427
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2024
427 points (98.9% liked)
InsanePeopleFacebook
2492 readers
824 users here now
Screenshots of people being insane on Facebook. Please censor names/pics of end users in screenshots. Please follow the rules of lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Um…no one fucking does. You’re in a weird cult-like mind trap.
It's an actual thing:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_person
distinguished from the broader category of a legal person, which may be a private (i.e., business entity or non-governmental organization) or public (i.e., government) organization.
Ugh, do I read that and probably rabbit hole myself? Or ignore the link and move on....
Edit. You know what I did. And I'm not proud of it.
A natural person isn't quite the same thing. It literally just means a human and not an organization or corporation. There are some legal differences mostly to do with culpability.
It doesn't really come up very often.
What this lot seem to be going at is they think that their name, written as capital letters is some sort of corporation, set up against their will?, with their name and as such they are not the corporation and so cannot be charged. Which is obviously lunacy because a corporation has not been set up with their name and even if one had, they were the one doing the driving offenses, not the corporation (a corporation cannot commit driving offenses). But they're all too thick for their own internal logic to apply.
In non-stupid crazy land if I am a truck driver and I commit a driving offense while driving for company XYZ then I committed the driving offense, not company XYZ. Unless I could prove that I had been given the instruction to drive unsafely, which of course is where all the things like tachometers come in. All this has already being decided long ago, so the stuff they are referring to doesn't even apply.
I read this differently. He says:
So... I think he was trying to claim that only a natural person can be a plaintiff, and because he was sued by the government - which is not a natural person - the whole thing should be invalidated.
A very strange position given the amount of case law of the form [person X] vs United States
Definitely silly, but [person X] is the plaintiff in those cases - United States is the defendant.
You're looking for case law of the form "United States vs [person X]", which the sovcits believe is illegal but exists because everyone else doesn't know to question it.
Did you swap out your license plate for a fake one that says something about travelling and not commercial?
Why aren't you proud of increasing your knowledge?
I nearly went down a rabbit hole on that, like, well what is a Natural Man, or is it all caps? So glad I restrained my inborn curiosity. Ain’ got time for that. lol
Oh lol I was hoping you did have time for that so you could give me a brief rundown because I also don’t have time for that
Well…that’s not true. I do have the time, I just would rather…not spend it doing that.
A featherless biped.
Behold, @tar_alcaran 's man
Tar, unfeathered
Fucking nailed it.
Only if the nails are broad and flat.
It's not a gender thing.