well, I don't think I am. If you believe I am, then there is no reason for me to continue with this.
You argue irrelevant points. Points that have nothing to do with this situation at all (Contract law) and totally disregard what PC is and why the courts get to do what they do based on PC alone.
jastalayman
I closed it before you posted.But want to tell you this:
Bringing the "consideration",from contract law,was not to argue that "consideration"in this case exist,or existed.I brought it to show you the opposite,and the obvious,that it doesn't exist,that it is irrelevant (does not apply) in this case.There is no consideration - therefore that is not the souse of the "debt".
The same with the guilt.There is no guilt attributed,therefore,there is no guilt as a "source" for the "debt".
Then I asked ,if not those two are the source,then what is it?
Because they can (there is no law against it)?
And then I say what do you call when someone whom you owe nothing sends you a bill to pay?
That was all.