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 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.
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.
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.