What’s a “Person” in an HOV Lane?

A high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane  (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes on highways are reserved for cars carrying at least two “persons”.

But what’s a “person”?

The Supreme Court has declared that there are both “natural persons” (men and women) and “artificial persons” like corporations.

California traffic law recognized both “natural” and “artificial” “persons”.

Here’s the story of a California man who was carrying his corporation’s charter in the passenger seat when he was stopped and ticketed for driving in the HOV lane with only one “person” in his car.  He’s defending himself by claiming that his corporation’s charter is (as per the Supreme Court) is also an artificial “person” and therefore he had two “persons” in the vehicle.

The case is going to court.  The driver doesn’t expect the police officer to appear and therefore the case will be dismissed.

Why?  Because the implications are explosive.  First, if corporation papers can be construed as a second “person,” the whole HOV lane scheme may be destroyed.  That’s interesting, perhaps amusing, but not profound.

But second, as the commentator in the following video implies, what about those who are ticketed for driving in the HOV lane without a passenger, but who are carrying a drivers license with an all upper case name on it like “ALFRED N ADASK”?  What if such drivers contended that their proper name were, say, “Alfred Adask” and therefore the name “ALFRED N ADASK” on their drivers license is a second and separate “person”?

 

Answering For Another

Q&A (Photo credit: opensourceway)

I’ve suspected that the name “ALFRED N ADASK” signified an entity other than me (“Alfred Adask”) for over 15 years.  I still can’t prove that suspicion, but I’ve seen nothing to disprove it—and I’ve been looking persistently.

I know that “Alfred Adask” (“Adask”) is a proper name that signifies a man who is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights (as per the “Declaration of Independence”).  I presume that “ALFRED N ADASK” (“ADASK”) signifies a fictional entity that can have no such God-given, unalienable Rights.  Thus, whenever “ADASK” is on trial, it has no significant rights and can usually be found guilty by the gov-co with minimum effort.

 

Rising Resistence to “Judicial” Power (over “Strawmen”?)

Image by Mike Miley via Flickr

If I hired an attorney to represent me, I should be able to fire that attorney whenever I pleased.  Likewise, if you hired an attorney to represent you, then you should be able to fire that attorney whenever you pleased. But, clearly, if you hired an attorney to represent you, I would have no authority to fire your attorney.

In the video below, a man attempts to fire “his” attorney.  The attorney says he’s been appointed by the judge and therefore only the judge can terminate his employment.

How is it that a man who is seemingly represented by an attorney, can’t fire what appears to be his own attorney?

Could it be that the attorney does not actually represent the man (whose proper name is, say, “John Ingress”) and who is the apparent defendant?  Could it be that the attorney instead represents an artificial entity (a legal fiction or “strawman” who bears the all-upper case name like “JOHN INGRESS”) and who is the actual defendant?