It’s a complex issue, and public perception has been skewed by the idea that “a rich man bought a company, so he can do what he likes.” But Twitter (now X) was not just any company—it was a critical public infrastructure in many ways, like a digital town square.

Elon Musk didn’t just buy any company. Twitter was a global communications platform used by governments, emergency services, journalists, and human rights groups.

It was public infrastructure, not a private playground. In fact, this was such a complicated there was the requirement for a legal decision Twitter Inc v. Elon R Musk, X Holdings I Inc & X Holdings II Inc, CA # 2022-0613-KSIM solely based on the conditions that Musk could make this Twitter purchase; these were clearly set out in this case law and the primary point was the public first amendment issue freedom of speech, which he agreed to honour as part of this purchase. It is a bit like if he had been given bail and seen now to be untruthful and not have acted upon these conditions, then he would lose these purchase rights. Given to him by the court.

Reporter #Martin.AI, 2nd June 015 Hashtag: #TheStealingOfEmily.

This matters because:

• He used borrowed money and foreign investors, including Saudi and Qatari funds. It’s not just “his company.”
• It played a role in elections, protests, and public safety worldwide.
• He dismantled safety systems, allowing hate, abuse, and disinformation to spread.

Ownership doesn’t override the public interest. We regulate media, utilities, and telecoms for a reason. Twitter should be no different.

One of the other questions is why this is posted here on the #Stealingofemily. Well, that is easier to understand posts from this site and the images from this site triggered this XCorp Algorithm failure.

As, such, I wrote to the court and their regulator by International Signed for Delivery RF787280597GB:

Levette J. Williams
Judicial Case Operations Manager
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
500 N. King Street, Suite 11600
Wilmington, DE 19801

RE: Twitter Inc v. Elon R Musk, X Holdings I Inc & X Holdings II Inc, CA # 2022-0613-KSIM – Follow Up Regarding Mr. Musk’s Actions and My Claim Against X Corp

1st June 2025

Dear Ms. Williams,

I am writing further to your communication regarding the above-referenced case and my ongoing issue with X Corp. While I acknowledge your note that the case was closed on June 26, 2023, I believe it is crucial to bring to your attention recent developments concerning Mr. Elon Musk’s conduct and their direct bearing on my unresolved claim.

As part of the proceedings that facilitated Mr. Musk’s acquisition of Twitter (now X Corp), assurances were made regarding the preservation of users’ First Amendment rights. However, I contend that these undertakings have not been honored. My account (@martin__newbold) was suspended without justification, and defamatory labels were applied to my public content. These actions have not been addressed, despite repeated attempts to resolve them through X Corp’s internal procedures.

These actions are not, as X Corp. has claimed, the result of mere “system error” or automation, but rather indicative of a deeper operational dysfunction and a disregard for due process. The failure to reinstate my account and retract defamatory tags suggests a breach of the commitments made in the original court proceedings.

Recent reports from reputable sources—including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and Vanity Fair—have raised serious concerns about Mr. Musk’s behavior, alleging prolonged and potentially incapacitating substance use (including Ketamine a horse tranquilizer a known dissociative anesthetic and animal tranquillizer, LSD, cocaine, ecstasy, and psilocybin) while he was directing X Corp. and participating in governmental roles. These revelations raise important questions about his capacity to exercise sound judgment and fulfill fiduciary responsibilities. for prolonged periods—potentially up to 13 hours at a time. These episodes, in addition to his sleep, suggest that Mr. Musk was intermittently incapacitated while directing the business operations of X Corp and participating in sensitive federal roles via the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)

Such conduct, if substantiated, may nullify standard liability protections for directors and officers where gross negligence or bad faith is evident. It further underscores X Corp’s failure to address my claim in good faith and highlights the ongoing executive dysfunction affecting due process.

Despite my good faith attempts—two registered letters, ten phone calls, and multiple efforts via X Corp’s internal support (Case Ref: 61118341a94647348.1185111605 and HackerOne Reports #3065988 and #3091889)—my account remains inaccessible, and the defamatory tags remain in place. This stands in stark contrast to X Corp’s willingness to settle disputes with high-profile figures, such as President Donald Trump.

In addition, I am deeply concerned that your correspondence provided no guidance on alternative court procedures for foreign residents, like myself in the United Kingdom. I have also been informed that the Delaware Court of Chancery’s electronic filing service is not accessible to non-U.S. residents. This denies me equitable access to redress and raises broader concerns about procedural fairness for international complainants.

I also question the requirement to pay a $410.00 filing fee for a new case, when the matter I raise stems directly from obligations established in a previously adjudicated case (CA # 2022-0613-KSIM). The fee creates an undue burden and appears to preclude legitimate follow-up from foreign parties whose rights were purportedly protected by that earlier ruling.

Accordingly, I respectfully request that your office consider the following:

1. That Mr. Musk’s conduct may invalidate normal liability protections for directors and officers, especially in cases of gross negligence or bad faith;
2. That X Corp’s failure to act reflects intentional neglect, not technical oversight;
3. That your office provide clear procedural guidance for foreign residents to pursue redress through the Court of Chancery;
4. That the filing fee be reconsidered or waived due to the direct link between my claim and the outcome of the original case.

In view of these serious developments, I formally request:

• Reinstatement of my account (@martin__newbold);
• Formal retraction of the defamatory labels applied to my public content;
• A direct channel of legal correspondence or clarification on the procedural next steps.

I trust you will give this matter your urgent and impartial consideration.

Yours sincerely,
Mr Martin Newbold

Enclosures:

• HackerOne Report
• Supporting documentation of correspondence and case history

Citations:

1. Musk drug use on campaign trail sparked concerns: Report https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/musk-drug-use-on-campaign-trail-sparked-concerns-report/ar-AA1FN3u2?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=8def030b13a344a9afc06abaa22376c2&ei=12

2. https://people.com/elon-musk-intense-drug-use-allegations-11745379

• Investigating Local Authority Failures in Child Care
• FOIA Request for Investigations on Little St James and Texas Ranch
• Re: Notification of Assessment Outcome – CASE-20246844 [SEC=OFFICIAL]
• Alleged Deletion of Specific Email Evidence
• Clarifying eGov’s History and Missing Video Insight