Cornerstone Foundation asks the group: Is the real,living, flesh and blood man who is an inhabitant on and domiciled on the land an individual as defined inMessage 1 of 3 , Jul 1, 2006View SourceCornerstone Foundation asks the group:Is the real,living, flesh and blood man who is an inhabitant on and domiciled on the land an "individual" as defined in the federal code or can only "persons" be individuals?
Sterling W Wyatt <swwyatt@...> wrote:"Newbies" often ask about some basic definitions that Title 1 USC Secs 1-8 clarify. For example: Does "person" include "individuals" & "corporations"? If you haven't done so, take a couple of minutes to flip (Next) through these several sections. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/SWW----------------------§ 1. Words denoting number, gender, and so forthIn determining thethe words ...the words person and whoever include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;officer includes any person authorized by law to perform the duties of the office;signature or subscription includes a mark when the person making the same intended it as such;oath includes affirmation, and sworn includes affirmed;writing includes printing and typewriting and reproductions of visual symbols by photographing, multigraphing, mimeographing, manifolding, or otherwise.----end---
Sneak preview the all-new Yahoo.com. It's not radically different. Just radically better.
... In MY opinion, individual is an adjective, which because it was always followed by the same word (person), began to be used alone without the secondMessage 1 of 3 , Jul 27, 2006View SourceOn Jul 1, 2006, at 1:09 PM, Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
> Cornerstone Foundation asks the group:In MY opinion, "individual" is an adjective, which because it was
> Is the real,living, flesh and blood man who is an inhabitant on and
> domiciled on the land an "individual" as defined in the federal code
> or can only "persons" be individuals?
always followed by the same word (person), began to be used alone
without the second word, implying a noun - an adjective misused as a
You know, just like "drunk". Only a real flesh and blood man can "be"
It's probably the same with "individual". All "individuals" are real
flesh and blood, just as are all "drunks", but not every living flesh
and blood human is an individual or a drunk (______fill in missing term
modified by remaining adjectives____).
I think that redundancies are avoided when possible, so the only reason
for saying "individual human being" in a law context is when only one
human being constitutes the "business" (corporation, trust, etc.), then
adding the word "individual" makes sense, as opposed to a board of
officers. The individual is an officer, a holder of an office, and has
a fiduciary duty within the terms of the original charter. Please
correct me if I'm wrong - I just like things to make sense, and
"individual human being" to refer to ALL people is a redundancy, like
"affidavit of truth" (you know, as opposed to that OTHER kind of
affidavit!) Same thing here if you ask me. So, to avoid redundancy,
taking it in the "business" sense makes sense. Now, do you "have" "a"