On Oxfrauds Needing Better Lawyers

Some may be aware that the Oxfraud group posted a “Prima Facie Case for Shakespeare” brief [link] a number of year ago. The oft stated intent was to apply the time tested legal formulas associated with judiciary system in order to arrive at a decision on the authorship question that would rise above partisan claim and counter-claim.

The reader may draw their own conclusions whether the Oxfrauds have achieved their stated goal. Toward that end, I provide the text of the item number 9 from the Oxfraudian “Prima Facie Case for Shakespeare” brief.

9 - a worthy fellow

Heminges and Condell state that the works in the First Folio were written by “so worthy a friend and fellow...as was our Shakespeare”.

It specifically enters as established evidence that H&C wrote a specific line from the dedicatory letter in the front matter of the First Folio.

I have pointed out that the Oxfraudian claim in their so-called “Prima Facia” brief, that Heminges and Condell actually wrote the letters   ̶  and (or, at least) the sentence in question   ̶  in the front matter of the First Folio, could not clear the bar for prima facie evidence. I cannot help but notice that, since then, their “legal team” (such as it is) has begun repeatedly to reaffirm it as an established fact. Practically every comment thread at Edward de Vere was Shakespeare Facebook Group is larded with the claim.

This has now become the basis of Item 9. “We repeat it endlessly therefore it is true.”

By way of representative example only:

MJ: “No evidence”...? You mean other than a direct statement to that effect from Heminges and Condell, right....? Or doesn't that qualify as evidence for Oxfordians?

But there is no such “direct statement” at all. There is, indeed, a “statement to the effect” in a letter understood by a consensus of highly reputable literary experts to have been written in whole or in part by the poet and playwright Ben Jonson.¹

If we consult Rule 901 of the United States Federal Court System, on “Authenticating or Identifying Evidence” [link], as a definitive legal authority on the matter, we find the following:

(a) In General. To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.

*

(8) Evidence About Ancient Documents or Data Compilations. For a document or data compilation, evidence that it:

(A) is in a condition that creates no suspicion about its authenticity;

Even if there are a scattered few dissenting experts, there is indelible suspicion as to whether Heminges or Condell wrote any of   ̶  or any particular statement within   ̶  the letters. The Oxfraudian insistence that their brief is fully legitimate including Item 9 as stated is simply and entirely contradicted by Rule 901. No matter how many times they declare otherwise.

Their genuine obedience to behavioral laws, on the other hand, is notable. Not entirely confident of the effects of continuously repeating that the law says what they say it says, and applies when and how they say it applies, they have taken on the time-tested tactic of declaring Facebook credentials. Again, as example:

MJ: Gilbert.... I conducted discovery, and responded to discovery requests, in thenormal course of my business, for over thirty years as a trial attorney.

MJ was actually the second Oxfraudian in a week to reveal that he has humbly withheld from the parties in the authorship debates that he is a highly qualified lawyer. Others are no such thing therefore his declarations regarding the matter have over-riding authority.

So then, Item 9 survives the Rules of Evidence by dint of constant repetition and the revelation that the Oxfraud Facebook Group is populated with lawyers of long practice in whatever aspect of the law is subject of a given discussion. And not only lawyers. We learn the following from another comment thread, at the Edward de Vere was Shakespeare Facebook Page [link].

RL: I have training in doing literary and historical research.

RL has high credentials, as well. All this time the Oxfraud group has been humbly withholding the fact that their members possess the highest credentials, and years of the deepest experience, it would appear, in all fields contingent to the realm of Shakespeare Authorship debate.

I must admit that I have discovered myself debating with an astonishing number of the world's finest experts on Facebook over the years. If I am in a debate about cultural anthropology, and am crushing it, I am suddenly informed that I am debating with a world-respected expert in the field, who, of course, participates in Facebook under a name-de-plumb. It is impossible that he should be wrong on a topic he knows so well therefore I am demonstrably utterly wrong. If I'm driving my opponent to the wall in a debate on a medieval Papal Bull fate strikes again and my interlocutor, it turns out, suddenly reveals that he has spent over 20 years as the number 2 secretary to Senior Vatican Cardinal So-and-So. &c.

Now, I might be wrong to think that because MJ and his fellow Oxfraudian lawyer RB misapply virtually every legal term and concept they advance in an amateurish and self-serving fashion they cannot be lawyers. Who knows? Perhaps they're just out of practice. Or perhaps they are just not competent lawyers. And, of course, even highly competent lawyers have as their task to see to it by any available means fair or foul that their client wins. I am willing to admit that somehow after these fashions they might turn out to be lawyers.

But if we follow their arguments carefully we find that they continually assert roles not only as lawyer but as judge and jury. In their world, their claims survive the plain text of the Federal Rules of Evidence because the Oxfrauds are also the judge hearing the matter and in his court the judge has the final say.

Their credentials as judge or jury I cannot concede, I'm afraid. In their little Facebook domain they may assign themselves all the roles they wish. Should there prove to be the need for a judge in the Edward de Vere was Shakespeare Group, however, I preside. The fact that you get to keep repeating your claim, regardless, is as it should be. It is you arguing a point not in evidence but in dispute. You are pleading. Consistent with your other attempts to practice law here, you are doing it quite poorly. You need a better lawyer.

1  One of the experts leans more towards Edward Blount as the author.

Also at Virtual Grub Street:

• Labeo and Shakespeare on the Ladies' Toilette. November 13, 2022. “What woman would be anything but offended to be described in such a way?”

• Edward de Vere and Marlowe’s Dido of Carthage. July 5, 2022. “It was an historical effort and an historical two years for Elizabethan theater.”
• The Character Montano, in Hamlet, and Polonius’ Famous Advice. May 25, 2022. “The reader may recall that Polonius calls upon Reynaldo to suggest to Laertes’ friends that he is privy to minor misbehaviors, at which he winks,…”
• The Death of Sir Edward Vere, son of the 17th Earl of Oxford and Anne Vavasour. May 8, 2022. “Mr. Sedgwick wrote to me for a prayer for Sir Edward Vere.”
• How Shakespeare gave Ben Jonson the Infamous Purge. November 7, 2021. “Of course, De Vere could not openly accuse Jonson of having outed him as Shakespeare.”
• Check out the Shakespeare Authorship Article Index for many more articles and reviews about this fascinating time and about the Shakespeare Authorship Question.
• Check out the Letters Index: Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford for many letters from this fascinating time, some related to the Shakespeare Authorship Question.