"This proverb refers back to mediaeval falconry where a bird in the hand (the falcon) was a valuable asset and certainly worth more than two in the bush (the prey)"
Yes, a total fabrication to nullify the contract seems out of place.
However, remember that the proof of fraud must be beyond simulation or illegal artifice......difficult me thinks.
Its a very real possibility, strengthened by the appointment by DRL of the Treasury Department employee that drew up the contract.
This board currently appears free of the political BS you are posting. Please refrain from informing us of your hypocritical bias in this regard.
Whatever you may think of the admin. process, it is what it is, and it hasn't happened yet.
I thought the Lower Court's decision was perfectly reasonable. I would have thought DRL had justified the need of an immediate decision, thus requiring an independent (Court) ruling, but without knowing for sure I can understand the final response.
The judge can't rule on an incomplete process. No "mugging" occurred.
Haciend'a letter to DRL was deficient, but this doesn't mean a restructured letter wouldn't be legitimate. However, the judge's guidance toward Hacienda indicates serious doubt that such a letter could ever be valid.
The judge's summation suggests Hacienda will not be able to complete the process, that being the nullification of the agreement. If they do, with evidence showing fraud, then DRL can defend themselves in court.
The "no ruling" was likely due to the unexpected unpreparedness of Hacienda. That is, they don't have evidence of fraud.
We will see soon.
Again, not correct. The judge determined the case premature.
Your original spin turing to subjective commentary is commendable, however, where is the evidence that the agreement was constructed via fraud, malfeasance or misrepresentation of material facts, outside simulation or illegal artifice to support your allegation?
Difficult to judge. However, it may not be a great discount, since the agreement in dispute ($229,884,087) was already a significant reduction of a $766,280,289 credit from overpaid taxes.
The Court did not dismiss DRL's case. Its ruling was that it lacked jurisdiction to determine the validity of the tax the closing agreement. The Court guided the Treasury on how to successfully nullify the closing agreement through formal adjudicative process (based on Section 6051.07 of the Internal Revenue Code) under normal tax department procedure. Stunningly, this cannot proceed victoriously by solely citing alleged “simulation” or “illegal artifice".
Your attempted spin was a poor attempt.
The $229,884,087 tax receivables is already part of the book value.
The disputed closing agreement essentially constitutes a promissory note, which is (specifically as tax receivables) no longer a component of tier-1 capital. The mere reinstatement of the closing agreement doesn't alleviate DRL's current dilemma. Its reinstatement must come in the form of a new agreement that introduces immediacy in payment, undoubtedly with a reduced amount.
I think thats right.
Without the ability to cite simulation of activity that never took place or 'scheme or artifice to defraud', the Treasury has a difficult task ahead to legally annul the closing agreement. However, reinstating the closing agreement by the Treasury wouldn't allow its immediate payment, which is DRL's request. A reduced claim with actual restitution seems the most likely outcome. Its not a matter of whether this amount is acceptable to the FDIC, suffice it to say that the tier capital required is a defined level that the FDIC only enforces.
To project the label "racist" embeds a power that racial minorities hadn’t traditionally had.
The defensively reaction to being called out for racism is an internal conflict generated from the inability to placate themselves with the loss of white privilege.