HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Man Challenges Citizens U...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 06:28 PM

 

Man Challenges Citizens United – From The Carpool Lane

For most, getting caught alone in the carpool lane is an expensive nuisance. For Jonathan Frieman of San Rafael, CA, it’s a chance to change American politics.

The designated carpool lane on Highway 101 near Frieman’s northern California home is specified to be for “two people or more” during rush hour. The police say Frieman was driving alone, but rather than pay the $478 fine, he plans to head to court on Monday to challenge the ticket. His reasoning? He had his papers of incorporation with him and since the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are people, there were two people in the car.

It’s doubtful that a traffic court judge is going to take a bold stance against a Supreme Court ruling, but that’s the point. Should Frieman lose Monday, which he plans on doing, he wants to take the challenge all the way to the top court. From the Pacific Sun:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/01/05/man-challenges-citizens-united-from-the-carpool-lane/

63 replies, 7233 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 63 replies Author Time Post
Reply Man Challenges Citizens United – From The Carpool Lane (Original post)
Whovian Jan 2013 OP
LeftofObama Jan 2013 #1
Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #2
alphafemale Jan 2013 #5
dsvajda Jan 2013 #10
freedom fighter jh Jan 2013 #14
KittyWampus Jan 2013 #41
freedom fighter jh Jan 2013 #45
eallen Jan 2013 #7
Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #8
bluedigger Jan 2013 #12
Lordquinton Jan 2013 #16
Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2013 #17
mmonk Jan 2013 #20
Orrex Jan 2013 #23
Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #25
Orrex Jan 2013 #27
Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #28
Orrex Jan 2013 #30
Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #31
Orrex Jan 2013 #32
TheBlackAdder Jan 2013 #34
eallen Jan 2013 #39
reACTIONary Jan 2013 #40
Demeter Jan 2013 #46
TeamPooka Jan 2013 #57
Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #58
TeamPooka Jan 2013 #60
reACTIONary Jan 2013 #36
eallen Jan 2013 #38
reACTIONary Jan 2013 #42
eallen Jan 2013 #44
jp76 Jan 2013 #59
reACTIONary Jan 2013 #61
jp76 Jan 2013 #63
caseymoz Jan 2013 #48
eallen Jan 2013 #49
caseymoz Jan 2013 #53
eallen Jan 2013 #54
caseymoz Jan 2013 #55
2befree Jan 2013 #50
skepticscott Jan 2013 #52
southernyankeebelle Jan 2013 #3
dems_rightnow Jan 2013 #29
southernyankeebelle Jan 2013 #33
Brother Buzz Jan 2013 #4
DollarBillHines Jan 2013 #11
Brother Buzz Jan 2013 #18
dionysus Jan 2013 #13
malaise Jan 2013 #6
struggle4progress Jan 2013 #9
Lady Freedom Returns Jan 2013 #15
mmonk Jan 2013 #19
stultusporcos Jan 2013 #21
KansDem Jan 2013 #22
Orrex Jan 2013 #24
MADem Jan 2013 #26
valerief Jan 2013 #35
BadGimp Jan 2013 #37
Little Star Jan 2013 #43
davidpdx Jan 2013 #47
Xipe Totec Jan 2013 #51
Waiting For Everyman Jan 2013 #56
lynne Jan 2013 #62

Response to Whovian (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 06:51 PM

1. Good for him!

At least someone is fighting back!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 06:55 PM

2. Citizens United did not say that corporations are people.

What Citizens United actually did was to say that corporations and unions have a First Amendment right to make direct expenditures from their treasuries to make independent expenditures to advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate for office. The decision did not overturn the ban on direct contributions to candidates, but it overturned laws that made it illegal for corporations to spend money independently to support a candidate for office.

http://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2012/11/beyond-citizens-united-fixing-american-elections-system

So I don't see how you can really get from extending the First Amendment protections of corporations and unions to this carpool lane stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:19 PM

5. Corporations were ruled to be people in something like 1870ish I think.

Laid the path for the robber barons and absolute corruption and horror that followed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alphafemale (Reply #5)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:12 PM

10. Santa Clara County versus Southern Pacific Railroad

1886. Corporations declared to be persons in the head note to the decision, not the decision. With thanks to Thom Hartmann.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsvajda (Reply #10)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:37 PM

14. Yes, as Thom has said, in the head note, not written by an SC justice

and not carrying any weight until it was quoted by an SC justice in a later decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freedom fighter jh (Reply #14)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 05:25 PM

41. this is one of the things I've learned on DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:28 PM

7. It wasn't "extended." The 1st amendment explicitly protects "the press."

Which never was limited to natural persons.

People who think the 1st amendment should be restricted to natural persons need to think hard about an America where publishers, film producers, theaters, and similar businesses cannot claim 1st amendment protection. Or imagine how much of 1st amendment jurisprudence would be absent, had courts in the past not viewed corporations as having 1st amendment protection.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eallen (Reply #7)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:32 PM

8. A surprising number of DUers want corporations to be stripped of all constitutional protections.

I'm getting bored with pointing out that the police could then search the offices of DemocraticUnderground LLC without a warrant, for no reason at all, and seize all the assets of DemocraticUnderground LLC without paying compensation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:35 PM

12. That would be a surprising number, wouldn't it?

Whatever it might be. I think most DUers just want individuals to stop using the cover of corporate personhood to engage in antisocial and criminal behavior with immunity from legal or social repercussions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:01 PM

16. It's an easily misconstrued argument

It's not that we want corps. stripped of constitutional rights, it's that we want them to be help to all laws of the land fully. and we want them to not be allowed to strip away our rights with impunity. We want to be able to hold accountable everyone who is responsible for crimes, and not be labeled as people who just want to tear down corps.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:48 PM

17. Actually, I just want them to know their place...

They operate under the PERMISSION of the People. They are NOT the SAME as the People.

If they behave and are good citizens than they are welcome.

If you hear a small restaurant has bribed the inspector to look the other way to allow it to run a dirty kitchen you are outraged but we have large corporations that bribe officials to look the other way so they can rip off customers and pollute the environment and they don't pay ANY price.

It's all a matter of scale.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #8)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 05:40 AM

20. Count me in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #8)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 09:27 AM

23. Corporations should be considered property

And they should have all the rights that are typically afforded to property. If the assets of DemocraticUnderground LLC were seized, then the owners of DemocraticUnderground LLC should be compensated appropriately.


At the very least, corporations certainly shouldn't have rights beyond those granted to actual people, and we shouldn't equate money with speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #23)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:03 AM

25. Say Congress passed a law that nobody is allowed to spend money to criticize any member of Congress.

So it would still be entirely legal to criticize a Congressman in a speech on the street corner, but nobody would be allowed to rent a billboard or pay for a TV or newspaper ad to criticize any congressman.

Should such a law be constitutional, in your opinion? Or should it be struck down in court for violating the First Amendment?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #25)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:15 AM

27. Let me first ask you to clarify a point about your question:

If someone had an indefinite sum of money to spend, do you think that this person has the Constitutional right to purchase all media space (billboards, TV, newspapers, internet, radio, etc.) in order to suppress all dissenting views? Could that individual simply pay people with bullhorns to drown out the streetcorner critic?

Would such a person enjoy Constitutional protection of these tactics as free speech? Or should there be some Constitutionally permissible remedy for such actions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #27)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:23 AM

28. Bill Gates and George Soros can spend as much money as they like on advertising.

Citizens United is about corporations and unions, not individuals. Of course if they did as you suggest they would quickly run out of money as nobody has "indefinite" funds.

Now, do you think the law I described should be constitutional?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #28)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:37 AM

30. Another quesiton for clarification, since I can see where you're probably going:

Do you see no Constitutional distinction between political speech by individuals in the public square and money spent by corporations upon advertisements?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #30)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:41 AM

31. I think it's your turn to answer my question (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #31)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:44 AM

32. Okay

If you won't be pinned down on the specifics of your question, then this is answer enough:

Money should not be equated with speech, and corporations shouldn't enjoy the same constitional protections afforded to actual people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #32)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:08 PM

34. Same Observation - Nye is a moving target, not staying on topic. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #30)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 05:08 PM

39. Citizens United wasn't about advertising.

Its speech wasn't commercial. The case was about the production and distribution of a movie.

I don't see a legal line to draw between a movie made by Citizens United, Inc., and one made by the AFL-CIO, or by Michael Moore.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eallen (Reply #39)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 05:24 PM

40. True, that...

...and the SCOTUS could have used that to narrow their decision to protect only corporations that were chartered specifically for the purpose of exercising political speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #8)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 07:32 AM

46. Under FISA, they can do that anyway

Wake up and smell the coffee...we have no civil rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #8)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 04:13 PM

57. Straw man alert!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeamPooka (Reply #57)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 04:20 PM

58. Here's a thread advocating that corporations should be stripped of all constitutional protections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #58)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 05:35 PM

60. Double Down Straw Man alert!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eallen (Reply #7)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:25 PM

36. Corporations are chartered for specific purposes ...

Corporations are chartered for specific purposes and their owners are granted a significant privileges, limited liability and in some cases non-profit status. Some are chartered specifically for religious purposes, and their owners receive some protection, for that reason, under the first amendment. Some are chartered specifically for the purpose of publishing news and political opinion, and their owner may receive some protection, for that reason, under the first amendment.

Many others are chartered for purposes other than religion or providing information to the public. For instance, selling soap or manufacturing, say, cars. These purposes are NOT protected under the constitution. Even providing entertainment, which sometimes gets a pass under the first amendment, is not, strictly speaking, protected.

So here are some observations:

When a corporation is specifically chartered for the purpose of a religious or political agenda, or for the purpose of providing information and news to the public, it is reasonable to assume that the owners are aware of and approve of this purpose. Coupled with the specific protections afforded these activities by the first amendment, there is good reason to protect the owner's first amendment rights by providing some protection to the corporation.

When a corporation is chartered for some purpose other than one protected by the first amendment it isn't quite so reasonable to assume that the corporation speaks for the owners or that the owners approve of or support the corporation's political or religious positions and activities. Under these circumstances, protection is problematic, since it involves speaking on behalf of those owners who may NOT endorse or approve of the message or the activity. This then, would be a violation of the (perhaps minority) owners' rights to speak freely on their own behalf.

Under the second circumstance, it would be more than reasonable to deny the organization the privilege of limited liability. This privilege is granted by the government at its discretion to serve a public good and may be revoked at will. No one has the right to incorporate - regardless of the purpose or activity that is to be undertaken. Those owners who want to engage in religious or political speech as something other than the PRIMARY purpose of the organization should organize as a partnership and should assume liability for their economic activities. Under those circumstances, it is much more assured that all owners have made a considered choice and are in basic agreement with the positions and the activity itself.

This would ensure that first amendment rights are honored and that they are not abused by a plutocracy that is indifferent to the public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reACTIONary (Reply #36)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 05:04 PM

38. Most newspapers, production studios, etc. are organized like any business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eallen (Reply #38)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 05:32 PM

42. That's true...

... and since their productive purpose is a "product" specifically protected by the first amendment, it would be reasonable that such businesses receive first amendment protection for those activities.

However, not all businesses have as their productive purpose a product that is so protected. This distinguishes them from those that do, and may be used as a reason to disqualify them from the privilege of limited liability. Since limited liability is a privilege, not a right, it may be granted subject to terms, conditions and restrictions.

Citizens United didn't make this distinction. The SCOTUS could have, and their decision would have been more reasonable (IMHO).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reACTIONary (Reply #42)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 06:31 PM

44. A business isn't incorporated with a specific productive purpose

Businesses modify and change business plans as often as many people do hairstyle. HP didn't start out making computers. When Google first appeared, no one expected it to make phone software. More, businesses acquire other businesses, and spin-off subsidiaries. GE first acquired NBC in 1926 when it bought RCA. Then spun it off. Then bought it again a half century later. GE, of course, makes all sorts of stuff.

Should GE be covered by the 1st amendment freedom of the press? Always? Never? Only when it owns a broadcast network?

While it might be tempting to try to distinguish media companies from non-media companies, keep two things in mind. 1) Media companies aren't necessarily less biased or less influenced by money than non-media companies. Remember Hearst. And all the yellow journalism before him. 2) That distinction would have made no difference to the controversial ruling, since Citizens United didn't swerve from the purpose for which it was founded.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reACTIONary (Reply #36)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 04:24 PM

59. Not a lawyer...

...so correct me if I don't have this right, lawyers...but corporations do not have limited liability. The owners (aka stockholders) have limited liability...their liability is limited to the amount they have invested in the corporation.

A corporation can be sued for any amount, and is liable for any and all damages it's responsible for. If a corporation has $100 in capital, and $50 in revenue, it can be liable for $200 (any amount, just rolling with $200 for easy math) in damages, but because its net worth is only $150, that's all that can be paid out. The limited liability of the shareholders means they can't be forced to pay for the $50 in debt still owed for damages, so either the corporation goes bankrupt and the $50 is lost, or the $200 in damages has to be paid out over time.

You could eliminate limited liability, but it would do nothing. Rather than buy shares of stock, people would be selling micro-loans, where they give money to a business and the interest charged would be a variable rate based on the returns of the company. In this case, the borrower (rather than the corporation) is still liable for all damages, the lender (rather than the shareholder) is protected from liability, and the money balance remains about the same.

A corporation enjoys the same rights as an individual because all it is is a number of people working towards a common goal under one name...many people speaking as one. As long as they, the corporation, are in agreement as to what is being said, it is no different than one person saying the same thing...they have the right to say it (as long as it isn't slander). A corporation of 100 people speaks for 100 people...no more, no less. If you restrict what that corporation can say, you aren't infringing on the rights of a single, intangible legal entity, you are infringing on the rights of the 100 real people that chose that vehicle to express their opinion.

Trust me, there are LOADS of corporations I disagree with, but I don't understand the hate of incorporation itself. My understanding of it is simplistic, but with U.S. laws being as complicated as they are, I don't think anyone has a complete grasp of ALL the technicalities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jp76 (Reply #59)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 06:31 PM

61. Limited liablity does apply to the owners...

...as you describe. Ascribing the privilege of limited liability "to the corporation" is a conventional way of referring to this privilege. I don't think that limited liability could be substituted for by variable interest loans. Those loans would have to be made to someone, and that someone would be fully and personally liable. But I'm not a lawyer either.

I'm not sure if you are referring to my OP, but I don't have anything against incorporation in principle. I think it is a socially useful institution that allows for the creation of capital markets. This reduces the social costs of capital formation and allows for easier organization of productive activity.

I think that what you say about organized speech is true for corporations that have the primary purpose of ideological advocacy, such as the ACLU or Citizens United. In that case it is reasonable to assume that all of the owners and contributors understand and consent to the activity. However, I don't think it applies to the vast majority of corporations that are formed for more mundane purposes - selling soap or manufacturing cars, for instance. In that case, I consider political advocacy to be a violation of the first amendment rights of the minority owners who may not agree and are not even told it is taking place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reACTIONary (Reply #61)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 08:22 AM

63. That last line of yours

"I consider political advocacy to be a violation of the first amendment rights of the minority owners who may not agree and are not even told it is taking place."

I had to quote that, because honestly I think that's the heart of the issue. I don't mind corporations sending any message, but I very much wish they were legally responsible to inform stakeholders of what they were saying and what they were spending on political statements. At least then you could invest with a clear conscience. Some corporations give money to both sides of a political issue, and at that point I feel VERY strongly that they have ceased making a political statement with money and are simply buying politicians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eallen (Reply #7)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:28 AM

48. That doesn't cut it.


The writer, director, and so on, still have First Amendment rights. There's a way to protect the rights of real persons instead of corporations that the court did not even bother to explore. And we were working pretty well under the system the court knocked down. In fact, they had to unconstitutionally have the Citizens' United restructured so they could make the ruling they did.

So, don't tell us they had to do it. That's bullshit. No other SCOTUS previously saw that necessity, but the Roberts court "discovered" the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #48)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 03:01 PM

49. Had the courts followed that logic, would we have read the Pentagon papers, in the 1970s?

Daniel Ellsburg would have enjoyed 1st amendment freedom. But Nixon's White House was trying to restrain the news stories that results in the Washington Post and the New York Times. That led to the seminal court case on prior restraint, New York Times Co. v. United States.

A large swathe of 1st amendment jurisprudence would have been lost, had the courts held that only natural persons enjoy 1st amendment freedoms. At the end of that road, you have the right to say what you want, but your internet provider doesn't have the right to distribute it, your cellphone company doesn't have the right to carry it, and no magazine or newspaper has the right to publish it.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eallen (Reply #49)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 02:01 PM

53. No, I don't see that problem, sorry.


Along with the right to speech is the right to have it distributed and repeated. If corporations aren't persons under the law, they also can't be held responsible for materials distributed through them. The question of having rights or not having rights is moot for non-persons. You might as well debate about whether the chair the person sits in when they talk is allowed to hold that person. Or, in fact, whether a gun is responsible for a shooting.

This whole line of reasoning seems to me a ridiculous sequence of non sequiturs. I guess it to follow after you accept the very first, utterly stupid proposition.

The First Amendment mentions "the press." It's totally sufficient to say the government can't restrain free speech, including collaborated free speech made through corporate entities without granting those entities any direct rights. You don't have to recognized corporations as persons to do this.

What's really happened is, the SCOTUS historically reasoned its own way into the conundrum you describe with cases like Ellsberg. This court has now taken advantage of to give us CU. Nobody saw the problem the court identified to do this. The case had to be completely restructured so the court could reach this ruling. It was by no means a syllogism.

I give it another decade before CU comes down. It would be interesting to see what replaces it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #53)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 02:25 PM

54. Then Citizens United would still have been decided the same

You say:

It's totally sufficient to say the government can't restrain free speech, including collaborated free speech made through corporate entities.


Citizens United was a corporate entity formed to make and distribute political media. The court case was whether it should be allowed to distribute a movie. Are you saying you agree with the result of that decision, but not the reasoning?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eallen (Reply #54)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 03:24 PM

55. Yes.


Therefore, the court ordered the case to be restructured for no reason? They were just wasting money and time?

I believe there's an important distinction to be made between speech and money and corporations and people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #2)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 03:44 PM

50. Corporations are not people

Not only are they not people but they cannot sue a living person:

Rundle v. Delaware & Raritan Canal Company, 55 U.S. 14 How. 80 80 (1852)

Supreme Court decision!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #2)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 06:34 PM

52. Exactly..Citizens United did not say ANYWHERE

that corporations are "people". Neither did it say anywhere that "money is speech", frequent uninformed rantings on this site to the contrary notwithstanding. The court recognized that corporations are entitled to some of the same constitutional protections as individuals, which is hardly a controversial notion. And even less so in the case of the First Amendment, since that is a restriction on Congress, and makes no explicit statement or limitation (unlike the adjacent assembly and petition clauses) about whose exercise of the right is protected. And, as you noted, it did nothing to the ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates (again, ranting on DU to the contrary notwithstanding).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 06:57 PM

3. He could use the clip of Romney saying "Corporations are People".

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #3)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:26 AM

29. Yes

Because it's an established principle that when Romney says something, it becomes law upon utterance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dems_rightnow (Reply #29)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:55 AM

33. LOL, you betcha.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:05 PM

4. This is Marin county, home to misguided hot-tubber

At least, that's what GHWB says

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brother Buzz (Reply #4)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:25 PM

11. You left out the brie and chardonnay part.

I am headed to Marin in a few minutes to catch Pat Donohue (Prairie Home Companion) at Schoenberg Guitars.

Sold-out gig with an audience of 24. No mic, no amp.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DollarBillHines (Reply #11)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 04:27 AM

18. Back in my day it was just peacock feathers and hot tubs

Cyra McFadden was my neighbor when she wrote The Serial, first in weekly installments in the free paper, then later as a book. We laughed with it; the rest of the world believed it and the scoffing began.

Schoenberg Guitars splashed after I left Marin, but it has developed a fine reputation that rivals Gryphon Stringed instruments, only smaller. Prune music, it ain't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brother Buzz (Reply #4)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:35 PM

13. ever since I read that back in the day I've wanted to start a band called Marin County Hot Tubbers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:21 PM

6. Bwaaaaaaaah hahahaha

Love this!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:50 PM

9. waste of oxygen, meet frivolous argument. frivolous argument, waste of oxygen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:38 PM

15. If this works...

And the Spin Doctors on our side do their magic...
Oh what fun this could be!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 05:37 AM

19. His corporation will be acquitted but he won't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 06:29 AM

21. America needs to treat Corporations the Exact Same Way they were tread by the Founding Fathers

 

Conservatives love to quote the US Constitution and the FF’s on guns but do a total 180 when it comes to corporations.

A Revolution was started all because of corporations.

American’s knowledge of its history is pathetic

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 09:23 AM

22. DAMN!!! Spot on!

Go, man, go!!!

To bad his last name wasn't Friemen...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 09:28 AM

24. I hope he does better than the pregnant woman who claimed to be carpooling with her fetus

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:10 AM

26. I LIKE how this guy thinks!!!

This is hilarious!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:37 PM

35. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 02:34 PM

37. I live in San Rafael.. gonna try to go to the court for the 3pm



clever

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 05:43 PM

43. I said in another thread regarding this.......

He should see if the Supremes say it's ok for him to register his corporation to vote. Don't those people have a right to vote? They are allowed to put money into our elections so why not? Those Supremes were wacky when they declared corporations people.

If he won a case like that just think we could all start up a corporation and vote twice!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 08:34 AM

47. The guy is a few marbles short of a full set

If I was a betting man, I'd bet against him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidpdx (Reply #47)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 03:51 PM

51. That's the point - a loss is a win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 03:29 PM

56. K&R

Fighting absurdity with absurdity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 06:59 PM

62. Silly waste of resources and tax dollars -

Now, if he had a corporate stockholder in the car, then he'd be onto something. But he wouldn't have been stopped then as he'd have two people in the car.

Next time he should go for a corporate manufactured blow-up doll.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread