Re: Corporation Sole

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Verlie Shelton on May 21, 1998 at 02:38:38:

In Reply to: Re: Corporation Sole posted by Two Cities on October 31, 1997 at 20:29:22:

I am lookiing for any information on Corporation Sole that can be used in California : Thanks

: : Hmmmmmm. We think you may be on to something here. Just to prove we aren't so smart after all, we've fallen into the old trap of thinking "corporus fictus," "nom de guerre," and various other "stuff" respecting names spelled in all caps. Now, we know about corporation sole as an ecclesiastical term for ministers and bishops who act only in the name of their churches and are taken care of by the churches, but your question begs the question of: Is the state trying to say we are doing business as corporation sole when they assign us those fictitious names? If so, what a perversion! Where's a good lightning bolt when you need it?
: : Anyway, we don't pretend to know any answers on this one, but certainly thank you for presenting the question as food for thought. I'm sure we're not the only ones chewing on this one right now, and would like to hear more from others who have contemplated this question and, hopefully, gotten into researching it.

: The RCW. Revised Codes of Washington. I am of the opinion that this codification
: holds the enactments from several authorities comingled. The code doesn't say.
: You would have to subpoena the Act in order to verify the seal and reference with
: the code revisers instructions as it related to the Act. But I'm only guessing.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]