(note: due to criminal, illegal backdoor access, my ability to edit this document and clean up text is being severely hindered, as such, you will need to click on the actual California Codes and LAWS in reference to : INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS)
Reading through some of the Wikileaks published Sony Documents, I came an email that was discussing liabilities, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress - this led me to start looking up the definition, and laws that pertained to what this legal representative was discussing in the email -
LOW and BEHOLD - I found an entire Series of California Codes, which can be LEVIED upon and against State, Corporate, Academia, Private and or Public Entities, Organizations, Groups and or Individuals' within whose positions of authority, expertise and or power; sponsored, sanctioned, and covered up their direct and or indirect participation in Targeting an Individual and or using a Human Target for Non Consensual Human Experiments and or Target Practice.
And, because I became aware that I was being DIRECTLY TARGETED while in the Workplace at Sony Pictures Entertainment, via information provided by an external unknown third party, who provided Sony Pictures Entertainment with the means to Retaliate, Exploit, Deploy and Execute Professional Psychological Operations: tactics, techniques, access and utilization of weaponized and militarized technological means, via Public Disclosure of Privately Held Information, stored and or conducted within the Privacy of my living space, to include, but not limited to: Private Papers, Financial Information, Banking, Medical, Private Landline and Cell Phone Conversations, Online Purchases and Online Searches, and WHAT was being conducted within the privacy of my home that were fully embraced, exploited, and utilized in the Workplace via Peers and Management known or unknown to them the full content or meaning, while executing a Psychological Tactic of KEYWORD Associations - in Conduct known as Workplace Harassment and Workplace Mobbing - which ultimately Traumatized and Terrorized me out of my job, from which I left, NEVER TO RETURN due to the HOSTILE NATURE of what was being INTENTIONALLY INFLICTED upon and against me.
THIS BECOMES RELEVANT for Future Claims against Sony Pictures Entertainment via existing, which can be levied against Sony Pictures Entertainment, and the Third Party Entity that provided Provided Sony Pictures Entertainment with Tactics and Techniques to use in the workplace based upon Warrantless, Privately Held Information in order to Psychologically Terrorize me out of my job.
WHY the STATUTE OF LIMITATION DOES NOT APPLY - SO LONG AS WHAT TRANSPIRED THEN, CONTINUES TO TRANSPIRE TODAY - in SIMILAR FASHION - IT IS ONGOING CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES - As such, ONLY WHEN EVERYTHING FULL STOP, CEASE AND DESISTS - Does the CLOCK ON ANY and ALL STATUTES BEGIN.
Therefore, SONY continues to be CRIMINAL LIABLE for what TRANSPIRED in the Workplace that literally Terrorized me out of my job.
Series 1600 - Emotional Distress
California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI)
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress—Essential Factual Elements
[Name of plaintiff] claims that [name of defendant]’s conduct caused [him/her] to suffer severe emotional distress. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following:
1. That [name of defendant]’s conduct was outrageous;
2. [That [name of defendant] intended to cause [name of plaintiff] emotional distress;]
[or]
[That [name of defendant] acted with reckless disregard of the probability that [name of plaintiff] would suffer emotional distress, knowing that [name of plaintiff] was present when the conduct occurred;]
3. That [name of plaintiff] suffered severe emotional distress; and
4. That [name of defendant]’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]’s severe emotional distress.
New September 2003
Directions for Use
CACI Nos. 1602—1604, regarding the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress, should be given with the above instruction.
Depending on the facts of the case, a plaintiff could choose one or both of the bracketed choices in element 2.
Sources and Authority
- “A cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress exists when there is ‘(1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff’s suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant’s outrageous conduct.’ A defendant’s conduct is ‘outrageous’ when it is so ‘extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community.’ And the defendant’s conduct must be ‘intended to inflict injury or engaged in with the realization that injury will result.’ ” (Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1050—1051 [95 Cal.Rptr.3d 636, 209 P.3d 963])
- “ ‘[I]t is generally held that there can be no recovery for mere profanity, obscenity, or abuse, without circumstances of aggravation, or for insults, indignities or threats which are considered to amount to nothing more than mere annoyances.’ ” (Yurick v. Superior Court (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1116, 1128 [257 Cal.Rptr. 665], internal citations omitted.)
- “It is not enough that the conduct be intentional and outrageous. It must be conduct directed at the plaintiff, or occur in the presence of a plaintiff of whom the defendant is aware.” (Christensen v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 868, 903—904 [2 Cal.Rptr.2d 79, 820 P.2d 181].)
- “Severe emotional distress [is] emotional distress of such substantial quantity or enduring quality that no reasonable man in a civilized society should be expected to endure it.” (Fletcher v. Western Life Insurance Co. (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 376, 397 [89 Cal.Rptr. 78].)
- “ ‘It is for the court to determine whether on the evidence severe emotional distress can be found; it is for the jury to determine whether, on the evidence, it has in fact existed.’ ” (Fletcher, supra, 10 Cal.App.3d at p. 397, internal citation omitted.)
- “ ‘The law limits claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress to egregious conduct toward plaintiff proximately caused by defendant.’ The only exception to this rule is that recognized when the defendant is aware, but acts with reckless disregard of, the plaintiff and the probability that his or her conduct will cause severe emotional distress to that plaintiff. Where reckless disregard of the plaintiff’s interests is the theory of recovery, the presence of the plaintiff at the time the outrageous conduct occurs is recognized as the element establishing a higher degree of culpability which, in turn, justifies recovery of greater damages by a broader group of plaintiffs than allowed on a negligent infliction of emotional distress theory.” (Christensen, supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 905—906, internal citations omitted.)
1602. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress—“Outrageous Conduct” Defined
[Name of plaintiff] claims that [name of defendant]’s conduct caused [him/her] to suffer severe emotional distress. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following:
1. That [name of defendant]’s conduct was outrageous;
2. [That [name of defendant] intended to cause [name of plaintiff] emotional distress;]
[or]
[That [name of defendant] acted with reckless disregard of the probability that [name of plaintiff] would suffer emotional distress, knowing that [name of plaintiff] was present when the conduct occurred;]
3. That [name of plaintiff] suffered severe emotional distress; and
4. That [name of defendant]’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]’s severe emotional distress....
- “ ‘The law limits claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress to egregious conduct toward plaintiff proximately caused by defendant.’ The only exception to this rule is that recognized when the defendant is aware, but acts with reckless disregard of, the plaintiff and the probability that his or her conduct will cause severe emotional distress to that plaintiff. Where reckless disregard of the plaintiff’s interests is the theory of recovery, the presence of the plaintiff at the time the outrageous conduct occurs is recognized as the element establishing a higher degree of culpability which, in turn, justifies recovery of greater damages by a broader group of plaintiffs than allowed on a negligent infliction of emotional distress theory.” (Christensen, supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 905—906, internal citations omitted.)
[Name of defendant] acted with reckless disregard in causing [name of plaintiff] emotional distress if:
1. [Name of defendant] knew that emotional distress would probably result from [his/her] conduct; or
2. [Name of defendant] gave little or no thought to the probable effects of [his/her] conduct.
Sources and Authority
- “[I]t is not essential to liability that a trier of fact find a malicious or evil purpose. It is enough that defendant ‘devoted little or no thought’ to probable consequences of his conduct.” (KOVR-TV, Inc. v. Superior Court(1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1023, 1031—1032 [37 Cal.Rptr.2d 431], internal citation omitted.)
- The requirement of reckless conduct is satisfied by a showing that the defendant acted in reckless disregard of the probability that the plaintiff would suffer emotional distress. (Little v. Stuyvesant Life Insurance Co.(1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 451, 462 [136 Cal.Rptr. 653]; Cervantez v. J.C. Penney Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 579, 593 [156 Cal.Rptr. 198, 595 P.2d 975].)
- “Where reckless disregard of the plaintiff’s interests is the theory of recovery, the presence of the plaintiff at the time the outrageous conduct occurs is recognized as the element establishing a higher degree of culpability which, in turn, justifies recovery of greater damages by a broader group of plaintiffs than allowed on a negligent infliction of emotional distress theory.” (Christensen v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 868, 905 [2 Cal.Rptr.2d 79, 820 P.2d 181].)
1604. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress—“Severe Emotional Distress” Defined
Emotional distress includes suffering, anguish, fright, horror, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, shock, humiliation, and shame.
“Severe emotional distress” is not mild or brief; it must be so substantial or long lasting that no reasonable person in a civilized society should be expected to bear it. [Name of plaintiff] is not required to prove physical injury to recover damages for severe emotional distress.
1620. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress—Direct Victim—Essential Factual Elements
[Name of plaintiff] claims that [name of defendant]’s conduct caused [him/her] to suffer serious emotional distress. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following:
1. That [name of defendant] was negligent;
2. That [name of plaintiff] suffered serious emotional distress; and
3. That [name of defendant]’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]’s serious emotional distress.
Emotional distress includes suffering, anguish, fright, horror, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, shock, humiliation, and shame. Serious emotional distress exists if an ordinary, reasonable person would be unable to cope with it.
New September 2003
Directions for Use
The California Supreme Court has allowed plaintiffs to bring negligent infliction of emotional distress actions as “direct victims” in only three types of factual situations: (1) the negligent mishandling of corpses (Christensen v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 868, 879 [2 Cal.Rptr.2d 79, 820 P.2d 181]); (2) the negligent misdiagnosis of a disease that could potentially harm another (Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1980) 27 Cal.3d 916, 923 [167 Cal.Rptr. 831, 616 P.2d 813]); and (3) the negligent breach of a duty arising out of a preexisting relationship (Burgess v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1064, 1076 [9 Cal.Rptr.2d 615, 831 P.2d 1197]).
The judge will normally decide whether a duty was owed to the plaintiff as a direct victim. If the issue of whether the plaintiff is a direct victim is contested, a special instruction with the factual dispute laid out for the jury will need to be drafted.
This instruction should be read in conjunction with either CACI No. 401, Basic Standard of Care, or CACI No. 418, Presumption of Negligence per se.
This instruction is for use if the plaintiff is a “direct victim” of defendant’s negligent conduct. If the plaintiff witnesses the injury of another, use CACI No. 1621, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress—Bystander—Essential Factual Elements.
Elements 1 and 3 of this instruction could be modified for use in a strict products liability case. A plaintiff may seek damages for the emotional shock of viewing the injuries of another when the incident is caused by defendant’s defective product. (Kately v. Wilkinson (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 576, 587 [195 Cal.Rptr. 902].)
Sources and Authority
- “ ‘[The] negligent causing of emotional distress is not an independent tort but the tort of negligence …’ ‘The traditional elements of duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages apply. Whether a defendant owes a duty of care is a question of law. Its existence depends upon the foreseeability of the risk and upon a weighing of policy considerations for and against imposition of liability.’ ” (Marlene F. v. Affıliated Psychiatric Medical Clinic, Inc. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 583, 588 [257 Cal.Rptr. 98, 770 P.2d 278], internal citations omitted.)
- “ ‘Direct victim’ cases are cases in which the plaintiff’s claim of emotional distress is not based upon witnessing an injury to someone else, but rather is based upon the violation of a duty owed directly to the plaintiff.” (Wooden v. Raveling (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1035, 1038 [71 Cal.Rptr.2d 891], internal citations omitted.)
- “[D]uty is found where the plaintiff is a ‘direct victim,’ in that the emotional distress damages result from a duty owed the plaintiff ‘that is “assumed by the defendant or imposed on the defendant as a matter of law, or that arises out of a relationship between the two.” ’ ” (McMahon v. Craig (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 222, 230 [97 Cal.Rptr.3d 555].)
- In a negligence action, damages may be recovered for serious emotional distress unaccompanied by physical injury: “We agree that the unqualified requirement of physical injury is no longer justifiable.” (Molien, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 928.)
- “[S]erious mental distress may be found where a reasonable man, normally constituted, would be unable to adequately cope with the mental stress engendered by the circumstances of the case.” (Molien, supra, 27 Cal.3d at pp. 927—928.)
Secondary Sources
6 Witkin, Summary of California Law (10th ed. 2005) Torts, § 1004
1 California Torts, Ch. 5, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, § 5.03 (Matthew Bender)
32 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 362, Mental Suffering and Emotional Distress, § 362.11 (Matthew Bender)
15 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 153, Mental Suffering and Emotional Distress, § 153.31 et seq. (Matthew Bender
THERE IS A LONG LIST OF CALIFORNIA LAWS THAT FALL WITHIN THESE PERAMETERS, AS SUCH THE FOLLOWING APPLIES TO ALL WORKPLACE SETTINGS WHERE TARGETED INDIVIDUAL WAS HARASSED OUT OF THEIR JOBS
2005 California Civil Code Sections 3294-3296 Article 3. Exemplary Damages
(a) In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising
from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence
that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.
(b) An employer shall not be liable for damages pursuant to
subdivision (a), based upon acts of an employee of the employer, unless the employer had advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee and employed him or her with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others or authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. With respect to a corporate employer, the advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or act of oppression, fraud, or malice must be on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation.
(c) As used in this section, the following definitions shall
apply:(1) "Malice" means conduct which is intended by the defendant tocause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carriedon by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.(2) "Oppression" means despicable conduct that subjects a personto cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person'srights(3) "Fraud" means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, orconcealment of a material fact known to the defendant with theintention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a personof property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.THIS ONE IS FOR ANY FAMILY MEMBER'S OF A DECEASED TI WHO CAME FORWARD TO THEM, AND ANY AND ALL PROPER AUTHORITIES ABOUT BEING A VICTIM OF TARGETING - AS THEIR DEATHS REPRESENT MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE BY DEFENDANTS JOHN AND JANE DOE(d) Damages may be recovered pursuant to this section in an actionpursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 377.10) of Title 3 ofPart 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure based upon a death whichcted of a felony, whether or not the decedent died instantly or surresulted from a homicide for which the defendant has been conv ivivedal injury for some period of time. The procedures for joinder and consolidation contained in Section 377.62 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to prevent multiple recoveries of punitive or exemplary damages based upon the same wrongful act
Now ... the Question of Disclosing various pieces of information from the Wikileaks Sony's Leak Private Information? In 2006, Sony Pictures Entertainment FULLY CAPITALIZED and EXPLOITED to their Benefit and Advantage, PRIVATE INFORMATION about an EMPLOYEE, which was exposed and exploited upon in the Workplace, this was how I learned I was being TARGETED.That "they" i.e. (Sony Pictures Entertainment) with intentional, malicious intent did cause extreme levels of distress, trauma, terror, fear for security, and safety of private living space, by deploying and executing tactics and techniques that were provided to them by this unknown External Third Party, whom I shall refer to as a Government and or Private Security Firm with warrantless, and criminal access to cutting edge cyber, telecommunication surveillance capabilities, along with human intelligence who gained illegal access to my living space and contents within, allowing them to conduct an extensive Profile upon every aspect of my living life - and SHARED/PROVIDED Sony Pictures Entertainment with this information, to utilize as a Weapon in order to Retaliate, Traumatize, and Terrorize me out of the workplace.What is the QUOTE that was used by a Sony Employee in Development by the name of LISA who said: "HOW LONG ARE WE GOING TO DO THIS TO HER? OH, THAT'S RIGHT, WE HAVE MORE MONEY THAN SHE DOES...ha, ha, ha... " There are some things you NEVER FORGET and the SHEER HUBRIS of Sony in what they were doing to me in the workplace, while I was Terrorized and Traumatized by what was being done - TO ME …I almost LOST MY LIFE because of it, and that is WHY I FEEL ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TOWARDS SONY .. OTHER THAN CONTEMPT - and HAPPINESS AT ALL THEIR PRIVATE INFORMATION BEING PUBLICLY DISCLOSED -
Feels REAL SHITTY - Doesn't it SONY?KARMA IS A MOTHER-FUCKING BITCH ... and I did not have to do anything to PROVE what ARROGANCE, NARCISSISM, AND HUBRIS runs rampant there, someone did it for me and I AM TRULY GRATEFUL to the HACKERS that EXPOSED SONY... and to WIKILEAKS for publishing it.
No comments:
Post a Comment