Comments on: Tortious Interference With Contract http://xrlq.com/2009/10/18/tortious-interference-with-contract/ Politische Kommentare mit Snarkenremarken Mon, 14 May 2012 18:16:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Wanda http://xrlq.com/2009/10/18/tortious-interference-with-contract/comment-page-1/#comment-580052 Wanda Mon, 13 Jun 2011 03:57:12 +0000 http://xrlq.com/?p=5033#comment-580052 This is about big wig Mr. LaCaria leaving his second wife so he can marry third wife, Shana. Now he left her for someone else's wife. So will the third x wife take the future #4 to court? Very interesting indeed. Out side this soap opera, I question Dennis LaCaria ability to focus on his (high paying) job with CMS. Clearly his personal calendar books up fast. Can I have some of my tax money back? He does not hold an elected position but he is on salary. This is about big wig Mr. LaCaria leaving his second wife so he can marry third wife, Shana. Now he left her for someone else’s wife. So will the third x wife take the future #4 to court? Very interesting indeed. Out side this soap opera, I question Dennis LaCaria ability to focus on his (high paying) job with CMS. Clearly his personal calendar books up fast. Can I have some of my tax money back? He does not hold an elected position but he is on salary.

]]> By: Xrlq http://xrlq.com/2009/10/18/tortious-interference-with-contract/comment-page-1/#comment-562251 Xrlq Thu, 11 Feb 2010 05:10:04 +0000 http://xrlq.com/?p=5033#comment-562251 Indeed they did. As Stella Liebeck can attest, juries will believe almost anything. Indeed they did. As Stella Liebeck can attest, juries will believe almost anything.

]]> By: Amanda http://xrlq.com/2009/10/18/tortious-interference-with-contract/comment-page-1/#comment-562250 Amanda Thu, 11 Feb 2010 03:05:07 +0000 http://xrlq.com/?p=5033#comment-562250 Apparently the jury thought otherwise. Apparently the jury thought otherwise.

]]> By: Xrlq http://xrlq.com/2009/10/18/tortious-interference-with-contract/comment-page-1/#comment-562141 Xrlq Fri, 05 Feb 2010 01:40:02 +0000 http://xrlq.com/?p=5033#comment-562141 There's no logic, period. Logic dictates that if either spouse wants out of a marriage, there is something fundamentally wrong with that marriage. Do you really think that Philandering-Dude and Ms. Innocent were living a storybook, happily-ever-after life until Big Bad Shana came around and changed all that with a wave of a wand? Get real! Maybe Philandering-Dude wanted out because he's a cad. Or maybe he's a decent guy who wanted out because she drove him around the bend - not unlikely given her subsequent behavior in bringing this reckless suit. Or more likely, somewhere in between. I don't know whose fault it was, nor do I really care. All I do know is that to the extent it makes sense to talk about fault, fault for a failed marriage lies with one or both of its parties, not with any third party who can be described at most as the symptom rather than the disease. If the marriage itself had been good, they'd still be together now, and there wouldn't be a damned thing Shana or any other third party could have done about it. There’s no logic, period. Logic dictates that if either spouse wants out of a marriage, there is something fundamentally wrong with that marriage. Do you really think that Philandering-Dude and Ms. Innocent were living a storybook, happily-ever-after life until Big Bad Shana came around and changed all that with a wave of a wand? Get real! Maybe Philandering-Dude wanted out because he’s a cad. Or maybe he’s a decent guy who wanted out because she drove him around the bend – not unlikely given her subsequent behavior in bringing this reckless suit. Or more likely, somewhere in between. I don’t know whose fault it was, nor do I really care. All I do know is that to the extent it makes sense to talk about fault, fault for a failed marriage lies with one or both of its parties, not with any third party who can be described at most as the symptom rather than the disease. If the marriage itself had been good, they’d still be together now, and there wouldn’t be a damned thing Shana or any other third party could have done about it.

]]> By: Amanda http://xrlq.com/2009/10/18/tortious-interference-with-contract/comment-page-1/#comment-562136 Amanda Thu, 04 Feb 2010 19:55:05 +0000 http://xrlq.com/?p=5033#comment-562136 If what was true, than there is no logic. But what you assumed is far from the truth. The innocent wife here did not "steal" him from the first wife. Let's not forget the victim here. If however, Shana finds another woman barging into her life, being the major part of the destruction of her marriage by a women who knows he's married, and been told to leave them alone, then she can pursue a civil case. If what was true, than there is no logic. But what you assumed is far from the truth. The innocent wife here did not “steal” him from the first wife. Let’s not forget the victim here. If however, Shana finds another woman barging into her life, being the major part of the destruction of her marriage by a women who knows he’s married, and been told to leave them alone, then she can pursue a civil case.

]]> By: Xrlq http://xrlq.com/2009/10/18/tortious-interference-with-contract/comment-page-1/#comment-562103 Xrlq Wed, 03 Feb 2010 13:47:38 +0000 http://xrlq.com/?p=5033#comment-562103 Amanda, setting aside your factually-challenged assertions about the specific suit against Shana, step back and consider the absurdity of your entire premise. On the one hand, you think it's totally fair that Shana got fined somewhere between $2.00 and $15,002.00 for "stealing" her husband from Wife #2, who was totally innocent in the matter, having stolen her husband fair and square from Wife #1. On the other, you caution that the same thing will supposedly happen to Shana in the future. Suppose your prediction is correct. Unless the law changes in the interim, Shana will then be able to turn around and pull the same stunt against Wife #4 that Wife #2 pulled on her. The end result is that the last person to end up with this guy bears the ultimate responsibility for everyone else's failures before her. Where's the logic in that? Amanda, setting aside your factually-challenged assertions about the specific suit against Shana, step back and consider the absurdity of your entire premise. On the one hand, you think it’s totally fair that Shana got fined somewhere between $2.00 and $15,002.00 for “stealing” her husband from Wife #2, who was totally innocent in the matter, having stolen her husband fair and square from Wife #1. On the other, you caution that the same thing will supposedly happen to Shana in the future. Suppose your prediction is correct. Unless the law changes in the interim, Shana will then be able to turn around and pull the same stunt against Wife #4 that Wife #2 pulled on her. The end result is that the last person to end up with this guy bears the ultimate responsibility for everyone else’s failures before her. Where’s the logic in that?

]]> By: Amanda http://xrlq.com/2009/10/18/tortious-interference-with-contract/comment-page-1/#comment-562071 Amanda Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:24:10 +0000 http://xrlq.com/?p=5033#comment-562071 Thanks, happy to help! Thanks, happy to help!

]]> By: Xrlq http://xrlq.com/2009/10/18/tortious-interference-with-contract/comment-page-1/#comment-562067 Xrlq Mon, 01 Feb 2010 17:53:04 +0000 http://xrlq.com/?p=5033#comment-562067 Awkward indeed, and a bit suspicious to boot. As of 11:07 p.m. last night, Amanda had "just learned" that Shana had been found "guilty" of the twin non-crimes, but barely twelve hours later she's the expert on tort law in general and this case in particular, with fond memories of how she and her equally shallow colleagues had gloated way back when, i.e., yesterday. That said, I do like to keep Amanda around to remind everyone what sort of a petty person supports crazy laws like these. .-= Xrlq´s last blog ..<a href="http://xrlq.com/2010/01/31/quote-of-the-day-12/" rel="nofollow">Quote of the Day</a> =-. Awkward indeed, and a bit suspicious to boot. As of 11:07 p.m. last night, Amanda had “just learned” that Shana had been found “guilty” of the twin non-crimes, but barely twelve hours later she’s the expert on tort law in general and this case in particular, with fond memories of how she and her equally shallow colleagues had gloated way back when, i.e., yesterday.

That said, I do like to keep Amanda around to remind everyone what sort of a petty person supports crazy laws like these.
.-= Xrlq´s last blog ..Quote of the Day =-.

]]> By: Phelps http://xrlq.com/2009/10/18/tortious-interference-with-contract/comment-page-1/#comment-562065 Phelps Mon, 01 Feb 2010 17:21:26 +0000 http://xrlq.com/?p=5033#comment-562065 AWK-ward. .-= Phelps´s last blog ..<a href="http://phelps.donotremove.net/2010/01/change-on-no-bid-contracts/" rel="nofollow">Change on No-Bid Contracts</a> =-. AWK-ward.
.-= Phelps´s last blog ..Change on No-Bid Contracts =-.

]]> By: Amanda http://xrlq.com/2009/10/18/tortious-interference-with-contract/comment-page-1/#comment-562063 Amanda Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:52:48 +0000 http://xrlq.com/?p=5033#comment-562063 You haven't changed a bit Shana. Still a liar. I know what happened, and I know that you are short in your calculations about 15 grand in damages. I'm gland she took you to court, and I am glad that the jury got to see the real you. From the way I see it, you got what you deserved. Be prepared, someone will catch his eye, what you did to her will be done to you. You still have your husband, for now. Remember you are wife # 3, and he's not been faithful to either wife prior to you. Your behavior has been and still is unacceptable. We cheered when we heard the news. Your reputation will follow you to the next school, if you're ever hired again. You haven’t changed a bit Shana. Still a liar. I know what happened, and I know that you are short in your calculations about 15 grand in damages. I’m gland she took you to court, and I am glad that the jury got to see the real you. From the way I see it, you got what you deserved. Be prepared, someone will catch his eye, what you did to her will be done to you. You still have your husband, for now. Remember you are wife # 3, and he’s not been faithful to either wife prior to you.
Your behavior has been and still is unacceptable. We cheered when we heard the news. Your reputation will follow you to the next school, if you’re ever hired again.

]]>