This is something that i have found on my computer, whilst organising files & decided that i would share it with you all. i have no idea who it is by, or when it was made, nor do i know where it was crafted. If someone does know this detail, send an email and the appropriate credit shall be articulated. Feel free to offer a critique of the contention expressed here in the comment box below.
Who “you” are, is no longer the question.
The question is, who “IS” you. The word “you” gets more people into trouble than any
other word currently utilized within our legal and financial systems.
It is virtually
impossible to fully explain the proper grammatical usage of the word “you”,
insofar as proper English is concerned.
Wikipedia
You (stressed /ˈjuː/; unstressed /jə/) is the second-person personal pronoun in Modern
English. Ye was the original nominative form; the oblique/objective form
is you (functioning originally as both accusative and dative), and the
possessive is your or yours.
YourDictionary.com:
you (yo̅ ̵o̅)
pronoun pl. you
1. the person
to whom one is speaking or writing: personal pronoun in the second person
(sing. & pl.): you is the nominative and objective form (sing. &
pl.), yours the possessive (sing. & pl.), and yourself (sing.)
and yourselves (pl.) the reflexive and intensive; your is the
possessive pronominal adjective
2. any person:
equivalent in sense to indefinite one: you can never be sure!
Note: Though you
is properly a plural, it is in all ordinary discourse used also in
addressing a single person, yet properly always with a plural verb.
(No confusion here!)
Loosely, the
word “you” is a pronoun, that cannot be properly grammatically used according
to English language rules. When spoken,
“you” is commonly heard by everyone present, as if it were being addressed to
each of them, individually, in a singular sense. We erroneously hear a
singular inclination of the properly plural expression, as in one speaking to a
group and saying; “I’m happy to share this with you.”
Properly, “you”
is indeed “plural”, yet the word “you” is often spoken as if it were in
reference to a singular man or woman. In such instances, the word “you” induces
a natural inclination for everyone in an audience to hear it as being addressed
singularly to a specific individual within that audience, particularly if the
word “you” follows an antecedent noun; as in one speaking to that same group,
and saying; “Yes George, I’m happy to share this with you.”
In “law”, this
word “you”, is properly utilized in all ordinary legal discourse when
addressing the singular mind (or the single party with volition) within
the plural-nature construct of a PERSON. The PERSON being comprised of a man that answers for, or
is liable for that PERSON, and the corporate entity that IS that PERSON.
In this sense, addressing a PERSON, as “you”, is actually as close to a proper
use of the word “you”, as anyone could imagine.
Thus the
personal pronoun “you”, being both singular and plural, properly addresses the
essential plural nature of the single PERSON entity. The key to benefiting from this, is to grasp who
the correct (plural) components are within that single PERSON entity. So
here are some thought provoking examples:
A judge might
say; “Mr. John Smith, I find “you” guilty.” The question arises, then;
“who” is this particular “you”, considering “you” is plural?
The answer may
well be in the judge’s next question; “Mr. Smith, do “you” have anything to
say?” Notice, the judge is not properly asking if Mr. John Smith has
anything to say, he is rather improperly asking John Smith, if “you” has
anything to say. Thus, whoever answers, voluntarily defines himself as being in
joinder with “you”, and concurrently accepts the guilty verdict, for the
PERSON, Mr. Smith.
Check out any
court transcripts you can find, and in not one instance, will you ever find an
example of a judge saying; “I find you, Mr. John Smith, guilty.”
Likewise, find
someone high up in the banking system that alleges that “you” owe their bank
money. You will NEVER get them to say “John Smith owes $XXXX to this bank
and therefore John Smith must pay $XXXX to this bank.” Rather they will
only always ever say something like; “You owe $XXXX to this bank, therefore
you must pay $XXXX to this bank.” Even a judge’s order will say something
like; “John Smith, I order “you” to pay”.
Even when asked
directly to just repeat, “John Smith owes $XXXX to their bank”, they
will either terminate the conversation, or continue to ask; “are you John
Smith?”, and when you respond with “yes”, they repeat that “then
you owe $XXX to their bank.” When asked directly while on a telephone
conversation, if they intend to continue to refuse to say, “John Smith owes
$XXXX to their bank”, they generally just get angry and hang up.
I guess we all
should be looking for “you”, since “you” is the one, and apparently the only
one, that can be found guilty, or that must pay whatever is owed. Check out
collection notices. Again, it is always “you” that must pay, or action will be
taken against “you”.
This is not
just silly grammar, and there is good reason to explain it this way. Okay, here
is why. “You”, in legal and financial discourse (which differs from otherwise
“normal” language), refers to the duality inherent within, and of, the party
that is liable for the essential plural nature of the single
PERSON-corporate-entity, or who at least is prepared to volunteer to accept
responsibility and or liability thereto.
The PERSON, a.k.a., the Estate, is at a minimum,
comprised of a decedent, and an Executor, hence the duality/plurality of its
nature, which justifies correctly addressing it with the inherent plurality of
the word, “you”.
You see, a
PERSON, without its Executor, has no volition, and thus cannot answer to
anyone, judge or banker included.
Only a man can
answer.
The problem
arises in that men are outside, or above the jurisdiction of judges and
bankers; i.e., “only a PERSON may commit an offence”. Hence a judge will
not ask a man per se, nor will he ask the PERSON to answer, he will only
ask “you” to answer, in hopes that a man will volunteer to respond as and for
the plural “you” - the PERSON.
He also knows
very well that he cannot directly ask the PERSON to answer, because a PERSON is
a fiction entity, a.k.a. corporate being without volition, and cannot answer.
Judges and
bankers also know that all PERSONS are domiciled offshore (corporate bodies
registered in foreign jurisdictions), hence they have no domestic jurisdiction
over those PERSONS. Therefore it would be futile to find a PERSON guilty, or to
attempt to force a PERSON to pay a debt, or to pay taxes. Who paid the tax in
the Messiah’s day? Well, not the sons, or the domestic ones, but rather the
Strangers and the foreigners. Thus, the CRA collects the tax, a.k.a., they re-venue
it, from a PERSON domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction so they can comply
with scripture.
Hence it is not
futile to find a man to volunteer to be “you”, because “you” can indeed, be
found guilty, and “you” can be ordered to pay debts and taxes, and in most
cases, historically at least, “you” has very obediently served the sentences
and paid the debts and the taxes for, and as, the foreign PERSONS. And besides,
only a “you”, a.k.a., a man acting concurrently as a man and as a decedent,
within the construct of a PERSON, can answer a question, or pay a debt or
taxes, or cause them to be paid, for, as, or on behalf of that foreign PERSON.
Many have heard
that “sometimes” when a man informs the judge, that the judge has been
appointed as “Trustee”, the judge will dismiss the case, but not always. “You”
is also directly related to the reason for this seemingly inconsistent
behaviour.
In truth, the PERSON is legally considered
an Estate for a “decedent”.
This decedent,
or dead man, constitutes the basis, or claim of right to the property of the
Estate, a.k.a., PERSON. Only
an Executor of an Estate can make appointments, such as those of Trustee or
Beneficiary.
If a man
appoints a judge as the Trustee, then initially, the judge will correctly
presume that you, the man (not “you” the PERSON), has assumed your rightful
role as Executor of the subject Estate. And unless the judge can trick you, the
man into admitting that you, the man is not the Executor, without asking you,
the man directly, the judge will continue on this presumption, and dismiss the
case against the plural “you”, the PERSON.
The judge knows
that if you, the man, is the Executor, that you, the man can indeed appoint him
as Trustee, and concurrently hold him liable, as a Trustee.
However, if “you”,
the mistaken man, claims to be, or lets himself be tricked by the judge, into
being something like a Grantor, or a Beneficiary, of an undefined, or allegedly
undisclosed, or implied Trust (as opposed to Executor of the subject Estate),
then the judge will rapidly find “you” the PERSON, guilty, because he will then
re-place himself as de facto Executor.
Oh, and get
over the false and silly idea that it matters, or that the court even cares
whether or not you, the man write the name of the PERSON’s Estate in all
capital letters, a combination of upper and lower case letters, or Chinese
symbols.
It DOES NOT
MATTER. The PERSON is still defined as an Estate of a decedent, registered in a
foreign jurisdiction, regardless of how you write it’s name.
“You” can, and more importantly you do make joinder with
the PERSON’s Estate, regardless of how its name is written, simply when, and by
answering to, “you”.
Inasmuch as I am me, who is “you”?
No comments:
Post a Comment