E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSView more videos at: http://nbcbayarea.com.
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, firm, copartnership, association, limited liability company, 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.
More content from NBCNews.com:
- Police: 4 dead, including gunman, in Aurora, Colo., hostage situation
- Tattoo photos lead to woman's arrest in global child porn investigation
- What Supreme Court? Gay marriage battles rage in the states
- Large earthquake strikes off Alaska coast, prompting tsunami warnings
- 'We've lost respect for life': Detroit records deadliest year in decades
- Video: Warehouses full of criminal evidence lost to Sandy
Follow US news from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
An interesting twist. This is one ticket I want to see the officer go to court for.
they cop will get a anonymous phone call telling him not show up, so that this issue wont see the light of day !
case dismissed ! no more issue
I think that Mike may be right on this one. The courts do not want to get into this can of worms so it may be strongly suggested to the officer that he not show up in court. Of course this might lead to a whole rash of people trying the same stunt, so they may decide to put a stop to it before it starts. The question is what a court determinations that a corporation is not a person for the purposes of the carpool law will have on the definition of a corporation as a person in other areas of law. The easiest thing would be for the police officer to not show up and for the legislature to change the carpool law to specifically define a person for purposes of the law so as to avoid potential conflicts.
The Supreme court made a supreme mistake and I'm for anything that will bring this corporate personhood crap to an end.
I hope people can recognize that what the supreme cout has done is give away government power to non governmental institutions. Even without the personhood bullcrap, we had a tough time controling those that are the actual government as they manage to buy it. Many believe that did not happen with Obama's victory but they are mistaken. Unless he is able and WILLING to put sensible people in the Supreme court, this treasonous shadow government made up of INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONS will destroy democracy.
Regardless of what party you favor, we are all Americans that believe in freedom. If corporate power, which is not limited to the USA, but is on us from all over the world, we will be subject to be chained to the wheels of industry, owing everything and owning nothing.
If the Koch brothers and their like were dying of thirst in a desert, I would not even piss in their mouths. Their operations make them murderers of many people now and in the future by the way they are destroying our life support systems. They are not alone, there are the oil companies, Monsanto and the Pharma groups. Do you listen to the warnings they give regarding their drugs and yet nothing like that is needed for Maijuana that can replace many of them.
I could go on but we have to resist in everyway we can the continuation of expanding the American Empire or wind up like all empires in history.
The politicos that work for the bad guys have effectively pitted us against one an other. Time to forget all the crap about how different our needs and asperations are, they are the same.
Come on folks, let's get it together and be a country of Americans and not some low wage labor force.
Happy New Year!
I will believe that corporations are people when the state of Texas executes one!
He can call Mitt Romney as a defense witness LOL!
The problem, as I see it, is that just having corporate 'papers' in his car does not mean that the actual corporation is with him in the car.
It should be an interesting case, though. I notice that he doesn't have a problem with a union being able to make campaign contributions - just corporations. I guess that's his idea of 'balance'.
"Corporations -- because they are composed of individuals – deserve protection under the First Amendment."
Just wait until they have their own armies, like Blackwater, and they rival the US military in size and might. They may then speak with their guns in an attempt to overthrow the government, then they'll have all the cheap labor they want since there will be no one to tell them they can't turn us all into wage slaves. They make the weapons, so why not hold back the best stuff for themselves to tip the balance in their own favor.
JS in SD - Your statement reminds me a bit of President Clinton trying to explain how he believed oral sex wasn't actually sex. I think it is why laws are written by lawyers in a language it takes a lawyer to understand, that way if something like this comes up, they can skirt around the issue with their language.
I bet he doesn't show up for court.
TheKhanKubla:
Blackwater doesn't even have a chance, compared to the Umbrella corporation or Skynet, now that the drones are airborne !
He may fight this, and he might even win. However allowing single drivers to use the HOV will never be allowed by the state. They will simple rewrite the rule to say that the only vehicles allowed in there will be ones with a physical human body in the passenger seat.
@Mike - there's always hope as long as people like Chris, Leon and John are willing to fight evil organizations like those!
If it does go before the court I suspect that a judge may rule that a corporation simply doesn't have a limited physical location per se, in the same way that a physical person does and that merely having corporate papers in your car doesn't mean that one's "corporation" is actually located within the confines of your car.
Once your company incorporates, it's a corporation, by law, wherever the law applies, irrespective of where the corporate papers are located. By that reasoning all of us have *every* corporation hovering invisibly within our cars.
So while I think the entire idea of the "personhood" of corporations for purposes of free speech, etc., is ludicrous, I doubt that this stunt is going to get this guy anything other than an expensive ticket.
Ummmm, noooo, the judge is going to laugh at him and tell him this is about being a dumbazz and driving solo in the car pool lane. Hope the judge sticks him with the max fine plus court cost.
The interesting question in my mind is that if the court tries to more narrowly define a "person" for the purposes of a carpool lane, how far will they go? I'm frankly amazed that babies count as people for the carpool lane. How else are the babies going to get around? The baby riding with the parent is not taking a car off the road; the purpose of carpool lanes is to incentivize people who wouldn't otherwise carshare to do so. Perhaps this might lead to some definition that more closely aligns with the purpose of carpooling (e.g. two or more licensed drivers, not two "people").
A weak argument. If he had an employee or owner of that corporation in his car then he wouldn't have been ticketed. It was ruled that a corporation as an entity represented people therefore it is a person as far as legal responsibility but it doesn't declare any article owned by that corporation is a person. Under his logic if he carried his wifes shoes it represented his wife.
@ian in ca: I've often wondered the same thing. Why couldn't I count my dog as a passenger to the vet as a "carpool buddy"? As you point out, the purpose of the HOV lane is to incentivize removing another vehicle from the road. Neither an infant nor an animal serves this purpose. I could see an argument if the driver was driving say three or more children to school or a a field trip since it would likely remove at least one vehicle. It will be interesting to see how this case is handled and if they more narrowly define the requirements for HOV lane usage.
The Supremes may consider them persons, but I believe that the HOV lanes address the number of "passengers."
Nobody seems to get it here. The offense is clearly pointed out and Frieman is going to lose while trying to split hairs on physical bodies vs pieces of paper. The court will instantly reject his views. Hopefully he will be unable to keep his mouth shut and piss off the judge, earning himself a couple of days in the klink for contempt after the judge tells him it is over.
LMAO
I love it. a piece of paper is a piece of paper.
In the eyes of God that corporate person is nothing more than a piece of paper.
But the Supeme human court thnks a piece of paper is a human.
Look you cannot arrest a piece paper, a piece of paper has no human emotion or conscience.
So when corporation break laws you cannot go and arrest a piece of paper. If a corporation breaks a law the whole board needs to arrested because "a collective of minds"
The Supreme Court ruling goes against God law of false idols. False Human with human rights.
Does God recognize corporations as a human? Nor should we!
Do not be a sheep led person!
Pippo Schillaci ...(#1.3)..."The Supreme court made a supreme mistake and I'm for anything that will bring this corporate personhood crap to an end."
_________________________________________________
Lack of knowledge is a dangerous thing....Ya see folks, without Corporate Personhood, Corporations would have the Legal Status of a rock....and you can't sue a rock....The concept in law is not new....It is NOT "Citizens United"
"Corporate personhood is the legal concept that a corporation may sue and be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons. This doctrine in turn forms the basis for legal recognition that corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution. The doctrine does not hold that corporations are "people" in the most common usage of the word, nor does it grant to corporations all of the rights of citizens."
"Since at least Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819), the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts."
"The Citizens United majority opinion makes no reference to corporate personhood or to the Fourteenth Amendment."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
Citizens United was only about the barring of airing the Film -- Hillary, The Movie --- during the 2008 Primary Campaign....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission
This is great! It appears to be quite a quandary for this traffic court judge. I wonder how the judge will rule? Probably in favor of the State since he/she does not want to back-up their daily docket of cases into the midnight hours. However, I would love to be inside that courtroom when his case is called.
just tell the judge there was a undocumented worker in the trunk of the car...end of case...
Unequal global powers - beyond the control of national governments
Corporations as persons not only have greater powers than natural persons. They are now more powerful than many states. Their global reach puts them beyond the control of national governments, whose interests are in any case (as we have briefly seen) often closely allied to those of the corporations, for example, in extracting critical resources from other countries. The World Trade Organisation, which can bring sanctions against national governments and even force them to change their constitutions, may be seen in many ways as the creature and instrument of the corporations and those governments that benefit from corporate activities.
Taking action – a proposal for fundamental change
It would in theory be possible to add a sentence to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and related instruments such as the European Convention on Human Rights to say that human rights apply only to human persons and not to any other kinds of person.
It would also be possible to change national law so as to recognise that corporations are not people, but creations of the registrar for corporations or companies. As such, as with a hospital trust or a university, they would then be treated as an emanation (or creation) of the state. This would change the legal situation such that, instead of corporate rights competing with real people’s rights, the corporations would be subject to human rights law and would be obliged to observe the human rights of human persons. Such a change requires political will, which in turn would have to be generated by public pressure, as there are powerful vested interests in keeping things as they are.
The implications of such an action are very broad, and could help with tackling issues relating to the power and reach of corporations. If corporations (as legal persons) were excluded from enjoying the benefits of human rights law, people would be able to bring cases against corporations directly for violation of their human rights, without having to ask the state to do so on their behalf. It would make for clarity: corporations would no longer enjoy human rights but would instead be subject to them. The contradictions involved in having persons (legal and natural) that are treated equally under human rights law, but are unequal in other important respects, pitted against each other in a competition for rights, would begin to be addressed. This would give human beings more freedom to challenge and change the corporation, which after all is only an instrument created by human beings. It could also compel the state to do a better job of protecting people against corporate abuse, instead of siding with corporations against the people. It would be difficult to do, but considering the issues helps to reveal how the evolution of the law has led to a situation in which human persons are profoundly disadvantaged – which makes struggles for social and environmental justice and equity even more difficult than they might otherwise be. If we want to shift the balance of power and reclaim the proper role of governments in representing their people, we should consider making these changes in the law.
never mind...
Human beings cannot directly bring cases against corporations for human rights abuses
Another consequence of human beings and corporations both being persons under the law, is that human beings cannot bring cases directly against corporations for human rights violations because human rights law is about protecting people (persons) against the state. Instead they have to use other laws, such as those regarding negligence, or environmental damage, or they must appeal to the state for redress. Addressing corporate abuses remains an incredibly slow and unequal struggle. Two examples are the Bhopal disaster of Union Carbide, or the ongoing case against Texaco in Ecuador.12 Even recent UK laws on Corporate Manslaughter are of limited use. Although corporations are people (persons), they do not have bodies that can be imprisoned. They often create and use subsidiary corporations with no assets to carry out risky activities or accumulate liabilities. Such subsidiaries can later be dissolved. A corporation accused of corporate manslaughter may simply claim that an employee was behaving in a rogue manner and the corporation did not know what was happening. It may, in exceptional circumstances, be possible to “pierce the corporate veil”13 and hold individual employees of the company responsible for a crime, but such individuals are dispensable and their removal is unlikely to affect the continued “life” of the corporate legal person.
Freedom of speech: Unequal powers to persuade
Should corporations be able to exercise such powers? Corporations have the resources to purchase the highest levels of skills and technology to exercise free speech: to advertise their products, develop their image and imprint their brand on the public imagination. Not content with advertising/commercial breaks, corporations are also able to purchase product placement to advertise particular goods in films and television in some parts of the world. Public relations (PR), first invented as a concept by Edward Bernays, a cousin of Sigmund Freud’s, are a critical part of the corporate effort to win over consumers and promote the image of the corporation in question as a friend, an expert or an advocate, and there are now hundreds of PR companies involved in work to develop corporate branding. The title of one of Bernays’ books “The Engineering of Consent” describes exactly what PR is about and why it is so important. As an early example of successful advertising, Bernays developed a campaign in the 1920s to encourage women to smoke, using the statue of Liberty as an image to equate smoking, women and liberation.6
Another aspect of freedom of speech exercised by corporations under article 10 is the freedom to lobby. The right to seek to influence political decision-making and inform politicians is clearly vital to the interests of human persons and civil society groups or alliances. However, once again, corporations have far greater resources with which to carry out lobby campaigns than civil society. Brussels, the centre of Europe’s decision-making, is full of corporate lobbyists, far outnumbering public interest groups. As Corporate Europe Observatory notes, this “results in flawed policies that put commercial interests above those of people and the environment and undermines the very basis of democracy.”7
I would think he'de have a better chance fighting this, Not on Corporation Personhood, but to get Eric "My People" WithHolder involved that HOV lanes are Racist...they cater to rich white folks that can hire a "professional passenger" and they don't pass P.0bama's Fairness Test....
More such challenges need to be made. Corporations may need to be an entity that can own property and be sued, Mike, but they cannot have all the rights of a human if they cannot be held to accoount for wrongdoings as a human is. Simply paying fines to settle a criminal case is not something a human can do. If a human tried to do it, it would likely be construed to be an attempt at bribery.
Letters of incorporation make the board of directors responsible for the actions of the corporation, but they are Never held to account. If they went to jail for the money laundering of their bank, for example, they would clean up their act.
If a corporation had it's freedom to do business restricted for a period of time (jail) or limited to a specific area, (probation) corporate behavior would improve dramatically.
ED-2874315..(#1.30).." Simply paying fines to settle a criminal case is not something a human can do. If a human tried to do it, it would likely be construed to be an attempt at bribery."
I take it you are responding to me.....And I agree with much of what you wrote..."Bernie" is in jail for life, Jon Corzine should be in jail for life, the Executives from SOLYNDRA should be getting jail terms, not Bonuses from the Bankruptcy Judge....
ICE is conducting many more "Workplace Audits" over Illegal being hired....all they do is fine the companies, to Fund ICE.....the workers just vanish to another location and the companies just figure the fines as part of doing business....those Hiring Managers should be getting jail time based on how many illegals they hired....And the workers should be taken to Deportation lock-ups...
The SEC is just a Revenue Generating Arm of the Government....Huge Fines get paid to The Treasury and everybody goes back to their Corner Offices.....
So, yeah....It's Broken and nobody has the political backbone to do anything about it.
Wow-weeee!!! Fascinating! I don't think "whether the Officer shows up or not" is relevent, at this point, as far as it relates to "Due Process", at the basis. This Guy is already "compelled" to be there, NOT DEPENDENT on whether the Officer shows up or not as a factor. At the basis, this could conversely be likened to a "restraining order"; whereby once someone has been "compelled" to be restrained, the Other Party who is having them compelled to be restrained cannot do anything that would cause them to not be compelled to be restrained. The Officer who has "compelled" him to have to be there to proverbially "Tell it to the Judge", cannot now do anything that would prevent him from doing just that.
IT'S A TWO WAY STREET (no pun intended), not a One-Way Free-for-all way. And THAT is the only way [it] distances itself away from original INTENT. (and RIGHTFULLY so)
This has real ramifications! If this case is tossed that tells every American citizen like no other legal action before it there is no such thing as equal justice under the law. This is the very reason why we fought the revolutionary war. We were being treated as second class citizens by England and we tossed them out. This really needs to go back to the supreme court. The guy has a real case!
Too bad for this guy Romney wasn't elected because he would have an argument with the "corporations are people" mantra.
Ed @ 1.30.......I've been struggling for a while to articulately comment on the effects of penalties levied against people and corporations. It always wound up being inadequate and usually deleted before being sent. You did a very nice job of stating it in that post.
Well, this is a clever way to challenge a supreme court decision!
Why aren't non-profits "people," too? They are composed of people protected by the First Amendment, and in most cases directly serve the people of the United States (i.e., the true government).
The problem with his case is that do those papers constitute the presence of a corporation? What some people should do, is form a Corporation to adopt and raise a child.
He could have brought his argument to court without telegraphing it in the media beforehand. No one would heard anything about this had he not done that. The Judge would have said no in traffic court, then that would have been the end of it. He would have to take his traffic ticket to trial with a jury to get what he wants out of it. Still a huge waste of time and money. The outcome will be the same, he is going to lose.
JUST AWESOME!
When is it going to be legal for me to marry my Bank ?
When is it going to be legal for AT&T to produce, raise or adopt children ?
If I incorporate can I marry myself ?
In Kansas, can a corporation be held liable for child maintenance as the father ?
If a corporation is a person then why can't they vote ?
I appreciate his argument and hope that he gets to argue his points in court, but the fact of the matter is that unless he has an original signed copy of papers filed declaring the creation of a corporation all he has is the equivalent of a photograph of a person. When I was a kid we had a life sized cardboard cut out of Bill Cosby in my basement (It was an old Kodak ad that someone was throwing out). I dont think my dad ever drove in the carpool lane with it and I dont think if a cop pulled them over they would say "oh sorry about that my Cosby, I didnt see you there. you can be on your way. Have a nice day"...
Hes not going to win and I dont think he really expects to. I doubt the cop will even show up.
lol I just watched the video. So yah, I guess he did have the right papers. I hope he gets to argue this in court...anyone who says differently is missing the point of why he was driving in the carpool lane. Maybe this will bring some change to how businesses are run.
Frankly, I'm beginning to think this is a hoax. I think the guy pulled this argument out of his hat as an excuse to the officer. I think it took on a life of it's own after the fact.
His shortcoming is that Corporations have many of the rights of "people" but I'm not aware of any courts that have actually called corporations, people. Unless the corporation is based in his car, he is going to have a hell of a time arguing that the corporation was occupying it.
Hope he enjoys that $500 ticket.
The judge just needs to say the corporation wasnt in the car-- only its "birth certificate was." :)
to think of all the really important things he could be doing besides wasting his time with this pointless pursuit of stupidity .
davefromdanapoint
"hopefully he gets a couple days in the clink." wow, why the hostility? are you some wealthy republican investor who resents any of us 99percenter's attempts to challenge how you run the world with the money you worked so hard to inherit from your dad? if not, your class self-hatred is even worse. like the tards in the red states who vote in fascists who spend 10x more on defense than any other country on earth, then tell the tards we cant afford to pay you that social security you earned.
I can understand pointing out that this guy will lose but if you find yourself angry with this guy pushing the limits of the ridiculous notion of corporate person-hood then you have some serious problems with brain washing. Your brain is too clean. Try to live your life instead of being told how to live it
If everyone on here would just read the entire article - it ends with a link to the California Vehicle Code which SPECIFICALLY states that the definition of a "Person" includes a natural person, firm, copartnership, association, limited liability company, or ***corporation***.
The reason for the definition is most likely so corporations can register vehicles under the corporation name, such as Enterprise car rental.
Should be entertaining whatever happens with it.
I'm against pool lanes unless you drive straight through other wise they slow traffic and they cause traffic jams because people wait to the last minute to exit and then cross the double line into the fast lane to get over four lanes to exit. It is the cause of most traffic jams. The idea was to reduce traffic on the road in truth it doesn't it causes more problems then it worth. I have seen RVs which are in most cases not wide enough and there isn't enough shoulders for them. Pool lanes should be a paid lane for traffic that is going straight through the city to the next city. Another way is put up a cement dividers so automobiles can't cross over into the fast lanes and place signs and exits and entries into pool lanes. In truth I don't even know why people use them. The best lane is the middle lane and driving the speed limit and keeping a distance between you and the car ahead. This man broke the law for what end. He wasted his life and money to prove a point that means nothing
When I call one of the "corporations are PEOPLE" too...I get a computer activated recording.
The court will rule that he was alone as the corporation wasn't with him, just some documents. He'll try to appeal but appellate court won't even hear the case because its trivial. But I wish him luck on his quest. Reminds me of Don Quiote.
His car is listed as the Corporate headquarters. The corporate charter (the essence of the company) was in the car. Yes, the corporation was with him, in it's entirety.
Bingo. The Corp may be a person but the corp wasn't with him. Just papers. A photograph of a person doesn't count either. I don't know how he could list the car as his headquarters. He would need an address for that. The corp also needs officers. Not all of the officers can be him. He has zero chance to win this. It's a waste of his money. But I guess if he wants to spend it this way he has every right to.
I wonder just how shocked he's going to be when he finds out just how much that $480 ticket is really going to cost him in CA. I suspect he's going to get a whole host of fees tacked on to it.
Many corporations are nothing more than a bunch of papers. No assets, no property, nothing. So he has a point.
Well, it depends, was he driving a corporate car at the time? If the car he was driving was given to him by the corporation he worked for, then yes, the corporation was indeed with him. But, corporations usually only provide cars to individuals who are high up in their ranks and he sounds more like one of the working peons who may be soon receiving his walking papers - no more HOV for him.
Then I hope that he puts out a call for fund-raising. I'd like to donate a few dollars on the defense team, to fight this corporate-is-a-person crap.
I applaud his creativity. The Supreme Court ruling regarding corporations as individuals is part of the "selling" of America. It's part of the "greed rules America" agenda that the extreme right has espoused for decades. Let's expose it for what it is... a way to take away democracy for all Americans in favor of making a few Americans wealthy... of allowing large corporations to buy favor with legislators and run the country in favor of the all mightly dollar. The Supreme Court should be ashamed of their ruling that corporations are individuals and maybe this man's courageous challenge is the way to shine some light on this.
so hes going to spend thousands of dollars to appeal a 400 dollar ticket, no wonder this moron was pulled over.
Documentation of corporation is a human. By the purest interpretation of the law then a human was riding with him.
If he looses then it is not a human. If he wins he brought to the forefront a very controversial idea to the courts and used the courts against themselves.
BRAVO
He had paper, an inanimate object with him. He also had his drivers licensee with him so does that make it a government issue now? We The People. Now maybe if he had his blow up doll with him he may have a point. Stop wasting the courts time with BS.
Why not? They more than waste our time with theirs.
So if I carry someone's birth certificate that would be the same as another passenger? It's not going to happen.
You're right, many corporations have no assets. But, the corporation is not its charter, it is its registration with the state. So, is the corporation really in the car with him?
A corporate hq requires a physical address for the application. If he DID register the car as HQ, he's committed fraud.
I'm against pool lanes unless you drive straight through other wise they slow traffic and they cause traffic jams because people wait to the last minute to exit and then cross the double line into the fast lane to get over four lanes to exit. It is the cause of most traffic jams. The idea was to reduce traffic on the road in truth it doesn't it causes more problems then it worth. I have seen RVs which are in most cases not wide enough and there isn't enough shoulders for them. Pool lanes should be a paid lane for traffic that is going straight through the city to the next city. Another way is put up a cement dividers so automobiles can't cross over into the fast lanes and place signs and exits and entries into pool lanes. In truth I don't even know why people use them. The best lane is the middle lane and driving the speed limit and keeping a distance between you and the car ahead. This man broke the law for what end. He wasted his life and money to prove a point that means nothing
BP and Haliburton should be serving 5 o 10 years, hard labor, in a gulf state prison!
You want to put a handful of papers in prison?
HOW do you arrest a peice of paper, you can't and that is why the law is written that way. You have to arrest the whole board due to the fact it is a collective of minds!
Arrest all board memebers as one human!
Taking action – a proposal for fundamental change
It would in theory be possible to add a sentence to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and related instruments such as the European Convention on Human Rights to say that human rights apply only to human persons and not to any other kinds of person.
It would also be possible to change national law so as to recognise that corporations are not people, but creations of the registrar for corporations or companies. As such, as with a hospital trust or a university, they would then be treated as an emanation (or creation) of the state. This would change the legal situation such that, instead of corporate rights competing with real people’s rights, the corporations would be subject to human rights law and would be obliged to observe the human rights of human persons. Such a change requires political will, which in turn would have to be generated by public pressure, as there are powerful vested interests in keeping things as they are.
The implications of such an action are very broad, and could help with tackling issues relating to the power and reach of corporations. If corporations (as legal persons) were excluded from enjoying the benefits of human rights law, people would be able to bring cases against corporations directly for violation of their human rights, without having to ask the state to do so on their behalf. It would make for clarity: corporations would no longer enjoy human rights but would instead be subject to them. The contradictions involved in having persons (legal and natural) that are treated equally under human rights law, but are unequal in other important respects, pitted against each other in a competition for rights, would begin to be addressed. This would give human beings more freedom to challenge and change the corporation, which after all is only an instrument created by human beings. It could also compel the state to do a better job of protecting people against corporate abuse, instead of siding with corporations against the people. It would be difficult to do, but considering the issues helps to reveal how the evolution of the law has led to a situation in which human persons are profoundly disadvantaged – which makes struggles for social and environmental justice and equity even more difficult than they might otherwise be. If we want to shift the balance of power and reclaim the proper role of governments in representing their people, we should consider making these changes in the law.
what an arse pit...
that's a bad attitude...not a thought worthy of discussion...pip pip cherrio...
A handful of papers is not the corporation.
If he had 51% of a corporations stocks in the car with him he might have a better argument.
He confessed to driving 10 years illegally trying to make a point.
The judge should make a point by accepting that confession, fining him and stripping his licence.
Imagine the DA saying you commuted to work 2300 days. one ticket coming and another going .
That will be 4,600 tickets at $481 each.
illegal- your own confession is not enough for a conviction- there must be corroborating evidence- unless they have him on video, they can only bust him for times they caught him, namely, once.
So you're saying that you would prefer to see him punished very, very severely for this, which would assume that you believe his cause is not noble. Correct?
His cause is he wanted to beat traffic everyday saving himself an hour each way.
He is a selfish jerk.
"The judge should make a point by accepting that confession, fining him and stripping his licence."
Sorry but traffic tickets MUST be by law, issued from a police officer that witnessed the actions. It is NOT the same as criminal court. The judge has zero authority by law to do what you are saying he should do and that WOULD make perfect grounds for appellate appeal REQUIREMENT. Now if you're trying to say its the same as a traffic ticket issued by a camera, that camera is considered an officer and the picture the witnessing, and is written into the law just because of the requirement. You simply cannot confess to traffic violations and be found guilty of anything.
Many corporations are just on paper, they don't even have any assets, physical location or anything. That's how they cheat the system for benefits.
@cuongDNyguen
You might want to do some research on Corporations, before posting, otherwise you look(are)as an uninformed troll.
Profit over people
As the world globalizes, multinational corporations are also coming under more scrutiny, as questions about their accountability are also being raised.
In some cases, some corporations have lobbied their governments to aggressively support regimes that are favorable to them. For example, especially in the 1970s and 80s, some tacitly supported dictatorships as they could control their own people, be more easily influenced and corrupted, allow conditions like cheap labor and sweatshops, and so on. This is less practical today as a company’s image with such associations can more readily be tarnished today. Increasingly then, influence is being spread through lobbying for global economic and trade arrangements that are more beneficial to themselves.
Are we reading the same article? He's challenging corporate personhood.
An illegal form of protest.
30 days in the clink
God, why are you guys so vicious against a man who is bravely trying to overturn this nonsense about corporations being people. i don't know what the Supreme Court was thinking but it was obviously to line their pockets. Corporations and their massive lobbying donations are running this country and we all pile up on this man's attempt to show how absurd and dangerous this is.
If I'd been that cop I would have smiled at the dude's cleverness and let him go instead of being a robot and focussing on the department's and each cop's revenue target.
We are a nation of laws.
He decided he was above the law.
FOCK him.
It is not a criminal offense and its not a LAW, only an traffic ORDINANCE. But I guess you have no clue there is a difference, and being ignorant is no excuse according to the law, so FOCK YOU MORON.
MC Gusto: FOCK the law. And everyone like you. The people who make the law are a bunch of corrupt rich @$$holes who apparently able to fool fools into thinking they represent them.
And while you are correcting him with a citation, it's with sadness I must correct you. If those words were binding, we would not need a PERMIT to protest. They are acquired at your local courthouse. Yes, by law we must get government approval to assemble in large groups. I'll leave you with a quote of mine:
"If speech were free we wouldn't need the FCC"
If a corporation is a person then no law was broken McGusto. It's for a judge to uphold corporate personhood law. That's the flipping point.
What about all the corporate heads that hide behind this piece of paper like Enron, Haliburton, Ge they should all be in jail for falsifying that they are Humans
Taking action – a proposal for fundamental change
It would in theory be possible to add a sentence to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and related instruments such as the European Convention on Human Rights to say that human rights apply only to human persons and not to any other kinds of person.
It would also be possible to change national law so as to recognise that corporations are not people, but creations of the registrar for corporations or companies. As such, as with a hospital trust or a university, they would then be treated as an emanation (or creation) of the state. This would change the legal situation such that, instead of corporate rights competing with real people’s rights, the corporations would be subject to human rights law and would be obliged to observe the human rights of human persons. Such a change requires political will, which in turn would have to be generated by public pressure, as there are powerful vested interests in keeping things as they are.
The implications of such an action are very broad, and could help with tackling issues relating to the power and reach of corporations. If corporations (as legal persons) were excluded from enjoying the benefits of human rights law, people would be able to bring cases against corporations directly for violation of their human rights, without having to ask the state to do so on their behalf. It would make for clarity: corporations would no longer enjoy human rights but would instead be subject to them. The contradictions involved in having persons (legal and natural) that are treated equally under human rights law, but are unequal in other important respects, pitted against each other in a competition for rights, would begin to be addressed. This would give human beings more freedom to challenge and change the corporation, which after all is only an instrument created by human beings. It could also compel the state to do a better job of protecting people against corporate abuse, instead of siding with corporations against the people. It would be difficult to do, but considering the issues helps to reveal how the evolution of the law has led to a situation in which human persons are profoundly disadvantaged – which makes struggles for social and environmental justice and equity even more difficult than they might otherwise be. If we want to shift the balance of power and reclaim the proper role of governments in representing their people, we should consider making these changes in the law.
Profit over people
As the world globalizes, multinational corporations are also coming under more scrutiny, as questions about their accountability are also being raised.
In some cases, some corporations have lobbied their governments to aggressively support regimes that are favorable to them. For example, especially in the 1970s and 80s, some tacitly supported dictatorships as they could control their own people, be more easily influenced and corrupted, allow conditions like cheap labor and sweatshops, and so on. This is less practical today as a company’s image with such associations can more readily be tarnished today. Increasingly then, influence is being spread through lobbying for global economic and trade arrangements that are more beneficial to themselves.
If brightness comes from a bulb yours is burnt out.
Thank you. You are a very smart person. and have a very good point.... And with cheap labor, and sweatshops I would also like to add the child trafficking and racketeering being done by our government with the help of family courts, and adoption agencies destroying the family unit of this country and fooling the public because they disguise themselves all under the guise of whats "best interest of children" ... This is another perfect example of how the "laws" are misused and twisted around to serve all the evil @!$%#s with bad intentions.... I would love to be the judge on this case....
Russellm,
The FCC is the security guard of the government owned property call the Airwaves or broadband. IE private property. One does not need a permit to protest if no violence or disorder is being done. In reality not even then. He was on public property. Not impeading anyone. The minute men were protesting when they blocked Concord Bridge preventing the Redcoats from crossing. If Nazis and Klansmen can speak from the courthouse stairs this man did no wrong.
This is taken from the ACLU, though you can find endless references simply by typing in a web search for protest permits:
And though my mention of the FCC was to make a point, here is what the FCC has to say about their purpose, contrary to your claim:
It's to get a piece of the pie. Has nothing to do with safeguarding government property. It's about money and regulating speech. Still disagree? Think about what happens when someone uses bad words on the radio. Someone gets fined tens of thousands of dollars. It's like speeding tickets. They're not to keep you safe, they're to generate revenue.
@jo1965: it is the supreme court that has turned things into "an arse pit" , in your exact words.
Get F'N Big Business the hell out of our government. It is Big Business and people like the Koch brothers who have turned things upside down again. (by the way, for all of my 60+ years, I have NEVER heard the name 'KOCH', pronounced 'KOKE'). I guess they are embarrassed about their true heritage. Sounds typical of a couple of scum billionaires who don't give a G-d damn about anyone but themselves.
The Sherman Anti Trust Act of 1890 that broke up big businesses that held a monopoly in their industry. By the way, Sen. John Sherman of Ohio, who wrote the
law, was a Republican.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it!. Just like W. Bush # 43 was not at all welcome in the 2012 campaign, kind of tells you something, doesn't it?
"I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in it’s birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and to bid defiance to the laws of their country." - Thomas Jefferson, Letter to George Logan, 1816
Otherwise, welcome to the United Corporate States of America.
I knew someone named Koch, and he pronounced it as COOK. So, how is their name pronounced?
Jonathan Frieman, I salute you for having the balls to test this idiotic premise.
I wish you unmitigated success!
I hope they throw the book at him.
MC, I hope taxes eat all of your family's livelihood...but not enough to apply for governement aid, of course. :-)
Profit over people
As the world globalizes, multinational corporations are also coming under more scrutiny, as questions about their accountability are also being raised.
In some cases, some corporations have lobbied their governments to aggressively support regimes that are favorable to them. For example, especially in the 1970s and 80s, some tacitly supported dictatorships as they could control their own people, be more easily influenced and corrupted, allow conditions like cheap labor and sweatshops, and so on. This is less practical today as a company’s image with such associations can more readily be tarnished today. Increasingly then, influence is being spread through lobbying for global economic and trade arrangements that are more beneficial to themselves.
Corporations are an abstract business concept that do NOT deserves the same protections and rights as ACTUAL human voting citizens. It is the most simple, commonsense, straightforward way to approach this issue. Supreme court needs to revisit this.
If a corporation is just an abstract business concept, then how can you sue it if it causes you personal injury? And how can the government levy income taxes against an abstract concept? And how could contracts with corporations be upheld if a corporation is nothing more than an abstract business concept - you certainly cannot punish something that is abstract.
Essentially, you and all the other posters here think that corporate personhood == unlimited campaign spending, but you fail to realize that there is much more to the concept than what your liberal deities would like you to know. There are two sides to every coin, but you only seem to know about one - the protections and rights - while ignoring the duties and responsibilities that come with them. Do a little research next time - it is the most simple, commonsense, straightforward way to approach the issue.
That said, I do think that limits should be placed on campaign spending. But to argue against corporate personhood to this end only shows how little you know about the legal system.
mt83 - right on! Corporations have "personhood" so that they can make contracts that are enforceable in courts, go to court to colllect damages when they've been harmed (such as by patent infringement), and so they can be sued if they harm another party. Corporations have been recognized as "artificial persons" for ages, these dopes have only recently become aware and think the concept was recently devised by an evil, conservative SCOTUS.
I will agree with you when the person known as BP Oil goes to prison for recklessly endangering the Gulf and contaminating the ocean and the coast. If you cannot put it in prison it is not a person. Being able to sue a corporation is not the same as taking away its freedom. When you put a criminal in prison it is to protect the public from the willful harm that criminal does. How do we protect the public from the willful harm a corporation does? Does anyone seriously believe that BP feels bad about what they did to the Gulf? Does anyone seriously believe that they will do anything differently? Does anyone seriously believe that the fines they received are actual punishment? For BP, it is not about the people, it is about the cost vs. benefits ratio. So far their actions still put them in the benefits column. Put that corporation in prison where he belongs. If you can't do that, then BP is not a person.
...so corporations should have the right to actually vote...?
Of course corporations shouldn't and don't have the right to vote. Corporate personhood has never claimed to grant all of the rights of individuals to corporations - it simply grants those rights and obligations which are necessary to make our legal system function. And by the way, corporate personhood is nothing new - in the US it goes back at least as far as 1819.
But nice try with the straw man argument.
So we agree corporate "personhood" has limits. Now do we include or exclude buying elections? Do we allow them to do it anonymously?
Corporations seem to be more than people; a human person has a limit to how much he/she can donate to a politician, a corporation has no limit.
Profit over people
As the world globalizes, multinational corporations are also coming under more scrutiny, as questions about their accountability are also being raised.
In some cases, some corporations have lobbied their governments to aggressively support regimes that are favorable to them. For example, especially in the 1970s and 80s, some tacitly supported dictatorships as they could control their own people, be more easily influenced and corrupted, allow conditions like cheap labor and sweatshops, and so on. This is less practical today as a company’s image with such associations can more readily be tarnished today. Increasingly then, influence is being spread through lobbying for global economic and trade arrangements that are more beneficial to themselves.
The 1st amendment protections were because corporation are COMPOSED of people; not that they ARE people. You're being deceived by anti-capitalists repeating their lies so much you dont even know how to read for yourselves anymore.
No the law he's fighting actually SPECIFICALLY says that corporations are people - not that corporations are composed of people.
"Ethel! Our baby corporation ran off to join the CIRCUS! She's marrying a black man, and having his BABY!... sob....sob..."
Bigot.
Looked at your avatar lately?
Yeah. I have a picture of an ASSH0LE.
Roadkill is still a bigot.
MC, Agree with ya on that one!
He breaks the law as a political protest.
I think they should put him on the No Fly list.
So in other words, you're advocating for the government to penalize him and violate his 1st amendement rights?
Why do you hate america?
McGusto doesn't believe in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. He only believes in the second amendment.
Don't put words in my mouth.
You tell people what you believe and I will tell people what I believe.
I believe you are an idiot.
Many multinationals encourage the formation of export processing zones in developing countries which end up being areas where worker’s rights are reduced. This way they are able to play off countries against each other; if one tries to improve worker or living standards in some way, the company can threaten to move operations to another zone in another country. Some developing countries such as China also benefit from this arrangement as it makes them more competitive in international markets.
The stupidest ruling the Supreme Court ever made, and you can bet that each member of the court had their personal bank accounts boosted by 6 or 7 figures for making it. It must be overturned.
The best way to do that would seem to be that if a Corporation is to be considered a Person under law, then it must be considered a Person under all laws, therefore the Corporation has no shelter under tax laws and must be subject to paying Personal State and Federal Income Taxes at the same rate as an individual, just like every other Person has to.
Let's get the IRS involved.
A Corporation is an entity that may consist of many member Persons, but it is not an individual Person in its own right, and has no claim to any protections under the First Amendment.
Your argument is complete nonsense. You say that, if a corporation is to be considered a person, then it should have to pay taxes at the individual rate, however corporate tax rates are higher than individual tax rates (look it up). But this is a minor point, because your overall argument here is that corporations are getting some kind of benefit from corporate personhood, without having to pay the costs like the rest of us. This couldn't be further from the truth. In the absence of corporate personhood, the government would have no right to levy taxes against a corporation, since it would not be a citizen. So the fact that they are paying taxes at all (and again, higher taxes than you or me) is due entirely to corporate personhood.
Corporate personhood is more concerned with legal obligations of corporations than with privileges (for example, without it a corporation could not be sued). At the very least, please try reading a wikipedia article or two before posting any more of your misleading drivel.
Mt83, the only problem with your argument is when the Supreme Court gave them rights established only to actual, living persons (free speech rights in the 1st Amendment). When they did that, they mixed the realm. That's the point here. Ignore it if you will, but it changes matters not.
While I understand your argument that there are responsibilities that come with corporate person hood. Though even without that definition they could still be taxed at a level based on income/ profits, as are smaller businesses without incorporation. In essence a person (CEO) or small group (board) would carry the person hood for the corporation and have their individual freedoms protected as well as be responsible (to a limited extent) for the actions of their organization. To manage this effectively there would need to be some reworking of the tax code, but I don't think you will find many people who think that that tax code shouldn't be updated/ modified.
mt83 - ". . . So the fact that they [corporations] are paying taxes at all (and again, higher taxes than you or me) . . . "
Who told you corporations are paying higher taxes than you or me? I'll speak for me: I'm a retired hippie chick living in AZ and I paid MORE taxes last year than GE did.
No one had to tell me, I am fully capable of looking up tax brackets myself. And corporate income tax rates for a given level of income are higher than those for individuals. Do you disagree with published and widely available tax rates?
And by last year, I assume you mean 2011, since tax returns for 2012 have not been filed yet. GE paid $2.9B in taxes worldwide in 2011 - if you paid more than that, then you are doing quite well for yourself in retirement. Yes, as an effective tax rate this is only about 14%, and GE is certainly well known for their aggressive tax strategies. But I fail to see how one corporation avoiding US taxes (at the expense of foreign taxes, mind you) can be generalized into a blanket statement about all corporations. But I never did understand hippie logic.
Go civil disobedience. Thoreau would be proud. Nat Turner would be proud. John Brown would be proud.
MC Gusto, on the internet, disagrees
McGusto is a re-reg troll 11/12
Not sure MC Gusto understands how our court system and our legal system works
You're too kind. I don't think MC Gusto knows his brass from his oboe.
In the same vein, some state (I don't recall which) passed a law that said that life begins at conception, in yet another dopey attempt to restrict abortion rights. Some kid showed up at the DMV exactly 15 years, 3 months after he was born, and demanded to be allowed to apply for a driver's license. They turned him down, but I thought he had a good case.
I wonder what the Supreme Court would do if some state decided to abolish corporations. They're created by state law, so they can obviously be abolished the same way. Can a corporation be given the death penalty without due process? Does it have appeal rights? Does it get a last meal?
And henceforth, mergers will be called "marriages."
Sooo... the carpool lane is open for business. The officer will never show up....
I'll believe that corporations are people when they go to the doctor and get a colonoscopy.
They do get colonoscopies, only they call them IRS audits! Seeing as we spend ten times more money on corporate welfare than we do on entitlements for primates, I'd like to see these new people grab an oar & help us row...
How much you want to bet they change the wording for carpool lanes. To "two occupants".
Of course you could still try to argue a corp. is an occupant. But by not using the word "person", it wont effect corporate personhood. No matter how they rule. Can a business occupy a car seat? Yes or no, it doesn't effect whether they are "a person" or not.
The best way to fight corporations, is by not supporting them as a customer. If you dont like corporate "personhood", or what they stand for, dont use them. Its the best way to make them go away. If enough people do it, they are out of business, bankrupt.
If a business can't occupy a seat, then it can't have free speech.
Most areas that have HOV lanes describe the number of "occupants" or "passengers" that must be int he vehicle.
Complete Clown
You say clown the rest of us say genius.
Car pool lane violations should be double for morons!
This will be interesting to watch.
Hope they keep doing follow ups on this one.
Don't subpoena the officer and his attendance is not necessary for the trial. You religious Republicans, did God make corporation in his own image? To say that a corporation is a person is a sacrilege!
This is exactly how you deal with a two-tiered law system. Use the upper class (read corporation) laws against the courts and start to whittle away at their privileges until the system says enough is enough and gets rid of the offending stupid legislation like Citizens United.
Corporations are people. Corporation papers are not. That stunt will cost him $487. Valiant effort. Weak plan.
Corporations are people. Corporate papers are not. Valiant effort but weak plan.
Yeah, I'm surprised I didn't see this argument earlier. The corporation has no body (or corpus if you want to get fancy) to put into the car. It would be the same as saying you had 100 people in your car because of the stack of birth certificates.
I don't think it was a weak plan though. I don't think he intended his day in traffic court to overturn the Supreme Court, I think he intended to have his day in traffic court make us talk about the Supreme Court. And it did.