Exhibits

ISABELLA. O Prince! I conjure thee, as thou believ'st
   There is another comfort than this world,
   That thou neglect me not with that opinion
   That I am touch'd with madness. Make not impossible
   That which but seems unlike: 'tis not impossible
   But one, the wicked'st caitiff on the ground,
   May seem as shy, as grave, as just, as absolute,
   As Angelo; (lgo) even so may Angelo, In all his dressings, characts, titles, forms, Be an arch-villain. Believe it, royal Prince,
   If he be less, he's nothing; but he's more, Had I more name for badness.(MFM)
The LGO IS ACCOUNTABLE to the public, If you see what the sell, then don’t take them your complaints. That way they have no ‘raison d’etre’. Even they cannot fake work, as they do now, indefinitely.

The scanned images below are provided to show the proper correspondence between them and their identical characters taken by OCR from their body texts. They amount to evidence relied on to prove the substrate on which the ensuing critical analyses in the extracts and synopses.
Clicking on each image will bring up the original .jpg file, that may be further enlarged when placing the mouse over the page. The text is however of low resolution for considerations to those readers with slow bandwidths.
Once satisfied as to their integrity, the reader is advised to read their contents in a much more readable format provided as pure text in the single document that brings them all together in one single page.
Just click here to open a new window for each/all of the TEXT body exhibits below this line.

(3) 1. Any review body qualifying their decisions (only too frequently) in terms like this review is 'based on all the evidence available to me' follows the classic formula that invariably accompanies conclusions that ARE fallacious and unsound. This is an argument that says, “my reasoning is sound” and anybody to whom the same material is provided would reach the same conclusion, except it implies withholding, deception , want of integrity and collusion.

(4) 1. You say “I see nothing to suggest Mr. Moriarty's decision was wrong.” carelessly overlooking the contradiction I have pointed out repeatedly and irrationally, which no one has or could in their wildest imagination address cogently because it flies in the face of a law of thought, which is a system of thinking no respondent at the LGO has acquaintance with.

2. You say “I shall not enter into any further correspondence about it.” This begs the question WHEN did YOU ever send me a letter at all? Since for YOU to enter into further correspondence there has to be a first instance,

(2) This serious inconsistency shows how you choose to uphold some complaints, here of minor legal breach, while denying others of numerous statutory legal breaches and significance.
a. ** Inconsistency, having said I was pleased you recalled the earlier complaint, as well as your having considered very carefully' you will no doubt also recall that in the case of Islington Council, you similarly found insufficient grounds, or else no appearance of injustice, but to the contrary, DID find grounds for maladministration.
4. Either your decision on Islington was correct, and if true then the decision here being its contrary – false, or the decision here is false and vice versa.

(1) Referring to the legal aspects.........

a. Section 3.6 Summary of Jurisdictions clearly sets out the specific areas of basic jurisdictions between your body's function and that of the Standards Board. Thus:

·	Item 3. Can investigate complaints of maladministration

·	Item 4. Can only investigate where complainant claims or appears to have suffered injustice

·	Item 5. Can investigate the actions of individual members in relation to allegations of injustice caused by maladministration

Rule 8 Look for assertions that are plainly false.
Each hyperlink here takes you to the same exhibit of all the replies.

Take note the similitude of format in replies. THREE different people use the same phrase to

abrogate their responsibility for the consequences, of their decisions, making all the faults mine. Try and search all my replies for the keywords dissatisfied or unhappy, and discover I NEVER used the words at all, except in the final reply to Mr. Redmond where I dispute his usage of the term. Each ombudsman uses the same phrase, lacking originality, relying on a common template approach as pretexts for steps in reasoning that are ‘non-sequiturs’, since the grounds, are simply false and never existed. A farce, mockery, deplorable casuistry and without question totally fallacious reasoning!

Because you have said you are dissatisfied........Moriarty..............February
Because you have said you are unhappy ..........O. Malley.............March
Because you appear to be dissatisfied...............Redmond.............April

Rule 7 Look for arguments of enthymeme, (improbable rhetorical arguments as distinguished from a demonstrative ones), see if there is anything to rely on. From para 3 of Redmond’s letter ‘Having considered everything you have to say, I see nothing to suggest Mr Moriarty's decision was wrong.’ Rhetoric that’s definitely improbable, implausible, and contradictory. To see nothing where a contradiction has been shown and not address it, guarantees biased, selective, exclusion of considerable data, contradicting the terms ‘considered everything’ Sophistry in its basest most reprehensible and abhorrent form, spoken with false conviction to sound irrefutable.