On 6/19/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I take significant exception to the unaddressed assumption in CFJ 1623
that the definition of "person" to be used is a legal one. Rule 754(3)
states: "Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts,
and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, shall be
interpreted as having the meaning it has in those contexts." I do not
find any compelling argument that "person" is *primarily* used in
legal contexts. Therefore I find that 754(3) does not apply, and
therefore 754(4) does.
The dictionary defines "person" as "a human being" (wordnet).
Partnerships are clearly not human beings.
I therefore judge CFJ 1684 FALSE.
Additionally, I wish to address the numerous references in the ruleset
to "natural person". Since those references arose in significant part
due to the confusion created by the erroneous judgement of CFJ 1623, I
do not find them compelling evidence for a distinction between
"person" and "natural person".
Ha! :)
Hurray!
-root
