Dude, you're slipping. This was posted 2nd page. I'm deeply hurt to know you're not reading every one of my posts.
My attention span is bad but worse with political threads. Add to the fact its something you said and its as good as being on ignore.
If the altered 2012 language text was part of the 2013 contract ratification process; AND the language change was intentionally or unintentionally accepted by Chavis during that ratification process, then that could change the conversation. As far as being illegal, as suggested earlier in the thread, contracts aren't sacred documents - like say the Bill of Rights. So altering them means nothing - UNLESS you alter the document with intent to enforce the altered section to the detriment of one of the parties. That's a problem. Either way, it sounds sloppy. But the details of the whole story matter, so I'll wait before passing judgement. I'm on record for getting rid of Aleva already anyway. Double death penalty sentences rarely get enforced.