Corporation Service Company (CSC)211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620Austin, TX 78701Corp Legal
865 FM 1209, Building 2
Bastrop, TX 78602

To the Respondent (X Corp Legal),

Dear Respondent (X Corp Legal)

NOTICE OF CONTINUING OBSTRUCTION, CORPORATE NEGLIGENCE, AND INTENT TO AMEND COURT RECORDS

To the Respondents (X Corp Legal),

I write following receipt of official communications from the Court of Chancery of Delaware relating to the matter I raised against X Corp. This correspondence accompanies growing public revelations surrounding Mr Elon Musk’s erratic behaviour and chronic substance misuse while acting in both corporate and governmental capacities. These revelations have material bearing on your legal posture, and particularly on your deliberate failure to resolve my claim in good faith.

The  Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et al.
Case No. 1:17-cv-05205 (S.D.N.Y.)   absolutely connects to Elon Musk and X (formerly Twitter), both historically and legally. Here’s how:

1. Direct Historical Link

The Knight First Amendment Institute’s original case (2017) — Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump — was about Donald Trump blocking critics on Twitter.
That case established a landmark precedent: when a public official uses a social media account for official purposes, it becomes a public forum under the First Amendment.

• This means the government (or a public official acting in an official capacity) cannot block users based on their viewpoints.
• The ruling influenced how courts and agencies later viewed official accounts of public figures, including presidents, governors, and agencies.

Elon Musk inherited that same platform infrastructure when he bought Twitter and renamed it X. The Knight case’s legal reasoning directly implicates how Musk now handles speech, moderation, and access on X.

---

2. Relevance to Musk and “Public Access”

The current Knight Institute petition (to unseal Trump’s classified records report) parallels Musk’s recurring theme of “transparency” and “free speech absolutism.”

• The Institute’s argument — that the public has a right to access government information about a former president — echoes Musk’s own rhetoric about “public’s right to know” and open government accountability (e.g., “Twitter Files,” “citizen journalism”).
• But while Musk promotes transparency rhetorically, the Knight Institute’s case tests transparency in a judicial sense — whether courts and the DOJ can withhold politically sensitive reports.

So the Knight Institute’s action is, in effect, a real-world application of the transparency Musk claims to champion — but through legal activism, not platform ownership.

---

3. Why This Matters to X

If the Eleventh Circuit rules that such reports must be released, it sets a precedent for access to government records — including digital communications, social media evidence, and possibly platform moderation files tied to government coordination (e.g., the “Twitter Files” disclosures).

It could:

• Strengthen future FOIA and court-access challenges involving X or other tech platforms.
• Underscore that public forums online cannot be selectively censored — by government actors or by private entities acting at their behest.
• Reignite debate about whether Musk’s control over X now creates its own form of “state-like” influence in public discourse, given how much of the political conversation happens there.

---

4. In short

 The Knight Institute v. Trump case was the legal foundation for defining Twitter/X as a public forum.
 The new Eleventh Circuit appeal carries that legacy into a broader transparency fight.
 It’s conceptually aligned with Musk’s public positioning on speech — but it’s being fought through constitutional law, not corporate policy.

So yes — the case “affords itself to X and Musk” both historically and philosophically, because it bridges the same core question:

Who controls the modern public square — and under what constitutional limits?

Warm regards,
Martin Newbold

• Letter To Cabinet Office
• Urgent Appeal to the King for Christmas Help in Finding Missing Child
• FORMAL EVIDENCE SUBMISSION: Verification of “abx17@dial.pipex.com” (The Invisible Man) via EFTA Records and TalkTalk Business Metadata 
• The case of Mr. Martin Newbold v Nationwide Building Society (Case Number: 1741 7947 6145 5930).
• Investigating Local Authority Failures in Child Care