Does a Corporation Count as a Person for Carpool Lanes?

[jeffandnicole]

He lost.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/08/16403757-judge-rejects-california-mans-argument-that-corporation-is-a-passenger

Which is what he wanted. There was another article that made the reference he wanted to bring this up to the Supreme Court. Up the ladder he goes.

Does the California Supreme Court have the right to reject cases without hearing them?

[agentsteel53]

does anyone else think this guy is a grade A douchebag?  certainly it makes sense to keep our laws honest, but he's exploiting a loophole at the cost of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money that is required to continue to try him. 

what's he gonna do at the end?  frame the verdict and hang it above his mantle, and tell his buddies over a beer "dudes, check out what I did"?

[1995hoo]

does anyone else think this guy is a grade A douchebag?  certainly it makes sense to keep our laws honest, but he's exploiting a loophole at the cost of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money that is required to continue to try him. 

what's he gonna do at the end?  frame the verdict and hang it above his mantle, and tell his buddies over a beer "dudes, check out what I did"?

I agree with your take, and if I were an appellate judge I'd consider imposing some sort of sanction for bringing a frivolous case if he does indeed appeal (which he appears certain to do). At the trial court level, whatever, no reason for a sanction because when the ticket is issued, the defendant is guaranteed a court date even if his argument is asinine. The cop would have been there either way. But the appeal is entirely optional and forces the expenditure of tax dollars that otherwise might have been used for real purposes.

People who bring these kinds of cases are the people who give the legal profession a bad name....kind of like the idiot who sues because the window screen for his car doesn't have a warning saying not to use it while the car is in motion.

[agentsteel53]

People who bring these kinds of cases are the people who give the legal profession a bad name....kind of like the idiot who sues because the window screen for his car doesn't have a warning saying not to use it while the car is in motion.

what is a window screen?  I'm having trouble imagining a window component of a vehicle which is not designed to be operated either at rest or in motion (i.e. rolling the windows up or down).

[wphiii]

does anyone else think this guy is a grade A douchebag?  certainly it makes sense to keep our laws honest, but he's exploiting a loophole at the cost of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money that is required to continue to try him. 

what's he gonna do at the end?  frame the verdict and hang it above his mantle, and tell his buddies over a beer "dudes, check out what I did"?

It seems like he's genuinely doing it to make a point about how stupid Citizens United is. Whether you agree or disagree with that motive, I think it's pretty clear he's not just exploiting a loophole purely for shits and giggles.

[agentsteel53]

It seems like he's genuinely doing it to make a point about how stupid Citizens United is. Whether you agree or disagree with that motive, I think it's pretty clear he's not just exploiting a loophole purely for shits and giggles.

fair enough; I had not noticed that post before replying.  (I read things in a funny order sometimes!)

[myosh_tino]

does anyone else think this guy is a grade A douchebag?  certainly it makes sense to keep our laws honest, but he's exploiting a loophole at the cost of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money that is required to continue to try him. 

what's he gonna do at the end?  frame the verdict and hang it above his mantle, and tell his buddies over a beer "dudes, check out what I did"?

I initially thought this guy was a total d-bag but after finding out what his true intention was, which was to overturn the Citizens United ruling (Corporation = Person), I'm all for what he's doing.  I'm not surprised he lost but it will move the case up the ladder.

[1995hoo]

People who bring these kinds of cases are the people who give the legal profession a bad name....kind of like the idiot who sues because the window screen for his car doesn't have a warning saying not to use it while the car is in motion.

what is a window screen?  I'm having trouble imagining a window component of a vehicle which is not designed to be operated either at rest or in motion (i.e. rolling the windows up or down).

You know, one of those things you put up on your dashboard to act as a shade to keep the sun out of the car on hot days. I've heard various names for them–car shade, window screen, windshield screen, sun screen (but to me that sounds like what you use on your skin to avoid sunburn)–and so I just picked window screen because I thought it was unambiguous.

does anyone else think this guy is a grade A douchebag?  certainly it makes sense to keep our laws honest, but he's exploiting a loophole at the cost of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money that is required to continue to try him. 

what's he gonna do at the end?  frame the verdict and hang it above his mantle, and tell his buddies over a beer "dudes, check out what I did"?

I initially thought this guy was a total d-bag but after finding out what his true intention was, which was to overturn the Citizens United ruling (Corporation = Person), I'm all for what he's doing.  I'm not surprised he lost but it will move the case up the ladder.

Won't make any difference at all because it would have to be the US Supreme Court that would address Citizens United, whereas this sort of traffic ticket is not something the US Supreme Court will ever deem cert-worthy. Never.

[agentsteel53]

You know, one of those things you put up on your dashboard to act as a shade to keep the sun out of the car on hot days. I've heard various names for them–car shade, window screen, windshield screen, sun screen (but to me that sounds like what you use on your skin to avoid sunburn)–and so I just picked window screen because I thought it was unambiguous.

it is an unambiguous term; I've just never owned one so they forgot they existed.  wait, why would you want to put one up while you're driving?

[wphiii]

You know, one of those things you put up on your dashboard to act as a shade to keep the sun out of the car on hot days. I've heard various names for them–car shade, window screen, windshield screen, sun screen (but to me that sounds like what you use on your skin to avoid sunburn)–and so I just picked window screen because I thought it was unambiguous.

it is an unambiguous term; I've just never owned one so they forgot they existed.  wait, why would you want to put one up while you're driving?

To block the awful glare from the sun, of course. 

[1995hoo]

You know, one of those things you put up on your dashboard to act as a shade to keep the sun out of the car on hot days. I've heard various names for them–car shade, window screen, windshield screen, sun screen (but to me that sounds like what you use on your skin to avoid sunburn)–and so I just picked window screen because I thought it was unambiguous.

it is an unambiguous term; I've just never owned one so they forgot they existed.  wait, why would you want to put one up while you're driving?

I wouldn't. But somebody must have, because I've owned a couple of them that had warning labels that tell you not to attempt to drive the car while the shade is in place.

[kphoger]

OK, think more broadly about the definition of "drive".  I can easily imagine someone moving their car from one spot in the driveway to another spot in the driveway without bothering to take the sun shield off, then not noticing that a child has wandered in front of the car.

[agentsteel53]

OK, think more broadly about the definition of "drive".  I can easily imagine someone moving their car from one spot in the driveway to another spot in the driveway without bothering to take the sun shield off, then not noticing that a child has wandered in front of the car.

I wouldn't have half an idea where I had managed to repark myself without seeing through the damn windshield.

[kphoger]

OK, think more broadly about the definition of "drive".  I can easily imagine someone moving their car from one spot in the driveway to another spot in the driveway without bothering to take the sun shield off, then not noticing that a child has wandered in front of the car.

I wouldn't have half an idea where I had managed to repark myself without seeing through the damn windshield.

I could see how far I was from the street by looking out my door window, then reposition the car in reverse by using mirrors only.  It's like moving your car onto the street without scraping the windshield so you can shovel the driveway–not the smartest maneuver, but not one that's totally unthinkable.

[agentsteel53]

well, I'm the kind of person that will put on his seatbelt to move the car two inches back in a parking spot, so I'm probably just the wrong shade of OCD to be having this discussion with!

[flowmotion]

The funny part is that the guy supposedly drove in the carpool lanes for 10 years with incorporation papers on his seat before he finally got pulled over.

[agentsteel53]

The funny part is that the guy supposedly drove in the carpool lanes for 10 years with incorporation papers on his seat before he finally got pulled over.

what was he protesting before this?  the prediction that the Citizens United case would be decided the way it was?

[wphiii]

The funny part is that the guy supposedly drove in the carpool lanes for 10 years with incorporation papers on his seat before he finally got pulled over.

what was he protesting before this?  the prediction that the Citizens United case would be decided the way it was?

Well from what I've gathered reading this thread, corporate personhood was established in California long before Citizens United, no? He could very well just have always been against that concept. Citizens United is really just what put corporate personhood into the national consciousness.

[vdeane]

It was established in a federal supreme court case decided around the same time as "separate but equal".