Comment: You were doing fine until you mentioned Mercier.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Talk of a con-con is (see in situ)

You were doing fine until you mentioned Mercier.

I don't buy his theory that you can be a party to a contract that you didn't know you were a party to.

Part of the requirement of a valid contract is disclosure. There is no such thing as a "secret contract."

You either know you are making one, or you don't. If you don't, then you didn't make a contract.

Mercier was attempting to find a conspiracy to explain why things are FUBAR, when there are much simpler explanations.

There is no need to attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by ignorance, ineptitude or corruption.

Mercier is also in the vein that if one thing isn't what you thought it was, therefore NOTHING is what you thought it was. It's the syndrome of because you figured out you were lied to about one thing, therefore you think everything is a lie, and that because you found out the "truth" on the internet or in some obscure book, everything you find on the net or in a low print book that talks about "reality" is therefore true.