RSS

What’s a “Person” in an HOV Lane?

06 Jan

A high-occupancy vehicle lane on Ontario Highw...

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”?

Would the courts have to rule that “ADASK” is a person separate from the person named “Adask”?  Could the courts dare rule that “ADASK” and “Adask” were the same “person”?  (If they did, “ADASK” would merely be an alias for “Adask”.)

These questions are kind of amusing and silly, but what if the all-upper-case name on your Drivers License (say, “ADASK”) really is presumed to be a second person, separate from the “person” of “Alfred Adask”?  What if the presence of your Drivers License in your vehicle evidence that you (“Adask”) are always carrying a “passenger”?  Is the presence of your Drivers License in your vehicle therefore evidence that your vehicle is being used to transport “passenger” and therefore engaged in commerce?  Does your Drivers License (and the presence of a second person like “ADASK”) prove that you’re driving a “passenger vehicle”?  Under “law,” does the operation of a “passenger vehicle” place a driver under greater liability than if he were merely “traveling” on the right of way?

Suppose a handful of people were prepared to drive in the HOV lanes around the country without another “natural person” in the car, and were eventually ticketed for improper use of the HOV lanes.  Suppose these drivers were prepared to argue that the entity named in all-upper-case letters on their drivers license constituted another, separate “person” and therefore there were two “persons” in the vehicle and the ticket should be dismissed.

(More, they might even ask the court to mandate that the police be prohibited to issuing HOV lane tickets to anyone who had a drivers license.  I.e., the only people who could be ticked for HOV violations would be those drivers who did not have a drivers license (or corporate charter) in their vehicle and also did not have a second “natural person”.)

A defense along this line might compel the courts in several states to rule on whether an all upper-case name like “ALFRED N ADASK” is, or is not, a “person” other than the “natural person” named “Alfred Adask”.  If we had several rulings from several courts in several states as to whether “ADASK” and “Adask” signify the same person, or two distinctly different persons, we would have evidence to prove–or disprove–the hypothesis that “Adask” and “ADASK” signify two different “persons”.

If a handful of people who were politically correct (had drivers license, current registration and insurance) wanted to test this strategy, they probably wouldn’t be risking too much:  a fine of say, $250, if they’re found guilty of an HOV lane violation.  In return for that $250, we might learn a lot about how the “system” really functions.

In the California case cited in the video below, the driver predicts that the cop won’t show at the municipal court, the ticket will be dismissed, and the issue of whether the corporate charter constitutes a second “person” will therefore be  avoided.  If it turns out that the drivers’ prediction is correct, it will be prima facie evidence (but yet not proof) that the driver’s “second person” defense is both valid and too politically explosive for the courts to consider.

If a similar defense were used in other courts, and those courts reacted as the California driver predicts will happen in his HOV lane case, we’d have good evidence that: 1) any HOV ticket might be defeated by the presence of a corporate charter or even a drivers license in car when the ticket is issued; and, more importantly,  2) that the all-upper-case name really does signify a “person” other than that of the natural man with a proper name like “Alfred Adask”.

If it turns out that the all-upper-case name on the drivers license is a second “person,” what about the all-upper-case names on the registration and insurance documents?  Is it possible that presence of each such document provides separate evidence  of the presence of a “second” (even third) “person”/passenger in the vehicle?

The HOV lane may turn out to be a perfect laboratory for testing the all-upper-case name vs. proper name hypothesis.

video

00:05:23

 
34 Comments

Posted by on January 6, 2013 in Traffic Law, Upper-case name

 

Tags: , , , ,

34 responses to “What’s a “Person” in an HOV Lane?

  1. palani

    January 6, 2013 at 7:36 PM

    Was the corporate charter wearing a seat belt when stopped?

     
    • Randy

      January 6, 2013 at 7:55 PM

      LOL, too funny!

       
  2. Jake

    January 6, 2013 at 8:17 PM

    If the SCOTUS ruled that corporations have their 1st Amendment rights (Citizen’s United vs. FEC), then who is California to deny them their right to free travel in the HOV lane?

     
  3. ciarlidog

    January 6, 2013 at 9:17 PM

    If the corporate charter (“person” 2)was NOT wearing the seatbelt, and the cop only ticketed the driver, what kind of breach of conduct could that be construed as? ; )

     
  4. Yartap

    January 6, 2013 at 9:37 PM

    What if I am psychotic and have split-personalities? The state recognizes multiple personalities in one body – right?

     
  5. ciarlidog

    January 6, 2013 at 10:01 PM

    OOOOOH!! Bi-Polar! Where will that fit in? Hey, it’s not my fault officer! I’m beside myself with joy!

     
  6. owlmon

    January 6, 2013 at 10:35 PM

    if you look in the obituary column you will see the way dead folks names are formed..Same in the Grave Yard on the Tombstones///.Turn the page to live birth wedding or anniversary announcements are..notice the way the names are formed,,,Reading the book KJV that inspired “In God we trust” We note Deuteronomy 1:17 10:17 Acts 10:34 James 2″9 gies us new insite as to what a person is as our creator finds them quite distasteful and if you show repect to them your labled a sinner…Now the original definition being a mask worn by a player on a stage indeed go’s back to Greece and the amphitheater..The players wore paper Mach’e or Wooden masks that had little funnels where the mouth is to amplify and carry their voices to the audience…Those masks were called “personas” Fictions not real fake an Actors mask,,,So the question is put…Can you be compelled to have social intercourse with dead effigy corpse? Can you be forced into necrophilia? Can you be intimidated to bow before a false god government dead in law corporation who added to and removed from God’s law for profit? Yes you can ….will you exercise faith to repel them or not is the next question….The government feels they have a contract with the debtor…Until the debtor breaks their assumption by using the one nemesis these vampires have…Your faith and standing …..Establish it violate the commands of God to submit to them and you would like to know who is accepting liability for the intimidation to breach your faith…I had 7 judges disqualified from the bench in hearing my case cause I wrote a letter to the Chief judge of the province….Immediately those judges could not sit on my case as I had 5 witnesses to the intimidation to answer to the all caps name violating God’s command…The next judge said twice on the record That due to the nature of the disqualifications he could not gaurantee he would continue the case….

     
  7. palani

    January 7, 2013 at 8:17 AM

    A Person, is he that is Represented, as often as he is Represented; and therefore God, who has been Represented (that is, Personated) thrice, may properly enough be said to be three Persons; though neither the word Person, nor Trinity be ascribed to him in the Bible. St. John indeed (1 Epist. 5.7.) saith, “There be three that bear witnesse in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these Three are One:” But this disagreeth not, but accordeth fitly with three Persons in the proper signification of Persons; which is, that which is Represented by another. For so God the Father, as Represented by Moses, is one Person; and as Represented by his Sonne, another Person, and as Represented by the Apostles, and by the Doctors that taught by authority from them derived, is a third Person; and yet every Person here, is the Person of one and the same God.

    Above passage from Hobbes Leviathan would represent the 16th century take on ‘personhood’.

     
    • Adask

      January 7, 2013 at 5:16 PM

      I agree with Hobbes Leviathan in this regard: I see a “person” as one element of a relationship between two or individuals. I believe a “person” is someone whose status or standing is in relation to someone else. Both parties to the relationship are “persons” within the context of that relationship. Thus, while a “man” exists only has himself and/or only in relation to God, a person exists in relation to another natural or artificial being. The “persons” in Hobbes Leviathan are 1) the “He” that is represented and 2) the individual who acts as representative. Thus, there is a relationship between two “persons”: “He” that is represented, and “he” who represents.

      It might also be true that most (not necessarily all) such relationships between two or more “persons” are entered into privately and consensually. While it’s true that many are persons in the sense of being “citizens” in relationship to a government or nation, it’s also true that most “persons” exist as a function of a private, consensual relationship with parents, children, employers, employees, customers, businesses, etc. If so, many (most?) of our “persons” are based on private law and equity rather than public law.

      And each of us can be several different “persons” at the same time. I.e., I am one “person” in relation to my mother, another “person” in relation to the my son, another “person” in relation to my employer, and another “person” in relation to the state government. At any moment I may act as any one of those “person” and probably to the exclusion of my other persons (“personalities). I am simultaneously eligible to choose to act in any of those “person” at any given moment.

       
      • owlmon

        January 7, 2013 at 8:52 PM

        Hobbes was darksided and hobbled in a Christian Monarch ruled commonwealth as no matter how hard puffed up ego’s try to justify the use of the word person the fact remains it is a deception and fiction used to control living men who by neglect to know their place subjected themselves to slavery…..A person is not respected by God but those who allow themselves to act in concert with persons decline the offer of God’s law..Hobbes masonic connection puts his artful banter in extreme suspicion…Why not quote the scriptures of disrespect? He is a commercial fake law promotor not a critic…If your a person your a sinner!!! Did you get that? You seem to wish to be promoting sin here on Alberts forum…Why??

         
      • owlmon

        January 7, 2013 at 9:12 PM

        Sorry Albert but you seem, if I get it right, to be on the side of commercial deception and not in favour of a Christians ability to opt out of necrophilia..

         
      • palani

        January 7, 2013 at 9:19 PM

        Words are merely symbols. When you use words you really need to know precisely what their definition is. Persons are the containers by which rights and duties are assigned. Hobbes model of Leviathan (government) is an accurate one. Now if you happen to believe that is evil then maybe you ought to define what evil means to you.

        I read the tea leaves. Shoot the messenger if you like but if you do then that is how YOU must want to be treated as well.

         
  8. palani

    January 7, 2013 at 8:18 AM

    A representative form of government is synonymous with a personated government.

     
  9. Howard R Music

    January 7, 2013 at 9:39 AM

    In Texas you can ride a motorcycle in an HOV lane. After all these years I find that I’m not riding alone. Who’d a thought?

     
    • Adask

      January 7, 2013 at 2:41 PM

      Maybe the law is one person for every two wheels on the vehicle. I.e., a motorcycle has only two wheels and therefore needs only one “person” to travel in the HOV lane. A car has four wheels so it need two “persons” to use the HOV. This theory seems fairly solid until we consider semi-tractor-trailers. They have, what?, sixteen wheels? Would they have to carry 8 persons?

       
  10. Joe

    January 7, 2013 at 11:16 AM

    How did you arrive at the conclusion that a “natural person” is a man or woman? The Official Code of Georgia states “The term “person” includes a corporation.” (O.C.G.A. Sec. 1-1-3 (14) ) There is nothing in the entire code that asserts that a person is a man or woman. The O.C.G.A. also states elsewhere that there are two types of persons, natural and artificial. The terms “includes” and “including” is a term of limitation in statutory construction. Therefore, at least in the State of Georgia, all persons, whether natural or artificial, are corporations. Natural persons come into existence naturally, meaning they are simply presumed to exist by some government agent or employee (such as when a court administrator reads a name and someone answers to it), and others come into existence artificially, through the statutory process of incorporation.

     
    • Randy

      January 7, 2013 at 11:21 AM

      The term “Person” and “Natural Person” are completely different. Natural Person is by birth, Person is by incorporation.

       
      • palani

        January 7, 2013 at 2:10 PM

        Not really. ‘Person’ denotes an action. It the expression of a right or the existence of a duty. It is a word spoken, an action that may be rewarded or punished, or it could be the action of representing. You really cannot have a right without having a person because as soon as you express the right you created the person.

         
      • owlmon

        January 7, 2013 at 9:14 PM

        they are both persons which make them fictions..dead

         
    • Yartap

      January 7, 2013 at 12:01 PM

      The Georgia Department of Public Safety web site states and describes the type of vehicles which may use the HOV lanes. One is “Vehicles with Two or more (living and not pre-infant) persons.”

      In my mind, a corporation is “living” as long as it exist; and a single bodied person with split “personalities” still constitutes more than one “person.”

      Why do they persist to use the word: “person,” when they should mean a “single blood-flowing living body with pre-infant or not.”

       
      • palani

        January 7, 2013 at 2:13 PM

        “Why do they persist to use the word: “person,” when they should mean a “single blood-flowing living body with pre-infant or not.”

        They say precisely what they mean to say because they know most people will misinterpret it. To be a citizen you must be a person because you express the right to citizenship. To be an alien you must be a person because you express the right to non-citizenship. Per the code then it is HEADS I WIN, TAILS YOU LOSE.

        The only way to win is to not play … don’t appear.

         
  11. James Michael

    January 7, 2013 at 11:28 AM

    Funny I seem to remember somewhere in that book called the bible that Jesus was no respecter of persons. Can’t remember the verse I’ll look for it this evening. Why would we as men respect persons if our lord Jesus Christ didn’t? I’m just saying.

     
    • owlmon

      January 7, 2013 at 9:17 PM

      Deuteronomy 1:17, 10:17 Acts:10:34 Matthew 22:16 James 2:9

       
    • Cody

      January 10, 2013 at 11:06 PM

      I think the “persons” referred to in the Bible, in that verse, were/are people who were of high or low rank. So, God does not respect the officer, regardless of his rank.

      Hereth ith the verth…
      33 Immediately therefore I sent to thee; and thou hast well done that thou art come. Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God.

      34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

      35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
      Acts 10:33-35 KJVeth

       
  12. pop de adam

    January 7, 2013 at 1:42 PM

    I have also ruminated upon the word/term person, and have read the description of person as the grecian/roman personas/mask. Son/sone/sonas may be of sound, in our modern english “son” might also mean a male child or heir. What of the suffix “per”? Per order of the Board of Health, here “per” might be a stand-in for “by”. Could person simply mean: by the heir, by the son or by the child? Some of us suspect these persons don’t come into existence without some form of assistance or consent on our own part. As creators of these persons could we be their grantor/benefactor or parent? Could these persons be condsidered children or heirs?

    All too strange, pop

     
    • pop de adam

      January 7, 2013 at 1:43 PM

      edit: the prefix “per”?

       
    • owlmon

      January 7, 2013 at 2:32 PM

      Stick with Sona as it literally means sound as that is what the mask was used for…It had no relationship with heir or son as you speculate….Per is from Latin per (“through, during”) So Through the amplified and directed Sound the audience could hear the distant player on stage…

       
      • pop de adam

        January 7, 2013 at 2:52 PM

        Only $8.99 per person!

        pardon the silly, -pop

         
  13. MIKE

    January 14, 2013 at 5:10 AM

     
  14. palani

    January 14, 2013 at 9:04 AM

    One gentleman has suggested several methods to ‘prove’ you are among the living. 1) Become a blood donor at a location that issues ID cards. 2) Have your MD inspect you and sign an affidavit that he diagnoses you with life. 3) Stop using the last name to identify yourself. 4) Send a 3 cent first class letter Non Domestic mail to ‘Office of Executor c/o (first middle names) zip code exempt.

     
    • Lex Mercatoria

      January 16, 2013 at 10:28 PM

      That’s interesting but unnecessary. We are not in the position of having to “prove” who we are; we simply declare it. It is for Them(tm) to prove we are what They(tm) want us to be, and that will and must be something–anything–other than what we are made as.

      In commercial terms: the onus probandi is always on the claimant who therefore must, as we say in the vernacular, “put up or shut up.”

      If one believes one has to “prove” to Big Brother who one is, or that one must seek approval from same to do what one already can and has the right to do, then one is a slave. In that case one should stop complaining and do what one believes, albeit erroneously, Big Brother is telling one to do.

       
  15. Lex Mercatoria

    January 16, 2013 at 10:34 PM

    I forgot to add: hasn’t the question of what a person is been already beaten to death? Perhaps we should focus more on who/what we are than on Matrix verbiage. We’ll progress further, faster.

     
  16. T. J.

    January 17, 2013 at 3:58 PM

    When you define you then you will know me.

     
  17. owlmon

    January 13, 2015 at 5:46 PM

    It is quite strange to see and read a mans comments that professes to believe in God that totally ignores the scriptural relevance of the word person. Those that make the laws in the countries we live in got their authority from the Bible in the beginning as they had to swear on that book to get their job. They the creditors to the debtor nation make money off of registered sinners not those that follow God’s law. Persons are their business as the sinners are those that register themselves with a dead corporation well listed as being a person thereby showing respect to persons and condemning themselves as sinners. This is a great business for the bloodsucking pirates engaged in fraud of adding to God’s law as they are admonished and commanded to not do that in the Bible as directions from God. Deuteronomy 4:2 12:32 tells it clear as does Leviticus 18:3-4. Those who push mans ideas and logic upon you avoid the fact that Bible is the foundation of our countries existence and government. The godless politicians have usurped the lawful governance of the Bible by adding to God’s law making them godless dictators feeding off of the uneducated goyim and they hope you will not catch on to their own well listed definitions of person as it defines persons as and only includes corporations being dead things, as being persons exclusively. Alfred seems afraid of admitting James 2:9 is quite clear supporting the logic that personas are masked men attempting to deceive you or defraud you of your possessions..Imagine the awareness created if Alfred got behind revealing the truth instead of his failed attempt at trying to overwrite it by posting frivolous opinions about what a person is and means to one of faith in Christ….Stop bowing and submitting your energy to dead things as that is pure inexcusable necrophilia..Alfred seems to forget those who write mans corporate law are mostly Jewish lawyers following Talmud that classifies gentiles as animals and dead to God’s law. I wonder why Alfred does not want you to see who the corporate owners of the USA are,, false Jew bankers are the creditors for the USA corp and they accurately assume all registrants of that corp are persons and nor respected by God..Deuteronomy 1:17,10:17 2nd Samuel 14:14 ,Matthew 22:16,Acts 10:34 ,Romans 2:11 and summarized in James 2:9 in the King James version ..only the vain and ignorant men and women in practice of cognitive dissonance can miss the reality of labeling yourself a dead fictional controlled entity by accepting the label of being a person..

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s