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.

[–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 22 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 17 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I read this differently. He says:

I asked if there was a "natural man" in the court room with a claim against me?

(The "plaintiff" on my paperwork stated "The People of the State of California vs. MY ALL CAPS NAME")

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.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

only a natural person can be a plaintiff

A very strange position given the amount of case law of the form [person X] vs United States

[–] Emma_Gold_Man@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

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.

[–] Timecircleline@sh.itjust.works 10 points 8 months ago

Did you swap out your license plate for a fake one that says something about travelling and not commercial?

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

Why aren't you proud of increasing your knowledge?

[–] DigitalNirvana@lemm.ee 22 points 8 months ago (3 children)

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

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 16 points 8 months ago

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.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 15 points 8 months ago (1 children)

what is a Natural Man,

A featherless biped.

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Behold, @tar_alcaran 's man

[–] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 8 months ago

Tar, unfeathered

[–] Mediocre_Bard@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Fucking nailed it.

[–] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

Only if the nails are broad and flat.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago

It's not a gender thing.