Catch us live on BlogTalkRadio every

Tuesday & Thursday at 6pm P.S.T.

Saturday, September 29, 2018

Anti-Profiling of Motorcyclist`s - Motorcycle Profiling - Re: Profiling Washington HB2511

WA update - FYI
I will be making a full report. Still trying to get some last minute details done before the end of session.

This Wednesday, April 13th, 2011, the Governor will be adding her signature to ESB5242-Addressing Motorcycle Profiling.
All motorcyclist are encouraged to convene in the Legislative Building (the Rotunda), 2nd floor at 130pm to
be in witness of this histic and unprecedented legislation.
This is the final signature, and will complete the unanimous support of the State level Politicians of Washington State.
In addition, 2 other Rights bills were passed this session; SB5800 and HB1328.
Also, the house has passed a resolution that May is MC Awareness Month.



I am inspired. I am the ABATE of Washington Legislative Affairs Officer, and am the one that is responsible for pushing this bill. In fact, this bill was only stopped last year by the short legislative session. You are very astute in seeing that this bill is modeled after the 2002 racial profiling bill that is now law in Washington.

I just finished putting the following together for the ABATE Freedom mag in WA. We are getting geared up for what should be the largest attended legislative day, BLACK THURSDAY, Jan 20,2011. I am working on a much longer and detailed dissertation:


(This bill has not yet received bill numbers)

Anti-Profiling of Motorcyclist

1. Addressing Motorcycle Profiling. ** In 2010’s Legislative Session, the issue of Profiling Motorcyclist had historical success by passing the House Assembly by a vote of 96-2. Heading into the 2011 Legislative Session, the motorcycle community is revving up for another run at preserving our freedom found in the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, and in the more protective Article 1, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution.

ABATE of Washington has worked hard during the off-session to secure sponsorship from Representative Steve Kirby, 27th District and Senator Jim Hargrove, 24th District. Their offices are working together preparing to concurrently pre-file companion bills in the House and Senate respectively. These bills will be assigned separate numbers, and could have a different title from last year, however the wording of the bills will remain the same. Pre-filing will result in having the bills ready for immediate involvement from the first day legislature convenes on the second Monday in January. This year, the legislative session will be 105 days (not 60 like last session), which will give more time to work the bills through both the Senate and the House, to the Governor for signature, and finally into the State law.

The US Defenders and ABATE of Washington State formed a successful working relationship in 2011. The results of our combined hard work became evident during a public hearing this past February, when the schedule was suspended and the committee went directly to passing the vote on for consideration by the entire House of Representatives. Not only was this unprecedented for the motorcycling community, it is a very rare occurrence in Olympia.

This year we are expecting more support from other motorcycle groups, as well as a non-motorcycle group.
There is a very good feeling amongst legislators and motorcyclist that this bill will pick up where it left off last year, and become law in 2011.

Motorcycle Profiling in Washington State: A Problem in Need of  Legislative Relief
The Confederation of Clubs, US Defenders and ABATE of Washington State are seeking support for legislation that would condemn and prevent the widespread law enforcement practice of motorcycle profiling. Requiring law enforcement agencies to adopt a policy preventing and condemning motorcycle profiling would reinforce the State Supreme Court’s rejection of discrimination and pre-textual traffic stops reaffirming our right to privacy as outlined in Article I Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution.
I. Motorcycle Profiling by Washington Law Enforcement Agencies is Occurring and is Widespread.

• Profiling, according to the Washington State Legislature’s current policies, occurs when law enforcement targets an individual exhibiting characteristics of a class that an officer believes more likely than others to commit a crime. The practice of targeting an individual because they are riding a motorcycle or wearing motorcycle paraphernalia is a perfect example of profiling. (Definition of profiling in SB 5852 passed in 2002.)

• During Black Thursday January 22, 2009 the Washington State Patrol indiscriminately profiled the motorcycle community on the grounds of the Washington State Capital. While members of the motorcycle rights movement were inside the Capital, attempting to find sponsorship for a bill that would stop motorcycle profiling, the State Patrol was captured on video crawling through the bushes in order to record the license plate and identifying information of every motorcycle in the parking lot. When confronted the State Patrol replied that they were gathering information based on their fictitious belief that there is always a propensity for violence when motorcycle clubs are together. This is, by definition, profiling. There has never been a violent incident among motorcycle clubs at the Capital. The State Patrol’s behavior chills political activism and demands legislative remedy.

• The Washington Courts have confirmed that the Washington State Patrol is guilty of unlawful profiling and discrimination against motorcyclists. In 2002 the Court granted a permanent injunction against the State Patrol’s use of a training pamphlet titled BIKER 101. (Wulfekuhle v. Washington State Patrol, 2002 Attached.) On November 23, 2009 the Washington State Patrol, under oath, explicitly admitted that they profile members of motorcycle clubs and continue to use BIKER 101 as a training manual. This gross violation of a Washington State Superior Court injunction proves that the pattern of motorcycle profiling continues and that the Washington State Patrol brazenly violates the liberties of motorcyclists even in the face of judicial reprimand.

• The number of grievances and instances of profiling are continuing to proliferate. The Washington State Confederation of Clubs has gathered a substantial portion of profiling statements establishing a clear pattern of law enforcement profiling. Motorcyclists are regularly interrogated about club affiliations and organizational structure during what should be routine traffic stops. Law enforcement has specifically identified club affiliation as justification for detainment and handcuffing during routine traffic stops out of fear for officer safety. Almost every member of every club in Washington State, and many who are not in clubs, have experienced this type of harassment. This proves law enforcement’s belief that motorcycle club members are more likely than others to commit a crime.

II. Legislative Action is Required.

• Legislative action reinforces the Washington State Supreme Court’s condemnation of pre-textual traffic stops and strengthens the right to privacy explicated in Article I Section 7 of the Washington State constitution. Privacy rights in Washington State exceed the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. (State v. Ladson 1999)

• Legislative action is required to restrain the State Patrol’s entrenched paradigm of discrimination towards motorcyclists. The Washington State Patrol has continued to ignore the State of Washington Superior Court of Thurston County’s permanent injunction against BIKER 101. The legislature has the power and responsibility to change policy when the judiciary speaks clearly and law enforcement refuses to hear.

• Legislative action closes loopholes that allow profiling to continue. Many times following profiling stops motorcyclists are not arrested or given a ticket. This makes it difficult to establish damages in individual instances despite the fact that it is illegal to stop someone based on a pre-text. Requiring all law enforcement agencies in Washington to change their policy towards motorcyclists would close this loophole preventing less quantifiable, but no less important, damages to privacy and equal protection.

• Costs would be virtually non-existent. The fiscal note attached to the SENATE BILL REPORT ESB 5852 on racial profiling passed in 2002 proves the costs of profiling legislation are negligible. More important, any costs would be outweighed by the social benefit of preserving civil liberties.

I Found Nothing in the statutes about Motorcycle Profiling, but I did find Racial Profiling statute.. Should Read the same way.

NRS 289.820 Peace officer prohibited from engaging in racial profiling; retaliatory or punitive action prohibited against peace officer for disclosure of information concerning racial profiling.

1. A peace officer shall not engage in racial profiling.
2. No retaliatory or punitive action may be taken against a peace officer who discloses information concerning racial profiling.
3. For purposes of this section, “racial profiling” means reliance by a peace officer upon the race, ethnicity or national origin of a person as a factor in initiating action when the race, ethnicity or national origin of the person is not part of an identifying description of a specific suspect for a specific crime.

(Added to NRS by 2001, 2852)

Also, Here is how Washington Bikers Won The Ruling HB2511

Friday, September 28, 2018

Federal Judge Declares ‘Policing for Profit’ Unconstitutional

By Steven Robert Allen , Director of Public Policy, ACLU of New Mexico
Anybody who has watched at least one episode of Law & Order knows that in America, anyone accused of a crime is considered “innocent until proven guilty.” That’s the way it should be, at least. When a person is accused of a crime, the burden of proof belongs to the accuser.
But what most people don’t realize is that police routinely use a constitutionally dubious form of legal jiu-jitsu called “civil asset forfeiture” to flip this basic principle of fairness on its head. With civil asset forfeiture, police literally accuse your stuff of a crime, and you as the owner have to prove that your stuff is innocent.
Here’s an example: In 2010 Stephen Skinner and his son Jonathan, both African-American, were on a road trip to Las Vegas, Nevada, for a vacation when they were pulled over by New Mexico State Police for going 5 mph over the speed limit. The trooper searched their rental car and found several thousand dollars in cash and coins in their luggage that the two men had set aside for gaming at the casinos. The trooper called Skinner, then in his late 50s, “boy” and released him with a warning that “it’s not over.”
And sure enough, it wasn’t.
As they passed through Albuquerque, police and federal agents pulled them over on a pretext once again, went straight to their luggage, and confiscated their cash with no justification other than the racist assumption that two black men traveling with a big wad of cash must have come by it illegally. Neither Stephen or Jonathan were ever actually accused of a crime, much less convicted. Yet now the cops had their vacation money, and this money grab was perfectly legal.
Most people who have property seized in this manner give it up as lost. The cost of hiring an attorney to argue before a judge that your property is “innocent” or, in other words, was not criminally acquired or used in the commission of a crime, often exceeds the value of the property. This is big business for police departments across the United States, who rely on these seized assets to pad their budgets. The Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm, estimates that in 2014 alone the Department of Justice took in $4.5 billion in forfeited assets. The assets taken in annually by local and state police departments are doubtless even higher.
Fortunately, Stephen and Jonathan reached out to the ACLU of New Mexico, and with our help, they fought in court to force the government to return their property. The lawsuit made headlines throughout New Mexico, causing a groundswell of outrage at the fundamental unfairness of the practice.

In 2015, the ACLU of New Mexico, in collaboration with the Institute for Justice, the Drug Policy Alliance, and the Rio Grande Foundation, helped pass a bill that abolished civil asset forfeiture, requiring police to obtain a criminal conviction in court before they can take a person’s property. The bill also requires that any forfeited assets must go into a state general fund to reduce the profit motive inherent in this law enforcement practice. The bill passed unanimously, and New Mexico now has the strongest protections against civil asset forfeiture in the nation.
But several New Mexico police departments were too addicted to the easy money. The Albuquerque Police Department, among others, refused to fully comply with the new state law claiming that it didn’t apply to their DWI vehicle seizure program. Albuquerque police continued to seize thousands of vehicles pre-conviction and demand thousands of dollars in “fees” to secure their return. If people couldn’t pay the ransom, the department kept the vehicle.
Arlene Harjo, whose son was pulled over for suspected drunken driving, was one of many whose vehicle was taken under the city ordinance. Even though she wasn’t in the car at the time, Albuquerque police seized Harjo’s vehicle and demanded $4,000 dollars for its return. But Harjo refused to comply with the scam. She filed a lawsuit against the department with the help of the Institute for Justice, and, last week, she won. A federal judge handed down a landmark ruling that Albuquerque’s vehicle seizure program violates residents’ constitutional rights by taking their property before they’ve been convicted of a crime.
This is a major moment in the fight against the unjust practice of civil asset forfeiture. Not only will New Mexico law enforcement agencies be forced to comply with our state prohibition against the practice, but this victory establishes an important legal precedent that victims of civil asset forfeiture can use to fight back nationwide.
And indeed, the problem is not just in New Mexico. In 2015, the ACLU sued an Arizona county attorney and county sheriff challenging that state’s civil asset forfeiture laws, which create perverse and unconstitutional incentives for law enforcement to build multimillion-dollar slush funds that they get to control.
More than anything, this ruling out of New Mexico is a powerful reminder that brave individuals can still take a stand against systems of injustice, crack their foundations, and bring them tumbling to the ground.
All it takes is a few people like Stephen Skinner and Arlene Harjo who say, “Enough. Not today. No more.”

The Getback Whip Issue Revisited.

California Motorcycle Accident Attorney Norman Gregory Fernandez discusses the Getback Whip

Mark found this article and a couple more. Please keep this stuff so you or your club will know how to handle future incidents:

I wrote an article on July 6, 2008, about the Getback Whip, which you can read by clicking here now.
In the article I discussed the fact that the Getback Whip is not specifically made illegal by California Code, but that under certain circumstances, the use of a Getback Whip could be construed as a crime.
Since I wrote the article, I have been contacted by people who have been busted with the whip or whips, and have heard that certain prosecutors and law enforcement agencies throughout the State are busting people with Getback Whips by labeling them a “Slungshot” which is a prohibited weapon in the State of California.
A slung shot has been defined as a weight, as a stone or a piece of metal, fastened to a short strap, chain, or the like, and used as a weapon and is prohibited by California Penal Code §12020.
I have not heard the outcome of any of the Getback whip cases, but in my update to the original article, I have opined that you should not have a Getback Whip on your motorcycle in California until this issue gets resolved one way or another, or you risk being charged with a felony. (State Prison for a year or more)
Going one step further; in California Any person who commits an assault upon the person of another with a deadly weapon or instrument other than a firearm or by any means of force likely to produce great bodily injury shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment. California Penal Code §245(a)(1).
Basically PC § 245(a)(1) can and is construed to make all types of instruments deadly weapons if they can and do produce great bodily injury. Under this statute, a hammer could be a deadly weapon, a wrench could be a deadly weapon, a screwdriver can be a deadly weapon, a flashlight can be a deadly weapon, and yes a Getback Whip can be a deadly weapon.
It is what you do with the instrument that counts.
Therefore in closing, I am again recommending that based upon the current climate in California, you should remove any Getback Whips from your motorcycle pending the outcome of the Courts decisions in these cases. In no circumstance other than Self Defense with reasonable force, should you use an instrument on someone else which is likely to produce great bodily harm.
Use common sense people.
By California Motorcycle Accident and Biker Lawyer, Norman Gregory Fernandez, Esq., © 2009

CA - We ask all our friends to boycott this POS bar. ** Address: 351 W Main St, El Cajon, CA 92020 **

F*#% this place. My club hasn't done anything to warrant this treatment. So apparently, all non 1% clubs will still be allowed in? What a bunch of horse shit. This problem isn't just limited to 1%ers or MC's for that matter. Crap like this whether it is discrimination in the business place or profiling/harassment by law enforcement - don't think for a moment that just because it doesn't affect you now that it never will. In the big picture, what happens to one group will spread...that's a fact.
We ask all our friends to boycott this POS bar.
** Address: 351 W Main St, El Cajon, CA 92020 **
The Grand: 9/16/18
Dear Friends, Guests, and Customers of The Grand:
I regret that, today, we are announcing a new policy with respect to individuals and/or groups that we will serve at The Grand. As it is widely understood, every bar reserves the right to refuse service at their discretion for any reason that is not specifically prohibited by Federal, State, or local statutes.
For almost 3 years, I have strived to remain open-minded - - even about people and/or groups to which I had never previously been exposed. Unfortunately, some of the preconceptions that are widely held by a majority of people, have been reinforced despite my efforts to avoid prejudgement.
As a consequence of the complete disrespect that we have been shown and the complete disregard for our rules that has been demonstrated, we will no longer permit members of "1 Percent" Motorcycle Clubs at The Grand. The single greatest contributing factor behind this decision is the contempt that these groups have shown for our "No Weapons" policy.
We are left with no choice but to permanently bar these groups/individuals permanently and effective immediately.
I am confident that this will result in a more pleasant, enjoyable, and safe environment for the vast majority of others who constitute our customer base.
Thank you,
Jeffrey DiLallo
The Grand
No automatic alt text available.
Image may contain: text

Thursday, September 27, 2018

The Mayans MC Snitch

You may have become vaguely aware in recent weeks that a television program called Mayans MC debuts tonight on FX at ten in every time zone, except maybe Hawaii, and it is 66 minutes long without commercials. You may not have heard that the show’s leading character is a Drug Enforcement Agency snitch.
Spoiler alert!
Oh?! Oops! I guess I was supposed to say that before I said that the show’s leading character, a Mongols – excuse me, Mayans – prospect named “Easy” Reyes – you know, like “Easy Rider” – is a DEA snitch. Snitch, snitch, snitch, snitch, snitch. Oh well. Too late now.
You have undoubtedly already heard that the show is great art; or rather you have been force fed like you are a Strasbourg goose the notion that this is “the next chapter in Kurt Sutter’s award-winning Sons of Anarchy saga.”

Greatest Of All Time

Right. Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa, William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, Miguel de Cervantes’ Don Quixote, Ludwig van Beethoven Symphony Number Nine, Johannes Vermeer’s Girl With a Pearl Earring, Vincent Van Gogh’s Starry Night, Joseph Conrad’s Lord Jim, James Joyce’s Finnegan’s Wake, William Faulkner’s As I Lay Dying, Kurt Sutter’s Sons of Anarchy Saga. Sure. Okay.
Sutter is also widely regarded as being insightful about the motorcycle club world. He has tattoos. He has employed Sonny Barger. He has purchased beautiful, custom motorcycles from Rusty Coones. He has an indoor pool filled with hundred dollar bills. His hot tub bubbles Single Malt Scotch. He is a Twitter tough guy.
Sutter’s partner in this creative endeavor is the incomparable Xicon film maker El Jeen Hahmez (formerly known as Elgin James).

Geography Lesson

The Mayans, after whom the series is named, are cynical drug dealers, as some Entertainment Industry executives may be described as cynical, only without the self-deprecating irony and gentle humor for which Entertainment Industry executives are famous. Their motorcycles are mostly for show. They smuggle drugs hidden in quinceanera dresses for a syndicate called the Galindo Cartel. And they get bossed around by the cartel boss’ son, an Ivy educated jackass named Miguel Galindo.
Easy’s back story is that he was all set to go to Stanford before he got jammed up and flipped. The show is set in a town called Santo Padre which is understood to be the twin cities of Calexico and Mexicali where the first season of Mayans MC was filmed. Calexico is on the Yankee side of la linea and Mexicali is south of the border. Calexico, with a population of about 40,000 is really just a suburb of Mexicali which is about 20 times as large. The cities straddle the border, 125 miles east of San Diego.


A show about an undercover informant joining a motorcycle club could be interesting in the hands of film makers who are slightly less self-important and clueless than Sutter and Hahmez. Mel Gibson wanted to make a movie about William Queen. Tony Scott wanted to fictionalize Jay Dobyns.
Gangland Undercover, a television series Mayans MC seems to have broadly plagiarized, was based on the memoir of a snitch named Ashley Charles Wyatt, also known as Charles Falco. Gangland Undercover tried to grab the Sons of Anarchy audience in 2015 and failed but it did succeed as drama in a way that Mayans MC probably will not.
The Falco portrayed in that series was nothing like the real Falco. The television character was actually someone interesting. That character was aware he was playing a role and he portrayed the feelings someone with a soul who got themselves into that situation might actually feel. He was scared when the Vagos he was betraying turned out to be dangerous men. He was touched and felt guilty when they turned out to be generous men. The Falco character in Gangland Undercover was very aware that he was just making things up as he went along.
To date , Sutter has never demonstrated that kind of artistic humility and Hahmez seem to be an even more deluded egomaniac that Sutter.

Post Truth

So far in his career Sutter has seemed not to care that he is just making things up as he goes along. Like so many celebrities in post truth America, he insists that his audience admire the beautiful inanities he pulls out of his ass.
The opening scene of Mayans anticipates the sort of self-reverential, cut rate postmodernism audiences can expect to see for the next six or seven years.
The camera’s eye moves from a slogan scribbled on a wall, “divided we fall,” to a hungry dog gnawing on a dead crow. (You know, the Sam Crow. Get it? Nudge, nudge. Get it?) Then prospect Easy appears, riding alone on his motorcycle. Subtle, huh?

Like Cows?

This isn’t the sort of thing writers invent, let alone writers who know anything or who actually have stories to tell. These are the sorts of images television executives invent. For all his social media braggadocio, Kurt Sutter seems to turn into an ingratiating puddle of goo whenever somebody offers him money and praise.
Who could know better what a mass audience wants motorcycle clubs to be than a television executive with access to hundreds of volumes of audience research and focus group reports? So, you might enjoy Mayans MC.
Do you enjoy long, romantic, moonlight walks in feed lots? Do you like how your boots smell after?
Before you get your hopes up, though, you might want to remember that the executives who are really writing this thing are calling it “the next chapter in Kurt Sutter’s award-winning Sons of Anarchy saga.” Remember that ten years ago, they called that motorcycle melodrama Hamlet. And, remember all that green paper in that big, dry, indoor swimming pool.