So both you and he, who are very smart, admit that you cannot provide any mention of or shred of evidence of a second transaction, post failure of the SISP, but you will continue to believe based on "your reading and understanding of the documents"? The documents from which, again, you cannot provide any mention of a second transaction post failure of the SISP?
Do you think its normal for smart people to continue to believe things that, when pressed, they have to admit they can not specifically evidence, only generally through the sum total of a bunch of perceived inconsistencies in a swath of documentation/
