10 ms·

Bloomberg conveniently left out the reason why "Tripp has since changed lawyers". It's because he published on Twitter a trove of confidential internal Tesla do

by zmarty 8y ago

Bloomberg conveniently left out the reason why "Tripp has since changed lawyers". It's because he published on Twitter a trove of confidential internal Tesla documents. Once he did that his lawyer knew they had no case anymore. Tripp only deleted the documents after his lawyer was able to get in touch with him. This showed that he did in fact access internal Tesla systems and he did in fact exfiltrate this information. But somehow Bloomberg paints Tesla in a negative light, as they always do. This is what's left of the fallout: "B advised that the Tweets by Mr. Tripp yesterday were issued by him on his own accord. Mr. Tripp has clearly been impacted emotionally by what $TSLA has done to him.He is very concerned about being gagged & wants to protect the public, more than his own personal interest. ++" https://twitter.com/StuartMeissner/status/1030138369840500736 https://twitter.com/StuartMeissner/status/103013836984050073... "It is accurate that we no longer rep M.Tripp in any matter.Nor do we have a need for any connection whatsoever with his attys in his Nev civil action.There wont be further comment on this.We still rep K.Hansen with re to his SEC submission & do have confidence in his submission" https://twitter.com/StuartMeissner/status/1072952816703102976 https://twitter.com/StuartMeissner/status/107295281670310297... "Also Mr. Tripp's Twitter account WAS NOT suspended/removed by twitter this AM. He himself voluntarily terminated his twitter account on advice of myself, so that there will not b any more confusion re if he has published anything or not. There is enough confusion re $TSLA already" https://twitter.com/StuartMeissner/status/1030139433276846081 https://twitter.com/StuartMeissner/status/103013943327684608...

ucha 8y ago
How do you know what happened between Tripp and his lawyer?
- zmarty 8y ago
  It was all on Twitter between them.
  - AndrewBissell 8y ago
    All anyone knows is that Tripp's lawyer asked him to take the posts down, and sometime later stopped representing him in the case. The rest is you trying to connect dots to assassinate Tripp's character.
  - ucha 8y ago
    I could only find the lawyer's twitter account but not the tweets you're referring to.
    - zmarty 8y ago
      B advised that the Tweets by Mr. Tripp yesterday were issued by him on his own accord. Mr. Tripp has clearly been impacted emotionally by what $TSLA has done to him.He is very concerned about being gagged & wants to protect the public, more than his own personal interest. ++ https://twitter.com/StuartMeissner/status/1030138369840500736 https://twitter.com/StuartMeissner/status/103013836984050073... It is accurate that we no longer rep M.Tripp in any matter.Nor do we have a need for any connection whatsoever with his attys in his Nev civil action.There wont be further comment on this.We still rep K.Hansen with re to his SEC submission & do have confidence in his submission https://twitter.com/StuartMeissner/status/1072952816703102976 https://twitter.com/StuartMeissner/status/107295281670310297... Also Mr. Tripp's Twitter account WAS NOT suspended/removed by twitter this AM. He himself voluntarily terminated his twitter account on advice of myself, so that there will not b any more confusion re if he has published anything or not. There is enough confusion re $TSLA already https://twitter.com/StuartMeissner/status/1030139433276846081 https://twitter.com/StuartMeissner/status/103013943327684608...
      - AndrewBissell 8y ago
        I don't see where Meissner says he knew they "didn't have a case" as you asserted in your OP.
        DuskStar 8y ago
        In general, a lawyer saying something with the form "After $client did $actions without consulting us, we recommended that $client take $actions to do damage control, and they did so. We no longer represent $client" is about as far from a good sign as you can get. Now, he might still have a case. But I'm pretty sure the above is lawyerspeak for "client fucked up, and we don't want to deal with them anymore".
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> he did in fact access internal Tesla systems and he did in fact exfiltrate this information Both sides can be true. He could have stolen Tesla’s data. He could have also thought he was whistleblowing while doing so. Either way, it doesn’t justify calling in a fake bomb threat.
- FireBeyond 8y ago
  > Either way, it doesn’t justify calling in a fake bomb threat. Police investigated (it was a shooting incident, not a bomb threat), found no credible basis, asked to interview a witness, who Tesla declined to make available. Why so sure he made a threat?
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > Why so sure he made a threat? Sorry, ambiguous wording. I don't allege he called in a threat. Tesla publicly stated he made violent threats. The police refused to corroborate that claim. Tesla's statement was unjustified.
    - FireBeyond 8y ago
      "Tesla publicly stated he made violent threats. The police refused to corroborate that claim." ... because Tesla "declined" to make the witness/es who received those threats available to the police. That's a bit more contextual.
AndrewBissell 8y ago
Very deceptive to call what Tripp posted to Twitter "a trove of confidential internal documents." There were: - Photos of trailers parked outside the Gigafactory full of potentially hazardous battery waste. - Photos of shoddy workplaces within the Gigafactory and precision work being done with crude implements like Dremel tools. - VIN numbers of cars which Tripp believed had been fitted with batteries with possibly punctured cells handled by the defective GF machine. - Some entries in the accounting system which Tripp claimed supported his argument that waste was not being accounted for correctly. - Photos of internal emails with Tesla execs (including Musk) where he tried to raise concerns about scrap and the general chaos at the Gigafactory.
- ericb 8y ago
  > crude implements like Dremel tools Woa, woa, woa! You're hurting your credibility with this one!
  - AndrewBissell 8y ago
    crude in the context of the job they were being used to do. I agree Dremels can be awesome! :-)
  - scoggs 8y ago
    Sometimes a job calls for duct tape.
rayiner 8y ago
> Bloomberg conveniently left out the reason why "Tripp has since changed lawyers". It's because he published on Twitter a trove of confidential internal Tesla documents. Once he did that his lawyer knew they had no case anymore. Tripp only deleted the documents after his lawyer was able to get in touch with him. This showed that he did in fact access internal Tesla systems and he did in fact exfiltrate this information. But somehow Bloomberg paints Tesla in a negative light, as they always do. Whistleblower complaints are for obvious reasons typically based on exfiltrated documents. There may be liability against the whistleblower for that, but generally that does not impair the merits of the case against the company (except to the extent the company can use threats of legal action over the documents to keep the whistleblower quiet). And in some cases there are specific legal safeguards for whistleblowers whose complaints are based on confidential documents, especially in the case of public companies: https://www.zuckermanlaw.com/court-rules-whistleblowers-can-use-confidential-company-documents-expose-fraud/ https://www.zuckermanlaw.com/court-rules-whistleblowers-can-...
- zmarty 8y ago
  A "whistleblower" that first leaked all information to reporters, and then only claimed he was a whistleblower once Tesla figured out who it was. A "whistleblower" that a few months later publishes all of these internal documents ON TWITTER.
  - camjohnson26 8y ago
    Who should he have leaked it to? Where should he have published it?
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      > Who should he have leaked it to? The appropriate regulatory agency rather than the media. > Where should he have published it? Publishing internal documents is the last resort after everything else has failed.
      - 8y ago
blueboo 8y ago
Hah. I knew the top comment would be an Actually, In Defense of Persecuting a Whistleblower.
- Fuckyourself 8y ago
  "Whistleblower" - The guy is a lose cannon. He's only a whistleblower if his claims were actually true. At this point I cannot see why anyone would believe his ridiculous claims because they made no sense and were contradicting.
mhermher 8y ago
This is the worst kind of bootlicking. Why are you stanning for a psychopath. None of what you posted means anything regarding the article. It's meaningless sideshow to try to discredit Tripp.
thisisit 8y ago
Let's assume for a moment this story was about ExxonMobil an oil company, or any company you dislike will you still hold this opinion? Remember whistleblowing as an act requires people to produce confidential internal documents.
- jsight 8y ago
  If the evidence against XOM was some pictures of some trailers and complaints of the company being disorganized, then yes, I would treat them the same way.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
drugme 8y ago
But somehow Bloomberg paints Tesla in a negative light, as they always do. No -- they're simply stating the obvious: that the company's unhinged and basically sociopathic response to this incident is much worse than the any "document leaking" that Tripp may have engaged in. Especially when the "leaks" involved have turned out to be apparently quite innocuous.

by zmarty 8y ago

ucha 8y ago

How do you know what happened between Tripp and his lawyer?

zmarty 8y ago
It was all on Twitter between them.
- AndrewBissell 8y ago
  All anyone knows is that Tripp's lawyer asked him to take the posts down, and sometime later stopped representing him in the case. The rest is you trying to connect dots to assassinate Tripp's character.
- ucha 8y ago
  I could only find the lawyer's twitter account but not the tweets you're referring to.
  - zmarty 8y ago
    B advised that the Tweets by Mr. Tripp yesterday were issued by him on his own accord. Mr. Tripp has clearly been impacted emotionally by what $TSLA has done to him.He is very concerned about being gagged & wants to protect the public, more than his own personal interest. ++ https://twitter.com/StuartMeissner/status/1030138369840500736 https://twitter.com/StuartMeissner/status/103013836984050073... It is accurate that we no longer rep M.Tripp in any matter.Nor do we have a need for any connection whatsoever with his attys in his Nev civil action.There wont be further comment on this.We still rep K.Hansen with re to his SEC submission & do have confidence in his submission https://twitter.com/StuartMeissner/status/1072952816703102976 https://twitter.com/StuartMeissner/status/107295281670310297... Also Mr. Tripp's Twitter account WAS NOT suspended/removed by twitter this AM. He himself voluntarily terminated his twitter account on advice of myself, so that there will not b any more confusion re if he has published anything or not. There is enough confusion re $TSLA already https://twitter.com/StuartMeissner/status/1030139433276846081 https://twitter.com/StuartMeissner/status/103013943327684608...
    - AndrewBissell 8y ago
      I don't see where Meissner says he knew they "didn't have a case" as you asserted in your OP.
      - DuskStar 8y ago
        In general, a lawyer saying something with the form "After $client did $actions without consulting us, we recommended that $client take $actions to do damage control, and they did so. We no longer represent $client" is about as far from a good sign as you can get. Now, he might still have a case. But I'm pretty sure the above is lawyerspeak for "client fucked up, and we don't want to deal with them anymore".

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> he did in fact access internal Tesla systems and he did in fact exfiltrate this information Both sides can be true. He could have stolen Tesla’s data. He could have also thought he was whistleblowing while doing so. Either way, it doesn’t justify calling in a fake bomb threat.

FireBeyond 8y ago
> Either way, it doesn’t justify calling in a fake bomb threat. Police investigated (it was a shooting incident, not a bomb threat), found no credible basis, asked to interview a witness, who Tesla declined to make available. Why so sure he made a threat?
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > Why so sure he made a threat? Sorry, ambiguous wording. I don't allege he called in a threat. Tesla publicly stated he made violent threats. The police refused to corroborate that claim. Tesla's statement was unjustified.
  - FireBeyond 8y ago
    "Tesla publicly stated he made violent threats. The police refused to corroborate that claim." ... because Tesla "declined" to make the witness/es who received those threats available to the police. That's a bit more contextual.

AndrewBissell 8y ago

Very deceptive to call what Tripp posted to Twitter "a trove of confidential internal documents." There were: - Photos of trailers parked outside the Gigafactory full of potentially hazardous battery waste. - Photos of shoddy workplaces within the Gigafactory and precision work being done with crude implements like Dremel tools. - VIN numbers of cars which Tripp believed had been fitted with batteries with possibly punctured cells handled by the defective GF machine. - Some entries in the accounting system which Tripp claimed supported his argument that waste was not being accounted for correctly. - Photos of internal emails with Tesla execs (including Musk) where he tried to raise concerns about scrap and the general chaos at the Gigafactory.

ericb 8y ago
> crude implements like Dremel tools Woa, woa, woa! You're hurting your credibility with this one!
- AndrewBissell 8y ago
  crude in the context of the job they were being used to do. I agree Dremels can be awesome! :-)
- scoggs 8y ago
  Sometimes a job calls for duct tape.

rayiner 8y ago

> Bloomberg conveniently left out the reason why "Tripp has since changed lawyers". It's because he published on Twitter a trove of confidential internal Tesla documents. Once he did that his lawyer knew they had no case anymore. Tripp only deleted the documents after his lawyer was able to get in touch with him. This showed that he did in fact access internal Tesla systems and he did in fact exfiltrate this information. But somehow Bloomberg paints Tesla in a negative light, as they always do. Whistleblower complaints are for obvious reasons typically based on exfiltrated documents. There may be liability against the whistleblower for that, but generally that does not impair the merits of the case against the company (except to the extent the company can use threats of legal action over the documents to keep the whistleblower quiet). And in some cases there are specific legal safeguards for whistleblowers whose complaints are based on confidential documents, especially in the case of public companies: https://www.zuckermanlaw.com/court-rules-whistleblowers-can-use-confidential-company-documents-expose-fraud/ https://www.zuckermanlaw.com/court-rules-whistleblowers-can-...

zmarty 8y ago
A "whistleblower" that first leaked all information to reporters, and then only claimed he was a whistleblower once Tesla figured out who it was. A "whistleblower" that a few months later publishes all of these internal documents ON TWITTER.
- camjohnson26 8y ago
  Who should he have leaked it to? Where should he have published it?
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    > Who should he have leaked it to? The appropriate regulatory agency rather than the media. > Where should he have published it? Publishing internal documents is the last resort after everything else has failed.
    - 8y ago

blueboo 8y ago

Hah. I knew the top comment would be an Actually, In Defense of Persecuting a Whistleblower.

Fuckyourself 8y ago
"Whistleblower" - The guy is a lose cannon. He's only a whistleblower if his claims were actually true. At this point I cannot see why anyone would believe his ridiculous claims because they made no sense and were contradicting.

mhermher 8y ago

This is the worst kind of bootlicking. Why are you stanning for a psychopath. None of what you posted means anything regarding the article. It's meaningless sideshow to try to discredit Tripp.

thisisit 8y ago

Let's assume for a moment this story was about ExxonMobil an oil company, or any company you dislike will you still hold this opinion? Remember whistleblowing as an act requires people to produce confidential internal documents.

jsight 8y ago
If the evidence against XOM was some pictures of some trailers and complaints of the company being disorganized, then yes, I would treat them the same way.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

drugme 8y ago

But somehow Bloomberg paints Tesla in a negative light, as they always do. No -- they're simply stating the obvious: that the company's unhinged and basically sociopathic response to this incident is much worse than the any "document leaking" that Tripp may have engaged in. Especially when the "leaks" involved have turned out to be apparently quite innocuous.