"AI" Q&A - Court 'Persons' and 'You'
Large Language Model Data Regurgitation Results
ChatGPT 4.0 Request for Rendering:
Please render an image of a PERSON with the background of an American courtroom. The context of the word "person" should properly refer to names and fictitious entities on paper as defined in 26 USC 7701 (a) (1) and Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition. Please note that the word "person" does not translate to other languages outside of English.
The Response:
Creating an image based on legal definitions, especially when it involves nuanced interpretations of terms like "person" as defined in specific legal contexts, can be quite abstract. Since the definition of "person" in 26 USC 7701 (a) (1) and Black's Law Dictionary encompasses both natural and juridical entities (like corporations), visualizing this concept in a straightforward manner within the confines of an American courtroom setting poses a unique challenge.
Considering the complexity and the abstract nature of the request, I'll interpret "person" in a more general, symbolic manner. Let's envision a scene in an American courtroom with a focus on symbolizing the concept of a "person" as it pertains to legal entities, without depicting any specific individual or corporate logo. This approach aims to maintain the abstract essence of the legal definition, incorporating elements that suggest the broad scope of what "person" can mean within the context of American law.
I'll proceed to create an image that represents a courtroom in the United States, incorporating symbolic elements to represent the concept of a "person" as defined legally, focusing on the abstract and inclusive nature of the term. The image will subtly hint at both natural and juridical entities in a balanced and abstract manner, without directly depicting any specific individuals or corporate identities.
And the result is the image above…
To further the confirmation of the unique use of ‘person’, an informal inquiry was made to a friend who spoke at least 6 languages [“4 fluently”] and to my spouse who speaks another different language. Here is the remarkable result… ‘Person’ as a word did not exist in all the other languages. And even more telling is that the word ‘individual’ was a translated word, but it applies only to things/objects. Those languages are Creole, Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, French, and Russian. Check with your friends who speak other languages and see if the result is the same. This ‘reality’ has the indications of the “Truman Show”.
You:
The next tricky word is “you”. A good friend sent a summary of the term and how it is used in a legal sense by judges, clerks, prothonotaries, and legal ‘persons’ dry-docked on the land and soil acting as public servants [“or, those of mankind at least pretending to act as public servants - sometimes they do when another of mankind commands them to do so as required by the public servants Oath of Office and Oath of Fidelity, and how those same public servants are supposed to be bonded in their official capacity…”]. But first, it was time to ask ChatGPT to render an image of “you”. Here is the request:
Please render an image of "you" as it properly represents a plural. "You" also represents "person" in a plural form as discussed in the last request. This specifically is a reference to the various names used as a proxy for commercial transactions. Make the image with the backdrop of all the possible "you" across a wall with a hand in the foreground pointing to the wall of "you".
“You” Response:
Arguments and Complaints
The legal society thrives on arguments and complaints. When a court case is submitted in America, or any “common law” court based on judge precedent cases through inland piracy occurring with docked vessels [“courthouse docket numbers”], the filings are called “complaints”. It is rather simple really… complaints and arguments allow for opinion and doubt. Land and Soil jurisdiction courts are to operate on facts, findings and conclusions of law. Law is expressed through the use of notices by those of mankind. Our law and the expression of our rights are everything that do not cause harm to another of mankind. Notices establish the evidence of those rights and the basis for evidence of trespass upon said rights or property.
The rights of a man extend to where another of man’s rights begin. The other man’s rights end where the first man’s begin. Infringement on those rights is trespass.
At the court of mankind, on the land and soil, mankind documents any trespass through notices. These notices are used to press “claims” at court if remedy is not provided through the use of the notices. Evidence proves the claim and said claim is verified by a competent magistrate or confirmed by a jury of your peers.
Black’s Law Dictionary 2nd Edition:
CLAIM, n. 1. A challenge of the property or ownership of a thing which Is wrongfully withheld from the possession of the claimant. Stowel v. Zouch, Plowd. 359 ; Robinson v. Wiley, 15 N. Y. 491 ; Fordyee v. Godinan, 20 Onlo St 14; Douglas v. Beasley, 40 Ala. 147; Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. 615, 10 L. Ed. 1060; U. S. v. Rhodes (C. C.) 30 Fed. 433 ; Silllman v. Eddy, 8 How. Prac. (N. Y.) 123.
A claim is a right or title, actual or supposed, to a debt, privilege, or other thing in the possession of another; not the possession, but the means by or through which the claimant obtains the possession or enjoyment. Lawrence v. Miller, 2 N. Y. 245, 254.
A claim is, in a just, juridical sense, a demand of some matter as of right made by one person upon another, to do or to forbear to do some act or thing as a matter of duty. A more limited, but at the same time an equally expressive, definition was given by Lord Dyer, that "a claim is a challenge by a man of the propriety or ownership of a thing, which he has not in possession, but which is wrongfully detained from him." Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. 615, 10 L. Ed. 1060.
"Claim" has generally been defined as a demand for a thing, the ownership of which, or an interest in which, is in the claimant, but the possession of which is wrongfully withheld by another. But a broader meaning must be accorded to it. A demand for damages for criminal conversation with plaintiff's wife is a claim ; but it would be doing violence to language to say that such damages are property of plaintiff which defendant withholds. In common parlance the noun "claim" means an assertion, a pretension ; and the verb is often used (not quite correctly) as a synonym for "state" "urge, ' "insist," or "assert." In a statute authorizing the courts to order a bill of particulars of the "claim" of either party, "claim" is co-extensive with "case," and embraces all causes of action and all grounds of defense, the pleas of both parties, and pleas in confession and avoidance, no less than complaints and counter-claims. It warrants the court in requiring a defendant who justifies in a libel suit to furnish particulars of the facts relied upon in justification. Orvis v. Jennings, 6 Daly (N. Y.) 446.
A dissertation on ‘You’:
The following is from an unknown author. As noted above, the content was shared from a good friend who also studies the legal traps created to enslave. It is one of the better summaries. There are some added clarifications.
Who is “You”
Achilles’ Heel, is “You”
Who “you” are, is no longer the question. The question is, who [“or what - clarification added”] “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 /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.
And More specifically from Wikipedia:
Semantics:
You prototypically refers to the addressee along with zero or more other persons, excluding the speaker. You is also used to refer to personified things (e.g., why won't you start? addressed to a car).[25] You is always definite even when it is not specific.
Semantically, you is both singular and plural, though syntactically it is almost always plural: i.e. always takes a verb form that originally marked the word as plural, (i.e. you are, in common with we are and they are).
Third person usage:
Further information: Generic you
You is used to refer to an indeterminate person, as a more common alternative to the very formal indefinite pronoun one.[26] Though this may be semantically third person, for agreement purposes, you is always second person.
Example: "One should drink water frequently" or "You should drink water frequently".
Agreement:
You almost always triggers plural verb agreement, even when it is semantically singular.
Continuing with the unknown author quote:
YourDictionary.com: you (yoo)
Pronoun plural. You
1. The ‘person’ to whom one is speaking or writing: personal pronoun in the second person (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!
Merriam-Webster: you - pronoun - ˈyü yə, also yē
1: the one or ones being addressed —used as the pronoun of the second person singular or plural in any grammatical relation except that of a possessive
you may sit in that chair
—used formerly only as a plural pronoun of the second person in the dative or accusative case as direct or indirect object of a verb or as object of a preposition
compare THEE, THOU, YE, YOUR, YOURS
2 : ONE sense 2a
after a while, it grows on you
Do ‘you’ notice the generic ‘you’ in the last example sentence above?
Continuing with the explanation of ‘you’:
Note: Though ‘you’ is properly a plural, it is in all ordinary discourse used also in addressing a single ‘person’, yet properly always with as 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’ 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” [“or what”] 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 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 conversion. Or continue to ask; “are you John Smith?”, and when you respond with “yes”, they repeat that “then you owe $XXXX to their bank.” When asked directly while on a telephone conversation, if they continue to refuse to say, “John Smith owes $XXXX to their bank”, they generally just get angry and hang up.
I guess we should all 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 in 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 part 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 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 behavior.
In truth, the PERSON is legally considered and 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 to 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 it’s name is written, simply when, and by answering to, “you”.
Inasmuch as i, am me, who is “you”?
Or even more succinct - what is “you”?
As always, it is good to think about and to be aware of the word ‘person’ in the various forms. From the explanation above, ‘you’ is a ‘person’, but rarely if ever a man.
26 USC 7701 (a) (1) Person The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.
and
1 USC § 1 “the words ‘person’ and ‘whoever’ include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;”
Very good, thank you for me. I shall have to read it another 10 times to get it into my head properly.
Excellent post.
Thanks very much.
I shall be sharing this