The point was his attitude and conditions of the book we open. The broker who was working for us in this instance and us would of carried our own contract forward but he had another idea which as you can see was a poor choice. We got our capital back and warrants. The Feds had another idea on how they wanted to handle it. We did have a recourse but would not submit our position. In the end the Judge agreed with our specific view of the contract. Would I construct another OTC contract as a CDO or similar? Since, did they redefine equity, doubtful, but we already had that discussion on terms of House and Equity.
The basis of the ruling is this.
Earlier surety for the enforcement was free man becoming no man, of "whatever estate or condition he may be" and introduced the phrase "due process of law" for "lawful judgement of his peers or the law of the land" So what rights do investors have since they are which class in true contextual reality.
So called unique allures and variety of strategies. Caveat emptor was first laid down as a principle in United States law in 1817, in a decision written by Chief Justice John Marshall for Laidlaw v. Organ.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11- ... r-policies
They go back since no man and due process has already been the Law of the Land.
The discussion was Surety.
The discussion is the annihilation of the Letter to the Constitutional Republic.
When the Office will not fulfill duty is not an Office. The older children understand this.
The broker of the movement is a criminal enterprise. The House discussion we had here was "no man status" since it had no
no way to deny House and Equity to dilute Surety.
As it was said you have no Army so you have no Law to enforce from the a bench.
Cavanaugh was the tip of the spear to destroy the Republic.
Even Obama and Reid said as much on the commitment of Border to Law.
I did a little more, bringing my total gain to $508 for the day. That may be all for today.