Subject: Grady Ward to Scientology: NOTICE OF RESCISSION
This was served on scientology today:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"In order to obtain equity, one must do equity"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2
iQEVAwUBNxtdStnLHTvyz90zAQFaHgf/YT1irmeX4+9xPdm+10T3fqQ436I+NGLa
FIBPgHsFqcqxsicisdlKzjQWZ4dTyKI7rPUoVRiFu/eVYC4oopi7FkpwYXR57y01
19N7BFg0SqR5eqYBLKTtiiN8Xf65zRdP89QRM3d9aNvEgkinUSvfVcJi0NSkYFBd
mFAqCpNDdjT1U6kllkZ+IqVvYIHuekEJNiClRz4lG+2aDKQB+QV4FbDBxUrN55PN
eni5H71GpmwS233zsCaSvi7uNMotZU/UvgBSTZPT2ChqM8leYkOpa5aAgJFVMm1J
Sq86wb4x+kKV4KDePkd2ta3OIFZqTOkDl2HAZTyV+Er5WBjD+uI5Wg==
=PJsi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[Note: The Minton declarations describing the facts of the cult's
breach of contract and bad faith are available from my website under
"my work --> legal"]
--
Grady Ward grady@gradyward.com http://www.gradyward.com/
(707) 826-7712 174E E007 35C4 511B 7DB7 D782 A32E A234
*Verified* PGP signature *required* to authenticate message
Further facts
about this criminal empire may be found at
Operation Clambake and FACTNet.
Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.
From: grady@gradyward.com (Grady Ward)
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 16:45:53 GMT
Grady Ward
3449 Martha Court
Arcata, CA 95521-4884
Telephone (707) 826-7712
(707) 826-0360 facsimile
E-mail : grady@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
offer to return to you all consideration given me such as
forbearance of any claim(s) in the district court for
alleged copyright infringement, upon condition that you
likewise return or void all consideration that I have
tendered to you such as the $200 monthly payments, order and
consent to judgment and permanent injunction.
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Permanent Injunction as material elements of the rescinded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
Your client, R.T.C. and its attorneys have shown a clear
intention to dishonor the settlement negotiations entered
into between us by repeatedly breaching the contract's
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by
wrongfully trying to deprive me of the very income I need to
pay the $200 a month sum owed to you for life specified in
the May 12, 1998 settlement negotiations.fn.2 At least twice
Marty Rathbun, a member of the board of RTC and a
principal in the May 12, 1998 settlement negotiations has
tried tortiously and in bad faith to interfere with my
employment with Robert S. Minton and F.A.C.T.Net even though
there was no justifiable reason to do so.
The most recent example of this wrongful conduct on the part
of your client and its attorney, namely, Samuel D. Rosen,
Marty Rathbun, and Mike Rinder occurred on February 28, 1999
that a declaration under penalty of perjury I received on
April 5, 1999 from Robert S. Minton in which he testifies
that Marty Rathbun used false and defamatory statements that
I was a "convicted copyright infringer" in order to persuade
F.A.C.T.Net to terminate me. To wrongfully attempt to force
me to breach my obligation to pay you the $200 a month and
to thereby owe you $3,000,000.00 by default is a material
breach going to the heart of the executory contract..fn3
Considering that this behavior also jeopardizes my family
with young children who rely upon my meager income for food
and shelter is also outrageous and indefensible. And
although I have written you about the facts described in the
Minton declarations on March 22, 1999 in my successful
Opposition to your motion to strip me of my IFP status,
you pointedly did not deny their truth in your Reply.
I am issuing notice at this time even though I believe that
no valid settlement contract exists because under the law
the rescission remedy must be diligently pursued once the
facts justifying such rescission are known.fn.4
Very truly yours,
Grady Ward, in pro per, in forma pauperis
Attached:
1. April 5, 1999 Declaration of Robert S. Minton
2. November 12, 1998 Declaration of Robert S. Minton
1 A contract of settlement may not be rescinded partially. Larsen v
Johannes (1970, 1st Dist) 7 Cal App 3d 491, 86 Cal Rptr 744. Cal Civ
Code § 1688 (1999)
2 "A refusal or failure of a party to perform his part of the
contract, or a clear intention to violate it, or the annexation of
an unwarranted condition, gives the other party the right to
rescind." Loop Bldg. Co. v De Coo (1929) 97 Cal App 354, 275 P 881.
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. 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."
Cancellier v. Federated Dept. Stores, 672 F.2d 1312, cert. denied
103 S.Ct. 131 (9th Cir. 1982); Restatement (Second) of Contracts §
205 (1981); "Every contract imposes upon each party a duty of good
faith and fair dealing in its performance and its enforcement."
Carma Developers, Inc. v. Marathon Dev. Cal., Inc., 2 Cal. 4th 342,
371, 826 P.2d 710 (1992); The California Supreme court's analysis of
the state and applicability of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith
and Fair Dealing in Seaman's Direct Buying Service, Inc. v. Standard
Oil Co. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 752, at pp. 768-770 [206 Cal.Rptr. 354, 686
P.2d 1158]
4 Rescission within a reasonable time is necessary where it is
desired to rescind a contract for a breach thereof. Wenzel & H.
Const. Co. v Metropolitan Water Dist. (1940, CA9 Cal) 115 F2d 25.
Religious Technology Center, Inc. v. Grady Ward
No. C 96-20207-RMW (EAI)
April 19, 1999
Page 2 of 2
Click here for some additional truth about the Scientology crime syndicate:
XENU.NET
This web page (and The Skeptic Tank) is in no way connected with
nor part of the Scientology crime syndicate. To review the crime syndicate's
absurdly idiotic web pages, check out www.scientology.org or any one of the
many secret front groups the cult attempts to hide behind.
The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the
author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and
opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The
opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.