Synopsis Index & & comment Case material & extracts
Anticipating, Understanding and Dismantling
the egregiously invidious, deplorable, reprehensible and disingenuous sophistry in Government, Local Councils, and Pseudo agencies purporting to deliver justice but returning precisely the opposite to the citizen under a code of conduct that promises the opposite. Promise breaching is the malaise of modern bureaucracies.
A brief Introduction
The LAWS of all countries are:
1. a. The body of rules, whether proceeding from formal enactment or from custom, which a particular state or community recognizes as binding on its members or subjects. OED.
A. As such these rules MUST be flexible and flow with the alterations of customs, variable and particular circumstance in their application .
B. Principles of Justice (That which is JUST 3. a. Consonant with the principles of moral right or of equity; righteous; equitable; fair. OED) MUST serve TRUTH (and its wholeness) as the highest of all doctrines as distinct from PROOF.
WHY? BECAUSE Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence! And TRUTH is NOT possible if it fails to correspond to reality, whereas PROOF may or may not correspond with reality. Proof relies on evidence, that requires resources the poorer cannot afford to obtain, is capable of manipulation by an agenda driven imbalance of
C. ‘suppressio veri’ (Misrepresentation of the truth by concealing facts which ought to be made known. OED) and
D. ’suggestion falsi’. (A misrepresentation of the truth whereby something incorrect is implied to be true; an indirect lie. OED) Using such arts in a court room, is categorically deplorable and unutterably condemnable where detrimental consequences are the flow. I have seen opposing solicitors, in British courts use them, wilfully, and the laws of perjury not invoked, because the issue was deemed to be minor, but this happened to be discrepant with reality and remains for further investigations by a body that is unaccountable to the claimant). That is why
Truth, the Whole truth and Nothing but.', is best, While 'Truth and Nothing but..', leaves out the rest.
Questor'©
Laws designed to protect the wealthy or powerful against the poor or weak are treasons upon the citizen’s of the country or world they are invoked, and where that country suppresses dissent of argument, using the above tools C. &D.
There may be an argument why governing bodies require frequent alteration. The more frequently the better, like in Roman times where Consuls were changed every year, (Specifically to block corruption that sets in as normally it does after this limited period) but unlike their tribunes perhaps should be changed every four years. This comment is NOT a thoroughly prepared argument at this point simply a view against prolonged terms of office spanning excesses of four years. Self crowning, (like Caeser, who paid for it with his life, disregarding these values, or otherwise controlling so as to prolong leadership and consequently self aggrandisement is utterly reprehensible).
Equally in JUST democracies, blocking truth by setting pre-requisites of ‘terms of reference’, frameworks of semantics, or rules ‘excepting’ certain methods of accessing truth, (other than of course torture), is a curb upon the very essence of what a JUST democracy is all about. Rarely if ever is there a person guilty of something, likely to consent to parting with documents resulting in self harm. It should be resisted at the outset to ensure that determinations and legal judgements are not bound by initial conditions that present an inherent obstacle, like a template, imprint or mould through which every attempt at TRUTH is frustrated and denied, like shaping the truth as if it were something to be extruded from a die. The only constraint on TRUTH is that LOGIC and the laws of Thought are the sole governing principles that avoid this outcome.
Free debate and argument is essential to this end and that is why:
Might’s not right, where argument's not treason, Treason's his who's Might, denies good reason.
Questor'©
Enlargement Decision 17th May 2006
Sofia Expects Barroso, Rehn May 17 Read the article.
The comm’s list below will be expanded on, with evidence of how, when and for how long the emails were examined.
The first 6-9 months, some 80 communications, going nowhere.
This is just provided to show there were SOME exchanges coming back, that took a year.
A reply from the Ministry of Justice sent us back to where the case would not be replied to, after we had explained the failures in the system. This will be enlarged.
Partial extract of limited index evidence for wilful omissions, opening emails, reading them, ignoring them deliberately.
Emails that are sent to an address, either tracked discreetly or registered that are not opened is simply a sham for the purpose of the email box being a disposal tray, or dustbin for unwanted emails. It should not be there, being a direct misrepresentation of an open system for communications that operates falsely. If it is a government email address and it fails to get opened or read it is testimony to a deplorable code of conduct, not particular to any country or system.
An accurate description of this conduct, for a serious legal request, falls under the logical categories that are:
1. If there is no obligation to perform a request, submitted by the sender, the absence of acknowledgement advising so is testimony to a degraded, primitive and undignified standard of communication, but not culpable. Such unworthy unbecoming conduct for a person employed and paid for by a taxpayer or any company, such as I used to run, is nevertheless dismissible
2. Where 1. Above applies and there are plenty of resources available, and the directing mind in control of the activity has a duty of care, as do ALL in a public office, or else paid to perform the duty of being a correspondence officer, then it is maladministration, particular misprision, nonfeasance, misfeasance a malfeasance, either on the part of the operator or directing mind to fail to ensure it reaches its destination, and some response is forthcoming. The entire conduct is a cloak for abrogation of responsibility, referred to in government usage (in the U.S.A. ) as plausible deniability, with the serious exception that it is not possible to deny a functionary has opened the correspondence. When it has been tracked. It is not possible to affirm plausibly that the intended recipient does not KNOW the information contain in the communication without evidence of that person being clearly incommunicado.
3. When 1. And 2. occurs in a group of recipients such as a group of ministers, persons of supposed integrity and self esteem, then it is testimony of a policy and orchestrated conduct of the most reprehensible behaviour, and in my view such non performance of duties of office are sufficient grounds for any taxpayer to vote an alternative system of rule.
This will be re-drafted over a short period of time, but the initial evidence revealed is available as html reading or a pdf file by clicking on the hyperlink so highlighted.
