Jonathan Stempel, David Shepardson, Hyunjoo Jin

(Reuters] -Tesla Inc CEO Elon Musk requested Tuesday that a federal judge terminate his 2018 agreement to the U.S. top securities regulator. The deal required some of Musk’s tweets to have been vetted in writing by a lawyer.

Musk asked for a judge’s block to a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission subpoena requesting documents of preapproval of a Twitter poll (NYSE:), he did in November about selling some of his stock.

Musk’s lawyers sent a letter to U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan in Manhattan, stating that “the SEC’s pursuit Mr. Musk crossed the line into harassment which is quintessential poor faith.”

Musk’s attorneys argued that the consent decree for 2018 resolving SEC Securities Fraud Charges should not permit “roving investigations” into Musk, while limiting his constitutional rights to freedom of speech.

According to legal analysts, Musk’s attempt to repeal the consent decree could fail.

Urska Velikonja from Georgetown University Law Center stated that “The SEC has the authority to enforce consent decrees issued by federal courts without needing to conduct an investigation.”

Musk’s arguments for legal compliance are absurd, Musk said.

UPHILL FIGHT

Musk announced on Twitter in November that he was going to sell 10% of Tesla’s stake (NASDAQ:), if the users approve.

That was the majority, which sent Tesla shares down. Musk sold stock worth $16.4 billion since then.

This tweet raised questions as to whether Musk followed his SEC agreement and obtained approval from Tesla lawyers before he issued written communications regarding information to shareholders or his company.

Tesla stated Tuesday that Musk’s Twitter on stock sales was “a behavior the SEC should encourage”: transparency by a CEO with shareholders and the public about any stock sale.

Musk faces a “real uphill fight,” according to Stephen Crimmins, a partner at Murphy & McGonigle in New York City.

Crimmins stated that “Courts usually give the SEC lots of leeway for enforcement subpoenas,” but he is not involved in the Musk case.

Judges tend to believe that consent decrees are binding if they’re accepted by the parties. It isn’t going to help you get out of the deal if you don’t agree with it.

A request for comment was not answered by the SEC immediately.

MICRO-MANAGING MUSK

Musk was sued by the regulator after he posted in August 2018, that he had secured funding to take his electric car company private for $420 per share.

However, the buyout did not happen.

Musk and Tesla agreed to settle by paying $20 million each in civil fines. Lawyers also vetted some Musk communications prior to their publication, which included tweets that could have an impact on Tesla’s stock prices. Musk also resigned his chairmanship of Tesla.

Musk stated in another court filing that he had never told shareholders lies. Musk stated that he signed the consent decree to ensure the survival and well-being of Tesla for its shareholders.

In his filing, Musk said he was “forced” to sign the decree, citing the SEC’s “unrelenting regulatory pressure” and as the “SEC’s action stood to jeopardize the company’s financing.”

According to him, Tesla’s investor relations team stated at the time that many large shareholders could “cease their ownership in Tesla” – significantly impacting Tesla’s financing – if it wasn’t settled quickly.

Tuesday’s statement by the company claimed that the SEC had used the consent decree to “micromanage Mr. Musk’s Twitter activity” in reprisal for him criticizing the agency.

Musk also ridicules the agency through his Twitters, since the 2018 probe. “SEC,” three-letter acronym, middle term is Elon’s.

Also, in 2020, Tesla tweeted that he would make short pants with radiant red satin and gold trim to send to the SEC.