You folks confuse part 15 and common sense with the united states judiciary.
On Mar 3, 2018 8:03 PM, "Steve Jones" <[email protected]> wrote: > No, it lies upon willfull impedance of a contactual obligation. > > On Mar 3, 2018 3:57 PM, "Tim Hardy" <[email protected]> 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 <[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. >> ----- >> >
