Case 3:20-cv-03426-JD Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 1 of 63
`
`
`
`
`Aaron Greenspan (Pro Se)
`956 Carolina Street
`San Francisco, CA 94107-3337
`Phone: +1 415 670 9350
`Fax: +1 415 373 3959
`E-Mail: aaron.greenspan@plainsite.org
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AARON GREENSPAN,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`OMAR QAZI, SMICK ENTERPRISES,
`INC., ELON MUSK, and TESLA, INC.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR:
`
`1. Libel Per Se
`2.
`Intentional Infliction of Emotional
`Distress
`3. Declaratory Judgment
`4. Copyright Infringement
`5. Violation of the UCL, Business &
`Professions Code § 17200
`6. Violation of Federal Securities
`Laws
`7.
`Injunctive Relief
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Plaintiff, Aaron Greenspan, alleges the following causes of action and requests for relief:
`INTRODUCTION
`This is a case about whether or not the wealthiest members of society should be
`1.
`permitted to lie with impunity, and the means they sometimes use to silence those who justifiably
`question them.
`2.
`Defendant Elon Musk is the billionaire CEO of Defendant Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla”),
`which manufactures electric vehicles and sells solar energy products. He has attracted a cult
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`1
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-03426-JD Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 2 of 63
`
`
`
`
`following, both among his customer base and on the Twitter social network, where Defendant
`Musk has in excess of 30 million followers.
`3.
`On September 28, 2018, Defendant Musk signed a binding Consent Decree in
`United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Elon Musk, Southern District of New
`York Case No. 1:18-cv-08865-AJN. On April 26, 2019, Defendant Musk signed an Amended
`Consent Decree in the same case. Both Consent Decrees regulate his use of social media and all
`corporate communications. Defendant Musk also paid a $20 million fine to the United States
`Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), separate and apart from a $20 million fine paid
`by Defendant Tesla.
`4.
`Defendant Omar Qazi, individually and through his corporation, Defendant Smick
`Enterprises, Inc. (“Smick”), has served as an attack dog and ferocious on-line propagandist for
`Defendants Tesla and Musk. Defendant Qazi is a Tesla shareholder and customer. Defendant
`Qazi also has a criminal record, having been arrested at least twice. His antics over a period of
`years have been so overly aggressive that Qazi himself attracted a following of tens of thousands
`of Musk’s supporters, and a considerable following of detractors, before he was banned from and
`by Twitter for life.
`5.
`According to the SEC Office of Investor Education and Advocacy Investor Alert
`on Social Media and Investing, “false claims could be made on social media such as Facebook
`and Twitter” to effect “pump-and-dump” schemes through “false and misleading statements to
`the marketplace.” Indeed, social media has been instrumental to the unprecedented artificial
`elevation of Tesla’s stock price, which has yielded a market capitalization for the company,
`which has never turned an annual profit, of $150 billion: about 2.5 times the worth of Lehman
`Brothers at its peak.
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`2
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-03426-JD Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 3 of 63
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants Qazi and Musk have at times worked as a tag team, hurling insults
`6.
`and falsehoods concerning Plaintiff, among other topics, to Defendant Musk’s approximately 30
`million followers in an attempt to discredit Plaintiff’s in-depth research on Defendants Tesla and
`Musk.
`
`Even after being formally banned from and by Twitter, Defendant Qazi returned
`7.
`to Twitter anyway under the guise of a new shared account for a Tesla-focused podcast, until his
`further provocations triggered a backlash in the same community that had previously been so
`supportive of his at-times-criminal harassment.
`8.
`Defendants Qazi’s and Smick Enterprises, Inc.’s actions on behalf of Defendants
`Musk and Tesla are part of a overt pattern of Elon Musk smearing, harassing, and willfully
`defaming his critics based on any information at all, however obviously false or unreliable. Each
`Defendant has routinely displayed a reckless and often proud disregard for the truth, in service of
`one of the largest securities frauds in American history.
`PARTIES
`Plaintiff Aaron Greenspan is an individual residing in San Francisco County in
`9.
`the State of California. Plaintiff presently holds Tesla put options. Plaintiff is not a public
`figure.
`
`Defendant Omar Qazi is an individual residing in Los Angeles County in the State
`10.
`of California and doing business in Santa Clara and San Francisco Counties in the State of
`California, in this district. Defendant Qazi purports to have an office on Market Street in San
`Francisco, California, in this district.
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`3
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-03426-JD Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 4 of 63
`
`
`
`
`Defendant Smick Enterprises, Inc. is a Delaware corporation unregistered with the
`11.
`California Secretary of State or Franchise Tax Board, but nevertheless operating in Santa Clara
`and San Francisco Counties in the State of California, in this district.
`12.
`Defendant Elon Musk is an individual residing in Los Angeles County in the State
`of California. Defendant Musk is a public figure whose activities, however minor, make national
`news on a near-daily basis. Defendant Musk works in Santa Clara and Alameda Counties, in this
`district.
`Defendant Tesla, Inc. is a corporation based in Santa Clara County in the State of
`13.
`California, in this district. Its common stock trades on the NASDAQ Global Select Market
`under the ticker symbol “TSLA.”
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28
`14.
`U.S.C. § 1331 and 1337, and Section 27 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78aa.
`15.
`Supplemental jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367
`over the state law claims that are so related to the federal claims in this action that they form part
`of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United StatesConstitution.
`16.
`The securities claims asserted herein arise under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
`Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78t(a)) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
`SEC, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5.
`17.
`Personal jurisdiction and venue are proper because at least one defendant is a
`corporation headquartered in this district and/or because the improper conduct alleged herein
`occurred in, was directed from, and/or emanated or exported from California. In addition,
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`4
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-03426-JD Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 5 of 63
`
`
`
`substantial acts in furtherance of the alleged fraud or the effects of the fraud have occurred in this
`judicial district.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`Tesla Stock Promoter Omar Qazi Inserts Himself Into A Dangerous Situation
`18.
`Plaintiff is an investor who has held short positions in Tesla, Inc. common stock
`via put options, among other investments.
`19.
`Plaintiff is also a data journalist who runs a legal information service called
`PlainSite (https://www.plainsite.org). PlainSite hosts over 16 million court dockets and other
`government documents and contains profiles for over 6 million legal entities, one of which
`happens to be Defendant Tesla. PlainSite handles privacy requests on a case-by-case basis.
`Consequently, Plaintiff has come into contact with a wide variety of individuals who are
`occasionally upset that their information is in the public domain.
`20.
`One such individual, Diego MasMarques, Jr., who was convicted of murder and
`attempted murder in Spain and charged with a number of other crimes in the United States,
`escalated his displeasure over the fact that his criminal convictions were public to the point
`where Plaintiff applied for, and was later granted, a “permanent” two-year restraining order
`against him. See Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 18CH008067, Greenspan v.
`MasMarques.
`Plaintiff is Jewish and comes from a Jewish family.
`21.
`On October 27, 2018, a shooter at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh,
`22.
`Pennsylvania killed eleven Jewish congregants and wounded six.
`23.
`On various websites, Mr. MasMarques, who has a documented history of mental
`illness, posted thousands of libelous diatribes falsely alleging that Plaintiff and his family
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`5
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-03426-JD Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 6 of 63
`
`
`
`
`members had committed a wide variety of crimes ranging from setting up a “fraudulent” non-
`profit organization, to tax evasion, to hacking his e-mail account. He and/or someone his posts
`inspired also posted the name of Plaintiff’s parents’ synagogue in Cleveland, Ohio, as well as the
`name of their former synagogue, Plaintiff’s home address, Plaintiff’s parents’ address, a
`photograph of Plaintiff’s parents’ house, all of Plaintiff’s family’s telephone numbers, as well as
`the contact information of people Plaintiff knows in San Francisco. Other posts included
`fabricated images of Plaintiff and his family members wearing swastikas and pasted onto
`pornographic content. Mr. MasMarques now faces additional criminal charges in Marlborough
`District Court in Massachusetts on account of his harassing conduct in violation of the various
`temporary and permanent restraining orders issued in Santa Clara County Superior Court Case
`No. 18CH008067.
`24.
`All of Mr. MasMarques’s false and libelous posts, as well as those he inspired,
`gave Plaintiff cause for great concern, but especially those posts concerning his family’s specific
`synagogue affiliations.
`25.
`On or about January 14, 2019, apparently disturbed by the allegations against
`Defendant Tesla surfacing in various court documents posted on PlainSite, a pseudonymous
`Twitter account, “@tesla_truth” (posing as “Steve Jobs”) began re-posting and linking to some
`of the false and dangerous allegations pseudonymously posted by Mr. MasMarques that were the
`subject of the (then temporary, later permanent) restraining order, while making additional false
`allegations of its own.
`26.
`The owner of the @tesla_truth account admitted, “I haven’t researched many
`details about all the complaints against Aaron,” displaying reckless disregard for the truth.
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`6
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-03426-JD Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 7 of 63
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`An immediate attempt via Twitter Direct Message (“DM”) to discuss the
`27.
`seriousness of the matter, and especially the associated safety concerns, with the owner of the
`@tesla_truth account was not fruitful. Plaintiff wrote:
`“Hi. What you’re writing is libelous and totally untrue. Diego MasMarques is
`the subject of pending criminal charges for what he wrote, as well as the
`restraining order case in California that you admit you have not fully researched.
`You are repeating his lies. Please stop.”
`28.
`The owner of the account refused to stop, and continued making public
`antagonizing statements on Twitter, including, “Jail all shorts,” referring to short sellers,
`repeating a talking point favored by Defendant Musk.
`29.
`Plaintiff then specified the most objectionable content by saving it to a PDF file
`hosted on his personal website and sending a link to the account owner. When the recipient of
`this message (the owner of the @tesla_truth account) clicked on the link to the PDF containing
`the objectionable content, the server logs yielded the DNS hostname and IP address of the
`account owner: c-73-71-59-42.hsd1.ca.comcast.net and 73.71.59.42, respectively. Given the
`urgent potential safety ramifications of this account’s misconduct, Plaintiff took the exceptional
`step of using this information to search PlainSite’s server logs for any associated history, and
`found that a user with the same IP address had searched for “Smick Enterprises, Inc.,” a
`company run by Omar Qazi of Torrance, California.
`30.
`Plaintiff took the further exceptional step of publicizing this information to warn
`others of the danger Defendant Qazi posed.
`31.
`Omar Qazi later admitted to owning or at least having access to the @tesla_truth
`account.
`The same day, still concerned about the danger posed to his family and others at
`32.
`the synagogues mentioned in the posts, Plaintiff attempted to contact Defendant Qazi by phone
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-03426-JD Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 8 of 63
`
`
`
`
`at his employer’s office as determined by his LinkedIn profile, but was unable to reach him
`because in fact, Defendant Qazi did not actually work at the office listed on his LinkedIn profile.
`Plaintiff then asked the receptionist to speak with a supervisor in Defendant Qazi’s department,
`unaware that he did not work in one. Plaintiff informed an unknown female employee that he
`had asked Defendant Qazi to stop and considered his conduct dangerous, harassing and libelous.
`33.
`At the time, Plaintiff did not know that Defendant Qazi’s “employer” was actually
`his father’s company where Defendant Qazi appears to hold a vanity title, nor did Plaintiff ask to
`speak with Defendant Qazi’s father or any of his family members when he called. Plaintiff
`simply conveyed that Defendant Qazi’s dangerous conduct should cease immediately, regardless
`of his affection for Tesla.
`Omar Qazi Steps Up His Campaign of Criminal Harassment
`The next day, on January 15, 2019 at 7:01 P.M. (all times in this Complaint are
`34.
`Pacific Time unless otherwise specified) Plaintiff received a harassing phone call from a blocked
`telephone number. The caller, who did not specify his name, was a man impersonating a service
`technician who initially only said he was calling from “the phone company.” The anonymous
`caller then tried to ascertain Plaintiff’s home address. Since the caller refused to identify the
`“phone company” he worked for, and since AT&T does not customarily call from blocked
`numbers for service appointments, Plaintiff refused to divulge any information. Defendant Qazi
`later admitted to placing this harassing phone call in a private conversation that was eventually
`forwarded to Plaintiff months later.
`35.
`The @tesla_truth Twitter account, posing as “Steve Jobs,” was eventually
`suspended by Twitter for violating its terms of service. It was permitted to continue operating by
`renaming itself to “Steve Jobs [sic] Ghost” and clarifying its role as a so-called “parody”
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`8
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-03426-JD Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 9 of 63
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`account, even though the account’s primary purpose was promoting Defendant Tesla’s stock and
`products, not parody.
`36.
`In mid-July 2019, the @tesla_truth account once again began posting false and
`misleading information about Plaintiff and his relationship with Diego MasMarques, Jr. False,
`misleading and harassing posts continued through late July, and inspired harassment from others.
`37.
`On August 2, 2019 at 11:24 P.M., via the @PlainSite Twitter account, Plaintiff
`accurately reported on a public video posted by Defendant Qazi on the @tesla_truth Twitter
`account purporting to advertise the features of Tesla’s so-called “Autopilot” functionality, which
`requires that drivers keep their hands on the steering wheel. (Tesla’s stock ticker is highlighted
`on Twitter as $TSLA.) The @PlainSite posts read as follows:
`“Strange, it would appear that the owner of this $TSLA Model 3—likely Omar
`Qazi, the owner of the account that posted the video—is improperly using
`Autopilot hands-free. He even ignores an on-screen warning while driving at 1100
`South La Brea Avenue.” https://t.co/6pnADwA8KO
`“The video also appears to show the driver running a red light. Below, a photo of
`Mr. Qazi’s black Tesla Model 3 posted previously, consistent with the vehicle in
`the video.” https://twitter.com/PlainSite/status/1157538972437901314
`38.
`The next day, on August 3, 2019 starting at 7:49:32 A.M., an internet user with
`the DNS hostname ip72-203-123-36.oc.oc.cox.net, which represents an internet-connected
`device in or around Rancho Palos Verdes, California, accessed documents from Plaintiff’s
`restraining order case, Case No. 18CH008067 in Santa Clara County Superior Court, hosted on
`PlainSite.
`39.
`California.
`Less than 20 minutes later, on August 3, 2019 at 8:07 A.M., the @tesla_truth
`40.
`Twitter account posted an altered and false version of Form CH-100 from Plaintiff’s
`
`Defendant Qazi and/or his family members live in Rancho Palos Verdes,
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-03426-JD Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 10 of 63
`
`
`
`
`aforementioned restraining order case, replacing the “Person From Whom Protection Is Sought”
`with the name “Little Billy Watkins” and an age of “5” (referring to a fictional five-year-old
`child). The portion of the altered court document image posted also contained Plaintiff’s phone
`number and fax number. Defendant Qazi posted the altered image alongside the text:
`“BREAKING: Aaron Greenspan of Plainsite has been arrested after trying to beat up a
`group of kids in the playground after a failed child abduction. The kids ended up doing a
`number on him and now he has filed a restraining order against them. Should’ve known
`they would fight back.”
`41.
`Fifteen minutes later, on August 3, 2019 at 8:22 A.M., at the same phone number
`posted by Defendant Qazi as part of the altered Form CH-100, Plaintiff received several text
`messages from an unknown telephone number, +1 408 767 6349, shown below:
`
`
`These text messages falsely alleged that Plaintiff had “child pornography” and
`42.
`“[pornographic] images of underage kids” on his computer.
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-03426-JD Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 11 of 63
`
`
`
`
`
`Seven minutes later, on August 3, 2019 at 8:29 A.M., Plaintiff received a fax on
`43.
`the fax number posted by Defendant Qazi as part of the altered Form CH-100 from an unknown
`fax number, +1 415 969 2047. This anonymous fax purported to be from “Kids R Us” with a
`fake fax number of “2126644444” and the cover page message, “Aaron, let me know if you need
`more. Full price this time please.” The next page contained a monochrome pornographic image
`of a teenage young woman.
`44.
`A similar anonymous fax from the same unknown fax number was reportedly sent
`to another critic of Tesla, Paul Huettner, in December 2018. That fax, with the same cover page
`style, reportedly contained a thinly veiled death threat aimed at Mr. Huettner. See
`https://twitter.com/Paul_M_Huettner/status/1075415917809541121. The fax cover page in that
`instance purported to be from “Elon Musk” with a message of, “Paul, Would you prefer to go
`first or would you prefer your family go first.”
`45.
`Plaintiff immediately reported the harassing text messages and pornographic fax
`to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
`46.
`In light of these events, on August 7, 2019 at 3:27 P.M., Plaintiff e-mailed the
`Tesla Board of Directors, including Defendant Musk, with concerns about Defendant Tesla’s
`relationship with Defendant Qazi. See Exhibit A. Plaintiff did not receive any response to this
`message from Defendant Musk or any Tesla Director or representative.
`47.
`On August 7, 2019 at 6:38 P.M., Defendant Qazi admitted to further harassment
`and to the destruction of evidence by posting from his @OmarQazi Twitter account:
`“I did make the joke post about Aaron getting beat up by kids or whatever with his
`contact info I got from PlainSite. Did it for fun because he posted tweeted [sic] about
`me. Deleted it later that day. Nothing personal against Aaron.”
`See Exhibit B.
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`11
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-03426-JD Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 12 of 63
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant Qazi did not explicitly admit to sending the fax, and at one point
`48.
`authored a series of posts explaining that he had been on an airplane at the time the fax was sent,
`supposedly making it impossible for him to be the author. He did not explain how a few minutes
`prior to the fax being sent, a Rancho Palos Verdes IP address accessed the same restraining order
`document containing Plaintiff’s fax number that Defendant Qazi altered and posted from his
`Twitter account, ultimately leading to the fax to being transmitted. Nor did he apparently find
`his own explanation compelling, because he deleted it shortly after it was posted.
`49.
`On August 8, 2019 at 11:13 P.M., Defendant Musk responded to Plaintiff’s e-
`mailed, on-the-record questions with a screenshot of false information stemming from libelous
`posts by Diego MasMarques, Jr., along with the words, “Your true colors …”
`50.
`On September 19, 2019, Plaintiff’s non-profit organization, Think Computer
`Foundation, intervened in Delaware Chancery Court Case No. 12711-VCS, In Re Tesla Motors,
`Inc. Stockholder Litigation, pursuant to Chancery Local Rule 5.1(f), which permits any member
`of the public to challenge the designation of confidential material on file with the court.
`51.
`From early August through October 2019, on a nearly daily basis, the
`@tesla_truth account posted dozens of false statements—hundreds in aggregate—regarding
`Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s family members. These harassing statements were read by a wide
`audience of at least 10,000-15,000 Twitter followers. Many of these statements were published
`specifically to promote Defendant Tesla’s stock, its products, and its CEO, Defendant Musk—all
`while using Tesla’s registered trademark—by making Tesla appear to be the one and only
`legitimate automotive brand, and cutting down all others.
`52.
`Defendant Qazi’s scorched-earth modus operandi is perhaps best illustrated with a
`series of posts from September 17, 2019, in which he lashed out at Edmunds.com, Inc., a popular
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`12
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-03426-JD Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 13 of 63
`
`
`
`
`resource for information about cars. When the @edmunds Twitter account simply blocked him,
`Defendant Qazi’s public response, far beyond mere dissatisfaction, was as follows:
`“You think this is going to stop me @edmunds ???
`I’m only going to troll you harder now”
`“troll Edmunds for me! Sign up for notifications on their posts and troll the shit out of
`them until they apologize to the Tesla community
`we won’t stand for people insulting us and lying to the public to prop up this [sic] own
`corporate interests. Destroy Edmunds ‘impartial’ brand”
`“people seriously think Edmunds is impartial. I did, which is why i was so surprised to
`see their hateful tweets against Tesla owners. People need to know Edmunds is in the
`pocket of dealers.
`They will lie to you and screw your [sic] over to protect their business.”
`53.
`Defendants Musk and Qazi frequently interacted on Twitter through a variety of
`accounts. Defendant Qazi also photographed himself appearing at exclusive, invite-only events
`where Defendant Musk presented new Tesla products.
`54.
`On or around September 28, 2019, an internet user with the same last two cell
`phone digits as Defendant Qazi (37) created a Twitter account with the username @PlainShite
`(and a name of “Plain Shit”) that made use of the PlainSite name and logo without permission.
`55.
`On the morning of October 9, 2019, an article in Bloomberg by Zachary Mider
`entitled, “Tesla’s Autopilot Could Save the Lives of Millions, But It Will Kill Some People
`First” was published referring to Defendant Musk and containing the quote:
`“The billionaire CEO, who declined to be interviewed for this story, replied to his fan
`[Defendant Qazi] the same day. ‘Your Twitter is awesome!’ he said, before adding a
`warning: ‘Please be wary of journalists. They will sweet talk you and then wack [sic] you
`with a baseball bat.’ Musk cc’d me on the message. Tesla also declined to comment.”
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`13
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-03426-JD Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 14 of 63
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The article, which contained a photo spread of Defendant Qazi next to his Tesla Model 3, also
`stated that Defendant Qazi has been given special early access to Tesla software features. See
`Exhibit C.
`On October 9, 2019 at 2:53 P.M., Plaintiff published a copy of a Twitter DM
`56.
`conversation in which Defendant Qazi admitted that he had an “out of control revenge impulse”
`and that he had made the harassing telephone call to Plaintiff on January 15, 2019 from a
`blocked number. In this same conversation, Mr. Qazi also made reference to a “Jim” who had
`written on or provided input for the @tesla_truth account in January 2019. See Exhibit D.
`57.
`On October 9, 2019 at 3:09 P.M., the @tesla_truth account posted the following
`on Twitter:
`“All Aaron Greenspan had to do was shut up and I would have forgotten all about that
`clown.
`Now i’m going to drag his name through the mud until the day he does [sic]. I want
`everyone to know the true facts about who he really is
`After he dies I’ll keep telling people he sucked”
`58.
`On October 9, 2019 at 3:34 P.M., Plaintiff e-mailed a Notice of Intent to Sue and
`Evidence Preservation Notice to Defendant Musk, the then-general counsels of Defendant Tesla
`and SpaceX, Defendant Qazi, James Gleeson, and SEC Regional Director Erin Schneider. See
`Exhibit E.
`At 3:48 P.M., Defendant Qazi replied by e-mail to all parties with the message,
`59.
`“Lol,” internet slang for “laughing out loud.”
`60.
`Also at 3:48 P.M., Defendant Musk replied by e-mail to all parties, including the
`SEC, with the message, “Does the psych ward know you have a cell phone? Just curious.”
`Defendant Musk then replied to all parties, in reference to Defendant Qazi’s response, with two
`laugh/crying emojis. See Exhibit F.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-03426-JD Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 15 of 63
`
`
`
`
`
`Also at 3:48 P.M., Defendant Qazi posted a screenshot on the @tesla_truth
`61.
`Twitter account containing the Notice of Intent to Sue and Evidence Preservation Notice to Elon
`Musk, without redacting any of Plaintiff’s contact information.
`62.
`At 3:51 P.M., Defendant Qazi further posted a screenshot of Elon Musk’s
`response, falsely, suggesting that Plaintiff resided in a “psych ward.”
`63.
`At 3:56 P.M., Defendant Qazi posted an image of the screenshot of the Notice of
`Intent to Sue and Evidence Preservation Notice zoomed in on Plaintiff’s e-mail and telephone
`contact information alongside the text, “If you would like to contact Aaron for pranks you can
`email or call him using the info listed below. Remember that all pranks will be recorded, so give
`it your best shot.”
`64.
`Defendant Qazi’s statements via the @tesla_truth Twitter account, that he would
`“drag [Plainitff’s] name through the mud until the day he [dies]” and that “[a]fter he dies I’ll
`keep telling people he sucked,” as well as his repeated posting of Plaintiff’s contact information,
`as well as his explicit encouragement that several thousand individuals “contact Aaron for
`pranks,” all demonstrate considerable malice and reckless disregard for the truth.
`65.
`Plaintiff received unwanted telephone calls, e-mails and messages as a result of
`Defendant Qazi’s actions. In addition, at least several dozen libelous messages were posted
`publicly about Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s family members.
`Omar Qazi Targets Plaintiff’s Family for Further Harassment
`The following day, on October 10, 2019 at approximately 11:00 A.M., Defendant
`66.
`Qazi created a fake Twitter account impersonating Plaintiff’s father, Dr. Neil S. Greenspan,
`using a photograph of Dr. Greenspan to which Plaintiff owns the copyright. The Twitter
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`15
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-03426-JD Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 16 of 63
`
`
`
`
`account’s handle, deliberately designed to confuse others, was @greenspan_neil. The account
`did not identify itself as a parody account.
`67.
`Dr. Greenspan is a professor of medicine and an academic researcher at Case
`Western Reserve University and Director of the Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics
`Laboratory at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center in Cleveland, Ohio. Accordingly,
`he qualifies as an “academic researcher” for the purposes of California Penal Code Sections
`422.4 and 602.12. As his son, Plaintiff qualifies as his “immediate family” under these sections.
`68.
`Defendant Qazi admitted that he used and/or uses the “catch all” feature on
`Google Apps to receive all e-mails addressed to smick.com, whether or not a corresponding e-
`mail account existed, including e-mails connected to numerous fake accounts on social media
`sites such as Twitter.
`69.
`On Monday, October 10, 2019 at approximately 9:51 P.M., Plaintiff filed a
`Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown request with Twitter, Inc. regarding the
`copyrighted photograph being used by Mr. Qazi to impersonate Plaintiff’s father. Consequently,
`Twitter removed the photograph of Plaintiff’s father from the account. Defendant Qazi replaced
`it with a different copyrighted photograph of Plaintiff’s disabled brother (again, used without
`permission from the copyright owner, the Toledo Blade), and changed the name on the account
`to Plaintiff’s brother’s name, Simon Greenspan.
`70.
`On Friday, October 11, 2019, among other messages, Defendant Qazi wrote, “I
`hate my brother” from the fake @greenspan_neil account now posing as “Simon Greenspan.” In
`a separate exchange on the same day with Twitter account @enL3X1, who asked, “Are you a
`parody or actually his brother?” Defendant Qazi wrote from the fake “Simon Greenspan”
`account, “yeah I’m his little brother haha.”
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`16
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-03426-JD Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 17 of 63
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s brother is not active on Twitter and never has been.
`71.
`On October 11, 2019, Defendant Qazi created websites using servers owned or
`72.
`leased by his company, Defendant Smick Enterprises, Inc., at http://www.plainshit.com,
`http://www.plainshit.org, and http://www.plainsiite.org (the “Smick Sites”) containing
`copyrighted photographs of Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s father, Plaintiff’s brother, and Plaintiff’s mother,
`with the bold headline, “It’s plain to see: This fraudulent charity is FULL OF SHIT.” The sites
`(all with identical content) continued:
`“Have you been harassed, intimidated, threatened or targeted for extortion by Aaron
`Greenspan, his fraudulent "Think Foundation" "Charity", or board members Neil
`Greenspan or Judy Greenspan? You are not alone.
`The law offices of Lantham [sic] & Watkins are collecting testimonies regarding the
`fraudulent 501(c)(3) non-profit Think Foundation's activities, and the conduct of board
`members Aaron Greenspan, Neil Greenspan and Judith Greenspan. Please add your
`contact information to the form below and one of our staff will contact you shortly.
`Thank you for speaking out.
`56 people have submitted verified testimonies”
`73.
`This statement contained numerous false allegations: that Plaintiff’s non-profit
`organization was a “fraudulent charity;” that Plaintiff and his