Elon
Musk
will
get
away
with
it.
The
world’s
richest
man
will
dole
out
several
more
thinly
disguised
bribes
in
an
attempt
to
sway
the
election
results,
and
he
will
face
no
consequences.
But
he
did
get
unceremoniously
chucked
back
to
state
court
by
Judge
Gerald
Pappert,
who
flicked
the
thin-skinned
billionaire
aside
like
a
bit
of
noxious
pet
dander
clinging
to
his
judicial
robes
—
which
is
something
anyway.
The
case
involved
a
civil
action
by
Philadelphia
District
Attorney
Larry
Krasner,
who
is
seeking
to
enjoin
Musk
from
engaging
in
an
illegal
lottery
through
daily
giveaways
to
registered
voters
who
sign
a
petition
pledging
“support
for
the
First
and
Second
Amendments.”
Musk
has
been
stumping
for
Donald
Trump
across
Pennsylvania,
donating
upwards
of
$130
million
to
support
the
former
president’s
campaign,
even
as
he
rails
against
interference
by
philanthropist
George
Soros.
Judge
Angelo
Foglietta
of
the
Philadelphia
Court
of
Common
Pleas
ordered
Musk
to
appear
in
Court
on
Thursday
morning,
but
by
then
the
case
had
been
removed
to
federal
court,
where
it
landed
on
Judge
Pappert’s
docket.
Musk’s
theory
of
jurisdiction
is
that,
while
the
DA’s
complaint
is
nominally
about
violating
Pennsylvania’s
consumer
protection
laws,
it
really
pertains
to
the
election,
and
thus
presents
an
important
federal
question.
He
made
an
equally
inscrutable
argument
that
the
DA
is
acting
in
his
personal
capacity
as
a
citizen
of
Pennsylvania,
and
thus
there
is
diversity
between
the
parties.
This
requires
ignoring
Moor
v.
Alameda
County,
411
U.S.
693,
717
(1973),
in
which
the
Supreme
Court
held
that
“a
State
is
not
a
citizen
for
purposes
of
[]
diversity
jurisdiction.”
But
Musk
and
his
lawyers
are
up
to
the
task!
Last
night,
Krasner
filed
an
emergency
motion
to
remand
the
case
to
state
court,
pointing
out
that
the
amount
in
controversy
is
zero
dollars,
because
the
only
relief
sought
is
injunctive,
and
noting
that
there
is
Third
Circuit
precedent
for
sanctioning
a
party
who
removes
a
case
without
any
objectively
reasonable
basis.
And
this
morning,
as
per
the
court’s
order,
Musk
responded
by
speculating
that
he
could
theoretically
be
fined,
and
so
the
court
should
simply
infer
that
the
case
meets
the
$75,000
federal
threshold.
Judge
Pappert
declined
to
make
such
an
inference,
remanding
the
case
to
state
court
because
there
is
no
federal
question
implicated
and
no
jurisdiction
for
his
court.
But
as
it
is
now
Friday,
it’s
more
or
less
impossible
that
Judge
Foglietta
will
schedule
a
hearing
and
enjoin
Musk
by
election
day.
And
so
Musk’s
gambit
to
delay
the
case
with
a
pointless
field
trip
to
the
Eastern
District
of
Pennsylvania
appears
to
have
worked.
Now
we
get
to
wait
and
see
whether
he
was
able
to
buy
enough
Pennsylvania
voters
to
put
Trump
back
in
the
White
House.
Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.