Posted by parhad (188.8.131.52) on October 03, 2001 at 10:43:12:
In Reply to: Contracts posted by parhad on October 03, 2001 at 10:27:02:
The simplest kind is the written one, but even there you can easily screw it up, even with lawyers all around, and it can be voided or loopholed out of. Verbal or oral contracts, the old handshake, are legal agreements and can be as binding as the written kind. However, it is less likely that you can enforce all the sorts of clauses and "sub" clauses you could with a well written one. But you can enforce the basic core of a verbal agreement. To do so you need either witnesses OR, "precedent"..."usage"...in other words a history, a record of a relationship or agreement that, while it was never written down and signed by both parties, still both parties have been acting for some significant period of time AS IF it had been a written contract all along, with expectations and privileges on both sides.
As I said, you couldn't as easily claim that there had also been all sorts of sidebars and sub-agreements, unless both parties agreed, but you COULD legally claim that an agreement, an understanding, therefore a "contract" had been in force between the parties, just a general agreement, nothing too specific. That's all I'm claiming...no subtleties, just the expectation, based on precedent and usage, that I would be allowed to do what I had done for years...display sculpture, sell and get donors for the public monuments.
There are many factors in my relationship with the Federation and even with Jackie which would satisfy such a definition of a contract, even though one had never been written down in the past. And there are many clear violations of such a "contract" in the current issues between us, not to mention evidence that contracts and letters of agreement, even when written down and signed, mean nothing , are not binding anyway on these parties so that the claim that things "must be in writing", where the Federation or Jackie are concerned, has no meaning.
What they are doing is presenting their one-sided and lop-sided version of events to their advisors and legal types, leaving out all the details which would be not only embarassing to have to admit to, as they will have to do in court, but would shoot a hole through the "case" among them and their friends and supporters. I can imagine how they're framing the case to make it sound perfectly reasonable and legal in every way. That's what courts are for and why you have an impartial person up there judging.
I've told the entire story to my lawyers and they DON'T believe me...they doubt very much that things could actually have proceeded the way I relate them. Because if you tell the entire story, it IS ridiculous and so shot full of holes and questions that this will only become obvious when all the facts are laid out. Jackie's vindictive hand becomes SO apparent that one is stunned...and Atour's caving in to her, at the same time that she was humiliating him in public, also becomes SO apparent that you wonder what was really going on. Their efforts to do all they could to harm me personally and my work AND the monument that Jackie had supposedly JUST finished trying to install (after I was gone)and the monument Atour HIMSELF and the Federation is sponsoring (The Hammurabi)...their efforts to cripple and hurt BOTH projects are SO clearly evident, that you begin to wonder what THEY were really trying to achieve. And that is exactly what a judge will want to, will have to, determine if he is to resolve this whole thing...and it is his job to understand, not listen to one side, no matter how smooth or well-jeweled...for the more respectful, the more "intelligent" and cultured SEEMING...the more rational and professional and serious they may SEEM to be...makes it even harder to reconcile that image they may wish to project, with the ugly, stupid and just plain "mean" reality of their actions in regard to me, my sculpture OR the monuments.
They would almost be better off acting the unlettered boors they behaved as at the convention and before when dealing with me, rather than the image of urbanity and common sense they are going to try to porject...almost.
Jackie "looks" so good and "sounds" so good that she was able to brush off the first person to call her on my behalf...and that's as far as she's used to going...that initial "Flash" has always served her well when dealing with us "dummies", and others, before...it's what impresses her lackeys so. John too had become accustomed to have that "Senator" and "Secretary General" and all those nice sounding empty phrases he reels off in his sleep, do the trick for him in the past. But, If you just persist, don't get "dazzled" by all that surface shine and glitter...if you perist like I am going to if it takes another 13 years...you will see what I saw from the beginning, and what I will show you all and the courts real soon. Just beyond that skin-deep layer of polish and suave demeanor lies the vulgar and crass reality of what these people and so many of those who "lead" us, really are. It's easy now for them, and the easier the better for it will dull them and lull them into self-complacency.
I didn't "do" anything to turn the tables on those goons in Chicago and bring Sargon off that podium, except use the ammunition they provided. It will be more of the same this time...only there is NO taking it back...no settlement...the WHOLE point is NOT to win a settlement...but to get justice, justice for all of us, and that will not come by putting any money in my pocket, though that will repay me somewhat and hurt them where they can feel it...it will come when we have the chance to see for ourselves the illegal, fraudulent and unjust and personally motivated vendettas and envy and petty jealousies which demean our entire Heritage and frighten away our young people who are the only hope we have.
These people have nothing but contempt for us all. It is as errant children that they seek to lead us....silly boys and girls who must be humored and slapped down for their own good every once in a while by a patient but increasingly exasperated "parent" or guardian. We are not their children...but we DO allow ourselves to be overly impressed, as impressionable children do, by vain titles or the "rich kid" on the block whose toys and home we wish to know better.
Post a Followup