Activist fights carpool ticket claiming he was riding with a corporation

Joined
May 1, 2010
Messages
6,870
Jonathan Frieman of San Rafael, California, was ticketed for driving alone on highway 101 in a carpool lane. But Frieman said that he wasn’t driving solo, because he had corporate paperwork in the seat next to him. The self-described activist, argues that because of the paperwork, he was riding with a corporation which he says is included in the California vehicle code’s definition of a person. The 59-year-old has hired an attorney for his appearance before a traffic commissioner and he hopes for a loss so he can appeal the decision. If so, he’s prepared to appeal his case all the way to the California Supreme Court if necessary. The driver has said that he wants the definition of a person to be stood on its head so people can see the absurdity.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/activist-fights-carpool-ticket-claiming-223604016.html
 
California - What's an HOV lane?
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/faq/faq79.htm


Q. What's an HOV lane?

A.

"High Occupancy Vehicle" lane, or car-pool lane. The central concept for HOV lanes is to move more people rather than more cars. Some HOV lanes carry almost half of the people carried on the entire freeway. Regular "mixed-flow" lanes are never converted to HOV lanes. Rather, HOV lanes are always added to existing facilities. Each vehicle that travels on an HOV lane must carry the minimum number of people posted at the entrance signs. Usually that means at least two people, or in some cases three people. Each child counts as an occupant, but pets, infants still in the womb, inflatable dolls or ghosts do not (we've heard 'em all). Violators are subject to a minimum $481 fine. Exceptions: Motorcycles, even those carrying just one person, are allowed to use the HOV lanes. Some HOV lanes are in operation only during certain hours, which are posted. Outside of those hours, they may be used by all vehicles.


lol. Ghosts and Inflatable dolls don't count.
 
Brilliant! Let the state defend their definition that corporations are people too.
 
How did someone from Marin County do this before a self described Ron Paul person?
 
How did someone from Marin County do this before a self described Ron Paul person?

Ron Paul supporters are more worried about Gun Control, Hyperinflation, Progressive Income Taxes, and Government Power Grabs?
 
I hate liberals so much. I totally hope his lawyer isn't working for free.

These people are incapable of rational thought.
 
Ron Paul supporters are more worried about Gun Control, Hyperinflation, Progressive Income Taxes, and Government Power Grabs?

Well, usually the genius activists are ron type supporters.
 
I hate liberals so much. I totally hope his lawyer isn't working for free.

These people are incapable of rational thought.

Did you read what this is about? This case is about liberty. If they rule against him then they are saying corporations arent people. If they rule for him then everyone can drive in hov lanes if they incorporate. Hes using their power against them.
 
Did you read what this is about? This case is about liberty. If they rule against him then they are saying corporations arent people.

Well, technically, the suitcase belongs to the Corporation, but the suitcase itself isn't the physical Corporation. The Corporation lives in a filing cabinet at the Secretary of State's office.
 
Did you read what this is about? This case is about liberty. If they rule against him then they are saying corporations arent people. If they rule for him then everyone can drive in hov lanes if they incorporate. Hes using their power against them.

So now I have the liberty to go to the government and be granted a license of incorporation so I can use special parts of their roads?

I think you are being generous with the word liberty.
 
So now I have the liberty to go to the government and be granted a license of incorporation so I can use special parts of their roads?

I think you are being generous with the word liberty.

Really? That is what you took from that?

If he loses then he MAY have a way into the supreme court to fight the corporations are people crap. This isn't about him wanting to get incorporated rather to show the stupidity of the idea that a corporation should have the same legal rights and protections under the law that a actually blood and bony human does.


(edited for spelling)
 
Last edited:
Really? That is what you took from that?

If he loses then he MAY have a way into the supreme court to fight the corporations are people crap. This isn't about him wanting to get incorporated rather to show the stupidity of the idea that a corporation should have the same legal rights and protections under the law that a actually blood and bony human does.


(edited for spelling)

Yea, some people need to slow down when they read...I started to reply to akforme before I got to your post.

I think this case could be interesting, especially if he gets to appeal.
 
remember when murray hill the ad company wanted to run for public office?
i think i should bump the auld thread from 2010 becuz of the principle here.
 
Did you read what this is about? This case is about liberty. If they rule against him then they are saying corporations arent people. If they rule for him then everyone can drive in hov lanes if they incorporate. Hes using their power against them.

I think it's retarded. Let me clairfy - the corporations shouldn't be people talking point is simply retarded.

I think you're the one that needs to do the reading - SCOTUS has ruled that corporations aren't people when it comes to some issues, like illegal search and seizures, but they did rule that corporations are a group of people who have a right to band together and speak politically.

There is nothing about liberty that is involved in allowing the government to take away free speech rights, which, at the end of the day, is what this guy and you, want to do.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top