More proof that ‘person’ does not mean a man or woman can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) on a page about the definitions of terms:
Person. An individual, trust, estate, partnership, association, company or a corporation.
It doesn’t say ‘man’ in that list. Individual is another name for a corporate entity, I read elsewhere and this seems to make sense based on the context. That 1040 for Individuals…also not for a man, but for a corporate entity of some sort.
It’s not hard to say man in a definition. They didn’t.
This definition also has the definition of commercial crimes,
Commercial crimes. Any of the following types of crimes (Federal or State): Offenses against the revenue laws; burglary; counterfeiting; forgery; kidnapping; larceny; robbery; illegal sale or possession of deadly weapons; prostitution (including soliciting, procuring, pandering, white slaving, keeping house of ill fame, and like offenses); extortion; swindling and confidence games; and attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, or compounding any of the foregoing crimes. Addiction to narcotic drugs and use of marihuana will be treated as if such were commercial crime.
Really, crimes have to be commercial because they involve persons, which are corporate entities. It sounds odd that one corporation could kidnap another corporation, but that’s the way they do things in their courts/playing fields. The key is to not play. Don’t consent to being the person, which is a company with thy given name and family name joined together: JOHN SMITH.
There’s the famous saying in these circles: all crimes are commercial and I never really got it until now.
There’s a sign at a park that says ‘no persons may carry a firearm’. What they’re saying is no companies are allowed to carry firearms. That doesn’t seem possible right? That a company can carry a firearm. Well, they prosecute the company (the all caps JOHN SMITH) and the man, john, mistakenly agrees to take the punishment for the company.