4 ms·

Tesla's whole legal case revolves around the argument that the county is not respecting the law. This isn't really about respecting the law it is about a disag

Tesla's whole legal case revolves around the argument that the county is not respecting the law. This isn't really about respecting the law it is about a disagreement between the county and Tesla about what the law is.

Barrin92 6y ago
>disagreement between the county and Tesla about what the law is and that's perfectly fine, however, those disagreements happen in a court. I don't think disagreeing with a county order gives you the right to simply ignore it. If Tesla thinks this is wrong they can sue, which they did, and that should be it.
- pmorici 6y ago
  There is a state level order and a county level order the state level order says to open the county says stay closed. They can't do both. They consulted a lawyer, chose to follow the higher authority, and asked a court to confirm they are in the right. What they are doing is entirely reasonable.
  - AlexandrB 6y ago
    This is straight-up false. The state-level order delegates final decision-making authority to counties. Stop spreading misinformation. > California Governor Gavin Newsom said Thursday that state-level guidance allowing manufacturing to resume some production didn’t supersede county-level restrictions. The company had unsucessfully tried to argue that Tesla’s production should be considered critical infrastructure.[1] [1] https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/9/21253127/elon-musk-lawsuit-alameda-coronavirus-tesla-fremont-lockdown https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/9/21253127/elon-musk-lawsuit...
    - pmorici 6y ago
      You might be the one who is spreading false info. I clicked your link and its reference to Newsom's statement is a linked CNBC article. In that article there is no such quote from the governor only a reference to the county's website claiming that their order takes precedent over the state which is the whole dispute here. In other words that Vox article falsely attributes a quote to Newsom which he didn't say or at least their source doesn't support their claim.
      - javagram 6y ago
        The governor’s own order: https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/5.4.20-EO-N-60-20-text.pdf https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/5.4.20-EO-... > Nothing in this Order shall be construed to limit the existing authority of local health officers to establish and implement public health measures within their respective jurisdictions that are more restrictive than, or that otherwise exist in addition to, the public health measures imposed on a statewide basis pursuant to the statewide directives of the State Public Health Officer. Tesla has simply had their lawyers argue nonsense in their filing. It’s a PR move to fool people into believing that they have any semblance of a case.
        pmorici 6y ago
        That raises the question of what their existing authority is. I guess a judge will quickly throw it out of court if their lawyers are full of it.
- jlbnjmn 6y ago
  Serious question. How did you feel about Uber/Airbnb, all the scooter companies, all the e-commerce companies that were/are ignoring local laws to operate? Is this somehow different? If so, how?
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    I feel the exact same way about it. They shouldn't be ignoring local laws, companies don't stand above appointed and elected officials. They don't get to make the rules.
    - kortilla 6y ago
      And appointed/elected officials don’t have unlimited power to pass whatever laws they want, regardless of the will of the local people. Two sides to the same coin.
- x3n0ph3n3 6y ago
  Why should it be incumbent on Tesla to suffer the county's mistake? The county can try to enforce it if that's the path they want to take.
- kd5bjo 6y ago
  Historically, the process has been to break the law you consider invalid, be charged with violating the law, and then make your defense in court. Courts generally rule on situations, not laws, and dislike being asked about hypothetical situations rather than actual events.

Barrin92 6y ago

>disagreement between the county and Tesla about what the law is and that's perfectly fine, however, those disagreements happen in a court. I don't think disagreeing with a county order gives you the right to simply ignore it. If Tesla thinks this is wrong they can sue, which they did, and that should be it.

pmorici 6y ago
There is a state level order and a county level order the state level order says to open the county says stay closed. They can't do both. They consulted a lawyer, chose to follow the higher authority, and asked a court to confirm they are in the right. What they are doing is entirely reasonable.
- AlexandrB 6y ago
  This is straight-up false. The state-level order delegates final decision-making authority to counties. Stop spreading misinformation. > California Governor Gavin Newsom said Thursday that state-level guidance allowing manufacturing to resume some production didn’t supersede county-level restrictions. The company had unsucessfully tried to argue that Tesla’s production should be considered critical infrastructure.[1] [1] https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/9/21253127/elon-musk-lawsuit-alameda-coronavirus-tesla-fremont-lockdown https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/9/21253127/elon-musk-lawsuit...
  - pmorici 6y ago
    You might be the one who is spreading false info. I clicked your link and its reference to Newsom's statement is a linked CNBC article. In that article there is no such quote from the governor only a reference to the county's website claiming that their order takes precedent over the state which is the whole dispute here. In other words that Vox article falsely attributes a quote to Newsom which he didn't say or at least their source doesn't support their claim.
    - javagram 6y ago
      The governor’s own order: https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/5.4.20-EO-N-60-20-text.pdf https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/5.4.20-EO-... > Nothing in this Order shall be construed to limit the existing authority of local health officers to establish and implement public health measures within their respective jurisdictions that are more restrictive than, or that otherwise exist in addition to, the public health measures imposed on a statewide basis pursuant to the statewide directives of the State Public Health Officer. Tesla has simply had their lawyers argue nonsense in their filing. It’s a PR move to fool people into believing that they have any semblance of a case.
      - pmorici 6y ago
        That raises the question of what their existing authority is. I guess a judge will quickly throw it out of court if their lawyers are full of it.
jlbnjmn 6y ago
Serious question. How did you feel about Uber/Airbnb, all the scooter companies, all the e-commerce companies that were/are ignoring local laws to operate? Is this somehow different? If so, how?
- Barrin92 6y ago
  I feel the exact same way about it. They shouldn't be ignoring local laws, companies don't stand above appointed and elected officials. They don't get to make the rules.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    And appointed/elected officials don’t have unlimited power to pass whatever laws they want, regardless of the will of the local people. Two sides to the same coin.
x3n0ph3n3 6y ago
Why should it be incumbent on Tesla to suffer the county's mistake? The county can try to enforce it if that's the path they want to take.
kd5bjo 6y ago
Historically, the process has been to break the law you consider invalid, be charged with violating the law, and then make your defense in court. Courts generally rule on situations, not laws, and dislike being asked about hypothetical situations rather than actual events.