Re: [s-b] Contract for the Purposes of Personhood Definition Exploration (PftPoPDE)

[Geoffrey Spear <wooble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Charles Walker
<charles.w.walker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I agree to the following:
>
> {{
>
> This is a contract known as the CftPoPDE. It is a corporation owned by
> Walker; e can act on its behalf.
>
> }}
>
> I act on behalf of the CftPoPDE to cause it to register itself.
> (Disclaimer: I'm not sure if this works.)
>
> I CFJ on: The CftPoPDE is a player.

Gratuitous arguments:

Since B's rules neither define nor regulate contracts, Walker
certainly may, as an unregulated action, agree to contracts; this is
eir R1 right.  Since the rules place no significance on contracts, eir
assertion should be taken to have its ordinary language meaning, that
is, e's agreeing a be bound by a contract under the laws in eir own
jurisdiction.  Since the law in the UK requires government sanctioning
for a document to define a corporation, and since it seems reasonably
unlikely that Walker has such government sanctioning in this case,
Walker hasn't created a person either in the ordinary language sense
or in the legal sense.

I publish an NoV alleging that Walker violated Rule 81, a Power-1
rule, by falsely making a public statement that CftPoPDE is a
corporation.
-- 
Wooble
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business