|WikiProject Law||(Rated Stub-class, High-importance)|
Copied from article page, comment by 22.214.171.124
Actually, yes, a court has dealt with natural persons. Try doing some due dilligence morons. There IS duality of person in law. It's in the fucking law dictionary. People are too close-minded to accept it. There is also a thing called a Legal Maxim, which is an absolute truth in law. The legal maxim everyone should know about is called "Capitis Diminutio". It is the loss of status through capitalization.
The definition of "capitalize" is - to use to ones' own advantage. So if you did not capitalize on your name for example, then someone else did. It is an artificial person. Lacking the rights of a citizen(Life, libery, security of the person, enjoyment of property not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law). Ever seen your name spelled like this - John DOE or JOHN DOE(Look at your drivers' license). Artificial persons are dealt with in artificial court. It is called an administrative tribunal, and is not listed in the court system. When they call the artificial persons name in artificial court, and you accept that it is you(tacit accpetance), you have just given up your rights as a citizen.
They may be morons
When deciding to tell people that they are morons, please let them know here or on their userpage instead of on an article page.
Also, Lucy-marie, if you go to the person talk page, where I know you've ben quite active, you'll find a complete definition for person (pl), from the OED, when it tells you in which cases which plural is correct. Both "people" and "persons" are plural forms of "person", and they are used at different times. I'm a grammar stickler as much as everyone else, but stickle correctly please. TStein 10:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Pretty blatant error
Definition by Exclusion
You can not logically define a thing by describing somthing that the thing is not. This article seeks to define the term 'Natural Person' by identifying another thing that a 'Natural Person' is not, namely a 'Legal Person'. If I was to offer up a definition of a 'Boat' I wouldn't define it as 'Not a car' but instead I would describe the essential minimal traits of the boat itself. For this reason I believe that more work is needed in describing the essential minimal traits of a 'natural person' which are intrinsic to its identity. When is a person a natural person versus when is a person not a natural person? What is a natural person versus what are other kinds of persons? What characteristics are unique to the natural person? And, by what authority can these claims be made? Some other questions that help to illustrate why this definition is inadequate include: 1) Is a baby a natural person? 2) Is a baby a natural person one minute before birth? 3) Is person born without a fully functioning brain a natural person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavoDavoDavo (talk • contribs) 01:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- And, by what authority can these claims be made? Legally. Gordon410 (talk) 20:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
"In jurisprudence, a natural person is a person (in legal meaning. i.e., one who has its own legal personality) that is a human being, as opposed to a legal person, which may be a private (i.e., business entity or non-governmental organization) or public (i.e., government) organization." A single parenthesis is in a sentence "...person is a person (in legal meaning." This structure is confusing. Good grammar says that the beginning parenthesis and end parenthesis should be in the same sentence. Also, saying "in legal meaning" is redundant because jurisprudence was already stated. Gordon410 (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)