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 Disparity-letter Exhibits of exchanges.

It also focuses on linguistic frame-logic & strategies, which operate in a similar manner to the use of blinkers on a horse, which removes extended data, which may influence or distract the horse from the overriding purpose of the rider or master who is directing & limiting its functions to the restricted purpose & design of the directing mind the horse becomes an automaton that is rule driven with instinct modified or suppressed.  This means that data which might alter the behaviour of the automaton is restricted to the specific purpose of that directing mind,

There is NO substitute for natural reason with all the organs of perception in any given situation. The person performing the directed tasks must be free to exercise natural reason accompanied by all combinations of apprehension. Nature does not constrain life towards target driven purposes for monetary gain. It is a specialised predatory activity developed by man alone among all the forms of life on this planet.

The extended situation is thus framed in a manner that follows a purpose for gain, with certain elements taken for granted, that should, indeed must not be so taken, as you shall see why.

In Language, the difference between Knowledge & Belief is that the former is expressed by the Literal Indicative Mood and the latter by the Subjunctive Mood or thought/conditional moods which are or should be used to express or describe situations that are imagined by the use of words.

A Major problem in the distinction has accompanied the use of language for many thousands of years, namely that the Literal Indicative Mood, which is a FACT-MOOD, is being used for situations where either the Subjunctive Mood or species thereof should be used, but the development of language & its use, originating from the fact-mood belonging to situations in the immediate fields of perception, has become a habitual mode of expression, resulting in misleading expressions and lies due to the extended field of perception involving data that is no longer  matter of direct observation. Apart from language that is self-referential, such as ‘It is what it is.’ the same form to fall within memories recalled or testimonies derived from very precise records.   

Where benefits & detriments are involved, especially with money, the use of the Literal Indicative Mood has become a powerful tool for persuading many of us to part with resources or money, in the simple and erroneous belief that data outside our immediate perceptions are facts as if they be directly observed in the same manner.

Belief that the facts to which the expressions refer, exist, and can be recalled or disclosed as Proof/Evidence or Self-Evidence in support of the expression often commences with either simply the Literal Indicative Mood with hidden pre-suppositions that are concealed within the language so that the average untutored person is entrapped in that stage which a pre-supposition is presumed or taken for granted as if it be true, but is not. The highlighted expression just to the left is an

example of the subjunctive mood.

Similarly, the expressions – ‘If they arrive I will tell them to go away’, or ‘If they [were to] arrive I would tell them to go away’ – expresses the distinction between the former being probable, and the latter being more imagined, due to the usage of ‘would’ as the third conditional used in imaginary situations. ‘They arrived & I told them to go away.’ could be totally false for many reasons.

Thames Water Disparity-letter Exhibits of exchanges.

Debt collectors and other experienced users of these techniques, use the Literal Indicative Mood as if they be (subjunctive) FACTS and will push the recipient to the limits of endurance in a Court Claim in the hope the recipient will give up and pay before a hearing.

The example of Cabot Financial & others was such an example where when it came to the hearing ten months later, they never could have had their Deed of Assignment, by a simple contradiction resulting upon disclosure of one of about 20 pieces of evidence proving all was not only perjured, but additionally a fake simular name was used, to swear the Truth Statement, by their legal representatives which evaded discovery except by the defendant/author apprehending that the two names used were both surnames, amalgamated as a partnership name, from deceased partners.

 Now please examine this Thames Water document Exhibit 1, and observe several significant properties it discloses and fails to disclose, which reveal to someone, a little more aware from adversarial exchanges, what are some common properties of language that disclose what is true by what is concealed and what is false that is emphasised to suggest otherwise. This is known as suppressio veri / suggestio falsi. It is stated similarly by Shakespeare much later –

   O gracious duke,

    Harp not on that, nor do not banish reason

    For inequality; but let your reason serve

   To make the truth appear where it seems hid,

    And hide the false seems true.    (Measure for Measure.)


The addressee details are changed in this real-life example.

At this stage, the context I provide is limited in disclosure until you have seen the exchanges laid out below.

After that you shall observe the CEO & staff of the company did nothing to re-assure the recipient that such a package of dissembling courtesies would not be changed to guarantee such unsubstantiated attempts to obtain money would not be repeated against other clients.  This show you what significant properties are misleading & missing, in claims that will not stand a test of verification especially in court.


The result was similar to that of – Cabot Financial & Wright [&] Hassall & Sainsburys v Winter – except that case was issued in court, defended with two simple documents, of about 20, and their claim dismissed with extreme disapprobation by the Judge on several matters of procedural impropriety to put it mildly where custodial consequences would have been appropriate for outright perjury.

Returning to the above letter., the dishonest practice for gain of money is not controverted either by conduct, self-discipline or self-investigation with a purpose to correct the procedure. It is therefor likely at some time that you may receive similar letters, and the purpose of this insight is to assist you in treating such conduct in the manners it deserves for being essentially dishonest in style.  





Thames Water Disparity-letter Exhibits of exchanges.

Observe their opening phrase, ‘This situation is serious.’ which begs the questions ‘Either we are serious, & prepared to go to court without anyone taking responsibility for signing the claim, or you take it seriously and pay us for unsupported bills, while we amuse ourselves?’  

A significant property of serious, when coupled with ‘Register a County Court Judgement...’ is that their claim needs to be signed by an individual, to conform with a serious CPR procedure. But of course, it is unlikely they may be using the term serious, in the obsolete sense of being within a series! How would one explain that before a Judge would be an open question of gravity or farce when there is no disclosure of any preceding element to commence the linguistic timeline.

Briefly examine the logic of the letter & its presuppositions.

1. The letter is addressed to Mrs. A. Surname, at the address of a relative, opened at the other address by Mr. B. Surname. It refers to Property Address presumably of supplies, as you shall observe.

2.  The Opening bold phrase sets the logic, of a time-line of antecedents which was pre-supposed, but contrary to fact. It was the first received at the non-supply address.

1.  In support of its being the first, at this stage, you can observe the phrase Your account number, is clearly their number assigned and it does not refer to any previous exchange, falsely pre-supposing the recipient ignored previous requests.

2.  If there had been exchanges, or even a telephone call then that would have been the reference properly marked Your reference, as you will observe in their first actual reply, where its origin is the source of any reply. Without that the letter presumes a sequence that is unsupported, and the next letter showing a proper Your reference being consistent with a real exchange not an imagined one.

1.  The contrary to fact element is further supported by omission, contrary to statutory obligations & a clear request, for the copies of what was pre-supposed

3.  The conditional words, IF you’ve paid… ignore. Otherwise, you must pay… presumes there IS a payment outstanding which is stated as £90.29… Note the precision to the very penny, suggesting this is NOT a simple guess, ‘named’ an estimate.

4.  The next condition, Unless… threatens consequences for not complying. And the only remaining theme is Problems paying. [See later: for their balance showing a credit!]

5. At NO STAGE  in this sequence of logic, is there the slightest suggestion the entire frame may be in error, or the balance be in credit, whatsoever.

6.  The simple matter one is framed to understand in this sequence is EITHER PAY,  OR we may enter several litigious procedures.

7.  Finally, the most obvious suppressio veri is the absence & hence wilful omission of title & signature of any author.  Hiding or disguising the author of unlawful conduct is a significant property of the nature of the conduct for which no agent takes responsibility.

Thames Water Disparity-letter Exhibits of exchanges.

 Before reading the reply sent to the CEO of this Thames Water entity, please examine one paragraph of their reply to it, and note that one is expected to overlook this entire procedure of threats, and if they got it wrong, then the innocent recipient of the threats is forgiven & absolved.

Bear in mind while reading it, the golden rule of ethical reciprocity – DO to others what you would be done by.

This is paragraph 2 of their reply to  a counter-litigation letter.

 I’ve reviewed your account 20371-15265 and can see that as a final read wasn’t taken when you closed your account on 28 December 2017, we closed the account on an estimated read. However I’d like to advise you that I’ve cancelled the bill of £90.29 and recalculated it based on your previous Average Daily Use (ADU) making the new closing balance £8.86 in credit which I’ve also cancelled. The account now has a zero balance outstanding.

1. First note the recipient is being told, he/she – you closed the account on 28 December… (His knowing the fact-mood assertion IS imagined & was impossible, see his last text...)

1. Observe the phrase – can see that as a final read… when you…as (the preposition / conjunction use) suggests because of or the reason, which inculpates the recipient.

2. This also suggests the property had a water meter – which it did not have.

2. Their guess, named an estimated read was the precise £90.29. but now the newly...

1. recalculated amount places the recipient IN CREDIT £8.86! [Another guess.] which

2. Rather than REFUND it, and using the golden rule, they should invite the recipient to proceed against them, and register adverse details with credit agencies & courts.

3. Instead they write off the recipient’s credit balance, in a black rule procedure,  ‘do to others what one can get away with’, make it look like a gift, excuse oneself  if it fails, and forgive the recipient for  what they did to him by writing off  his credit balance for him, without asking ...does he want it back?

3. Observe in the middle the threat – Register a County Court judgement….–  the bundle of pre-suppositions.

1. It is not possible to go directly to register such a judgement, the procedure involves:

1. A legal claim against one, with 28 days to respond.

2. Swearing with that claim a statement of truth.

3. Provide the grounds which support Truth of the claim.

4. IF there is a defence, then the procedure should be transferred to a local court for a hearing.

1. But it is possible, and this was criticised by the Judge in the Cabot/Hassall/Sainsburys v Winter claim to obtain a judgement that is not signed by a judge. Form  used was… ’It is ordered’, without an agent.


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