🚀 go-pugleaf

<not@top-post> wrote in message news:nbidncVxmKAC3jPd4p2dnA@is.co.za...
> I believe I've found a source of negative-knowledge.

It's called "Usenet".

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.

[further sophistry snipped]

Billing errors and disputes over accounts arise all the time and are
handled in a particular way that makes sense, NOT because it is
"scientific", NOT because it is the result of "applying simple
deduction to simple facts", NOT because it gives results that a
self-serving party would like to see it give, BUT RATHER because it
allows disputes to be settled simply and quickly, with some degree of
fairness. Dragging what you call "logic" into business transactions
only serves to put the other party on alert that you are attempting
some sort of sophistry that will cost them money if they go along with
it.

There are two principles that you have deliberately ignored throughout
your many postings on this matter that carry more weight than all the
logic you would have apply to it, and these are:

* When you owe a disputed debt, you are obliged to pay so much of it
as is not in dispute; you may not dispute the whole when the amount in
dispute is just a part. Not doing so goes by the name of Bad Faith.
People you deal with do not like dealing with you when you deal in bad
faith, and they will take recourse to the courts rather than deal with
someone who will not deal reasonably and in good faith.

* When there is action involving you or your interests in a court, you
are obliged to follow the deadlines and procedures established by that
court. Not doing so may result in your being found in default or in
contempt. While it is a principle that a court will prefer to settle a
case on the merits rather than by default, it is not such a fixed
principle that a court will excuse a default by a defendant who has no
very good excuse for his default and no argument that the court
believes could prevail if a trial were held.

-- 
Not a lawyer,

Chris Green

<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

From: Scott Hedrick <dinehnm@KILLALLSPAMMERSyahoo.com>
Newsgroups: sci.logic, us.legal.self-represent, can.legal
Subject: Re: Legal 'training' for negative-knowledge ?

 ><not@top-post> wrote in message
 >> I believe I've found a source of negative-knowledge.

 >It's called "Usenet".

What?  You mean it isn't the White House?
Tho extensive research found no references for negative-knowledge, I did
find one reference to anti-thought and a couple of no-think articles.

-- Spaced Out Bushel of Bush Bull
Bush, after brief consultation with Captains Kirk and Pichard of Starships
Enterprise and their chief engineer Scotty, has declared US will occupy
empty space now before it gets filled up.  Scotty, stunned and utterly
amazed by Bush's brilliance, an anti-thought engine producing a local
chaos bubble wherein one thinks he instantly gets there, is repeatedly
heard quoting from the child book story "The Little Engine that Could".

CENSORSHIP POLICY DROWNS IN THOUGHT POLICE THINK TANK
'We couldn't think of anything' boasted well trained thought agents.

THOUGHT POLICE THINK TANK FOUND LOST IN THOUGHT
Unthinkable thoughts thought to be the culprit.

----

"McGyver" <Greyprof@msn.com> wrote in message
news:2h90mfFabn1gU1@uni-berlin.de...
>  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."

You talk too much. The *fact* is, since pinhead didn't bother to follow the
long established rules, it's irrelevant what he *owed*. *Now*, he *does* owe
$11+. He would have saved money had he followed proper, long-established and
easily available legal procedure by answering the initial complaint and
showing up for trial. Because dumbass chose to ignore the existing rules and
failed at imposing his own, he lost. His math is *now* all wrong, and he
does in fact *now* owe what the other party claimed, plus costs and
interest. Instead of continuing to show what a dipshit he is by posting
here, the original poster should get a job and pay what he now owes. Had he
paid the undisputed part on time and followed proper legal procedure, he
wouldn't be wasting bandwidth.

"William Elliot" <marsh@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:20040522075557.H69410@agora.rdrop.com...
> From: Scott Hedrick <dinehnm@KILLALLSPAMMERSyahoo.com>
> Newsgroups: sci.logic, us.legal.self-represent, can.legal
> Subject: Re: Legal 'training' for negative-knowledge ?
>
>  ><not@top-post> wrote in message
>  >> I believe I've found a source of negative-knowledge.
>
>  >It's called "Usenet".
>
> What?  You mean it isn't the White House?

Not since Clinton left office.

On Sun, 23 May 2004, Scott Hedrick wrote:
> "William Elliot" <marsh@privacy.net> wrote in message
> > From: Scott Hedrick <dinehnm@KILLALLSPAMMERSyahoo.com>
> > Newsgroups: sci.logic, us.legal.self-represent, can.legal
> > Subject: Re: Legal 'training' for negative-knowledge ?
> >
> >  ><not@top-post> wrote in message
> >  >> I believe I've found a source of negative-knowledge.
> >
> >  >It's called "Usenet".
> > What?  You mean it isn't the White House?
>
> Not since Clinton left office.
>
Porn was much more intertaining than jobless recovery, false cause for
war, unilateral recklessness, and overproduction of White House lies.

"William Elliot" <marsh@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:20040523213702.K49197@agora.rdrop.com...
> On Sun, 23 May 2004, Scott Hedrick wrote:
> > "William Elliot" <marsh@privacy.net> wrote in message
> > > From: Scott Hedrick <dinehnm@KILLALLSPAMMERSyahoo.com>
> > > Newsgroups: sci.logic, us.legal.self-represent, can.legal
> > > Subject: Re: Legal 'training' for negative-knowledge ?
> > >
> > >  ><not@top-post> wrote in message
> > >  >> I believe I've found a source of negative-knowledge.
> > >
> > >  >It's called "Usenet".
> > > What?  You mean it isn't the White House?
> >
> > Not since Clinton left office.
> >
> Porn was much more intertaining than jobless recovery, false cause for
> war, unilateral recklessness, and overproduction of White House lies.

The Monica Lewinsky incident wasn't exactly porn, but I agree with you,
thank goodness things have improved since Bill left.

On Mon, 24 May 2004, Scott Hedrick wrote:
> "William Elliot" <marsh@privacy.net> wrote in message
> > >
> > Porn was much more intertaining than jobless recovery, false cause for
> > war, unilateral recklessness, and overproduction of White House lies.
>
> The Monica Lewinsky incident wasn't exactly porn, but I agree with you,
> thank goodness things have improved since Bill left.
>
Black is white and white is black.
and so you lack, we'll cut you slack.

"William Elliot" <marsh@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:20040524204156.D67454@agora.rdrop.com...
> On Mon, 24 May 2004, Scott Hedrick wrote:
> > "William Elliot" <marsh@privacy.net> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > Porn was much more intertaining than jobless recovery, false cause for
> > > war, unilateral recklessness, and overproduction of White House lies.
> >
> > The Monica Lewinsky incident wasn't exactly porn, but I agree with you,
> > thank goodness things have improved since Bill left.
> >
> Black is white and white is black.
> and so you lack, we'll cut you slack.

Ah, you've been listening to Barbra Streisand backwards.

On Tue, 25 May 2004, Scott Hedrick wrote:
> "William Elliot" <marsh@privacy.net> wrote in message
> > On Mon, 24 May 2004, Scott Hedrick wrote:
> > >
> > > The Monica Lewinsky incident wasn't exactly porn, but I agree with you,
> > > thank goodness things have improved since Bill left.
> > >
> > Black is white and white is black.
> > and so you lack, we'll cut you slack.
>
> Ah, you've been listening to Barbra Streisand backwards.
>
Your non-sequitur has been rewarded with
a free offer for you to speak coherently.

"William Elliot" <marsh@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:20040525213939.O15890@agora.rdrop.com...
> > "William Elliot"
> has been rewarded with
> a free offer

> to speak coherently.

Of course, you could always exercise your right to remain silent, so as to
not continue to embarass yourself.