On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:31 AM, ais523 <callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On Sat, 2010-07-17 at 00:21 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote: >> LEFT IN A HUFF >> Waggie, Gecko, Kelly (x3!), Swann, KoJen, Zefram, >> Vlad, Andre, G., BobTHJ, P1-P100 >> Warrigal* > > I CFJ on the statement "P1 has a Patent Title". > Arguments: P1 was a contract designed for a scam, and does not really > model any sort of agreement. Is it, therefore, still an entity, given > that contracts have been repealed?
Why would it not being an agreement make it not an entity?
