On 17 July 2010 19:34, comex <com...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 that contracts have been repealed?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? > In a way, it could be seen as an identity solely on the base that it is named in the Herald's report as the holder of a PT. But that maybe doesn't make much sense.
-- -Tiger
