by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
While touring about America’s roadways, it’s not unusual to see a vanity plate or bumper sticker that says “God Is My Co-Pilot”. It’s not unusual to see someone with a dog as a co-pilot. Can a corporation be your co-pilot?
We’ll soon find out thanks to Citizens United and Jonathan Frieman of San Rafael, California. Mr. Frieman was pulled over for driving alone in the carpool lane. He argued to the officer that he did actually have a passenger. In the form of articles of incorporation. Upset (and reasonably so) over the Citizens United ruling, Frieman says he had been trying for years to get pulled over, ticketed and get a chance to take his argument to court that corporations and people are not the same. His mission was accomplished in October when he was pulled over for driving alone in an HOV lane, ticketed and slapped with a $481 minimum fine.
It’s a common sense argument based in the reality that corporations are a legal fiction and not a real person. We’ve seen this argument in play here and in other media since the controversial – many if not most might say ridiculously bad – decision of Citizens United was rendered in 2010. But will it work in traffic court?
University of San Francisco law professor Robert Talbot says “A court might say, ‘Well, it says person, and a corporation is a person, so that’ll work for the carpool lane. It’s possible, but I doubt it.’” A statement I must agree with because under California law Vehicle Code § 470, a person is defined as “a natural person, firm, copartnership, association, limited liability company, or corporation.” Mr. Frieman has broken down his argument in an opinion piece posted to the San Rafael Patch site dated May 14, 2011. Will it work? It’s possible but not likely as the judge may find the the argument steers too far from the intent of carpool lane laws. Considering how specific the language of the California Vehicle Code is though in defining corporations as people though, the argument is not without merit. We’ll find out when Mr. Frieman goes to traffic court tomorrow, Monday, January 7, 2013. Or we might not if the officer doesn’t show up for court and the ticket is dismissed. As an argument, it is an interesting play nonetheless.
Do you think the argument could work? Do you think the argument should work?
Source(s): NBC, Ca. VC § 470, San Rafael Patch
~submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
I don’t see this as being a successful legal challenge. The state could argue the corporation existed, however according to its articles of incorporation it is situated at a fixed location and that would be whatever was on file with the state as to its address was its actual location. Since the plaintiff said the corporation was in the car due to the paperwork, it would not be held to be valid because corporations cannot move headquarers without at least notifying the state of a change of location. The licensing requirements of a corporation do not allow mobility as provided daily by a car.
He should form a corporation, sub S, of Dogs United, Inc., and make the family dog the President of Dogs United, Inc. Then pull the same lane game ride with the dog as his co-pilot and have the dog in possession of the Articles of Incorporation around his neck. He should bring the dog to court with the Articles of Incorporation around his neck, attached to the collar. “Call your first witness.” “The defense calls Talking Dog.” The rest is history. By the time it makes it to the Supreme Court Scalia and Roberts will have a falling out over ScaliaCare health coverage for judges and Dogs United will usher in a new day in court. Dogs have rights too.
tony c:
all people should be incorporated in some business or another and be engaged in making a profit. Whether it be chickens, Amway or providing some other product or service. Pay part of your car payment, your trash pick up, your cell phone, your toilet paper as part of a business expense to the extent which is legal.
Write off as much as the law allows. It is the American way. 🙂
@Gene: Yeah, I think it should work. Isn’t there a principle of law (at least I have been told so by other lawyers) that the law and contracts are to be interpreted by their plain meaning using the common definitions and grammar? This definition of “person” looks pretty plain, to me.
Here is something I would rather see challenged under Citizen’s United: If a corporation is a person, why do they get to deduct as “business” expenses costs that the rest of us are denied? For example, their housing expenses, their various insurance payments, their utilities, their security, their cleaning expenses and transportation expenses?
I can certainly claim that for my “business” of providing research to a university I also require shelter, transportation, insurances against loss, employees to clean, electricity and security at my home…
If people could deduct from their gross revenue the expenses that corporations routinely deduct from theirs before computing “income,” most of us would pay no income taxes at all.
“Where exactly does the corporation exist in ‘corporeal’ form?”
Bob went to the essence of the conundrum and the Judges way out. Is it the State or Country where the corporation is incorporated in and the address used? Can it be the actual approved incorporation papers? Can a person use their passenger seats as corporate headquarters? There are far more perceptive legally trained minds here to be able to figure that out.
However, Mr. Frieman is obviously a very smart man for figuring this protest out and I enjoy its deliciousness.
[To the music of the Hallelujah Chorus, Handel’s Messiah]:
Corr–poration.
Corr–poration.
Corr–poration, Corr–poration,
Cor-por-ay-shun.
Corr–poration.
Corr–poration.
Corr–poration, Corr–poration,
Cor-por-ay-shun!
For the Lord God, Omnipotent, started,
Oh he started,
oh he started to create,
he started,
he started to create
(He made Adam,
He made Adam and then he made Eve,
He made Adam, made A-ha-ha-ha-dom)
so he started, he star-har-har-harted.
The kingdom of this world
Is become the corpora-yay-shun.
Corporation, Corporation!
And it shall reign for ever and ever,
Corporation, Corporation, Cor-porrr-ayyy-shun!
For ever and ever, forever and ever,
Citizens (united, United!)
The Lord of lords,
And they shall reign,
And they shall reign forever and ever,
King of kings, corporation, corporation!
And Lord of lords,
Corporation, corporation!
Corporation, corporation! Cor-por-ay-shun!
Citizens (United, United, United United!)
Corporation, corporation!
Corporation, corporation!
Corporation, corporation — Corporation, cor…por…a…tionnnnnn!
I can think of one case or example where an unrelated law was used, and used successfully. And it’s not a recent one.
In 1875, there were laws in the US protecting animals from abuse, but there were no laws protecting children from the same abuse. A lawyer successfully argued (probably thanks to Charles Darwin) that since humans are animals, an abused girl was entitled to at least the same protection from abuse as a dog.
“An important legal precedent was established: ‘If a child has no rights as a human being under the law, he is at least entitled to the justice of a cur on the streets.’”
– Robert Geiser, author of “The Illusion of Caring”
http://mostlywater.org/node/54568
Whether the carpool case can debunk the stupidity of “corporate personhood” remains to be seen.
Personally, I love the argument for its internal logic:
Carpool lanes are for two or more people.
The Supreme Court says corporations are people.
Frieman plus the corporation are two or more people.
Frieman is properly in the carpool lane.
Will it win? No. Should it win? I think so.
I was going to say here’s hoping everyone in the jurisdiction picks up on this and starts driving with the corporate books.
However, there’s a metaphysical problem here.
Where exactly does the corporation exist in ‘corporeal’ form?
The articles of incorporation? The certificate of incorporation? The corporate address? The Secretary of State wherein incorporated?
mahtso,
If you wish to look up the California HOV law, be my guest. The relevant code to the defense argument set forth was cited.
The post does not provide the specific law alleged to be violated, so it is hard to form an informed opinion. Nevertheless, I don’t think the driver had a corporation in the car.
rc,
Citizens United applies to both corporations and unions. The true nature of the problem relates to both expanding corporate personality beyond the scope of necessary functionality for the legal fiction combined with the horrendous decision of Buckley v. Valeo which held that money is the equivalent of free speech when it is nothing of the sort. Our path to corporate domination begins with the bad reasoning of Buckley.
“Now lets say the government decides to shut down my church because they deem it dangerous to civil morality.”
Not possible under Lemon and by the terms of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. The RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) reapplies the Sherbert Test which applies the standard of strict scrutiny to governmental actions restricting religion. I was found unconstitutional as applied to the states, but it is applied to the Federal government and several states enacted analogous legislation. “Dangerous to civil morality” wouldn’t hold up to strict scrutiny.
It’s not the grouping that is the salient feature, Bron. It’s the fact that corporations are legal fictions that have advantages natural people do not like limited liability and perpetuity. A corporation exists only as an operation of state charter. We can limit them any way we deem appropriate. Citizens United erred in expanding corporate personality way beyond the functional necessities the legal fiction requires from legal personality, i.e. the ability to contract and avail the courts.
Well, I’ve got my highly intelligent Android Phone, with VZ Navigator, on the seat right next to me. Does that qualify me for the HOV lanes in Florida?
A thought experiment [I am sure the lawyers will tell me the faults] concerning the first amendment:
We all agree the Constitution allows for freedom of religion to the extent I am free to start a church with a group of friends in order to pray and practice my religion with like-minded people.
Now lets say the government decides to shut down my church because they deem it dangerous to civil morality. They argue that they are only shutting down the church but that I and my friends still have the right to pray at home. The government says it can do this because a church has no soul, a church cannot pray, it has no rights, it is an artificial legal entity and as such has no rights.
I say you do not lose your Constitutional rights by joining with other people to exercise them; whether it be religion or speech.
If corporations are people, one assumes unions are too.
The history of corporations in the U.S. militates against the notion of them having the civil rights that humans have.
The notion of incorporation is historically a concept of state law, so under states rights concepts, the states should be the ones to define what a corporation is.
The federal judiciary defining what a corporation is goes beyond the historical legal foundation.
Gene H used state law, California in this instance, as a reference to what a corporation is defined as, in terms of “person-hood.”
That is as it should be, as the Montana Supreme Court also thought, but the Supreme Court shot that down:
(Citizens United, Part 2). The right wing talks about how bad it is for courts to become filled with “activists judges,” until they are those judges.
State law is being rewritten or obliterated by the Supreme Court’s right wing.
For example, what if a state defines a corporation to not be allowed to vote in elections, or give money to political candidates, as it also defines the right of felons, including whether or not they are to be allowed to vote.
The latter, preventing a human from voting is cool with the right supremes, but preventing a corporation from voting would be unconstitutional?
It gets blurry when the state right to define a corporation is subverted by glossing over that historical reality to further the incursions of plutocrat-owned and plutocrat-controlled corporations.
It takes genius not to see the motive behind it.
What Frankly said! If Citizens United is to be believed, Mr. Frieman should be successful.
Kudos Gene!
One way of looking at it…. The problem with most folks is that they are sluts for the system…. And the beat goes on….
I’d bet he loses & the court will have to tie itself into a knot to justify it. But thats a hallmark of the Roberts Court, decisions that are not useable by normal reasoning.
I’ll believe corporations are people just as soon as Texas executes one for a capital crime.