🚀 go-pugleaf

<not@top-post> wrote in message
news:nbidncVxmKAC3jPd4p2dnA@is.co.za...
> Physicists claim to have found anti-matter.
> I believe I've found a source of negative-knowledge.
> Repeatedly, I've confirmed that persons with elementary
scientific or
> accounting training, immediately see [what we believe is] the
obvious
> answer to the scenario below.
>
> All attorneys who I've tested don't see it in terms of applying
simple
> deduction to simple facts, but rather as a search through their
mental
> library of case histories.   I.e parrot like "matching up of
phrases",
> without consideration of the deeper meaning.  Which leads to
> absurd conclusions.

You haven't tested any attorneys.  You have asked questions,
received correct answers about what the law is.  You don't agree
that the law should be as it is, so you repeatedly sneer at the
lawyers who gave you the answers.  That doesn't amount to testing
the ability of lawyers to apply simple deduction to simple facts.

> So far, I've not determined if they started with this inability
or whether
> negative-knowledge was aquired during training and practice.
>
> Here's the scenario, which is incrementally modified, to evolve
from
> the kindergarden version towards the final version:-
>
> 1. You receive goods from a supplier for $10, and the false bill
for $11
>   arrives.  Do you have a valid defence to dispute the error ?
Yes, of course.
>   To those who say you should pay $10 and dispute the balance:
you intend
>   to leave the country/planet soon, and it is vital that you
leave without
>   a false record of being a debtor, who left owing an
outstanding balance.
>   Apparentlly 'credit rating' is important these days, and could
be vital to
>   a bussiness.   I.e. you insist on [and are entitled to]
correct billing.

Do you have a valid defense to dispute the error?  Yes.  Do you
have a valid defense to dispute the entire bill?  No.  Regardless
of your reasons for wanting a correct bill, no matter how "vital",
that need doesn't create rights, or any defense, or change what
the law is.  So for the remainder of this silliness, when you ask
whether the defense of Item 1 has been destroyed, the answer will
be that you still have a valid defense to dispute the erroneous
portion of the bill.

>  To force a resolution before you leave, you notify the supplier
that you
>  are withholding payment, until the supplier either acknowledges
>   your documentary proof that the correct amount is $10 or
provides
>   counter evidence that his $11 is correct.
>
> 2. The supplier sends a letter demanding $11 by date 3 "else
legal action".
>   If you had a defence at step 1, has this now been removed? Of
course not.
>
> 3. You receive an attorney's demand letter to pay $11 [don't get
>  side-tracked by interest and fees] by date 4 "else summons will
be issued".
>  If you had a defence at steps 1 and 2, has this now been
removed ?
> Of course not, since the "cause of action" was at time 1, and
repeating
> the 'false' demands doesn't make it any less false.
>
> 4. The summons is issued.  Has this event now, magically
destroyed the
>  valid defence of stage 1, to render you defenseless ?  No, the
court
>  will see that your evidence proves that the supplier is
'wrong'.
> ----------
>
> If you understand this kindergarden version above, lets refine
it towards
> the final scenario by the following modifications:-
>
> 5. At stage 2 you received an identical supply with the same
billing
> error [known to be caused by their same computer error], so that
the
> correct balance owing was then $20 and the false bill was for
$22.
> If your defence at stage 1 was against their false billing, how
can
> now, identical further false billing NOT be a similar defence ?
>
> 7. Now at stages 3 and 4 further identical supplies with
corresponding
> false billings occur. I.e the true balance accumulates to $40
and the
> corresponding false billing reads $44. Can attorneys handle this
simple
> arithmentic ?     At date of issue of summons when the true
admitted
> balance owing was $40 and the false billing was $44, was there a
> valid 'defence against the claim' ? Of course: by the same logic
as
> the defense of stage 1 existed !   Namely the false continued
billing.
> ----------
>
> Here's the smoke and mirrors magic of 'legal logic', i.e. by
just "matching
> up phrases" without considering the deeper implications:-
>
> "Since you admitted owing $40 which is more than the claim of
$11,
> you have no defence" I.e the supplier made no mistake !!

Nobody ever said that.  You insist on presenting stupid statements
as if they were the statements of the court or the attorneys.  The
truth is, what the attorney and the court were saying was, the
complaint is not invalid.  Everyone understood that you were
saying that the amount claimed was not the amount you owed.  But
that's what trials are for.  Since you admit you owed some amount,
it would be silly to toss out the entire complaint because the
claimed amount is not accurate according to the defendant.  Don't
you see that when you present your evidence that the complaint
didn't state the correct amount, you were presenting evidence that
should have been presented at trial, followed by a judicial
determination of the correct amount owed?  Why not present the
evidence properly at trial?  Because there was a default judgment.
Your silly attempts to present your evidence at hearings on the
issue of setting aside the default were ignored because they were
irrelevant.  At post-judgment hearings, nobody cares whether the
complaint stated the amount that would have been determined to be
correct at trial.  If you want to tell the truth instead of making
up silly statements about what lawyers said or thought, try this
one.  What you were saying in your case was, in effect: "This
default judgment should  be set aside because I owed $10, not the
$11 stated in the complaint, therefore the complaint was invalid,
therefore the default judgment was invalid."

> BTW the cumbersome thousand word attempted explanation above,
> is NOT how I choose to explain the scenario; which rather is
simply by
> 3 columns of a few figures.  But the attorneys [multiple] can't
understand
> tabulated figures.   Can they understand this verbal description
?

Lovely.  When you first brought this fiasco to our attention in
about July of 2002, your subject line was "Is this too difficult
to understand?"  I and others replied: "Yes", not because we don't
understand logical presentation of  "simple columns of a few
numbers", but because your interpretations of those numbers, and
your explanations of the resulting legal conclusions, were
convoluted, confusing and illogical.  You received accurate
answers and good advice.  Since then you have been snearing about
it.  We can indeed understand tabulated figures.  What we can't
understand is why a person would stop paying municipal utilities
accounts in order to get the municipal authorities to begin a
foreclosure proceeding against the property which is his only
source of income, as a means of get their billing corrected, then
after a default judgment in the foreclosure action, decline to
hire an attorney to undo the mess, because the one you interviewed
was too stupid to understand your Rube Goldburg explanation of the
defects in the complaint.

> Please somebody, releive the pain from the disonance of the
apparently
> absurd legal conclusion that "you have no defence" since you
"admitted
> owing more than the claim".

There was no such legal conclusion.  You had a good defense
regarding the amount that you didn't owe.  The legal conclusions
were that the complaint was not invalid, and that the default was
proper.  Naturally, if you owe $10 and get sued for $11 and a
default judgment is entered, the judgment will be for $11.  That's
because there is no trial, in which you could have presented your
defenses.

> Or should I jump in front of a moving train ?

That's not a bad characterization of what you did.  You forced the
municipality to foreclose on your property as a means of getting
an accurate accounting.  Same thing.

McGyver