1. By The Angry Jeweler; The Hennalady; Lisa Stinocher O'Hanlon http://angryjeweler.wix.com/write
      1. This study guide is for the following documents:
        1. Achilles_Heel_Is_You.pdf
        2. WHAT_HAPPENS_in_Court-_A_TREATISE.pdf
        3. These documents can also be found at www.MyPrivateAudio.com; Guest Speakers section; Blue Lotus Traveler
  2. WHO IS "YOU"?
    1. 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!
    2. 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-natureconstruct 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.
    3. 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.
      1. LEGAL ENTITY A body, other than a natural person, that can function legally, sue or be sued, and make decisions through agents. • A typical example is a corporation. Cf. artificial person under PERSON(3). Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) , Page 2616
        1. 3. An entity (such as a corporation) that is recognized by law as having the rights and duties of a human being. • In this sense, the term includes partnerships and other associations, whether incorporated or unincorporated.“So far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights and duties. Any being that is so capable is a person, whether a human being or not, and no being that is not so capable is a person, even though he be a man. Persons are the substances of which rights and duties are the attributes. It is only in this respect that persons possess juridical significance, and this is the exclusive point of view from which personality receives legal recognition.” John Salmond, Jurisprudence 318 (Glanville L. Williams ed., 10th ed. 1947). artificial person.An entity, such as a corporation, created by law and given certain legal rights and duties of a human being; a being, real or imaginary, who for the purpose of legal reasoning is treated more or less as a human being. • An entity is a person for purposes of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses but is not a citizen for purposes of the Privileges and Immunities Clauses in Article IV, § 2, and in the Fourteenth Amendment. — Also termed fictitious person; juristic person; juridical person; legal person; moral person. Cf. LEGAL ENTITY. [Cases: Corporations 1.1(2). C.J.S. Corporations § 2.] Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) , Page 3619
    1. it is always “you” that must pay, or action will be taken against “you”.
      1. 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.
    1. 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
  5. Only a man can answer.
    1. problem arises in that men are outside, or above the jurisdiction of judges and bankers; i.e., “only a PERSON may commit an offence”
    1. PERSONS are domiciled offshore (corporate bodies registered in foreign jurisdictions
      1. 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”.
      2. a PERSON, without its Executor, has no volition, and thus cannot answer to anyone, judge or banker included
      3. 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.
        1. 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”.
  7. “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.
  8. 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
    1. Thus, the Revenue Agency collects the tax, a.k.a., they re-venue it, from a PERSON domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction so they can comply with scripture.
    2. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.