BC BUSINESS
Saved by @Mollyycolllinss

Looks like we need to spend some time talking about the Parler lolsuit against Amazon and why it's deader than a Mitch McConnell comedy special. They've brought three claims - antitrust, breach of contract, and tortious interference. None will survive. Here's why

 Here's the meat of their intro: Amazon isn't being fair to us. They're holding us to a higher standard than Twitter - they say we allow violent content, but look what Twitter does!
There are a few problems with this approach. First, there's a factual problem: Twitter and Parler take very different approaches to moderation. Hell, *that's Parler's entire pitch.* So "we're the same as Twitter, why are you treating us different" isn't going to fly
ALSO, the hashtag was mostly people saying "these folks are calling to hang Mike Pence!"

https://t.co/3ixZYQ8nRc
And ALSO also, did anyone notice any prominent right wingers complaining about losing tens of thousands of followers yesterday? You know why they did? Because Twitter has been active in deleting accounts that violate its TOS
So factually, this complaint isn't going to fly.

But more fundamentally, Parler has a legal problem: There's no right to have a contracting party apply its rules equally. If you and I sign a contract with a supplier that says the supplier can stop providing us with beer if
we support the NE Patriots (and by "sign a contract" I mean we sign 2 separate contracts, 1 for me and 1 for you), and we both tweet out love for that horrible organization, and the supplier terminates me but not you, you know what happens if I sue them?
https://t.co/8aOSh2bTjf
The only thing that governs my contract with that supplier is my contract with that supplier. If they have discretion to terminate me, the fact that they exercised that discretion for me, but didn't for someone else, doesn't give me a cause of action. Not even a little bit
(Note: The one exception to this would be if I could show the company was exercising its discretion as a means of discriminating against a protected class - i.e. it terminated all white people who did X but no black people who did, ever. That's not and couldn't be alleged here)
So ... this is NOT what you would call a good start to a complaint. If your intro - which is the part of the complaint that should hit the reader in the gut, set the hook, and make them start thinking "you have a case" - is "they did something they were allowed to do"
Moving on. They then *specifically allege* that Amazon is motivated by "political animus" before ALSO claiming that it's an antitrust violation.

Folks ...
https://t.co/LDAxWRH5X0
Words can't express how bad a job this is. It really can't.

But I guess I'll try
First, "political animus" is NOT a problem in our society. Parties are allowed to choose to do or not do business with counterparties whose politics they dislike. "Republican Pollsters & PR R Us" does not have to take on the DSA as a client.
I don't have to take on David Duke if he comes looking for a lawyer. Tom O'Halloran's Irish Pub is allowed to boot out Unionists if it wants to.
So when Parler says "Amazon booted us because they don't like our politics" they are *specifically alleging* that Amazon was doing a thing it was entitled to do
This is a problem, because Parler is *also* trying to allege a Sherman anti-trust act claim based on wishes and innuendo. Essentially, Parler - which sued only Amazon and not Twitter - is alleging that Amazon is working with Twitter to shut down competition for Twitter
There are lots of reasons why this won't fly, and we'll get there as they get to the meat of the claim.

But when your core argument is "this conduct makes me think it's an anti-competitive conspiracy," DON'T SPECIFICALLY ALLEGE AN ALTERNATIVE, NON-CONSPIRACY EXPLANATION FOR IT
Also, it's worth pausing here to talk about Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, which is the "Tw" in the term "Twiqbal", the cases that set up the "plausibility" standard we've discussed in prior threads. (Refresher on plausibility here https://t.co/RIwlukf497)
The claim in Twombly was that telephone companies were conspiring to reduce competition by not entering into their competitors' markets, violating the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Here's the wikipedia summary of what the Supreme Court held, which is good enough to work with.
Do you see the problem this poses for Parler?

If so, you're a step ahead of Parler's lawyers, who apparently completely missed it.
Onward for the rest of the intro, which sets out the claims: Aside from the Sherman Antitrust Act, they're also alleging breach of contract, based on a provision they say gives them a right to 30 days notice of termination (spoiler, it does not), and tortious interference
To show tortious interference, btw, you need to show that someone: Knew you had (or were about to have) a contract, and did something that you weren't allowed to do, or for an improper reason, specifically designed to cause your contracting party to breach the contract
Tl;dr, that's also not going to fly here, for various and many reasons
Now we move into the "Parties" section, where Parler tells the court who it's suing. This particular paragraph is basically "but your Honor, we REALLY REALLY want to use AWS"
The problem?
No, seriously. There is no cause of action for "a business we really want to partner with doesn't want to partner with us".

That's just not a thing.
Next, they describe what's happening: We built our product around AWS, they're kicking us off, and it's going to really suck for us.

Also, we're a competitor of Twitter. This is important, because we're about to segue into their evidence of an antitrust conspiracy
In my head, I call this section "This is Evidence of a Conspiracy, Right? (No)"
Let me explain.

No, it is too much, let me sum up:

Amazon serves us and also Twitter. It was afraid we would grow at Twitter's expense, so it shut us down to prevent that.

That's their conspiracy theory. All of it. One problem
Your ... your theory is that ... that Amazon has a financial interest in preventing your growth because Twitter is a client?

And that's why it kicked, you, ALSO AN AMAZON CLIENT, off their servers?
Idiots, user migration from Twitter (an Amazon client) to Parler (an Amazon client at the time) literally CANNOT harm Amazon. It's a zero net business effect for Amazon; whichever of the two of you the users go to, they're still on platforms using AWS
In fact, the only way that could possibly harm Amazon is if users migrate from platforms that use AWS to platforms that DON'T. On your "protect its business" theory, Amazon should be *encouraging* Twitter competitors on its platform, so it has a better chance of retaining users
Instead, you just argued that Amazon did the one thing that could *harm* Amazon, economically, in this particular environment: Cut off a within-Amazon-ecosystem destination for users exiting Twitter
Not only do you have a Twombly problem - nothing here comes close to alleging an agreement between Amazon and Twitter - but the allegations directly contradict any claim that could have possibly been the motivation
Or, in gif form
Also, they talked about Amazon's letter to them. Here it is. Note what it says: We've been raising issues about this stuff for weeks, you haven't responded effectively, and you've affirmatively told us that you won't be responding effectively
Because of that, you are in breach of the terms of service and we think you're a risk to public safety, so we're terminating you on Sunday.

Wow.

Can they do that?
In a word, yes.
Let's take a look at Amazon's relevant agreements and terms.

Amazon's AWS Terms of service, which expressly bind any customer to the Amazon Acceptable Use Policy
Amazon's Acceptable Use Policy, which says "nothing illegal, or that may harm others, or that may harm our reputation, or offensive"
And Amazon's AWS Customer Agreement, which has a few relevant sections. 4.2, which requires customers to make sure their users' content complies with the Acceptable Use Policy, and holds customers responsible for end-user content that violates it
4.5, which says, basically, you are responsible for your end users and you MUST ban end-users for violating the acceptable use policy if you know about it. So, for example, when Parler deleted Lin Wood's post about killing people, but didn't ban him for it, they violated this
6.1: We get to suspend your access to AWS *without any notice at all* if you violate the customer agreement (which, as referenced in the above Tweet, Parler inarguably did)
Section 7.2, which has the 30 days notice provision Parler is relying on - but which ALSO says (check the red) "except we don't need to give you any notice at all if we could suspend you under Section 6"
And also, just to cap it off, a limitation of liability that says "you can't recover any lost profit damages against us, you can just get a refund"
With all of this background, you can see why this case is deader than a year-old fruit fly. They're suing for breach of contract based on a 30-day notice provision that the contract EXPRESSLY says doesn't apply. And they are no-doubt unquestionably toast
Anyway, back to Parler saying "but we were positioned to do so well before we got shut down for violating the terms of the contract we agreed to"
More paragraphs of "but having consequences for breaching our agreements with Amazon will really suck for us", to which a court will reply ...
https://t.co/d3yAblmwsD
Seriously. Parler signed a contract that said "Do NOT allow your end users to post violent, harmful stuff that might damage Amazon's reputation."

They agreed that if they violated that contract, Amazon could terminate them without notice.

They violated the contract.
And now they're complaining that they are getting the consequences they agreed to for doing the thing they agreed not to do?
That's ... that's not gonna move the needle, son.
Back to "no fair, what about Twitter", which just isn't a thing that a court will give even 1 fuck about, let alone 2
Now they're arguing that "hey, we finally took this stuff down" should be good enough. But it isn't. Not under the contract they signed. And especially not when they deleted the content but left the users
And here we get to the actual causes of action. First, antitrust, which I've been mentally referring to as
"Let's Do the Twombly Again"
Seriously, look those allegations over again. They're even less meaty than the ones the Supreme Court looked at in Twombly and said "nah, that's not enough to let your antitrust claim survive in court". Basically "Twitter is now an Amazon client and this thing will help Twitter"
"They could suspend us without notice, sure, but this is really a termination so we needed notice" is NOT a good argument when your contract says "we can terminate you without notice for anything we can suspend you for"
Seriously, this is the worst possible version of this breach of contract claim; by conceding that they could've been suspended without notice, they affirmatively argued that there was no breach
Full disclosure - in my first run-through of the AWS agreement I missed 7.2(b) (the "we can terminate if we can suspend"). But, um ... I wasn't being paid to litigate this claim, so "we were just as careless as the guy reading it for sport" is not a strong argument, guys
"Give us an injunction, because this is really going to suck for us": sorry, that the contract specifically says you lose means no injunction.

Also, the fact that the contract says "your only possible damages are what you paid us" means they are very very easy to calculate
Seriously, did these attorneys just not bother reading the relevant contract before Leeroy Jenkinsing this filing? How do you build your irreparable harm claim around lost profits that the contract specifically bars you from recovering??
Last, we have our turtle law claim (tortoise interference, yeah, I got dad jokes). This isn't going to fly for any number of reasons.
For one thing, tortious interference claims are based on "you made Dave, who had a contract with me, breach it, and therefore harmed me"

This seems to be "you made me breach my contract with Dave"
That's ... um ... not a thing.

Also, and I guess this is a minor note, but when you're alleging tortious interference you need to show that there was an existing contract that was breached
Maybe I missed it in the Complaint, but did any of you see any paragraphs detailing what Parler's "contract" with its users are or explaining how "not being able to provide Parler for a while" is a *breach* of that contract?
Seriously - they're essentially alleging that any Parler user can now sue Parler for breach of contract due to Parler being down, which ... well ...
I mean, I haven't reviewed the Parler terms of service but I feel preeeetty preeeeetty confident that isn't a good faith reading of them
Also, as our returning Threadnought sailors know very well, you can't get to tortious interference based on "third parties doing things they're allowed to do"
If your contract says "hey, Amazon, you can terminate me without notice if I don't delete Lin Wood's account now that he's called for murder", and then you don't delete the account and get terminated, you can't say "no, actually, turtle law says that's a problem"
That's not "improper means" or "improper purpose"

It's (again) what you SPECIFICALLY agreed would happen if you did the things you actually did.
Bottom line - this suit is a heaping pile of garbage with no chance of any success at all. It won't even make it to discovery. Whatever they paid their lawyers for this - even if it was on contingency - was too much.
/fin

cc @DefiantlyFree you may be interested in the above

More from Akiva Cohen

Akiva Cohen
Akiva Cohen
@AkivaMCohen
OK, #Squidigation fans, I think we need to talk about the new Wisconsin suit Donald Trump filed - personally - in Federal Court last night. The suit is (as usual) meritless. But it's meritless in new and disturbing ways. This thread will be


Not, I hope, Seth Abramson long. But will see.

I apologize in advance to my wife, who would very much prefer I be billing time (today's a light day, though) and to my assistant, to whom I owe some administrative stuff this will likely keep me from 😃

First, some background. Trump's suit essentially tries to Federalize the Wisconsin Supreme Court complaint his campaign filed, which we discussed here.


If you haven't already, go read that thread. I'm not going to be re-doing the same analysis, and I'm not going to be cross-linking to that discussion as we go. (Sorry, I like you guys, and I see this as public service, but there are limits)

Also, @5DollarFeminist has a good stand-alone thread analyzing the new Federal complaint - it's worth reading as well, though some of the analysis will overlap.
TRUMP
Akiva Cohen
Akiva Cohen
@AkivaMCohen
So Dominion sued Rudy for defamation. How are they ever going to allege actual malice?
LAW
Advertisement
Akiva Cohen
Akiva Cohen
@AkivaMCohen
Dear Texas: When your argument is that election procedures were adopted in violation of the Electors clause, the only evidence you need to "marshal" is "what election procedures were adopted and how"

You don't need weeks, a magnifying glass, and Melissa Carone


Also, why is there no other forum? You couldn't have sued in Federal court in Georgia or PA in advance of the election because ...?

Oh, right. No standing. That's still a problem


Also, Texas? I feel like you should take that up with ... Texas


I kind of feel like "look, what you meant by Purcell was let's just wait until after the election and then invalidate ALL the votes" isn't necessarily the *strongest* argument


Also, you don't just get to make up a new principle of constitutional and election law and just call it "a variant of" Purcell (or anything else).

You can tell it's made up by the total absence of any citation to ANY case, ANYWHERE, saying that
LAW
Akiva Cohen
Akiva Cohen
@AkivaMCohen
Goddamn it, Texas, I don't have time for this today.

Fine. Fine. A brief thread. (Yesterday I said I'd do a brief thread on the Michigan decision and finished an hour and a half later. Can't let this be that, today).

OK. Texas filed a motion for leave to file a complaint against PA, GA, MI and WI in the Supreme Court. Someone else can lawsplain to you how that works, or you can google the highlighted rules, but briefly, this is a thing they can theoretically do


There is a MASSIVE contradiction at the heart of this complaint, and its doomed for other reasons, too (standing, laches, abstention)

They have three theories for why they can sue:
1) Violation of the Electors Clause of the Constitution ("the Constitution gives state legislatures exclusive control of the manner of selecting electors and judicial action can't change it)
2) "Counties applied different rules"


And 3) "you didn't have as strict voter ID requirements as we'd like, and that's unconstitutional for reasons"

That's it. That's the case
POLITICS
Akiva Cohen
Akiva Cohen
@AkivaMCohen
The judge in this case has now issued an absolutely brutal smackdown that you'll enjoy reading. It comes complete with a well-earned threat of sanctions.


Here's the decision. Some highlights follow

Pretty sure I said this, using slightly different words!


Hey, @questauthority, it sounds like Judge Boasberg was about as pleased about the long "none of this matters but we want to say it anyway" section as we expected him to be


You CANNOT run into court claiming there's an emergency and you need an expedited schedule so you can be heard before 1/6 and then just not bother serving anyone for 12 days
FOR LATER READ

More from Business

Cory Doctorow #BLM
Cory Doctorow #BLM
@doctorow
The early Disney company had several near-death experiences, some due to exogenous shocks and some self-inflicted (bad labor practices, weird technology choices), and all through it, a power struggle between "Roy people" (finance) and "Walt people" (tech/art).

1/


After WWII, the company was transformed, with Roy ascendant and financial discipline the order of the day. Walt - who struggled with depression - sought desperately for an escape from the company.

2/

He came up with plans to outfit a train with traveling exhibits that he would drive around the country, putting thousands of miles between him and his brother.

3/

Another plan called for Walt to build an ambitious model train system and transform his role in the company to showing people around his trains.

4/

In 1953, Walt came up with the plan that stuck: a park called "Disneyland" that would be his own fiefdom, a commercial project that would justify the kinds of R&D and experimentation that Walt doted on and Roy looked on as high-risk, potentially ruinous follies.

5/
BUSINESS
Andrew John Rainnie \U0001f3f4\U000e0067\U000e0062\U000e0073\U000e0063\U000e0074\U000e007f #amwriting
Andrew John Rainnie 🏴󠁧...
@AndrewRainnie
Over the last week, I've been blocked by various people, including an MSP, for allegedly being a conspiracy theorist, trying to sow division within @theSNP and #indy ranks.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I want independence for Scotland, plain and simple.

But I still have the right to challenge people if I think something is wrong, legally or morally, as recent events within the SNP seem to be.

But anyway, I'm not talking about that. Today I'm looking at the @NowScotlandNow logo.

I'm not a fan. Just to be clear, I want Scottish Independence. But the logo for the new organisation, unfortunately, doesn't work as well as the previous YES ones. It's a mix of the colour and the font used, which presumably is referencing Charlies Rennie Mackintosh.


The italics and thin font means it doesn't stand out. Plus, I associate Mackintosh more with Glasgow than Scotland as a whole. So I took some of the elements of the last two and looked at alternative fonts (that are all free BTW)

This font is called ChuckFive. It's big, bold and brash and you can read it a mile off.
BUSINESS
Advertisement
balajis.com
balajis.com
@balajis
A solo media founder like Rogan or Mr Beast can make as much money as a strong tech founder, with significantly less managerial stress.

Tech created this ecosystem but there’s a historical cultural bias in tech towards media as unprofitable. That changed a long time ago.

Many more angels that invest in people will invest in media founders. Many traditional media people will *become* media founders.

But not necessarily big companies. Just solo individuals or small groups doing content, like Notch doing Minecraft. Because media scales like code.

Increasingly feeling like “keeping the team size as small as possible, even to one person” is the unarticulated key to making media profitable.

Substack and all the creator tools are just the start of this ecosystem.


The process of converting social influencers into media founders (a trend that has been going on for 10+ years at this point) will be increasingly streamlined.

V1 is link-in-bio, Substack, and sponcon.

V2 likely involves more angels & tokenization a la @tryrollhq. What else?

Why lack of awareness? Influencer monetization numbers are not as public as tech numbers.

There isn’t a TechCrunch & CrunchBase for media founders, chronicling the valuations of influencers.

But that’d be quite valuable. If you are interested in doing this, please DM with demo.
BUSINESS
Brian Feroldi
Brian Feroldi
@BrianFeroldi
I own 7 stocks that are 15+ baggers (and counting)

Here are 10 traits they all have in common:

The data:

Stock / # of bags / purchase year:

$AMZN / 15+ / 2010
$FB / 15+ / 2012
$GOOG / 15+ / 2009
$MELI / 15+ / 2011
$CMG / 20+ / 2012
$NFLX / 60+ / 2010
$TSLA / 60+ / 2012

1: Founder-led

$AMZN - Bezos
$CMG - Ells
$FB- Zuck
$GOOG - Page
$MELI- Galperin
$NFLX - Hastings
$TSLA - Musk

Founders tend to be:
+Detail oriented
+Innovative
+Mission driven
+Think long-term
+Have skin/soul in the game

Look for founders!

2: Consumer-facing

All of these companies attract millions/billions of consumers

This eliminates customer concentration risk and enables long-term brand building

3: High sales growth

All of these companies were growing revenue 20%+ BEFORE I bought them

Sales growth is the engine that drives profit growth

Profit growth is the engine that drives stock appreciation

Find companies that can grow sales 20%+ for decades
BUSINESS
Nik Sharma
Nik Sharma
@mrsharma
@jspujji @RomeenSheth @ampush @GatewayX Down!
BUSINESS

You May Also Like

Erik Torenberg
Erik Torenberg
@eriktorenberg
1/ Here’s a list of conversational frameworks I’ve picked up that have been helpful.

Please add your own.

2/ The Magic Question: "What would need to be true for you


3/ On evaluating where someone’s head is at regarding a topic they are being wishy-washy about or delaying.

“Gun to the head—what would you decide now?”

“Fast forward 6 months after your sabbatical--how would you decide: what criteria is most important to you?”

4/ Other Q’s re: decisions:

“Putting aside a list of pros/cons, what’s the *one* reason you’re doing this?” “Why is that the most important reason?”

“What’s end-game here?”

“What does success look like in a world where you pick that path?”

5/ When listening, after empathizing, and wanting to help them make their own decisions without imposing your world view:

“What would the best version of yourself do”?
LIFE
Jaya_Upadhyaya
Jaya_Upadhyaya
@Jayalko1
GHATI SUBRAMANYA, DODDABALLAPURA (KAR)
#bharatmandir

One of the most important place for snake worship.
The murtis of Kartikeya and Narasimha are self-manifested.
There is an anthill which is opposite the shrine. Bhaktas pour milk on it as part of rituals.


Here Subramanya performed penance in the form of snake. He sought protection from Narsimha for Nagas from Sri Vishnu’s vehicle Garuda, known for his dislike towards serpents.
The Pushya Suddha Shasti is one of the biggest festivals here believed to be appearance day of Subramanya


It was in this region where Subramanya vanquished Ghatikasura, the demon. Hence called Ghati Subramanya.
Childless couples visit here to seek blessings for getting a child.
The installation of snake murtis near the shrine is believed to be an auspicious act.


The murti of Karthikeya with a seven headed cobra faces eastwards while Narasimha faces westwards.
To ensure that both are visible to bhaktas at the same time, a huge mirror is placed in the rear in the sanctum sanctorum.
ALL
Advertisement
Kaspars Ozolins
Kaspars Ozolins
@lettlander
THREAD: Meditations on marriage metaphors in Ruth

The book of Ruth is, of course, a story about a beautiful marriage. But even before the courtship and the wedding and the important genealogy at the end, we find interesting language that is strikingly reminiscent of Genesis 2:24


That important verse reads:

'Therefore a man shall leave [יַֽעֲזָב] his father and his mother and hold fast [וְדָבַ֣ק] to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.'

The verb עזב can be quite strong in force. For example, Joseph leaves behind [וַיַּעֲזֹ֤ב] his garment as he flees from Pharaoh's wife's sexual advances. Countless times, Israel is depicted abandoning the LORD, for example in Judg 2:12 [וַיַּעַזְב֞וּ], and going after other gods.

Likewise, the verb דבק is rather striking. Lot is mortified of disaster overtaking him [תִּדְבָּקַ֥נִי] as he flees from Sodom. Israel is commanded in Deut 10:20 to cling fast [תִדְבָּ֔ק] to the LORD and serve him and swear by his name.

Together they illustrate how radical God designed marriage to be. Marriage is a real severing of family relations in order to form a new, permanent bond with another human being.

Something very similar to this takes places in Ruth's life.
HISTORY
k\u0101rthik \u0b95\u0bbe\u0bb0\u0bcd\u0ba4\u0bcd\u0ba4\u0bbf\u0b95\u0bcd \u0915\u093e\u0930\u094d\u0924\u093f\u0915 \U0001f1ee\U0001f1f3\U0001f1ee\U0001f1f3\U0001f1ee\U0001f1f3 | Sanatani
kārthik கார்த்திக் कार...
@almightykarthik
Hello Dear Tweeples!

It’s Siddhars time of the week! Last week I shared story of Guru (Machamuni or Yogi Matsyendranath), this week I bring you information on his Shishya.

#Thread on Gorakanathar Siddhar.

@LostTemple7


His origin story is interesting, though I couldn’t verify it’s authenticity, so not sharing the story here. He’s shishya of Machamuni Siddhar and also learnt from Agasthiya Siddhar.

@HelloNNewman @RajiIndustani @Kishoreciyer1

Unlike other Siddhars, he is depicted as either with a Tiger or seated & wearing Tiger skin. While I couldn’t find any explanation for this. My interpretation is as follows:

Tiger is a predator that lurks around and attacks unexpectedly.


Our 5 indriyas and 5 vikitis also similar to Tiger, they lurk around and attacks our thoughts when we’re least expecting. Gorakkar is said to have mastered these aspects, thus to denote this, he shown with Tiger.

@Itishree001 @VarierSangitha @jananisampath

Gorakanathar or Gorakshnath (as he’s known in the Nath Sampraday) is celebrated Guru in both Northern and Southern part of India. He’s one of the NavNath in Nath Sampraday and also 18 Siddhars of Tamil tradition. During his life, he’s travelled Indian subcontinent extensively +
RELIGION , ALL
SK
SK
@sk_diary1
Krishna & Paarijaata apaharana #sculpture #story #Thread

Parijata tree was in Indraloka which was one of gifts he received from churning of Ocean to obtain Amrit.

This beautiful #sculpture depicts Indra Dev chasing Shri Krishna for stealing parijatha tree branch from Indralok


📸- sculpture on outer walls of Hoysaleswara temple, Halebeedu,Karnataka

Krishna has 4hands with Shankha,Chakra,Mace&Lotus holding Satyabhama tightly,mounted on Garuda. Garuda has a beautifully carved Parijata tree trunk in left hand& a weapon in his right hand, attacking Indra.

Other side is Indra,riding on Airavata.Indra can be seen attacking Krishna with his Vajrayutham.Airavata is charging towards Garuda.Wife of Indra can be seen in pillion seat.Just look at the Detailing of Garuda & Airavat sculptures.

So what led Krishna to steal parijatha tree👇

Narada Rishi once returning from Indralok collected few Parijatha flowers&reached Dwaraka.There he met Bhagwan Krishna&gave the heavenly flowers to him.Narada explained the greatness of Parijatha flowers & also said that these flowers must be given to the most loved ones.


Despite knowing Satyabhama’s anger,Krishna gave it to Rukmani Devi.Narada Rishi then went to palace of Satyabhama. He narrated whole incident that had happened.Satyabhama turned furious on hearing that Krishna gave Parijatha to Rukmini.Then Satyabhama shows her anger to Krishna.
ALL