Fictional (Artificial)
So if we are not in reality, unless we claim to be so, a legal-person, then how would we best describe our relationship to it?
If you have followed our exploration into British law then at this point you should be aware of the{fact}, the {title} which mimics our family name denoted in the uppercase, and or, {Mr},{Mrs}, {Miss}, {Master}, {Squire}, is specific to what is called the legal-person. To further expand this deception it would be wise to consider the following two legal terms :
Power {of} Attorney
Liable Agent
By definition of the mimic, the person so created by the mimic has an identity in the world of commerce as a legal-person, a legal person can be sued and can sue, not within the realm of lawul-law, but in the realm of statutes, the two are distinct.
The best way to better understand the relationship we would want, if we had {all the facts}, with the invented legal-person denoted in the uppercase, and or with a CAPITAL LETTER at the front of the {N}ame, we must look at definitions of the word person through the law books over a time frame, this also exposes the change of meaning of words to suit statutes to be released with the specific aim of setting as precedent statute regulation definitions over land law definitions.
Definitions
A {legal-person is a company} which carries out {all the obligations} {and rights of its behalf}. When establishing a business or an enterprise legal-person, is the company laque assumes all it has to do with the rights and obligations of the same and not the owner himself.
The implication is that all obligations and debts that the company has fully guaranteed and are only limited to anything with the company under its name and capital, and equity.
Advantages of the legal person
Source
Legal personality (also artificial personality, juridical personality, and juristic personality) is the characteristic of a "non-human entity" regarded by law to have the status of a "person".
A legal person (Latin: persona ficta), (also artificial person, juridical person, juristic person, and body corporate, also commonly called a vehicle) has a legal-name and has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and liabilities under law, just as natural persons (humans) do. The concept of a legal-person is a fundamental legal fiction. It is pertinent to the philosophy of law, as is essential to laws affecting a corporation (corporations law) (the law of business associations).
Legal personality allows one or more natural persons to act as a single entity (a composite person) for legal purposes. In many jurisdictions, legal personality allows such composite to be considered under law separately from its individual members or shareholders. They may sue and be sued, enter into contracts, incur debt, and have ownership over property. Entities with legal personality may also be subject to certain legal obligations, such as the payment of tax. An entity with legal personality may shield its shareholders from personal liability.
The concept of legal personality is not absolute. “Piercing the corporate veil” refers to looking at individual human agents involved in a corporate action or decision; this may result in a legal decision in which the rights or duties of a corporation are treated as the rights or liabilities of that corporation’s shareholders or directors. Generally, legal persons do not have all the same rights as natural persons – for example, human rights or civil rights (including the, although the United States has become an exception in this regard).
Source
To further expand the issue we must look at other terms used to relate to {who I am}, they are; {a person, an individual, a natural person or a human}.
Person - The Revised Code of Washington, RCW 1.16.080, (I live in Washington State) defines a person as follows: “The term ‘person’ may be construed to include the United States, this state, or any state or territory, or any public or private corporation, as well as an individual.”
Person - Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 791, defines ‘person’ as follows: “In general usage, a human-being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers.”
Person - Oran’s Dictionary of the Law, West Group 1999, defines Person as:
1. A human being (a “natural” person).
2. A corporation (an “artificial” person). Corporations are treated as persons in many legal situations. Also, the word “person” includes corporations in most definitions in this dictionary.
3. Any other “being” entitled to sue as a legal entity (a government, an association, a group of Trustees, etc.).
4. The plural of person is persons, not people (see that word). - Person - Duhaime’s Law Dictionary. An entity with {legal rights} and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law. Individuals are {“persons” in law} unless they are minors or under some kind of other incapacity such as a court finding of mental incapacity. Many laws give certain powers to “persons” which, in almost all instances, includes business organizations that have been formally registered such as partnerships, corporations or associations. -
Person, noun. per’sn. - Webster’s 1828 Dictionary. Defines person as: [Latin persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the stage.]
legal-person - Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law 1996, defines a legal-person as : a body of persons or an entity (as a corporation) considered as having many "of" the rights and responsibilities "of" a natural-person and esp. the capacity to sue and be sued.
A person according to the above definitions, is basically an entity – legal fiction – of some kind that has been legally created and has the legal capacity to be sued. Take note of the emission of the word lawful within these definitions?
Well….. I am not “the {U}nited {S}tates, this state, or any territory, or any public or private corporation”. I am not “labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers.” So, I cannot be a ‘person’ under this part of the definition.
The RCW quoted above also states that a person could also be an “individual”.
Black’s Law Dictionary also defines a person as a “human being,” which they define by stating “(i.e. natural-person)”. So let’s first check to see if I am an “individual”.
Individual - Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 533, defines “individual” as follows: “ As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural-person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons.”
Well now, I have already been shown that I am not a ‘person’, and since ‘individual’ denotes a single ‘person’ as distinguished from a group or class, I can’t be an ‘individual’ under this definition either. But I see the term ‘natural-person’ used in the definition of the RCW, and also in the definition of some of the Law Dictionaries. Maybe I am a ‘natural’ person, since I know I am not an ‘artificial’ one.
I could not find the term ‘Natural-person’ defined anywhere, so I had to look up the word ‘natural’ for a definition to see if that word would fit with the word person…
Natural - Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 712, defines ‘Natural’ as follows: “Untouched by man or by influences of civilization; wild; untutored, and is the opposite of the word “artificial”. The juristic meaning of this term does not differ from the vernacular, except in the cases where it is used in opposition to the term “legal”; and then it means proceeding from or determined by physical causes or conditions, as distinguished from positive enactments of law, or attributable to the nature of man rather than the commands of law, or based upon moral rather than legal considerations or sanctions.”
Am I untouched by man (depends on what the word ‘man’ means), or by influences of civilization? I don’t think so. Am I ‘wild’, or ‘untutored’? nope, not me. Even though the definition states that this word is the opposite of the word ‘artificial’, it still does not describe who I believe I am. So I must conclude that I am not a ‘natural’ person, under this definition of the word ‘natural’. So the term ‘natural-person’ cannot apply to me.
Black’s Law Dictionary also used the term ‘human being’, and although Black’s defined it as a ‘natural-person’, maybe they made a mistake, maybe I am a ‘human being’. ‘Human’ or ‘human being’ does not appear to have a ‘legal’ definition, so I went to my old standby 1888 Noah Webster’s Dictionary for a vernacular definition of this word.
Human - Webster’s 1888 Dictionary defines ‘human’ as follows: n. A human being; one of the race of man. [Rare and inelegant.]
“Sprung of humans that inhabit earth.” …To me, the etymology of the word Hu-man, suggests that it is a marriage of two separate words ‘Hue’ (defined as the property of color), and man. But this cannot of course be correct, at least not politically correct, so I can’t go there, because the word would then mean ‘colored man’!
Am I of the race of man? Rare and inelegant? Sprung of humans that inhabit earth (ground)? (I’m not colored either). Well, it looks like I have to define the word ‘man’ through Webster’s because there appears to be no legal definition for ‘man’.
Man - Webster’s 1888 Dictionary defines ‘man’ as follows: An individual of the human race; a human being; a person.
What Owns the Vatican
The Holy See (Sancta Sede) – not to be confused with the Vatican City over whose independent territory the Holy See is sovereign – is a subject of international law just as other states. Its possession of full legal personality in international law is shown by the fact that it maintains diplomatic relations with 178 states and that it is a member state in various intergovernmental international organizations, such as the United Nations and the WIPO. It would appear not even the Holy See has escaped from statutory consent, so to lay blame at the church itself is incorrect. Like all institutions today the statutes are restricting while determining thought and then action, and like any institution it only requires that the elite of an institution succumb to the pressure of the real power, commerce, and the whole ethos of that institution can be shifted in spite of those who are the clear majority of that institution, the priests and the congregation.
The danger for the church comes in its move to allow commerce to rule its ethos which is the anti-thesis of the doctrines, and tied as she is to International law, then Statutory International law will determine what it is to be an emissary of the man who turned the tables of commerce.
