Don't forget to rate this post down below!


 Date: 03/07/2004, 14:40:54
 Posted by: Judge Dredd
 Original URL: Click here (However, the link may be stale.)
 Subject: Walk into that trap, stooopid

That's right, Jim calls this one, calls that one, claims this, claims that...encouraging each and every on of us to do the same. It's illegal, called tortiously interferece with contractual relations.

Will Jim defend us when we break the law? Even if justified it's not worth it. Look what he did for Macgregor and Neville--NOTHING.

I posted here under pseudoname because I am sick of being hassled for not being "radical" or "active" enough. That's f*cking cult-talk, just like the CW room.




 Date: 03/07/2004, 16:06:33
 Posted by: Roger eDrek
 Original URL: Click here (However, the link may be stale.)
 Subject: hey, stooopid, you are a LIAR

Hey, Judge, you really posted under a pseudonym because you're nothing but one of the Rats and Mice.


 


And your poor spelling certainly confirms that fact!


 


And the way you bring up Macgregor and Neville is something we've read again and again in the catbox.  Such a ridiculous argument could only come from the mind of a cult member and, in particular, one of the more rabid turds from the catbox.  Jim has never encouraged anyone to break the law.  Jim had nothing to do with Macgregor or Neville - NOTHING.  Jim has no obligation to fly to Australia to defend anyone.  In fact, while I know that Jim is one of the most incredible legal minds on the planet, I don't think that he is a registered barrister in Australia. *S*.  Judge Dredd, you're the stooooooooopid one here.



Judge Dredd, you donít think we canít recognize one of you brain damaged cretins from the "CW" slithering in here to try out your game on us?  And only one of you "CW" premies would use the "CW" trademark.  Most ex-premies call it for what it is Ė the catbox.  Besides, itís C&M now, you fool.  Maybe you need to retreat to SF and talk to your buddies and Selene about the weakness of this caper, Dredd.



Sorry, but itís Tortious Interference not "tortiously interferece", *S*.




So, let's talk about Tortious Interference, shall we?



Hereís a webpage with the State of Michiganís Tortious Interference civil statutes:



http://www.courts.michigan.gov/mcji/business-torts/business-torts-Ch125.htm




The statute starts with the Elements of Tortious Interference.  Please note the word "improperly" because that becomes the key point:




M Civ JI 125.01  Tortious Interference with Contract: Elements




Plaintiff claims that defendant intentionally and improperly interfered with plaintiffís contract with [name of other party to contract]. In order to establish the claim, plaintiff has the burden of proving each of the following:


a.       Plaintiff had a contract with [name of other party to contract] at the time of the claimed interference.

b.       Defendant knew of the contract at that time.

c.       Defendant intentionally interfered with the contract.

d.       Defendant improperly interfered with the contract.

e.       Defendantís conduct caused [name of breaching party] to breach the contract.

f.         Plaintiff was damaged as a result of defendantís conduct.


Your verdict will be for plaintiff if you find that plaintiff has proved all of these elements.


Your verdict will be for defendant if you find that plaintiff has failed to prove any one of these elements.


Note on Use


If the validity of a contract is an issue, this instruction must be modified.


And below the Statute defines "Improper" and this is key to the discussion here boys:


M Civ JI 125.04  Tortious Interference with Contract: ImproperóDefinition


Improper interference is conduct that is fraudulent, not lawful, not ethical, or not justified under any circumstances. If defendantís conduct was lawful, it is still improper if it was done without justification and for the purpose of interfering with plaintiffís contractual rights, but plaintiff must specifically show affirmative acts by defendant that corroborate that defendant had the wrongful purpose of interfering with plaintiffís contractual rights


In determining whether defendantís conduct was improper, courts have considered the following factors:


1.       the nature of defendantís conduct;

2.       defendantís motive or reasons for its actions;

3.       the interests of plaintiff with which the defendantís conduct allegedly interfered;

4.       the interests that defendant sought to advance;

5.       societyís interest in (a) protecting the freedom of defendant to engage in such conduct, and (b) protecting contractual relationships, business relationships, or expectancies such as that held or sought by plaintiff;

6.       how directly defendantís conduct influenced the breaching party; and

7.       the nature of the relationships of plaintiff, defendant, and the other party to the contract.


In appropriate cases, instructions dealing with these factors may be given. This list of factors is consistent with the view of the Michigan courts that the preferred guidelines are those articulated in ß767 of Restatement (Second) of Torts, which is increasingly endorsed by Michigan courts. See, e.g., Jim-Bob, Inc v Mehling, 178 Mich App 71, 96Ė97; 443 NW2d 451 (1989); Woody v Tamer, 158 Mich App 764, 775; 405 NW2d 213 (1987).


First, in the case of Sky Radio Iím wondering whether there was a valid contract.  A valid contract requires "consideration".  In the case of Sky Radio was Sky Radio informed of the full identity of Maharaji?  Did Sky Radio have any idea that Maharaji was such controversial figure?  For both questions itís apparent that the answer was "NO".


Hereís is an excerpt to me from Sky Radioís Elizabeth Montgomery letter:


We've made arrangements to pull Prem Rawat's interview from our web site as well as ceasing broadcast of his interview on the airlines.


We had no idea that this individual was such a controversial figure, but will look into his background and activities further.


Having Prem Rawat (aka Maharaji) being a featured speaker on Sky Radio could cause irreparable damage to the good name and reputation of Sky Radio and Sky Radioís clients, the airlines, if people were to make the connection between Prem Rawat and Guru Maharaji the Lord of the Universe cult leader.  Sky Radio had every right to terminate the contract.  If Maharajiís lawyers felt this was a breach of contract then why arenít they filing a lawsuit?  Itís simple, thereís not a court in the land that would ever enforce a contract that could end up damaging the business of Sky Radio.  Maharaji and Company acted deceptively by concealing his real identity.  Sure, Sky Radio should have done a better Google search, but Maharaji has made every effort like changing his name to distance himself from his own nefarious past.


Valid contract or not, the real issue is whether any third party, including myself, acted improperly by informing Sky Radio about the true identity of Prem Rawat.  Certainly, it was Sky Radioís right to know who their paying customer was.  There was no deception done by informing them of Prem Rawatís previous identities.


As far as the definition of improper goes by using Free Speech to inform Sky Radio of the true identity of Prem Rawat this cannot possibly be deemed to be:


fraudulent, not lawful, not ethical, or not justified under any circumstances


Thereís simply nothing fraudulent or unlawful or unethical or unjustified about it at all.  Who committed the fraud here?  Not me or any ex-premie who contacted Sky Radio or any of the universities.  No, Maharaji and now known as Prem Rawat has been using fraudulent methods ever since he got into the guru business.  Maharajiís deception or lack of forthrightness is unethical.


Informing Sky Radio or the universities of Prem Rawatís true nature and identity is done as a public service to better allow them and the public to know what they are getting involved in.  It is in societyís interest to know about the dangers of cults


8. how directly defendantís conduct influenced the breaching party; and


Point 8 is interesting because in the case of Sky Radio we only informed them of Prem Rawatís true identity and nothing more.  In reality, there was very little influence.  Sky Radio made the decision to cancel the contract on their own accord in order to protect their clients, the airlines, and their own reputation.  This is a no-brainer.


Finally, ex-premies are justified in their actions because it is a public service to inform the world of the true nature of Prem Rawat.  Why is Prem Rawat so afraid of his own past?  Why can't Prem Rawat permit himself to undergo public scrutiny?

So, Judge Dredd, you're coming in here telling us a bunch of B.S. in an effort to intimidate us, aren't you?  You don't want us to exercise our rights of Free Speech, do you?


5 Brighter than 1000 suns as seen through night vision goggles
4 As bright as the lights on Maharaji's jet
3 As bright as a 60 watt light bulb
2 As bright as a pile of burning ghi on a swinging arti tray
1 As bright as the inner light as seen by the third eye


Additional Comments 

© Copyright 1999 - 2004 Roger eDrek™