Activist Tells Court That Since Corporations Are People, He Can Drive In The Carpool Lane With Incorporation Papers
from the nice-try,-but,-no dept
I know that many people get up in arms over the concept of corporate personhood, but the reality is often a lot less problematic than many people make it out to be. It's not a concept that is free from problems, but it's not quite as silly as some argue. Still, it sometimes does lead to some amusing stunts. For example, a couple years ago, a company tried to run for President, in an effort to make a statement on the issue. Up in Marin County (just north of San Francisco) an activist has tried a similar move, arguing that he's able to drive in the carpool lane without another human passenger because he had incorporation documents for a company riding along in the passenger seat. Apparently, he's actually been doing this for about a decade, just waiting to get pulled over.It finally happened and the driver, Jonathan Frieman, made his argument -- and the somewhat befuddled patrolman told Frieman to take it up with the court. That finally happened recently, and Frieman's lawyer actually made a fairly compelling legal argument. He noted that California Vehicle Code Section 470 specifically defines a "person" by saying it "includes a natural person, firm, copartnership, association, limited liability company, or corporation." It also discusses the carpool lane by saying, "No person shall drive a vehicle upon those lanes except in conformity with the instructions imparted by the official traffic control devices." Finally, the street signs themselves say "2 or more persons per vehicle." Thus, his lawyer argued, at the very least, this is unconstitutionally vague.
“Central here is the concept of double meaning,” Greene said in court. “Citizens should not be left to guess when he or she is in violation of the statute.”The judge, however, did not buy it, pointing to another section of the Vehicle Code, on the purpose of the carpool lanes:
Judge Drago also referenced California Vehicle Code 21655.5, noting instead subsection F, which states “It is the intent of the Legislature, in amending this section, to stimulate and encourage the development of ways and means of relieving traffic congestion on California highways and, at the same time, to encourage individual citizens to pool their vehicular resources and thereby conserve fuel and lessen emission of air pollutants.”He then noted that Frieman's workaround didn't match the intentions.
It seems like the judge may have gotten to the right answer, but I'd argue for the wrong reasons. First of all, while the intention of the legislature is helpful, it doesn't excuse it from poorly written legislation which could be seen as being unconstitutionally vague. However, it seems to me there's a much easier way for the judge to reach the same conclusion without going down that path: just point out that incorporation documents are not the corporation itself. That's both accurate and would solve the issue. Incorporation documents explain that a corporation has been created, but they are not "the corporation." A birth certificate may announce the arrival of a person, but the document itself is not "a baby." I'm somewhat surprised the judge didn't just go with that as an answer.
Either way, it sounds like this isn't over, as Frieman has announced his intentions to file an appeal -- which is to be expected, since much of this really appears to be a form of protest against the very concept of corporate personage.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: carpool lane, corporations, driving, jonathan frieman, people
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sometimes they are. As a process server, I would often serve civil summons to both the corporation and the president of the corporation because both were being sued. (Which usually meant serving two identical copies of the same paper to the same guy - and getting paid for both, yay.)
But the whole POINT of a corporation is to shield civil liability. To sue individuals inside the corporation, you need a good reason beyond simply being owed money. You also need proof that every individual you are suing is responsible - how can you be sure that a particular board member was responsible for a particular decision, especially if everyone in the corporation knows individuals are being sued and are wildly passing the buck?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, they are not punished enough. I understand the CEO can't be liable for corruption at low levels of the company but the responsible parts for frauds or whatever must be prosecuted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Okay while I understand you there, then what is a corporation in the context of an entity that is considered entitled to the same rights as a human being? What defines the corporation? Would the activist have to drive with the members of the board in order to follow the law the judge cited? What about other employees of the corporation?
Basically, what's happened here is that the corrupt ruling that corporations are people now is in conflict with other laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I mean, I'm not really a fan of the NYT, for example, but I certainly don't think it's the government's job to tell them what they can and cannot print about a politician. Do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If he were driving with other people, it would be a moot point since he'd be eligible for the carpool lane anyway.
A corporation is, ironically enough, incorporeal. It can't ride along in the car with you no matter how hard you try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Indeed. One wonders how a corporation can do *anything* given that it is incorporeal. Thus we have *people* who represent the corporation. The driver was both himself, and the corporeal representative of the corporation. So, again, two people. The articles of incorporation in the passenger seat need not enter into it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I disagree. Perhaps he has the legal authority to act on behalf of the corporation, but he is not the corporation. If I have power of attorney over my aunt Gertrude, that does not mean that I am my aunt Gertrude (and thus eligible for the carpool lane, being both myself and Gertrude.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Also this would get around the judges ruling because "individual citizens" would only apply to his self entity. By being an officer he is also not an individual citizen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1) The 14th amendment makes no difference between natural and artificial persons. In English common law, corporations are people mainly for tax purposes.
2) Since Lewis Powell's memo gave a template for how to make the Supreme Court respond favorably to the public, you see corporate power increase. Citizens United only exacerbated an already bad situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(See link)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It does too meet the intent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It does too meet the intent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It does too meet the intent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It does too meet the intent
I don't think that's appropriate here. In this case the traffic code specifically contains the definition of "person" and that definition does include corporations. I don't think judges should be interpreting the intent of laws to convict people who have not violated the letter of the law. You can't just say "We're going to ignore the definition of 'person' in this law because the lawmakers didn't MEAN it." If the letter of the law is incorrect, fix it. (Or better yet, come up with an actual good reason for convicting him, like the "incorporation papers are not the corporation itself" thing.)
The stated intent of the law is to reduce congestion, fuel use, and emissions. That does not make every use of the carpool lane which does not do these, automatically illegal. The law actually has to state that the action is illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Unless they say they can not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Corporations as persons in the United States
As a matter of interpretation of the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. courts have extended certain constitutional protections to corporations. Opponents of corporate personhood seek to amend the U.S. Constitution to limit these rights to those provided by state law and state constitutions. [3][4]
The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S. Constitution is that they are organizations of people, and that people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively. [5] In this view, treating corporations as "persons" is a convenient legal fiction that allows corporations to sue and to be sued, provides a single entity for easier taxation and regulation, simplifies complex transactions that would otherwise involve, in the case of large corporations, thousands of people, and that protects the individual rights of the shareholders as well as the right of association."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The intent
Neither does a mother driving her child around; since that child could not drive anyway, her use of the carpool lane does not reduce congestion or conserve fuel. Yet, nobody would try to arrest her.
You should have to violate the wording AND intent of the law in order to be arrested. I think this is a case of a judge who had predetermined the outcome based on his idea of justice, rather than a strict interpretation of the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The intent
If intent plays any part at all, it should only be able to exculpate you. That is, if you broke the letter of the law, but followed the spirit, then perhaps intent could clear you of wrongdoing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The intent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The intent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The intent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The intent
Aaron Swartz and the charges against him were a good example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The intent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The intent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The intent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The intent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The intent
In the case of the child it is virtually impossible to proove ill intent, while the man with his paper is knowingly choosing to use the lane without any other physical being present in the car. While it is unacceptable to have to look for intent behind a law to find out what it means, it is a fair legal interpretation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The intent
First, you don't have to prove ill intent for traffic violations - you will be arrested for an illegal U-turn whether or not you knew it was illegal. Second, the mother is "aware" that she is not actually reducing traffic or fuel use, which is the supposed intent of the law, just as much as the guy driving around with the papers.
Please don't confuse intent of the law with intent of the driver. The arguments are totally separate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The intent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moral of the story
(depending on your source of income...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moral of the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moral of the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'd like to see proof of brain activity, else pull the plug on that life support machine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(Unfortunately, the latest rewrite is overdosed with the author's love for TV Tropes...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Recent SCOTUS ruling states that every man, woman, child is in fact incorporated at birth and entitled to all the benefits of corporatehood. The ruling has stunned lawmakers and and job creators alike, spurring them into action. Congressional aids say this level of activity has not been seen in decades. Several members of congress have vowed to undo this ruling stating that "People are NOT corporations! If they were, who would do all the work around here?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nice try, still awesome
[ link to this | view in chronology ]