Achilles? Heel, is "You"
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 /"ju"/; unstressed /j"/) 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 (you)
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..
To date since your last telephone communication adds up to twenty six days and four months behind the retirement date to settlement which is very much starting to look like a breach of trust on the part of ----------- to conclude this matter as stated before an amical solution would suffice . Kind regards for your time on this matter
RE-YOUR LETTER DATED 27/06/2013
as for no additional issues throughout in all letters sent by the policy holder this is a nonsense and denial of facts presented and unchallenged such as:
number  the original credit creation by the policy holder [financial instrument]
number  the charges of annual 10% fees by C.I.S year on year
number  the irrelevance of unagreed third parties in these matters [ no consent]
number  the absolute neglect to consider or reach any amicable agreement
number  the fact that no law exists without consent on tax of any kind
number  no performance statement or audit to date
number  no rebuttle of any facts presented in over eight  months now at this time
a monetary charge of £50.000 [fifty thousand] is now due for undue duress to the policy holder over and above the accrued amount of the annuity withheld with no lawful foundation for such action by --------- and its employee's as far as your statement that no response to further correspondence is concerned may it be suggested that a knowledge of law be consulted before such an event and the most serious consequences that may follow
clarification and transperancy
there seems to be confusion through out the documents returned to your office as legal person and the human individual keep being referred to as one and the same let me clarify as to the questions on ill health I.E the legal persona cannot through impossibility suffer any illness or disease. The human individual cannot claim to be the legal persona as the crime of fraud would be commited so I claim all benefits due through this policy number as a human indidvidual because the other persona cannot through being an inanimate neither .breath.walk.Write.read.Type .pay.spend.or. bleed as in reading this as a human individual will prove to be the case in all matters relating to this claim.
and as in law the impossible cannot be done
PLEASE FORWARD TO PROPER SETTLEMENT AND LAW ADVISORS PERSONNEL
after ten months of contact with ------------------ on the matter of equity retrieval accrued over a period in years from 1987 till present and presented in all manner of superior law to fiction and having received no rebuttal of claim or acceptance of remedy offered and having been treated as a complaint instead of settlement right. also a denial of what is rightly ownership of property of the policy holder and creditor it is now considered that ---------- as a debtor is in default therefore full payment as claimed from 06.01.13 retirement date plus lien of duress is NOW DUE and IS PAYABLE by demand to the above named without delay as a duty of care has been breached in law.
this next one was sent on the issue of an assumed summary warrant by local council for non-payment of tax..
further to the letter sent dated 24/06/2013 as regards an assumed summary warrant there is clarification required as to the fact no consent has been given or that there is a law in existence that binds any persona natural human or legal to pay any tax whatsoever without consent and in full disclosure as is stated in the SCOTLAND. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT. 2003. SECTION 20 ? WELL BEING
On the subject of a sheriff signing such a warrant please send a bona fide copy of the same which states which sheriff and the name of the same also dates and location of signing
Please supply all correspondence including names of persons who issue said assumed or presumed documents.
this was the last one sent to the council in august i am still waiting on a reply
thank you for your letter of 20/08/2013. the information required and asked for as to the assumed summary warrant issued against the above is as follows.
 WHICH SHERIFF HAS SIGNED THIS SO CALLED WARRANT.
 THE DATE AND LOCATION OF SIGNING.
 THE NAMES OF THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAME
 it is widely known that any "act? or "statute? has no colour of law unless CONSENT is freely and in full disclosure given by any man or woman in this knowledge please document and verify the obligation and the LAW which binds any persona whether human or legal to be taxed. A point to consider in response is the fact that the sovereignty of the scottish nation of people has never been questioned or challenged ever to this day.