On 20 Jan 2000 01:39:36 -0800, Arnie Lerma <www.lermanet.com> <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Reposter says...
> This is why the empire has had every effort to use thier
> "non disclosure agreements and bonds THROWN out of court"
You're right, except in my case.
In my case, this criminal cult of a church, has been given $300,000 in *liquidated* damages and had me ordered to jail for responding to $cientology's attacks on me.
I am not unglad that $cientology has done all the nasty or illegal things to me to silence me, because this record can be used by anyone the cult ever attempts to silence judicially, or even extrajudicially, in the future. I can testify in fully documented color for days on this subject.
> They are a LIE and unenforcable in a court of law
That will be the judicial ruling, either agreed to by $cientology or stated in an appellate opinion.
I signed $cientology's non-disclosure agreement very logically because of two main facts. $cientology stated through my lawyer, Mike Flynn, that with my signing they were ceasing fair game against everyone forever. And Flynn stated that the agreement, or rather the prohibitions and penalties in the agreement, were "not worth the paper they're printed on."
And Flynn was right. But $cientology lied. They picked up their fair game campaign before the ink was dry. In fact they never did intend to change anything. They had fair game programs just waiting for Gerry Armstrong to sign their fair game agreement.
> You were just supposed to THINK they had you by your uhuhs.
Anyone who has been led to believe that such $cientology non-disclosure agreement is legal and enforceable, and who altered his behavior as a result of such belief, when he wakes up to this fact, I would say, although I am not a lawyer, that he has a civil rights claim against the cult *****AND ITS LAWYERS*****.
> TALK Tell your story!
It worked for me. Because people have spoken out we can call the criminal cult a criminal cult for being the criminal cult it is.
> They can't do a thing but snap madly!
Some day soon in California. Your move DM.
© Gerry Armstrong
Title: Is joining a choice? Fraud is not consent
Author: [email protected] (Kristi Wachter)
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999
Peaches raised an interesting point in another thread:
> This is where I feel called upon to wonder if "choosing" something which
> has been misrepresented to one, is "choosing" at all. My experience of
> life is that once the misrepresentation has been discovered, that is
> where choice enters into the matter.
According to California law (I LOVE the Internet!), consent is not consent when obtained through duress, menace, fraud, undue influence, or mistake.
I post this not because Peach was asking a question about the law, but rather to show that society has collectively stated that the choices we make, and our responsibility for them, are affected by things like undue influence and fraud.
1565. The consent of the parties to a contract must be:
1. Free; 2. Mutual; and, 3. Communicated by each to the other.
1566. A consent which is not free is nevertheless not absolutely void, but may be rescinded by the parties, in the manner prescribed by the Chapter on Rescission.
1567. An apparent consent is not real or free when obtained through:
1. Duress; 2. Menace; 3. Fraud; 4. Undue influence; or, 5. Mistake.
1568. Consent is deemed to have been obtained through one of the causes mentioned in the last section only when it would not have been given had such cause not existed.
1569. Duress consists in:
1. Unlawful confinement of the person of the party, or of the husband or wife of such party, or of an ancestor, descendant, or adopted child of such party, husband, or wife;
2. Unlawful detention of the property of any such person; or,
3. Confinement of such person, lawful in form, but fraudulently obtained, or fraudulently made unjustly harrassing or oppressive.
1570. Menace consists in a threat:
1. Of such duress as is specified in Subdivisions 1 and 3 of the last section;
2. Of unlawful and violent injury to the person or property of any such person as is specified in the last section; or,
3. Of injury to the character of any such person.
1571. Fraud is either actual or constructive.
1572. Actual fraud, within the meaning of this Chapter, consists in any of the following acts, committed by a party to the contract, or with his connivance, with intent to deceive another party thereto, or to induce him to enter into the contract:
1. The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true;
2. The positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it, of that which is not true, though he believes it to be true;
3. The suppression of that which is true, by one having knowledge or belief of the fact;
4. A promise made without any intention of performing it; or,
5. Any other act fitted to deceive.
1573. Constructive fraud consists:
1. In any breach of duty which, without an actually fraudulent intent, gains an advantage to the person in fault, or any one claiming under him, by misleading another to his prejudice, or to the prejudice of any one claiming under him; or,
2. In any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent, without respect to actual fraud.
1574. Actual fraud is always a question of fact.
1575. Undue influence consists:
1. In the use, by one in whom a confidence is reposed by another, or who holds a real or apparent authority over him, of such confidence or authority for the purpose of obtaining an unfair advantage over him;
2. In taking an unfair advantage of another's weakness of mind; or,
3. In taking a grossly oppressive and unfair advantage of another's necessities or distress.
1576. Mistake may be either of fact or law.
1577. Mistake of fact is a mistake, not caused by the neglect of a legal duty on the part of the person making the mistake, and consisting in:
1. An unconscious ignorance or forgetfulness of a fact past or present, material to the contract; or,
2. Belief in the present existence of a thing material to the contract, which does not exist, or in the past existence of such a thing, which has not existed.
1578. Mistake of law constitutes a mistake, within the meaning of this Article, only when it arises from:
1. A misapprehension of the law by all parties, all supposing that they knew and understood it, and all making substantially the same mistake as to the law; or,
2. A misapprehension of the law by one party, of which the others are aware at the time of contracting, but which they do not rectify.
the activist formerly known as "Jour" (before $cientology outed me)
I think $cientology is hurting people and breaking the law, and I want them to stop it. See http://www.scientology-lies.com for more. Can you say "Xenu?" ... I knew that you could.