Your decison to delete some of my comments due to its inappropriate contents, has left some referencea and comments untouched. At least you should have eradicated every reference to Gregory M.A. Babajeff. This would make Mrs. Neelie Smit Kroes really happy. So much for freedom of speech.

Just keep on dreaming.

It is correct that the third nolo contendere mandate also covers the European Union and the Kingdom of the Netherlands not contending the fact that following the first internet publication the residence of the defendant was set on fire and was burnt to the ground in order to get rid of both all the evidence and the defendant. A picture can be found in the document (08) 03W442 dated March 05th, 2008 (08030502.wpd). So wat’s new.

http://83.84.189.224/Confirmatieve%20verzoekschrift%20ter%20inleiding%20klacht%20SEC/,

from two letters numbered as (08) 06W229 and (08) 06W249 deposited on June 09th, 2008 with the assistent attorney general for antirust of the U.S. Department of Justice of the United States on the subject of the third nolo contendere mandate of the European Union, it is quite clear that as an apetizer stockholders equity was indeed on the menu. From the attachments to those letters it is quite clear that one of the shareholders of Microsoft has initiated a numerous number of administrative procedures with the European Union. The results of those numerous procedures being that European Union did not contend the fact that the Dutch member of the European Commission for antitrust affairs has received a sizable fee from Microsoft for her silence not to disclose that not only the books and records of Microsoft as deposited with the Securties and Exchange Commission over the fiscal years 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 are inaccurate as – amongst others – the amount of USD18.671.465.486 as stockholders equity is missing, but also that the repurchase program of the board of directors of Microsoft over the fiscal years of 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 did cost much more that the amount that has been disclosed.

Also, the European Union – sadly – did not contend that the actual reason for penalizing Microsoft Corporation for his monopolistic behavior in the first place is to hurt the Jewish stockholders, keeping in mind that the secret deliberation of the Duch Supreme Court in case no. 112.414 of May 16th, 2000 has shown that Mr. Bleichrodt as presiding magistrate, with Mr. J.P. Balkema, and Mr. A.J.A. Van Dorst as co-magistrates, and Mr. J.W. Fokkens as attorney general has revealed the Dutch Surpeme Court’s opinion that a Jewish defendant does not have the right to exercise the rights as granted ex jure to him under the Sixth tax directive No. 77/388 of the European Union.

As the letters shown this typical Dutch line of reasoning that Jewish descendants are to be excluded from European law has also been found in numerous of the judgements of the Dutch District Court judges Mr. K.R. Van Der Graaf and Mr. J.W. Westerman in several of their judgments and the intense collection of tax debts from Jewish residents by the Dutch Internal Revenue Service Haaglanden, of the district of ‘s-Gravenhage, Mr. Jan Vermeulen, based on Jewish non-existent taxable income.

So it is no surprise that the European Union did not contend the shareholder’s applicable formal context of being “(…) acts of co-conspiracy to commit fraud against the undersigned class member as alleged Jew and/or foreigner to expropriate his property in violation of international law by Neo-Nazi officials of the European Union and the Kingdom of the Netherlands as a continuance of the Holocaust(…)” as the appropriate legal setting for the dinnerdate.

So, I am sorry to disappoint you how the non contended conversations unfolded – for others to model during difficult negotiations but also to be demonstrative of how these things get accomplished. Remember it’s a Dutch treat.

http://83.84.189.224/Confirmatieve%20verzoekschrift%20ter%20inleiding%20klacht%20SEC/

when overcoming the difficulties of reading the Dutch paper, you will find that the administrative procedure with the European Union as initiated on December 13th, 2007, taken into the account that only the Council can legally represent the Union, gave two non-contested definite results, both in law and in fact, namely that (a) the ONLY non-private part of the dinner date concerns the neglect of the commissioner of not telling the CEO that a Dutch shareholder of his company had obtained the non-contested opinion of the Union that the court judgment was non-existent, while she knew that that judgement could have easily been overturned by simply stating that the commission did not have the authority to prosecute his company, since the final judgment of the United States district court judge of Columbia stood in the way of double jeopardizing his company, i.e. an appeal by his company based on double jeopardy would have easily overturned the decision, and that (b) the money that had been stolen on the occasion of the recent burglary into the residents of the commissioner and her neighbors did come from the CEO.

Also the Union did not contend the inflicted damages of this Union undertaking, namely USD18,671,465,486. In an earlier administrative proceeding the Union did not contend that paragraph (c) of Section 1964 of Chapter I of title 10, of the United States Code does apply, which amount represents a non-contended devaluation of the price of common stock of USD17.43.

Do hope that is will be neither a model for others during difficult negotiations nor to be demonstrative of how these things get accomplished.

Tx for your comments etc.

http://albums.photo.epson.com/j/ViewPhoto?u=4443612&a=32635475&p=76103780