The Prima Facie Case for Shakespeare Drafted by legally qualified oxfraudians

[Lawrence Gerald]

https://express.adobe.com/page/oeL8Iuo40YZrU/?fbclid=IwAR0AwU-YyWjPUJvVJcKnCJJb202BtIRr_SMiIs9sgpr7dGUPM5mbMcmPUck

 

Anyone want to comment on a Stratfordian case for "evidence?"

[Light-of-Truth]

Well, they made a case that some plays have the name William Shakespeare on them. They also provide evidence a William Shakespeare was involved in a few dealings back then, and was listed with other people. I didn't see any evidence he ever wrote anything.

Funny with all the evidence relating Bacon to the Works, it is a joke to see what the Strats have to come up with for any evidence! LOL

 

 

[Lawrence Gerald]

It's a joke alright,  they don't bring home the bacon

[Allisnum2er]

 If I dared, I would say that this is an attractive packaging for an empty box ! Oups ... I dared !😄

[Light-of-Truth]

Seriously, A. Phoenix adds more Baconian evidence to this forum every week than Strats have accumulated in 350 years.

Can we have even ONE "Spot the Likeness" with Willy Shaks notes that are in the Shake-speare works? A letter, a personal memo to oneself, a single page of Willy's thoughts?

Does not exist. Period. We've known for much longer than Strats. Since 1626?

When was the first Strat? Decades later after Bacon died?

Willy had no Shakespearean thoughts, he at best got a few checks because he was born with a name that "kind of" fit where the Works were heading.

Dee (or Ben) :

Hey Willy, want to make a few bucks?

Willy:

Watta I gotta do? U no I kan't read..."

Dee (or Ben) :

You do nothing, we'll handle that. Just hold that horse...

Bet Willy never knew who was behind, too stupid to lie well enough to cover, too stupid to care.

 

 

 

 

[A Phoenix]

Hi Rob,

Absolutely, hilarious! Love it.

[Lawrence Gerald]

https://sirbacon.org/gallery/bettycrocker.htm   

Shake, Fake, and Bake in regards to Prima Facie logic

[Christie Waldman]

Perhaps the best way to see it is as a joke, which they have stated that it is, but I would be careful of a few things. I do not like it that they claim to be making a legal argument and have the imposing, intimidating photograph of the gavel, as if they have the force of law, the power of the state, behind them, and their claim that the website was put together by “legally trained Oxfraudians.” I think their website could mislead ordinary people into thinking they have a stronger case than they do. That has been par for the course, unfortunately, but in law, parties are bound by rules of evidence. Lawyers are supposed to be particularly careful about not intentionally misleading people.

Also, I believe they are misstating the law regarding the making of a prima facie case. They say, all they need to do is present their case, and if we can’t rebut their evidence, they win (on summary judgment). But, at least under New York legal procedure, that is not quite accurate. First, it is a judge who decides whether a party has presented sufficient evidence to make a prima facie case--not a party to the case. But then, if the opposing party (ours, say) raises genuine questions of material fact, they do not win. Instead, there would have to be a trial, and the judge would hear all the evidence and issues relevant to the matter (or maybe their case would just be thrown out of court). Good evidence cannot simply be ignored because it is contrary to one's position, as they have ignored ours. They are not writing on a blank slate.

A case for Francis Bacon is made up of a totality of circumstances, not just rebuttal of the case for the Stratford man. Words printed on a page are not necessarily true. Statements made by contemporaries which seem to be referring to Shaxpere are sometimes ambiguous as to whether they mean Shaxpere or Shakespeare-the-real-poet. One must read between the lines sometimes, but people today tend to take everything “at face value.” That was not true four hundred years ago.

Also concerning is the fact that Philip Buchan, one of the two authors of that website, wants to argue that everyone who has signed the Declaration of Reasonable Doubt has already conceded, by signing, that the Stratfordians have a preferred status of having (given themselves) a prima facie case. I disagree. The Declaration says, while at first, it might look like the Stratfordians have a prima facie case, that is only until one looks more closely at the evidence. Prima facie in Latin means “on the face of it, at first glance.” A “prima facie case” is one “such as will prevail until contradicted and overcome by other evidence” (Black’s Law Dictionary). As we know, the evidence in favor of Francis Bacon’s authorship does not lie easily on the surface. Ours is the opposite of a prima facie case. It is the case of a well-planned deception. That does not make it a bad case; but it is not a matter which is easily proven. These “Oxfraudians”--whoever they purport to represent--want the matter to be a quick win in their favor. Fortunately, they do not get to decide the matter once and for all. They do not have jurisdiction over the hearts and minds of reasoning, independent individuals the world over, for all time. I don’t think Shakespeare would have thought that was a joking matter. 

Added 7-15-22. The Oxfraud Facebook Group, a public group, posted the first paragraph of my comment above (March 4, 2022) on July 8., 2022 on their own Facebook page.  They make a "Prima Facie Case" for William Shaxpere's authorship of Shakespeare at their Oxfraud.com website home page. The "PFC," as they call it, was prepared by two retired U.S. attorneys, Mark Johnson and Philip Buchan. Johnson confirmed yesterday that none of them has ever "stated, implied, or suggested" that the "Prima Facie Case" was a joke.  What Johnson said was that their legal reference to a "qualified legal team" and the image of a gavel (since removed) on that page were "meant to be humorous" (comment last February and confirmed yesterday, at their Facebook page). They think I went too far in inferring that the humor towards the law they displayed there on their "Prima Facie Case" page might extend to the case itself. Point taken. Let the record show that they stand by their "Prima Facie Case" in all seriousness!    

Edited July 16, 2022 by Christie Waldman
Clarification

[Light-of-Truth]

We all hear that "possession is 9 tenths of the law." I don't know if that is true, but it appears the Strats "own" Shakespeare right now because they took ownership in the mid 1600's based on the name appearing on the First Folio.

There is no evidence anywhere that Willy Shakspur ever owned a copy of a play, nor wrote one. But the name "William Shakespeare" does appear on them.

There is no evidence Willy ever owned a book, or wrote anything but a few scribbles there and there.

Baconians have a wealth of circumstantial evidence, and many people have been convicted of crimes by circumstantial evidence. Many of those were innocent.

To "prove" in a Court of Law that Willy Shakspur did not write the works of William Shakespeare would be a nearly impossible burden. It would be a moot point to attempt.

Same goes for "proving" Bacon wrote the works. Unless, of course, we found the body of handwritten Shakespeare manuscripts with notes in Bacon's handwriting along with his own papers. In a Court of Law, we need the Body.

So we are attempting to sway public opinion. And even then if you ask 100 people who wrote Shakespeare, over 90 will probably say "Shakespeare" did, and not care one little bit if he didn't. Now the Oxies have taken over the lead with the few who do question the authorship because they have a money engine behind them luring in celebrities and others who want to be in that exclusive club. We who are Baconians see the facts, but are a loosely connected not-so-wealthy group of individuals that accept the evidence as discovered and revealed.

I believe we are making progress, but we need to be realistic in that proving anything is burden likely to fail, but we can possibly persuade many of those who care about Truth that Bacon was probably the author, or at least the leader of authors, who created the works of Shakespeare.

 

[Christie Waldman]

In essence I agree, Light-of-Truth. As to what I wrote yesterday, one further thought: "if" all the Oxfraudians are saying is: "here is our best case we are presenting 'to the [hypothetical] court' for consideration for prima facie case status," that is one thing. If so, they should make that clear. But, then, they cannot judge the case. The Stratfordian case is based on tradition and very little factual evidence. It is the lack of strong evidence that, I stress, renders their case unsuitable for prima facie status, as well as the evidence of genuine issues of material facts that, if they do not disprove their case, keep them from winning before a "full trial" is had. "Proving the case" may never happen/have already happened/yet happen (depending on who is the judge). But I think just to be in the game (again), just to have "them," the gatekeepers, not be saying, "Of course it was not Bacon; there is no point even inquiring into whether it might have been Bacon," would be progress.  I am not sure that is what they are saying (and our independent research of Bacon is not dependent on it). But if "they" are inviting us--all challengers--to be in "their" (controlled) game again, and all we have to do is show the flaws in their case they are presenting for prima facie consideration by a judge (not status already granted), that would be something to take note of. "They" have already conceded collaboration (for anyone but Bacon, it seems). The case against their evidence has been presented before, many times. However, they ignore past presentations and invite us to attempt the impossible: to marshall all the evidence against their case and for our own case in one spot. I picture their man as a blind king on a hill, with mountains of evidence against his claim all around him. Good evidence against one's case cannot simply be ignored. Baconians study more than authorship, of course. 

[Light-of-Truth]

The Strats would prefer we "Shut up!" 😉

https://sirbacon.org/special-stratfordians/

 

[Lawrence Gerald]

That's A. L. Rowse, a Stratfordian  embarrassment.

When the prima facie Oxfraudians call themselves "Legally trained Oxfraudians" along with their "imposing, intimidating photograph of the gavel," as Christina states,  it makes me laugh and think of Putin's  pernicious invaders in Ukraine that he spins as  a "Peacekeepers Operation."

 

One thing I can say about Francis Bacon  is he did a pretty good job of revealing and concealing his Authorship so that every  generation  would have a chance to engage and test out  his notions on Mediocra Firma and The Four Idols while undergoing the  inquiry and treasure hunt.

What does anyone think of the use of Stylometrics by some researchers  as a way of determinating Authorship?

[Light-of-Truth]

Christina, your law education, experience, and Baconian insight is very welcome here!

The "Oxfraudians" are doing a justice for we Baconians in that they have some of the finest arguments against the Oxies we have today. That is a battle few of us have time or energy to take on.

Why they cling onto the status-quo, who knows. It is hard to change a mind, speaking for myself for one.

There was a time when everybody believed the world was flat. If you went to far, you'd fall off. The "evidence" they had was convincing; look off into the horizon, looks flat. The Sun and Moon went around our flat Earth. "Everybody knows that!"

Even today there are "Flat-Earthers".

And the Stratfordian theory still thrives today. At least for anyone who does not care enough to look into it. 😉

 

[Lawrence Gerald]

11 hours ago, Light-of-Truth said:

We all hear that "possession is 9 tenths of the law." I don't know if that is true, but it appears the Strats "own" Shakespeare right now because they took ownership in the mid 1600's based on the name appearing on the First Folio.

There is no evidence anywhere that Willy Shakspur ever owned a copy of a play, nor wrote one. But the name "William Shakespeare" does appear on them.

There is no evidence Willy ever owned a book, or wrote anything but a few scribbles there and there.

Baconians have a wealth of circumstantial evidence, and many people have been convicted of crimes by circumstantial evidence. Many of those were innocent.

To "prove" in a Court of Law that Willy Shakspur did not write the works of William Shakespeare would be a nearly impossible burden. It would be a moot point to attempt.

Same goes for "proving" Bacon wrote the works. Unless, of course, we found the body of handwritten Shakespeare manuscripts with notes in Bacon's handwriting along with his own papers. In a Court of Law, we need the Body.

So we are attempting to sway public opinion. And even then if you ask 100 people who wrote Shakespeare, over 90 will probably say "Shakespeare" did, and not care one little bit if he didn't. Now the Oxies have taken over the lead with the few who do question the authorship because they have a money engine behind them luring in celebrities and others who want to be in that exclusive club. We who are Baconians see the facts, but are a loosely connected not-so-wealthy group of individuals that accept the evidence as discovered and revealed.

I believe we are making progress, but we need to be realistic in that proving anything is burden likely to fail, but we can possibly persuade many of those who care about Truth that Bacon was probably the author, or at least the leader of authors, who created the works of Shakespeare.

 

Sometimes possession is 9 tenths of the flaw.

 

[Light-of-Truth]

Lawrence, Stylometrics is one of the areas where Baconian evidence is growing. A. Phoenix is doing it, Barry R. Clarke has written powerful scholarly articles with his research, and even a few of us cipher people have come up with a few nuggets.

It is still "circumstantial" as far as a Court of Law argument, but can and will convert some who are on the fence or curious. If all of the sudden we had proof Willy never existed but in name, then Baconians could nail the argument. But as long as people believe Willy Shakspur was William Shakespeare, stylometrics is just another pieve of evidence in the argument.

It is important and needs support and encouragement. 🙂

[Christie Waldman]

Thank you, Light-of-Truth. I meant to mention Barry's book when I was talking about "collaboration." Francis Bacon's Contribution to Shakespeare: A New Attribution Method (Routledge, 2019). But I have to bow out of this conversation now.

 

Edited March 4, 2022 by Christie Waldman
instead of writing a separate post.

[Light-of-Truth]

The way I see it is thus, as far as evidence to "prove" Bacon was Shakespeare.

1. Hand written manuscripts by Bacon in his pen of the plays with his notes and edits. Along with other of his works on the same paper and same ink. (We all hope something exists and will be discovered.)
    
2. The Royal family announces that Bacon was indeed born to Queen Elizabeth I. (Someone knows the Royal Secret and may one day be free to share.) That would do it, I believe, as so much in the Sonnets and in the Works suggest Bacon was born to Elizabeth. That is why the Oxies have concocted their own DeVere story as being a Royal birth.

That might be it. If I found a cipher that is clear that says, "I am Francis Bacon and I wrote Shakespeare" it might not be enough.  😉

 

[Light-of-Truth]

Stylometrics definitely includes what you are doing, Christina, with your amazing research connecting Bacon's lawyer thoughts with what is obviously in Shakespeare. Incredible well-thought work! Plus your footnotes open up a world of Baconian knowledge unknown to many of us.

Just today I saw Bacon sharing his legal thinking in the 33rd "Topick" of the Winds in his very own works (yet still in third person).

"...a good Lawyer knows what Interrogatories the Cause requires to have witnesses examined upon; but what the witnesses can answer he knows not."

He couldn't help leaving it out of Shakespeare, but he couldn't be too obvious, even though it was obvious. 😉

 

 

[Light-of-Truth]

Quote

When the prima facie Oxfraudians call themselves "Legally trained Oxfraudians" along with their "imposing, intimidating photograph of the gavel," as Christina states,  it makes me laugh and think of Putin's  pernicious invaders in Ukraine that he spins as  a "Peacekeepers Operation."

It's time for Dee (Prospero) to conjure up a wicked storm from north north-west (Circius) with a very strong wind blowing towards the south south-east (Phoenix), to bring back some peace.

* < 1881 > *

😉

 

 

[Lawrence Gerald]

1 hour ago, Christie Waldman said:

Thank you, Light-of-Truth. I meant to mention Barry's book when I was talking about "collaboration." Francis Bacon's Contribution to Shakespeare: A New Attribution Method (Routledge, 2019). But I have to bow out of this conversation now.

 

They have their Entrances and Exits...

[Light-of-Truth]

Some Ukraine weather stations still work. Being in Florida where we thought 61 degrees F was chilly this morning, we'd say it is miserable there barely above freezing on a good day. Tuesday March 8 is predicting a NNW "circus" wind and snow. Come on Dee!!

March 8 in the Sonnets Pyramid?

March 8 is Day 67. Remember in my Pyramid video I explain how Sonnet 66 (with its T, 11 A's, another T and an S) goes into Sonnet 67 at Day 157. Funny how Day 67 in the Sonnets also has a 157. The first letters of Sonnet 29 are "WIAAWFDWYHLFFT" and add up to 157 Simple cipher and 365 Kaye. It is Day 67 when Sonnet 29 starts.

Furthermore, Sonnet 67 has an eleven letter Simple cipher of 111.

So does Sonnet 29.

That's all part of how the Pyramid works. Whether Day or Sonnet 66 to Day or Sonnet 67, we see 157 and 111. Sealed and Bacon in Kaye cipher. It's how it works. Even Line 66 to 67 has a 157 to find if one has wisdom and eyes to see.

That said, I'd love to see the end of this war circus over on March 8 with a NNW wind, and if it takes Dee brewing up a storm like he did with Spain way back when, so be it. 157, 365, and 111 all there.

Will it be over, doubtful, but maybe a turning point? I know politics is banned on this forum, but this is not politics as much as a Global event that the entire planet mostly agrees is inappropriate right now, even inside Russia. I'm from the Baconian school of "Why can't we all get along." There is enough of everything to go around, thanks to Bacon's scientific method. Nobody needs war and violence.

Lines from Day 67, March 8:

When in disgrace with fortune and men's eyes
I all alone beweep my outcast state,
And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries,
And look upon myself, and curse my fate,

Hope these are Putin's thoughts next week, even though were Bacon's 400 years ago.

Just sayin'...

I'll remove this post is anyone asks.

 

 

 

[Lawrence Gerald]

The Proof is in the Putin

[Allisnum2er]

6 hours ago, Lawrence Gerald said:

The Proof is in the Putin

It all depends on what you put in ! 🙂 

[Lawrence Gerald]

The Proof is in the Rasputin in the Putin

[Light-of-Truth]