Who Are You?
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 (Trust) which mimics our family name denoted in the uppercase, and or, Mr, Mrs, Miss, Master, Squire, Dr, QC, PM, HM, is specific to what is called the legal person. It could also be understood as the value of the Trust To further expand this deception it would be wise to consider the following two legal terms :
Power of Attorney
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 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 name, we must first look at definitions of the word person through the law books over a time frame, what is revealed is that a legal person is a separate entity to who and what you are. In this study we can also understand that shifts in the definitions of a legal person have been so to better suit corporate statutes (rules of contract) with the specific aim of setting as precedent, commercial statute regulation definitions over land law and thus the definitions accorded within the Realm.
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
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).
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 organisations, 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 organisations that have been formally registered such as partnerships, corporations or associations.-
Person. – 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 United States, this state, or any territory, or any public or private corporation. I am not labour organisations, 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 civilisation; 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 mana means), or by influences of civilisation? I don’t think so. Am I wild, or untutored? Nope, not I. 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: 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 colour), 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 coloured man
Am I of the race of man? Rare and inelegant? Sprung of humans that inhabit earth (ground)? (I’m not coloured 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 organisations, such as the United Nations and the WIPO. It would appear not even the Holy See has escaped form 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.
So we have interrogated the Legal Title which is the ‘Split Title’ created by the government, to split a title means there is another….
Welcome to the Equitable Title