No, it lies upon willfull impedance of a contactual obligation. On Mar 3, 2018 3:57 PM, "Tim Hardy" <thardy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 <af...@ics-il.net> > To: af@afmug.com > 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. > ----- >
