On Mon, 30 Mar 2009, comex wrote: > On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 3:29 AM, Taral <tar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Did I miss something or do these arguments make no sense in a 1742 >> case against comex?
And finally, the hypocrisy of partnerships is revealed here. Proponents claim that partnerships can't have intents, but the origination and whole point of partnerships is that they can have things that persons have (such as intent). If "partnership=person" isn't a mockery, partnerships should be judged to have whatever intent their legal mechanisms allow their basis to express. > I only violated the contract if the PNP violated Rule 2215 by stating > that the proposal pool was empty. (For the record, I forgot about > that statement, though admittedly I should have remembered. If I had > remembered I could have easily avoided violating the rule by adding > other proposals to the distribution.) And Al Capone was caught for income tax evasion. ;) -G.
