If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Daily Dolt)   "Well of course I'm allowed in the carpool lane, officer. There are two people in this vehicle according to the Supreme Court: me and that certificate of incorporation strapped in the passenger seat right there"   (thedailydolt.com) divider line 135
    More: Spiffy, supreme courts, Supreme Court Properly, HOV, drive in  
•       •       •

5948 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Jan 2013 at 6:02 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



135 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-07 03:37:47 PM  
Brilliant. Might make for faster appeals if it was done in one of the DC-area HOV lanes, though.
 
2013-01-07 03:39:11 PM  
This is good as a joke or as an act of protest, but legally it won't go anywhere.  The judge can just say that the corporate document itself is not a corporation/person.  Alternatively, the judge could hold that a corporation is not a person within the context of California's vehicle law but is still a person within the context of the First Amendment.

But bravo, nonetheless.  I approve of anything that reminds people that Citizens United is the dumbest decision the Supreme Court has made in many decades.
 
2013-01-07 03:43:08 PM  
"(Sidenote: Apparently carpool laws are enforced rather loosely in California. It took Frieman over 10 years of driving around like that before he was finally ticketed.)" ... "Frieman is protesting the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision."

So 8 years of just being a regular asshole in the carpool lane, followed by 2 years of calling it a protest?
 
2013-01-07 03:46:38 PM  
That's not how it works, nor is it that clever, as the court will soon point out to him and this sounds more like some smart-ass looking for a way to cruise the HOV lane illegally than an act of conscience to strike a blow against the corporatocracy.
 
2013-01-07 03:53:00 PM  

Ivo Shandor: "(Sidenote: Apparently carpool laws are enforced rather loosely in California. It took Frieman over 10 years of driving around like that before he was finally ticketed.)" ... "Frieman is protesting the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision."

So 8 years of just being a regular asshole in the carpool lane, followed by 2 years of calling it a protest?


Well the idea of corporate personhood has been around since before Citizens United, so I'm guessing he's protesting both (corporate personhood in general and Citizens United specifically).
 
2013-01-07 03:56:42 PM  

LRA61380: Ivo Shandor: "(Sidenote: Apparently carpool laws are enforced rather loosely in California. It took Frieman over 10 years of driving around like that before he was finally ticketed.)" ... "Frieman is protesting the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision."

So 8 years of just being a regular asshole in the carpool lane, followed by 2 years of calling it a protest?

Well the idea of corporate personhood has been around since before Citizens United, so I'm guessing he's protesting both (corporate personhood in general and Citizens United specifically).


No, he's not.  He's trying to get to work faster:   It took Frieman over 10 years of driving around like that before he was finally ticketed.10 years, i.e. long before Citizens United as decided.
 
2013-01-07 04:02:36 PM  

Nabb1: LRA61380: Ivo Shandor: "(Sidenote: Apparently carpool laws are enforced rather loosely in California. It took Frieman over 10 years of driving around like that before he was finally ticketed.)" ... "Frieman is protesting the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision."

So 8 years of just being a regular asshole in the carpool lane, followed by 2 years of calling it a protest?

Well the idea of corporate personhood has been around since before Citizens United, so I'm guessing he's protesting both (corporate personhood in general and Citizens United specifically).

No, he's not.  He's trying to get to work faster:   It took Frieman over 10 years of driving around like that before he was finally ticketed.10 years, i.e. long before Citizens United as decided.


Oh stop being such a killjoy, man.  This stunt is hilarious, and Citizens United was a piece of shiat decision.
 
2013-01-07 04:05:34 PM  

LRA61380: Oh stop being such a killjoy, man.  This stunt is hilarious, and Citizens United was a piece of shiat decision.


It's only funny if you have no idea how the law works, so... uh.... I guess that explains why you think it's so funny.

/just kinda stupid and AW-y otherwise
 
2013-01-07 04:14:41 PM  

Rincewind53: LRA61380: Oh stop being such a killjoy, man.  This stunt is hilarious, and Citizens United was a piece of shiat decision.

It's only funny if you have no idea how the law works, so... uh.... I guess that explains why you think it's so funny.

/just kinda stupid and AW-y otherwise


Maybe try reading my original comment above?
This is good as a joke or as an act of protest, but legally it won't go anywhere.  The judge can just say that the corporate document itself is not a corporation/person.  Alternatively, the judge could hold that a corporation is not a person within the context of California's vehicle law but is still a person within the context of the First Amendment.

But yeah, I don't understand anything about how the law works.  Look, obviously the two situations (carpooling and election law) are not exactly analogous, but this guy's prank is still entertaining as a criticism of corporate personhood.
 
2013-01-07 04:16:09 PM  

Rincewind53: LRA61380: Oh stop being such a killjoy, man.  This stunt is hilarious, and Citizens United was a piece of shiat decision.

It's only funny if you have no idea how the law works, so... uh.... I guess that explains why you think it's so funny.

/just kinda stupid and AW-y otherwise


You will have more "that's not how corporate personhood works" debates than you can count for the rest of your life.  I've got a corporation dodging service of process, I suppose according to this twisted logic, I could go to the state Secretary of State Database, print out a copy of the certificate of incorporation and have the sheriff's office serve that.  I guess the only thing stopping me is not wanting to look like a complete and total f*cking moron in front of the judge and doing something so stupid as to amount to malpractice for spending a cent of my client's money on it.
 
2013-01-07 04:18:51 PM  
I don't have a GED in law, so this prank makes me laugh. I'm not particularly interested in the legality of his case. I think he plans to pay the $400 and considers it money well spent in protest of a terrible SCOTUS decision.
 
2013-01-07 04:20:58 PM  

what_now: I don't have a GED in law, so this prank makes me laugh. I'm not particularly interested in the legality of his case. I think he plans to pay the $400 and considers it money well spent in protest of a terrible SCOTUS decision.


Yeah, it's so awesome that he started driving illegally in the HOV lane to protest a Supreme Court decision seven years before it was decided.  That's really sticking it to the man.
 
2013-01-07 04:21:40 PM  
affordablehousinginstitute.org
 
2013-01-07 04:24:00 PM  
Hey Nabb, a piece of advice for your dilemma: you can serve your elusive defendant by serving the SoS.

Its been a while since I've done it, but that should count as valid service.
 
2013-01-07 04:27:30 PM  

LRA61380: Rincewind53: LRA61380: Oh stop being such a killjoy, man.  This stunt is hilarious, and Citizens United was a piece of shiat decision.

It's only funny if you have no idea how the law works, so... uh.... I guess that explains why you think it's so funny.

/just kinda stupid and AW-y otherwise

Maybe try reading my original comment above?
This is good as a joke or as an act of protest, but legally it won't go anywhere.  The judge can just say that the corporate document itself is not a corporation/person.  Alternatively, the judge could hold that a corporation is not a person within the context of California's vehicle law but is still a person within the context of the First Amendment.

But yeah, I don't understand anything about how the law works.  Look, obviously the two situations (carpooling and election law) are not exactly analogous, but this guy's prank is still entertaining as a criticism of corporate personhood.


Exactly.

He's using the news to get his message out.
 
2013-01-07 04:28:51 PM  

gilgigamesh: Hey Nabb, a piece of advice for your dilemma: you can serve your elusive defendant by serving the SoS.

Its been a while since I've done it, but that should count as valid service.


Any success on getting the judgment satisfied?  This claim isn't huge, and I don't want my client throwing good money after bad.  These folks have cut and run, so I doubt there are any corporate assets left around to pursue.
 
2013-01-07 04:32:28 PM  
"Actually, Officer, I Have a Corporate Certificate In the Glove Box..."

If I were the judge, I would be tempted to allow his carpool excuse and then hit him with a fine for not ensuring that his passenger was wearing a seatbelt. Hopefully he controls the corporation in question, otherwise I could see kidnapping charges as well.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-01-07 04:40:55 PM  
Hopefully he controls the corporation in question, otherwise I could see kidnapping charges as well.

Is the corporation less than 18 years old? Onto the sex offender registry you go.
 
2013-01-07 04:44:33 PM  

Nabb1: gilgigamesh: Hey Nabb, a piece of advice for your dilemma: you can serve your elusive defendant by serving the SoS.

Its been a while since I've done it, but that should count as valid service.

Any success on getting the judgment satisfied?  This claim isn't huge, and I don't want my client throwing good money after bad.  These folks have cut and run, so I doubt there are any corporate assets left around to pursue.


Yes and no; IIRC I found out about that rule when I was helping out a buddy on a tax sale case.  The property was owned by an LLC and the company was defunct with its owners nowhere to be found.  So I think we completed the tax sale, but obviously there was no money judgment involved.

I can understand a good money after bad perspective, but you should consider asking them to shell out the $75 to serve it just to get your judgment.

Its either that or voluntarily dismiss it, where their going to have to come up with outstanding costs anyway, or withdraw, which is maybe even a bigger pain in the ass in terms of the paperwork.  You don't want to leave something like that lying around for obvious reasons.

Anyway, just a thought.
 
2013-01-07 04:47:28 PM  

gilgigamesh: their


/they're

Jesus.
 
2013-01-07 05:01:55 PM  
Smartass dumbass.
 
2013-01-07 05:46:22 PM  
I'm waiting to see this in states that pass personhood laws.
 
2013-01-07 05:58:58 PM  
You law types need to chillax. It's lulzy.
 
2013-01-07 06:01:19 PM  
boingboing.net
 
2013-01-07 06:05:31 PM  
This just proves that Corporations are worthless people.
 
2013-01-07 06:11:47 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: [boingboing.net image 850x1132]


Corporations have the right to bear arms? So if a convicted felon incorporates himself, he could legally buy and carry a gun?
 
2013-01-07 06:13:14 PM  
Pretty funny, but quite stupid. This isn't the *ahem* most legitimate way to challenge corporate personhood.

Seriously though, I have to ask if there's an unproblematic way to make a challenge to that legal concept in light of a recent ruling upholding (and significantly expanding) corporate personhood. Anybody know?

/I'm looking at you, Nabb
 
2013-01-07 06:13:56 PM  
What a farking idiot.... the sad part is the usual suspects will applaud him for this boorish behavior.
 
2013-01-07 06:15:23 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: [boingboing.net image 850x1132]


i.imgur.com
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-01-07 06:17:30 PM  
So if a convicted felon incorporates himself, he could legally buy and carry a gun?

I have heard from multiple sources that incorporating is the way to legally own a machine gun that you couldn't get as a mere human.

However, a convicted felon who works around guns can go to jail under the "constructive possession" doctrine. There was a felon who worked near the gun storage room at a business. He never touched a gun, but he could have, and that was close enough for the appeals court.  Constructive possession is the same doctrine used by police to charge everybody at a party with underage drinking. They didn't have beer in hand, but there was beer nearby and they probably wanted it.
 
2013-01-07 06:17:36 PM  
A better protest would be to attempt to register a corporation to vote in a public election and to sue when the reject the registration.
 
2013-01-07 06:21:55 PM  
If I were a lawyer, I would run for judge promising to make asinine decisions like corporations qualify for personhood for HOV purposes. Force the Supreme Court to make rulings on this Godawful crap.

Hopefully I'd find a prosecutor with a sense of humor.
 
2013-01-07 06:21:58 PM  

HighZoolander: Because People in power are Stupid: [boingboing.net image 850x1132]

Corporations have the right to bear arms? So if a convicted felon incorporates himself, he could legally buy and carry a gun?


It's one way that you can legally own silencers without the appropriate license.
 
2013-01-07 06:23:23 PM  

ZAZ: So if a convicted felon incorporates himself, he could legally buy and carry a gun?

I have heard from multiple sources that incorporating is the way to legally own a machine gun that you couldn't get as a mere human.

However, a convicted felon who works around guns can go to jail under the "constructive possession" doctrine. There was a felon who worked near the gun storage room at a business. He never touched a gun, but he could have, and that was close enough for the appeals court.  Constructive possession is the same doctrine used by police to charge everybody at a party with underage drinking. They didn't have beer in hand, but there was beer nearby and they probably wanted it.


Ooo, hadn't heard of that one.  Good to know.
 
2013-01-07 06:26:07 PM  

ZAZ: So if a convicted felon incorporates himself, he could legally buy and carry a gun?

I have heard from multiple sources that incorporating is the way to legally own a machine gun that you couldn't get as a mere human.

However, a convicted felon who works around guns can go to jail under the "constructive possession" doctrine.


Yeah, that's another one I'd get a ridiculous conviction out of, just to force the Supreme Court to rule.

/Yes, I'd talk to the defendants first.
 
2013-01-07 06:29:39 PM  

Bontesla: I'm waiting to see this in states that pass personhood laws.


i.qkme.me
 
2013-01-07 06:30:35 PM  
Nice gesture but unless there was a discrepancy between other people pulled over for using corporation papers to get a free HOV ride then this will spawn nothing legally
 
2013-01-07 06:36:11 PM  
Oh for the love of god!

1) Let's say this one more time - Citizens United has nothing to do with Corporate Personhood.  Nothing.  Corporate Personhood is absolutely irrelevant to the holding.

2) FTA - We realize it's only January but as far as we're concerned this Frieman guy has already won the entire year of 2013 for executing a rather brilliant prank on the textualist wing of the Supreme Court.

As a fun note - Corporate Personhood (meaning the actual doctrine which indicates that companies can have the right to own property and be sued separate from their officers/stockholders) is not based on direct text at all, and is likely based in part on an accident where the court assumed that an overzealous summary in a legal reporter was the holding of a prior case.
 
2013-01-07 06:36:31 PM  

LRA61380: Alternatively, the judge could hold that a corporation is not a person within the context of California's vehicle law but is still a person within the context of the First Amendment.


That's pretty much what the original decision in Citizens United said in the first place, that corporate entities counted as people for the purposes of free speech regulation and not necessarily anything else save as defined by law.

It did not actually give them the right to vote, to trial by jury, to a minimum income of 7$/hour, or any of the other rights accorded individuals. It just gave them access to free speech protections. It feels weird that I have to make a post explaining that assertions to the contrary are jokes, I know people tend to be uninformed but that's _massively_ uninformed.
 
2013-01-07 06:37:15 PM  
This is a myth. SCOTUS never said the corporation were peoples, but as it is a group of people it has certain speech rights, because stifling them also infringes on the rights of those who run and own it. This expanded on a 1976 ruling that stated that individuals can give unlimited money to a 3rd party advocacy group for an election, all this said was that groups of people like corporation and even trade unions, because they are a group of people existing laws infringed on their free speech as a group. So cut the bull shiat. And Corporate Personhood, which is a different thing, is an old ruling given by Chief Justice John Jay and that was precendent from 17th century England. SO cut the crap about this made up stuff about what some idiot pundits who don't have a clue about law or anything decided to claim it said
 
2013-01-07 06:38:42 PM  

Kuroshin: It's one way that you can legally own silencers without the appropriate license.


That isn't how it works. You don't need a license to own something controlled by the NFA. You only need a license if you want to manufacture as a business and or sell items controlled by the NFA as a business. You need a tax stamp to possess those items.

Individuals can own firearms.

Suppressors are classified as firearms but controlled under the NFA.

Corporations, LLCs, and Trusts are also considered individuals.

Any law abiding individual can own any federally legal firearm after paying for the appropriate tax stamp.
 
2013-01-07 06:39:59 PM  

Jim_Callahan: LRA61380: Alternatively, the judge could hold that a corporation is not a person within the context of California's vehicle law but is still a person within the context of the First Amendment.

That's pretty much what the original decision in Citizens United said in the first place, that corporate entities counted as people for the purposes of free speech regulation and not necessarily anything else save as defined by law.

It did not actually give them the right to vote, to trial by jury, to a minimum income of 7$/hour, or any of the other rights accorded individuals. It just gave them access to free speech protections. It feels weird that I have to make a post explaining that assertions to the contrary are jokes, I know people tend to be uninformed but that's _massively_ uninformed.


If the first amendment applies to corporations, does the second amendment also?

Corporate Armies anyone?

Also, saw this on a bumper sticker once: "I'll believe that corporations are people when Texas executes one."
 
2013-01-07 06:40:01 PM  

jedihirsch: This is a myth. SCOTUS never said the corporation were peoples, but as it is a group of people it has certain speech rights, because stifling them also infringes on the rights of those who run and own it.


And was a drastically bullshiat and incorrect ruling because a) the first amendment was never in question since this is a matter of trade and not speech and b) corporations are legal fictions independent of the people who own them and in any sane system would be entirely subject to regulation at all levels by the public and would have no more "rights" than my coffee cup.
 
2013-01-07 06:42:43 PM  
It's interesting to see the folks who whine about the free speech rights of corporations - but love the free speech rights of other groups that may or may not be incorporated (but usually are).

If a corporation doesn't have free speech rights, then neither does Greenpeace, the United Auto Workers, et cetera...
 
2013-01-07 06:44:57 PM  

cirby: It's interesting to see the folks who whine about the free speech rights of corporations - but love the free speech rights of other groups that may or may not be incorporated (but usually are).

If a corporation doesn't have free speech rights, then neither does Greenpeace, the United Auto Workers, et cetera...


In point of fact, all of those other groups are more strictly regulated than any corporation, and everyone who supports striking down CU understands that those limitations would apply across the board. Nice moronic strawman, though.
 
2013-01-07 06:46:38 PM  

jedihirsch: This is a myth. SCOTUS never said the corporation were peoples, but as it is a group of people it has certain speech rights, because stifling them also infringes on the rights of those who run and own it. This expanded on a 1976 ruling that stated that individuals can give unlimited money to a 3rd party advocacy group for an election, all this said was that groups of people like corporation and even trade unions, because they are a group of people existing laws infringed on their free speech as a group. So cut the bull shiat. And Corporate Personhood, which is a different thing, is an old ruling given by Chief Justice John Jay and that was precendent from 17th century England. SO cut the crap about this made up stuff about what some idiot pundits who don't have a clue about law or anything decided to claim it said


This country needs to go back to revoking corporate charters more frequently.
 
2013-01-07 06:51:45 PM  

cirby: It's interesting to see the folks who whine about the free speech rights of corporations - but love the free speech rights of other groups that may or may not be incorporated (but usually are).

If a corporation doesn't have free speech rights, then neither does Greenpeace, the United Auto Workers, et cetera...


Remember, free speech in this case means throwing money at things. After all, money talks...

/I remember reading the first amendment and thinking, hey, there's not enough here about large quantities of money as a form of speech.  Fortunately, this was corrected.
 
2013-01-07 06:58:54 PM  

Nabb1: No, he's not.  He's trying to get to work faster:   It took Frieman over 10 years of driving around like that before he was finally ticketed.10 years, i.e. long before Citizens United as decided.


Nabb1: Yeah, it's so awesome that he started driving illegally in the HOV lane to protest a Supreme Court decision seven years before it was decided.  That's really sticking it to the man.


From the California vehicle code:
470.  "Person" includes a natural person, firm, copartnership, association, limited liability company, or corporation.

Amended Ch. 1010, Stats. 1994. Effective January 1, 1995.

(1995 was more than 10 years ago)
 
2013-01-07 07:02:42 PM  

Teiritzamna: Oh for the love of god!

1) Let's say this one more time - Citizens United has nothing to do with Corporate Personhood.  Nothing.  Corporate Personhood is absolutely irrelevant to the holding.

2) FTA - We realize it's only January but as far as we're concerned this Frieman guy has already won the entire year of 2013 for executing a rather brilliant prank on the textualist wing of the Supreme Court.

As a fun note - Corporate Personhood (meaning the actual doctrine which indicates that companies can have the right to own property and be sued separate from their officers/stockholders) is not based on direct text at all, and is likely based in part on an accident where the court assumed that an overzealous summary in a legal reporter was the holding of a prior case.


Yes, capacity to sue was the original basis for the corporate personhood concept, but the idea has since been expanded to provide certain rights to corporations (such as speech) which would ordinarily be granted only to human people.  Citizens United is related to corporate personhood as the concept is now understood, just not the original useage you're thinking of.
 
2013-01-07 07:03:33 PM  
Not that I'm agreeing with his argument, mind you. The Code also says that local authorities can define HOV lane conditions however they want.
 
Displayed 50 of 135 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report