Political Corruption Charges Filed Against Tesla:
* Elon Musk did not create Tesla Motors. Elon Musk took over Tesla Motors and was sued for fraud by the actual founder.
* Senator Dianne Feinstein arranged for Tesla Motors to get free State & Federal funding along with Solyndra. She, and her family, received stock benefits, HR contracts, construction contracts, supplier contracts, staff jobs and sales contracts for her efforts.
* Tesla cars can be remotely hacked, and taken over, from anywhere in the world per a 60 Minutes, Fox & MSNBC newscast.
* A Tesla suddenly swerved off a cliff in Sonoma, California and killed the driver.
* A Tesla swerved into a bicyclist near Santa Cruz, California and killed the rider.
* A Tesla crashed into a wall in Los Angeles, California and killed the driver.
* A Tesla in California swerved into oncoming traffic and killed the oncoming occupants.
* Tesla has been sued for homicide.
* Tesla has been sued for fraud many times.
* Elon Musk has been sued for fraud many times.
* Tesla employees have been burned alive.
* The batteries in the Tesla were never designed to be used in automobiles.
* Tesla had to give away it's patents because Tesla executives discovered that Tesla engineers had actually described, in gory detail, in the federally filed patent papers, how Tesla batteries will spontaneously kill you and burn your house down.
* Tesla batteries are so sensitive that they can ignite and explode if they become wet or are knocked. Over 2000 published technical papers and lab test videos prove this as fact. Fisker, is out of business because millions of dollars of it's cars, using the same lithium ion battery solution, got wet and burned into slag heaps.
* The U.S. FAA has issued a film and report that proves that Tesla batteries can not only spontaneously ignite but also explode like a bomb.
* Tesla's have been recalled, at least, twice for starting fires. One time the battery chargers needed to be replaced for starting fires. The other time the entire floor of all of the cars needed a titanium shield to help reduce fires from bumps.
* After claiming that sales in China would save Tesla, Tesla only sold 120 cars and had to fire it's Chinese staff. China sees Tesla as a conduit to Obama's funding and not only wants to cut off his funding but even got their university to demonstrate how easily the Tesla can be hacked.
* The primary beneficiaries of Tesla were the campaign backers of the first Obama campaign.
* Elon Musk had to divorce one ex-wife twice and per her two different hush-money amounts.
* Tesla has been sued for "Lemon Law" violations which stated that the car was shoddilylt by inexperienced workers.
* Per Federal MSDS documents, when the Tesla batteries are on fire, they release toxic smoke which can give the occupants and by- standers brain cancer, liver cancer and toxilogical poisoning.
* Fire Departments are ordered to wear the highest level of HazMat gear when dealing with a Tesla on fire.
* Tesla booked it's free state and federal tax credits as "profit" when it issued it's investor reports.
* Tesla was caught sending emails to its staff and potential buyers stating that it wanted to book potential sales as fully received revenue.
* Tesla has paid bloggers to act as "meat puppet" promoters on the web to make it appear that there is a large group of supporters when, in fact, these "meat puppets" are hired shills.
* Tesla investors have personal, and financial relationship,s with CBS Bay Area, Reddit, Google, San Jose Mercury News, Hearst Corporation, and other media outlets, and forbid them from publishing negative articles about Musk or Tesla.
* Google investors and staff own part of Tesla.
* Tesla analysts have engaged in the process called "pumping the stock."
* Tesla is so frightened of owners publicly disclosing the many problems with the car that they require buyers to sign non-disclosure agreements.
* Every major Tesla investor was a campaign contributor.
* At the time that the U.S. Department of Energy was reviewing Tesla's application for funding, Tesla was technically bankrupt, as disclosed by Tesla staff, and had the worst debt-ratio of any applicant. According to the federal section 136 law, this made it illegal to give Tesla the money but they were given the money based on "special orders".
* At the time that the U.S. Department of Energy was reviewing Tesla's application for funding, Erick Strickland of the NHTSA was reviewing documents that said that the Tesla batteries would explode. He later quit the NHTSA on 48 hours notice.
* 80% of the Tesla investors owned stock interest in Afghanistan lithium and indium mining used for Tesla and Solyndra. As of 1/1/15, The Afghan war has cost U.S. taxpayers $6 Trillion.
* Without free non-competitive federal cash and credits, in a fair-market layout with special-interest protections, Elon Musk's 3 companies would not exist today.
* No documentation, for buyers of the Tesla, ever disclosed the fire danger, hacking danger or lethal fumes toxicity issues.
* Panasonic, the maker of the Tesla battery cells, has been charged with corruption, price fixing, dumping and the deaths of thousands of it's employees in battery factories and nearby towns, from toxic materials.
* Elon Musk spends more per month, on personal PR and promotion than any other billionaire in America.
* On 60 Minutes, while Elon Musk was being interviewed about his rockets, he cried when the interviewer told him that real astronauts thought he was a poser. So far, Space X has had three times more explosionsand failures tha NASA ever had in the same point in their agency history.
* When part of NASA's budget was gutted and many NASA staff were fired, Space X immediately received a contract for the same services that had just been curtailed at NASA.
* The NUMMI plant, that Tesla took over, next door to Solyndra, was said to "not ever be a possibility for Tesla to use" in the news, by Elon Musk. Dianne Feinstein arranged for Tesla to use NUMMI and told NUMMI workers they would all be employed. Most were not hired and Tesla hired off-shore workers to replace many of them.
* There are thousands of news articles online that charge that Tesla Motors was funded as a political kickback operation and that it was about skimming the funding fees more than building the cars.
* Even though the federal funding discouraged applicants from using taxpayer money to build buildings, due to the glut of empty factories, in America, at the time, Tesla tried to build buildings in multiple cities, got sued for fraud by some of the cities and then went to NUMMI. In every city deal, the property rights deals were designed as tax write-off profits for Tesla investors.
* Tesla owners have blogged about over 150 defects with the car ranging from noise, to thermal issues, to range issues to get getting locked in the car and getting locked out of the car.
* Goldman Sachs was involved in every part of the Tesla deals. Goldman Sachs is under investigation by Congress, and others for minerals commodity manipulations of minerals used in Solyndra and Tesla. Solyndra Afghan chemicals, in the Solyndra solar tubes spontaneously caught fire when installed on roof-tops.
* Elon Musk once spied on all of his employees by sending each one a different email with a slightly different secret in it to try to find out who was ratting him out.
* Tesla told the U.S. Department of Energy, in it's writtem submission, that their car would cost 40% less and sell 2000% more than it actually did.
* Tesla had no actual design for the Model S when it submitted it's materials to the U.S. Department of Energy. What was submitted by Tesla was artists ideas. Tesla then used the taxpayer money to figure out what it was going to do. The Tesla Model S has no engineering it in that was submitted to the U.S. Department of Energy.
* Bright Automotive, a competing applicant against Tesla in the Department of Energy funding, beat Tesla on every financial and engineering metric and had more customers demanding the car yet Bright Automotive got sabotaged by DOE staff because Bright did not make campaign contributions.
* Most of the Department of Energy "reviewers" had a financial and/or political connection to Tesla Motor's investors.
* Tesla Motors staff had personal relationships with all of the key White House staff of the first Obama White House. They all quit the White House mid-term.
* Emails and whistle-blower documents reveal that White House staff coordinated the Department of Energy Funding and that Steven Chu had a personal relationship with almost every Tesla investor and advisor. Steven Chu's nomination documents are mostly authored by Tesla investors and their associates.
* During the Tesla application process with the DOE, the Tesla design was $200,000.00, PER CAR, over budget, yet this was not disclosed.
Numerous feature news articles have connected Tesla and it's investors, Google and it's investors and the White House with a massive number of conflicts of interest.
Dianne Feinstein and Arnold Schwarzenegger have turned in financial reports which show that they had a deep profit connection to Tesla and Solyndra, both of which sit across the street from each other on land managed, leased and contracted by Feinstein's family. Feinstein's family also provided the construction company and HR services and own the stock:
Multiple Department of Energy applicants have provided federal testimony showing evidence that Dianne Feinstein and her Chief of Staff tampered with, and potentially sabotaged, competing applicants to Tesla.
Even Tesla's own marketing head quit Tesla and wrote that the Department of Energy, along with certain VC's, was rigging the market:
Tesla's investor's and partners had a trillion dollar lithium ion deal planned for Afghanistan. Investigators are reviewing many strange reports from "over there". Side-by-side companies Solyndra and Tesla both needed mined minerals from Afghanistan. Both had their products blow up when exposed to the outdoors.
TESLA HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH ORDERING GOOGLE, IT'S INVESTOR, TO MANIPULATE SEARCH AND INTERNET RESULTS IN ORDER TO SABOTAGE COMPETITORS AND THOSE WHO FILED COMPLAINTS AGAINST TESLA. FEDERAL RECORDS NOW SHOW THESE CHARGES TO BE TRUE:
- Tech -WALL STREET JOURNAL
Inside the U.S. Antitrust Probe of Google Key FTC staff wanted to sue Internet giant after finding ‘real harm to consumers and to innovation’
Google’s Eric Schmidt testified in 2011 about the Internet giant’s business practices and defended how it displayed search results.
- Brody Mullins
The Wall Street Journal
Updated March 19, 2015 7:38 p.m. ET 49 COMMENTS
WASHINGTON—Officials at the Federal Trade Commission concluded in 2012 that Google Inc. used anticompetitive tactics and abused its monopoly power in ways that harmed Internet users and rivals, a far harsher analysis of Google’s business than was previously known.
The staff report from the agency’s bureau of competition recommended the commission bring a lawsuit challenging three Google practices. The move would have triggered one of the highest-profile antitrust cases since the Justice Department sued Microsoft Corp. in the 1990s.
- How Google Skewed Search Results
- Digits: Excerpts from FTC Staff Report on Google’s Search Practices
- Google Dodges Antitrust Hit (Jan. 3, 2013)
- EU Prepares to Step Up Google Investigations (July 22, 2014)
The 160-page critique, which was supposed to remain private but was inadvertently disclosed in an open-records request, concluded that Google’s “conduct has resulted—and will result—in real harm to consumers and to innovation in the online search and advertising markets.”
The findings stand in contrast to the conclusion of the FTC’s commissioners, who voted unanimously in early 2013 to end the investigation after Google agreed to some voluntary changes to its practices.
It is unusual for the commissioners to not take staff recommendations. But in this case, they were wrestling with competing recommendations, including a separate report from the agency’s economic bureau that didn’t favor legal action.
Then-Chairman Jon Leibowitz said in a written statement at the time that Google’s voluntary changes deliver “more relief for American consumers faster than any other option.”
Google General Counsel Kent Walker said in a statement Thursday that the FTC ultimately “agreed that there was no need to take action on how we rank and display search results.” He added: “Speculation about potential consumer harm turned out to be entirely wrong. Since the investigation closed two years ago, the ways people access information online have only increased, giving consumers more choice than ever before.”
On one issue—whether Google used anticompetitive tactics for its search engine—the competition staff recommended against a lawsuit, although it said Google’s actions resulted in “significant harm” to rivals. In three other areas, the report found evidence the company used its monopoly behavior to help its own business and hurt its rivals.
The report undercuts Google’s oft-stated contention that the FTC found no evidence of wrongdoing. “The conclusion is clear: Google’s services are good for users and good for competition,” said David Drummond, Google’s senior vice president and chief legal officer, when the FTC closed the matter.
It could prompt new complaints from some Google competitors, such as Yelp Inc., who allege the company still engages in anticompetitive behavior, and renewed focus by antitrust authorities in Europe, who are pursuing their own look into Google.
“This document appears to show that the FTC had direct evidence from Google of intentional search bias,” said Luther Lowe, the vice president of public policy for Yelp.
The Wall Street Journal viewed portions of the document after the agency inadvertently disclosed it as part of a Freedom of Information Act request. The FTC declined to release the undisclosed pages and asked the Journal to return the document, which it declined to do.
“Unfortunately, an unredacted version of this material was inadvertently released in response to a FOIA request,” an FTC spokesman said in a statement to the Journal. “We are taking steps to ensure this does not happen again.”
Embedded in the document and in detailed footnotes are an array of previously unknown details about Google’s business, many of which come from senior officials such as Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt, former executive Marissa Mayer and co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin.
Data included in the report suggest Google was more dominant in the U.S. Internet search market than was widely believed. The company estimated its market share at between 69% and 84% during a period when research firm comScore put it at 65%. “From an antitrust perspective, I’m happy to see [comScore] underestimate our share,” the report quoted Google Chief Economist Hal Varian as saying, without specifying the context.
An antitrust suit against Google would have pitted Obama administration appointees against one of the White House’s closest corporate allies. Google was the second-largest corporate source of campaign donations to President Barack Obama’s re-election effort. Google executives have visited the White House scores of times since Mr. Obama has been in office, according to visitor logs.
“The FTC is an independent agency and we respect their independent decision-making,” said Jennifer Friedman, a White House spokeswoman.
In its investigation, FTC staff said Google’s conduct “helped it to maintain, preserve and enhance Google’s monopoly position in the markets for search and search advertising” in violation of the law. Google’s behavior “will have lasting negative effects on consumer welfare,” the report said.
Google has long disputed any characterization that it is a monopoly, saying that competition is “just a click away.”
In discussing one of the issues the FTC staff wanted to sue over, the report said the company illegally took content from rival websites such as Yelp, TripAdvisor Inc. and Amazon.com Inc. to improve its own websites. It cited one instance when Google copied Amazon’s sales rankings to rank its own items. It also copied Amazon’s reviews and ratings, the report found. Spokesmen for TripAdvisor and Amazon declined to comment.
When competitors asked Google to stop taking their content, it threatened to remove them from its search engine.
“It is clear that Google’s threat was intended to produce, and did produce, the desired effect,” the report said, “which was to coerce Yelp and TripAdvisor into backing down.” The company also sent a message that it would “use its monopoly power over search to extract the fruits of its rivals’ innovations.”
In its final agreement, the commission secured a promise that Google would allow websites to opt out of having their content included in its competing search products.
The staff said Google also broke antitrust law by placing restrictions on websites that publish its search results from also working with rivals such as Microsoft’s Bing and Yahoo Inc.
The commission made no mention of this issue in its final report, nor did it secure any commitments from Google to change its policies.
In a third area, the FTC staff said Google violated antitrust law by restricting advertisers’ ability to use data garnered from Google ad campaigns in advertising run on rival platforms.
The FTC report cited a Google employee who said the company once wanted to do away with the unnecessary restriction but was overruled by Mr. Page, who is now Google’s chief executive. A Google spokeswoman declined to make Mr. Page available for comment.
Ultimately, Google changed this policy voluntarily in 2013 at the behest of the agency.
On the most important issue, that of Google’s prized search engine, the FTC report said Google altered it to benefit its own services at the expense of rivals. The report said Google “adopted a strategy of demoting, or refusing to display, links to certain vertical websites in highly commercial categories.”
In what it termed “a close call,” the staff said the FTC shouldn’t issue a complaint against the company because of legal hurdles and Google’s “strong procompetitive justifications.”
‘[Google’s behavior] helped it to maintain, preserve and enhance Google’s monopoly position in the markets for search and search advertising’
—FTC staff report
The “evidence paints a complex portrait of a company working toward an overall goal of maintaining its market share by providing the best user experience, while simultaneously engaging in tactics that resulted in harm to many vertical competitors, and likely helped to entrench Google’s monopoly power over search and search advertising,” the staff said.
On Jan. 3, the five FTC commissioners voted to close the investigation. A few months later, now FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez told a Senate committee that a majority of commissioners didn’t support a case against Google on any of the allegations under investigation.
Write to Brody Mullins at email@example.com, Rolfe Winkler at firstname.lastname@example.org and Brent Kendall at email@example.com