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.

2. Such a procedure assists in producing application Notices charged at about £255 Per application.

3. Here is an extract of the Application Notice to set-aside the CCBC self-contradiction, & transfer the case to a local CC.

 Enlarged Ex1 shown to Judge.















1. If one is unfamiliar with all this procedure, then it is possible to believe one can simply register a judgement based on nothing or fraud, but this is unlikely.

2. Clever logic or anti-logic?

1. Compare it with state judicial logic here: Romanian court tells man he is not alive

3.  Note: ‘I’d like to advise is neither the performance verb ‘advise’ nor ‘cancelled’,  actually doing it, but an expression of what that person would like to do, if they had permission or could do it, rather than imagine it. See H. Sweet, on the shifting of the logical centre in group verbs, in particular the ‘would’ in ‘would like’, is used for imagined situations, and one can test for this by inserting a ‘BUT’ after the ‘would’ phrase.

4. The conclusion  at this stage is, they are specifically fraudulent & generally wrong, they correct it & place the recipient in credit, and most importantly they TAKE that credit balance from him as punishment for what they did to him while he was an innocent witness.


When requested in 1. – ‘I ASK & require full disclosure of the human agent’s identity who entered that name with that address, ’ Of course the answers were NOT forthcoming, and the response was to matters that were not requested. This technique of response is known as a species of ignorance of refutation, the classic ignoratio elenchi, where the other party answers question they pre-suppose, and enact a procedure of responding to provide a response no matter how irrelevant. ...

There are several types of circular letters, the first being sent to any (circle) of recipients, with little or nothing relevant or recipient-specific. The other circular form appertains to being circular in Logic  – petitio principii – a fallacy where the conclusion is taken for granted in the premisses, begging a question, usually where the premisses of the argument lack support.

Thames Water Disparity-letter Exhibits of exchanges.

The above Thames Water example involves both types, content specific being satisfied simply by inserting a name, address & unsupported claim. Some initial points of examination are top & bottom, leaving aside the basic template text for the moment.

Top right we have one of the usual variants of ‘your references’ in this case your account number.  In most cases the terms your reference/account number are actually theirs. A reference is only yours if you provided its original source. Your account number likewise is theirs, but they have assigned it to you. The main point here is that unless the reference commencing your, refers to some specific element & source of your origin, then it is either ambiguous or simply misleading. The recipient knows this on verifying its source not being his very own.

It is important you ascertain which properties are satisfied, as the phrase implies a preceding time line, and in this case there was none at the recipients’ address. The preceding time line in this exhibit was also further suggested in the opening phrase ‘...further action.’

In the above case the your account number is clearly theirs, and the presupposition that is implied with the opening phrase ...further action… presupposes a previous time line which their first letter manages as a fact not by implication, due to the use/abuse of the literal indicative mood, which remained unsupported despite a request for full disclosure.

Their next email & first reply commences: ‘I’m writing in response to an email received today...’ which now, supports the recipient’s knowledge and your view that either there was actually no previous history, or else it supports the view that previous emails were ignored.

As you continue reading and observe how ‘Time shall unfold what plighted cunning hides:...’  At the very least, the  phrase ‘in response...’ in this first exchange, is consistent with an exchange, whereas their first unsigned threatening letter & its significant properties imply a time-line all done by the language of presupposed circularity as you shall observe.

Now examine the non existent salutation. Who takes responsibility for this letter?  NO person NO functionary, not even a generic name as the law firm, Wright Hassal used contrary to court, truth & CPR rules.  

What one has is, by degrees, John said ’hello’ I said ’hello’, Downing Street said, Buckingham, Palace said, and IT is thought, by whom? Supposedly the cat. Language games by degrees to conceal the agent of the verb. Farce expressed with a straight face believing the impossible that a street or building can speak.  

One is expected to interpolate the grammatical ellipses, but such general expressions by their very nature involve disparate predication which results in a mixture of truth an falsity when interpreted specifically & individually.

But when you examine their replies, and how they provide references without support you are left with the same situation as shown in the Cabot case in court, namely that their language is in the literal indicative mood, the fact mood, without the required facts in support, and both cases fall on that simple truth. Not only that, but you shall be shown that some of their claims are impossible when you become acquainted with the wider context, and think as required – outside their frame.


Thames Water Disparity-letter Exhibits of exchanges.

The language presupposes the fact mood as if the facts be present or even available in support, but they, and other simple elements that would take an honest person a few minutes to disclose are all treated as if they be, but are not. The key being if they did exist, then why renounce with such immediacy their entire claim. See why as you read on. A sequence of impossibilities resulting from their guesses so-called or named investigation  are misleading. One is involved in an exchange irrelevant to one’s questions that are ignore & replaced with dissembling courtesies.  

The key to disambiguating such irrelevancies is their whether their self-descriptions.

In such cases their conduct and language show lack of agreement, like saying yes and nodding left/right or persuading one to make a complaint, which is the wrong terms for a dispute IF we are as stated all equal before the law.

Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law."


Therefore one looks at the meaning of their label and observes it is invariably an improper classification.

In order to determine improper classifications e.g. for terms investigation and quality promise is to apprehend a single property of the term that falsifies its being an instance within that class, please see within logic: Class Immediate Inference on this site.

 O ne significant falsifying instantiation falsifies the class membership & universal distribution of that term. It is important that the falsifying instance is significant, not trivial or as Aristotle referred to it as  accidental. This makes he distinction between an exception to the rule, and a falsifying property removing membership from the classification.

----------------------------------------

 Now look at the 1st reply to the CEO of that company, and observe in the following exchanges that NOT ONE question or request for full disclosure is answered, denied, refuted of even dealt with in CPR 16.5. (5) meaning all is taken as admitted adversely against the party whose statutory duty it is to provide details in support of their claim. While reading the exchanges, also note that each time a point is made that they contradict themselves or the facts, they are not disturbed at all by their self-inconsistent conduct or false representations. Their only concern is to distract attention away from those matters in contention.

----------------------------------------


 
Comment:the highlighted text signifies the reply is a response, (reaction to a stimulus) which fails to answer or disclose anything requested.  Such omissions are contrary to any duty of care, and indicate it not being a reply to any specific element originating from the dispute-letter, &  is consistent with a lack of any investigative process whatsoever.


 Note the reply does not ask (investigate!) a single question, but uses the Literal Indicative  fact-mood, on the next page, for two assertions  where the 1st is pure fiction, already disputed, and doubtful  the author could ever  prove it, the 2nd suggests the author has investigated so  thoroughly as stated, that she determined the truth or falsity that the respondent was NOT abroad during the  Christmas to New years’  break. Knowing the location  & activities of a person one has never met, is pure fable –  confabulation. It demonstrates fact-mood l  language  for imagination, and could be controverted by the party addressed in the story.

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