Bernini - The Rape of Proserpina & Justice below.

Force of Destiny

2000+ Free world Best Books A-Z Aeschylus, Aesop, Alcott, Andersen, Antonius, Aristotle, Aristphanes, Augustin, Austen, Bacon, Bastiat, Baum, Behn, Berkeley, Bible_1, Bible_2, Bronte_C, Bronte_E, Shakespeare. Shakespeare

Logic Law
Fighting illegal motorist parking tickets,
Statutes & Laws

Bernini - The Ecstasy of St. Teresa & Truth below.

( Left is a sculpture not a picture, click to enlarge and look at finger pressure ). Click Pictures for links, end pictures to enlarge.
As in other FREE pages available for cases on this website.

Fallacy.1. Deception, guile, trickery; a deception, trick; a false statement, a lie. Obs.
Deceitfulness (obs.).b. Deceptiveness, aptness to mislead, unreliability.
A deceptive or misleading argument, a sophism.
In Logic esp. a flaw, material or formal, which vitiates a syllogism; any of the species or types to which such flaws are reducible.
Also, sophistical reasoning, sophistry.

Provided by Tony, REAL court & ruling arguments, to assist in rebuttal arguments by British quasi judicial bodies that show aspects of being
pretenders, equivocators, purporters and subtracters.
SOME of these are specially selected to riposte real arguments found excessively frequently with their exchanges with people unfamiliar with deceptive persuasions. Irrelevant thesis is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the dispute in question. First here are three different pages of the simpler forms of this fallacy.

  1. 'Begging the Question', or 'Petitio Principii', or the 'Circular argument.' Here. Different names for the same form. 1, 2, 3.

  2. ' Irrelevant thesis', or 'Ignoratio elenchi', or a 'Red herring' and 'missing the point.' Here. Different names for the same form. 1, 2, 3.

' Irrelevant thesis', or 'Ignoratio elenchi', or similarly a 'Red herring' and 'missing the point.' Different names for the same form. 1, 2, 3.
A deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument.
Very frequently used, and the diversion is framed in very clever similarities with the original. Like a chameleon.

  1. Another less complex example, clever in its simplicity because it is cloaked in legal language, and made to look close to the original that made it an item for fast delivery in a hearing that would leave its mark due to the speed of a viva voce exchange, where the ruling took place the next day, effectively meaning it was behind closed doors, disallowing the party to controvert. It's typical of media delivered sound bites, that are truncated exactly where the lie is effective at its apex. The argument is quite ludicrous, it was disambiguated in exchanges in a case W. Pendle V Bucks CC.

Some cases of irrelevant thesis are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle.

Red Herring. Also Known as: Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase


A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to “win” an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:

1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

Example #1:
“Argument” against a bond measure:

“We admit that this measure is popular. But we also urge you to note that there are so many bond issues on this ballot that the whole thing is getting ridiculous.”

Example #2:

“Argument” for a tax cut:
“You know, I’ve begun to think that there is some merit in the Republicans’ tax cut plan. I suggest that you come up with something like it, because If we Democrats are going to survive as a party, we have got to show that we are as tough-minded as the Republicans, since that is what the public wants.

Example #3:

“Argument” for making grad school requirements stricter:
“I think there is great merit in making the requirements stricter for the graduate students. I recommend that you support it, too. After all, we are in a budget crisis and we do not want our salaries affected.”

Introductory preamble, skip to the focus.

Most fallacies, are overlays of other fallacies with divergent or convergent prominence. They are managed as part of a choreographed management of the function of “suppressio veri, sugegstio falsi” suppress the truth and suggest what's false. This function of human conduct is the correlation of the function of 'appetition and aversion', appetite for benefit and aversion to detriment, that shows a course of conduct with utter precision.

The begging the question argument can be very sophisticated, and I have provided a complex example used in the Central London County Court, where it was taken apart in the traversal bundle minutely. It's subtleties are far less obvious than the irrelevant thesis, and become very obscure when the semantic cloak is obscured in civil procedure rules, that are familiar to a lawyer, but not to the layman. Its was taken apart by a person familiar with at least 5 disciplines, two being logic, but a limited working experience of law. The logic was the tool that engaged with the form instantly, as it matched the ontological argument for the existence of God, originally by St. Anselm about the 10th Century, and an awareness of the problem of circularity and a serious confusion over the issue of whether existence is indeed a predicate. For these, click here. Sorry to digress here, for those interested in the deeper arguments it is expounded in a treatise shortly to be released.

The irrelevant thesis arguments in quasi judicial courts have become quite sophisticated, and needs careful focus on the ideas and thoughts expressed in the words and sentences. It is very important to look at the 'snap' factor, ie the match or close match of argument and rebuttal. If there is no instinctive or immediate perception of 'SNAP' then look deeper. The response arguments are carefully phrased to match as close a possible to the ideas in the original arguments. The “1. Topic A is under discussion. 2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A 3. Topic A is abandoned,“ example makes A B C distinct but in real life it's far more subtle. Have a look at the first one here. Carefully cocooned in semantic overload, and prominence, so that it is easy to believe that what you are looking at, is like a 'stick insect' disguised as a real stick (ie: the argument closely matches your dispute), and you then accept the argument as valid against yours, when it is not. These are usually very valid arguments, and the trick used to to get as many words in your argument, into theirs, to disguise the wrapping to a close match, when it is a mismatch. The grammatical approach is quite simple, usually they will either swap a qualifying attribute, quality, property or else move the focus of the term to a higher generic level. See the first two arguments below. Both used by councils, successfully in one case with a judge supporting, because the appellant did not have the experience or articulate ability to dispute it, and in the second one, it's ongoing, but disambiguates easily. Click here.

A variety of methods are used to achieve this, notable for example in public office, where people are questioned, and prove unsuccessful in addressing questions, they are removed, others replace them, but the policies of the directing mid(s) remain in place, and small variations take place to palliate the change over or 'shuffle' as it's often called. The politic and policy system frequently show this where policies converge, and diverge, more recently being focussed on background forces of power and wealth that has intruded upon the democratic process substantially. The numbers of legal exchanges that reflect this function are legion. Typically, when several questions are asked of people carrying out official functions, they show the management of response that indicates the underlying thoughts with clarity as looking at either the surface reflection of water or what lies beneath. Official functions are often programmed responses that have to be escalated to the requisite levels in order to get access to truth, as increasingly decision making is centralised. Some basic principles reveal the underling patterns and their adherence to design and purpose.

Truthful responses have immediacy that crafted ones do not. Reviews that take days, weeks and months, reveal grappling with the questions and aversion, choice of words also shows two streams of consciousness. The main controlled conscious and directed output, and the natural flow from the contents of the subconscious complexes that break through in 'realisations.' showing cognitive dissonance.

The function of any adjudicator will reveal either passive observance, allowing the adversarial parties to fight unfairly, or show interference with management pursuant to; for example, furtherance of the 'overriding objective of fairness'. Like an umpire in a game, if certain rules are flouted without control, then it's obvious that under Court CPR, Civil Procedure Rules, some rules are treated strictly and others flexibly. This will show design and purpose, and is determined by perception of the critical path... Showing impartiality towards each side, while important, is not the same as showing impartiality where there is an equality of arms, or one side is is clearly demonstrating injustice.

The critical path of biased discretion shows its features in design and purpose when the process is ongoing or complete. When a flexible approach is used, and it coincides with one side, not balanced by the other; being treated strictly then clearly the adjudicator is biased without a shadow of doubt, especially when the party being supported has background circumstance of power or wealth that have influence. The result of such a hearing will be the proof that the use of discretion was applied with bias. Appeals denied re-enforce the view that the adjudicator is inflexible and does not treat the process independently, showing aspects of venality.

Responses that begin with phrases like “your comments have been noted”, leaving an air of unsatisfied expectation only. Depending on how this is phrased, it will mask intent to address the issues raised, or show they will be ignored.

The balance between the two functions of clear 'culpa lata', culpa lata dolo aequiparetur: ``a concealed fault is equivalent to a deceit'', And obvious candour shows the legal maxim admit nothing and deny everything” in operation.

Silence, lack of cogent response, lack of relevant response, reveal the casuist and sophist at work with deception. If one has that recorded or in writing, it becomes incontrovertible immediately. It is part of the function of an amalgam in 'design and purpose', 'appetition and aversion', 'acts and omissions' where in each process those acts that leave traces, and omissions that leave none, but show coherence in the structure of design and purpose in achieving the goal, then the omissions, that are the cloak that wraps and hides the 'mens rea' can be easily teased out by direct questioning, and examination of response in several dimensions, of speed, reaction, colour of face, hesitation being prominent, and when CPR 16.5 is borne in mind; “a defendant who fails to deal with an allegation shall be taken to admit that allegation.” the conclusion is the same anywhere else in open forums, as in a court of law.

First, several easy ones. Based on a quibble to a term.

  1. CHANNEL 4 News Wed, 28 May 2008 19:48:47
    Israeli PM accused of taking bribes. “Denies any wrongdoing.” -------- “Irrelevant thesis! - Ignoratio elenchi.”

    1. THINK about it! It not only involves his response, but also where the media truncates the sound-bite. A truncated sound bite leaves an air of expectation that doesn't get filled. They call it being impartial and giving each the same amount of time roughly. So the dialog is a time slice window into the whole, and this would of course render it also a fallacy of biased sample, insufficient sample and hasty generalisation. The sample is not in this case a numerical sample from a batch, it's simply a temporal sample from a dialog. Exactly like where a film producer cuts out the tedium of a day's kitchen scene from real life, and selects just the 5 minute fight over a meal. The above sound bite in bold leaves out all the potential below. Here would be the sort of questions that ought to be asked, and probably replies.

    2. That wasn't the question.
      Question “ DO YOU DENY taking BRIBES, specifically 15 years totalling £150,000?”
      “I Deny any wrongdoing.”

    3. That wasn't the question.
      Question “ DO YOU DENY taking BRIBES, specifically 15 years totalling £150,000?”
      “I Deny any wrongdoing.”
      That wasn't the question. I see the game. Playing a broken record?

    4. This is a perfectly clear irrelevant theme being addressed, Nobody asked the question “did you do any wrong?” It was either implied or else impLIED by the answer.


  1. From a case that went through the Traffic Enforcement Centre, TEC, to the local county court in Oxford, England. Appeal details here.

    1. I (We) wish to rely on the following evidence in support of this application:

    2. (a) PCN

    3. (b) Notice to Owner

    4. (c) Notice of Rejection

    5. (d) Charge Certificate

    6. I have established that, this documentation is not framed in the legal format that is required under the Road Traffic Act 1991.

      • meaning each document is non compliant and unenforceable.

      • I have been served with an illegal: a) PCN, b) Notice to Owner, c) Notice of Rejection, d) Charge Certificate.

    1. The council swore a statement of truth that was of course perfectly true. They swore that the defendant had been served with a:a) PCN, b) Notice to Owner, c) Notice of Rejection, d) Charge Certificate.

    2. That statement was accepted by the judges, overriding the overriding objective of fairness under CPR 1.1.

    3. The generic terminology simply shifted back up one 'class' or 'generic type member difference' obliterating the qualifying adjective illegal. Still True, but HIDING the veiled falsity.

      • Eg; A PCN that was legal, issued on date, location at; etc, each qualifying adjunct word gets stripped back as one moves back to the generic root, until you are left with just the general term itself. Trith in a general terms is blocked when all the attributes are stripped back as it moves to greater generality.

      • The principle is in a High Court decision that is shown in....

      • Judgments - Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA (in Compulsory Liquidation) v. (1) Munawar Ali, (2) Sultana Runi Khan and Others


      • 9. ...........

      • "No doubt it is possible a priori that the release was framed in general terms in the hope of blotting out, so to speak, all conceivable grounds of further disputes or claims between all or any two or more parties............................

      • Telling a truth that covers a falsity. A whole special area of cloaking that is thoroughly investigated in the “treatise on critical thinking - Winter”, subject negations.

  1. Quibbling a terms, that is a critical path through CPR rules where some get upheld strictly and some flexibly, and show bias, design and purpose that is determinable with utter precision. Two easy ones.

    1. Judge Price in the county court said to “W”, your application to act as a litigant friend is wrong, it should say litigation friend. “W” asked “Does that mean I am barred from helping in these proceedings? .............. “ I didn't say that”.

    2. W” writes to the court office and asks to change the word litigant to litigation, and the court staff say that's a bit fussy they understood what “W” meant using the term litigant. The reply comes back, Application dismissed...... no reason. Clever? WRONG word?

    3. Moral.....Choosing the wrong word from the same stem, can be fatal, even if both words mean the same thing (with a judge prepared to override the overriding objective of fairness in CPR 1.1. “W” wrote afterwards and advised it was all noted!)

  1. Camden V Winter heading towards PATAS, prevented by abuse of procedure.

    1. Camden “Our PCNs are valid

    2. Winter not interested they are illegal, he will prove it, (several million pounds at stake in restitutions; (Barnet V Moses gets there first, due to delays by Camden in their agenda to prevent.) here is £100 (£50 for PCN, £50 for hearing) in advance payment for PATAS hearing, Camden returns cheque and says 'wait for procedure after you file an appeal', Winter had filed five informal, now files formal appeal, Camden commits / omits a standard omission for commission, sending a notice of rejection and jumps procedure to a charge certificate a whole bundle o'flies commences and they deny receiving it. Winter SHOWS them a receipt on their own letterhead, Camden begins to back down breaching seventeen statutes in the process. Winter takes Camden caught to court. Camden Lose £4000 in costs, at the hearing, Winter is not finished.

  1. Bucks CC V W. Pendle.

    Simple argument same type from the whole genre of 'irrelevant thesis', look how this one is managed at the council AND at Npas now TPT, (notice all the name changes of quasi judicial bodies hardly any are the same from 5 years ago), all being managed under principles of neuro linguistic programming to act on the touchstones of association complexes in the subconscious. “The feel good factor”. Persuading people to feel good about stealth tax detriments orchestrated under false causes.

I (We) wish to rely on the following evidence in support of this application:

(a) PCN

(b) Notice to Owner

(c) Notice of Rejection

(d) Charge Certificate

(e) Bill of Rights 1689

(f) Sworn statements of truth from various Oxford Council employees

(g) Defendants’ original NPAS tribunal hearing

(h) Road Traffic Act 1991

Having examined the format, of the documentation (PCN,Notice to Owner and Charge Certificate) that is normally issued by Oxford County Council

I have established that, this documentation is not framed in the legal format that is required under the Road Traffic Act 1991.

The Court (Northampton) has been made aware of serious flaws within the process of the Court and it is now required that the authority of the Court be withdrawn from Oxford County Council in this case.


Having examined the format, of the documentation (PCN, Notice to Owner and Charge Certificate) that is normally issued by Oxford County Council.

I have established that, this documentation is not framed in the legal format that is required under the Road Traffic Act 1991.

NB: See attached adjudication decisions, issued by NPAS & PATAS in the cases of:-

(a) LB Barnet v PATAS EWHC 2357 (Admin

(b) NPAS - Lukha –v- Aylesbury Vale (appeal Number AY05003B)

(c) PATAS - Grosskopf –V- Transprt for London (2060157255)

(d) NPAS - Cummins v Sefton SF 05034J

Letter from ALG which includes summary of a High Court decision declaring non-compliant PCNs to be a nullity.

(c) ALG – Nick lester


The Court (Northampton) and the claimant has been made aware of serious flaws within the process of the Court and it is now required that the authority of the Court be withdrawn from Oxford County Council in this case.

Letter from Neil herron to Northampton County Court


In light of recent evidence including the High Court decision, and in light of new evidence provided herein, it is requested that in the interests of Justice, that the Defendant has an opportunity to have the case reheard either before a tribunal or a Court. The original case heard before an NPAS tribunal is flawed on the basis that sworn statements of truth, signed by Oxford County Council employees, state that the detriments known as PCN’, are fines. The claimant won the tribunal by virtue that the adjudicator the Defendant’s hearing, stated that the detriment known as a PCN is not a fine, but are civil penalties. By virtue of the Council’s own Officer’s sworn statements, the decision of the adjudicator is brought into question.

free webstats