A theory is a fasifiable premise, thus being one in regards to "the big bang". No religion has been able to falsify any scientific theory. I have no idea why they try, in that faith is completely independent.
Evolution is not a fact.
Rather, it is a theory that has held for many years, despite a concerted effort to disprove (falsify) it. As such, it is a sound theory warranting its teaching in schools. It is distinct from a precarious theory such as one that remains unfalsified only by the limitation of technology.
The process of natural selection is proven. Its application to the theory of evolution has held for many years, but can't be labelled an absolute fact.
I have yet to come across a Creationist who is able to discuss the application of natural selection to evolution.
"Your existence is proof that you were created by our Creator."
You need to read the bible properly. The existence of our Creator is a matter of faith, and thus cannot be proven. All you're doing by saying such untruths is providing fuel for Atheists.
"....obviously there was paperwork at some point that showed taxes were overpaid otherwise PR wouldn't have made the agreement in 2006 and revised agreement in 2012."
Not so obvious when you take into account that a person in tax department that may have assessed the claim, and constructed the repayment agreement, is now an employee of DRL
To correctly assess risk here, I believe, is assume shenanigans occurred and to understand the legal classification of such an event. Would it be 'simulation or illegal artifice' or 'misrepresentation of material fact' ?.
The Democratic governor's office argues that the agreement, signed under a previous administration, is null because Doral's supporting paperwork did not prove that the bank had overpaid its taxes.
If people are looking for a spike on news of settlement, surely today's increase on no news just raises the platform from which the anticipated spike will begin, thus substantially increasing foreseen gains in said spike......no?
"...your investment in this..."
To prevent any further waste of your time...."My confidence is only derived from the outrageous requirement to prove exceptional fraud, not just fraud."....meaning the unlikely scenario of Treasury proving fraud above simulation or illegal artifice.
Its very odd that you would present a post, that you claim to spell out a nonsensical contradiction, with mostly reiteration and adjacency. Again, it appears you're "shooting yourself in the foot".
"CoFI stated that the only valid grounds for nullifying the contract were fraud, malfeasance, or misrepresentation of material fact."
This is what I said, but you left out the good bit from Section 6051.07 of the Internal Revenue Code: that the fraud schemes of simulation or illegal artifice aren't sufficient.
"..they currently don't have [a case] that would satisfy the only valid grounds the Court has provided for an annulment of this contract."
Aslo what I said.
Your guess as to what was submitted as reason for annulment by Treasury would also be my guess, but I'm not guessing (outside your 'thumbs down' rate of my post).
You also appear to be agreeing that Treasury has yet to table their full case.
With such comparability in posts, I'm guessing you rated your own post poorly.
"First CoFI did rule that the original basis for nullifying the contract was not valid"
I don't think thats correct. I thought the ruling was for the adjudicative process to be completed and guided the Treasury on how to successfully nullify the closing agreement based on Section 6051.07 of the Internal Revenue Code. I don't know what you mean by "original basis". I don't think the Hacienda's full case has yet been tabled in court because they haven't had to.
"Don't you think if Hacienda could prove fraud they would have started with that argument?"
Hacienda hasn't had to prove fraud (in court) 'til now.
I too am slightly worried. My confidence is only derived from the outrageous requirement to prove exceptional fraud, not just fraud. Look for the Padilla Gov. to change that law!