“ITALY REPUBLIC OF” it's not there “Italian republic”: demonstration by absurdity
Proof by absurdity that “ITALY REPUBLIC OF” it's not there “Italian republic”.
Loris Palmerini – 31/5/22 – all rights reserved
Let's start from the hypothesis that the subject registered with the SEC as “ITALY REPUBLIC OF” (from now on IRO) both the Italian Republic (henceforth RI). If so, you should have these demonstrable consequences:
1) IRO administrators (or legal representatives ) they are the same as IR
2) Italian citizens elect IRO representatives
3) among the public documents of IRO there are the laws of RI
4) RI contracts, especially military, expenses, and other RI companies are all listed in IRO's SEC files, necessary in order to give investors the opportunity to evaluate the solvency of IRO/RI.
NONE OF THE ABOVE CONDITIONS E’ SATISFIED
1) IRO administrators are not RI administrators, from the beginning they declared that they would act “behalf” of RI in particular to page 3 of this document
2) Italian citizens do not elect IRO representatives and are not IRO members
3) among the public documents of IRO the RI documents known as are not found “laws”
4) RI and its companies' contracts are not in IRO's SEC filings, only one is presented annual report RI official to support the solvency of IRO.
E’ THEREFORE IT IS CLEAR THAT IRO AND RI ARE TWO SEPARATE AND DIFFERENT LEGAL ENTITIES, IN PARTICULAR IRO IS OWNED BY RI LIKE MANY OTHER COMPANIES INCLUDING ENI, leonardo, CDP ecc ecc
Here it is demonstrated by contradiction that the initial thesis is false, IRO is not RI.
Counter-demonstration: He “ITALY REPUBLIC OF” registered with the SEC was the “Italian republic” then it would be possible to bankrupt the Italian Republic with an application to the competent court, but there is no court that can declare a state bankrupt.
Counter-demonstration 2: “ITALY REPUBLIC OF” it can be made bankrupt with an application to the competent court, but it still wouldn't fail “Italian republic”, therefore they are different legal entities.
