<<I did in fact answer you below. The fact that you still attempt to ignore my post demonstrates that you are not interested in real debate on the issues>>
I did not ignore your post you just did not answer any questions. It is very easy when you are not interested in a real debate to try to change the subject to me personally or accuse me of not being interested in a real debate. I don't even know where to start. Let's start with alliance.
You say:
<<My own Webster's defines "alliance" as "a bond or connection between families,states, parties,or individuals...an association to further the common interests of the members..." >> You are being so rediculous it is not even funny. An alliance can not be formed and an entity can not join it without one entity even knowing it existed. Do you believe that agreeing to negotiate with somebody to see you might work together automaticly makes you a member of whatever alliance they say you are a member of?
<A jury will get jury instructions on the use of plain English right out of the dictionary >> A jury will know that a person can not form, and become a member of an alliance without there knowledge. A jury will know that you can't go out and take anyone who has signed an agreement with you and issue a PR wich says they are all members of some alliance that they are not even aware of. Come on! That is pure FRAUD. Even if the people did agree negotiate to see if they would work with you. I know, I know if the negotion works out, then they would have a business relationship.
<<Seems the PR was okay, except some of the words>>
Yeah, the words where they commited fraud.
<<For your information, Empire's president did review a draft press release four days before the Feb. 28 PR, but it was apparently further revised and then posted>>
Yeah so says someone. Forgive me if at this time I give a little more credence to the SEC than a company that employees the likes of agropolys (sp?)and gives away free stock to some internet posters. This is from their agreement:
4.4 The parties agree to use their best effort to avoid disclosure of the fact or object of their negotiation and to restrict all internal communications to those recipients to whom such information must be disclosed in order to effectively conduct negotiations. Except as otherwise required by law, the parties agree not to issue any press releases or make any public announcements regarding the negotiations without prior written approval of the other.
If they did infact get prior written aproval than that should be pretty even to verify. If they did not then I do not see how you can argue that this was proper?
My wife calls,
Later. |
