Critical & Clearer Thinking Questor ©
On the Tuesday I served the Mr. Ruck with an injunction to switch my electricity back on. Nothing happened.
On Friday I brought a custodial order to switch on within 30 minutes of service of injunction and handed it to three directors warning them of custodial sentencing, the lights were back on in 10 minutes.
Here was the first of the three premisses again.
Premiss 1. The board of directors did not know about the plight of the Defendant.
Sworn as true.
I didn’t need these diagrams, Venn concepts were known to me many years before.
A) Is "the board",This includes all the members who are either directors or chairman or otherwise.
AB) Is the particular director(s) who knew 'x', (Suppressed in evidence, or shall we say undisclosed / hidden from view)
AC) Are those directors who did not know 'x'
Now Mr. R.. Was referring to AC when he swore to the truth of Premiss 1 above.
This is what’s called the truth and nothing but the truth, BUT it’s not that middle bit that was dropped in section nine type swearing nowadays, the WHOLE TRUTH bit.......
Premiss 2. I knew about the plight of the Defendant. Meant for him, wearing his civilian hat, simply that, and was true also. What was suppressed was that this person was the Chairman when wearing a different hat.............!
So we have ' The undisclosed premiss.'
Premiss 3. He was a member of the board of directors. (The chairman)
Now what is a mere quibble only, is that while I served the injunction through his letter box, and he may have switched hats. Only a mental patient would forget to carry information from one persona to another. He was one and the same person no matter what hat he wore at different times.
Once I asked the judge to have the defendant answer the following question:
How do you reconcile the Board NOT knowing on the Tuesday, about the claimant’s plight, when your were served with the injunction and you are the Chairman of the board, ie; a member?
His face reddened, the Barrister and Solicitor both turned to him for the answer and the Barrister, after an exchange, returned with... Your Honour, I am instructed by the defendant to say............. It no longer mattered. When a Barrister has to stand third party in such a manner as his did, it was clear the Barrister didn’t even himself believe the answer, and dissociated himself.
That day, barrister and Solicitors all together must have cost the defendant £3500. When the Barrister mildly asked for costs, the Judge look at the ceiling,and laughing, said I think that the least you can expect is to carry your own costs.
Now the situation is altered, AB) and AC) are members merged back in two sub-categories of A, members who know, and members who do not know. Once one or more members are in the 'know' the two classes overlap in the area of AB) 'The member(s) who know and are members of the board. '
It follows that it is not the case that the "board" does not "know" only unless the member who knows is not a member of ' that board", but the chairman admits to being a member of that board. Hence for the Board to not 'know' there MUST be NO overlap of A, AB or AC.
Premiss 1. is plainly FALSE.
The greater the number of members AC who get to 'know,' the more the circle AB, AC moves into A until it becomes fully integrated when ALL KNOW, and vice versa when NOBODY KNOWS.
You certainly don’t have to think in with these diagrams in the mind, once you grasp the concept of classes of members, how they stand apart and how they merge and their boundaries, it’s really just natural thinking, but NOT to the devious mind.
This was from a court case Winter V BCM Ltd, where in one sentence the Defendant lost their counter-claim. (costs about £3500.00) about 1995.
The main problem with liars is they forget to recall what must flow from the previous lie. It’s all to do with remembering naturally , and having to work out carefully what should flow in the context.
Start thinking about the Declaration of Rights and Bill of Rights 1668-1669.
( De Jure, in Law, implied repeal De Facto )
Consider the concept of the transitive verb to confer, and it’s two parts divided by neatrality, of
Conferring a Benefit, and Conferring a Detriment.
Add to that the concept of time. Then consider the ‘genus et differentia’ of synonyms used. Fine is now civil penalty, and forfeiture is now distraint, or seizure. (synonymous soft words for the same hard words, with trivial difference).
Past, Present and Future in the terminology.
Freedom from fines and forfeitures BEFORE a trial, (BoR tenet) and how a parking ticket is, yes you guessed it,
a supposed summons to a trial. And goes on to deliver a ‘civil penalty’ before a trial. ( De facto, in Reality ).
Think about what class of the Benefit, Detriment divide ‘civil penalties belongs,
and see how it is mouthed as if it is almost the benefit it is not.
Past treatment of this subject is comparatively thorough already here....
With lots of logic, fallacies, case law snippets here... Look at right hand bar menu.
The arguments will be thoroughly analysed here in the following months for anyone having a case at JR.
Consider the concept below, to properly disengage from an agenda driven frame that
emphasises differences where similarities are actually far more overwhelming.
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet." (Shakespeare R & J)
That which we call a fine
By any other word would still deplete."
AND That which we call forfeit
By any other word would spell deceit."
Where fines or forfeits before; are awful laughter,
A forfeit’s fine and lawful, that's only after. (Questor)