Gonna ask this here again, since these threads are popping constantly:
Did Ramsland confuse MI with MN? I'm not going to argue his principle because I believe it's valid, but I'm talking about the overall veracity of the affidavit's statements. If he confused MI with MN, this sheds doubt on the document and should be amended.
Gonna ask this here again, since these threads are popping constantly:
Did Ramsland confuse MI with MN? I'm not going to argue his principle because I believe it's valid, but I'm talking about the overall veracity of the affidavit's statements. If he confused MI with MN, this sheds doubt on the document and should be amended.
"This is not available to you"
:(
Yeah, the reference to Q in the document is kinda cute, but insignificant. This is substantive.