Catch us live on BlogTalkRadio every

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

Thursday, April 30, 2015

WHAT TO DO?????????????

Tyranny by any other name......


"Paez said. 'It’s our constitutional right to film.”' 

It is also the responsibility of the boss (citizen) to make sure the employee (cop) is not doing anything improperly. 
In California, that is also backed up with case law, Wilkins v NBC, which reiterates anything in public may be filmed, with or without anyone's permission or knowledge. 

 This is pretty bold.
With smartphones everywhere, police on notice they may be caught on camera

In South Gate, police had already been warned: Just expect that you might be filmed with cellphones and other cameras as you do your job.
After high-profile uses of force caught on video in places like South Carolina, New York and L.A.’s skid row, officers in the Southeast L.A. suburb had been told to take filming in stride. If you're not doing anything wrong, police brass reasoned, what do you have to worry about?
Q&A: New push to protect people who videotape police officers
So on Sunday, when a lawman was caught on video snatching a woman’s cellphone in South Gate as she recorded and smashing it on the floor, it was with relief that South Gate police said the officer wasn’t one of their own but a deputy U.S. marshal.
“We’ve had incidents where people have videotaped us and it requires unbelievable restraint. Typically during times where things can be a little chaotic,” said South Gate police Capt. Darren Arakawa. “We really have to convey we’re living in a different environment now where police action is scrutinized and a lot of video is surfacing. We simply tell our officers to assume they’re being recorded out in public at all times.”
The idea of an unseen camera capturing an officer’s conduct first became prominent after the Rodney King video in 1991, Arakawa said. But video’s starring role in controversial police actions, including beatings and shootings, has increased in the more than two decades since. And more and more police departments, including the LAPD, are planning to equip their officers with body cameras.
“It’s a double-edged sword. Law enforcement is adopting some of the practices of technology as well with body cameras, digital records, dash-cams,” Arakawa said. “It’s just indicative of the times.”
On Sunday Beatriz Paez, 34, recorded video of deputy marshals as they detained a group of people in her neighborhood. Someone else in turn was recording her, on the video that ended up on YouTube and sparked the U.S. Marshals Service investigation.
“The U.S. Marshals Service is aware of video footage of an incident that took place Sunday in Los Angeles County involving a Deputy U.S. Marshal. The agency is currently reviewing the incident,” officials said in a statement.
“There is no situation in which an officer can intentionally grab and destroy a camera being used to lawfully record law enforcement,” said Hector Villagra, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. “The officer’s conduct is a blatant and deliberate violation of the Constitution and his duties as an officer to abide by the law.”
In the video, Paez is shown standing on the sidewalk aiming a cellphone toward two men standing a short distance away, wearing black shirts with tactical vests reading “Police” across the back. As the men stand with their backs to the woman, she can be heard saying “You are making me feel unsafe, and I have a right to be here” and “You need to stay away from me, I don’t feel safe with you closer to me,” among other statements.
Paez said Tuesday that the men had noticed her recording moments earlier and began to back up toward her to block her view. About 27 seconds into the video, a third man, a deputy U.S. marshal wearing a tactical vest and carrying a rifle, walks across a front lawn toward the sidewalk where Paez is standing.
Paez appears to aim her phone toward the deputy as one of the other men motions toward her with his arm. The words spoken at this point in the recording are unintelligible.
At 32 seconds, Paez takes a couple of steps away from the men. The deputy marshal crossing the lawn then rushes toward her and grabs the device from her hand.
“Oh! No! Don’t do that!” Paez is heard yelling as the man wrestles the device out of her hand and smashes it on the ground.
The phone’s screen was shattered and the device stopped working, said Paez’s attorney, Colleen Flynn. They plan to try to recover the video Paez was recording from the phone’s chip, Flynn said.
Paez said she began recording when she saw the law enforcement presence, their military-style weapons and a line of people being detained. She said the officers started letting the people they detained go soon after she pulled out her phone and started recording.
“It’s our responsibility to take care of each other,” Paez said. “It’s our constitutional right to film.”
Times staff writer Richard Winton contributed to this report.


Wednesday, April 29, 2015

“THE BIKERS OF AMERICA (THE PHIL and BILL SHOW)” 04/30 by Bikers of America | Politics Podcasts

“THE BIKERS OF AMERICA (THE PHIL and BILL SHOW)” 04/30 by Bikers of America | Politics Podcasts

USA - Stingray Tracking Devices: Who's Got Them?

The map below tracks what we know, based on press reports and publicly available documents, about the use of stingray tracking devices by state and local police departments. Following the map is a list of the federal law enforcement agencies known to use the technology throughout the United States. The ACLU has identified 51 agencies in 21 states and the District of Columbia that own stingrays, but because many agencies continue to shroud their purchase and use of stingrays in secrecy, this map dramatically underrepresents the actual use of stingrays by law enforcement agencies nationwide.

Stingrays, also known as "cell site simulators" or "IMSI catchers," are invasive cell phone surveillance devices that mimic cell phone towers and send out signals to trick cell phones in the area into transmitting their locations and identifying information. When used to track a suspect's cell phone, they also gather information about the phones of countless bystanders who happen to be nearby. Click here for more info on stingrays.

Australia - To attach a bill of rights to our constitution by referendum.

Please sign and share everywhere guys,Australia needs a Bill of Rights urgently save our rights before the government takes every last one of them!

We the Australian people call on the Australian government at all levels to support a national referendum for a “Bill of Rights” for every Australian, to be attached to our constitution, and become retrospective on all legislation.
When our forefathers debated and introduced our Constitution, they expected our common law system of adjudication would fill in the gaps in respect of our civil and human rights, never expecting they would have to protect the Australian people from their own government undermining our liberty through socially engineered legislative reforms that overstep our most basic freedoms and liberties.
The construction of the Bill, must be by way of genuine community consultation, and be put to the people by way of referendum, so that it can become protected by our constitution and become an important part of our national curriculum.
The base wording will be the use of the United nations declaration of human rights V The Australian Bill or Rights collation by Mark Aldridge, link attached.
A bill of rights will empower the liberty of our people, the rights of future generations and will act to define the actions of our legislators and our judiciary, to restore our basic freedoms, natural justice and informed democratic process.
We the undersigned expect our elected members to do our will, that being the addition of a bill of rights to the Australian Consitution of 1901.
Letter to
Leader Of The Opposition Bill Shorten
Tony Abbott the Prime Minister The Australian Federal Government
To attach a bill of rights to our constitution by referendum.

USA - Martial Law in Boston and Gun confiscation in New Orleans?

Martial Law & Gun Confiscation - Gun Registration - A reminder from New Orleans
Martial Law in Boston and Gun confiscation in New Orleans? It's happened before and will happen again!
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, local authorities in New Orleans set out to confiscate all firearms in the region. By doing so they created "gun free zones" where only criminals & law enforcement were armed. These officials seemed oblivious to the principle that, "gun laws only take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens". Criminals don't obey the law. Criminals take advantage of situations where people are unable to defend themselves.

Watch this video, produced by the NRA, telling the stories of the citizens on New Orleans.

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

CALIFORNIA - DUI checkpoint in Poway Friday evening

Emily Sorensen

Checkpoint is on Poway and Oak Knoll Roads heading into Poway as of 9:00PM

Deputies from the the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department's Poway station will be holding a DUI checkpoint from 7 p.m. Friday to 3 a.m. Saturday in Poway.
The purposes of the checkpoint are to educate the public about dangers of driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol, to serve as a deterrent to potentially impaired drivers and to provide the important service of promoting public safety, according to a press release from the San Diego Sheriff's Department.
The deputies will be focusing on apprehending people operating motor vehicles while intoxicated and/or under the influence of drugs, driving while unlicensed, or driving with a suspended or revoked license.
This checkpoint is funded by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety. The California Office of Traffic Safety joins the San Diego County Sheriff's Department in urging the public to call 911 to report drunk drivers. 

USA - House Steps Closer to Overhauling Retirement

Congress has taken the first and perhaps historic step toward phasing out the 20-year-or-bust retirement system the U.S. military has used to shape and retain its career forces since the end of World War II. The replacement plan, as endorsed by the House armed services' personnel subcommittee, is a blended system that would cut by 20 percent the value of future force annuities in return for an added tool to build nest eggs earlier — 401(k)-like Thrift Savings Plan with government matching of service member TSP contributions. Get more details on this plan by reading this week's Military Update.

Congress Steps Toward New ‘Blended’ Military Retirement

April 23, 2015 | Tom Philpott
By Tom Philpott
Congress on Thursday took a first, perhaps historic step toward phasing out the 20-year-or-bust retirement system the U.S. military has used to shape and retain its career forces since the end of World War II.
The replacement plan, as endorsed by the House armed services’ personnel subcommittee, is a blended system that would cut by 20 percent the value of future force annuities in return for an added tool to build nest eggs earlier — a 401(k)-like Thrift Savings Plan with government matching of service member TSP contributions.
The enhanced TSP, with matching of monthly deposits of up to five percent basic pay, would provide something the current High-3 plan cannot: portable retirement benefits available not only to careerists but most of the 83 percent of service members who leave service short of 20 years.
To ensure enough members stay for careers, the blended plan also would offer at the 12-year mark a continuation payment, to be paid usually as a lump sum equal at least to 2.5 percent times monthly basic pay, if members will commit to serving four more years. At 16 years, the pull of an immediate lifetime annuity at 20, even though reduced, still should be effective, according to force modeling tools.
The personnel subcommittee, led by Rep. Joe Heck (R-Nev.), would mandate the revised retirement plan for anyone entering service for the first time on or after Oct. 1, 2017. Members already in service, or reentering the military after that date, would be given the choice to stay under the current High-3 retirement plan or opt in to the blended plan.
The House panel endorses all but two features for reforming retirement that the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission unveiled in January. Heck and colleagues rejected the idea of allowing members on date of retirement to accept a lump sum rather than full or partial military annuities until age 67.
The lump sum was to give new retirees a cash-out option until old age to be able to buy a home or start a business years before actual retirement. It would have saved the government money over time. It seems Heck and colleagues feared potential financial disasters that could befall retirees who would trade 20 or more years of inflation-adjusted annuities for ready cash.
For members eyeing longer careers, the House panel also rejected the commission’s premise of ending government matching of TSP contributions at the 20-year mark. The House panel plan would allow matching to continue through 30 years of service. This would lower projected cost savings from the new plan by about $150 million a year.
Still the blended plan, by encouraging both active and reserve component members to use markets to grow part of their own retirement, is expected to lower Defense Department retirement costs by more than $30 billion through 2021. Annual steady state savings, in 2016 dollars, would be $8.5 billion when fully implemented in 2047.
Both critics and some commissioners had advised lawmakers to provide government matching of TSP contributions beyond 20 years. Otherwise, lifetime benefits for longer-serving members would be significantly reduced compared to current benefits under High-3 plan.
But even without matching past 20 years, the commission said its blended plan still would allow the services to sustain force profiles — that is, keep desired numbers and quality of personnel out to 30 years. So the step taken by House panel is to quell complaints or ensure more fairness across generations of retirees and not a move to ensure career force requirements.
The retirement reforms are found in the personnel section of a draft fiscal 2016 defense authorization bill that the full House Armed Services Committee will vote on next week. Rep. Max Thornberry (R-Tex.), chairman of the full committee, said Senate colleagues also are ready to take up retirement reforms as endorsed by the commission after two years of study.
Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), personnel subcommittee chair, have signaled they believe military retirement needs to be modernized.
The current plan, adopted in 1945, provides an immediate annuity equal to 50 percent of basic pay after 20 years of service. Annuities climb by another 2.5 percent of basic pay for each year served beyond 20.
The blended plan would provide only 40 percent of basic pay after 20 years and two percent more for each added year served. Thus the new plan would pay 60 percent of basic pay after 30 years versus 75 percent.
Blended plan participants, however, automatically would be enrolled in a TSP with government matching and be fully vested in the account balance after only two years service. Enrollment would be automatic with members having to opt out annually to avoid making even minimum contributions and matching. The services would have to develop financial education plans to ensure members understand TSP investment options and other factors impacting their financial health.
Most current members with 12 or more years of service would be expected to decline the new plan. They wouldn’t be eligible for the continuation payment and older careerists would not have enough service years remaining to build TSP balances big enough to cover the 20 percent hit to immediate annuities after 20 years or more service.
Still, the commission estimates 40 percent of the current force would switch to the blended plan. Some military associations criticize it for offering new benefits to those who leave early by lowering retired pay of future careerists. They also worry too much of the burden and risk of securing a robust retirement will shift to individuals. They argue too that portability of TSP accounts could create force retention challenges particularly in times of sustain conflict or booming civilian job markets.
The House panel appears to accept commission arguments that TSP options are relatively safe and conservative, that even careerists stand to gain in total lifetime benefits if they are steady, informed and disciplined fund investors, and that a good education programs will ensure that most are.
Meanwhile, rather than leave service with no retirement, the typical enlisted at four years could have a TSP worth $4400, assuming they contribute four percent of basic pay and see average annual returns of 7.3 percent, the return rate on TSP overall since 2001, the commission said.
The typical enlisted member who serves eight years, under the same assumptions, would have savings of $13,000, it said. An officer after four years could leave with almost $8500 or, after eight years, with $26,000.
To comment, write Military Update, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA, 20120 or email or twitter: @Military_Update


Former Prosecutor Teaches You How to Protect Your Phone From Police, In Less than 2 Minutes

By The Free Thought Project
Are you ready to be educated? These simple steps could save your butt in an "isolated incident" with a "bad apple".
Learn more:

I am a criminal defense attorney with the firm Valencia, Ippolito and Bowman in San Jose, California, I am not only a former prosecutor but a former DJ and drummer and an avid festival goer. I combine my two passions (The Law and Music) in my column, “The Festival Lawyer”.
The, “Festival Lawyer” is an ongoing column giving festival goers practical advice about their rights in any encounter with the police. The column also discusses harm reduction and other safety issues relevant to the festival community. My idea  for “The Festival Lawyer explains in less than two minutes” video series is to outline some simple steps you can take to safeguard your Constitutional Rights in a variety of situations. Although geared primarily for festival goers, these tips actually apply to anyone, anywhere.
The first video in my series outlines the five steps you need to take to keep your phone free from unwanted police searches.


Know Your Rights – The Clash
A negative encounter  with a police officer can become a tense and scary situation if not handled correctly. It’s important to stay calm and not escalate the situation. Learning and then politely using a few key  legal phrases can make it much easier for you to stand up for your rights. But before you can enforce your rights, you have to know what they are. Or to put it another way:
“As a practical matter, not knowing your rights and not having any rights are the same thing.”
Festival Lawyer 2015
Last June, in a case called  Riley v. California, the Supreme Court gave everyone an important new 4th Amendment right that  they may not know about. The Riley court ruled  that the police now are required to get a search warrant before they can search a suspect’s cell phone after arrest.
Now normally, the police  don’t need a search warrant to go through your   property  after you have been arrested. Legally speaking, the idea is that you’ve  given up your normal privacy rights since you are on your way to jail.  Also, law enforcement needs to check you for weapons and make sure you don’t have evidence that can be destroyed. A warrantless search like this is  called a,  “Search incident to arrest.” Up until the Supreme Court’s ruling in Riley, a lot of  courts took the position that cell phones were covered under this “Incident to arrest”  exception. These courts ruled that  there was no real difference between a person’s cell phone and a wallet or purse and officers were allowed to search them all without a search warrant.
On the other hand, some courts took the position that cellphones are more like mini computers. Police are generally required to get a search warrant before searching the contents of a home computer. This is  due to the extremely private nature of the information housed on them.
In Riley, the  Supreme Court sided  with privacy advocates and civil libertarians on this issue.  Because of the sensitive private matters that might be on a person’s phone, the Supreme court ruled that  it is more appropriate to  require the police to get a warrant before searching them.   ( (PS,   don’t act like you don’t know what I’m talking about when I say “sensitive private matters”….  Most of you wouldn’t let your spouse or friends go through your cellphone let alone a police officer!!)
As Chief Justice Roberts explained  in the court’s decision: 
Modern cellphones are not just another technological convenience….With all they contain and all they may reveal they hold for many, ‘the privacies of life.”  The fact that the the cell phones are mobile doesn’t change the fact that this is exactly the type of private information the 4th Amendment is meant to protect.”
For police looking to search a suspect’s cell phone, Roberts had one simple instruction:
“Our answer to the question of what police must do before they search a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple - get a warrant.”


Okay so now that you know that you have a new constitutional right, how do you go about protecting it? It’s important to realize that most of the time, cops don’t want to bother with getting a search warrant for a phone. Instead, they will normally just ask the owner to give them permission to search it.
Therefore the simplest tip I can give you is to  NEVER give the police permission to search your phone.
I can hear you saying, Never?!  Really? Never? …As in never ever?
Yes, never ever. Or to paraphrase Nigel Tufnel, “None more never”
The  Supreme Court has ruled that it is your absolute and complete right to say “NO’ to a search of a phone. So, a police officer who asks you  for permission to search your phone is basically saying, “Hi, mind if I violate your Constitutional Rights by rummaging through your personal property ?”
Remember, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Riley specifically addresses searches performed during an arrest.  So if you are not under arrest – say you got pulled over for a traffic citation – then the police have even less right to search your phone.
The important point is that if you give the police permission to search your cell phone you can’t later go back and argue about their actions. You’ve waived your right to object. On the other hand, If you refuse, the police can still search the phone, but now they have to justify their search to a judge and show they have probable cause for the search.
That’s why, legally speaking, there  is just no good reason for you to agree to ever let the police go on a “fishing expedition” of ANY of your personal property.
If you are asked if you consent to a search, say clearly and firmly


People sometimes worry that saying no to a police officer is going to make them “Look guilty.”   But If the police are detaining or arresting you,how it looks is really the least of your problems. As  the great Saul Goodman put it,
“It’s getting arrested that makes you look guilty”
As I mentioned in the article, it is super nerve racking remembering what to do and say in an encounter with the police. Therefore we’ve created a lock screen with some of the key legal phrases  you may need in a police encounter available as a download lock screen here


As an additional protection, I  recommend adding a password to your phone. Under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution you have a right not to incriminate yourself.  If the police ask you for your password or try to force you to reveal your PIN, that may end up violating your right against self-incrimination.
The law in this area is a little tricky. You see, the right against self-incrimination says that you can’t be forced totestify against yourself. But courts have ruled that you can  be forced to give physical evidence against yourself, like giving a DNA sample or a voice examplar.
That’s  why the police are allowed to force a suspect to stand in a physical lineup and say “Hand me the keys you f*cking c*cksuckers”  with a bunch of other “Usual Suspects” without running into a 5th Amendment issue.   (Unedited, super unsafe for work language scene here..)
I  suggest adding a password to your phone rather than just going with a fingerprint ID because of this potential issue.  It’s not that there  is anything wrong with a fingerprint ID. In fact, they are wonderfully convenient.  However,  at least one court out there has ruled  that forcing a suspect to  use their fingerprint to open a phone doesn’t constitute “testimony” and therefore doesn’t implicate the  5th Amendment.
As the court wrote: 
In this case, the defendant cannot be compelled to produce his passcode to access his smartphone, but he can be compelled to produce his fingerprint to do the same.”
A copy of the opinion as well as a good  summary of the law in this area can be found  here:


As always, YOU are always in the best position to know what to do in a particular situation legally and practically speaking  given all the facts and the law of your jurisdiction. This is particularly true when it comes to the issue of recording the police.
On the one hand,  recording the police is easily  the most effective way to document a bad encounter with  them.  Recording a bad interaction preserves the truth of what happened and can provide evidence for your lawyer if you have to go to court later. I have personally seen clients exonerated through the use of cellphone footage on numerous  prior occasions.
On the other hand, the decision to  start recording a police officer can seriously  inflame an already  tense situation.  Officers who see a recording device may feel their authority is being challenged in some way.
Police officers have a great deal of discretion as to who they arrest and why. In the court system, attorneys sometimes  use the term, “contempt of cop” to describe a situation where an officer arrests someone for a charge like “interfering with an arrest” or “drunk in public” for essentially failing the attitude test with the officer. Your personal assessment of when to start recording the police is going to depend on a lot of factors including your own comfort level and the nature of your encounter. But it’s important to get the  legal knowledge ahead of that decision. That way when you do record, you know how to do so legally and safely.
The always great Steve Silverman of has an excellent video on what you need to know legally and practically before video taping a police encounter.
Okay, so you have done your research in Step 4. If you do you choose to video record the police, you will also want to download  a streaming application.That way, you don’t have to worry about the police confiscating your phone or your evidence being lost or destroyed in some manner. Flex Your Rights as well as recommendBambuser for this purpose. Bambuser is an mobile video streaming platform that allows users to stream and share live video using your smart phone.
I found Bambuser very easy to download and use. It allows you to either stream “live” or save for later uploading, allows you to broadcast in public or private,and share to most social networks easily.
Cost: Free 
Download: Android
Download: iOS
I’ve also heard good things about this streaming app 
FiVo Film
Cost: $1.99
Download: Android,
Download:  iOS


Reminder. I am an attorney but I am not YOUR attorney. Nothing here should make you think that I am giving you legal advice or that I am establishing an attorney-client relationship. The point of these articles and videos is to get you started on learning the law for yourself. Now go take action. Lock down your phone and make it “Fest Law Approved.” Be sure to tell your festival buddies .
As always, If you have ideas on how to share this information or how to improve the next video please  contact me at @


AUSTRALIA - Motorcycle lane splitting: Better for riders, better for drivers, and safer than sitting in traffic

Motorcycle lane splitting: faster and safer for riders, plus it makes the journey quicker ...

Recent research has confirmed what many motorcycle riders have known for years. "Lane splitting" – or riding in between lanes of traffic – obviously saves riders a lot of time, but it's also considerably safer than sitting in traffic and acting like a car, as long as it’s done within certain guidelines, and contrary to what many drivers think, it actually speeds up traffic for everyone else on the road. Riders, please pass this information on to the drivers in your lives.
It’s time for certain drivers to get these thoughts out of their heads: "lane splitting is queue jumping," "motorcyclists should have to wait in line like the rest of us," "riding in between cars is suicidal." While it’s illegal in most of the United States, it’s accepted in many other parts of the world, and evidence is mounting that lane splitting is safer for riders than sitting in traffic, and actually benefits car drivers as well as the riders themselves.

Safety benefits of lane splitting for motorcyclists

One of the key arguments against lane splitting is that, to many driver’s eyes, it seems like a dangerous practice. From a rider’s perspective, this couldn’t be further from the truth.
The most common type of accident on the road is a rear-ender. These make up 40 percent of all accidents in the United States, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. And while most of these are minor fender benders between car drivers, there’s really no such thing as a minor fender bender if someone slams into the back of a motorcycle. By splitting between lanes, riders are able to put a shell of slow or stopped traffic around their bikes and protect against the inattention of other road users.
In a recent Berkeley study undertaken with the California Highway Patrol’s assistance, 7,836 motorcycle crashes were examined closely, with some 1,163 of these crashes having occurred while the rider was lane splitting.
Riders who were splitting at the time of their accident were significantly less likely to be injured in every category than those who weren’t: 45 percent fewer head injuries, 21 percent fewer neck injuries, 32 percent fewer torso injuries, 12 percent fewer arm/leg injuries, and 55 percent fewer fatalities.
This is quite possibly because the majority of those splitting accidents happened at speeds between 1 and 30 mph (50 km/h). The data also shows that the safest way to lane split is to travel at less than 30 mph, and less than 10 mph above the speed of the surrounding traffic. Injury rates leap up in all categories when both of these conditions are violated.
Motorcycle lane filtering: faster and safer for riders, plus it makes the journey quicker ...

Benefits of lane splitting for other road users

Lane splitting is an unspoken contract between riders and drivers. Riders don’t wait for stopped cars, and in return, they don’t make the cars wait for them. Where many drivers get it wrong is that they see lane splitting as "queue jumping" that will cause each car to go one further spot back in the queue. In truth, a filtering bike disappears from the queue altogether, the only time a motorcycle holds a car up is when it sits in traffic and acts like another car.
Filtering bikes work their way to the front of stopped traffic at red lights, and accelerate away much quicker than the cars around them. When they reach the next stoppage, they disappear again between the lanes and no car is held up.
Certainly, this is a good deal for the rider, who arrives much earlier than the car driver. But every filtering rider has a positive effect on traffic flow that benefits every other motorist. A 2012 Belgian study found that if just 10 percent of drivers were to switch to motorcycles and filter through traffic, travel times would decrease for the remaining car drivers by some eight minutes per journey. This benefit would not exist if motorcyclists ignored the inherent advantages of their smaller, narrower vehicles and sat in line like cars.
The same study found considerable environmental benefits to lane splitting. Not because bikes emit less carbon (many larger bikes are as bad as cars), but because every bike that lane splits actively reduces the amount of time every other vehicle on the road spends sitting in traffic jams.

So the next time a rider wriggles past you in traffic, remember that it’s a win-win. The rider is saving time and money, and looking after their own safety, but they’re also making everyone else’s journey faster. So give them some space, for your own sake.


Monday, April 27, 2015


You gotta fight for your right to ... film cops on the job.

Rights don't always come easy. Beatriz Paez was exercising hers when a U.S. Marshal violently snatched her cellphone, threw it down, and kicked it.

It happened last weekend in Paez's South Gate neighborhood. The Marshal and other law enforcement officers were reportedly serving warrants on alleged biker gang members at a nearby home when she started videotaping the action from a sidewalk.

Paez later said that the lawman warned her that she was too close, but she claimed to reporters that she was a few houses down from the action.

You do have the right to record the cops in public, but you can't interfere with investigations. The area between the two is somewhat gray.

This much we know: Filming the police has led to countless revelations about conduct and overuse of force that might not otherwise seen the light of day. It appears that Paez was doing the right thing before she was thwarted.

Luckily, a neighbor was also capturing the situation on video (below) shot through a home window.

The ugly episode has inspired South Bay U.S. Rep. Janice Hahn to draft a resolution to "officially, publicly and collectively reaffirm the rights of citizens to film law enforcement officers," she said in a statement this week.

If U.S. Congress says you have the right to film cops on the street, you have a right to film cops on the street. Unfortunately, there are police who have yet to receive the memo.

In the case of the U.S. Marshal, Hahn is calling for a federal investigation. She says:I have called on the U.S. Attorney General to launch an independent investigation by the Department of Justice into this matter so the public can have confidence that the marshals will be held accountable, and I want all law enforcement officers to receive training and instructions to respect the rights of citizens to film police activity.

Paez expressed shock at the Marshal's actions and quickly lawyered up. She plans to file a civil rights suit against authorities.

A U.S. Marshal's Service official told us previously that superiors were aware of the video and would look into it.

Hahn said she was "alarmed and upset" by the lawman's actions:

I condemn the actions of the U.S. marshal who violently and improperly responded by destroying Ms. Paez’s property, terrifying her and denying her rights.

Illinois just quietly passed a law that makes it a felony to record the police without consent


Illinois just quietly passed a law that makes it a felony to record the police without consent

In most states it is completely legal to record police when they are on duty. It's a basic right that keeps the government accountable. But Illinois just passed a vague law that discourages people from recording interactions with police by making it a felony in certain situatons, adding jail time if a person "eavesdrops" on a police officer. This could be a dangerous trend unless we stop it now.

Sign the petition to Illinois Governor Pat Quinn:

"We have a First Amendment right to record interactions with law enforcement and government officials. Don't make Illinois a Constitution-free zone. Veto the Amendment to SB 1342. There should be no increased penalty when people record police and government officials, and no expanded powers for law enforcement to eavesdrop without a warrant."
Fight for the Future will contact you about future campaigns. Privacy Policy
39,315 Signatures
Reached of 50,000 goal

At a time when people nationwide are calling for more transparency from police, politicians in Illinois want to make it more illegal to record them.

People from across the political spectrum agree that the government needs to be accountable and transparent. The right to film and record law enforcement and government officials is a basic freedom that protects us from abuse.
The U.S. is having an important conversation about police violence right now, in large part because people are able to record acts of abuse and share them freely on the Internet and with the media.
Follow us for breaking updates on this campaign!

But the legislature of Illinois just hastily passed an amendment to a completely unrelated bill that would make it increased felony to record police, prosecutors, or other officials when they have a "reasonable expectation of privacy." i would change But the bill doesn't define what that means, which creates a chilling effect and means the law can be used selectively. This leaves Illinois residents in doubt about whether or not they have the right to record their interactions with law enforcement. In March, the Illinois Supreme Court declared the state's eavesdropping law unconstitutional, specifically because it interfered with the public's right to record police. The new law is just as bad: by imposing stricter rules on recording police interactions than other interactions, the law discourages the public from exercising their rights.
Similarly vague laws have caused problems in other states. In May, a Massachusetts woman was charged with "wiretapping" for recording a police officer who was arresting her.
The ACLU of Illinois is less concerned than us about the felony enhancement, but they point out another extremely troubling aspect of this Amendment: it greatly expands the circumstances in which a law enforcement officer or informant can secretly record conversations without a warrant.
Read the full text of the Amendment here.

Please share this page widely with your friends and family. Sign the petition and call Governor Quinn at 312-814-2121 to ask him to Veto the Amendment to SB 1342.

USA - Are Veterans Losing Gun Rights?



As reported last week, Senator Chuck Grassley has rekindled a debate over whether veterans who cannot manage their own benefits should be considered “mentally defective” by the FBI and barred from buying guns.
Veterans in the VA’s Fiduciary Program are automatically flagged and it turns out that over 99% of the names the FBI’s database came from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Veterans whose names are on the list are barred from buying guns under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. Veterans can regain the right to manage their benefits, but it’s a lengthy and complicated process.
In his letter, Grassley writes, “Under the current practice, a VA finding that concludes that a veteran requires a fiduciary to administer benefit payments effectively voids his Second Amendment rights — a consequence which is wholly unrelated to and unsupported by the record developed in the VA process.”
What do you think? Is a declaration that a vet is incapable of managing his or her own benefits enough of a red flag to warrant a ban on buying guns? Does the Fiduciary Program work and are its decisions fair? Should people with mental health issues be prevented from buying weapons? Or is that provision of the Brady bill a violation of the Second Amendment? Sound off below!

Read more: 
Under the Radar 



When most Americans look back on the birth of Freedom in the America

Rside Will's photo.

thank you

When most Americans look back on the birth of Freedom in the Americas, they always look to that one fateful day in July of 1775. While yes, the United States marks the first successful attempt at creating a free nation, it was not the only one. Earlier in that same century, on a little island in the Caribbean, a small nation arose opposed to the monarchs across the ocean: The Pirate’s Republic.
Now, contrary to popular belief, most Pirates of the Republic were not simply bloodthirsty killers and rapists. No, they were ordinary men, trained and experienced in warfare, that were cast off by their host nations when they were no longer needed. These were men and women who had been made for war and discarded in peace.
You can imagine how that felt (And yes, because I was let go from the Army due to budget cuts, I can sympathize). Here were hundreds of men, taken from their homes (In some cases against their will), sent across the world to fight in wars they didn’t care for, and simply given orders to cease fire when peace was declared.
No plan to bring them back, no training program to integrate them into a peaceful job. Not even a simple “Thank you for crippling the Spanish Shipping in the West Indies”. They were only told that peace was declared and left to their own devices.
In all reality, what did Great Britain expect? They had created a fleet of “Privateers” in the Caribbean and left them to their own devices. The ships they were armed with did not have adequate hold space to become merchant vessels (They also had no prospects of traders), each one was armed to the teeth and crewed by the most aggressive men the British could muster. Piracy was not simply a random choice, it was a foregone conclusion.
The Republic didn’t spring up overnight either. The Colony of Nassau on New Providence Island was in a poor state even before Queen Anne’s War. Generations of corrupt officials had ruled the colony (Including a former pirate), it was central to the major shipping lanes at the time, and there was little care given by the crown to the fledgling city in the Caribbean.
Due to the extreme lawlessness and chaos on the island, a combined force of French and Spanish ships attacked and basically destroyed the colony in 1703. Undaunted, the inhabitants returned from their inland hideaways and rebuilt. With no effective leadership, it became an even greater threat to their neighbors still loyal to the crown.
As the Pirates of New Providence became more successful, their names began to be known. Former Privateer Benjamin Hornigold was one of the many Pirate Captains the island looked towards for Leadership. In time, his first mate, Edward Teach (A.K.A. Blackbeard) would be named Magistrate, with their rival Henry Jennings being named Counsel next to Hornigold.
The three infamous Captains would spawn a whole conglomeration of successful pirates, including “Calico” Jack Rackham, Stede Bonnet (The Gentleman’s Pirate), “Black” Sam Bellamy, Mary Read and the most famous, Charles Vane. By 1716, the Pirates Republic had transformed from a mass of chaos and disorder into a nation to be feared by all.
Core of Liberty
What truly made the Republic successful was its complete lack of strict governance. Each Captain was expected to keep their men in line with no real governance from above. Edward Teach was given leave to enact his own laws and enforce them on the island, but in the spirit of freedom he held so dear, his laws were mostly born from common sense and not controlling his “subjects”.
Even more astonishingly was how well this system of chaos actually worked. Captains were not simply the owners of their vessels, they were elected by the crews that manned them. Anyone, regardless of national origin, religion or even sex could be voted in as a ship’s captain. The Pirate’s Republic saw the first self-freed slaves as Captains while the rest of the world was still keeping Africans in chains.
Anne Bonny and Mary Read were the most famous female pirates, but they were not the only ones. However, they were the only two to be captured, tried and convicted of Piracy, but their ultimate fate is unknown. Neither were Captains though, as they both served under Jack Rackham and were captured when his ship was surprised by a British Patrol Vessel.
Captains could only maintain their position so long as they remained profitable to their crew. A Captain who couldn’t find vessels to plunder or wouldn’t lead his men into battle might find himself adrift in the Atlantic or ship-less once they returned to Nassau.
Many Captains ruled by not only success, but fear as well. Edward Teach once shot his Quartermaster at dinner simply to assert that he was the one in charge. Although not a member of the Republic, Edward Low single-handedly butchered a captured crew because their captain tossed a small fortune in gold overboard; this came after he sliced off the captain’s lips, cooked them and forced him to eat the still warm flesh in front of both horrified crews.
Despite this utter lack of control and disregard for worldly laws, the Republic worked. By 1718, the small island nation had become a threat the world could no longer ignore. Millions of Pounds and Pesos had been lost in trade and materials, and the European Nations were beginning to feel the pinch from this rampant banditry.
To deal with this threat, the British dispatched seven war ships to Nassau with a new Governor to oversee a return to British rule and restore peace to the region. In addition to the small Fleet of Man-O-Wars, Woodes Rogers was armed with blanket pardons, to forgive anyone who accepted of all crimes and give them a way to return to a “normal” life.
At first, it seemed this plan was doomed to failure. Although Rogers was able to capture Nassau with barely any fight, most of the Pirates of the Republic fled to the wind in his wake thanks to Charles Vane (Who used a French Vessel as a Fire Ship to break through the Blockade). However, Benjamin Hornigold, who had refused to attack British Shipping in his career as a Pirate, accepted the Pardon and was contracted as a Pirate Hunter, turning on his former comrades and seeking a life under the crown once more.
The Beginning of the End
Outnumbered and vastly outgunned, the former self-proclaimed rulers in the New World eventually gave in and were either captured or accepted the King’s Pardon. Charles Vane would prove the die hard and continued to defy the crown. After escaping Nassau and attempting to emulate Blackbeard’s famous Blockade of Charleston earlier in 1718, he began to formulate a plan to retake Nassau from the British and recreate the Republic he held so dear.
His plan called for a last gathering of some of the most notorious pirates of the Republic, including their former Magistrate, Edward Teach. Unfortunately for the Republic, Blackbeard had accepted the King’s Pardon and retired to a semi-peaceful life after losing his prize ship, the Queen Anne’s Revenge, to a sandbar.
Undaunted, Vane, in spirit the last of the Republic, with Rackham as his second mate (with Mary Read and Anne Bonny in his crew), sailed towards New York to plunder the rich shipping there. On their voyage northwards they encountered a small Brig and decided to attack. Unfortunately, the Brig wasn’t simply a merchant vessel, but a French Warship, forcing Vane to break off his attack and run.
This would prove Vane’s downfall. Jack Rackham used this failed attack as leverage to launch his own mutiny against Charles, casting his adrift with fifteen of his loyal crewmen and stealing his vessel. Vane would end up marooned and eventually captured by the British, while Rackham would be surprised and captured as well.
Simultaneously, Blackbeard would exit his semi-retirement and be killed after a shortened reign of terror off the Carolina Coast. It wouldn’t be the noose for Teach however, and by all accounts it took five gunshots and twenty saber wounds to finally bring him down.
Stede Bonnet, who had apprenticed under Teach, would be captured that same year as well. Although he had taken the pardon as well, he found the life he had come to adopt as his own was too profitable (By trade, Bonnet was a plantation owner). During his trial, many of his victims had pleaded for mercy, as among all the pirates of his time, he was by far the most polite towards captured crews, never killing unless it was absolutely necessary. The Gentleman’s Pirate met his fate to the hangman’s noose in Charleston.
Even Benjamin Hornigold, who had turned against his former comrades, would not live to see the decade turn. While hunting Stede Bonnet and Jack Rackham, his ship was caught in one of the Bahamas notorious hurricanes, and his vessel was lost with all hands. In fact, he didn’t make it more than a few months as a Pirate Hunter before finding a new home at the bottom of the ocean.
With all of their fates sealed, the Pirate’s Republic, bereft of a home and no members alive, ended. Although Piracy would continue to be a thorn in the side of the ruling powers for decades to come, the Captains who chose this life were confined to small safe havens spread throughout the Americas, never again uniting under a single banner.
It would be over half a century until another attempt to bring freedom and liberty to the Americas was attempted, and this one was much more successful than the first. The founding fathers of the United States can claim to be the creators of the first successful cry of independence; they were not the only ones. The Pirates of New Providence Island set the template that others would follow, and paid for their attempt with their lives.
History has both demonized and romanticized the bandits of the Pirates Republic, painting conflicting pictures of who they truly were. But above all, aside from thieves and murderers, they were ordinary men and women, who threw off their shackles (In some cases literally) and declared themselves free of foreign rule. And although separated by race, creed or even sex, they were all united in their desire to be free men and women of the Americas, decades before the Founding Fathers were even born.

Sunday, April 26, 2015

USA - Cop Turned Lawmaker Just Proposed Making the Teasing of Cops ILLEGAL. No, Seriously Read more at

By Matt Agorist..
“If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don’t like. Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.”
― Noam Chomsky

Harrisburg, PA — Earlier this week, at the PA state capitol, lawmakers, police officers and their supporters gathered. This gathering was held to give themselves a collective pat on the back for the insane and brutal police state they are complicit in creating. This mass of government force was aptly called, Law Enforcement Appreciation Day.
Among the festivities, there was the praising of the state’s immoral war on drugs and a felicitation of the police state and revenue collection in general.
At such a gathering, this type of self-aggrandizing encouragement of the police state is to be expected. State Sen. John Rafferty (R), even came out with his resolution to recognize 2015 as the “Year of the Law Enforcement Officer.” 
All fine and dandy, no harm, no foul.
However, one former cop turned Pennsylvania lawmaker, went above and beyond any rational expectations of tyrannical public speaking when he called for the termination of free speech.
State Representative and former chief of police of the Pittsburgh Police Department, Dom Costa (D), came out swinging when he suggested that he would introduce legislation to protect cops from having their feelings hurt.
“This nonsense that is going today on where police officers are being taunted by people and being provoked, let’s face it we’re all human beings, and eventually that emotion will break. And that’s what they’re trying to do,” he said, according to Raging Chicken Press.
Costa then suggests that the laws in place that protect police dogs from being taunted should be expanded to officers as well.
“So, what I’ve talked to some of my colleagues and the senator [Senator Rafferty] is that we have a bill about taunting a police dog.  It’s illegal.  There should be out that you can’t taunt a police officer because you’re going to get those emotions up.  I myself and Representative Vereb are looking at that bill to put it forward in the House, and I am sure the Senate will follow.  Or at least support that bill.”
Costa wants to use government force to stop people from speaking out about the use of government force, to protect those who abuse their monopoly of government force.
In other words, “Shut up and take this tyranny, slave!”
Can you imagine the resultant ridiculousness from police officers being able to arrest someone who hurts their widdle feewings?
We already see cops violate the constitutionally protected act of raising one’s middle finger by detaining, arresting, kidnapping and caging folks for giving the bird.
This legislation would not only legalize such tyrannical practices, but it would outlaw speaking out against them.
Being an asshole will not get you any friends, but neither will forcing assholes to remain silent. In fact, even the most vitriolic and hate-filled speech must be protected if society is to have any semblance of freedom.
Dom Costa has crossed a line, and he deserves to know it. While we still have a little free speech left, let’s use it to let tyrants like Costa know, that we the people will never be silenced.
Share this article with your friends and then Tweet it at him  Or leave him some feedback on his Facebook Profile.
I’ll start.


Can you imagine the resultant ridiculousness from police officers being able to arrest someone who hurts their widdle feewings?
This is SEROUSLY ridiculous:

Former cop turned State Senator, John Rafferty, wants to limit your freedom of speech by making it illegal to talk to cops in any way other than with complete and total respect. This is not a joke. Instead of protecting our freedoms, this cop wants to make sure you don't have freedom. Make this guy famous!
Full report:
Via - The Free Thought