alex Jones, ultimately discrediting him in court. Today, I am proud to announce I have filed suit against yet another notorious disseminator of false information: The owner of this platform, Elon Musk.
To answer some FAQs I've gotten:
1. Yes, I am aware of Musk's tweet.
2. Yes, it is a remarkably similar situation to my client Ben Brody, who sued Musk a few months ago after being falsely accused of a crime in one of Musk's tweets.
3. Yes, I'm interested in talking to him.
Today, my co-counsel Greg Adler and I filed suit against Fox, Newsmax, Univision, Timcast, Steven Crowder, Owen Shroyer, Simon Ateba, and Hollywood Unlocked for falsely portraying our innocent client as a neo-Nazi mass shooter.
A quick open letter to NY Jets quarterback and massive weirdo Aaron Rodgers, from me, an attorney who for many years represented several Sandy Hook parents... 🧵
Some of the replies to this video, in which a tourist meets the happiest, friendliest stoners in New York City, really prove that racists are softer than 4-ply toilet paper.
Hey Aaron, not sure if you’ll see this, but I figure the best chance is to put it here on Twitter, where it will hopefully be sandwiched between a tweet claiming the measles vaccine makes children gay and an ad for a cryptocurrency scam.
This new lawsuit was filed on behalf of Ben Brody, a 22-year-old recent college graduate who has been forced to take action due to Musk’s astonishingly reckless conduct here on Twitter.
In short, Musk was wrong about everything, this guy is totally innocent, and he was giving the finger to a pack of jackal paparazzi thugs who knew they could sell his photo to rightwing media to use as tool to scare people. And now Musk slandered him to about 35 million people.
To start, I can’t say it really surprised to me to see you had been spreading nonsense about Sandy Hook because although I have not followed your sports career closely, I am quite aware that you are a slow-witted, gullible person.
It means you can’t be trusted with important decisions. It means nobody benefits from listening to you. It means you’re broken in a fundamental way. It means you’re weak, and you’re desperate to believe what a grifter will happily sell you.
And now a quick FAQ for some misinformed people arriving in replies:
1. “But didn’t he attack cops?” No, that’s the whole point, he wasn’t involved. He wasn't even there.
2. “Well, he’s still here illegally.” No, he’s an asylum-seeker, and he’s using the legal process.
The lawsuit alleges that on June 27th, in yet another example of his growing tendency to spread false information, Musk falsely told the world there was evidence indicating Ben Brody participated in a violent street brawl on behalf of a neo-Nazi extremist group.
I already knew this about you, but what I learned today -- that you were one of those freaks telling reporters (and god knows who else) that the Sandy Hook parents were liars and actors -- crosses a line you can’t come back from.
It means you’re not a leader and will never be one. You’re not cut out to be an influencer, a role model, or even an amusing iconoclast. Because you’re not eccentric; you’re defective. And that’s not a funny joke.
As the Greeks instructed: “Gnōthi sauton.” Know thyself. You are a dumb jock. God apparently gave you many talents, but critical thinking is not one of them.
Musk made these ridiculously false and damaging accusations based on a tweet he had seen from an anonymous rightwing extremist Twitter account from the revolting “Groyper” subculture. Musk amplified the accusations for two days before finally defaming Ben himself on June 27th.
Musk also falsely told the world that that Ben Brody’s alleged participation in the extremist brawl meant the incident was probably a “false flag” operation to deceive the American public.
Sadly, I’d have to live under a rock not to notice the frequency in which the media reports on whatever screwball propaganda you most recently swallowed like a hungry trout confronted with a shiny lure.
3. “Elon was still right that the attackers were let out of jail free.” Those guys are out on bail, just like anybody else charged with that crime. Nobody did anything special for them.
Being a poor schmuck who latches onto claptrap maybe isn’t the biggest sin in this day and age, but I can’t fathom how on earth you manufactured the confidence to think you have something useful to offer to any of these discussions.
With your immense fortune, there is no reason you can’t hire someone to assess and evaluate basic day-to-day information so you don’t have to. Because you’re not very good at it.
Musk will not stop until someone stops him. It seems that responsibility now falls upon a shy 22-year-old whose life has been shaken by Musk’s reckless conduct. I am honored to assist him.
4. “Musk was right that the attackers got free tickets to California.” Nope, wrong there too. There was supposedly a “police source” that said the suspects tricked a Catholic charity into giving them tickets. But that’s been proven false.
They bombard him and everyone he knows with emails attaching bizarre "facial comparisons" of different pictures. And they won't be convinced otherwise. You can explain how people's faces change. You can explain how focal lengths differ on cameras. You can show them examples.
My client Neil Heslin was labeled a "crisis actor" within hours of being featured on InfoWars. Here's a meme claiming he was a fireman killed on 9/11. There were similar claims for virtually all the parents, or at the least the ones who have publicly available photographs.
There’s more I could say about the limitations of your character and judgment, but instead I’ll conclude with a very simple request that I hope will reach your ears:
The story begins on June 24th during Portland’s Pride Night, when multiple rightwing extremist groups, irritated and triggered by the idea of public solidarity with queer people, decided to attend the event to vent their bigotry and intimidate Pride Night celebrants.
The lawsuit alleges these defendants ignored basic journalistic precautions, and as a result, they accused the wrong person - our client, 36-year-old Mauricio Garcia, who is not the shooter and does not share the shooter’s date of birth.
The first defendant is Fox News. The suit alleges that an article on the Fox News website recklessly featured an image of my client, innocent 36-year-old Mauricio Garcia, identifying him as the shooter.
Musk responded by stating, “Very odd.” While not yet defamation, this was already pretty bad. Musk was amplifying unvetted slander against an innocent young man being disseminated by an anonymous extremist troll and an anonymous cryptocurrency fan.
A collection of deranged InfoWars fans harass my client Lenny Pozner every day, claiming that his changed appearance in a court video last year proves he is actually a different man than the press pictures on the day of the tragedy 10 years ago.
However, during the event, a street brawl developed between a group of extremist Proud Boys and rival group Rose City Nationalists, a fellow rightwing extremist gang that uses neo-Nazi aesthetics.
There was no justifiable reason to use my client’s image as the shooter. The suit alleges that Fox News failed to exercise reasonable care in verifying the accuracy of the photograph.
An anonymous internet user located a photo of Ben Brody on the social media account of his Jewish fraternity at UC Riverside. Based on nothing more than a passing resemblance between Ben and the unmasked neo-Nazi, an accusation was made.
ZeroHedge is a notorious blog that has trafficked in some of the ugliest smear campaigns on the internet. It is well known for the role it played in spreading false facts about the victims and parents of the Sandy Hook shooting.
NEW: Far-right conspiracy theorists accused Ben Brody, a 22-year-old Jewish college student, of being a neo-Nazi. Then Elon Musk got involved.
Brody is now suing Musk.
Watch our exclusive interview with Brody tonight on
@AC360
:
Article here:
Musk responded, “Always remove their masks.” This wasn’t defamation either, but he’s getting closer. And again, Musk was helping disseminate a bogus accusation against an innocent and increasingly terrified young man, which is just an objectively awful thing to do.
People can look like other people. Sometimes a person can look very different from themselves day to day. You can explain all this. It doesn't matter. Belief is useful to them.
The social media post for Ben’s fraternity stated that Ben planned to work for the government after college. Online accusers insisted this meant Ben was participating in a “false flag” to create an illusion of white supremacist gangs.
In fact, as seen in the clip below, InfoWars’ response to one of ZeroHedge’s blog posts on Sandy Hook was the impetus of one of the lawsuits I brought against Alex Jones. Irony loves company it seems.
During the brawl, two masked members of the Rose City Nationalists had their masks removed. Video of the incident went viral on June 25th. Numerous online influencers urged their followers to identify the unmasked members.
That same morning, Ben made an Instagram video trying to dispel the accusations. He also posted screenshots of debit card payments in Riverside. He even went as far to request video footage from a restaurant he visited at the time of the brawl, which he also posted.
Musk was informed through his attorneys on August 9thof the circumstances supporting Ben’s claim for defamation, as well as Ben’s distress that Musk had not taken any steps to retract his accusation.
On June 25th, a Dogecoin-themed Twitter user showed Musk a tweet from an anonymous rightwing extremist “Groyper” account making the accusation against Ben Brody, which included screenshots of the fraternity’s social media post stating Ben planned to work for the government.
Throughout the day, Twitter users continued to inform Musk that Ben Brody was innocent, and many of them provided a link to Ben’s Instagram video. But it was to no avail.
And with enough dissociation, enough motivation, enough encouragement to abandon your senses in favor of your values, you'll find yourself screaming into the spectacle, "Derek Chauvin is the guy from Cash Cab!"
The following day, on June 27th, Musk threw the full weight of his celebrity behind the accusation and defamed Ben. He did it in a response to a tweet from anonymous blog “ZeroHedge.”
Being defamed by someone as famous as Musk was an utterly terrifying experience, and it has left Ben stunned, disoriented, and worried about the consequences on his future.
Yet early the next morning, on June 26th, Musk also responded to Twitter user Matt Wallace, a cryptocurrency YouTuber who frequently vies for Musk’s attention, after Wallace tweeted the same screenshots noting that Ben planned to work for the government.
The second defendant is Owen Shroyer, host of the “War Room,” who broadcast an image of our client on his show, falsely identifying him as the shooter.
Ben’s lawsuit discusses the aftermath of this incident, but in short, Ben and his family were doxed and suffered an enormous wave of harassment and threats from belligerent strangers.
Even apart from the damage to his reputation, Ben and his family were put through weeks of terror due to Musk’s recklessness, and now Ben finds himself depressed, freaked out, and mentally distraught at the crucial moment when he exits college and enters his career path.
Musk responded to the ZeroHedge tweet, and he declared to the world, “Looks like one is a college student (who wants to join the govt) and another is maybe an Antifa member, but nonetheless a probable false flag situation.”
Ben is undeterred. He understands that a lawsuit is the only way he will be able to truly clear his name or change Musk’s behavior. He is unbelievably brave to take on this challenge.
The shooter was 33-year-old Mauricio Martinez Garcia, a far-right extremist. Garcia's extensive online writings adopted white supremacist, neo-Nazi, and "incel" ideologies.
Shroyer is well known for his guilty plea to federal criminal charges relating to his breach of restricted areas while leading a crowd of rioters at the U.S. Capitol on January 6th.
In the weeks following Musk’s statements, it was apparent to Ben that his reputation had been catastrophically damaged and that a huge number of people believed he was either a neo-Nazi or a provocateur in a “psyop” to commit political terrorism on American soil.
Readers of the tweet who were familiar with the rumor immediately understood Musk was referring to Ben Brody by “the college student (who wants to join the govt).” In fact, numerous Twitter users replied to Musk’s tweet throughout the day telling him that he was wrong about Ben.
On May 6, 2023, an individual began shooting visitors to the Allen Premium Outlets, a large outdoor mall in Allen, Texas. In a matter of minutes, five adults and three children were killed, and seven other victims were wounded.
But it didn’t matter. Musk’s endorsement of the accusation galvanized other social media users and influencers to continue their attacks and harassment, as well as post and share accusations against Ben that will remain online forever.
Garcia committed the massacre while wearing a tactical vest embroidered with a "RWDS" ("Right Wing Death Squad") patch. Garcia’s body was tattooed with Nazi symbols including SS lightning bolts and a large swastika.
Shroyer is also well known for his role in the 2022 defamation trial in Heslin v. Jones, which centered on his maliciously false statements about a Sandy Hook parent.
This all became standard after Sandy Hook. You can find the same kinds of photo comparisons for the Boston Bombing, Aurora, Parkland, Sutherland Springs, Vegas, El Paso, etc. etc. etc. etc.
In other words, if Ben even tries to seek redress in court for what happened to him, he must risk having the wealthiest man on the planet seek to collect fees against him.
On the day of the shooting, no details were released about the shooter, but on the following day, media organizations tried to identify the shooter based on the release of his name and date of birth by law enforcement.
In response, Musk refuses to issue a retraction, declined to apologize, and will not engage in any discussion whatsoever about Ben’s defamation claim. In fact, Musk’s attorney indicated Musk will seek to shift fees if Ben attempts a lawsuit.
Shroyer works with Kit Daniels, who was sued in a nearly identical defamation case my firm brought in 2018 due to Daniels falsely identifying an innocent man as the Parkland High School mass shooter.
The next defendants are Steven Crowder and Louder with Crowder, LLC. If you’re unfamiliar with Crowder, an obnoxious extremist provocateur masquerading as a journalist, a quick Google News search will produce a glut of cringeworthy results.
So now Ben turns to the courts to uphold a very simple concept: What Elon Musk has been doing to Ben and others is not tolerable. Win or lose, it is necessary that Ben take a stand and have his case heard in the justice system, regardless of Musk’s power or wealth.
I’ll be posting updates about the progress of the case on this Twitter account when I can. I’m also going to try to answer some questions I anticipate some of you may have. For example:
It is not necessary for Ben to be identified by name if people understood from reading Musk’s tweet that it referred to Ben. See Backes v. Misko, 486 S.W.3d 7, 24-25 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2015).
@AricToler
That is something we cannot accept. We will not allow media organizations to falsely accuse an innocent man of being a neo-Nazi mass murderer without being held accountable. We’ll see them in court.
The third defendant is Hollywood Unlocked, LLC. The company runs Hollywood Unlocked, a news and entertainment content platform owned by media entrepreneur Jason Lee and backed by venture capital.
Newsmax tried to use our client’s appearance to deny the crime was motivated by neo-Nazism. Our client Mauricio is a proud Chicano, and he has classic Dallas lowrider style.
The next defendant is Newsmax. Two of Newsmax’s primetime shows, The Balance with Eric Bolling and Greg Kelly Reports, featured extended segments focusing on my client as the mass murderer.
Just finished watching the SXSW screening of this film, which is soon to appear on HBO. For six years I have had a very cautious relationship with the media because almost nobody gets this story right. But
@danreed1000
delivered a masterpiece. Let me tell you about it... 🧵
On its website, Hollywood Unlocked published an article portraying our client as the shooter, acting in reckless disregard of basic journalistic precautions.
As of today, we’ve helped 22 children undergoing cancer treatment in Gaza travel to continue treatment, and we’ll continue facilitating care for more children outside of Gaza.
This wouldn't have been possible without coordination between the U.S., regional partners, and
@StJude
.
In short, our client does not look like the kind of Mexican American who might identify with white supremacy. Newsmax used this fact to support the idea that the shooter was not actually a neo-Nazi.
The next defendants are Simon Ateba and his media outlet Todays New Africa. Ateba briefly attended White House press events, where he has gained notoriety for his bizarre confrontations with White House press officials.
Question: Does the law allow Musk to escape responsibility by using the phrase “looks like” in his tweet?
No, it certainly does not. Quite the opposite.
The next defendant is Timcast Media Group, Inc., which is Tim Pool’s company that operates his show, website, and podcast. Timcast repeatedly published articles on its website portraying our client as the shooter.
“Looks like” in this context means “the information I have seen indicates.” As the Supreme Court held in Milkovich, if a speaker gives their personal assessment of facts, and they do not disclose the source of their information, they are liable if their conclusion is false.
@AricToler
Pool also criticized Toler, claiming he “didn’t verify it.” Yet when Pool said this, Timcast had already published a different, unverified, and incorrect photo of our client, and they would do it again repeatedly the following day.