My concern is that it was insinuated or said that ECDC might somehow be operating illegally due to a delinquency in paying license fees. That needs no wiggle room. I took it as an insinuation that was
Presented because I saw no proof of illegality
offered.
The insinuation of ECDC functioning outside the law holds no merit for Bx3 , unless proof is provided. Point being, an insinuation that ECDC is operating illegally, deserves proof from the person making that implication, Please correct if ithis Is Not the approved standard. And in no way has valid proof been presented , right? It appears that , as yet , no one has offered the statutes which mean a business delinquent on these fees , is expected ,by law , to cease operations. ........ It is whatever it is.
Not trying to be difficult here but , deciding illegality by "priori " , simply means the decision was arrived at by some form of logic, specifically without the observation of facts. Not very conclusive , if not citing fact referencing insinuations.UNTIL those specific SEC or Nevada
STATUTES are brought out for the-verification of illegality, maybe best to let jury hold.??not an advisor, offering my take, this my IMO , in all due respect.GLTA