>>13169964

That woman is a non-stop liar. But heh … it's six figures … so …

>>13170028 (PB)

1367 (one of many uses of the digits) can relate to NOT ending parole while a person remains mentally incompetent.

Can anyone tell me what the sense of it is as used here?

>>13170047 (PB)

But moron anons keep right on posting. That IS NOT the text claimed for Article 6, section 3 in the original post. More than that, if you can actually read, you'll realize that it has no bearing on current events.

The first section applies only "before or during the war" [WW2]. the second sections applies only to persecutions "in execution of or in connection with any crime."

English. Learn it.

>>13170095 (PB)

Cable seems to have been addressed to the State Department.

>>13170103 (PB)

I printed it out (hard copy). Do you need it re-posted?

>>13170934

It depends on the exact wording. If "jointly and severally", then the contract stands. Otherwise, probably not if the absence of the other signatory either imposes additional burdens on the others or deprives them of expected benefits. There is certainly room for an assertion of fraudulent intent if the absent person was in any way key to the undertaking and left for any reason short of inability to perform due to gross ill health which was not apparent at the time the contract was entered into. For instance, if the guy was supposed to use his relationships to advance the business but now suffers from frequent grand mal seizures, Tourettes syndrome, Bell's Palsy and uncontrolled IBS.

My suggestion? Formally dissolve the previous contract and create a new one, if the goals of the original contract still seem desirable.

That said … there is no way in hell that I am licensed to practice law in ANY jurisdiction. I once was a notary public, but even that has expired.

>>13171095

> probably not if the absence

probably not, PARTICULARLY if the absence

In any case, no matter what the terms of the departure were, if you want out, now – unless that "individually and severally" clause exists, would be your moment. Continuing to "perform" the original contract says that you accept the new conditions.

>>13171101

It would signal distress.

>>13170679

Who wants to break it to her? Can I watch?