In law, a legal person is any person or'thing' that can do the things an everyday person can do in law – such as enter into contracts, sue and be sued, own property, so on. The reason for the term "legal person" is that some legal persons are not people: companies and other corporations are "persons" speaking, but they are not people in the ordinary sense. There are therefore two kinds of legal entities: non-human. In law a human person is called a "natural person", a non-human person is called a juridical person. Juridical persons are entities such as corporations and many government agencies, they are treated in law. While natural persons acquire legal personality "naturally" by being born, juridical persons must have legal personality conferred on them by some "unnatural", legal process, it is for this reason that they are sometimes called "artificial" persons. In the most common case, incorporating a business, legal personality is acquired by registration with a government agency set up for the purpose.
In other cases it may be by primary legislation: an example is the Charity Commission in the UK. As legal personality is a prerequisite to legal capacity, it is a prerequisite for an international organization to be able to sign international treaties in its own name; the term "legal person" can be ambiguous because it is used as a synonym of terms that refer only to non-human legal entities in contradistinction to "natural person". Artificial personality, juridical personality, or juristic personality is the characteristic of a non-living entity regarded by law to have the status of personhood. A juridical or artificial person has a legal name and has certain rights, privileges and liabilities in law, similar to those of a natural person; the concept of a juridical person is a fundamental legal fiction. It is pertinent to the philosophy of law. Juridical personhood allows one or more natural persons to act as a single entity for legal purposes. In many jurisdictions, artificial personality allows that entity to be considered under law separately from its individual members.
They may sue and be sued, enter contracts, incur debt, own property. Entities with legal personality may be subjected to certain legal obligations, such as the payment of taxes. An entity with legal personality may shield its members from personal liability. In some common law jurisdictions a distinction is drawn between corporation aggregate and a corporation sole, a public office of legal personality separated from the individual holding the office. Most corporations sole were ecclesiastical in nature, but a number of other public offices are now formed as corporations sole; the concept of juridical personality is not absolute. "Piercing the corporate veil" refers to looking at the individual natural persons acting as agents involved in a company action or decision. The concept of a juridical person is now central to Western law in both common-law and civil-law countries, but it is found in every legal system; some examples of juridical persons include: Cooperatives, business organization owned and democratically operated by a group of individuals for their mutual benefit Corporations are bodies corporate created by statute or charter.
A corporation sole is a corporation constituted by a single member, in a particular capacity, that person's successors in the same capacity, in order to give them some legal benefit or advantage that of perpetuity, which a natural person could not have had. Examples are The Crown in the Commonwealth realms. A corporation aggregate is a corporation. Municipal corporations are "creatures of statute". Other organizations may be created by statute as legal persons, including European economic interest groupings. Unincorporated associations, aggregates of two or more persons, are treated as juridical persons in some jurisdictions but not others. Partnerships, an aggregate of two or more persons to carry on a business in common for profit and created by agreement. Traditionally, partnerships did not have continuing legal personality, but many jurisdictions now treat them as having an independent legal personality. Companies, a form of business association that carries on an industrial enterprise, are corporations, although companies may take other forms, such as trade unions, unlimited companies and funds.
Limited liability companies—be they a private company limited by guarantee, private company limited by shares, or public limited company—are entities having certain characteristics of both a corporation and a partnership. Different types have a complex variet
Hamlyn Heights is a residential suburb of Geelong. It located to the west of the city on hills, it was named after a local resident in the 1940s. At the 2016 census, Hamlyn Heights had a population of 6,293; the suburb boundaries are Church St, Ballarat Rd, Moorabool River and two unmarked boundaries extending between Church St to Moorabool River and between Moorabool River and Ballarat Rd. Hamlyn Heights has two retail areas. A large shopping strip is located in Vines Rd; the Post Office opened here on 2 February 1959 it is known as Vines Road, Geelong. A small group of shops exist in Fairlie St. Hamlyn Heights was the home to international actor Guy Pearce that lived in Hamlyn Heights during the 1990s. Hamlyn Heights has Herne Hill Primary School & Hamlyn Banks Primary School. Hamlyn Heights has one secondary school: Western Heights Secondary College. In 2018 Hamlyn Views primary/secondary school opened on the former site of Bell Park High School in Quamby Avenue. Hamlyn Park is home to the Hamlyn Park Tennis Club, Geelong Ballroom Dance Club, 1st Hamlyn Heights Scout Group and the Bell Park Sport and Recreation Club which has teams in the local football and netball associations.
Hamlyn Park was developed by the Shire of Corio and the Geelong Scottish club out of waste ground and scrub as a multi-sport facility with soccer as the first activity. 21 Brewongle Avenue'Glenpanyal' - 22 Glengate Street Hamlyn Park Tennis Club Hamlyn Heights - City of Greater Geelong
Tsarevich Dmitry or Dmitri Ivanovich known as Dmitry of Uglich or Dmitry of Moscow, was a Russian tsarevich famously impersonated by a series of pretenders after the death of his father Ivan the Terrible. Dmitry was the youngest son of Ivan the Terrible and Ivan's only child born to Maria Nagaya. After the death of Ivan IV, Dmitry's older brother, Feodor I, ascended to power. However, the actual ruler of the Russian state was Feodor's brother-in-law, a boyar, Boris Godunov, who had had a claim on the Russian throne. According to a widespread version, Godunov wanted to get rid of Dmitry, who could have succeeded the throne in light of Feodor's childlessness. In 1584, Godunov sent Dmitry, his mother and her brothers into exile to the Tsarevich's appanage city of Uglich. On 15 May 1591, Dmitry died under mysterious circumstances. Russian chroniclers and historians offered two possible scenarios of what could have happened to Dmitry; the first theory is that Dmitry was killed by the order of Boris Godunov, the assassins making it look like an accident.
The critics of this version point out that Dmitry was Ivan's son from his fifth marriage, thus illegitimate by the canon law. This would make any claim of Dmitry's for the throne dubious at best; the modern scholarship tends to exonerate Boris of any role in the prince's death. The second theory is that Dmitry stabbed himself in the throat during an epileptic seizure, while playing with a knife; the detractors of this scenario assert that, since during an epileptic seizure the palms are wide open, the self-infliction of a fatal wound becomes unlikely. However, the official investigation, done at that time, asserted that the Tsarevich's seizure came while he was playing a svaika game or with a knife and thus holding the knife by the blade, turned toward himself. With the knife in that position, the version of self-inflicted wound on the neck while falling forward during seizure appears more likely. There is a third version of Dmitry's fate, which found support with some earlier historians, such as Konstantin Bestuzhev-Ryumin, Ivan Belyaev and others.
They considered it possible that Godunov's people had tried to assassinate Dmitry, but killed somebody else instead and he managed to escape. This scenario explains the appearance of impostors, sponsored by the Polish nobility. Most modern Russian historians, consider the version of Dmitry's survival improbable, since it is hardly possible that the boy's appearance was unknown to his assassins, it is well known that many Polish nobles who supported False Dmitry I did not believe his story themselves. The death of the Tsarevich roused a violent riot in Uglich, instigated by the loud claims of Dmitry's mother Maria Nagaya and her brother Mikhail that Dmitry was murdered. Hearing this, enraged citizens lynched fifteen of Dmitry's supposed "assassins", including the local representative of the Moscow government and one of Dmitry's playmates; the subsequent official investigation, led by Vasily Shuisky, after a thorough examination of witnesses, concluded the Tsarevich had died from a self-inflicted stab wound to the throat.
Following the official investigation, Maria Nagaya was forcibly tonsured as a nun and exiled to a remote convent. However, when the political circumstances changed, Shuisky retracted his earlier claim of accidental death and asserted that Dmitry was murdered on Godunov's orders. On 3 June 1606, Dmitry's remains were transferred from Uglich to his cult soon developed. In the calendar of the Russian Orthodox Church, he is venerated as a "Saint Pious Tsarevitch", with feast days of 19 October, 15 May and 3 June. In the 20th century, the majority of Russian and Soviet historians have given more credit to the conclusions of the first official investigation report under Shuisky, which ruled Dmitry's death to be an accident; the story of murder is presumed in Aleksandr Pushkin's play Boris Godunov, made into an opera by Modest Mussorgsky. False Dmitriy I False Dmitriy II False Dmitriy III Sergey Platonov. Очерки по истории смуты в Московском государстве XVI-XVII вв. Moscow, 1937. Ruslan Skrynnikov. Лихолетье.
Москва в XVI-XVII веках. Moscow, 1988
The Southern Railway gave the designation 2-BIL to the DC third rail electric multiple units built during the 1930s to work long-distance semi-fast services on the newly electrified lines from London to Eastbourne and Reading. This type of unit survived long enough in British Rail ownership to be allocated TOPS Class 401; the 2-BIL units were so-called because each set had two lavatories, one in each car. They were built in four batches, each for service on newly electrified lines: The different batches were broadly similar, though in the first one, the driving motor brake car had a smaller brake compartment and seven full compartments, rather than six-and-a-half in the batches. Several of the cars were destroyed in World War 2 at various points on the system; some unit numbers were withdrawn while others received a single replacement car from the small batch of postwar all-steel 2-HAL units which were built as replacements. The first two batches of 2-BIL stock were subject to the EMU renumbering scheme implemented during January and February 1937.
The renumbering of these units, the original formations of all 2-BIL units, are set out in the table below: The first 10 2-BIL units 2001 to 2010 had an earlier form of multiple unit control. They were compatible with the 4-LAV units of the same era, but not with the remainder of the 2-BIL sets, they operating from Brighton, where the 4-LAV were based, on local services. The remaining sets spent their lives on the services for which they were constructed, although they were mixed in operation, it was common for units to be exchanged between areas of operation within a day's normal work. Commuter services into London Waterloo and London Bridge found them marshalled up to 8-car units. An unusual feature of their operation in the 1950s and 1960s was that there were about 30 more diagrams for these units than sets existed, while for the subsequent 2-HAL units there were more than 30 spare units, so a significant number of the daily 2-BIL diagrams were operated by the latter units marshalled together as one of the sets in a full 8-car formation.
In 1963, a 7-coach trailer set was formed by placing five former 4-SUB trailer cars between the two driving cars from unit 2006. The set was intended for use on the Oxted line; the motors from former DMBS car number 10573 were removed, the whole set was re-wired to enable the hauling diesel locomotive to provide the electric train heating. Six compartments of one of the 4Sub Trailer Second cars were refitted as first class compartments, thereby making it a Trailer Composite; the set was numbered 900 in the old hauled carriage set number series, but this was amended in February 1966 to 701 in the new series for trailer control units. Despite this, its designation as 7-TC, it was not a real trailer control unit in that a locomotive could not be operated remotely from the unit's driving cars; the unit was stored from December 1967 and withdrawn in April 1969. However, while the two driving cars were scrapped the following year, all five trailers were reused in other units. Four returned to 4-SUB formations, but 11485 underwent a further conversion, this time to a 4EPB Trailer Second, was renumbered 15084.
Full details of the 7-TC formation, the origin of the individual cars and their subsequent disposal are set out in the table below: On 1 August 1962, unit No.2088 was derailed at Barnham, West Sussex when a set of points moved under it due to an electrical fault. Thirty-eight people were injured. After withdrawal in 1971, various 2-BIL units in company with 2-HAL units were noted at Stratford in east London destined for scrapping by Kings of Norwich, or being hauled west for scrapping in the Newport area. Only one 2-BIL unit has survived into preservation, namely number 2090, formed of carriages 10656 and 12123, in the care of the National Railway Museum, York; this unit is one of only two pre-war main line EMUs in existence, which are still in original formation. The other is the Class 503, kept at the Hornby Hobbies Visitor Centre. "SR semi-fast units 2Nol 4Lav 2Bil and 2Hal". Southern Electric Group. Archived from the original on 3 December 2013. Retrieved 5 October 2019. Longworth, Hugh. British Railways Electric Multiple Units to 1975.
Oxford Publishing Co. ISBN 9780860936688. OCLC 923205678. Marsden, Colin J.. Southern Electric Multiple-Units 1948–1983. Shepperton, Surrey: Ian Allan Limited. Pp. 41–45, 92. ISBN 0-7110-1314-4. Johnston, Howard. "Triumphant return of the 2-BIL". Rail Enthusiast. EMAP National Publications. P. 24. ISSN 0262-561X. OCLC 49957965. Southern Electric Group - Details of class designation. History of the 2 BIL units on www. BloodandCustard.com
The 29er is a two-person high performance sailing skiff designed by Julian Bethwaite and first produced in 1998. Derived from the Olympic class 49er class, it is raced in the ISAF Youth Sailing World Championships; the 29er is able to reach high speeds quickly by having a sleek and hydrodynamic hull and will exceed the wind speed when planing both up and downwind. The 29er class is targeted at youth those training to sail the larger Olympic 49er; the Youth Sailing World Championships has adopted it to replace the Laser 2 -, designed by Julian Bethwaite's father Frank. The 29er has one on trapeze; the rig features a fractional asymmetric spinnaker. The spinnaker rigging set-up challenges crews to be fit and coordinated, maneuvers in the boat require athleticism due to its lack of inherent stability and the high speed with which the battened mainsail and jib power up; the hull construction is of fibreglass-reinforced polyester in a foam sandwich layout. The battened mainsail and jib are made from a transparent Mylar laminate with orange or red Dacron trimming, while the spinnaker is manufactured from ripstop Nylon.
The mast is in three parts - an aluminium bottom and middle section, with a polyester-fiberglass composite tip to increase mast bend and decrease both overall weight, the capsizing moment a heavy mast tip can generate. Foils are aluminium or fibreglass; the 29er has been used as equipment in the ISAF Youth Sailing World Championships. Bethwaite and Jen Glass have designed the 29erXX, a twin trapeze derivative of the 29er, it uses the same hull with some minor changes such as an extended gunwale and a rudder gantry, with a larger rig that includes a square-top main and masthead asymmetric spinnaker. The class became an International Sailing Federation recognised class in its own right in 2010. In late 2012 Bethwaite announced another new version, the 29erXS, aimed at younger and/or lighter sailors; the XS features a similar rig to the XX, but of smaller size fitted to a standard 29er hull and employing a single trapeze. The intention is that sailors can upgrade the rig when they are ready to move to full sized sails, keep the hull, which will remain standard across all 29er variants.
International Links 29er.org ISAF 29er MicrositeBuilders Ovington Boats Bethwaite DesignNational Class Associations 29er Class Association of New Zealand German 29er Association British 29er Association North American Class Page Danish 29er Association Swiss 29er Association 29er Class Organisation Swedish 9er Association Polish 9er Association
The God Helmet is an experimental apparatus called the Koren helmet after its inventor Stanley Koren. It was developed by Koren and neuroscientist Michael Persinger to study creativity, religious experience and the effects of subtle stimulation of the temporal lobes. Reports by participants of a "sensed presence" while wearing the God helmet brought public attention and resulted in several TV documentaries; the device has been used in Persinger's research in the field of neurotheology, the study of the purported neural correlations of religion and spirituality. The apparatus, placed on the head of an experimental subject, generates weak magnetic fields, that Persinger refers to as "complex". Like other neural stimulation with low-intensity magnetic fields, these fields are as strong as those generated by a land line telephone handset or an ordinary hair dryer, but far weaker than that of an ordinary refrigerator magnet and a million times weaker than transcranial magnetic stimulation. Persinger reports that many subjects have reported "mystical experiences and altered states" while wearing the God Helmet.
The foundations of his theory have been criticized in the scientific press. Anecdotal reports by journalists and documentarists have been mixed and several effects reported by Persinger have not yet been independently replicated. One attempt at replication published in the scientific literature reported a failure to reproduce Persinger's effects and the authors proposed that the suggestibility of participants, improper blinding of participants or idiosyncratic methodology could explain Persinger's results. Persinger argues that the replication was technically flawed, but the researchers have stood by their replication. Only one group has published a direct replication of one God Helmet experiment. Other groups have reported no effects at all or have generated similar experiences by using sham helmets, or helmets that are not turned on, have concluded that personality differences in the participants explain these unusual experiences; the God Helmet was not designed to elicit visions of God, but to test several of Persinger's hypotheses about brain function.
The first of these is the Vectorial Hemisphericity Hypothesis, which proposes that the human sense of self has two components, one on each side of the brain, that ordinarily work together but in which the left hemisphere is dominant. Persinger argues that the two hemispheres make different contributions to a single sense of self, but under certain conditions can appear as two separate'selves'. Persinger and Koren designed the God Helmet in an attempt to create conditions in which contributions to the sense of self from both cerebral hemispheres is disrupted; the second experimental hypothesis was that when communication between the left and right senses of self is disturbed, as they report it is while wearing the God Helmet, the usually-subordinate'self' in the right hemisphere intrudes into the awareness of the left-hemispheric dominant self, causing what Persinger refers to as "interhemispheric intrusions". The third hypothesis was that "visitor experiences" could be explained by such "interhemispheric intrusions" caused by a disruption in "vectorial hemisphericity".
Persinger theorises that many paranormal experiences, feelings of having lived past lives, felt presences of non-physical beings, ghosts and other "spiritual beings", are examples of interhemispheric intrusions. The God Helmet experiments were intended, though not designed, to validate the idea that religious and mystic experiences are artifacts of temporal lobe function. Persinger uses a modified snowmobile helmet that incorporates solenoids placed over the temporal lobes; this device produces magnetic fields that Persinger describes as "weak but complex". The pattern of fluctuation in these magnetic fields is derived from physiological sources, for example patterns that appear in EEG traces taken from limbic structures; the purpose of exposing magnetic fields patterned after neurophysiological sources, such as the burst-firing profile of the amygdala, is to enhance the probability of activating the structure from which the signal was derived. The sessions are conducted with the subject seated in an acoustic chamber.
The acoustic chamber is a Faraday cage, shielding out all EMF emissions and radiation except the Earth's magnetic field. Persinger reports that this shielding allows him to use the apparatus to investigate the effects of geomagnetism on the human brain. Neither the God Helmet, nor technologies derived from it, are examples of transcranial magnetic stimulation, which uses magnetic fields on the order of one million times stronger than those used in Persinger's lab. Despite this, Persinger reports similar effect sizes with his apparatus; the magnetic fields employed in TMS and in Persinger's experiments are very different. TMS uses single and repetitive pulses of high intensity to penetrate the cranium. In contrast, Persinger's apparatus uses weak complex magnetic signals patterned after physiological processes, such as one derived from limbic burst firing. Most reports from Persinger's lab consist of people sensing "presences". There have been reports in which the participant has experienced what they perceive as God.
Persinger reports that "at least" 80 percent of his participants experience a presence beside them in the room, others report less evocative experiences of "another consciousness or sentient being". The scientist and science writer Richard Dawkins, appearing