Catch us live on BlogTalkRadio every

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

Tuesday, October 4, 2016

LAB-62-Can a Business Legally Refuse Service to Bikers Wearing Patches/Colors?

Motorcycle Podcast Art Biker Colors Patches

A couple of years old, but still highly relevant (if you have time, the radio show playback discussion hits the nail on the head). Is it time to distinguish ourselves from standing case law on the uniform application of dress code like other protected classes of citizens?

PODCAST-Is it legal for private businesses to refuse service to members of the law abiding biker motorcycle clubs for simply wearing “colors”, club affiliation patches worn on biker’s vests? We have been asked this question many times here and recently received a voicemail asking this very question once again. You may hear many different things and less than truthful information and that can be frustrating for many bikers. So, as usual we broke it down for the biker community, so listen in on this debate and information! At the end of the day it doesn’t really always matter what we as bikers believe should happen, but what is fact. Know that this will likely be a civil issue unless your behavior turns it into a criminal issue.

Things to think about before acting:

If you are confronted with a business refusing service to you as a biker then take a breath, leave calmly, and never go back to or support that business. You will never win by causing a scene or getting disorderly. If you believe your civil rights have been trampled then converse with an attorney to see what your legal options are if any. At best it will be a long expensive drawn out civil lawsuit, so choose wisely.

Further, share your experience with as many bikers as you can via podcasts, other social media platforms, local media etc. In this day an age it is not tough to get the word out to let bikers know of “not biker friendly” establishments and we can hit them in the pocket book where it really matters. This may also bring awareness to many. There are websites and social media platforms dedicated to this.

It will serve no purpose to cause a scene, as the business will then really have a reason to have you leave the premises. Plus, that is exactly how these business owners expect you to act, because they watched one television show at some point in their life depicting criminal bikers. Do the entire biker community a favor and walk away and handle it through proper channels. We don’t want to damage the image criminal bikers have already given us, which is why these businesses don’t want us in their establishment in the first place. Do your best to be polite and make them double think their decision.

You have to realize that most persons that aren’t in the motorcycling community may not readily know the difference between patches and clubs, so patience and education over time and our actions is the only way to handle this.

Federal Civil Rights Act:

The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to “full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.”
The right to refuse service-Can they really do this?

Like it or not, businesses or venues appear to have the right to refuse service at times, but there are civil rules and guidelines for that sort of action. Much of this argument is subjective and not objective. What I mean is that if a business simply admits that they refused service to a biker with patches solely for that reason, then that biker may have a civil case. Or clearly, if they refused service based on race, color, religion, or national origin then they would have a civil case.

However, it seems clear that if the business believes that your [biker] admittance may cause issues or safety concerns then they can refuse admittance or service. That would be the “subjective” intent of the business owner. Not just the “objective” matter of you wearing a patch and that you belong to a motorcycle club.
Case law seems to point towards some guidelines:

Owners of establishments, or venues, cannot just arbitrarily discriminate because they don’t like what someone is wearing. If an establishment does have a dress code, they must enforce the dress code uniformly so that it is applicable to all, and so that it is not enforced in a discriminatory manner.

So, it seems that if an establishment has a “no biker club patches allowed” policy and enforce it uniformly to everyone then they seem to be within their authority and following case law.
Additional Considerations:

In addition to the protections against discrimination provided under federal law, many states have passed their own Civil Rights Acts that provide broader protections than the Federal Civil Rights Act. California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate against individuals based on unconventional dress or sexual preference.

Jax cleans up some business by killing Berosky in his bakery. Jax then sits on the steps of the courthouse as August Mark

In a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their “colors,” or patches. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club member’s patches, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members. Again, I point out the subjective intent of the business for the refusal of admittance or service.

Note that a California court decided that a restaurant owner could not refuse to seat a gay couple in a semi-private booth where the restaurant policy was to only seat two people of opposite sexes in such booths. There was no legitimate business reason for the refusal of service, and so the discrimination was arbitrary and unlawful. I point out that this business had no stated purpose or concerns other than they stated.

State of California

The Unruh Civil Rights Act (CC §51 et seq.)

(Does not really seem to change anything. It is still seems to be the subjective intent of the business owner. As long as the refusal is not solely based on the motorcycle club membership or clothing)

The Unruh Civil Rights Act (CC §51 et seq.) provides that in part that: “All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin or blindness or other physical disability are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.” Any person whose exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States has been interfered with, or attempted to be interfered with may institute and prosecute a civil action for injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief, including the award of compensatory monetary damages.

The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Cohen V. California, 403 US 15 (1971) that individuals have the constitutional right under the First Amendment to wear clothing which displays writing or designs. In addition, the right of an individual to freedom of association has long been recognized and protected by the United States Supreme Court Thus, a person’s right to wear the clothing of his choice, as well as his right to belong to any club or organization of his choice, is constitutionally protected. Persons or establishments who discriminate on the basis of clothing or club membership are subject to a lawsuit by the person who was wrongly discriminated against by such persons.

Refusal of service or admittance to patch wearing motorcycle club members, even if a violation if proven, is a matter of civil law and not normally criminal in nature. This will never be decided at the time of the incident and at best would have to be handled later through sometimes long expensive drawn out civil litigations.

You can argue with the business or venue as much as you like and it won’t likely matter in the end. If your are argumentative and causing concern for other customers or the establishment then there is even more reason for them to have you removed from the premises.

By arguing publicly you are confirming ignorant concerns that law abiding bikers are bad people, disrespectful, and on the edge, which is not true. Perception is everything and arguing just feeds the perception we are all trying to get rid of thanks to outlaw motorcycle clubs, television, and other media.

The best thing you can do is spread the word about the “non biker friendly business” and hit them in the pocket book.

You really need to listen in to this podcast episode for all the information and debate!

In no way is this legal advice, but just information and opinions based on research. You need to make your own decisions based on your knowledge and laws in your state, country, or region. Always consult an attorney for any legal matters or advice.

Former-Cop Exposes How Police Will Violate Your Rights During Every Stop & How to Beat It


Must read article. Let's get real here...who hasn't been a witness to this behavior? Even if you don't care to read the article...the key is...less is better...and not answering questions at all is best. Don't play into their game, give up your rights and become another victim.

"Everything these officers do is meant to trick you into something that they can actually arrest you for."
Collect revenue by force.

“They have made this system convenient to allow your rights to be violated in a way that you would much rather have that happen than stand up for them.”

That’s how Eddie Craig, former Deputy Sheriff, and current show host at Rule of Law Radio, describes the Transportation Code of Texas. It could be applied to traffic statutes of any given state, or maybe he is referring to the entire way in which law enforcement goes about its business.
And it really is a business, driven by revenue, but possessing the power of the State and with a license to kill. Law enforcement is a revenue collector, producing obscenities like civil asset forfeiture where cash and property are seized from innocent people on made up suspicions.
Craig appeared on the Tom Woods show to discuss how cops are trained to pry into people’s business during traffic stops, violating our rights to gain further admissions of guilt that may lead to a search or arrest.
“An officer’s first job when he gets you pulled over for a traffic stop is to attempt to escalate that stop to either a DUI or a drug bust. He doesn’t care about the traffic, that’s just his premise for pulling you over. His real goal is to get inside that car and see what else he can find.
They are taught to find ways to keep the person in the car talking and answering questions that will allow them to continue their fishing expedition.”
Craig himself never ticketed anyone during his time as a deputy sheriff. He only pulled people over who were driving dangerously, and if there was no criminal act then he would send them off with a warning to avoid dangerous driving.
Most of his former colleagues, however, are not so rational. They are true soldiers of the State, seeking a way into everyone’s privacy to feed the belly of government.
“Everything these officers do is meant to trick you into something that they can actually arrest you for,” said Craig of Texas law enforcement. In the Lone Star state, as soon as a cop puts his lights on to pull you over, you are in custodial arrest. You are treated as if in custody, and anything you say can be used against you.
However, you have the right to remain silent. “The more you say, the worse things will get,” said Craig.
For instance, in Texas one has the right to carry a gun in the vehicle while traveling. Even though it’s “none of his business,” a cop may ask if you have any guns in the vehicle. According to Craig, if you say yes, the cop will get you out of the car, take the gun and scan it. You are now linked to that gun, even if it’s not registered to you.
Craig cited the case of a female attorney, Rebecca Musarra, who declined to answer questions when she was pulled over by a cop in New Jersey. The cop responded by pulling her out of the vehicle and reading Musarra her rights, which includes the right to remain silent. The pending lawsuit could be a wake-up call to roadside rights abuse by police.
Hi, do you know why I stopped you?” This simple question often asked by a cop when pulling someone over is the first attempt to lure a person into an admission of guilt. If you continue to answer questions like “Where are you coming from?”, it is a sure way to put yourself in danger.
“Oh, were you drinking at this party? Were there drugs at this party? Do you have anything in the car that I should know about…that you should tell me about?”
These are some of the baits in the fishing expedition. The motto of “Don’t answer questions” is generally a good one in police encounters. And Craig reminds us, as always, to record all police encounters.
Craig encourages people to take civil disobedience a step further in his “Transportation Stop” action script. He described it during a mock stop between Tom Woods, the pretend driver, and Craig as the cop.
Make sure to pull over in a public space for your own safety, and acknowledge the pullover by waving or turning on emergency flashers. Do not incriminate yourself by answering questions; invoke your 5th Amendment right to remain silent if necessary.
This next part takes some more chutzpah and is controversial in that it could lead to irrational cops becoming agitated. Further clarification on the legal underpinnings is also necessary, as it relates to the precedence of state traffic code or federally guaranteed constitutional rights.
Craig says the right to remain silent includes the right not to produce anything that can be used against you in a court of law. He asserts that when a cop asks for your license and registration, instead of handing over the documents or refusing, you can say:
“Officer, can any of the information that you are demanding from me be used against me in a court of law or to potentially incriminate me in any way.”
The officer is obligated to tell you the answer, which is that he can indeed use the documents against you. Craig acknowledges that the law states you must hand over the documents, but he believes this is a violation of the 5th and 4th Amendments.
“But he didn’t tell you what your rights were, and now you can show this was not a voluntary surrender,” said Craig. “And that statement can later be suppressed at trial where he can’t use that info against you because it was illegally obtained.”
Some cops might actually just leave you alone. It’s hard to predict, but Craig said that if a cop refuses to answer or gets belligerent, you can say, “Officer, I believe that information can be used against me, therefore I invoke my right to remain silent. Do you intend to retaliate or punish me for simply protecting my right to remain silent?”
Not many people would be brave enough to take the situation that far. Unfortunately, it is easier to have your rights violated but refuse to answer questions, be on your way and pay the State extortion fee or traffic ticket. That is the point of the first quote in this article.
Too many cops like to take out their anger on vulnerable citizens, or they don’t know the laws they are supposed to enforce — or both. As Craig points out, police departments are allowed to intentionally hire lower intelligence people. Why?

The State needs order followers, not those who would question orders.

Craig says there is very superficial training of cops in understanding statutes, leading to a poor understanding of the law. Cops usually don’t know the law any better than the general public.
“Statutory schemes use terminology that sounds and looks very familiar, but the meaning assigned to that terminology is not the same you understand from common usage,” said Craig.
Regardless of your willingness to take Eddie Craig’s “Transportation Stop” Action Script to its full extent, the question of state traffic statutes versus federal constitutional rights is an interesting one.
Asking the following question could indeed be a paradox for the rare rational cop on the traffic beat.
“As a peace officer you are required to protect me and my rights. One of those is the right to remain silent.”

Monday, October 3, 2016

Oct 29 Be there! #RideToLive

Oct 29 Be there! #RideToLive support #AmericanSoldierNetwork whether you Ride a #Motorcycle or not come #BeApartOfThisEvent #ForgottenSonsMC #GivingBack #CharityRide #StopSoldierSuicide


When the Police Pull You Over

Why do you suppose the officer asks, "Do you know why I stopped you today?" Why doesn't he just say, "Hey, you were speeding"? He's looking to get you to volunteer information. That's the kind of thing we discuss in today's episode. Subscribe to the Tom Woods Show:

Don't ask "Am I being detained." You are being detained by virtue of the fact that the police have stopped you, even asking suggests that the nature of your prior detainment was voluntary. Police are usually only allowed to detain you for a legally determined amount of time depending on the state, don't give them a reason to say "the detainment started when I answered the question". You should ask instead "am I free to go", or even "am I free to go yet"?