It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Man Challenges Supreme Court Ruling "Citizens United" – From The Carpool Lane

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 08:01 PM
Man Challenges Supreme Court Ruling "Citizens United" – From The Carpool Lane

You might get a chuckle out of this one --

For most, getting caught alone in the carpool lane is an expensive nuisance. For Jonathan Frieman of San Rafael, CA, it’s a chance to change American politics.

The designated carpool lane on Highway 101 near Frieman’s northern California home is specified to be for “two people or more” during rush hour. The police say Frieman was driving alone, but rather than pay the $478 fine, he plans to head to court on Monday to challenge the ticket. His reasoning? He had his papers of incorporation with him and since the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are people, there were two people in the car.

It’s doubtful that a traffic court judge is going to take a bold stance against a Supreme Court ruling, but that’s the point. Should Frieman lose Monday, which he plans on doing, he wants to take the challenge all the way to the top court.

Sure, it sounds like a farcical defense for a scumbag violation of the carpool lane, and I'm pretty sure his contention regarding Citizens United is all wrong, but the California state vehicle code does indeed claim "persons" can be a corporation (as well as firms, LLCs, etc.), and the carpool does say it only requires "two persons" in the vehicle -- so does Mr. Scumbag have a valid defense?


470. "Person" includes a natural person, firm, copartnership, association, limited liability company, or corporation.

Anyhoo (yeah that's right, I said "anyhoo") this topic seems ready-made for the "US Political Madness" forum, LOL.

posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 08:08 PM
Indeed, I think his intent may not be to get out of the ticket or change the carpool law. But instead challenge the ruling that corporations are people which is utter nonsense.

posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 08:15 PM
How clever, he had it all planed out from the start.

posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 08:24 PM
reply to post by Infi8nity

I agree. I applaud his ingenuity.

posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 09:06 PM
That is right up there with the hearse driver who used the carpool lane. It does not state in the law that the person has to be alive.

posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 09:21 PM
Here's to him winning. If the Supreme Court can rule that the DOJ doesn't need to explain killing Americans overseas, then this man should indeed win his plea. One cannot pick and choose which laws to enforce (Hint Hint OBAMA).

posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 09:59 PM
"Man Challenges "Citizens United" - From the Carpool Lane"

I do wish that people would stop thinking that Citizens United held that corporations are people. The Court did no such thing. From the decision:

Due consideration leads to this conclusion: Austin, 494 U. S. 652, should be and now is overruled. We return to the principle established in Buckley and Bellotti that the Government may not suppress political speech on the [**799]basis of the speaker's corporate identity. No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations.
Relying on, or attacking, Citizens United in this situation is an instant loser.

posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 10:00 PM
LOL...still laughing

Someone buy that man a beer of what ever he drinks...

Genius.... The judge should just dismiss the claim...

posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 10:14 PM
This guy isn't Mitt Romney by any chance is he? I remember Romney going on and on about how "corporations are people too, you know".

posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 11:13 PM
A quick pop-quiz: Anyone here show me in the opinion of Citizen United v. Federal Election Commission can show me where Congress or the Supreme Court has ruled that "corporations are people"? Anyone? Some references to the opinion would be grateful.

posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 02:20 AM
reply to post by ownbestenemy

It has never been specifically added to a ruling. Yet, since 1819, corporate personhood has been standard doctrine for our legal system. The 1886 case is where it was first articulated by a judge in his post trial comments, but dodged ruling on it. However, his comments were added to the headnotes of the case and became legal precident for numerous other rulings. This shouldn't even be about Citizens United, it should be about corporate personhood as a doctrine.

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. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the reporter noted in the headnote to the opinion that the Chief Justice began oral argument by stating, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."[1] While the headnote is not part of the Court's opinion and thus not precedent, two years later, in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania - 125 U.S. 181 (1888), the Court clearly affirmed the doctrine, holding, "Under the designation of 'person' there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment]. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution." [2] This doctrine has been reaffirmed by the Court many times since.

Corporate Personhood - wiki

I hope he gets his day in court, but a wise local judge would simply dismiss as others said. If charges are dismissed he can't take his crusade any further and no one is the wiser.

posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 12:25 PM

Originally posted by solomons path
This shouldn't even be about Citizens United, it should be about corporate personhood as a doctrine.

Agreed hence why I challenged those clamoring (including the subject of the OP) to cite how Citizen United is related. They can't, but their "sources" (aka, news) tells them so.

new topics

top topics


log in