Man says corporate docs count as person for carpool lane
Legal panel weighs in on case
- Duration 3:21
- Date Jan 7, 2013
Legal panel weighs in on case
Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
A California man is literally.
Trying to drive home a message that corporations are not really people.
The man who has been upset for years at the legal issues surrounding corporate personhood.
Got caught driving solo in the carpool lane on purpose the claims he did nothing wrong begins he had corporate paperwork in the vehicle with him.
Which he says counts as a second person.
He's in traffic court today in California and joining me now that burns a former federal prosecutor and criminal defense attorney John meanwhile in.
As a criminal defense attorney coming to us from LA so we'll start with you first John I'm a Californian to you.
He's that we have I gotten sympathy -- mart for all of that the California courts have to deal went but what what is this guy talking about.
Well -- basically saying under California vehicle code section for seven.
So -- saying look the paperwork that I haven't.
Allows me -- -- in the carpool lane because of this definition and also it's the same definition.
Under the -- citizen united vs the Federal Election Commission.
Case in 2010 where the United States Supreme Court said essentially the same thing.
That a corporation is a person so his disputing this because he thinks that that ruling.
Is in his opinion ridiculous and he's been so -- -- use that -- traffic trial.
And he's been trying to get caught for ten years -- he's been trying his hardest in the carpool -- to get caught Meredith does he have a -- Well it's -- -- you sort of have to France's you have the common sense in the living -- answer which is come on that's ridiculous the whole purpose of this law.
Is to reduce traffic comment have individuals you know.
-- -- together correct thought John makes a good point which is the legal analysis answer is that the statute defines a person.
To include a corporation.
And the legislature so runs the argument should've said human beings in the car and by the way -- living human beings that's -- -- -- have the problem of the dead body in the trunk qualifying I -- think about that by the high occupancy vehicle lane but joking aside the argument from the purest.
Legal -- did you have to go back to the legislature and changed the last.
-- do you think -- -- they need to be -- this.
You guys they do need to be more specific but here's the thing to legislative intent as Doug said and that's what's key here what did the it legislator intend.
When he passed the carpool lanes was it had to have people work that you could identify as a person.
Or it was it to reduce congestion but again the judge in this traffic -- at a lot of different things he could dismiss it in the interest of justice the police officer may not show up.
Please male officer may not believe -- remember the facts of the case so there's a few outs for this us citizen that wants to challenges.
Several quick -- -- he pay the 481.
Dollar minimum -- in California do you think maybe he he spare time now he wants to actually you know again just so we're clear he wants the opposite result who wants to lose -- work.
He wants a ruling that a corporation is not a person.
But the point of the matter -- and John would confirm this you have the Citizens United case.
The Supreme Court heard it said that a corporation -- a person so local traffic -- in California's not gonna cut into that.
All right we'll see what happens interest in -- it is worth the try and navy and -- it is bad in California you can understand -- have a -- maybe pattern that can be stretching it.
Dad John thank you very much -- at about my pleasure that yes he should -- his bike to work that's it that's it John.