Originally Posted by
eaglefly
I think you are making too far a reach (at this point) at least IMO that any claim of "illegality" in the contractual aspects of this integration means APA has a DFR to not only recognize the Nic, but to require it. From my understanding, the 9th compelled no one other then USAPA to do or not do anything. In fact, they went to great pain to ensure their ruling would not be construed as doing anything other then that.
So..........for the umpteenth time (now +2), I understand your assertion, but do not agree with it. I'm trying my best to make this clear in the hope you cease pulling the string in your back in perpetuity......or is that an
Energizer battery ?
Dude, it's not "my" assertion, it's the 9th's. You are confusing 2 separate things here. Two things happened, in laymans terms, the 9th found the mou/pa language violated the law and the 9th refused to tie the boa hands. Forcing usapa to show up with the nic is no different than saying the nic. is the lus list but the boa can do whatever they want just as they can with the laa list. It's not my "assertion", it's the LAW now.