We are a hardcore biker rights talk show that hits like a bored and stroked big V-twin. Join us each week as we give you straight talk on what is happening to bikers on the left coast... and what YOU can do to join the cause.
We are "The Special Forces on the Left Coast".
Federal court decides 10-day waiting period laws violate Second Amendment rights
ROSEVILLE,
CA (August 25, 2014) – California’s 10-day waiting period for gun
purchases was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge this morning in a
significant victory for Second Amendment civil rights. The laws were
challenged by California gun owners Jeffrey Silvester and Brandon Combs,
as well as two gun rights groups, The Calguns Foundation and Second
Amendment Foundation.
In
the decision released this morning, Federal Eastern District of
California Senior Judge Anthony W. Ishii, appointed to the bench by
President Bill Clinton, found that “the 10-day waiting periods of Penal
Code [sections 26815(a) and 27540(a)] violate the Second Amendment” as
applied to members of certain classifications, like Silvester and Combs,
and “burdens the Second Amendment rights of the Plaintiffs.”
“This
is a great win for Second Amendment civil rights and common sense,”
said Jeff Silvester, the named individual plaintiff. “I couldn’t be
happier with how this case turned out.”
Under
the court order, the California Department of Justice (DOJ) must change
its systems to accommodate the unobstructed release of guns to gun
buyers who pass a background check and possess a California license to
carry a handgun, or who hold a “Certificate of Eligibility” issued by
the DOJ and already possess at least one firearm known to the state.
Under
the court order, the California Department of Justice (DOJ) must change
its systems to accommodate the unobstructed release of guns to gun
buyers who pass a background check and possess a California license to
carry a handgun, or who hold a “Certificate of Eligibility” issued by
the DOJ and already possess at least one firearm known to the state.
“We
are happy that Second Amendment rights are being acknowledged and
protected by our courts,” said Donald Kilmer, lead attorney for the
plaintiffs. “This case is one more example of how our judicial branch
brings balance to government in order to insure our liberty. I am elated
that we were able to successfully vindicate the rights of our clients.”
Attorneys Victor Otten of Torrance and Jason Davis of Mission Viejo were co-counsel for the plaintiffs.
“This
ruling clearly addressed the issue we put before the court,” said SAF
founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “We are naturally
delighted with the outcome.”
“California
gun owners are not second-class citizens and the Second Amendment
doesn’t protect second class rights,” noted plaintiff Brandon Combs,
also CGF’s executive director. “This decision is an important step
towards restoring fundamental individual liberties in the Golden State.”
“This
victory provides a strong foundation from which other irrational and
unconstitutional gun control laws will be challenged,” concluded Combs.
“We look forward to doing just that.”
The Calguns Foundation (www.calgunsfoundation.org)
is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that serves its members,
supporters, and the public through educational, cultural, and judicial
efforts to defend and advance Second Amendment and related civil rights.
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org)
is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research,
publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right
and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The
Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and
conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the
consequences of gun control.
Media Contacts:
The Calguns Foundation – Brandon Combs
bcombs@calgunsfoundation.org
(800) 556-2109 ext. 5775
Second Amendment Foundation – Alan Gottlieb
(425) 454-7012
OFF THE WIRE
It’s Illegal for Motorcycle Club Members to Own Guns? That’s What Authorities Say..... WTF...
Bikers and guns. Really, they go together like peanut butter and jelly.
Most bikers and motorcycle club members are rugged individualists
that believe in the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms and the concept of
self-defense. Not crazy revolutionaries. But die hard Americans, many of
them veterans, that believe in the core principles of the Bill of
Rights. It’s true that many bikers are
rebellious and critical of government control. Many bikers are also
politically active. Most bikers are not felons. And most bikers that
carry handguns possess legally issued concealed carry permits.
Despite this reality, many bikers with guns are targeted by the same
people that granted them the legal right to carry a gun in the first
place. Why? Because law enforcement has, even facing the fact that
motorcycle clubs (including 1% clubs) are constitutionally protected
associations, historically vilified bikers as criminals based on a
discriminatory stereotype. This mindset is based on fear,
misinformation, and the historical pattern of suppressing any community
vocally critical of law enforcement.
Anyone concerned with government overriding legal mechanisms allowing
gun ownership and concealed carry should be highly concerned about law
enforcement’s obvious attempts to disarm members of motorcycle clubs
based on nothing more than association.
WHERE DO BIKERS GET THEIR GUNS?
So where do bikers and club members obtain their concealed carry
permits? Well, from law enforcement agencies of course. The same
people that mis-characterize motorcycle clubs as gangs are the same
people that know those carrying guns are legally carrying them. More
than that, they know that those with concealed carry permits have also
passed extensive state and federal background checks and they are not
violent felons. In fact, in states with concealed carry laws, almost
without exception, every club member with a gun will be legally carrying
that gun.
Importantly, even for those that support more extensive regulations
and required background checks, concealed pistol permit holders have
undergone extensive scrutiny, given their fingerprints voluntarily to
authorities, and in many cases have attended firearm safety courses.
So why don’t they just deny permits to bikers if they’re so bad?
Well, that would be baseline discrimination based on association and
appearance, not behavior. They know these bikers are not gangsters.
Motorcycle clubs are legal associations and bikers cannot be arbitrarily
excluded from the 2nd Amendment because law enforcement is prejudicial.
WHY DOES LAW ENFORCEMENT CONSIDERS BIKERS ENEMIES?
The reason law enforcement is prejudicial relates to the long history
of bikers fighting law enforcement abuses in the legislature, the
courthouse, and the street. Those that fight for social and political
justice are most often vilified by law enforcement. This makes sense
because law enforcement holds up the current order. Grassroots movements
argue for fundamental change in the status quo. There is an unavoidable
philosophical conflict when our goals as a movement relate to
constraining abuses of law enforcement discretion.
The right to bear arms saved my brothers from a corrupt Portland drug
task force in 1979. A task force that illegally raided the clubhouse
unannounced to plant drugs and kill people. But the right to bear arms
provided legitimate self-defense against tyranny and justice prevailed.
But only after one dirty officer was shot in self-defense, a brother
spent two years in prison until another dirty cop came forward
confirming the task force lied to get a warrant and planted drugs.
Without adequate self-defense a houseful of my brothers would have been
terminated and the crime would have been covered up with planted
evidence. (See the book Black Thursday by David “Double D” Devereaux)
Even though my brothers were exonerated and the obvious corruption
was uncovered, to this day law enforcement characterizes my club as the
one that killed a cop. Conveniently, the murderous corruption of police
is not explained. Our dedication to advancing the rights base of
motorcyclists is not mentioned. The truth is ignored even when
legislators unanimously approve laws addressing the issue of profiling
and making the act explicitly illegal. Fortunately, legislators can
control law enforcement policy and budgets.
LAW ENFORCEMENT TARGETS CLUB MEMBERS CARRYING LEGAL GUNS
Law enforcement knows the truth about motorcycle clubs but they also
understand the power of propaganda. Reality is just not publicly
convenient. But they still issue concealed carry permits to every
motorcycle club member that applies because club members are not felons
and do not have a history of violent criminality.
In fact, more officers are charged with felonies than bikers, including members of self-identified 1% clubs. For example,
“Houston lawyer Kent Schaffer, who has
represented Bandidos for more than 30 years, said there are more police
officers indicted on felonies every year in the Houston area than
Bandidos.”(see After Waco, questions remain about police, By Dane Schiller, Houston Chronicle, June 6, 2015)
How many individuals arrested with handguns in Waco were legally
permitted to carry concealed handguns? How many of the other weapons
recovered were legally obtained? How many were arrested because they
were legally carrying or in possession of a weapon?
There has not been a single report of an illegal weapon. The fact is,
the only reports have been related to confiscating legal and legally
concealed weapons, even by those that were not arrested. (For example, see In Country Vets, False Accusations, Unethical “Journalism” And The Aging Rebel AUGUST 11, 2015 )
How many pulled their weapons? Of those that pulled weapons, how
many were acting in self-defense? And why would carrying a legally
concealed weapon be probable cause for an arrest?
The implications of propaganda overriding reality should be obvious
to anyone paying attention. Marginalize, vilify, isolate, discriminate,
and eliminate. And one of the best ways to achieve the goal is
disarming the entire class.
Disturbingly, Department of Public Safety Lt. Schwartz asserted
during an examination trial in Waco that members of criminal street
gangs cannot legally carry weapons. Tommy Witherspoon, covering the
trial on Twitter, posted:
“Schwartz said membership in a criminal street gang prohibits one from having a legal concealed handgun license.”
Remember, these individuals possess legal concealed carry permits and have passed extensive background checks.
There are other cases of individuals with concealed carry permits
having their weapons seized and being charged with a misdemeanor for
being a gang member. No crime is committed or even implied. Law
enforcement is defining membership in a group they label a gang, a group
that has validated 1st Amendment protection, with no judicial check on
due process for that determination, as a crime. Kent Schaffer, the
attorney from Houston, “pointed to his representation of one Bandido
recently charged here with a misdemeanor for being a member of a gang
with a gun. Schaffer is challenging the definition of a gang, noting the
man had never before been arrested.”(see After Waco, questions remain about police, By Dane Schiller, Houston Chronicle, June 6, 2015)
Sounds an awful lot like entrapment to me. Law enforcement issues the
man a permit after extensive background checks and then arrests him for
carrying a weapon they permitted him to carry? Makes absolutely zero
sense. Which makes it easy to understand why it should be considered
unconstitutional.
Gang labeling is not enough to establish probable cause that a crime
is occurring, a necessary condition to seizing a legal weapon. Simply
carrying a legal gun as a member of a motorcycle club, including a 1%
club, is not a crime. The courts have concluded that motorcycle club
associations and colors, including 1% clubs, are protected by the 1st
Amendment. It is not illegal to be in a club, otherwise they could
arrest an individual for wearing colors. By this logic, you could be
denied your right to vote. (see How Waco Is Being Used To Decimate The 1st Amendment JUNE 26, 2015
FINAL THOUGHTS
The motorcycle rights movement has been a black eye to law
enforcement for many years. Now that the movement is unifying
coast-to-coast to fight law enforcement abuse, anti-biker propaganda
will increase in intensity. Exposing obvious contradictions between
propaganda and reality is one of the best opportunities to gain public
support, and the issue of concealed carry permits touches a lot of
American citizens.
Average American citizens understand that the 2nd Amendment is one of
the most fundamental elements of a free society. History validates that
disarming domestic populations too easily leads to totalitarian law
enforcement and government abuse in addition to being more vulnerable to
foreign threats. The right to bear arms reduces the probability of
these threats and reduces the probability of conflict through
deterrence.
If law enforcement is successfully able to marginalize the motorcycle
club community, one of the most socially and politically active groups
in this country, to the point that fundamental rights are denied to even
those associated that have no criminal records of any kind, then no
community is safe.
Biker Lives Do Indeed Matter. Not just to bikers, but to everyone. In
a very real way, the fate of motorcyclists will serve as a blue print
for other groups in the future. Disarming bikers is a strategy to
cripple the rights base of one of the most visible and active grassroots
social and political movements in America. Much of the movement’s
efforts are to combat civil liberty abuses by law enforcement targeting
motorcyclists. If bikers are successfully marginalized as criminals not
worthy of baseline liberties, then the strength of our political
movement exposing law enforcement abuses will be crippled as well. It’s a
blueprint for social control in the 21st Century. David “Double D” Devereaux is the Spokesperson for the Washington
State Confederation of Clubs and US Defenders, The Motorcycle
Profiling Project, and also works with the Confederation of Clubs and US
Defenders at the national level. Contact: doubled@motorcycleprofilingproject.com, motorcycleprofilingproject.com)
OFF THE WIRE
In the second time this year, Long Beach police in southern California pledged to devote an entire weekend to specifically targeting motorcyclists. As part of its “Motorcycle Safety Enforcement Operation,” the Long Beach police sends out extra police officers to locations frequented by motorcycle enthusiasts with the intent of ticketing motorcyclists and specifically targeting them for sobriety checks.
The crackdown, scheduled for August 7-9, 2015 is the second such program by the Long Beach Police in several months. The Long Beach Police previously targeted motorcyclists during the last weekend of May 2015. In one day, Long Beach police ticketed 35 motorcyclists for unsafe driving or for not wearing an approved helmet, ticketed four motorcyclists for not having the proper license, and conducted sobriety checks on motorcyclists.
Official Police Crackdowns on Motorcyclists in California Increasing
Long Beach’s crackdown on motorcyclists is part of an increasing trend in California. In the past several years, Napa, Whittier, Murrieta, Fairfield, Rancho Cordova, and other towns have all employed “Motorcycle Safety Enforcement Operations” in order to devote more community resources and police power to specifically targeting motorcyclists. Notably, the press releases announcing such operations use the same language and statistics to justify the police operations, indicating a state-wide effort to devote increased police attention to targeting motorcyclists.
Are these operations legal? California Vehicle Code 2814.1 authorizes law enforcement to conduct vehicle inspection checkpoints to look for violations of emissions and exhaust laws, but subsection (d) of this law clearly states: “State and local law enforcement agencies shall not conduct motorcycle only checkpoints.” Section 2814.2 authorizes sobriety checkpoint inspections for “motor vehicles.” This section does not distinguish between cars and motorcycles, but the California Supreme Court has held that sobriety checkpoints must pull over vehicles according to some pre-established pattern (such as every third vehicle) in order to avoid claims of discrimination or profiling. When law enforcement agencies conduct their Motorcycle Safety Enforcement Operations, they claim to include drivers too and pull over a handful of cars or trucks, but this seems to be just a token gesture to appear to comply with the law. Clearly motorcycles are targeted by these programs, and the legal status of these programs are suspect to say the least.
Anti-Motorcycle Profiling Rule Stalled in California Legislature
This type of police behavior of targeting motorcyclists is the type of government conduct that a bill introduced in the California legislature in February 2015 was intended to prevent. That bill, AB 334, introduced with bipartisan support by Assemblyman Ken Cooley of Rancho Cordova, would have required that police departments ensure that officers be trained to avoid motorcycle profiling and that policies be revised and created if need be to prevent motorcycle profiling. The bill defined motorcycle profiling as “using the fact that a person rides a motorcycle or wears motorcycle paraphernalia as a factor, without any individualized suspicion of the particular person, in deciding to stop and question, take enforcement action, arrest, or search a person or vehicle, with or without legal basis under the California Constitution or the United States Constitution.”
AB 334 was shelved earlier this year, however, as it did not find the support it needed to go further in the legislative process. It is unclear how AB 334, if enacted into law, would specifically have affected the ability of police departments to undertake police operations specifically intended to stop motorcyclists for the purposes of ticketing them and conducting sobriety checks, but such operations appear to be the type of motorcyclist profiling conduct by police departments that the bill sought to curtail.
In
the second time this year, Long Beach police in southern California
pledged to devote an entire weekend to specifically targeting
motorcyclists. As part of its “Motorcycle Safety Enforcement Operation,”
the Long Beach police sends out extra police officers to locations
frequented by motorcycle enthusiasts with the intent of ticketing
motorcyclists and specifically targeting them for sobriety checks.
The crackdown, scheduled for August 7-9, 2015 is the second such
program by the Long Beach Police in several months. The Long Beach
Police previously targeted motorcyclists during the last weekend of May
2015. In one day, Long Beach police ticketed 35 motorcyclists for unsafe
driving or for not wearing an approved helmet, ticketed four
motorcyclists for not having the proper license, and conducted sobriety
checks on motorcyclists.
Official Police Crackdowns on Motorcyclists in California Increasing
Long Beach’s crackdown on motorcyclists is part of an increasing
trend in California. In the past several years, Napa, Whittier,
Murrieta, Fairfield, Rancho Cordova, and other towns have all employed
“Motorcycle Safety Enforcement Operations” in order to devote more
community resources and police power to specifically targeting
motorcyclists. Notably, the press releases announcing such operations
use the same language and statistics to justify the police operations,
indicating a state-wide effort to devote increased police attention to
targeting motorcyclists.
Are these operations legal? California Vehicle Code 2814.1 authorizes
law enforcement to conduct vehicle inspection checkpoints to look for
violations of emissions and exhaust laws, but subsection (d) of this law
clearly states: “State and local law enforcement agencies shall not conduct motorcycle only checkpoints.”
Section 2814.2 authorizes sobriety checkpoint inspections for “motor
vehicles.” This section does not distinguish between cars and
motorcycles, but the California Supreme Court
has held that sobriety checkpoints must pull over vehicles according to
some pre-established pattern (such as every third vehicle) in order to
avoid claims of discrimination or profiling. When law enforcement
agencies conduct their Motorcycle Safety Enforcement Operations, they
claim to include drivers too and pull over a handful of cars or trucks,
but this seems to be just a token gesture to appear to comply with the
law. Clearly motorcycles are targeted by these programs, and the legal
status of these programs are suspect to say the least.
Anti-Motorcycle Profiling Rule Stalled in California Legislature
This type of police behavior of targeting motorcyclists is the type
of government conduct that a bill introduced in the California
legislature in February 2015 was intended to prevent. That bill, AB 334,
introduced with bipartisan support by Assemblyman Ken Cooley of Rancho
Cordova, would have required that police departments ensure that
officers be trained to avoid motorcycle profiling and that policies be
revised and created if need be to prevent motorcycle profiling. The bill
defined motorcycle profiling as “using the fact that a person rides a
motorcycle or wears motorcycle paraphernalia as a factor, without any
individualized suspicion of the particular person, in deciding to stop
and question, take enforcement action, arrest, or search a person or
vehicle, with or without legal basis under the California Constitution
or the United States Constitution.”
AB 334 was shelved earlier this year, however, as it did not find the
support it needed to go further in the legislative process. It is
unclear how AB 334, if enacted into law, would specifically have
affected the ability of police departments to undertake police
operations specifically intended to stop motorcyclists for the purposes
of ticketing them and conducting sobriety checks, but such operations
appear to be the type of motorcyclist profiling conduct by police
departments that the bill sought to curtail.
If you are someone you know has been the target of unfair
motorcyclist profiling by the police, attorney William Weiss can help.
Call the Law Offices of William E. Weiss at 415-362-6765 to schedule a free consultation now.
- See more at:
http://www.williamweisslaw.com/long-beach-police-institute-series-of-crackdowns-targeted-at-motorcyclists/#sthash.IDcF9mJx.dpuf
OFF THE WIRE Saturday, August 15, 2015 by: J. D. Heyes (NaturalNews) If you are still a resident of the increasingly
authoritarian police state of California, here is a news flash for you:
Your Democratic masters don't much care for your civil liberties,
freedoms and rights, and in the coming months and years they are going
to try to eliminate as many of them from you as possible.
Natural News
readers already know that California has some of the highest taxes,
highest pension costs and most restrictive gun laws. They also know the
state recently adopted the most restrictive mandatory childhood vaccine law
in the country, denying parents the right of informed refusal and
forcing them to expose their children to potentially dangerous
concoctions for the "right" to a public school education (that they are
forced to pay for nonetheless).
Now, the little Stalins who dominate the state legislature want the vaccine requirement extended to adults as well.
What happened to liberty, freedom of choice and civil rights?
As reported by Vaccine Impact:
In
a brazen act of medical tyranny, California recently became the first
state in the U.S. where lawmakers removed religious exemptions to those
opposing vaccines for their children. The bill now signed into law,
SB277, faces legal hurdles in court next.
Now, legislators in
California want to pass the "first US adult vaccine mandate with NO
personal exemptions and CRIMINAL penalties for failure to comply." SB
792, would eliminate an adult's right to exempt themselves from one,
some, or all vaccines, a risk-laden medical procedure.
Will California soon become a medical police state?
How's that
for protecting and promoting civil liberties? In California, as well as
several other "blue" states, civil rights are increasingly being
defined as rights which the powers that be decide citizens can enjoy – not those which state and federal constitutions are supposed to protect.
"This
bill eliminates medical autonomy, crushes religious freedom, undermines
personal freedom, and burdens quality providers with a non-optional
series of medical interventions in the form of mandated vaccines that
are not even 100% effective," says an editorial at Vaccine Impact.
Seizures coming – from forced vaccine side effects to gun control and wealth confiscation
Brain-damaged,
vaccine-injured Americans often suffer from seizures, but if the
Leftist-driven, conformity-demanding trend in California continues,
those won't be the only seizures. There will be seizures of another kind: of guns, of your bank accounts, of your other financial assets.
Besides
becoming more authoritarian by the day, California is also coming
closer to bankruptcy. Decades of Democratic rule have led to some of the
highest levels of entitlements in the country – benefits and hand-outs
to "the poor" and illegal aliens that are all paid for by state
taxpayers. Included in these are generous pensions like those that are
currently pushing Illinois and other Leftist-led states to the financial
breaking point.
When the happens, all manner of wealth will
be confiscated, at some level, most likely through higher and higher
taxes. Such a dire economic condition will inevitably lead to more and
more unrest (think recent riots in Baltimore and Ferguson, Missouri, but
on a grander, wider scale). If these occur, gun confiscation won't be that far behind.
Tyranny evolves slowly but predictably
But
the political and financial tyranny may not end there. What's to stop
the authoritarians from confiscating other privately held assets? For
that matter, as the federal government becomes less and less solvent,
what's to stop bank account "hair cuts" like those in Cyprus and Greece
from being imposed? Or gold and silver confiscation?
This has all
happened before, and quite honestly, human nature doesn't change much,
so it's likely that, given the right set of circumstances, these things
would happen again.
Tyrannical behavior doesn't change much from
state to state, continent to continent. When it has been decided that
the people's rights will be violated and liberties taken away, all for
the "greater good," the manner in which these actions are implemented
are the same throughout history.
California may just be a microcosm for things to come. But for sure, anyone living there will continue to see their
wealth, liberties and freedom be eroded, because the state is being led
by a political party that once stood for "civil rights" but is now busy
eliminating them at breakneck speed.
European Union laws require you to give European Union visitors information about cookies used on your blog. In many cases, these laws also require you to obtain consent.
As a courtesy, we have added a notice on your blog to explain Google's use of certain Blogger and Google cookies, including use of Google Analytics and AdSense cookies.
You are responsible for confirming this notice actually works for your blog, and that it displays. If you employ other cookies, for example by adding third party features, this notice may not work for you. Learn more about this notice and your responsibilities.
Cookies notification in European Union countries
European Union (EU) laws require you to give EU visitors information about cookies used on your blog. In many cases, these laws also require you to obtain consent.
As a courtesy, we have added a notice on your blog to help meet these regulations. The notice lets visitors know about Google's use of certain Blogger and Google cookies on your blog, including Google Analytics and AdSense cookies. Learn about Google’s privacy practices and how Google uses data on partner sites.
Change the notice
How to change or disable notice
If you have edited your blog in a way that hides this notice, it will be your responsibility to notify your visitors about cookies used on your blog and if necessary, obtain consent. Also, if you have added other blog features that set cookies, including third-party analytics or advertising services, you’ll need to provide additional or a different notice.
It is your responsibility to determine, based on your cookie use, what else would be appropriate. If you choose to use a different notice, be sure you still comply with Google’s EU user consent policy. Learn more on generating cookie notices.
See the notice
To see the notice if you’re outside of the EU, view your blog and change the country code, for example blogspot.fr or blogspot.co.uk. If you use a custom domain, you won't see the notice outside of the EU.
OFF THE WIRE Steven Greenhut
Will major civil liberties measure change the way California police behave?
When I was covering the Republican National Convention in 2004, New York City police cast the widest nets —
literally, orange nets — to nab some rambunctious protesters. Some news
photographers and other journalists were caught up in those nets, also.
They eventually were freed, only after spending hours in filthy,
makeshift holding areas. New York City ultimately
paid $18 million to settle the resulting civil-rights lawsuits. But I
remember seeing some of this take place and realizing how deeply this
chilled the reporters' ability to cover the news of the day.
I thought of this as legislators this year debated a bill by Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, that makes it legally clear journalists and citizens with cameras (and cell phones) have every right to record the
activities of police officials as long as they are in a public place —
and aren't actually interfering with officers doing their job.
Obviously, it was wrong for New York cops to arrest photojournalists.
It's also wrong for California police to do what they often have done —
confiscate the cameras and even arrest people who are recording the
actions of their public servants operating in public spaces. SB 411, which was on Aug. 11 signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown, removes any doubts. The bill was long overdue.
"SB 411 clarifies
individuals' First Amendment right to record police officers by stating
that a civilian recording while an officer is in a public place, or the
person recording is in a place he or she has the right to be, is not
violating the law," according to a statement from Lara's office.
"Additionally, it makes clear that recording does not constitute
reasonable suspicion to detain a person or probable cause to arrest."
Not surprisingly, it garnered the backing of civil-liberties and
journalistic organizations. "It's great news," said Jim Ewert, general
counsel for the California Newspaper Publishers Association.
"Not sure if agencies will act any differently, though. Not one law
enforcement agency opposed the bill. (There's) nothing worse than
bracing for a fight and no one shows up."
Ewert touches on the big question: Will it fundamentally change police behavior? San Diego area freelance journalist Ed Baier,
who has been arrested three times under the current statute, says
existing law had been "vague and open to interpretation. It gives the
officer a lot of leeway to arrest or cite someone." Police will now have
less incentive to even approach journalists who are recording an
incident unless they are directly in the way, he argued.
"To me, it's kind of a repeat of the obvious," said Mickey H. Osterreicher, general counsel of the National Press Photographers Association,
noting that it "tell(s) them they need to uphold the Constitution they
took an oath to uphold." Will it work as intended? "Like chicken soup,
it might not help, but it doesn't hurt." Osterreicher — a
former deputy sheriff who trains police agencies on media-related
matters — repeated a common police expression: "We can do this the easy
way or we can do this the hard way." Police, in other words, can
"respect people's rights or get sued."
Given the latter possibility, I expect most agencies to choose the
former. And that's where the new law seems useful: It eliminates any
vagueness. The beauty of SB 411 is
it applies not only to credentialed journalists working for mainstream
media outlets, or even to freelance writers and photographers. It is
designed to protect everyone. After all, the First Amendment protects
all Americans, not just special credentialed groups of them.
The timing is good given modern cell phones have turned almost
everyone into a photographer and given recent nationwide news events. In
a statement, Lara said
the law is important "at a time when cell phone and video footage is
helping steer important national civil rights conversations … ."
It's hard to have these "conversations" if
people fear getting arrested or having their equipment confiscated.
Thanks to this new law, police agencies are going to have to cast a much
narrower net.
OFFTHE WIRE US Government Has Borrowed Trillions From Social Security Trust Fund: http://bit.ly/1d9zvCO
The
GOP would have you think Social Security is an "entitlement." It's
not; it's YOUR own personal savings account that come little by little
out of your pay checks. So, remember that!
There
seems to be a disconnect between the public and the police. Taxpayers
don’t seem to realize they are footing the bill for bad policing. http://truthvoice.com/?p=4877
A visual representation of approximately $1 billion, stacked in $100 bills
Bad policing has cost American taxpayers more than $1 billion,
according to a report by The Wall Street Journal. WSJ reporters Zusha
Elinson and Dan Frosch conducted an in-depth study of public records and
found the cost of settling police misconduct cases has almost doubled
over a five-year period.
“The 10 cities with the largest police departments paid out $248.7
million last year in settlements and court judgments in
police-misconduct cases, up 48 percent from $168.3 million in 2010,
according to data gathered by The Wall Street Journal through
public-records requests,” reported the WSJ. “Those cities collectively
paid out $1.02 billion over those five years in such cases, which
include alleged beatings, shootings and wrongful imprisonment.”
Ultimately, taxpayers end up footing the bill for these settlements.
Cities either pay the legal costs by self insuring, with the money
coming from city funds, or the cases are handled by insurance companies.
But just like car insurance, the more claims filed, the higher the
premium. However, officers rarely end up paying out of their pockets for
bad behavior. Notorious Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has managed
to fend off several decades of lawsuits, because the county picks up the
tab. The Arizona Republic reported lawsuits against the Maricopa
sheriff’s department have cost the county $44 million. And that’s one of
the reasons why Arpaio stays in office. The minute he retires, he
becomes responsible for the legal costs, according to a Salon article.
Of all the the cities tracked by the WSJ, New York had the costliest
police department, racking up $601.3 million in legal costs over five
years. Payments for settlements and judgments jumped from $93.8 in
fiscal year 2013 to $165 million in 2014, reported the WSJ. The city
recently paid the family of Eric Garner, who was choked to death during
an altercation with Staten Island police, a $5.9 million settlement.
Sometimes incidents of police abuse are so blatant municipalities
want to settle the cases quickly to stop bad publicity. The County of
San Bernardino took two weeks to pay Francis Pusok $650,000 after a news
helicopter captured sheriff’s deputies kicking and punching him. Pusok
didn’t even have time to file a lawsuit before he received a cash
settlement.
While some legal experts say the prevalence of camera phones is
capturing more cases of police misconduct, that’s not always the case.
Municipalities are still paying for decades-old cases of police abuse.
“New York City agreed last year to pay $41 million to five Black and
Hispanic men imprisoned for the 1989 beating and rape of a jogger in
Central Park, then freed after another man confessed and DNA evidence
confirmed his story,” reported the WSJ. “In 2013 and 2014, for example,
Chicago paid more than $60 million in cases where people were wrongfully
imprisoned decades ago because of alleged police misconduct.”
However, the problem of expensive police misconduct cases is not just
confined to big cities. Albuquerque, N.M. also has a police department
with a troubling record of human rights abuses.
“The city of about 550,000 has had a high number of fatal police
shootings and has spent more than $25 million on civil-rights and
police-misconduct settlements over the past five years, with annual
payouts nearly quadrupling over that period,” reported the WSJ. “Earlier
this month, Albuquerque officials reached a $5 million settlement with
the family of James Boyd, a mentally unstable homeless man who was shot
by police in 2014 in an incident captured on video.”
Unfortunately, there seems to be a disconnect between the public and
the police. Taxpayers don’t seem to realize they are footing the bill
for bad policing.
“Civil suits can win financial settlements. But maybe it’s time for
taxpayers to start insisting their elected officials invest in
better-trained police officers who avoid costly lawsuits,” suggested an
Atlanta Black Star article.
OFF THE WIRE
they probably just charged it to the department......
Minneapolis, MN — In the Land of the
Free, it is against the law to get paid to have sex, unless that sex is
filmed, distributed on DVD, and taxed. One of the least talked about
systems of oppression in the US is that of persecuting prostitutes.
When referencing prostitution, we are talking about the mutually
beneficial exchange of sexual favors for money by two or more consenting
partners; not forced human trafficking.
It’s called the “oldest profession in the world” for a reason. Sex is
a basic human need. One need only observe the explosive population
growth of humans in the last 10,000 years to see that desire to mate is
inherent in each and everyone one of us.
When one takes this into consideration, the notion of outlawing consensual sex is seen for what it is, sheer insanity.
Just like the war on drugs creates crime by pushing the unending
demand for illicit substances into the black market, the war on the sex
trade creates crime in the same manner.
Because the demand for sex is pushed into dark alleys and late night
street corners, a woman working in the sex trade becomes far more
vulnerable than if they were legally allowed to operate out of brick and
mortar setups. This danger of working on the street drives the need for
protection from pimps who are often more abusive than any customer
would be.
Despite the tens of thousands of arrests each year, the market has
found a way to provide the service of sex using safer solutions. In
spite of the laws, sellers of sex have found ways to safely conduct
business by setting up “massage” parlors, using phone books, and, of
course, the internet.
Besides being an immoral gang of thieves, the state is also
relentless. They have deep pockets of extorted tax dollars of which to
dig in to enforce their will on the people.
Despite prostitution arrests dropping from 2001 to 2010, the
cost of arresting people for sex remains staggeringly high. Individual
cities continue to spend up to $23 million a year stopping people from
having voluntary sex.
The kicker her is that the act of stopping people from having
voluntary sex is so futile that the Minneapolis police department has
been forced to bring its own prostitution sting operation to a halt.
When it comes to the natural human tendency to procreate, police
officers are not immune. In just the last month, multiple prostitution
stings all had the charges dismissed after it was found that the male
officers had sexual contact with the suspects during the sting.
According to MRP News,
The department is discontinuing the stings until the
review is complete, according to city spokesperson Matt Lindstrom. He
said the department is considering alternatives to using undercover cops
in prostitution investigations, which could include civil enforcement
through the city’s new massage ordinance.
The hypocrisy within the department is not only apparent due to the
fact that the officers couldn’t keep their hands off the pros, but none
of the officers involved are being investigated for it either.
The idea of police officers legally having sexual contact with prostitutes is not a new one. Last year, Honolulu cops urged lawmakers to
keep an exemption in state law that allows undercover officers to have
sex with prostitutes during investigations, setting off a heated debate
over the provision.
In the end, lawmakers and police settled on a resolution that appeased both parties. Police could still receive handjobs and fellatio in
their efforts to combat prostitution. These officers will now have to
sacrifice their bodies in a selfless manner and be forced to receive
blowjobs so they can then arrest these women for giving them pleasure.
And so continues to turn, the rusty, bloody gears of the state;
kidnapping and caging people for having consensual sex while failing to
pursue actual criminals.
OFF THE WIRE
Kurt Sutter announced he is developing a television show about the
fictional Mayans Motorcycle Club yesterday in an interview with The Hollywood Reporter. Sutter said the show is “still early in the development process.”
In Sons of Anarchy, the Mayans were understood to be analogues for the Mongols Motorcycle Club. The Mayans were largely Xicano and were frequently at odds with the Sons who were understood by viewers to be analogues for the Hells Angels.
The show business newspaper reported that Sutter “is keeping mum on
details, so questions remain about the time period and the potential for
Sons’ stars to return.” In the past Sutter has expressed interest in producing a Sons of Anarchy prequel set during the late Vietnam War.
Given Sutter’s talents and personal history, the back story on the
new show may turn out to be more interesting than the series will be.
Authenticity
Sutter became a household name after he became the “showrunner,” or most hands-on executive producer, of Sons of Anarchy. The gangster melodrama relentlessly compared itself to Hamlet
and bragged about its “authenticity.” It offered virtually no insight
into the motorcycle club world but it did teach a legion of
“aspirational outlaws” how to strut, pose and troll. The general public
loved the show.
But, there was always some question about how Sons of Anarchy came to be.
One version says the show was inspired by the experiences of a John
Linson. Linson is the son of the very important producer Art Linson and
he encouraged the idea that he was rougher than most sons of Hollywood.
The series, viewers were encouraged to believe, was inspired by his
experiences with the Oakland charter of the Hells Angels Motorcycle
Club. As the show was about to debut in 2008, the San Francisco Chronicle
wrote, “With John Linson’s love of motorcycle culture and his access to
an Oakland outlaw club (which he doesn’t name), Sutter was able to
immerse himself in the workings of the organization and come out with
something authentic.”
During the pre-debut media blitz, Sutter told a Television Critics
Association audience, “I had lunch with John Linson and Art Linson two
years ago and John had this notion about doing a family drama set in the
world of outlaw motorcycle clubs. John was completely immersed in the
culture, well-versed in the area,” Sutter explained. “He had friends and
associates who were living the life, and what he offered me was a
front-row seat. I didn’t want to get involved with anything that I felt I
could not do authentically and, you know, I can’t mention any
organizations, but one of these organizations sort of opened their doors
to me, and I got to see it firsthand.”
Chuck Zito
An alternate version of the show’s origin is that it was Chuck Zito’s
idea for a show and Sutter stole it. Zito is an actor and author who
may still be best known as a former president of the Angels New York
City charter and as a tough guy bodyguard. In a 2011 lawsuit against FX Networks LLC Zito claimed he “conceived, developed and wrote a treatment containing his creative ideas for a television series entitled Nomads which was later tweaked and renamed The Wild Angels…about
an outlaw motorcycle club. The protagonists were the leader of the
club, his family members, rivals and associates within the club who
support or undermine the club, law enforcement and government officials
and rival gangs.”
Zito recalls that he had meetings in 2003 and 2004 with FX
executives and that all the parties shook hands on a deal to produce
Zito’s biker show for the cable network. Later in 2004, according to
Zito, network president John Landgraf decided to pass on Zito’s series
because FX was “not interested in a biker show.” Two years
after that, Zito learned that his former agent, a man named Ted Chervin,
had just packaged and sold a biker series named Sons of Anarchy to Landgraf and FX. Landgraf and Sutter had been business associates for years and it was to be Sutter’s show.
Zito lost his lawsuit when a judge named Steven J. Kleifield granted a
summary judgment against him on December 15, 2011. The judge based his
decision, in part, on a sealed declaration by Sutter that “illustrated
his development process.” Sutter claimed to have offered Sons of Anarchy to HBO and AMC before FX won the rights in a “bidding war.”
Sutter The Troll
Sutter subsequently belittled Zito on social media. He called Zito a “half-talent” and called the lawsuit “bogus.”
“Here’s the problem with his (Zito’s) plan,” Sutter wrote. “When it
comes to parting with cash, there’s one badass outlaw that makes Zito
look like a pussy – his name is Rupert, and Rupe don’t sway. Trust me,
Chucky could firebomb our lot and Fox wouldn’t fork over a fucking dime
to this guy. That’s why I love them… my parent company is as stubborn
and aggressive as I am.”
“So here’s my bi-monthly reminder to every delusional bitch who thinks that they’ve come up with the idea for SOA
– Having the fucking idea is not the show. There have been dozens of
outlaw motorcycle TV dramas pitched in the last ten years. None of them
has made it to series except SOA because they sucked. The same way there were dozens of mob family pitches before the Sopranos and crime scene pitches before CSI.”
“I guarantee you, the only similarity between Zito’s pitch and SOA is that they wear cuts, do illegal things and ride Harleys.”
Annie Psaltiras
One person who was distressed this morning to learn of Sutter’s new
show in development is a Hollywood stylist and budding producer named
Annie Psaltiras. Psaltiras grew up in East Los Angeles, has a
fascination with and genuine insight into the early days of the Mongols
and has interviewed and bought the rights to the life stories of some
original Mongols. She is not affiliated with the club and has never
secured the rights to use the Mongols name or logo but she has been
actively trying to produce a fictionalized television series about the
founders of the club for years. It is a passion project for her. She
thinks she has an idea for a story that should be told.
In a show pitch that has been circulating for two years, Psaltiras
describes her characters as “young, Latino-American soldiers who served
in the Vietnam War. They went to Vietnam as naïve kids and returned home
as broken men, without purpose. The club gave them a purpose.”
“These restless outsiders were deeply suffering from “wounds you
couldn’t see.” PTSD was unheard of at the time. Betrayed and
disenfranchised by the country they dutifully served, they were in
desperate need of camaraderie and understanding.
Shunned by the hippy culture as ‘baby killers,’ and unable to relate to
friends and family, they found order in the chaos by sticking together.”
Psaltiras has made slow progress with the project because she is, to a
large extent, a Hollywood unknown. This year she attached the actress
Natasha Lyonne as a producer for her proposed series. Last May, Lyonne
arranged a meeting for Psaltiras with an agent at William Morris
Endeavor Entertainment who liked the idea and suggested writers that
might be attached to the project.
William Morris Endeavor Entertainment is probably the premier agency in Los Angeles.
Kurt Sutter, by the way, is represented by William Morris Endeavor Entertainment.
It would be reasonable to conclude that there is absolutely no
connection between Sutter’s new project and Psaltiras long held dream.
It is also not exactly unreasonable to imagine that there is a
connection. And if there is, and Psaltiras mentions it out loud, it will
be interesting to see how long it takes Sutter to climb up on his bully
pulpit and call her a “delusional bitch.”
OFF THE WIRE Cyril Huze Coroners in six counties in North Carolina will soon use a stencil to spray paint on the road a cross and message that says, “Look Twice Save A Life” at the scene of all deadly motorcycle accidents. Anderson County Deputy Coroner Don McCown said he hopes this message will increase awareness and decrease the number of accidents involving motorcycles. “I thought it was an excellent thing considering the number of motorcycle fatalities we have in this state,” said McCown. “We’re hoping it will remind the public that someone died at this location, and more than likely they died of distracted driving or someone not being aware of their surroundings.” The number one reason given for most deadly motorcycle accidents is that the driver never saw the rider. “There are a lot of motorcycle riders out this time of year and we have to share the road,” said McCown.
Coroners
in six counties in North Carolina will soon use a stencil to spray
paint on the road a cross and message that says, “Look Twice Save A
Life” at the scene of all deadly motorcycle accidents. Anderson County
Deputy Coroner Don McCown said he hopes this message will increase
awareness and decrease the number of accidents involving motorcycles.
“I thought it was an excellent thing considering the number of
motorcycle fatalities we have in this state,” said McCown. “We’re
hoping it will remind the public that someone died at this location, and
more than likely they died of distracted driving or someone not being
aware of their surroundings.”
The number one reason given for most deadly motorcycle accidents is
that the driver never saw the rider. “There are a lot of motorcycle
riders out this time of year and we have to share the road,” said
McCown.
- See more at:
http://cyrilhuzeblog.com/2015/08/25/painted-warning-signs-at-the-scene-of-deadly-motorcycle-accidents/#sthash.YDq8hog9.dpuf
Another day, another right lost to the
political corruption in Washington. In a move that has garnered almost
"no" media attention, the House of Representatives passed HR 237, known as the "FTO
(foreign terrorist organization) Passport Revocation Act, which allows
the "Obama administration the unilateral power to strip you of your
passport and right to travel without a trial or even criminal charges."
This piece of legislation did not receive a "recorded vote" due to the
"uncontroversial" support and passed after only 15 minutes of "supposed"
debate. For anyone caught up in this "web" wrongly, there is no
recourse contained in the legislation to "challenge the status as a
non-person involuntarily trapped inside US borders by order of the
secretary of state."
According to Infowars.com, "Lawmakers, some of whom could themselves be caught in the dragnet along with myriad administration officials, praised the effort as a way to stop alleged terrorists from travelling."
Congress wants to prevent "alleged terrorists" from travelling.
Moreover, who does the federal government consider as terrorists? Documents obtained by Judicial Watch indicates the government considers approximately 72 types of US citizens as potential terrorists
are while any reference to Islam is conspicuously missing. The White
House, aka Ayatollah Obama, declares the unilateral authority to murder
by drone or detain American citizens indefinitely without due process,
charging them with a crime, or on "alleged" criminal activity.
The federal government wants to prevent "alleged terrorists" from leaving the country; however, this
same government allows American citizens who fought with ISIS to return
with impunity while claiming to "monitor" these traitors. So, just who is the government trying to keep from leaving? It's not Islamic jihadis.
Americans can thank Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) for his sponsorship of the
bill, which was "adopted under 'suspension of the rules' typically used
for trivialities such as renaming post offices." In looking at the bill,
it clearly states, "to authorize the revocation or denial of passports
and passport cards to individuals affiliated with foreign terrorist
organizations, and for other purposes." [Emphasis mine.]
Some who read this bill will say, "Now, Suzanne, you are going off
the deep end here with this as it only applies to individuals who aid,
abet, assist or help 'an organization the Secretary of State has
designated as a foreign terrorist organization'. There's nothing to
worry about if we're not helping terrorist organizations."
Well, under any other circumstances with any other Congress,
president, Secretary of State prior to say 1990, there might not be
cause for worry. However, with the liberal usurpation of unilateral
authority to murder with drones and hold US citizens indefinitely
without any due process, the stretch to false accusations for nefarious
purposes by this administration or anyone in it isn't far. There are no
set criteria in this "new" attack on liberty. The terms are undefined
and there remains no appeals process. It creates an avenue for
widespread abuse by the current Secretary of State, John Kerry, along
with future occupants of that office.
Did anything in that document declare that actual evidence had to
exist to invoke a passport revocation? The only criteria the document
indicated were "whom the Secretary of State has determined ...."
Basically, the new legislation, should it pass the Senate and be signed
by Ayatollah Obama, could leave citizens stranded outside the United
States as well as prevent citizens from leaving based on "secret"
evidence or the whim of "one" individual. As a reminder, the NSA
maintains a vast database of unlawfully, unconstitutionally gathered
communications data on every US citizen that could be "sliced and diced"
against targeted individuals to produce an appearance of "criminality"
where none exists.
Naturally, Rep. Poe spins his "tapestry" like this.
"Daily, deadly attacks around the world remind us that radical Islamic
terrorists are spreading their murderous rampage worldwide. The threat
to America from these groups has never been greater. But some of our own
citizens have traveled to the terrorists hotbeds in Syria and beyond to
fight for the other side. These Benedict Arnold traitors who have
turned against America and joined the ranks of foreign radical terrorist
armies should lose all rights afforded to our citizens."
No one would argue that traitors should lose their rights, but only
after following due process, a trial by jury and a finding of guilt for
treason or being guilty of being a traitor. However, the determination
of revocation of rights by one individual, instead of the due process
guaranteed every US citizen in the Constitution, reeks of unilateral,
dictatorial power.
Poe continued by saying, "This will help law enforcement locate these
individuals by making it easier to flag the individuals who are trying
to travel internationally. Most importantly, this legislation will help
prevent Americans from coming back to the United States undetected."
Anyone else want to call "BS?" With an open southern border allowing who knows who to cross and be welcomed with open arms and our Ayatollah importing unvetted Muslims daily from every terrorist nation in the Middle East into our communities,
these "charlatans" are more concerned about Americans re-entering
"undetected." The FBI knows who these individuals are and the FBI allows
them to re-enter the US with impunity. Granted, these individuals
should not be allowed to return; however, US citizens should be afforded
due process in order to establish their guilt or innocence. Guilty
individuals should receive a traitor's punishment. Poe certainly does
not want to address the policy of illegal, unconstitutional "amnesty" or
the lack of enforcement of immigration laws as it relates to this
"passport revocation."
Could anyone answer the question of how many non-Muslim US citizens
actually travel to terrorist nations to fight with terrorists? Let's be
honest here. All terrorists are Muslims, while not all Muslims are terrorists -- yet.
Poe, like a good little RINO, continues digging a pothole. He states,
"The House has now acted to locate and contain these traitors. It's
time for the Senate to quickly do the same. These people are not
returning to America to open up coffee shops; they're coming back to
kill. Let's stop them from coming back at all."
It sounds good and something on which everyone could agree. In fact,
known terrorists should be barred entry or re-entry into this nation;
however, it's moot when the administration imports terrorists freely
daily. To clarify, the United States should bar the immigration of
Muslims and the re-entry of Muslims into this nation. The "Americans"
who are leaving to fight with terrorists have a connection to Islam.
Still, the Constitution affords every US citizen due process. A better idea would be to stop importing terrorists by denying Islam-practicing individuals entry into this nation.
Instead of identifying the problem as Islam and acting accordingly,
this lame government blindly barrels forward with inept legislation
filled with "unintended consequences;" or, is it?
And, what about "containing" the traitors sitting in this
administration, Congress and the biggest one of all, Ayatollah Obama?
Funny, nothing mentioned about that. Treason is treason and traitors are
traitors whether they aid and abet the enemy or violate their oath of
office to support, protect, defend and uphold the Constitution of the
united States of America. Maybe Poe should start looking in both
chambers of Congress and the White House first.
According to Infowars.com,
"Critics said it was yet another attack on the fundamental rights of
Americans, such as due process protections, and that it must be
resisted."
But, this is the crux of the issue - attacking the fundamental rights
of Americans - not a crackdown on those who participate in treasonous
and terrorist activities. Poe called individuals who joined to fight
with foreign Islamic terror groups as "Benedict Arnold traitors." Would
that not also include those who "aid and abet" those groups? The
legislation declares it so, which means the dragnet would net Senator John McCain should he desire to travel and pose with known terrorists, again. Not only would McCain be caught, but so would Kerry, Obama, Jarrett and a host of other officials.
Oh wait, they exempt themselves; however, these individuals are some of
the biggest supporters of terrorist and terrorist organizations in the
united States.
Another surprise Americans face is the denial of travel for "alleged tax debts."
As the New American reports, "... just this week, the Senate included a
provision in the 'transportation' bill it introduced that would strip the passports of anyone the IRS claims owes over $50,000."
Section 52102 of the Senate bill calls for revocation or denial of
passports based on unpaid taxes. The Commissioner of the Internal
Revenue Service only has to submit "certification" to the Secretary of
State stating an individual "has a seriously delinquent tax debt in an
amount in excess of $50,000, ...." Considering the honesty of the IRS,
Americans need not be concerned, or so some would contend. At the rate
Obama uses the IRS as his "strong arm" against political opposition with
impunity, every American should be concerned.
All of this is nothing more than bypassing US citizens' rights to due process.
Anyone who studies the history of the rise of Nazi Germany knows that on October 5, 1938, a passport revocation decree resulted in the confiscation of passports held by Jewish German citizens.
While the House has not specifically targeted a "certain" group or
groups of citizens, the "unintended consequences" are enormous for that
to happen considering the propensity for this administration to target
opposition groups. If this administration continues its criminal course
to unilaterally deny individual God-given rights guaranteed by the
Constitution, our nation's government will follow the path of Hitler's
regime. They will succeed as long as citizens continue their "head down"
to get by plan of inaction and liberal "traitors" continue their
support of a corrupt government and administration.
Read
more at
http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/07/congress-infringes-on-due-process-votes-to-allow-obama-to-strip-you-of-right-to-travel-without-trial/#eR1MxkQPLyDw2JRu.99
First, let me mention that reading this study my first reaction was that a ranking of the worst motorcycle drivers by State (number of motorcyclist fatalities) is equivalent to rank States by the worst car drivers since most motorcycle accidents are the consequence of car driver mistakes. So, the headline is quite misleading…
This being said, this ranking is important because depending of your home state it directly affects your motorcycle insurance premiums. In this study published by Insurance Providers statistics data is drawn from the US Census Bureau’s motorcycle registration data and from the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration’s crash statistics by state and vehicle type.
Each state is ranked based on the number of motorcycle fatalities in that state in 2009 compared to the total number of registered bikes in the state. Tthe states which have the most motorcycle fatalities are mostly the southern states
The list, starting with the worst-ranked state, is as follows:
OFF THE WIRE
Published by Cyril Huze
The McLennan County District Attorney’s Office has filed civil motions naming 25 individuals arrested in the May 17 Twin Peaks motorcycle gang shootings seeking forfeiture of hundred of thousands of dollars’ worth of motorcycles and vehicles impounded after the shootout that left nine bikers dead and 18 others injured. Texas state law requires that forfeiture motions be filed within 30 days of an arrest and yesterday Wednesday June 17 marked the 30th day since the shootings that claimed nine lives and left 18 injured. The actual process of forfeiture can only take place after a person is convicted of the crime alleged in the forfeiture. Forfeiture, however, is a civil process and not part of a criminal action.
In most cases forfeitures are filed in connection with drug cases. Items sought for forfeiture can include vehicles, cash, real estate, firearms and other items. District Attorney Abel Reyna said Wednesday that Texas law requires that prosecutors prove that items sought through forfeiture were used in the commission of a felony crime or were purchased with money generated from a felony crime. She said that the filings do not indicate any guilt on a defendant’s part. Once items are forfeited, the state may sell them and use the proceeds or may convert the items for use by police or other law enforcement departments.
- See more at: http://cyrilhuzeblog.com/2015/06/18/waco-shootings-forfeiture-motions-filed-for-motorcycles-and-vehicles-belonging-to-25-individuals/#sthash.rxaWAXlH.dpuf
OFF THE WIRE
Hey San Jose Residents....You really need to shoot down this blatant
big brother idea...... First garbage trucks, then school buses, public
works vehicles, stop lights....etc... Need to march outside of Khamis'
office and protest this....
Councilman Johnny Khamis of San Jose
recently suggested that garbage trucks should be used to help the police
catch suspects. The councilman said that license plate readers can be
placed on garbage trucks, and would send information back to police.
This would give police an extra level of surveillance that would be undetected by most people.
“We can cover every street at least once a week and possibly deter
thieves from coming into our city,” Khamis told San Jose Mercury News.
“You’re not expecting privacy on a public street,” he added.
SAN JOSE
-- The noisy garbage trucks that lumber down San Jose streets every
week could soon pick up more than just trash -- they might also scan
your license plate and all your neighbors' tags, too, in a proposed
city-wide sweep for stolen vehicles that has civil libertarians crying
foul.
Mayor Sam Liccardo and Councilmen Johnny Khamis and Raul Peralez
proposed that the city consider strapping license plate readers to the
front of garbage trucks, allowing them to record the plates of every car
along their routes. The data would be fed directly to the Police
Department from the privately operated trash trucks, prompting an
officer to respond to stolen vehicles or cars involved with serious
crime.
A garbage truck operated by Garden City Sanitation Inc. for the city of
San Jose collects garbage on Wednesday, Aug. 19, 2015, in San Jose,
Calif.
(Dai Sugano, Bay Area News Group)
"We can cover every street at least once a week and possibly deter
thieves from coming into our city," Khamis said. A committee chaired by
Liccardo that sets the council's agenda voted Wednesday to continue
exploring the idea.
While license plate readers are increasingly being used by police
across the Bay Area, some are alarmed that San Jose is considering
turning the garbage collector into an agent of law enforcement.
Councilman Chappie Jones was opposed to what he called an "extreme"
policy, evoking the "Big Brother" government of George Orwell's
dystopian 1949 novel "1984."
Civil rights advocates said the unusual plan raises "significant
concerns" and could invade the privacy of San Jose residents because of
how the data is collected, stored and analyzed.
"The idea is they would also collect the location of cars as they
drive down the street," said Chris Conley, a policy attorney for ACLU of
Northern California who said he has not heard of any other city
gathering license plate records in such a way. "If it's collected
repeatedly over a long period of time, it can reveal intimate data about
you like attending a religious service or a gay bar. People have a
right to live their lives without constantly being monitored by the
government."
While most residents may not know it, six San Jose police cars
already are fitted with license plate readers that scan car tags every
day while out on patrol. This year's budget pegged an additional $68,400
to pay for two more plate readers.
Khamis said mounting the plate readers on garbage trucks instead
of police cars wouldn't be any more intrusive than what's already being
done. "This is a public street," Khamis said. "You're not expecting
privacy on a public street."
Garbage pickup trucks travel the
entire city each week, Khamis added, giving them broader reach than a
patrol car and lending a hand to a shrinking police force with roughly
950 cops.
Khamis called the idea a unique approach to maximizing
technology to thwart crime. The city and county of San Francisco uses
license plate scanners on its Muni buses, but only to identify vehicles
that are blocking bus stop access for towing or citation. Assistant
Police Chief Eddie Garcia said the department welcomes any outside help
with combatting crime, but worried about how the department's thin staff
would respond to a hauler's discovery of stolen cars.
"In a
perfect world with the right staffing, I think it would be beneficial,"
Garcia said. "But right now, we need to ask ourselves if we have the
capacity to take on something like this. If we don't have the staffing,
it just puts an added burden on us at that point."
The Police
Department can use its 26 community service officers to respond to a
stolen vehicle, but only if it's unoccupied. Otherwise, a police officer
would have to be called.
There are also questions about whether
the city's four private haulers will agree to the idea. Khamis said he
spoke with one company that was "enthusiastic" about it.
Officials
from GreenTeam of San Jose, which services about 48,000 single-family
homes in west and central San Jose, told this newspaper the company is
on board.
"GreenTeam of San Jose would love to help the city of
San Jose thwart crime," said outreach manager Weslie McConkey. "We are
interested in learning more about the proposal to install license plate
readers on our garbage and recycling trucks."
But Conley also
worries San Jose is not doing enough to engage residents in the debate,
comparing it with how the city's Police Department quietly purchased a
drone that drew outcry over potential privacy concerns when it became
public.
"Our hope was they would have learned from the drone once
it became a public fiasco," Conley said. "They need to put the plan in
writing and let the public review it."
Khamis said Wednesday's
action is only the first step in a long process. The proposal calls for
city officials to explore the "feasibility, legality and civil liberties
implications" of garbage-truck mounted license plate readers. Questions
the council members asked the city to consider include the process of
transferring license data from the private garbage trucks to the police,
whether they would be subjected to the same or different policies
governing police car license readers and whether other cities have taken
similar measures and how they worked.
"We'll look at privacy concerns and talk to ACLU before we do anything," Khamis said.
“THE BIKERS OF AMERICA, THE PHIL and BILL SHOW”,
A HARDCORE BIKER RIGHTS SHOW THAT HITS LIKE A BORED AND STROKED BIG TWIN! ON LIVE TUESDAY'S & THURDAY'S AT 6 PM P.S.T. 9 PM E.S.T.