Open Letter To Elon Musk
- Alex Baker
- 1 day ago
- 5 min read
Funding and Promoting a
Class Action Lawsuit Against the Woke Mind Virus
Dear Elon:
I ask that you put up $20 Million to fund and promote a nationwide class action lawsuit targeting the people responsible for the unethical medical experiment known as “gender affirming care.” You have called gender ideology a “woke mind virus,” and said the people responsible should go to prison. You’re right. I am a litigation expert, and can state with absolute certainty that the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones on children with gender dysphoria is already illegal in the United States.
Gender Affirming Care is Fraud Upon the Parent
Johanna Olson-Kenney infamously blackmailed, “Would you rather have a live daughter or a dead son?” Like many parents of trans-identifying children who want blockers and hormones, you say you were “tricked” into signing the
consent papers for your son Xavier. In law, when somebody tricks you into doing something you would not have done otherwise, and injury results, this is called “fraud.” Fraud is actionable, and the defendant should also be liable for punitive damages.
The United States Supreme Court has long and consistently held that you, as a parent, have a fundamental constitutional right to make decisions about the health care treatment of your child. Those decisions must be based on informed consent. The truth is that so-called “gender affirming care” has never been shown to be effective at treating the purely psychological condition of gender dysphoria.
Three Cases You Should Know About
I’d like to tell you about three court cases involving transgender that I litigated, and that you should know about. First, there is Jeff Younger and his ex-wife Anne Georgulas. Starting at age three, Georgulas insisted that James was really a girl, so she wanted “gender affirming care.” Jeff was dead-set against it.
For years they battled in Family Court, first in Texas, then the case w
as transferred to Los Angeles. A top-secret trial took place in November of 2024. Judge Mark Juhas completely ignored the expert testimony, awarded full legal custody to Georgulas, ruling that she is allowed to do whatever she wants to James, now 13 years old. Jeff simply could not afford to appeal.
Second is the case of Ted Hudacko, who fought a custody battle against his ex-wife Christine Underhill regarding their trans-identifying son Spencer. The Family Court judge Joni Hiramoto took custody away from Ted simply for his opposition to medicalizing his son. The judge at least issued an order prohibiting “any gender identity related surgery” until he turns 18. However, Underhill and the doctors at UCSF went behind Ted’s back and did a surgery anyway, a puberty-blocker implant in the child’s arm.
We filed a civil rights lawsuit in federal
court in San Francisco, but it was dismissed on Judge Susan Illston’s finding that the UCSF doctors were shielded by “Qualified Immunity,” meaning that Ted’s right to prohibit surgery was not “clearly established.” The ruling was upheld by the Ninth Circuit in October of 2025.
The third case involves Andriy and Alexandra Lyashchenko, and their daughter “S.L.,” legal immigrants from Ukraine. CPS seized their then 15-year-old daughter and place her in a foster care home. The reason? The Lyashchenkos did not “affirm” their daughter as “transgender.” According to CPS, this constituted “emotional abuse.” We have filed a federal civil rights case in Redding, California that is pending now.
The common thread in all three of these cases is a violation of parental rights based on the government’s provably false premise. The idea is that “gender affirming care” is legitimate medical treatment for gender dysphoria, and that parents who oppose must be doing so for reasons of bigotry, or politics, or religion. While parents may also oppose gender ideology on religious grounds, in each case we oppose blockers and hormones because they are dangerous & ineffective, not safe & effective.
Parents Have a Duty to Protect Their Kids
“Gender affirming care” is harmful. Parents not only have the right to prohibit blockers and hormones on their kids, they have the duty to do so. Correctly understood, no parent can consent to these drugs for many reasons, not the least of which is that they cause sterilization. Puberty blockers prevent normal development, including development of the brain. This leads to a permanent lowering of IQ. There is also bone loss and a host of other permanent injuries. The doctors all know this, and so do the lawyers, and so do the judges. Of course a viable lawsuit should arise from all this. So, what’s the problem?
The Problem is Top Secrecy
The problem is top secrecy. Maybe you heard about Jeff Younger’s case while it was in Texas, but then it seemingly disappeared. The truth is that an L.A. judge named Michelle Kazadi issued what I term the “Star Chamber Order” in May 2024. They sealed Jeff’s case and made it top secret. The Lyashchenkos are also under a gag Order. This top-secrecy goes against the entirety of Supreme Court holdings, and literally goes against everything America stands for. Secrecy equals tyranny.
I truly believe that justice will be done in the transgender space
only by combining the Court of Law with the Court of Public Opinion. At least 99% of all people are on our side, firmly against “gender affirming care” on children. However, that same 99% are prevented from knowing what is taking place in courtrooms, now and in the very recent past.
The secrecy now surrounding these proceedings is not a neutral administrative choice—it is a direct affront to the most basic safeguards of a fair trial. For centuries, Anglo-American law has insisted that justice be conducted in the open. As Justice Holmes observed, proceedings must occur “under the public eye” because public scrutiny is itself a check on judicial abuse.
The United States Supreme Court has echoed that principle, holding that trials are presumptively open and that closure is permissible only in the rarest circumstances, supported by specific findings and narrowly tailored orders. When proceedings of profound public importance are effectively concealed from public view, the risk is not merely error—it is unaccountable power.
Public access to judicial proceedings is a constitutional promise, but in practice it is not self-executing—it must be financed, organized, and enforced. Court reporters charge substantial fees for transcripts; filing motions to unseal requires attorney time and litigation costs; and meaningful public dissemination depends on media engagement, document hosting, and sustained advocacy. Without resources, unlawful secrecy persists by default because no one can afford to challenge it. Transparency, in other words, is not free—it is built. And when proceedings of significant public importance are effectively hidden behind cost barriers, the result is not merely inconvenience, but a structural denial of the very openness that Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. recognized as essential to fair and accountable adjudication.
A Well-Publicized Class Action is Needed
In the end, a class action lawsuit is not merely a legal filing—it is a sustained, resource-intensive effort to vindicate rights at scale. It requires funding for investigation, expert analysis, discovery, motion practice, trial preparation, and, if necessary, appeal. Without adequate financial backing, even the strongest claims cannot be fully developed or effectively presented, and systemic wrongdoing remains insulated from meaningful challenge. Put simply, the law provides the mechanism for accountability, but only resources make that mechanism real; without funding, the promise of collective redress is illusory, and those harmed are left without a practical path to justice.
Elon, you told us about your son being taken in by gender ideology. “There’s a reason they call it deadnaming,” you explained. “My son Xavier is dead, killed by the woke mind virus.” I bring to the table my the litigation expertise, and a lot evidence and knowledge about this entire transgender scam. Please contact me, or have your people contact me. With your help, we can win this.
Sincerely,
Alexander C. Baker, J.D.
@LegalExpertAlex