There are many definitions of “person”, but each is to its own context / scope / jurisdiction. You can’t use the definition of ‘person’ defined under one law / code / statute and apply it to another (see below).
Firstly, As everyone should know by now, in law there is no ‘Strawman’.
We already have enough terms in non-commercial law; “human being”, “human person”, and “person”. – This is NOT a ‘corporation’ and has nothing to do with commerce!
Then for use in commerce we have a kind of ‘corporation’ (a type of corporate Trust) created for each of us on our behalf with ourselves through our corporate account as the beneficiary.
…this ‘corporation’ is called an Artificial Person. (We could call it a Plastic Monkey if we wanted.)
…in the commercial code that this corporate-entity follows, they have defined the corporate Trust as a ‘person’ or ‘individual’. (We could defined it as a ‘monkey’ if we wanted, but it is not so.)
Know one thing though. Definitions have to remain in context. In each context / scope / jurisdiction, a word can be redefined as they see fit.
Don’t assume that one definition of a word stretches across all jurisdictions and even into common law…
Clearly the definition of ‘person’ under the UCC does not extend to other jurisdictions or to common law, as this commercial code – the UCC – applies to the corporate-entities that are acting in commerce and using this code ONLY.
The ‘person’ that has been defined in the UCC (which is really your corporate Trust) has no relation to the human being’s natural person, such as we see in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Declaration of Human Rights has nothing to do with commercial law / code.
The actual definition depends on the law / code being used and is constrained in scope to such.
Similar to the modern dictionaries…
The human being is defined as a monster from a Statutory perspective. But as seen in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, this definition does not apply.
But know, there is only one of you. Don’t think any otherwise. You are a human being.
Part of your being is naturally your “persona”. This is surely a natural part of you – your natural person.
1.1. There is only one of you! You are a human being.
1.2. As a human being you naturally have an ability to interact with others. This is called the ‘person’. (The natural person.)
1.3. Your natural ‘person’ is given a name, which very well is the name of the human being. The two perceived things are indivisible – there is only one of you!
– Simple so far –
Further to this…
2.1. For your benefit, the government created a corporate Trust for you at your birth time. This Trust includes a kind of ‘corporation’. You (or your parent) are the Trustee of this Trust and the beneficiary is the corporate account.
2.2. Your corporate Trust is given a name same as your name.
2.3. You use this ‘corporation’ when doing commerce under its name.
The two can have the same name because the jurisdictions are clearly different. Which is which is clear from the jurisdiction. If in court you offer your name (both have the same name), submit and argue the commercial aspect, then you are talking with respect to your Trust.
It is true that you can differentiate (1) with the name Joe Blogg from (2) with the name JOE BLOGG if that distinction is made. But this is NOT absolute. Don’t just rely on capitalisation for differentiation, as the courts clearly do not, but rely on knowing the difference between the two jurisdictions…
a. If you submit with the name Joe BLOGG / JOE blogg / jOe blOGg (whatever capitalisation) to argue a commercial matter, you are clearly concerning argument about your corporate Trust and you stand under their codes that you are operating it with.
b. If you make a claim or counterclaim with the name Joe BLOGG / JOE blogg / JoE BLogG (whatever capitalisation) and stand in a court of record (common law) or under some other non-commercial private law, you are clearly concerning argument about yourself and your rights, freedoms and obligations.
When you stand out from under all jurisdictions / private laws / codes etc., you stand free and sovereign in common law. In (b.) you choose by agreement which laws you submit to by your words and actions – which jurisdiction you submit to and in what capacity.