Grady Ward to Scientology: NOTICE OF RESCISSION
Fredric L. Rice
Hausherr) wrote:
>> Permanent Injunction as material elements of the rescinded
>> settlement contract.fn.1
>
>You should indeed have a court do it. As far as I understand, the
>settlement contract does not say anything about scientology spreading
>lies about you. Gerry Armstrong had a similar problem.
>
>Instead, why not sue Marty-boy for libel and interference with business?
Or sue the crime syndicate's bosses who are controlling the followers?
Neal Hamel
wrote:
>This was served on scientology today:
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>"In order to obtain equity, one must do equity"
>
>
>Grady Ward
>3449 Martha Court
>Arcata, CA 95521-4884
>Telephone (707) 826-7712
>(707) 826-0360 facsimile
>E-mail : gr...@gradyward.com
>http://www.gradyward.com/
>
>April 19, 1999
>
>
>
>Thomas R. Hogan
>Law Offices of Thomas R. Hogan
>10 Almaden Boulevard, Suite 535
>San Jose, CA 95113
>
>
> Re: Religious Technology Center, Inc. v. Grady Ward
> No. C-96-20207-RMW (EAI)
>
>
>Dear Mr. Hogan,
>
> This letter is to give notice to your client that I elect
> under California Civil Code § 1689(b) to rescind the
> settlement contract that you believe we entered into on May
> 12, 1998. Pursuant to California Civil Code § 1691, I hereby
Grady,
I do hope that this notice does in fact cause recission of your
settlement. I will be relieved to see you get out from under what I
believe to be a punative settlement.
-Neal Hamel
Tilman Hausherr
wrote:
>The California Civil Code was amended back in 1961 to the effect
>that a party need only contact the other party -- rather than the
>court -- when effecting rescission. I am only going to make a
>motion because there is a judicial act involved in the settlement
>contract.
>
>It doesn't matter at all that the settlement negotiations did not
>explicitly forbid bad faith behavior on the part of the parties..
>
>In California -- as in most states -- there is an implied term
>in every contract demanding good faith execution of the
>contract by the parties. This has been explicitly upheld
>and even expanded in California since last century.
>
>You are right that some injuries by RTC might be considered
>a tort *as well as* a breach of contract. Often however you
>must choose your remedy. If you choose to treat as a tort
>then you can't treat as a breach and so on.
>
>Under the law, I elect to treat as a breach and to effect
>rescission.
>
>You are right that their defamation of me would be
>pretty open and shut in court, I think. Falsly accusing someone
>of breaking the law is a prima facie libel.
However, Gerry Armstrong did litigate it in California, and the court
upheld the settlement, although scientology had done a lot of "bad
faith" stuff with him (and still do).
Tilman
--
Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP4]
til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/#cos
Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails.
Clearwater 1998 pictures: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/4497/clearwater/
Los Angeles 1998 pictures: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/4497/losangeles1998/
Find broken links on your web site: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/xenulink.html
Annoy scientology by buying books: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/bookstore.html
Dave Bird,....ARS FishMonger ...><_'>...<_"....
>>> As soon as practicable, I will also make a motion in
>>> District Court to set aside the Order, Final Judgment and
>>> Permanent Injunction as material elements of the rescinded
>>> settlement contract.fn.1
>>
>>You should indeed have a court do it. As far as I understand, the
>>settlement contract does not say anything about scientology spreading
>>lies about you. Gerry Armstrong had a similar problem.
>>
>>Instead, why not sue Marty-boy for libel and interference with business?
>
>The California Civil Code was amended back in 1961 to the effect
>that a party need only contact the other party -- rather than the
>court -- when effecting rescission. I am only going to make a
>motion because there is a judicial act involved in the settlement
>contract.
I would be surprised if it were that easy to revoke the terms
of settling a lawsuit, or people would be doing it all the time
when the terms got irksome i.e. claiming some bad faith -- not
withstanding that your claim sounds quite well founded -- and
writing to the other party revoking settlement.
OTOH another court might find itself having to consider
whether the settlement truly was agreed upon by the parties
and whether judges can simply write down as settled what
they THINK the terms might or should be (rather than
proceeding to trial if the parties don't actually agree
and sign an exact form of words).
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |{a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"}{/a}_____________|/_______| L
and{a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"}{/a}XemuSP5
gerry armstrong
wrote:
>This was served on scientology today:
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>"In order to obtain equity, one must do equity"
Clean hands make a happy life.
>
>Dear Mr. Hogan,
>
> This letter is to give notice to your client that I elect
> under California Civil Code § 1689(b) to rescind the
> settlement contract that you believe we entered into on May
> 12, 1998.
<snip wonderful letter>
>
> Very truly yours,
>
>
>
>Grady Ward, in pro per, in forma pauperis
>
>3 "The covenant of good faith finds particular application in
>situations where one party is invested with a discretionary power
>affecting the rights of another. Such power must be exercised in
>good faith." Marsu, B.V. v. The Walt Disney Company, 1999 U.S. App.
>LEXIS 5413 (CA9 Cal, March 25, 1999); One breach of the implied
>covenant is to attempt to prevent the other party from performing
>her contractual duties or satisfying contractual conditions.
That is precisely what we argued in $cientology v. Armstrong. Before I
ever breached the "agreement" (without getting into its illegality or
unconstitutionality) $cientology acted by black PRing me in
publications and court documents. $cientology prevented me from
satisying the contractual conditions by attacking my credibility and
character following the "settlement."
>See,
>e.g., Monotype Corp. v. International Typeface Corp., 43 F.3d 443,
>451 (9th Cir. 1994); "California law recognizes implied covenant of
>good faith and fair dealing and certain contracts that neither
>party will do anything to deprive the other of benefit of contract."
Yep. We argued this.
I have been proposing to $cientology for 17 years that they change
their philosophy from fair game to fair play (fair dealing works too),
but they haven't. They don't deal fair.
VWD Grady. I look forward to each installment.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
Steve Zadarnowski
>This was served on scientology today:
Oooooh. That made feel good!
S
Steve Zadarnowski
I'd like to know how the sporgers cancelled the word "me"
out of the above sentence! I *swear* it was in there
when I hit SEND...
S