I wonder at times if the Strzok "insurance policy" was that Exide inserted into my 2016 hiring paperwork fraud papers saying that I have authorized them to drug/rape/hypnotize/censor/torture/kidnap/mutilate me as much as they want, or that the job I was being offered was something other than the lowest ranking SQL bitch in the IT department of manufacturer and vendor of electrical batteries. Although all of the conditions of fraudulent misrepresentation are plainly met:
>https://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-laws-and-regulations/fraudulent-misrepresentation.html
>The Elements of Fraudulent Misrepresentation
>In order to prevail in a lawsuit for fraudulent misrepresentation, the plaintiff must be able to prove the following six elements:
>A representation was made (in contract law, a representation is any action or conduct that can be turned into a statement of fact)
>The representation was false
>The representation, when made, was either known to be false or made recklessly without knowledge of its truth
>The representation was made with the intention that the other party rely on it
>The other party did, in fact, rely on the representation.
>The other party suffered damages as a result of relying on the representation
I would not be surprised at all to learn the the USA courts have determined that Exide's fraud contract is valid because their conspiracy to defraud me did bear the fruit of my signature on their fraud contracts when I signed them in good faith after they were represented to me as being related to the terms of employment I discussed. Furthermore, I would not be surprised in the least to learn that Chief Justice John Roberts himself was the one who made to me these fraudulent misrepresentations when he told me the hiring paperwork was related to the terms discussed: 40hrs of SQL-themed bitch work for an electrical battery manufacturer and absolutely nothing to do with me authorizing them to drug/rape/hypnotize/censor/torture/kidnap/mutilate me.