MarkvW said:The primary point was that the sentence I quoted in the previous post doesn't make any sense at all.
Apparently you have a knowledge of the terms of the contract between Armstrong and Anderson. Where can those terms be found? Without knowledge of the contract's terms, a reasonable opinion of the scope of that contract cannot be formed.
I believe if you study my initial post on this subject I stated:
"The release that LA attempted Mike Anderson to sign included releasing "Tailwind Sports Corp"."
"Attempted" suggests that Mr Armstrong was not successful in obtaining Mr Anderson's signature to the agreement.
The "letter agreement" that Armstrong, through LA associate Knaggs, wanted Mike Anderson to sign incorporated some provisions verbatim in Anderson's "Defendant's Third Amended Answer And Second Amended Counterclaim".
The parties that Armstrong proposed through this draft agreement that Anderson was to "release, acquit and forever discharge" were (as presented with errors) "Luke David, LLC, Tailwind Sports Corp, and Lance Armstrong, and all persons natural or corporate, in privity with them, ..."
"Luke David" are the given names of Armstrong's first child so it is assumed Luke David LLC is a corporation in which LA has some direct or indirect control.
I did not ask you or any other person to form a learned opinion on the scope of the contract. No instruction, no bill of costs.