root wrote:
On 7/18/07, *Ed Murphy* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
root wrote:
> [the purported judgement of CFJ 1623]
> was also a rather flimsy analysis. It relied upon the assertion that
> R754 was not clear on the matter,
Yes.
> which is patent nonsense
No.
> as "person" is not primarily a legal term.
That's precisely why it asserted that R754 was unclear. Here is the
relevant portion of the purported judgement:
I don't think I follow you. If we agree that "person" is not primarily
a legal term, then provision 3 (legal definition) does not apply and
provision 4 (common definition) does. What's unclear about that?
"person" has multiple common definitions, of which the legal
definition is one.
