Important reminder regarding the STRAWMAN "Driver's License"!

It's crucial to remember the nuanced history and legal perspective surrounding your "driver's license", especially concerning the concept of the STRAWMAN. Several years ago, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down a significant ruling, declaring the requirement of a "driver's license" for an individual to travel in their automobile as unconstitutional. Notice the distinction between "travel" and "drive" in this context. Equally important is the understanding that your "driver's license" pertains to your STRAWMAN, the reason for your name appearing in all capital letters on this document, as well as on your vehicle's "registration" and "insurance". This seemingly peculiar formatting is a deliberate choice, acknowledging that in common law, it is legally impermissible to mandate a living, breathing individual to possess a "driver's license" – something that inherently stems from one's birthright. Instead, this requirement is imposed upon your STRAWMAN, a legal fiction distinct from your true self. In this complex web of legalities, your STRAWMAN becomes responsible not only for obtaining a "driver's license" but also for "registering" the vehicle and requiring "insurance" for it. Even the often-disputed speed limits are questioned as constitutionally valid, raising the awareness that our entire understanding of these regulations are nothing more than a well-orchestrated facade. This revelation serves as a powerful reminder of the intricate layers within our legal system, urging us to scrutinize the fine print and seek clarity on our rights and responsibilities.

So if you get pulled over for speeding for example and the officer writes you a ticket, he is not actually writing the ticket to you; he is writing it to your STRAWMAN. If you notice on the ticket, your name is also all in capitals; they know this. And since your STRAWMAN is unable to make money and obviously unable to pay any traffic fines or ticket fees, they require you, the living, breathing individual, to pay these fines. And if you do get pulled over and say you don't have a "driver's license" or say you don't have "car insurance" to or "car registration", and they try to arrest you or impound your vehicle, that is very unconstitutional. But they do it because they have been allowed to get away with it; no one has stood up and stopped them. They do not have any right to either arrest you for not having a "driver's license", "car insurance" or "car registration", and they certainly do not have the right to take your vehicle, which is property that you the living, breathing individual own, and impound it because you did not have these unconstitutional "requirements".

---

U.S. Supreme Court Says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Roads

U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS

“The right of a individual to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”

Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” –

Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 “… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right” -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”

Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”

Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”

Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). “A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.”

Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. “The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.”

Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. “The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.” People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.”

House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166. “The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles.

Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666. “The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.”

Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 2 2 “A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159;

Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 “The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.”

-American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: “(6) Motor vehicle. – The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…” 10) The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. “A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.”

-International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’”

-City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232 “Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled” – Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20 ”

The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.”

Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). “…a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon…” State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;

Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 “The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.”

Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163 “the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business… is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all.” –

Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 “Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. “No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances.”

Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. “Traffic infractions are not a crime.” People v. Battle “Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.”

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 3 “The word ‘operator’ shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation.”

Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 “Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen.” Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “RIGHT — A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.”

City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. “A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.” Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639. “The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.”

Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273. “The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.”

Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972). “If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void.” –

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). “With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority.” Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O’Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887. “The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and egress from them) is so fundamental that it appears in the Articles of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution.”

(Paul v. Virginia). “[T]he right to travel freely from State to State … is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.” (U.S. Supreme Court,

Shapiro v. Thompson). EDGERTON, Chief Judge: “Iron curtains have no place in a free world. …’Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the Constitution.’

Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186. “Our nation has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.” Id., at 197.

Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13—14. “The validity of restrictions on the freedom of movement of particular individuals, both substantively and procedurally, is precisely the sort of matter that is the peculiar domain of the courts.” Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187. “a person detained for an investigatory stop can be questioned but is “not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.”Justice White, Hiibel “Automobiles have the right to use the highways of the State on an equal footing with other vehicles.”

Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucy 15. “Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road.”

Swift v City of Topeka, 43 U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 4 Kansas 671, 674. The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is not a “statute.” A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle.

Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 Atl. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) 185. Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses and carriages.

Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205; See also: Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31; Ward v. Meredith, 202 Ill. 66; Shinkle v. McCullough, 116 Ky. 960; Butler v. Cabe, 116 Ark. 26, 28-29. …automobiles are lawful vehicles and have equal rights on the highways with horses and carriages. Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354.

Matson v. Dawson, 178 N.W. 2d 588, 591. A farmer has the same right to the use of the highways of the state, whether on foot or in a motor vehicle, as any other citizen.

Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42. Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. Doherty v. Ayer, 83 N.E. 677, 197 Mass. 241, 246;

Molway v. City of Chicago, 88 N.E. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., 100 N.E. 157, 158. “A soldier’s personal automobile is part of his ‘household goods[.]’

U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235” 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94. “[I]t is a jury question whether … an automobile … is a motor vehicle[.]”

United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983). Other right to use an automobile cases: –

EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 –

TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 – WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274 – CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44 – THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492 – U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966) –

GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971) – CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6 –

SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) – CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978)

--

View All: https://americanpatriotsocial.com/strawman/iku.html

-

To learn more about the STRAWMAN please visit: https://americanpatriotsocial.com/strawman/

NOTE: If you are not a member of American Patriot Social and would like to join, please visit the link below.

https://AmericanPatriotSocial.com/1350/

In today's Letter to America, like always, we embark on a profound journey into the depths of our collective consciousness, where uncomfortable truths reside that are waiting to be acknowledged and confronted. As we navigate the tumultuous waters of our world, it becomes clearly evident that our awareness, or lack thereof, profoundly shapes our understanding of the narratives that unfold before us. The revelations that are chronicled within this letter unveil hidden truths that will challenge preconceived notions, test the boundaries of our beliefs, and ultimately, illuminate the path towards a more enlightened existence. It is in our capacity and our willingness to explore these unsettling truths, to engage with them authentically, and to foster a deeper sense of integrity that will pave the way for a nation that transcends division and seeks the profound unity that binds us all as Americans.

Your level of awakening and consciousness serves as a lens through which the intricate layers of meaning within today's letter unfold, revealing the profound wisdom and insight chronicled within its words.

-

In delving deeper into the intricate web of control that has shaped the course of humanity, it becomes evident that a complex tapestry of manipulative tactics has been employed to tether individuals to the pervasive web of deceit known as the "big lie." Central to this insidious strategy has been the strategic utilization of churches and religious institutions as instruments of control, weaving belief systems and stringent rules into the very fabric of society. Concurrently, the advent of nanotechnology, coupled with the shadows of Operation Paperclip and the Reptilians, has cast a veil of illusion over the world's stage. These shadowy puppeteers, pulling the strings of world leaders, pastors, priests, and even popes, perpetuate a charade that masks the true nature of power dynamics. It beckons us to scrutinize every so-called "patriot" who ostensibly champions "religion," prompting an exploration into the sinister alliance between the deep state and the media. This unholy collaboration perpetuates a narrative of crisis actors, casting doubt upon the very essence of truth. In this labyrinthine landscape, a search for depth, integrity, and character becomes paramount, as the quest to unravel the layers of deception unfolds before us.

In the intricate web of information and narratives spun by the system's Artificial Intelligence, we find ourselves delving into a profound journey, one that begins with the resonance of certain keywords echoing through the digital realm, eventually transforming into the 4 am China talking points disseminated seamlessly through their vast media channels. As we embark on this cinematic voyage, it's intriguing to note that the documentary's inception traces back to the year 1999, a pivotal moment marked by our Q drop #1082.

It's as if we are peering into the looking glass of linear time, witnessing the unfolding of worldwide events, particularly those catalyzed by the clarion call of COVID-19's "15 Days To Slow The Spread." In this reverse chronicle of global happenings, we stumble upon the enigmatic revelation known as DECLAS, an exposé of Reptilian's and Grey's clandestine enslavement, hidden behind the Veil of religion. It is within this shadowy enclave that their sinister Galactic slave farming of Adrenochrome and Pineal Glands has long remained concealed, offering us a glimpse into a dark and evil narrative that combines lies, deception, corruption and manipulation, inviting us to question the very essence of our reality.

In our world today, amidst the chaos and uncertainty brought about by the COVID-19 plandemic, there exists a realm of intrigue and hidden truths that Q post #1455 seeks to illuminate. This post delves deep into the shadows, revealing a web of Military Exercise markers that stretch far and wide, touching upon the very fabric of our society. These markers, disguised as unassuming cone-shaped objects, serve as cryptic guides to a labyrinthine network that encompasses everything from businesses, religious centers, medical facilities, arenas, schools and Government buildings of underground tunnels, entrances, exits. What lies beneath the surface, concealed beneath the earth's crust, are the clandestine tunnels, entrances, exits, and D.U.M.Bs (Deep Underground Military Bases), which hint at a world most of us have never dared to imagine. As these secrets emerge, a collective awakening sweeps across the nation, reminding us that we stand on the precipice of profound change. The storm of revelation and transformation is upon us, and as fellow Americans, we find ourselves at the crossroads of history, tasked with the duty of seeking truth and ensuring that integrity and character guide us through the tempestuous times ahead.

It's a very sad but very true fact that most people in this group do not know who we are and what we are exposing. Far too many people take what we share for granted without letting the information sink in so they can apply the information to their own lives and help others do the same. 1350 has never been about giving people everything on a silver platter, it has and always will be about providing information so that people have a foundational understanding of the evil and corruption that has been taking place in our nation for many decades. We are a group of action, change and accountability, we are not a group of sugar coating and giving everyone all the details on a silver platter so they have to do nothing but wait around. If you don't want to roll up your sleeves and take action then this is not the place for you. We have provided a lot of important and valuable information that will help to guide you down your own path of discovery and learning. But in order for this information to be useful to you in your journey, you must take action and hold yourself accountable to what you want to learn so that you can help to make the much needed changed in our nation. It's never been about waiting for President Trump to save America, he has and is actively doing his part. He stood up to the deep state cabal and as a result he has given the power back to the people. It is up to us "We The People" to make the changes that we all know we need to make. We the people have the power. The government is elected by us and the government works for us, not the other way around.

Tortious interference, a fundamental principle of common law, serves as a legal remedy to protect individuals and businesses from the wrongful interference of their contractual or business relationships. This tort enables a plaintiff to seek damages when a third party unjustly disrupts their legally binding agreements or commercial endeavors. Tortious interference plays a crucial role in maintaining the stability and predictability of business transactions, while also preserving the sanctity of contracts. This essay explores the concept of tortious interference, its elements, defenses, and the broader implications of its application in contemporary business law.

Understanding Tortious Interference

Tortious interference, often referred to as "tortious interference with contract" or "tortious interference with prospective economic advantage," is a legal cause of action that arises when one party intentionally and wrongfully interferes with another party's contractual or business relationships, causing harm or damages. The primary objective of this tort is to provide a remedy for the injured party and to discourage individuals or entities from engaging in conduct that disrupts the stability of commercial interactions.

Elements of Tortious Interference

To establish a claim of tortious interference, a plaintiff must typically prove the following elements:

1. Existence of a valid contract or business relationship: The plaintiff must demonstrate the existence of a legally binding contract or a reasonable expectation of a business relationship that would have likely resulted in economic benefit.

2. Knowledge of the contract or relationship: The defendant must have knowledge of the contract or business relationship between the plaintiff and the third party.

3. Intentional interference: The defendant must have intentionally interfered with the contract or relationship, either through direct action or persuasion.

4. Wrongful interference: The interference must be wrongful or unlawful, such as through threats, deceit, fraud, or other improper means.

5. Damages / Causation: The plaintiff must demonstrate that they suffered actual damages as a result of the interference. These damages may include financial losses, reputational harm, or other adverse consequences.

Defenses to Tortious Interference

Defendants facing a claim of tortious interference may assert several defenses to counter the plaintiff's allegations. Common defenses include:

1. Justification or privilege: If the defendant had a legitimate reason or privilege to interfere with the contract or relationship, their actions may be considered justified. For instance, protecting one's own economic interests or engaging in lawful competition might constitute a valid defense.

2. Lack of intent: If the defendant can demonstrate that their actions were not intentionally designed to interfere with the contract or relationship, it may weaken the plaintiff's case.

3. Consent: If the plaintiff consented to the defendant's involvement or interference in the contract or relationship, this may serve as a defense against tortious interference claims.

4. Lack of damages: If the plaintiff cannot prove that they suffered actual damages as a direct result of the interference, their claim may be undermined.

Implications of Tortious Interference in Business Law

Tortious interference serves as an essential tool in maintaining the integrity of business relationships and contractual agreements. Its application in business law has several significant implications:

1. Encouraging fair competition: Tortious interference discourages unfair and unethical business practices that seek to undermine competitors by disrupting their contracts or relationships. It promotes a level playing field for businesses to compete on the basis of merit and quality rather than interference.

2. Protecting contractual obligations: Parties to contracts can have confidence that their agreements will be upheld and respected by the legal system. This encourages parties to enter into agreements and invest in contractual relationships with greater security.

3. Promoting economic stability: By providing a legal remedy for those whose economic interests are unjustly compromised, tortious interference contributes to economic stability and predictability, fostering a favorable environment for commerce.

4. Maintaining trust and reputation: Upholding the principles of tortious interference safeguards the reputation and trustworthiness of businesses and individuals engaged in commercial transactions. This, in turn, promotes long-term business relationships and collaborations.

Examples of Tortious interference:

1. Employee Poaching: A company intentionally lures away key employees from a competitor by offering them higher salaries and better benefits, knowing that this action will harm the competitor's business.

2. Supplier Interference: A supplier abruptly cancels a contract with a business and starts supplying their products exclusively to a competitor, causing financial harm to the original business.

3. Contractual Interference: A third party interferes with a contract between two parties by convincing one of the parties to breach the contract. For instance, a consultant persuades a company to terminate a contract with a service provider, even though the contract is still valid and not in breach.

4. Distributorship Interference: A distributor intentionally persuades a manufacturer to terminate its distribution agreement with a long-standing distributor and instead enter into an exclusive agreement with the interfering distributor.

5. Landlord-Tenant Interference: A landlord, aware of an existing lease agreement with a tenant, tries to convince the tenant to break the lease and rent another property owned by the landlord.

6. Customer Poaching: A competitor solicits a business's customers by spreading false information about the business, causing customers to switch to the competitor and resulting in financial losses for the original business.

7. Legal Malpractice: An attorney intentionally advises a client to breach a contract or take actions that would harm another party's contractual rights, resulting in financial losses and a potential claim of tortious interference against the attorney.

Conclusion

Tortious interference is a vital component of common law that safeguards contractual and business relationships from wrongful disruptions. It provides a legal recourse for those who suffer damages due to intentional and improper interference by third parties. Understanding the elements, defenses, and implications of tortious interference is crucial for individuals and businesses to navigate the complex landscape of business law while ensuring fairness and accountability in commercial transactions. Ultimately, the tort of tortious interference plays a pivotal role in upholding the principles of justice and fairness in the business world.

Kinds of Torts

Tort law encompasses a spectrum of legal principles, with three distinct categories standing out: intentional torts, negligent torts, and strict liability torts. These classifications are essential in understanding the nature of harm and liability in civil litigation. Intentional torts arise from deliberate actions, highlighting the defendant's intent to cause harm or injury. Conversely, negligent torts stem from acts of carelessness or oversight, such as medical malpractice scenarios where a surgical team unintentionally leaves a surgical instrument inside a patient. Both intentional and negligent torts suggest some level of fault on the defendant's part, whether through intent or negligence.

However, tort law takes a unique turn with strict liability torts, where fault or intent may not be prerequisites for liability. In these cases, the law can hold a defendant accountable for a victim's losses, even when there is no evidence of carelessness or malicious intent. This concept challenges the traditional notions of fault and blame, emphasizing the principle that certain activities or products inherently carry risks, and those who engage in them must bear responsibility for any resulting harm, regardless of their intentions. This nuanced framework of tort law showcases the multifaceted nature of civil litigation, where justice aims to compensate victims and deter harmful actions, irrespective of the defendant's state of mind or intent.

Dimensions of Tort Liability

The moral underpinning of seeking redress through the legal system becomes evident in cases where the defendant's actions exhibit negligence or intentional harm. This moral foundation finds its roots in the belief that individuals are inherently free and autonomous, possessing fundamental rights that should be safeguarded. When others infringe upon these rights, particularly our freedom or autonomy, it is only natural to respond with a sense of violation. The age-old adage, "Your right to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose," encapsulates this principle succinctly. It signifies the idea that personal freedoms should not encroach upon the boundaries of others' rights or safety.

In the realm of law, this concept extends even further, especially within intentional tort law. For instance, if one were to create a situation where they instill fear or apprehension in another person by making threatening gestures or actions directed towards them, they might be liable for the tort of assault, even in the absence of actual physical contact (battery). This legal perspective reinforces the significance of respecting the boundaries of others' autonomy and freedom, illustrating how the law functions as a protector of these fundamental principles and a means of seeking recourse when they are violated, regardless of the absence of physical harm.

In a capitalist market system, the principles of rational economics extend to the idea of preventing negative externalities. This means that individuals, whether acting independently or collectively, should ideally conduct their actions in a way that does not bring harm or adverse consequences to third parties. The legal system acknowledges the importance of this principle and strives to provide remedies for those third parties who may be adversely affected by the actions of others. While the law recognizes that a monetary judgment cannot fully heal a grievously injured victim, it serves as a means of compensation and accountability, ensuring that those who have suffered harm due to the actions of others receive some form of redress for their losses. This concept embodies the belief that individuals should be responsible for the consequences of their actions, even in the complex landscape of economic interactions.

Dimensions of Tort: Fault

Tort principles encompass various dimensions, one of which is the fault dimension. In tort law, akin to criminal law, a wrongful act committed by the defendant is a prerequisite for the plaintiff to seek recovery. However, unlike criminal law, specific intent is not always required in tort cases. Tort law primarily centers on the harm suffered by the plaintiff, being less concerned about the motives behind the defendant's actions. This means that even an action considered innocent or relatively benign can serve as the foundation for liability in tort law. Nevertheless, with the exception of strict liability, tort law predominantly relies on establishing standards of fault or blameworthiness to determine liability and assess damages.

The most straightforward standard in tort law is willful conduct. When the defendant, often referred to as the tortfeasor, intentionally causes harm to another individual, there is minimal dispute regarding tort liability. Consequently, all criminal offenses that result in harm to a person or property, such as murder, assault, arson, and others, also qualify as torts. In such cases, the plaintiff retains the option to initiate a separate lawsuit aimed at recovering damages for injuries sustained by themselves, their family, or their property. This dual nature of certain actions, as both criminal offenses and torts, underscores the principle that individuals may be held accountable in both criminal and civil courts for their wrongful actions.

Most tort suits do not rely on intentional fault. They are based, rather, on negligent conduct that in the circumstances is careless or poses unreasonable risks of causing damage. Most automobile accident and medical malpractice suits are examples of negligence suits.

The fault dimension is a continuum. At one end is the deliberate desire to do injury. The middle ground is occupied by careless conduct. At the other end is conduct that most would consider entirely blameless, in the moral sense. The defendant may have observed all possible precautions and yet still be held liable. This is called strict liability2. An example is that incurred by the manufacturer of a defective product that is placed on the market despite all possible precautions, including quality-control inspection. In many states, if the product causes injury, the manufacturer will be held liable.

Dimensions of Tort: Nature of Injury

Tort liability varies by the type of injury caused. The most obvious type is physical harm to the person (assault, battery, infliction of emotional distress, negligent exposure to toxic pollutants, wrongful death) or property (trespass, nuisance, arson, interference with contract). Mental suffering can be redressed if it is a result of physical injury (e.g., shock and depression following an automobile accident). A few states now permit recovery for mental distress alone (a mother’s shock at seeing her son injured by a car while both were crossing the street). Other protected interests include a person’s reputation (injured by defamatory statements or writings), privacy (injured by those who divulge secrets of his personal life), and economic interests (misrepresentation to secure an economic advantage, certain forms of unfair competition).

Dimensions of Tort: Excuses

A third element in the law of torts is the excuse for committing an apparent wrong. The law does not condemn every act that ultimately results in injury. One common rule of exculpation is assumption of risk3. A baseball fan who sits along the third base line close to the infield assumes the risk that a line drive foul ball may fly toward him and strike him. He will not be permitted to complain in court that the batter should have been more careful or that management should have either warned him or put up a protective barrier.

Another excuse is negligence of the plaintiff. If two drivers are careless and hit each other on the highway, some states will refuse to permit either to recover from the other. Still another excuse is consent: two boxers in the ring consent to being struck with fists (but not to being bitten on the ear).

Damages

Since the purpose of tort law is to compensate the victim for harm actually done, damages are usually measured by the extent of the injury. Expressed in money terms, these include replacement of property destroyed, compensation for lost wages, reimbursement for medical expenses, and dollars that are supposed to approximate the pain that is suffered. Damages for these injuries are called compensatory damages.

In certain instances, the courts will permit an award of punitive damages5. As the word punitive implies, the purpose is to punish the defendant’s actions. Because a punitive award (sometimes called exemplary damages) is at odds with the general purpose of tort law, it is allowable only in aggravated situations. The law in most states permits recovery of punitive damages only when the defendant has deliberately committed a wrong with malicious intent or has otherwise done something outrageous.

Punitive damages are rarely allowed in negligence cases for that reason. But if someone sets out intentionally and maliciously to hurt another person, punitive damages may well be appropriate. Punitive damages are intended not only to punish the wrongdoer, by exacting an additional and sometimes heavy payment (the exact amount is left to the discretion of jury and judge), but also to deter others from similar conduct. The punitive damage award has been subject to heavy criticism in recent years in cases in which it has been awarded against manufacturers. One fear is that huge damage awards on behalf of a multitude of victims could swiftly bankrupt the defendant. Unlike compensatory damages, punitive damages are taxable.

KEY TAKEAWAY

There are three kinds of torts, and in two of them (negligent torts and strict liability torts), damages are usually limited to making the victim whole through an enforceable judgment for money damages. These compensatory damages awarded by a court accomplish only approximate justice for the injuries or property damage caused by a tortfeasor. Tort laws go a step further toward deterrence, beyond compensation to the plaintiff, in occasionally awarding punitive damages against a defendant. These are almost always in cases where an intentional tort has been committed.

EXERCISES

1. Why is deterrence needed for intentional torts (where punitive damages are awarded) rather than negligent torts?

2. Why are costs imposed on others without their consent problematic for a market economy? What if the law did not try to reimpose the victim’s costs onto the tortfeasor? What would a totally nonlitigious society be like?