the four corners rule

[pleasuredome]

Four Corners Rule

(n) Four Corners Rule requires to interpret the meaning and understanding of the provisions contained in a document by considering the overall meaning and intention of that document. In such an interpretation of document, the external factors will not influence the meaning. But the meaning of a sentence or clause is influenced by the document as a whole.

http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/four-corners-rule.htm


i sent off a credit card agreement on tuesday, and what i did was put a box around my signature. today i have received a new unsigned credit card agreement with no explanation. i take it that they dont like me putting a box around my signature, so i'll do the same again :D

[boots]

Four Corners Rule

(n) Four Corners Rule requires to interpret the meaning and understanding of the provisions contained in a document by considering the overall meaning and intention of that document. In such an interpretation of document, the external factors will not influence the meaning. But the meaning of a sentence or clause is influenced by the document as a whole.

http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/four-corners-rule.htm


i sent off a credit card agreement on tuesday, and what i did was put a box around my signature. today i have received a new unsigned credit card agreement with no explanation. i take it that they dont like me putting a box around my signature, so i'll do the same again :D

Brilliant:)

Why. What does the box signify?

.

[pleasuredome]

my understanding is that when you put a word, sentence or paragraph in a box on a document, it completely seperates what is in the box from the text outside of it. basicaly using a box creates another document on the document.

what the CC company is doing in my case is only getting me to sign within a 'signature box' of which includes the text:

by signing you agree to be bound by the consumer credit act

so by putting a box around my signature it excludes the above statement.

what the 'signature box' is doing is excluding the terms & conditions, so there cannot be a contract because of that. and as winston shrout says, they cant contract you because they cannot give you consideration

[lase]

This is very cloudy.

I've got a letter through this morning on about FINAL DEMAND from the council. It's a parking ticket if I recollect. But on the doc there is a series of boxes, and within the top two are my name and address as in the following 'Joe Bloggs' so NOT in capitals. Is it stuff within the boxes that doesn't exist, or stuff without boxes that doesn't exist?

[yozhik]

This is very cloudy.

I've got a letter through this morning on about FINAL DEMAND from the council. It's a parking ticket if I recollect. But on the doc there is a series of boxes, and within the top two are my name and address as in the following 'Joe Bloggs' so NOT in capitals. Is it stuff within the boxes that doesn't exist, or stuff without boxes that doesn't exist?

Inside the box is "invisible" or separate from the surroundings.

So if I write a sentence [explaining how much of a wanker you are] with anything in a box; you can't see it [you blind cunt], or the surrounding environment and that which is in the box is mutually exclusive or not necessarily joined [like your brain to your body].

:D


Sorry ... couldn't resist some frivolity.

OK ... maybe this might be of some interest and relevance;

How to use Brackets

1. The term 'brackets' is commonly used to describe both square brackets [these] and round brackets (these) - whose technical name is 'parentheses'.

2. The difference between the two is that round brackets are used to indicate an aside, an associated remark, or an additional piece of information which is closely related to the main subject of the sentence in which it is placed.

Goodwin argues that Thompson's policies (of which he clearly disapproves) would only increase the national debt.

3. Square brackets on the other hand are usually used to indicate that something has been added to the original text by someone editing, for purposes of clarification or comment.

The reporter added that this woman [Mrs Wood] had suffered severe injuries.

A mother wrote that her son was too 'fritened [sic] to go to school'.

6. Any statement within brackets should be grammatically independent of the sentence in which it occurs. That is, the sentence should be complete, even if the contents of the brackets were to be removed.

source (http://www.mantex.co.uk/samples/brackets.htm)

... and another explanation;

"Square brackets [...] are used mainly to enclose material—usually added by someone other than the original writer—that does not belong to the surrounding text. In quoted matter, reprints, anthologies, and other nonoriginal material, square brackets enclose editorial interpolations, explanations, translations of foreign terms, or corrections. Sometimes the bracketed material replaces rather than amplifies the original word or words."

source (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080515064149AADygjB)

[tien an]

I think your explanations (frivolous or not) were pretty good pleasuredome and yozhik.

I have another example:

We see it every time we post here and want something in italics or bold.
As we're writing and putting the text in italics and bold, the program behind this website (XHTML with CSS stylesheet) knows that the text in brackets [...] and <...> is not to be seen on the finished product (the forum).

Hey...it's a very modern example; not exactly pertaining to law, but to programming 'grammar'.

Another example is if you go to the 'Darren Pollard arrested' thread, you will read how he refused to enter court no.7 because it had an enclosed dock, which in all probability (I'm not certain), means that had he stepped into that dock, he could have been tried and not have been present (to defend himself).

Correct me if I'm wrong someone, please.

Heavenly Peace,
tian an.

[girlgye]

That is a bloody good explanation TT - the best.

[lase]

Well possibly yeah. But how would you put those facts into use in order to counter a threat like the one I've just received.

"I'm sending this back as I'm not sure who it's directed at. Because, allthough I see my name and address (Not in block capitals) in the box at the head of the letter, they're inside boxes so the printing doesn't really exist. Please advise."

I can't see that working.

[pri01]

Four Corners Rule

(n) Four Corners Rule requires to interpret the meaning and understanding of the provisions contained in a document by considering the overall meaning and intention of that document. In such an interpretation of document, the external factors will not influence the meaning. But the meaning of a sentence or clause is influenced by the document as a whole.

http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/four-corners-rule.htm


i sent off a credit card agreement on tuesday, and what i did was put a box around my signature. today i have received a new unsigned credit card agreement with no explanation. i take it that they dont like me putting a box around my signature, so i'll do the same again :D

My daughter applied for a capital one credit card on line. She completed the application and then had to tick that she agreed with the terms and conditions. She has not been sent anything to sign and her credit card has been delivered. I've not tried so I don't know how the site works, but where is the contract when there is no signature from any party?

[rosix]

My daughter applied for a capital one credit card on line. She completed the application and then had to tick that she agreed with the terms and conditions. She has not been sent anything to sign and her credit card has been delivered. I've not tried so I don't know how the site works, but where is the contract when there is no signature from any party?

yea I'd been thinking recently that whenever they give you cards/credit etc. in this manner they always rely on being able to contract later if needed

[the worm that turned]

My daughter applied for a capital one credit card on line. She completed the application and then had to tick that she agreed with the terms and conditions. She has not been sent anything to sign and her credit card has been delivered. I've not tried so I don't know how the site works, but where is the contract when there is no signature from any party?

she ticked the box surely that means that the tick is outside of the "contract" as it is within a box :D

[pri01]

she ticked the box surely that means that the tick is outside of the "contract" as it is within a box :D


Nice one:D.

[yozhik]

A "signature" does not have to be handwritten.

As a reference/example, read the Bills of Exchange Act to comprehend this important point and to see how it is done.

If you have a law dictionary lying around, or access to one, it might also be worth having a gander at the word "signature" and comparing it to the word "autograph".

Many law dictionaries won't actually have the word "autograph" within it; I wonder why ... :rolleyes:

[merlincove]

Well possibly yeah. But how would you put those facts into use in order to counter a threat like the one I've just received.

"I'm sending this back as I'm not sure who it's directed at. Because, allthough I see my name and address (Not in block capitals) in the box at the head of the letter, they're inside boxes so the printing doesn't really exist. Please advise."

I can't see that working.

hi lase :D

just send it back and say you do not understand their claim against you as a human being, as per usual freeman notices, as k for proof of claim etc - search the threads for more info and have a looksee at fmotl / tpuc for template mails

[number_6]

My daughter applied for a capital one credit card on line. She completed the application and then had to tick that she agreed with the terms and conditions. She has not been sent anything to sign and her credit card has been delivered. I've not tried so I don't know how the site works, but where is the contract when there is no signature from any party?

The terms and conditions will be displayed on the webpage and you have the option to click on the "Accept" or "Decline" button. Normally when you click on "accept" there will then be a "Confirm" button to click, and your contract is formed.

[seamus]

The terms and conditions will be displayed on the webpage and you have the option to click on the "Accept" or "Decline" button. Normally when you click on "accept" there will then be a "Confirm" button to click, and your contract is formed.

Hate to necromance a thread, but this is misinformation (probably not intentional)

No contract is formed, for no real consideration has changed hands.
No contract is formed, for no offer was made by a contract-able party. A corporation has no mind, therefore cannot enter into contract.

You are missing 2 of the 4 elements of contract.

However, if you dabble in sorcery (all credit contracts amount to sorcery), you will get burned eventually. The consequences will come to you from a different direction, perhaps, but there is no dabbling in sorcery allowed for those who want to be sovereign. Make no mistake about it. That's why commercial redemption doesn't work. Just like the LoA, it depends on luring you into separateness.

peace,

s

[aulus agerius]

Hate to necromance a thread, but this is misinformation (probably not intentional)

No contract is formed, for no real consideration has changed hands.
No contract is formed, for no offer was made by a contract-able party. A corporation has no mind, therefore cannot enter into contract.

You are missing 2 of the 4 elements of contract.

However, if you dabble in sorcery (all credit contracts amount to sorcery), you will get burned eventually. The consequences will come to you from a different direction, perhaps, but there is no dabbling in sorcery allowed for those who want to be sovereign. Make no mistake about it. That's why commercial redemption doesn't work. Just like the LoA, it depends on luring you into separateness.

peace,

s


I also hate thread necromancy, especially when it is done in order to say things which are not true.

In a credit card contract there is consideration. The consideration is your promise to repay what you borrow, plus interest, plus charges (etc... etc) and the credit card company's promise to lend you money (i.e. to pay money to you through an ATM or to merchants who accept the cards when you present the card).

Who says that companies cannot contract? That is nonsense. Consider, for example, Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co., that is a classic contract case. Contracts with and between companies are enforced all the time.

[seamus]

I also hate thread necromancy, especially when it is done in order to say things which are not true.

In a credit card contract there is consideration. The consideration is your promise to repay what you borrow, plus interest, plus charges (etc... etc) and the credit card company's promise to lend you money (i.e. to pay money to you through an ATM or to merchants who accept the cards when you present the card).
But undisclosed facts mitigate that consideration. Lack of full disclosure in a contract constitutes fraud. What the credit card company intentionally fails to tell you is that the origin of the money that they are supposedly lending you is something that belongs to YOU; namely, your signature. Without that, they would not be able to loan-into-existence the "money" that they are supposedly "lending" you. Get that fact straight. The money a credit card company "loans" you didn't exist until you "borrowed" it. And that could not have happened without your signature. The CC company "loans" you money that they never had possession of! It's the same as me selling shares of the Brooklyn Bridge. How is that "real consideration"? Please, I'd love to see your twisted logic on that.

And how is it, again, that they feel they can expect all that money that came from YOU to come "back" (irony quotes) to them PLUS USURY? It is only through your ignorance that this is allowed to happen. Not to mention that "money" is not, nor has it been for many years, real consideration, except among those who willingly accept it as such. The fact that I am faced with undue hardship should I attempt to use only real consideration in my dealings with my fellow man precludes me from being considered as complicit if I but state that I am not complicit. Tort, anyone? I have a nice fresh slice right here!
Who says that companies cannot contract?I do, and so does common sense. Corporations exist only on paper and have no mind or will with which to do anything, least of all create a contract. That is nonsense. Consider, for example, Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co., that is a classic contract case. Contracts with and between companies are enforced all the time.Because the parties involved have a vested interest in maintaining limited liability. It is a farce they go along with for the sake of being shielded from the consequences of the actions of the Corporation. Sheesh, someone throwing around case law like that should know better.

It's a RUSE and You are the Mark!

Which is why I wrote that paragraph warning about the dangers of sorcery. I don't participate in the credit sham anymore.

The only obvious reason I ended up here today was I did a google search for something to do with undisputed affidavits standing as truth in commerce. (had to deal with a wayward County government today).

Next, please! :cool:

[aulus agerius]

But undisclosed facts mitigate that consideration. Lack of full disclosure in a contract constitutes fraud.

Ok, first, where do you get the idea that consideration can be "mitigated"? Do you mean "failure of consideration"? Second, a credit card contract is not a contract of the upmost good faith (as an insurance contract is) so full disclosure is not a legal requirement. Why do you think it is?


What the credit card company intentionally fails to tell you is that the origin of the money that they are supposedly lending you is something that belongs to YOU; namely, your signature. Without that, they would not be able to loan-into-existence the "money" that they are supposedly "lending" you. Get that fact straight. The money a credit card company "loans" you didn't exist until you "borrowed" it. And that could not have happened without your signature. The CC company "loans" you money that they never had possession of! It's the same as me selling shares of the Brooklyn Bridge. How is that "real consideration"? Please, I'd love to see your twisted logic on that.


Clearly, you believe all of this, however, what matters is whether the courts will accept it, for example if you use a credit card and then refuse to pay back the "money". Will the courts agree that there was no contract? No. They won't.


And how is it, again, that they feel they can expect all that money that came from YOU to come "back" (irony quotes) to them PLUS USURY?


Well... it is what you agree to in the contract, isn't it? Perhaps banks should not be allowed to lend money at such high rates of interest, but that is a question of policy - a question of what the law ought to be, not what the law is.


It is only through your ignorance that this is allowed to happen.


Actually, I've never had a credit card. I can see the rates of interest banks charge. So I save and don't spend what I haven't got.


Not to mention that "money" is not, nor has it been for many years, real consideration, except among those who willingly accept it as such. The fact that I am faced with undue hardship should I attempt to use only real consideration in my dealings with my fellow man precludes me from being considered as complicit if I but state that I am not complicit.


And this has what to do with consideration?


Tort, anyone?


Which tort, exactly?


Corporations exist only on paper and have no mind or will with which to do anything, least of all create a contract.Because the parties involved have a vested interest in maintaining limited liability. It is a farce they go along with for the sake of being shielded from the consequences of the actions of the Corporation. Sheesh, someone throwing around case law like that should know better.


You still haven't explained how it is possible for contracts with and between corporations are regularly enforced by the courts if corporations have no capacity to contract. You will notice that Carlill v Carbolic Smoke was a case between an individual and a corporation - so where's the conspiracy there?



Which is why I wrote that paragraph warning about the dangers of sorcery. I don't participate in the credit sham anymore.

The only obvious reason I ended up here today was I did a google search for something to do with undisputed affidavits standing as truth in commerce. (had to deal with a wayward County government today).

Next, please! :cool:

Well hurah for you. I'm sure everyone will be steering clear of the sorcery and cake from now on. Hopefully, however, they will not pick up your rather odd ideas about contract law.

[mpe_solution]

There is a case where the defendant won making the claim that their was no consideration because the bank created the money out of thin air.

http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/CreditRiver/1968-12-09judgmentanddecree.pdf

[angelthecat]

they could prove this rule is not true by simple not putting boxes on the documents, it would save the hassle but why don't they?
[because its true, in square brackets so four cornered rule applies :D]

[aulus agerius]

There is a case where the defendant won making the claim that their was no consideration because the bank created the money out of thin air.

http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/CreditRiver/1968-12-09judgmentanddecree.pdf

That case has been discussed before. The "judge" in that case had no authority to here the case. He was the type of judge who hears traffic ticket cases, not mortgage foreclosures. The judgment was subsquently reversed. So the defendant did not "win" in the end.

[mpe_solution]

That case has been discussed before. The "judge" in that case had no authority to here the case. He was the type of judge who hears traffic ticket cases, not mortgage foreclosures. The judgment was subsquently reversed. So the defendant did not "win" in the end.

I am not sure what authority the judge did or did not have to hear the case. I would like to see evidence for this. Obviously, this case was overturned not because it lacked merit but because there was no way in hell the PTB would allow a ruling like this to stand. It would mean the collapse of the banking system if everyone with a mortgage could stop payment because their was no consideration in the original contract.

The importance of this case is that it exposes the scam perpetrated on us. The Bank's representative admitted it under oath. We have grounds as the people of the State (whichever one we may be in) to bring charges of fraud against every bank in the US including and especially the Federal Reserve Banks.

Unfortunately, any case bringing up this argument which is based on good merit and follows contract law will lose because we have a corrupt justice system that is not in place to apply the law to cases but rather to protect the racket.

[aulus agerius]

I am not sure what authority the judge did or did not have to hear the case. I would like to see evidence for this.

try this:
"Justices of the peace are elected for two-year terms in townships and in cities and villages which do not have municipal courts. Justices of the peace have jurisdiction over actions arising within a county when the amount involved does not exceed $100 for civil cases, and when the punishment or fine does not exceed $100 or three months' imprisonment in criminal cases."

from the then-current Minn. legislative manual, quoted here:
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/creditriver.html

The "judge" in the credit river case was a Justice of Peace. His jurisdiction was limited to cases of $100 or less. A case about a mortgage foreclosure was clearly out of his jurisdiction.


Obviously, this case was overturned not because it lacked merit but because there was no way in hell the PTB would allow a ruling like this to stand.


I don't think it is obvious. I think that the credit river decision was meritless and made by someone with no jurisdiction to decide the case.

The Bank's representative admitted it under oath.

where?


Unfortunately, any case bringing up this argument which is based on good merit and follows contract law will lose because we have a corrupt justice system that is not in place to apply the law to cases but rather to protect the racket.

well, at least you don't go imagining that the courts will actually agree with or follow credit credit river...

[seamus]

Ok, first, where do you get the idea that consideration can be "mitigated"? For the sake of brevity I sacrificed clarity. What I intended was that the extent to which money can be considered real consideration is mitigated by the discovery of the fraud involved. Do you mean "failure of consideration"?i'm not familiar with that term. Second, a credit card contract is not a contract of the upmost good faithExcuse me, what is "upmost"? (as an insurance contract is) so full disclosure is not a legal requirement. Why do you think it is?Legal, schmegal. I'm talking about lawful. One truth trumps all fiction, brah. Remember the solution to the Gordian Knot? It's very, very simple. It's those who try to work the legal system, like Winston Shrout and Robert Menard et al, who are leading people astray, as the legal system is built and based on sorcery, taking advantage of the ignorant, and misplacement of trust.
Clearly, you believe all of this, however, what matters is whether the courts will accept it, for example if you use a credit card and then refuse to pay back the "money". Will the courts agree that there was no contract? No. They won't.If you become a real sovereign, there ought to be no instance in which you find yourself in court. Unless you need to be there for a higher purpose. Also, you won't be there because a real sovereign won't touch a credit card contract with a ten-foot pole. However, for someone who is ordained a sovereign AFTER having signed unconscionable contracts (no unconscionable contract is enforceable, there's the shortest answer to the "full disclosure" question), all that is necessary for the sovereign to be freed of the burden of those fraudulent contracts is for him to declare it to be so. I'm not saying there aren't consequences, but a real sovereign will be able to handle a bank trying to take him to court. This thread isn't about that, so I'm not gonna go there right now.
Well... it is what you agree to in the contract, isn't it? When, upon discovery of hidden conditions of a contract, it is found that the contract is unconscionable, the agreement is made void under substantive Law. That's Divine Law, folks, not the play-law called statute or code. The great thing about it is that Judges and Lawyers all know substantive Law as well as their legal babel. Judges are quite impressed with the few sovereigns who cross their paths on the bench. They know that's one less baby that the system has to nurse.
Perhaps banks should not be allowed to lend money at such high rates of interest, but that is a question of policy - a question of what the law ought to be, not what the law is.No, banks at most should be allowed to charge a service fee for the monetization of that which already belongs to you, namely, your assigned value through your birth certificate bond, accessed through your "signature". But again, that's something that real sovereigns do their best to distance themselves from. That cannot be overstressed.
And this has what to do with consideration?
Are you blind, or just willfully ignorant? You just read what it has to do with consideration. When a sovereign (it's important to become a sovereign before you try to deal with these things. I did it the other way round, and wish I hadn't. But then again I didn't know the difference between a Freeman-on-the-land and a Free Man) discovers the nature of the fraud that has been perpetrated (say, by reading the Federal Reserve pamphlet, "Modern Money Mechanics", which is a must-read), he is released from the necessity of receiving representation as substance. Therefore, currency may be dismissed by him as constituting real consideration.
Which tort, exactly?
The enjoined ambuscade of manifest simulacra. Google is your friend.
You still haven't explained how it is possible for contracts with and between corporations are regularly enforced by the courts if corporations have no capacity to contract.I'll say it really slow this time so you get it: The... Courts... have... a... mercenary... vested... interest... in... maintaining... the... illusion... that... Corporations... are... real... You will notice that Carlill v Carbolic Smoke was a case between an individual and a corporation - so where's the conspiracy there?No conspiracy necessary with the Individual. Only the Judge needs be complicit, and they all are, because manifest destiny has determined that all who are willing to be deluded, misled, and bilked, MUST BE misled, deluded and bilked. This happens because they are avoiding personal responsibility, and the best way to get people to become responsible for their own experience is to bring suffering upon them. In these days, the slavery of a debtor is a very useful tool for the dispensing of suffering. It is a spiritual issue at its root. It has little to do with "how" the delusion happens, and much to do with the "why".
Well hurah for you. I'm sure everyone will be steering clear of the sorcery and cake from now on. Hopefully, however, they will not pick up your rather odd ideas about contract law.If you think Tort is cake, you need to go study, Mr. Astroturfer. :rolleyes:

[mpe_solution]

try this:
"Justices of the peace are elected for two-year terms in townships and in cities and villages which do not have municipal courts. Justices of the peace have jurisdiction over actions arising within a county when the amount involved does not exceed $100 for civil cases, and when the punishment or fine does not exceed $100 or three months' imprisonment in criminal cases."

from the then-current Minn. legislative manual, quoted here:
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/creditriver.html

The "judge" in the credit river case was a Justice of Peace. His jurisdiction was limited to cases of $100 or less. A case about a mortgage foreclosure was clearly out of his jurisdiction.

I don't think it is obvious. I think that the credit river decision was meritless and made by someone with no jurisdiction to decide the case.

where?

well, at least you don't go imagining that the courts will actually agree with or follow credit credit river...

Look I am not saying that this is a defense that would actually work today. It is my personal "belief" that the entire banking system is a fraud and unconstitutional but the reality is our government will never change this unless 'we the people' force them to.

[johngr]

try this:
"Justices of the peace are elected for two-year terms in townships and in cities and villages which do not have municipal courts. Justices of the peace have jurisdiction over actions arising within a county when the amount involved does not exceed $100 for civil cases, and when the punishment or fine does not exceed $100 or three months' imprisonment in criminal cases."

from the then-current Minn. legislative manual, quoted here:
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/creditriver.html

The "judge" in the credit river case was a Justice of Peace. His jurisdiction was limited to cases of $100 or less. A case about a mortgage foreclosure was clearly out of his jurisdiction.



I don't think it is obvious. I think that the credit river decision was meritless and made by someone with no jurisdiction to decide the case.



where?



well, at least you don't go imagining that the courts will actually agree with or follow credit credit river...

I don't know the law in Missouri but I think it might have been permissible for a lower functionary than a judge to hear such a case there if both parties agreed to it (which I'll presume happened there). Otherwise, it seems like the bank's attorney would have objected and cited what the law clearly states or more likely, it wouldn't have been on the Justice's calendar in the first place.

BTW, If I'm not mistaken the man who rendered that decision had an "accident" soon after. Big surprise that.

[aulus agerius]

I don't know the law in Missouri but I think it might have been permissible for a lower functionary than a judge to hear such a case there if both parties agreed to it (which I'll presume happened there).
That's interesting, though credit river is actually in Minnesota. Do let us know if you find out one way or the other whether this was possible at the time. Either way you will notice that the Minnesota Supreme Court declared the JPs decision void for lack of jurisdiction.


Otherwise, it seems like the bank's attorney would have objected and cited what the law clearly states or more likely, it wouldn't have been on the Justice's calendar in the first place.


It seems that the JP and the defendant (Jerome Daly) had something of a special relationship. So much so that Daly was enjoined by the Minn. Supreme Court from bringing cases before the JP.


BTW, If I'm not mistaken the man who rendered that decision had an "accident" soon after. Big surprise that.

Love the automatic assumption that this accident was somehow sinister. Big surprise that.

Note also that Mr Daly was disbarred and subsequently convicted for tax fraud. Big surprise that.

[johngr]

Love the automatic assumption that this accident was somehow sinister.

When a lower functionary makes a legal decision if enforced as precedent would strip the big boys' ability to do business, you're damn right I'm not suprised he has an "accident" soon after and assume by default that it was a hit.

Ditto Jörg Haider, Paul Wellstone, Lech Kaczynski, Jürgen Möllemann, Hale Boggs, JFK, Jr., Larry MacDonald, and others.

[aulus agerius]

When a lower functionary makes a legal decision if enforced as precedent would strip the big boys' ability to do business, you're damn right I'm not suprised he has an "accident" soon after and assume by default that it was a hit.

Of course you do. Some other people prefer to have actual evidence. I don't see that the unreported and overturned decision of a small town JP represents any sort of threat to "the banks" (who, incidentally were much smaller and less united then than now). The Attorneys-General suing over MERS - that's a threat. Dodd-Frank, that's a threat. But I don't see these people keeling over left and right, so excuse my scepticism.

[johngr]

Some other people prefer to have actual evidence.

We're talking about an assumption, not an assertion.