Proposed Intervenor, in propria persona, hereby moves for permissive intervention

as a plaintiff in the above-captioned matter [X Corp. v. Media Matters] under Rule

24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties have been contacted [will
be, at this point]

INTRODUCTION
On its face, this may be the most ludicrous lawsuit since a federal prisoner sued
Satan and his minions. United States ex rel. Gerald Mayo v. Satan and His Staff, 54
F.R.D. 282 (W.D.Pa. 1971). But in today’s America, a billionaire can buy anything,
including Supreme Court Justices. E.g., Thomas accepted more gifts from billionaire
benefactors, new ProPublica report says, NPR, Aug. 10, 2023. So, while this lawsuit
deserves its own image on Mount Forum Non-Conveniens and lesser attorneys would
be disbarred for even attempting it, what a billionaire wants, a billionaire gets. And
even if the mentally ill Elon Musk, see SNL, May 8, 2021 (monologue), has become as
crazy as a shit-house rat, this Court is substantially certain to indulge him. Truly, this
is forum shopping on the level of Led Zeppelin’s Stairway to Heaven: “When she gets
there, she knows, if the stores are all closed, with a word, she can get what she came
for.” Led Zeppelin, Stairway to Heaven (1971).

Musk has Tweeted that “Free speech is essential to a functioning democracy,” and
“Given that Twitter serves as the de facto public town square, failing to adhere to free
speech principles fundamentally undermines democracy.” Elon Musk, Tweet, Mar. 26,
2022.

In turn, this constitutes an admission that Twitter a/k/a “X” is a de facto public
utility. Musk further bleated that that Twitter’s policy going forward was “freedom of
speech, but not freedom of reach.” Elon Musk, Tweet, Nov. 18, 2022.

Distilled to essentials, this case is about Elon Musk’s freedom of reach. He wants
advertisers to subsidize his unhinged anti-American rants ... and because he has the
onion-thick skin of a billionaire and inflated sense of entitlement, he thinks that the
courts can be used as a cudgel. Having advertisers flee restricts his freedom of reach,
and he thinks he should be entitled to some form of relief at law because he is more
important than the rest of us.

GROUNDS FOR INTERVENTION

The essence of this case is the so-called “shadowban,” where Twitter users’ freedom
of reach is arbitrarily and capriciously curtailed without notice or remedy. This
practice is a fundamental violation of the contract between Twitter and its users: We
get to join the world conversation on prominent issues of the day, in exchange for our
exposure to advertising and our hard-earned money. And although Twitter’s adhesion
contract nominally permits this, unconscionable contracts are unenforceable, In re
Olshan Found. Repair Co., 328 S.W.3d 883, 892 (Tex. 2010), and certainly, does not
entitle Twitter to engage in oppressive behavior and outright fraud.

Elon Musk demands equity. Fair enough. But he who asks equity must do equity,
and equity in this matter is to (1) declare Twitter’s adhesion contract void, and enable
aggrieved users to seek contractual remedies including consequential damages, and
(2) allow Elon Musk to be a named party in this matter, as there no longer appears to
be the line between Musk and Twitter that warrants a corporate veil. As this would
be a natural class-action lawsuit, if this Court allows me to proceed, I will need time
to organize counsel.

Importantly, this is NOT a Section 230 case. The Community Decency Act of 1990
only immunizes providers from liability for “action voluntarily taken in good faith
to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be
obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise
objectionable.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(2)(A) (emphasis added). For reasons stated herein,
bad faith is alleged. After all, nobody is justifying political assassination but Tucker
Carlson.

In the aforementioned November Tweet, Musk declares that “negative/hate tweets

will be max deboosted and demonetized,” which would be good if he actually did it, as
Section 230 expressly authorizes it. But even cursory review of the often-grotesque
work product of his mid-life crisis proves that he never had any intention of doing so.

THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS: A STUDY IN BAD FAITH

“Free speech for me, but not for thee!” This is the banner of a billionaire, who is
convinced that he is somehow better than the rest of us because his daddy owned an
emerald mine. Nicole Cord-Cruz, Elon Musk and his father’s emerald mine claims
explained, The Sun, Jul. 2, 2023 (“A since-deleted 2014 Forbes interview with Elon had
the Tesla CEO confirming that his father was indeed involved in an emerald mining
venture.”); Alex Diaz, Elon Musk’s dad Errol says he can ‘prove’ existence of emerald
mine in new bombshell claim revealing its location, The Sun, Apr. 19, 2023, at
https://www.the-sun.com/news/7911051/elon-musks-dad-errol-emerald-business/. ‘

For all his flaws, Twitter co-founder and CEO Jack Dorsey largely refrained from
insinuating personal political views into his creation. By contrast, Musk has used it
like a toddler’s rubber ducky, promoting bat-guano cray-cray conspiracy theories and
serving bizarre political whines. He’s an entertaining total whack-job, but there is no
law against that.
Legally speaking, the problem arises when Musk uses his power as CEO of Twitter
to suppress views he does not agree with, as this is a breach of contract. He is known
to be especially vindictive toward those who commit the unforgivable sin of poking fun
at “Sissy Space-X”:

When you make yourself a public figure, you open yourself to public criticism, and
it can be brutal. But a celebrity has to let them grab him by the funny bone:
 Unlike in the old USENET fora, Twitter users do not enjoy freedom of speech, as
they can lose their freedom of reach for running afoul of Elon Musk’s caprice, for any
reason or no reason at all. Grotesquely racist posts like these are not only common
fare but enjoy insane reach, whereas legitimate political posts are brutally stifled:

“Free speech is essential to a functioning democracy,” and we wonder why ours no

longer functions. To the boy who came from the land of apartheid, racism is a way of
life, starkly reflected in the new “X.” But a political post to President Biden has been
seen exactly two times in four hours and most certainly, not by anyone in his office.
Disfavored political speech is stifled through a maze of chicanery:
 The search suggestion, search, and ghost bans severely restrict one’s freedom of
reach for reasons that are entirely opaque, but jaw-dropping racism suitable only for
4chan does not draw Apartheid Clyde’s ire.

On the face of it, Twitter has become an orgy of “negative/hate tweets” and comical
propaganda. Musk has displayed overt partisanship toward the Russians in
their illegal invasion of Ukraine. Another act of partisanship toward Russia by
Musk is generally believed to have led to the actual deaths of Ukrainian soldiers, see
e.g., Anne Applebaum, What Russia Got by Scaring Elon Musk, The Atlantic, Sept. 11,
2023, at https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/09/elon-musk-let-russia-
scare-him/675282/.

Now that Musk has acquired Twitter, users are assaulted by Tweets like this: “OK
you stupid asshole Ukraine is ONLY surviving because it is backed by the LARGEST
WAR MACHINE IN HISTORY -> NATO And if you little Azov Nazi loving scumbag
knew that logistics is the main weapon of war - you would know what a proxy war is.”
@GeromanAT, 7:20 AM, Dec. 30, 2023. And given how many Western companies have
abandoned Russian businesses in response to Russian President Vladimir V. Putin’s
illegal invasion of Ukraine, their reluctance to have their advertising dollars support
his curious jeremiad is entirely understandable, even apart from Defendant Media
Matters’ reports.
 The Overton Window is indeed opening, letting in a daunting stench. Musk has
gone full Pizzagate on us, embracing every bizarre fact-free Putin wet dream from an
alleged CIA coup in Ukraine to the alleged murder and torture of Gonzalo Lira to the
theft of the 2020 election, all orchestrated by some shadowy Deep State, in a nefarious
conspiracy requiring more actors than a Cecil B. DeMille movie. (By stark contrast,
Musk hasn’t said a word about the most predictable political assassination since ever:
the sudden death of Alexei Navalny.) To call Musk bat-guano cray-cray is to
understate the case.

This would concern me enough as a Tesla shareholder, as he is doing irreparable

harm to the brand. But my legal interest here is in freedom of speech, freedom of
reach, and breach of contract.

While at the helm of Twitter, Musk has become a mouthpiece for the Kremlin,
actively aiding and abetting Putin’s propaganda machine. The people who enjoy
unfettered speech on MuskTwitter include twice-convicted sexual predator Scott Ritter
(who needs a job but can’t find one, because Baskin-Robbins always finds out),
infamous Putin toady Tucker Carlson, Nikki McCann Ramirez, Tucker Carlson Days
Ago on Navalny and Assassinations: ‘Leadership Requires Killing People’, Rolling
Stone, Feb. 16, 2024, FSB Agent Donaldov (a/k/a Donald Trump), and the execrable
northern Florida trailer-trash grifter known as “Catturd.”

Fair enough. But in America (Elon Musk is South African, with no loyalty to this
country), we believe that the antidote to bad speech is more speech. If Twitter
is going to let this rogue’s gallery of dictator-friendly propagandists and Russian bots
have free rein on this platform, it has to afford me a fair chance to compete in the de
facto town square. Why?

If for no other reason, because I paid good money for it. And, basic contract law.

This access is essential to democracy, as virtually every politician in the Western

world has a Twitter presence. President Biden. Speaker Johnson. Majority Leader
Schumer. My governor, my Senators, my CongressCritter. If my posts can’t be seen
because Emperor Musk has so deemed it, Tweeting is about as useful a screaming in
the woods. If this Court denies me relief, I am relegated to second-class citizenship in
a Third World banana republic.
 The post made to President Biden is illustrative of this point. The only people who
can see my political posts are my followers—in this case, a self-proclaimed Finnish
sniper. And while she is certainly prettier than Joe Biden, she is quite obviously not
the primary target of the message.

This is a pervasive theme throughout Twitter: what Elon Musk wants heard, gets
amplified. What he does not, is suppressed.

By way of illustration, anti-American and pro-genocide Kremlin propagandists like

Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk have made much of the death of American citizen and
obscure pro-Kremlin blogger Gonzalo Lira in a Ukrainian jail, where he was held for
skipping bail on another criminal charge. What’s wrong with pro-Russian blogger
Gonzalo Lira, whom Carlson and Musk stood up for, Spravdi, Dec. 10, 2023, at
https://spravdi.gov.ua/en/whats-wrong-with-pro-russian-blogger-gonzalo-lira-whom-
carlson-and-musk-stood-up-for-explained-by-the-centre-for-strategic-communication/
 This is all part of a coordinated campaign of calumnies initiated by Kremlin forces
and their army of useful idiots to ultimately destroy the West by starving Ukraine of
weapons, so that Putin can swallow it:

The case for our aiding Ukraine is an easy one for a real American to make. I keep
asking those who would appease ruzzia, “Your solution to Ukraine is? The only catch:
YOU have to give up what you expect others to give up.”

No one EVER gives me a coherent answer.

There is no making peace with Russia. Ask the Chechens. The Ukrainians know
what their choices are. If they were stupid enough to follow Elon’s sage counsel, their
women would be on their "fuck, then kill" list. The others would face unremitting
terror, and the men would be cannon-fodder in the next war, like the men of Donbas
were this time.

At the end of the day, they have two choices: to fight for their freedom, or fight for
the Tsar in the next war. And don’t kid yourself: There WILL be a next one.
 The Ukrainians always had that other choice. All we are doing is providing them
the means to resist. And doing that is kind-of in our DNA as Americans. If not for the
aid of France, Spain, and Holland, we would have lost our own Revolution. How can
we turn the Ukrainians away?

But Elon Musk won’t let me speak. He doesn’t want this to be heard.

With the tools Premium access gave me, I can dispatch his arguments in detail in
a few clicks:

Anderson v Griswold: https://x.com/Steverino949899/status/1752503285938856061?s=20

“Biden Crime Family”: https://x.com/Steverino949899/status/1752375791805935736?s=20
 Trump Prosecutions: https://x.com/Steverino949899/status/1756678396241752314?s=20
Election wasn’t Stolen: https://x.com/Steverino949899/status/1752325357229711830?s=20
Ukraine: https://x.com/Steverino949899/status/1758527969327542723?s=20
Ukraine Endnotes: https://x.com/Steverino949899/status/1758524865915887903?s=20
Other support files: https://x.com/Steverino949899/status/1758523488724517220?s=20

But I can’t use Twitter to refute bad speech because it gets in Elon’s way. And even
his alter-ego Grok can’t explain why:

That Proposed Intervenor may be too “sassy” for the Twitterverse is jaw-dropping,
especially where favored influencers find assassination of rivals perfectly acceptable,
and racist tropes do not offend apartheid’s richest proponent. To even state the case
is to refute it.

CONCLUSION
Elon Musk himself explains why intervention should be allowed in this matter:
 The more essential Twitter becomes, the more essential it is for its curators to deal
cards from the top of the deck and treat every user fairly. The mission of a business is
to provide a service, not serve as a private platform for a petulant oligarch with the
skin of an onion.

Given that Elon Musk a/k/a Adrian Dittman(?), Is Adrian Dittmann Actually Elon
Musk?, The Perimeter, at https://www.newsfromtheperimeter.com/home/2024/2/18/is-
adrian-dittmann-actually-elon-musk, appears to do a lot of his business in Texas and
may reside here, this would be a fair forum for the proposed litigation, which Media
Matters may be able to join as a plaintiff. Austin might be preferable, but I’ll take it.

As for damages, Proposed Intervenor has spent 90% of the time since signing up in
Twitter’s sin bin, and I was recently placed under suspension. Yet again. No reason
given. No colorable explanation or apology. I complained about a racist remark from
flamethrowing right-wing influencer Laura Loomer (referring to Georgia prosecutor
Fani Willis as a “hood rat”), and Elon’s thugs summarily shut me down. But Loomer’s
overtly racist post is still on Twitter as of this writing, even though I was punished for
referring to Eisenhower’s bracero program.”
 In the short time that my feed was not being suppressed by shadowbans, I gained
over a thousand followers who weren’t Russian bots.

Had my freedom of reach not been suppressed by Space Karen and his minions, I
might have 10,000 followers, or even more. I might have been able to run for office or
removed Clarence Thomas for flagrant violations of good behavior tenure, as judges
taking bribes is corrosive to the judiciary. Being divorced from America’s polity has
real consequences, and Space Karen should have to write a real check.

It is well established that every contract has an implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing with respect to the parties’ performance and enforcement of any
agreement. The covenant imposes an obligation on parties to act in good faith and deal
fairly with other parties to the contract, even though this duty is not specifically stated
in the agreement. See generally, Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 205. To put it
delicately, “X” hasn’t exactly marked this spot.
 Forcing “Apartheid Clyde” to write an extremely large check might even teach him
that respect for the rights of others is the beginning of wisdom. For this reason, I ask
that the motion to intervene be GRANTED.

INTERVENOR DEMANDS A JURY TRIAL ON ALL MATTERS SO TRIABLE.