(California judge rules) Corporations aren't people in carpool lanes

[Newsjock]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

Jonathan Frieman, a 56-year old San Rafael resident and self-described social entrepreneur, failed to persuade a Marin County Superior Court judge Monday after he argued that he was not alone when a California Highway Patrol officer pulled him over in October while driving in the carpool lane.

Instead, Frieman admitted that he had reached onto the passenger's seat and handed the officer papers of incorporation connected to his family's charity foundation.

..."Common sense says carrying a sheath of papers in the front seat does not relieve traffic congestion," Judge Frank Drago said. "And so I'm finding you guilty."

Outside the courtroom, Frieman said he would appeal the ruling within 30 days.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Corporations-aren-t-people-in-carpool-lanes-4173366.php

[closeupready]

1. Please proceed with your appeal.

With any luck, the 'corporations are people' ruling will be explicitly overturned.

[jberryhill]

27. Cool...

...and then you won't be able to sue them!

[jreal]

29. I'm wondering. Does this mean I can't sue...

Non-profits, Unions, cities, states, countries?

Just wondering.

[1StrongBlackMan]

34. Thank you. n/t

[jberryhill]

50. Sure you can....

Non-profits and unions are corporations, and can be sued.

Many cities are municipal corporations, but cities, states and countries are also defined in US law as constituting various types of "person" person.

Chapter 28 of the United States Code deals largely with the structure of the court system and various rules of construction and procedure in US courts.

28 USC 3002 is typical:

(10) “Person” includes a natural person (including an individual Indian), a corporation, a partnership, an unincorporated association, a trust, or an estate, or any other public or private entity, including a State or local government or an Indian tribe.

----

Corporations are just one type of legal "person" other than a natural person.

[jreal]

55. I see.

But I wonder when all the additions of what a person is considered was later added to the rule.

I have some foggy memory that the idea that corporations are people as well was added by accident by some court related assistant and was used by ideological activist Justices of the time to cement it into our law book forever.

I admit obviously that I am foggy on this, I do seem to remember something of the such.

[freedom fighter jh]

56. Check this out:

http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2009/10/transcript-thoms-corporate-personhood-rant-09-september-2009

[closeupready]

35. Child, you can sue anybody for anything.

A business with a permit to transact business can be sued, even if not incorporated. Even a business WITHOUT a permit can be sued.

[jberryhill]

48. First off, I am neither a child nor your child

Secondly, being subject to suit is one of the attributes of personhood.

[TeamPooka]

49. kids make up the darndest things.

[closeupready]

53. lol, yep, pretty much.

[unblock]

2. stupid is as stupid does. the legal term "person" doesn't mean what lay people think it means.

the law uses the term "natural person" where lay people would use the term "person".

thus freeing the term "person" to include more than just natural persons, e.g., legal entities such as corporations.


so basically, this guy is breaking the law and going to great lengths only to prove that the media hasn't done a good job covering this point.

[democrattotheend]

8. I am glad he did

I don't know if this was the guy's motive, but it helps highlight the absurdity of the corporate personhood doctrine as expanded by Citizens United.

[dsc]

13. It was his motive

He has literally been driving in those lanes alone for the past couple of years trying to get the ticket so he could try to get rid of corporations as people. He wrote an op ed about it not too long ago and finally got his ticket.

[Voice for Peace]

20. I hope he takes it all the way to the US Supreme Court

[Politicub]

43. Sometimes it takes the absurd to wake people up

I'm glad he's pursuing this, too.

[NYC Liberal]

15. '"person" doesn't mean what lay people think it means'

And therein lies the problem.

[TalkingDog]

22. Help me out here. What legal rights do corporate persons have in comparison to "natural" persons?

Where specifically is the line drawn?

[unblock]

24. well, for instance, they can sue and be sued in civil court; but they can't vote.

corporations and other artificial entities have always had certain protections under the constitution, e.g., the government can't just take a corporation's property without due process.

citizens united should really be seen as just a very slight adjustment in a long line of decisions granting corporations certain rights, in this case, the right to make effectively unlimited campaign contributions.

it was an odious decision, but everyone gets hung up on the word "person". had they used a different word like "entity" we wouldn't have all the jokes and confusion and carpool lane distractions and people would focus on the real problem, which is a right-wing supreme court "legislating from the bench" and inventing rights for artificial entities.

[jreal]

31. Well Mitt Romney said corporations are people too you know.

And he should know. 47% of this country believe him to be the smartest person in the country and qualified to be president.

[jreal]

30. Also just wondering...

So does the law require that at least 2 natural persons be in the car or just persons.

[intheflow]

39. What would be an unnatural person?

Aside from corporate personhood, are you suggesting mannequins or dolls could be used in carpool lanes? Because that's been tried.

http://blog.chron.com/newswatch/2012/03/man-tries-to-trick-police-with-dummy-in-the-hov-lane/

[jreal]

54. God no. That's Stupid. Just stupid.

And even dumber than the debate at hand. A mannequin is a mannequin. A doll is a doll.

I am talking about with regards to the poster before my post. The I assume just requires at least 2 persons in the car. But no mention of whether they must be natural. So in the pretext of the law, the guy may have an argument.

But pieces of plastic that have body resemblances on them is a bit stupid. Gee, why don't I just get some paper and crowns out and draw a circle with to dots in the upper part of the circle and a curved line within the bottom area of the circle and call a person?

[leftyohiolib]

41. and this is why lawyers are hated ( unless you need one)

[high density]

3. So in other words the idea of "corporations are people" is contrary to "common sense?"

Better tell that to CA lawmakers and the US Supreme Court. Last I knew the laws actually said corporations are people, so what is this "common sense" law that this judge is talking about?

[silvershadow]

11. ^This.nt

[closeupready]

44. Yes. Courts should explain it in clear language, or else

the ruling that set the precedent (including Citizen's United) should be struck down as vague and ambiguous.

[TlalocW]

4. Someone with more tax-knowledge than I have

Needs to look to see if a person did his or her taxes as if they were a corporation, if that would "rob" the government of significant revenue, or if they would receive a lot of government money as a corporation. After all, if corporations are people then people must be corporations.

After all, if there's some loophole that pays me as TlalocW, Inc. to help advertise my brand name in China, I want to take advantage of it.

TlalocW

[jreal]

32. No, I think corporations is an ethnicity of some sorts. n/t

[samsingh]

5. 5 of the supreme court judges aren't people either

Last edited Tue Jan 8, 2013, 01:56 AM - Edit history (1)

[Baitball Blogger]

6. So a corporation is a person, except when it isn't?

[closeupready]

45. Right? Why the vagueness and ambiguity of the term

renders it meaningless. The justice system should reflect that, IMO.

[Marie Marie]

7. Hey, may be a stupid argument on his part but I

applaud his making this point - even if it was self serving.

[truebluegreen]

25. Wasn't self-serving.

He's been driving around in HOV lanes for a while trying to get a ticket.

[freshwest]

9. An invisible hand and a shadow corporation no one can see. What an ego!

[Bette Noir]

10. Californa courts decided a long time ago that fetuses aren't persons for the purpose of carpooling.

But try to tell that to a Right-to_Lifer.

[davidpdx]

12. It's an interesting and creative idea

but I don't think it will work.

[Tempest]

16. This guy's involved with children and mental health issues in the state

I knew I heard this guy's name before so I looked him up.

Sure enough he's a child advocate and deals with mental health issues.

Sounds like he needs some himself.

[Voice for Peace]

21. I believe he's trying to make a point

and making legal precedent for "corporations aren't people".

[pocoloco]

28. And it is so sad you have to explain it.

Especially to people here at DU!

[Tempest]

37. Do you really believe it's an effective strategy?

Because I see it as not helping at all.

[LanternWaste]

38. Of course, it's a simple and obvious step from that to

"Because I see it as not helping at all."

Of course, it's a simple and obvious step from that to "needing help..." as cited previously as the qualifier

[Tempest]

40. My point is that a piece of paper isn't a person and a corporation isn't just a piece of paper.

I don't agree with CU and I applaud his attempt, but I don't agree with it. Nor do I see it used successfully as a way of undermining CU.

[jberryhill]

51. It's voodoo

[Tempest]

36. He's not helping. n/t

[BlueJazz]

17. It does make the news a little more interesting. I know this guy's cause is dead but...

...he seems to like the journey getting there.

[xtraxritical]

18. Johnathan Frieman is exactly right. Take it to the the Supreme man. Corps. are NOT people!

[mimi85]

19. This reminds me

of the guy who had the blow up doll in the car and tried to get away with that as an excuse. I don't remember if it ever got to court; I seriously doubt it - talk about a waste of taxpayer money.

I'm glad Frieman tried to get away with the argument, even if it was self serving. No doubt there have been more than a few people that have tried to file as a corporation on their taxes as well.

[xtraxritical]

42. "Self serving"? He's doing it for the people of the US at his own expense. You're comment is self

serving.

[tclambert]

23. How dare he take away the rights of our corporate citizens!

Racism, that's what it is.

[Heywood J]

26. He cited the California Motor Vehicle Code,

which defined a corporation as a person. This would seem to contradict the judge and provide grounds for appeal.

[jreal]

33. Maybe they'll say part of a person doesn't count...

And keep the debate alive.

Although, since the corporation is still considered alive, which I assume it is if it's still a running business, then he could be in even more trouble.

This can get really weird.

[Tab]

46. I give him credit for going for it

Most people (*) wouldn't be so ballsy

(*) Corporations excluded

[happyslug]

52. The Legal Issue is who is a person for Car pool lane Purposes?

Last edited Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:31 AM - Edit history (1)

In the list of definitions to the California Vehicle Code you have the following:

470. "Person" includes a natural person, firm, copartnership,
association, limited liability company, or corporation.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc470.htm

Copy of the Complete California Vehicle code:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/vctoc.htm

High Occupancy Vehicles is NOT defined but lanes reserved for such High Occupancy Vehicles are in the Vehicle Code at 21655,5:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=21001-22000&file=21650-21664

I did notice, the above law left it up to the California Department of Motor Vehicles to determine how many people can be in a Vehicle for it to be a "High Occupancy Vehicle" in regards to any "High Occupancy Vehicle Lane" in the state. The Department could defined the number as 1 or 10 if it wanted to, and the number selected by the Department can vary from one "High Occupancy Vehicle Lane" to another "High Occupancy Vehicle Lane". Given that it is also stated that the Legislative policy was to reduce the number of vehicles on the road, it becomes clear that the Department can not only defined HOW many people are in a car to make it a "High Occupancy Vehicle" but also who and what is a "person" for that purpose. i.e. The Department could say it includes only licensed drivers, if it wanted to.

Sorry, a quick reading of the underlying statute leave any discretion as to who is a "Person" for purposes of the number of persons in the Vehicle to make it a "High Occupancy Vehicle" up to the the California Department of Motor Vehicles and by that Department's action it has defined persons as real people in the Vehicle.

[tanyev]

57. Maybe Stephen Colbert will help highlight his cause.