| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
 Posted: Jan 07, 2013 6:20 pm Post subject: Might be an interesting court case |
 |
|
| Quote: | California man says he can drive in carpool lane with corporation papers
By Isolde Raftery, NBC News
When Jonathan Frieman of San Rafael, Calif., was pulled over for driving alone in the carpool lane, he argued to the officer that, actually, he did have a passenger.
He waved his corporation papers at the officer, he told NBCBayArea.com, saying that corporations are people under California law.
Frieman doesn't actually support this notion. For more than 10 years, Frieman says he had been trying to get pulled over to get ticketed and to take his argument to court -- to challenge a judge to determine that corporations and people are not the same. Mission accomplished in October, when he was slapped with a fine -- a minimum of $481.
Frieman has been frustrated with corporate personhood since before it became a hot button issue in 2010, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporate and union spending may not be restricted by the government under the First Amendment.
At the heart of the high court ruling was the argument that corporations -- because they are composed of individuals – deserve protection under the First Amendment, which guarantees free speech.
Frieman, who faces a traffic court on Monday, plans to tell the judge that this isn’t about carpool lanes; it’s about corporate power.
"I'm just arresting their power and using it for my service to drive in the carpool lane," he told NBC Bay Area's Jean Elle.
University of San Francisco law professor Robert Talbot says Frieman’s argument may not hold up because it steers too far from the intent of carpool lane laws.
"A court might say, ‘Well, it says person, and a corporation is a person, so that'll work for the carpool lane,’” Talbot told NBCBayArea.com. “It’s possible, but I doubt it.”
In an opinion piece posted to the San Rafael Patch site on May 14, 2011, Frieman broke down his argument.
A carpool lane is two or more persons per vehicle, he said. The definition of person in California’s Vehicle Code is “natural person or corporation.”
“Just imagine what THAT courtroom scene’ll be like,” he wrote.
He imagined what he might say to the judge: “Your honor, according to the vehicle code definition and legal sources, I did have a ‘person’ in my car. But Officer so-and-so believes I did NOT have another person in my car. If you rule in his favor, you are saying that corporations are not persons. I hope you do rule in his favor. I hope you do overturn 125 years of settled law.”
But before he can make grand proclamations, the officer who ticketed him must show up to court. Otherwise, his ticket may be thrown out.
How many bets that the cop doesn't show for the hearing so the ticket gets dismissed? |
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/05/16372432-california-man-says-he-can-drive-in-carpool-lane-with-corporation-papers
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Nor*Cal
Ladies Man
Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Posts: 9479
City: Sac
|
| Posted: Jan 07, 2013 10:23 pm Post subject: Re: Might be an interesting court case |
|
|
| Quote: | "A court might say, ‘Well, it says person, and a corporation is a person, so that'll work for the carpool lane,’” Talbot told NBCBayArea.com. “It’s possible, but I doubt it.”
In an opinion piece posted to the San Rafael Patch site on May 14, 2011, Frieman broke down his argument.
A carpool lane is two or more persons per vehicle, he said. The definition of person in California’s Vehicle Code is “natural person or corporation.”
“Just imagine what THAT courtroom scene’ll be like,” he wrote.
He imagined what he might say to the judge: “Your honor, according to the vehicle code definition and legal sources, I did have a ‘person’ in my car. But Officer so-and-so believes I did NOT have another person in my car. If you rule in his favor, you are saying that corporations are not persons. I hope you do rule in his favor. I hope you do overturn 125 years of settled law.” |
This Frieman guy is an ignoramus, initially because the code establishing Preferential Use Lanes for High Occupancy Vehicles doesn't refer to people or number of people and leaves those determinations up to locals and secondly because the bay area requires 3 individuals so only having 1 article of incorporation wouldn't overturn his citation if the law extended personhood to corporations which it does not but rather affords corporations certain protections similar to individuals. So that's 3 ways this guy is wrong...
_________________
If I agreed with you we would both be wrong.
Last edited by Nor*Cal on Jan 08, 2013 10:38 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scott a
Ladies Man
Joined: 13 Jan 2003
Posts: 9810
|
| Posted: Jan 07, 2013 11:50 pm Post subject: Re: Might be an interesting court case |
|
|
| Nor*Cal wrote: | | and secondly because the bay area requires 3 individuals so only having 1 article of incorporation wouldn't overturn his citation if the law extended personhood to corporations which it does not but rather affords corporations certain protections similar to individuals. So that's 3 ways this guy is wrong... |
Bay Area is only 2+ individuals http://rideshare.511.org/511maps/hov_lanes.aspx
*the Bay Bridge (and nearby sections of I-80) and the Carquinez Bridge are 3+, but he was in a 2+ location according to the linked video.
_________________
www.TheLiquidPlayground.com
Integrity Wakeskates |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GnarShredd
Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 16 Jun 2009
Posts: 2310
City: St Pete.
|
| Posted: Jan 08, 2013 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| For this to work (among other reasons) wouldn't he need to cram the ENTIRE corporation in to his car and not just a part of it? I don't think you'd be allowed to ride in the carpool lane if you just had someone's pinky finger sitting in the seat next to you, right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
STPHNSN23
Guest
|
| Posted: Jan 08, 2013 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GnarShredd wrote: | | For this to work (among other reasons) wouldn't he need to cram the ENTIRE corporation in to his car and not just a part of it? I don't think you'd be allowed to ride in the carpool lane if you just had someone's pinky finger sitting in the seat next to you, right? |
how many corporations can dance on the head of a pin? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nmballa
Wakeboarder.com Freak
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Posts: 3906
City: Milwaukee
|
| Posted: Jan 08, 2013 8:05 am Post subject: Re: Might be an interesting court case |
|
|
| Nor*Cal wrote: | | f the law extended personhood to corporations which it does not but rather affords corporations certain protections similar to individuals. So that's 3 ways this guy is wrong... |
I have been rather curious about this. What the base intention of corporate personhood is basically to allow corporations to enter in to contracts and be sued as if they were an individual. And this to me appears to be an absolute requirement for business to function in a capitalist environment, i.e. be held accountable for its actions and be able to hold other accountable for grievances against it. So was the big controversy with citizens united was that it gave corporations the ability to fund political elections? Was this something that existed prior and was reaffirmed or was this something that came out of that particular case? Nor Cal, I believe you work in lobbying or something so I would assume you would be the resident expert on this subject. What are your opinions?
It seems it is primarily the left that has come out in arms against this but if this corporate right was removed wouldn't that essentially defund union political activities as well. I kind of see it as a tit for tat, unions vs. corporations throwing monies towards politics that strengthen their respective positions. It does really seem that it games the system on both sides of the aisle and IMO seems to really detract from the individuals vote. I think when you look at the monies spent between both candidates on the recent presidential election you really gotta wonder if its good for the country.
_________________
jt09 wrote:
I used to get all happy when the girlie would make a colonic appointment. That meant she was going to be breaking out the "fine china" soon.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=509037985&ref=profile |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eeven73
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 5377
City: Halfway
|
| Posted: Jan 08, 2013 9:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
When did WBer.com become a legal forum 
_________________
Is President Obama a Keynesian? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BrtnDan
Addict
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 609
|
| Posted: Jan 08, 2013 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| eeven73 wrote: | | When did WBer.com become a legal forum |
When Okie Boarder became the only person starting new threads |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nor*Cal
Ladies Man
Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Posts: 9479
City: Sac
|
| Posted: Jan 08, 2013 10:46 am Post subject: Re: Might be an interesting court case |
|
|
| nmballa wrote: | | Nor*Cal wrote: | | f the law extended personhood to corporations which it does not but rather affords corporations certain protections similar to individuals. So that's 3 ways this guy is wrong... |
Was this something that existed prior and was reaffirmed or was this something that came out of that particular case? |
Existed prior to...
As to the question regarding unions that is dependent on the type of 501-cX you are talking about. Many of these affronts from either business or the Union/NGO side exempt themselves. Fundamentally there is no equitable way to handle this issue because if you exempt one group then you infringe on the 1st amendment rights of the others. Essentially everyone has the right to be represented. These battles are one side trying to gain the upper hand on the other.
_________________
If I agreed with you we would both be wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nor*Cal
Ladies Man
Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Posts: 9479
City: Sac
|
| Posted: Jan 08, 2013 10:48 am Post subject: Re: Might be an interesting court case |
|
|
| scott a wrote: | | Nor*Cal wrote: | | and secondly because the bay area requires 3 individuals so only having 1 article of incorporation wouldn't overturn his citation if the law extended personhood to corporations which it does not but rather affords corporations certain protections similar to individuals. So that's 3 ways this guy is wrong... |
Bay Area is only 2+ individuals http://rideshare.511.org/511maps/hov_lanes.aspx
*the Bay Bridge (and nearby sections of I-80) and the Carquinez Bridge are 3+, but he was in a 2+ location according to the linked video. |
True, just assumed he was near one of those toll areas but am obviously wrong.
Still it is my understanding the definition of person is talking about a employee in a fleet vehicle but I could be wrong.
_________________
If I agreed with you we would both be wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nmballa
Wakeboarder.com Freak
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Posts: 3906
City: Milwaukee
|
| Posted: Jan 08, 2013 10:52 am Post subject: Re: Might be an interesting court case |
|
|
| Nor*Cal wrote: | | nmballa wrote: | | Nor*Cal wrote: | | f the law extended personhood to corporations which it does not but rather affords corporations certain protections similar to individuals. So that's 3 ways this guy is wrong... |
Was this something that existed prior and was reaffirmed or was this something that came out of that particular case? |
Existed prior to...
As to the question regarding unions that is dependent on the type of 501-cX you are talking about. Many of these affronts from either business or the Union/NGO side exempt themselves. Fundamentally there is no equitable way to handle this issue because if you exempt one group then you infringe on the 1st amendment rights of the others. Essentially everyone has the right to be represented. These battles are one side trying to gain the upper hand on the other. |
So really the only way is limit the ability of both sides to contribute. Personally I would welcome a system that only allows election funding to be handled via a set number provided by the federal government. So say you collect x amount of signatures to qualify for a particular electoral position. Then depending upon the specific postion, each candidate is allotted Y amount of dollars to finance their campaign. But this will never happen.
_________________
jt09 wrote:
I used to get all happy when the girlie would make a colonic appointment. That meant she was going to be breaking out the "fine china" soon.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=509037985&ref=profile |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nor*Cal
Ladies Man
Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Posts: 9479
City: Sac
|
| Posted: Jan 08, 2013 11:00 am Post subject: Re: Might be an interesting court case |
|
|
| nmballa wrote: | | So really the only way is limit the ability of both sides to contribute. Personally I would welcome a system that only allows election funding to be handled via a set number provided by the federal government. So say you collect x amount of signatures to qualify for a particular electoral position. Then depending upon the specific postion, each candidate is allotted Y amount of dollars to finance their campaign. But this will never happen. |
So a marginal candidate would get the same voice as someone widely supported by multiple constituencies? Not sure I'm in favor of that.
Also, these limits would squash the voice of membership-based advocacy groups like surfriders, sierra club, AARP, ACLU, NRA, ect...
_________________
If I agreed with you we would both be wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Jan 08, 2013 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BrtnDan wrote: | | eeven73 wrote: | | When did WBer.com become a legal forum |
When Okie Boarder became the only person starting new threads |
Maybe the rest of ya should step up to the plate and let me take a break. 
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nmballa
Wakeboarder.com Freak
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Posts: 3906
City: Milwaukee
|
| Posted: Jan 08, 2013 11:51 am Post subject: Re: Might be an interesting court case |
|
|
| Nor*Cal wrote: | | nmballa wrote: | | So really the only way is limit the ability of both sides to contribute. Personally I would welcome a system that only allows election funding to be handled via a set number provided by the federal government. So say you collect x amount of signatures to qualify for a particular electoral position. Then depending upon the specific postion, each candidate is allotted Y amount of dollars to finance their campaign. But this will never happen. |
So a marginal candidate would get the same voice as someone widely supported by multiple constituencies? Not sure I'm in favor of that.
Also, these limits would squash the voice of membership-based advocacy groups like surfriders, sierra club, AARP, ACLU, NRA, ect... |
How do you figure. If you set the requirement of a presidential candidate to collect say 400K signatures for qualification, hardly seems marginal to me. And in turn you could argue the counter, currently a marginal candidate can throw moines at an election and have a larger voice than someone who is exceptionally qualified.
And yes the intent is to squash the voice of special interest during the election process.
_________________
jt09 wrote:
I used to get all happy when the girlie would make a colonic appointment. That meant she was going to be breaking out the "fine china" soon.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=509037985&ref=profile |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LFADAM
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 5283
City: New York City
|
| Posted: Jan 08, 2013 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Aright I'll play.
While we are talking about ridiculous traffic cases, I have one of my own (well not a case, but an idea for a defense).
If you get pulled over for speeding, let's say 70 in a 55, I have come up with an unorthodox defense that I have not been able to debunk. I have found NC traffic laws and nowhere does it say that the speed limit is relative to the face of the Earth. So, since all speed is relative, my defense is that I was clearly going less than 70 mph relative to the cars around me . Nowhere in the law can I find where it says the speed limit is relative to the face of the earth, nor does it say anything about how a reasonable person would interpret the speeding laws.
Someone tell me why I am wrong/why this wouldn't work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eeven73
PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 5377
City: Halfway
|
| Posted: Jan 09, 2013 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Someone tell me why I am wrong/why this wouldn't work. |
If you find a judge who is in the mood to be amused it very well could work. Most likely not.
_________________
Is President Obama a Keynesian? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Stats
Favorites
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
