ACHILLES’ HEEL, IS “YOU”

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”?

GITHABUL TRIBE ELDER UNCLE YILLAH REBUKES METGASCO BOSS

CALLS FOR SPEED CAMERAS TO REGISTER UNLICENSED CARS

Keith Moor Herald Sun June 04, 2014 

Chief Commissioner Ken Lay. Picture: Norm Oorloff Source: News Corp Australia
 

CHIEF Commissioner Ken Lay wants every speed camera to get new technology so they automatically fine the driver of every unregistered car that passes them. 

The futuristic plan could boost Government coffers by hundreds of millions of dollars.
Nothing but a revenue raising device.

Victorians driving cars illegally have paid almost $150 million in fines in the past five years — and that’s without the much more efficient camera technology –so much for any journalistic objectivity– being proposed by Mr Lay.

He is in favour of all red light and fixed and mobile speed cameras being fitted with automatic numberplate recognition (ANPR) technology.

Mr Lay wants to open debate in the community about the proposal as he believes it would save lives. How?
 

“It is about using technology smarter –and this is a very good example of efficient and cost effective law enforcement,” he told the Herald Sun on Wednesday.

Under the proposal, the number plates of all unregistered vehicles — and vehicles whose registered owner is disqualified from driving — would be programmed into every traffic camera.
It only applies to those that are subject to the racist laws of the military occupation that began in 1788.

Those vehicles would be instantly detected and snapped every time they passed a traffic camera, whether they are speeding or not.

The radical move to convert every traffic camera to double as an ANPR is part of Mr Lay’s ambitious Blue Paper for the future of Victoria Police, which was released this week.

Mr Lay said it made “absolute sense” to use speed cameras to also nab disqualified drivers and drivers of unregistered cars.

“They would work in the same way as any other traffic camera,” he said.

“You would just get a penalty notice three weeks down the track for driving an unregistered car.

“It is an efficient way of doing it; you don’t have to have police members present.

“To get the same bang for your buck –business decision, NOTHING TO DO WITH SAFETY, DON'T BE FOOLED–you would need many, many, many police members out there pulling cars up and checking for registration.

“It would save lives and make our roads safer.”
Funny how these lies are never questioned by the corporate media.
 
More than one in eight fatal accidents involves an unlicensed driver or an unregistered car.

Mr Lay said the technology already existed to convert speed and red light cameras to also have an ANPR function and he wants the community to debate whether it should happen in Victoria.

“It’s just another way of actually enforcing the law,” he said.

“These people that are unlicensed or driving unregistered cars are the ones that are hurting people on the roads.”
It is a shame that some people will believe Ken Lay's lie.

The Herald Sun on Wednesday revealed a host of radical reforms Mr Lay’s Blue Paper has recommended to revolutionise the force, make better use of its resources and fix its problems.

keith.moor@news.com.au

CAUTIO, CAUTION, CAUTION JURATORY, CAUTIONARY, CAUTIONER, CAUTIONNEMENT, CAUTIONRY FROM BLACKS LAW 1

Blacks 1^st

CAUTIO. In the civil and French law.

Security given for the performance of any

thing; bail; a bond or undertaking by way

of surety. Also the person who becomes a

surety.

In Scotch law. A pledge, bond, or other

security for the performance of an obligation,

or completion of the satisfaction to be obtained

by a judicial process. Bell

CAUTION. In Scotch law, and in admiralty

law. Surety; security; bail; an undertaking

by way of surety. 6 Mod. 162.

See CAUTIO.

CAUTION JURATORY. In Scotch

law. Security given by oath. That which

a suspender swears is the best he can afford

in order to obtain a suspension. Ersk. Fract.

4, 3, 6.

CAUTIONARY. In Scotch law. An

instrument in which a person binds himself

as surety for another.

CAUTIONER. In Scotch law. A surety;

a bondsman. One who binds himself in

a bond with the principal for greater security.

He is still a cautioner whether the bond

be to pay a debt, or whether he undertake to

produce the person of the party for whom he

is bound. Bell.

CAUTIONNEMENT. In French law.

The same as becoming surety in English law.

CAUTIONRY. In Scotch law. Suretyship

25 HANDY HINTS ON AFFIDAVITS IN VICTORIA

October 4th, 2007 

I presented a seminar with Glenn McGowan SC on affidavits and written evidence recently. I wrote a long paper, mainly about the state courts, but incorporating some aspects of Federal Court procedure, which I will send to anyone who asks for a copy, and which will probably end up on the blog replete with useful hyperlinks one day. Meanwhile, here are some handy hints on affidavits which are not always properly understood:

• a deponent who makes an affidavit in a work capacity can state their business address instead of their residential address, but the condition of doing so is that they state the name of their firm or employer, if any, and the position they hold: Supreme Court Rule 43.01(3);
• in the Supreme Court, you can call for an electronic copy of an affidavit to be emailed to you if served with a hard copy, by invoking Practice Note No. 1 of 2002, (2002) VR 107;
• you can call for any document referred to in an affidavit by a notice to produce under Supreme Court Rule 29.10(2), and the rule is interpreted to mean that you can call for production of any document referred to in an exhibit to an affidavit: Williams [I 29.01.345] citing Re Hinchcliffe [1895] 1 Ch 117;
• generally, only facts within the personal knowledge of the deponent may be included in an affidavit: Supreme Court Rule 43.03;
• in interlocutory applications, though, hearsay (coded in the rules as ‘information and belief’) may be used, but only if the deponent says where he sourced the information (e.g. ‘Peter Porter of Manfredini & Co told me he saw …’) , and swears to a positive belief in the truth of the information (e.g. ‘I have known him as a trustworthy and honest man for 4 months and I believe him’);
• not all pre-trial applications are interlocutory, for example summary judgment applications are not and in a plaintiff’s application for summary judgment, hearsay is not admissible except with leave of the court which ought to be granted only sparingly, but the defendant can rely on hearsay in an affidavit in response;
• but there is a different relaxation of the rule against hearsay in affidavits in the case of affidavits in support of a plaintiff’s application for summary judgment: Supreme Court Rule 22.03(2) says an affidavit may set forth a statement in a document if the document would be admissible at trial under the Evidence Act, 1958 (Vic.) (the most relevant provisions being the bankers books and business records provisions, computer statements provisions, and the provisions about copy documents);
• affidavits should never commence ‘I make this affidavit from my own knowledge, information and belief except where otherwise stated’ because knowledge and information and belief is the whole class of information which may be deposed to and there could be no occasion to ‘otherwise state’;
• what is own knowledge and what is information and belief should be able to be readily discerned from the affidavit;
• wherever possible, affidavits should commence ‘I make this affidavit from my own knowledge’ — affidavits don’t get any better than that;
• but if appropriate (for example a solicitor’s affidavit containing only her client’s instructions) an affidavit should commence ‘I make this affidavit from information and belief’, in which case at least the affidavit is not being dressed up to appear any better than it is;
• there is no need to ‘crave leave’ to refer to an earlier affidavit, or someone else’s affidavit;
• it is undesirable for one deponent to refer to another’s affidavit and effectively incorporate it by reference; much better to reiterate the whole story in the second witness’s own words;
• a few inconsistencies between affidavits enhance their credibility rather than detract from it — you can get all your ducks in an implausibly neat line, in other words: see Timms v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2001] NSWSC 560 at [69]ff by way of example;
• if you are a lawyer and you are personally a party to proceedings, an employee or a partner in your practice may witness your affidavit these days, except in the Magistrates’ Court: Magistrates’ Court Rule 18.10, which also prohibits an in-house counsel witnessing an affidavit in that Court sworn by an officer or employee of his or her employer company if the company is a party to the proceedings;
• the witness signs every page in the Magistrates’, County, Supreme, and Federal Courts; only in the Federal Court must the deponent sign every page as well;
• strictly speaking, the exhibits should be stapled to the exhibit sheets at the time of swearing, and should not be unstapled for the purposes of copying;
• the Evidence Act, 1958 (Vic.) says at s. 100(4) that ‘the witness shall without question administer the oath’ unless the deponent ‘voluntarily object to take the oath’ so, strictly, it is not proper to enquire of the deponent whether he or she wishes to swear or affirm, but if the deponent does object to swearing on a holy book, you can administer the affirmation (‘I, Stephen Alexander Warne, do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that this is my name and handwriting and that the contents of this my affidavit are true and correct in every particular [and these are the exhibits referred to therein]‘;
• there is another little known circumstance in which it is permissible for the deponent to affirm: when, in the circumstances, it would not be ‘reasonably practicable without inconvenience or delay to administer the oath’: s. 102, Evidence Act, 1958 (Vic.);
• a good place to write out the words of the oath and affirmation is on the side of your solicitor’s stamp, otherwise, they may be found in the Law Institute Diary;
• there is no general rule which requires the service of exhibits with affidavits (though some specific rules require it), a proposition which should be relied on only if you forget to serve an exhibit, or the other side claims that one exhibit was missing from the material served;
• exhibits may be and should ordinarily be filed along with the affidavit in the Magistrates’ Court, Federal Court (despite what its website says), but in the Supreme Court and County Court, exhibits will not generally be accepted for filing along with the affidavit, which means that someone has to remember to bring the original exhibits on the day of the hearing to be filed by being handed up to the decision maker;
• there are exceptions to this general principle in the Supreme Court in relation to proceedings in the Commercial List, hearings before a judge in the Corporations List, and hearings before the Listing Master, Master Kings;
• if you want the Supreme Court decision maker to read exhibits to affidavits before a hearing, the thing to do is to deliver them directly to the judge’s associate or master’s secretary;
• those who witness execution of documents will often owe a duty of care to ensure that the person in whose name the document is drafted is in fact the person who purported to sign the document (see Graham v Hall [2006] NSWCA 208 noted earlier on this blog) and so if you do not know the person whose signature you are asked to witness, you should satisfy yourself of identity by requiring production of the kinds of documents necessary to open a bank account before witnessing.

http://lawyerslawyer.net/2007/10/04/24-handy-hints-on-affidavits/

DRUNKS COULD LOSE DRIVER'S LICENCE WHILE WALKING

VICTORIAN magistrates from today have far-reaching powers that could include taking someone’s driving licence for walking along a street when drunk.

The state’s Attorney-General Robert Clark said courts now had the power to impose tough conditions on law breakers which better protected the community.

The provisions broaden a judicial officer’s ability to suspend, cancel or disqualify an offender’s licence or learner permit for any matter, regardless of whether driving is an element of the offence.

For anyone to lose a licence for public drunkenness would be an extreme use of the new power.

Offenders can lose their licences for road rage and magistrates have wide powers to impose conditions on them.

“From today, offenders can lose their driver’s licence for road rage offences or for any other offence where the court considers doing so will better protect the community or send a clear message to the offender,” Mr Clark says.

“This power will be available to courts alongside other strong powers the government has already given to the courts to impose conditions on offenders under community correction orders, including curfews, no-go zones and bans on entering licensed premises.”

Mr Clark said offences that attracted the imposition of an interlock device had been expanded.

They include the theft of a motor vehicle and driving dangerously or negligently when being chased by police where the offence is committed under the influence of alcohol.

“The amendments also consolidate into a single, simplified process under the Road Safety Act the existing requirements for obtaining a driver licence or learner permit after disqualification and for imposing or removing an alcohol interlock condition on a driver’s licence or learner permit,” Mr Clark said.

“Where a court considers the best way to pull an offender into line is by taking away their licence, it will have the power to do so.”

A senior North East traffic policeman welcomed The Road Safety and Sentencing Acts Amendment Act 2013.

Wangaratta highway patrol Sgt Michael Connors said anything that deterred offending was welcome.

“The possession of a licence is a privilege, not a right, so if these offences are going to be committed where they shouldn’t be driving on our roads, say hoon driving or evading police, then their licence should be suspended or removed,” Sgt Connors said.

“But a very small element of the community is not deterred at all.

“Anything open to the court to deter these people is good.

“If these deterrents are put in place, realistically, they should work and it should deter people from committing further offences.”

http://www.bordermail.com.au/story/1809647/drunks-could-lose-drivers-licence-while-walking/

WHAT ANARCHY ISN'T