May 3, 2000
David S. Touretzky
Computer Science Department & Center for the
Neural Basis of Cognition
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3891
Attn. Mirror Site Operator
Re: Tortious Interference With Amay's Contractual Relationships by
http://www.teleport.com/~schwartz/ and
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Amway/index.html
Dear Mr. Touretzky:
You are misinformed as to the legality of your actions.
Like I'm going to take legal advice from an Amway stooge. Right.
As alleged in our Michigan Complaint, Procter & Gamble encouraged, paid for, and otherwise asisted, aided and abetted, and conspired with Schwartz in his malicious attacks against Amway.
Procter & Gamble competes with Amway in a number of product categories.
Those allegations against Schwartz are themselves libelous. I'm surprised Delaney has the nerve to repeat them here. Maybe he thinks that calling them ``allegations'' will let him off the hook. We'll see about that.
As such, there certainly is a commercial aspect to the Schwartz web site, which you republish. Such tortious conduct is actionable under federal and state laws.
But unlike Amway, they're not a cult. And to the best of my knowledge, they don't rip people off, and they're not currently trying to stifle anyone's free speech rights. See the difference?
We are interested in any contacts that you have had with Schwartz or Procter & Gamble. If you truly are not "selling anything, buying anything, or giving anything away," your correspondence should reflect this fact. If, instead, you have been acting in concert with Schwartz and Procter & Gamble, a different conclusion must be drawn. Please provide this information.
Merely commenting upon another party's commercial activities is not, by itself, engaging in commerce. My mirroring the Schwartz site is purely noncommercial speech. Like Schwartz, I am making information available in furtherance of the public interest. Information that Amway appears to be desperate to suppress. Why is that?
Mr. Touretzky, we have been patient in expressing our problems with your web site.
The nerve of this guy! Here's a news flash, you little corporate tool: I'm a private citizen exercising my First Amendment rights. I'm not accountable to you, or to your Amway masters. And if you don't like that, you can bloody well FOAD.
In return, you have responded with name-calling and vulgarity. Frankly, we are surprised at such a response from a professor of a respected university.
It's DOCTOR Touretzky, as you well know. You have been persistent in your attempts to silence me, and others before me. This persistence is understandable, since you bill Amway by the hour. That does not make it any less despicable.
Nevertheless, you have been placed on notice.
One of the joys of living in a free society, Timmy: I'm not obligated to show deference to a bully. Even when he writes on legal letterhead.
After the successful conclusion of the pending Michigan litigation, you can expect to be subjected to legal liability.
Ooooh, now that's scary: I'm on notice! Well you've been placed on notice too, Timmy. And I'm gratified to see that you have chosen not to repeat your unethical Lanham Act threats. Seems my warning about Rule 11 sanctions made an impression.
And that successful conclusion can be expected when? I believe it will be just after monkeys fly out of my butt. In which event I'll concede your legal points, take my web site down, and shave my head and join a monastery. Don't hold your breath, Timmy boy.
On second thought: do.
|
Sincerely, [signature]
Timothy Q. Delaney |