[The Final Dakar]

...and likely to end uneventfully.

California man says he can drive in carpool lane with corporation papers - U.S. News

When Jonathan Frieman of San Rafael, Calif., was pulled over for driving alone in the carpool lane, he argued to the officer that, actually, he did have a passenger.

He waved his corporation papers at the officer, he told NBCBayArea.com, saying that corporations are people under California law.
Frieman doesn't actually support this notion. For more than 10 years, Frieman says he had been trying to get pulled over to get ticketed and to take his argument to court -- to challenge a judge to determine that corporations and people are not the same.

But before he can make grand proclamations, the officer who ticketed him must show up to court. Otherwise, his ticket may be thrown out.

I have a feeling that officer is going to be gently advised not to show up.

[Snow-i]

Hahahahaha this made my day.

[Uncle Skeleton]

LOL. If the officer doesn't show it will create a moral hazard (everyone will abuse the carpool lane using this loophole).

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

LOL. If the officer doesn't show it will create a moral hazard (everyone will abuse the carpool lane using this loophole).

Isn't it, well not common, but not unheard of for officers not to show up when challenged? Unless you're arguing it's because the story is so prominent.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Sure, it's common. But regardless a new loophole has been revealed, others will want to use it if it worked. If he gets ruled against, then the loophole is closed, otherwise, it stays open. Doesn't it?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Sure, it's common. But regardless a new loophole has been revealed, others will want to use it if it worked.

But the officer not showing up isn't affirmative of the defense. And I think the number of people who will actively try to exploit this loophole is low. Hopefully they will, though, so I can get "closure" on the topic.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Yeah maybe I'm being swayed by wishful thinking

[OAW]

If he were to go to court I believe his argument would be eviscerated once the prosecution starts to discuss the difference between a "natural person" and a "legal person". And that's when he'll have that "It seemed like a good idea at the time!" moment.

OAW

[olePigeon]

I hope I can find the article, but there was a University somewhere that tried a similar experiment. They had a corporation run for a local city office. The application was denied not because it was a business, but because it wasn't old enough.

[The Final Dakar]

Judge Rejects Jonathan Frieman's Corporate Personhood Carpool Lane Argument; Appeal Vowed | Moral Low Ground

“What we’re talking about here is a pretty simple case,” Greene said, citing California Vehicle Code Section 470, which states that “‘Person’ includes a natural person, firm, copartnership, association, limited liability company or corporation.”

Greene, who is also a San Anselmo town councilman, asserted that the charge against Frieman should be dismissed, “since a corporation is a person and Mr. Frieman was traveling with a corporation.”

“The evidence is undisputed, the signs say carpool is 2 or more persons,” Greene pressed, arguing that the carpool law is “unconstitutionally vague.”

“A citizen should not be left to guess when he is in violation of a statute,” Greene argued.

Judge Drago disagreed, citing the “intent of the legislation,” which is “to relieve traffic congestion on highways” and to encourage people to carpool.

“The goal is to reduce the volume of traffic on the highway,” Drago said before finding Frieman guilty and imposing a $489 fine.

I'm cool with spirit vs. letter of the law.

[osiris]

This is why I love America. Entertainment on all levels of the imagination.