So, their claim still rests upon harmful RF interference as the cause of damages, whether they mention RF interference or not. I’m no attorney but have seen these types of claims routinely rejected due to federal preemption. Unlicensed operations have no prior right of nterference protection and all parties are expected to work together to coexist in harmony.
Claiming interference with "contracts and business expected" is just weazel wording around the RF issue that is the root cause and any court should see through this. All of this is crap.. Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2018 12:10:03 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Hammett <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet Message-ID: <1766334945.4658.1520100597514.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" No, but that's unrelated. This is the meat of their claim. ---- As a result, you will be interfering with my client's contracts and the business he expects to realize from those contracts which will result in not only damage to his reputation but financial damages to him and, potentially, emotional suffering to his customers. ---- ---- If my client sustains any damages, we will immediately seek an injunction to prohibit your interference with my client's valuable contract rights and business expectancy interest. -----
