On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, comex wrote: > On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> (3) the AFO, in becoming, of its own mechanisms, a party to the Bank >> contract, has made actions and adjustments required of its whole self >> (e.g. its constituent agreement) subject to the equity court. > > Even if this statement had any legal basis whatsoever (it doesn't), it > would violate the R101 (iv) and (v) rights of the AFO's basis.
This is just balls. Complete and utter balls. The partnership claims to be a person. That claim is based on its ability to take responsibility for its actions. It created mechanism for agreeing to things, and if it breaks its own mechanisms, it has no rights to the claim of person. If you wish to claim that this shell-game and a duck behind a nonsense interpretation of R101 devolves you of responsibilities (be it with theft, failure to live up to vote marketing, failure to apologize, or other complete disregard for the game), you can go play a game with my three- year-old, who seems to similarly believe in lack of legal consequences. You may also wish to ask if we really want to continually pick up your messes, the way I ask that of my three-year old. I am glad that this was delivered in its pre-trial phase, for the "real" judgement, reading your response, will be harsher. OTHER MEMBERS OF THE AFO, you may want to work on protecting the contract and your personal involvement with comex's legal problems. -Goethe
