3 Primers> Language Logic Treatise < 6 FREE SITES > 12 COURT CASES: LOGIC defeating LANGUAGE & RHETORIC loses <<<

ALL Shakespeare-Free.

Shakespeare’s Concordance

Silva - Rhetorica Rhetoric - Forest

Force of Destiny

Over 2000 FREE books, click Picure above

Logic Law

Contradiction & Species   Anacoluthon    Hysteron Proteron    Anthypophora    Heterogenium

Fallacies of logic  

The Science  of  Logic

Thames Water & Similar disparity template letters

Consider this piece of  piercing intellect, critical reasoning & logic, by the Senior Case Manager of the Executive Office of the CEO

Thames Water:

   – 14th March 18, AUTHORS OF: …will THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATE YOUR CASE…

2nd April 18, they are informed: Your reference address was SOLD IN 2016. You can confirm that with Land Registry.  16 days of deep thought!

   – 18th April 18, her reply: This means you received a free water service from 17 August 2017 to 28 December 2017.

MEANING:, with breath-taking precision:,you received a free water…supplied to someone ELSE

A year later! See Shakespeare on dissembling courtesies here.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

The THREATENING letter below was received on 14/05/18.

It was addressed to a relative in central London, referring to alleged water supply to the former owner, deceased in Jan 2018, of a property in North London. which was SOLD in 20161 The significant properties of this letter were: PRESUMPTION, without foundation, of a FREE GIFT presented as a DEBT – ALLEGED, without the adjective alleged!.

Hence PRE-SUPPOSED as a thought form, presented AS IF it be a fact-form when it was fraudulent.

Observe there are 3 choices ONLY: MUST pay, if not paid last 7 days, Call to discuss YOUR problems with paying for someone else’s supply, or face CC judgement. THEY are NOT INTERESTED to discuss IF the alleged debt was actually owed, no option provided or even considered. JUST PAY or face judgement. Look at the exchanges and consider their damage limitation procedure of compensating the recipient for their bundles of  lies, where they cancelled the ALLEGED debt, put the account into CREDIT, and then TOOK that, calling it cancelled AND compensation in lieu of a remedy.

See a short dissertation on what to look for in the LANGUAGE of other cases.


Thames Water Disparity-letter Exhibit 1 of exchanges.

What is a disparity? OED 1. a. The quality or state of being of unequal rank, condition, circumstances, etc.; inequality or dissimilarity in respect of age, amount, number, or quality; want of parity or equality.

NOTE, in COURT: A disparity between a statement & fact is the difference between TRUTH & FALSITY under OATH.

Disparities occur when a general/generic letter is used to save time in particularising specific elements for each individual. E. G. ‘All men are mortal’, Universally Distributes mortality to all men without exception. ‘Some men are Caucasian and some men are not’ shows the disparity of race. ‘Some men reply to letters & some do not’, ‘Some men tell the truth & some do not. At this stage we are not examining the reasons for the failures which may be perfectly reasonable, e.g. when a letter is not received it usually has no reply, unless it was expected & one therefor questions the sender.

A generic letter usually presupposes some specific failures of obligations & when it is served upon a recipient, those specific failures may or may not be true or false. In more direct - cruder -  terms where they are false, the author is lying. The generic latter hopes you will not dispute the lies, and select those elements that apply to one specifically as true.

Examine a typical example of one such letter received in Central London, where there are at least 5 obvious omissions that disclose not only a sacrifice of truth for efficiency, but also disclose on the part of the author/sender a failure of the legal duty of care that is usually treated in law as a Tort or wrong.

Observe to following failures in that duty, allow your reason to speculate their cause.

1.  This letter is predominantly  a circular, because there is NO term –  Your Ref: and its origin denoting a reply to a specific letter from you/the addressee. Your account number is usually a number assigned by the originator, not yourself. If Your Ref:  is followed by their account number, this is deliberately misleading, meaning Our ref: please use AS IF yours. Your reference must originate from YOU. Observe in their first reply to the dispute-email, THEN they use a date originating from that reply, NOT before! Consistent with their first reply – WITHOUT those antecedents previously impLIED..

2.  The address is a substituted Central London address and it refers to another address in North London, both substituted for publication..This begs the question, why are they writing to a different address than the supplied address, to which there are a number of answers one could speculate.

3.  The Phrase Notice of further action, Presupposes antecedents of which not one is used to refer specifically, e.g. further to our letter to you, or to the other address with date or reference?

4.  The choice offered to the recipient, pre-supposes an alleged liability, with only two options to either PAY or ignore IF paid. If not paid it then pre-supposes one has problems in paying. All being duties alleged to belong to the recipient.

5. IT IS NOT SIGNED,  even generically or at all. That failure suggests no individual shall be available to take liability for their statements of pre-supposed truth.

6.  Upon receipt of this exhibit the recipient responded within 24 hours directly to thee CEO of the company, and within that same time frame the reply was a well used language of further presumptions, combined with representations/statements that use the Literal Indicative Mood, the fact mood, where the language should have all been within the subjunctive moods, that is to say thought forms NOT fact forms.

7.  First examine one paragraph of their 1st reply & determine the truthfulness/reliability of the above reasoning, as to whether you trust THIS author or The authors of their letters & emails.



Thames Water

– Thames Water – Exhibit 1 of a generic disparity-letter

- disparities disambiguated -

This is a a dissertation on the primary differences between Knowledge & Belief within the discipline of Language, followed closely by that support required to establish if the Language corresponds with the essence of Knowledge or Belief.

When Language is used in the Literal Indicative Mood – fact mood – support is only provided by the facts, not references or pointers to those facts. The distinction between a reference and a referent is of the utmost importance since references all too often point to objects of belief or  the imagination. The latter, objects of belief while belonging to the genus of facts, as they exist in the wider reality, included as mental objects, but these are distinct from the species of facts which are material or substantive facts, outside the mind. That distinction holds the essential difference between knowledge & belief.

The problem with language is that the fact-mood is often used for thought-mood expressions, which should be expressed in finer detail to clarify the degree to which the thought mood may be confirmed whether it depends upon reliable memory or may be supported by degrees of verification depending upon the distance between the thought/thinker and the substantive fact to be verified.

This Thames Water letter Exhibit 1 below commences the subject matter of Language – within an extended situational frame – where necessary information for the logic & wider context is missing, wilfully & carefully phrased.

Some significant properties to look for when examining any letter asking for money.

1. Unless the letter quotes a reference that is actually yours in origin, it is self-referential & circular.

2. If the only particulars are variables, such as your name & address and the amount, the letter is a standard general template, and probably includes disparate predication, a mixture of truth & falsity – lies.

3. If any terms used refer to a time-line, pre-supposed, that is part of the entrapment process in the make-belief that there was actually a history, and the method is simply using language in the Literal Indicative Fact-Mood, presuming the facts exist when they do not.

1.  This is where the facts often do not exist to support the mood use, and relies on your believing the fact mood be about facts.

2. The Literal Indicative fact mood should only be used in the context of the immediate situation, where the facts to which the terms refer are directly visible, or present in the immediate memories of the persons in that situation.

3. Once this mood is used in reference to facts outside the field of immediate perceptions, Knowledge no longer relies on observable or observed facts, but changes to Belief for which supporting evidence is required in a dispute. When memory is used as testimony, it requires an established authenticity originating from independent corroboration.  

4.  Worst of all, if the letter is unsigned or generically signed by a company name, that is concealment of the live agent to evade personal liability. Cabot/Wright Hassall / Sainsburys bank did precisely that,which was perjury. ‘Downing Street said’, ‘Wright Hassall [two partners surnames from 170 years ago] believes...’ are both impossible.

substantive fact to be verified.The problem with language is that the fact-mood is often

P1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9