How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Clare Your Own Question
Clare, Solicitor
Category: Law
Satisfied Customers: 35574
Experience:  I have been a solicitor in High Street Practice since 1985 with a wide general experience.
Type Your Law Question Here...
Clare is online now

Under the English Common Law system: A "natural person” is

This answer was rated:

Under the English Common Law system:
A "natural person” is a living human being. Does a natural person’s name (eg. MR ***** ***** ) represent a legal fiction (artificial person) that is a separate legal entity to the "natural person” ?
If so, was this legal fiction created by the registration of aperson's birth certificate (done at their birth)?
HiThank you for your questionCould you explain why you believe that the name a person uses creates a separate legal entity?Clare
Customer: replied 3 years ago.
Thanks for the response. Explanation: I'm a natural person, capable of thought, .... But everything official I do (personally or in business) requires documentation to identify who I am. Such as opening a bank account, incorporating a company, driving license, getting a passport, .... This ID is ultimately tied back to my birth certificate with my name in all capitals (eg. MR ***** *****). I then read some interesting legal speculation on the "strawman" or "sovereign man" debate; which claims that this birth certificate is a separate legal entity (legal fiction) to the 'natural person' who holds the birth certificate. This seems logical & possible; But I am desperately curious to know if this is it actually true.I'm an accountant, CFA, and a student of philosophy. I'm investigating legal definitions as a priority. This ultimately relates to questions such as: Who are you? Is your name separate to your personal identity (legally as well as philosophically)?As an illustration of the importance of definitions in law: In finance, pounds (GBP) is not 'money' as most people think; it is a 'promissary note' (ie. credit / debt). GBP notes actually state "promise to pay .....". This leads to some extremely important realisations; which can help explain the constant stream of financial crises that occur (eg. 2008). c. 95% of the people I asked who work in finance incorrectly think GBP is money.So, if my birth certificate is a 'strawman' or legal fiction, this would be extremely useful knowledge to have. I've debated this with solicitors, ex-barristers, magistrates, law professors, .... there is no consensus and few have even heard of the idea.This is important also as knowledge is power. For example, one of my past legal successes was having a court strip a diplomat of their diplomatic immunity so that they could face a court (this was in Switzerland). At which point the diplomat fled the country. The lawyer told me that this was unheard of. I've the documentation to show this, if you want to see it.Many thanks.
In fact no it is not true.A birth certificate is often used as a method of proving identity - but it does not create a separate legal entity.For instance as a woman the name on my birth certificate is simply one of the names I am legally entitled to use - and indeed anyone is entitled to use any name they wish provided they are not doing so for fraudulent purposes.It is an interesting philosophical point which sadly does not stand up to the light of actual realityClare
Customer: replied 3 years ago.
OK. Can I clarify two things. All written contracts that I've signed have included the title "Mr". So either "MR ***** *****" or "Mr ***** *****". (1) Is there any difference between ALL CAPITALS as opposed to, lower case letters in the name? (2) Why is the title "Mr" included? Is a contract signed by "***** *****" (without the title "Mr") valid and enforceable?Please excuse my legal ignorance. We aren't taught any law at school. Yet as citizens we're required to know all the laws of the land. Sometimes it's a struggle to find out exactly what the law is.Many thanks.
Customer: replied 3 years ago.
Also, I would greatly appreciate it if could you recommend a good text book to learn about English Common Law and Contract Law? Thanks.
Using Mr Mrs Miss or Ms - or any other honorific title is a simply a courtesy and has no legal force.Whether you use CAPITAL letters or never use then, or UsE tHeM interchangeably does not change the validity of a contract or its enforecability.Indeed even if you only use a first name or a nick name it would be valid so long as everyone knew who that person was.The fact that England has a Common Law system is an historical fact - you can read more about how it evolved here There is a good book on English Contract here Please ask if you need further details the books are here
Clare and other Law Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 3 years ago.
Great. Thanks.
Customer: replied 3 years ago.
Hi. Just a point of clarification. Is there any legal reference (or precedent / case law) in Common Law where it clearly states that a person's name (eg. Mr ***** *****) is just identification as to who the natural person is?
I'd be very happy to pay extra for this info as it has troubled me for a while. Thanks again.
Can you explain what you mean by "natural person" bearing in mind that the origins of our legal system predates the existence of any formal registration of births by at least a thousand years?
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
Sure. "Natural person" = a living human being.
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
I think that this is an issue that has only arisen relatively recently, ever since the legal system allowed for the incorporation of companies with the British East India Company in 18th century. Births were only registered with the State since about 1947. Before then births were registered by the church.
I assume you mean 1847?
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
You're correct. 1847.
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
In fact, the correct date was 1 July 1837 - Introduction of General Civil Registration of Births, Marriages and Deaths in England and Wales.
And you realise that case law pre dates that?
I know that you have raised an interesting question that my colleagues have addressed in varying ways.You can indeed become a hermit and opt out of society. If you exist primarily by way of a bartering system then taxes need not concern you.HOWEVER what you cannot do is free yourself of being subject to the laws of the Country in which you are living.The description "Common Law" does NOT refer to any moral standards of right or wrong.What it refers to is the fact that in the Uk our Judiciary have the power to interpret statute law and that interpretation by way of Case law is then binding.This allows for changes in the "law" to take place without Statutes being passed.Much as in the use of the word "Commons" when referring to Parliament certainly did not originally cover the great unwashed - and certainly not women!If you remain in England and Wales then you are subject to our Legal System - equally so in Scotland where many laws are - and always have been - different
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
OK. Thanks a lot for the clarification. It's much appreciated.
You are welcome - I find it a fascinating conversation as it challenges understanding and allows reflection on how current language raises questions when we use words which meant other things at other times
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
From what I can cynically understand, the legal system is just a bunch of rules that have evolved piecemeal to allow society to function adequately. There's no right or wrong, and no grand architect. It's manipulated by the insiders with knowledge & power to their advantage. This includes changing the interpretation of laws to suit their needs. No wonder law isn't taught at schools, keeps people ignorant. I used to work in banking and it was the same thing. Banks are just stealing people's money (wealth) without them realising it.Big thanks again for your assistance.
I would not argue with that - indeed I would say that the withdrawal of Legal Aid rather proves it