Sunday, October 30, 2016
Saturday, October 29, 2016
Friday, October 28, 2016
Private Eyes The Little-Known Company That Enables Worldwide Mass Surveillance
OFF THE WIRE
t was a powerful
piece of technology created for an important customer. The Medusa
system, named after the mythical Greek monster with snakes instead of
hair, had one main purpose: to vacuum up vast quantities of internet
data at an astonishing speed.
The technology was designed by Endace, a little-known New Zealand company. And the important customer was the British electronic eavesdropping agency, Government Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ.
Dozens of internal documents and emails from Endace, obtained by The Intercept and reported in cooperation with Television New Zealand, reveal the firm’s key role helping governments across the world harvest vast amounts of information on people’s private emails, online chats, social media conversations, and internet browsing histories.
The leaked files, which were provided by a source through SecureDrop, show that Endace listed a Moroccan security agency implicated in torture as one of its customers. They also indicate that the company sold its surveillance gear to more than half a dozen other government agencies, including in the United States, Israel, Denmark, Australia, Canada, Spain, and India.
Some of Endace’s largest sales in recent years, however, were to the United Kingdom’s GCHQ, which purchased a variety of “data acquisition” systems and “probes” that it used to covertly monitor internet traffic.
Documents from the National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden, previously disclosed by The Intercept, have shown how GCHQ dramatically expanded its online surveillance between 2009 and 2012. The newly obtained Endace documents add to those revelations, shining light for the first time on the vital role played by the private sector in enabling the spying.
Stuart Wilson, Endace’s CEO, declined to answer questions for this story. Wilson said in a statement that Endace’s technology “generates significant export revenue for New Zealand and builds important technical capability for our country.” He added: “Our commercial technology is used by customers worldwide … who rely on network recording to protect their critical infrastructure and data from cybercriminals, terrorists, and state-sponsored cybersecurity threats.”
Endace says it manufactures technology that allows its clients to “monitor, intercept and capture 100% of traffic on networks.” The Auckland-based company’s motto is “power to see all” and its logo is an eye.
The company’s origins can be traced back to Waikato University in Hamilton, New Zealand. There, in 1994, a team of professors and researchers began developing network monitoring technology using university resources. A central aim of the project was to find ways to measure different kinds of data on the internet, which was at that time only just beginning to take off. Within a few years, the academics’ efforts proved successful; they had managed to invent pioneering network monitoring tools. By 2001, the group behind the research started commercializing the technology — and Endace was formed.
Today, Endace presents itself publicly as focused on providing technology that helps companies and governments keep their networks secure. But in the past decade, it has quietly entered into a burgeoning global spy industry that is worth in excess of an estimated $5 billion annually.
In 2007, Endace representatives promoted their technology at a huge surveillance technology trade show in Dubai that was attended by dozens of government agencies from across the world. Endace’s advertising brochures from the show, which described the company’s products and promoted the need for greater state surveillance, were published by WikiLeaks in 2013.
One Endace brochure explained how the company’s technology could help clients “monitor all network traffic inexpensively.” It noted that telecommunications networks carry many types of information: Skype calls, videos, emails, and instant message chats. “These networks provide rich intelligence for law enforcement,” the brochure stated, “IF they can be accessed securely and with high precision.”
The United Kingdom’s geographic location — situated between North America, mainland Europe, and the Middle East — made it a good market for Endace.
Many major international undersea data cables cross British territory, and according to top-secret documents from Snowden, as much as 25 percent of all the world’s internet traffic flows through the U.K. The country’s spies have worked to exploit this, with GCHQ tapping into as many of the cables as it can, sifting through huge volumes of emails, instant messages, social media interactions, and web browsing records as they are being transmitted across the internet.
As of 2009, GCHQ’s surveillance of undersea cables was well underway. The agency was measuring the amount of traffic it monitored in tens of gigabits per second (10Gs) — the equivalent in data of about 1 million average-sized emails every minute. The electronic eavesdropping agency was tapping into 87 different 10Gs capacity cables and funneling the collected data into its processing systems for analysis.
By March 2011, GCHQ’s aim was to tap into 415 of the 10Gs cables, and its longer-term goal was to “grow our internet access to 800 10Gs.” The agency wanted to build what it described as the largest covert surveillance apparatus in the world. And in an effort to fulfill that plan, it turned to Endace’s technology.
Leaked documents and emails from Endace, obtained by The Intercept, lay out a series of deals the company made with GCHQ to help it broaden its mass surveillance capabilities. A confidential February 2010 Endace statement of work for GCHQ, for instance, outlined a £245,000 ($299,500) deal to upgrade “monitoring solutions” for the British agency that were designed to intercept large amounts of internet traffic and send it into “memory holes” — repositories used to store the data.
A November 2010 company document said that “FGA” had an order of 20 systems scheduled for delivery in March 2011. Each system was equipped with two “data acquisition” cards capable of intercepting 20Gs of internet traffic. The total capacity of the order would enable GCHQ to monitor a massive amount of data — the equivalent of being able to download 3,750 high-definition movies every minute, or 2.5 billion average-sized emails an hour.
Endace added in the document that “a potential for 300-500 systems over the next two to three years is being discussed” and noted that it was soon anticipating another order of “30-40 additional systems.” Indeed, the following month a new $167,940 purchase order for 27 more systems arrived, and the items were swiftly dispatched for delivery to GCHQ’s headquarters in Cheltenham, England.
The records of the Endace sales are confirmed by internal GCHQ documents, provided by Snowden, which describe the company’s data capture devices being used as part of mass surveillance programs. GCHQ documents from 2010 and 2011 repeatedly mention the Endace products while discussing the capture of “internet-derived” data to extract information about people’s usage of services such as Gmail, Hotmail, WhatsApp, and Facebook.
GCHQ declined to comment for this story.
Throughout the summer of 2011, at Endace’s offices in Auckland, New Zealand, the orders from GCHQ were continuing to flow in. Meanwhile, the company’s engineers were busy turning their sights to new technology that could vastly increase surveillance capability. Endace was developing a powerful new product for GCHQ called Medusa: interception equipment that could capture internet traffic at up to 100 gigabits per second.
Medusa was first logged in Endace’s sales systems in September 2011. Endace staff produced weekly status reports about their progress and updated GCHQ at biweekly review meetings. By November 18, 2011, the first version of Medusa arrived at GCHQ. “FGA are very pleased with the prototypes we delivered last week,” Endace noted.
Apparently after testing the Medusa prototype, GCHQ requested some refinements. One feature the agency wanted was called “Separate MAC insertion by IP type.” This suggests the British agency may have sought the ability to target individuals by searching internet traffic for the built-in hardware address of their computers, routers, or phones.
Notably, the Medusa status reports reveal that Endace was using taxpayers’ money to develop the new equipment for GCHQ. They state that the Medusa system was being built for “FGA” with funding from the Foundation of Research Science and Technology, the body that handed out New Zealand government research grants.
In 2010, Endace received two grants totaling $11.1 million. A public announcement for the first grant — issued in July 2010 — said the funding was for “50% of the cost of a series of substantial product developments over the next two years,” but did not say what the products were nor who they were for.
A New Zealand government spokesperson told The Intercept that he could not immediately give a “definitive” answer on whether the funding body had known Endace would use the grants to develop surveillance technology for GCHQ, but said it was “highly unlikely Endace would have provided that information, as they were under no obligation to do so.”
Endace has never publicly disclosed any of its work with GCHQ, likely because it is subject to strict confidentiality agreements. In one contract obtained by The Intercept, GCHQ states that Endace staff are bound to the U.K.’s Official Secrets Act, a sweeping law that can be used to prosecute and imprison people who disclose classified information. GCHQ warned Endace that it must not “make any press announcements or publicize the contract or any part thereof in any way.”
Endace’s leaked client lists show three main categories of customers: governments, telecommunications companies, and finance companies.
The government clients appear to be mostly intelligence agencies. A 2008 Endace customer list included: GCHQ; the Canadian and Australian defense departments (where their electronic spy agencies are located); a U.S. government contractor called Rep-Tron Systems Group, located in Baltimore, Maryland; and Morocco’s domestic surveillance agency, the DGST.
Other Endace customer lists contained in the leaked trove include the U.S. Army and the U.S. Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, called SPAWAR; the Israeli Ministry of Defense (home of its Unit 8200 electronic spy agency); the government of India, the Spanish Ministry of Defense; and Denmark’s Defense Intelligence Service.
Endace’s apparent dealings with the Moroccan agency, the DGST, are particularly controversial. Moroccan authorities have been persistently accused over more than five decades of committing a range of severe human rights abuses.
Sirine Rached, Amnesty’s North Africa researcher, told The Intercept that sales of surveillance technology to Morocco raised major concerns.
“In Morocco, digital surveillance is intimately linked with repression of peaceful dissent — people who are peacefully protesting or criticizing the authorities face intimidation, arrest, unfair trials, and sometimes imprisonment,” said Rached. “We fear that the more that these surveillance tools are sold [to Moroccan agencies], the more we will see human rights abuses, especially in relation to freedom of expression and information.”
Endace declined to comment on its dealings with Morocco. Stuart Wilson, Endace’s CEO, claimed in a statement that he had to keep details about the company’s customers confidential in order to help them “battle cyberthreats and breaches.”
Alongside its government clients, Endace has many major corporate customers.
Endace’s sales lists include finance industry giants such as Morgan Stanley, Reuters, and Bank of America. Endace’s website says it provides financial companies with its monitoring technology to help “high-frequency traders to monitor, measure, and analyze critical network environments.”
In addition, Endace sells its equipment to some of the world’s largest telecommunications companies, among them AT&T, AOL, Verizon, Sprint, Cogent Communications, Telstra, Belgacom, Swisscom, Deutsche Telekom, Telena Italy, Vastech South Africa, and France Telecom.
Some of these companies may use the Endace equipment for checking the security of their networks. But a key strand of Endace’s business involves providing technology for telecommunications firms that enables law enforcement and intelligence agencies to intercept the messages and data of phone and internet users.
A company product strategy document from 2010 said that Endace had “seen early success” providing a Lawful Intercept product to the major U.S. telco and internet company Sprint Corporation.
All telcos and internet companies in the U.S., Europe, New Zealand, and a number of other countries are required by law to have “intercept capable” equipment on their networks. When police or spy agencies want private data about a customer (with or without a warrant, depending on the country), it can be extracted easily.
When installed on a network, Endace’s surveillance equipment can be used to perform targeted monitoring of individual people, but it can also be used to enable dragnet spying.
In one of the leaked Endace documents obtained by The Intercept — under a section titled “customer user stories” — the company describes a situation in which a government agency has obtained “the encryption keys for a well-known program.” An Endace surveillance “probe,” the document suggests, could help the government agency “unencrypt all packets sent by this program on a large network in the last 24 hours.”
Once the data has been decrypted, the agency will be able to “look for the text string ‘Domino’s Pizza,’” Endace joked, “as they have information suggesting this is the favorite pizza of international terrorists.”
———
Documents published with this article:
The technology was designed by Endace, a little-known New Zealand company. And the important customer was the British electronic eavesdropping agency, Government Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ.
Dozens of internal documents and emails from Endace, obtained by The Intercept and reported in cooperation with Television New Zealand, reveal the firm’s key role helping governments across the world harvest vast amounts of information on people’s private emails, online chats, social media conversations, and internet browsing histories.
The leaked files, which were provided by a source through SecureDrop, show that Endace listed a Moroccan security agency implicated in torture as one of its customers. They also indicate that the company sold its surveillance gear to more than half a dozen other government agencies, including in the United States, Israel, Denmark, Australia, Canada, Spain, and India.
Some of Endace’s largest sales in recent years, however, were to the United Kingdom’s GCHQ, which purchased a variety of “data acquisition” systems and “probes” that it used to covertly monitor internet traffic.
Documents from the National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden, previously disclosed by The Intercept, have shown how GCHQ dramatically expanded its online surveillance between 2009 and 2012. The newly obtained Endace documents add to those revelations, shining light for the first time on the vital role played by the private sector in enabling the spying.
Stuart Wilson, Endace’s CEO, declined to answer questions for this story. Wilson said in a statement that Endace’s technology “generates significant export revenue for New Zealand and builds important technical capability for our country.” He added: “Our commercial technology is used by customers worldwide … who rely on network recording to protect their critical infrastructure and data from cybercriminals, terrorists, and state-sponsored cybersecurity threats.”
Former Endace Director Ian Graham, right, meets New Zealand Prime Minister John Key in 2010.
Photo: NZNationalParty/Flickr
Endace says it manufactures technology that allows its clients to “monitor, intercept and capture 100% of traffic on networks.” The Auckland-based company’s motto is “power to see all” and its logo is an eye.
The company’s origins can be traced back to Waikato University in Hamilton, New Zealand. There, in 1994, a team of professors and researchers began developing network monitoring technology using university resources. A central aim of the project was to find ways to measure different kinds of data on the internet, which was at that time only just beginning to take off. Within a few years, the academics’ efforts proved successful; they had managed to invent pioneering network monitoring tools. By 2001, the group behind the research started commercializing the technology — and Endace was formed.
Today, Endace presents itself publicly as focused on providing technology that helps companies and governments keep their networks secure. But in the past decade, it has quietly entered into a burgeoning global spy industry that is worth in excess of an estimated $5 billion annually.
In 2007, Endace representatives promoted their technology at a huge surveillance technology trade show in Dubai that was attended by dozens of government agencies from across the world. Endace’s advertising brochures from the show, which described the company’s products and promoted the need for greater state surveillance, were published by WikiLeaks in 2013.
One Endace brochure explained how the company’s technology could help clients “monitor all network traffic inexpensively.” It noted that telecommunications networks carry many types of information: Skype calls, videos, emails, and instant message chats. “These networks provide rich intelligence for law enforcement,” the brochure stated, “IF they can be accessed securely and with high precision.”
Photo: Ullstein Bild/Getty Images
The United Kingdom’s geographic location — situated between North America, mainland Europe, and the Middle East — made it a good market for Endace.
Many major international undersea data cables cross British territory, and according to top-secret documents from Snowden, as much as 25 percent of all the world’s internet traffic flows through the U.K. The country’s spies have worked to exploit this, with GCHQ tapping into as many of the cables as it can, sifting through huge volumes of emails, instant messages, social media interactions, and web browsing records as they are being transmitted across the internet.
As of 2009, GCHQ’s surveillance of undersea cables was well underway. The agency was measuring the amount of traffic it monitored in tens of gigabits per second (10Gs) — the equivalent in data of about 1 million average-sized emails every minute. The electronic eavesdropping agency was tapping into 87 different 10Gs capacity cables and funneling the collected data into its processing systems for analysis.
By March 2011, GCHQ’s aim was to tap into 415 of the 10Gs cables, and its longer-term goal was to “grow our internet access to 800 10Gs.” The agency wanted to build what it described as the largest covert surveillance apparatus in the world. And in an effort to fulfill that plan, it turned to Endace’s technology.
Leaked documents and emails from Endace, obtained by The Intercept, lay out a series of deals the company made with GCHQ to help it broaden its mass surveillance capabilities. A confidential February 2010 Endace statement of work for GCHQ, for instance, outlined a £245,000 ($299,500) deal to upgrade “monitoring solutions” for the British agency that were designed to intercept large amounts of internet traffic and send it into “memory holes” — repositories used to store the data.
The agency wanted to build the largest covert surveillance apparatus in the world.Between November 2010 and March 2011, GCHQ purchased more technology from Endace, including specialized surveillance technology built for “FGA only,” a code name the company often uses in its internal documents to refer to GCHQ; it stands for “friendly government agency.”
A November 2010 company document said that “FGA” had an order of 20 systems scheduled for delivery in March 2011. Each system was equipped with two “data acquisition” cards capable of intercepting 20Gs of internet traffic. The total capacity of the order would enable GCHQ to monitor a massive amount of data — the equivalent of being able to download 3,750 high-definition movies every minute, or 2.5 billion average-sized emails an hour.
Endace added in the document that “a potential for 300-500 systems over the next two to three years is being discussed” and noted that it was soon anticipating another order of “30-40 additional systems.” Indeed, the following month a new $167,940 purchase order for 27 more systems arrived, and the items were swiftly dispatched for delivery to GCHQ’s headquarters in Cheltenham, England.
The records of the Endace sales are confirmed by internal GCHQ documents, provided by Snowden, which describe the company’s data capture devices being used as part of mass surveillance programs. GCHQ documents from 2010 and 2011 repeatedly mention the Endace products while discussing the capture of “internet-derived” data to extract information about people’s usage of services such as Gmail, Hotmail, WhatsApp, and Facebook.
GCHQ declined to comment for this story.
Photo: Endance
Throughout the summer of 2011, at Endace’s offices in Auckland, New Zealand, the orders from GCHQ were continuing to flow in. Meanwhile, the company’s engineers were busy turning their sights to new technology that could vastly increase surveillance capability. Endace was developing a powerful new product for GCHQ called Medusa: interception equipment that could capture internet traffic at up to 100 gigabits per second.
Medusa was first logged in Endace’s sales systems in September 2011. Endace staff produced weekly status reports about their progress and updated GCHQ at biweekly review meetings. By November 18, 2011, the first version of Medusa arrived at GCHQ. “FGA are very pleased with the prototypes we delivered last week,” Endace noted.
Apparently after testing the Medusa prototype, GCHQ requested some refinements. One feature the agency wanted was called “Separate MAC insertion by IP type.” This suggests the British agency may have sought the ability to target individuals by searching internet traffic for the built-in hardware address of their computers, routers, or phones.
Notably, the Medusa status reports reveal that Endace was using taxpayers’ money to develop the new equipment for GCHQ. They state that the Medusa system was being built for “FGA” with funding from the Foundation of Research Science and Technology, the body that handed out New Zealand government research grants.
In 2010, Endace received two grants totaling $11.1 million. A public announcement for the first grant — issued in July 2010 — said the funding was for “50% of the cost of a series of substantial product developments over the next two years,” but did not say what the products were nor who they were for.
A New Zealand government spokesperson told The Intercept that he could not immediately give a “definitive” answer on whether the funding body had known Endace would use the grants to develop surveillance technology for GCHQ, but said it was “highly unlikely Endace would have provided that information, as they were under no obligation to do so.”
Endace has never publicly disclosed any of its work with GCHQ, likely because it is subject to strict confidentiality agreements. In one contract obtained by The Intercept, GCHQ states that Endace staff are bound to the U.K.’s Official Secrets Act, a sweeping law that can be used to prosecute and imprison people who disclose classified information. GCHQ warned Endace that it must not “make any press announcements or publicize the contract or any part thereof in any way.”
Photo: Education Images/UIG/Getty Images
Endace’s leaked client lists show three main categories of customers: governments, telecommunications companies, and finance companies.
The government clients appear to be mostly intelligence agencies. A 2008 Endace customer list included: GCHQ; the Canadian and Australian defense departments (where their electronic spy agencies are located); a U.S. government contractor called Rep-Tron Systems Group, located in Baltimore, Maryland; and Morocco’s domestic surveillance agency, the DGST.
Other Endace customer lists contained in the leaked trove include the U.S. Army and the U.S. Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, called SPAWAR; the Israeli Ministry of Defense (home of its Unit 8200 electronic spy agency); the government of India, the Spanish Ministry of Defense; and Denmark’s Defense Intelligence Service.
Endace’s apparent dealings with the Moroccan agency, the DGST, are particularly controversial. Moroccan authorities have been persistently accused over more than five decades of committing a range of severe human rights abuses.
In Morocco, digital surveillance is intimately linked with repression of peaceful dissent.Amnesty International, in a 2015 report, specifically singled out the DGST agency as a key perpetrator of recent abuses, accusing it of detaining people incommunicado and using brutal torture methods that included beatings, electric shocks, sexual violence, simulated drowning, drugging, mock executions, and food and sleep deprivation.
Sirine Rached, Amnesty’s North Africa researcher, told The Intercept that sales of surveillance technology to Morocco raised major concerns.
“In Morocco, digital surveillance is intimately linked with repression of peaceful dissent — people who are peacefully protesting or criticizing the authorities face intimidation, arrest, unfair trials, and sometimes imprisonment,” said Rached. “We fear that the more that these surveillance tools are sold [to Moroccan agencies], the more we will see human rights abuses, especially in relation to freedom of expression and information.”
Endace declined to comment on its dealings with Morocco. Stuart Wilson, Endace’s CEO, claimed in a statement that he had to keep details about the company’s customers confidential in order to help them “battle cyberthreats and breaches.”
An Endace “data acquisition and generation” card, used to monitor networks.
Photo: Endace
Endace’s sales lists include finance industry giants such as Morgan Stanley, Reuters, and Bank of America. Endace’s website says it provides financial companies with its monitoring technology to help “high-frequency traders to monitor, measure, and analyze critical network environments.”
In addition, Endace sells its equipment to some of the world’s largest telecommunications companies, among them AT&T, AOL, Verizon, Sprint, Cogent Communications, Telstra, Belgacom, Swisscom, Deutsche Telekom, Telena Italy, Vastech South Africa, and France Telecom.
Some of these companies may use the Endace equipment for checking the security of their networks. But a key strand of Endace’s business involves providing technology for telecommunications firms that enables law enforcement and intelligence agencies to intercept the messages and data of phone and internet users.
A company product strategy document from 2010 said that Endace had “seen early success” providing a Lawful Intercept product to the major U.S. telco and internet company Sprint Corporation.
All telcos and internet companies in the U.S., Europe, New Zealand, and a number of other countries are required by law to have “intercept capable” equipment on their networks. When police or spy agencies want private data about a customer (with or without a warrant, depending on the country), it can be extracted easily.
When installed on a network, Endace’s surveillance equipment can be used to perform targeted monitoring of individual people, but it can also be used to enable dragnet spying.
In one of the leaked Endace documents obtained by The Intercept — under a section titled “customer user stories” — the company describes a situation in which a government agency has obtained “the encryption keys for a well-known program.” An Endace surveillance “probe,” the document suggests, could help the government agency “unencrypt all packets sent by this program on a large network in the last 24 hours.”
Once the data has been decrypted, the agency will be able to “look for the text string ‘Domino’s Pizza,’” Endace joked, “as they have information suggesting this is the favorite pizza of international terrorists.”
———
Documents published with this article:
- GCHQ Endace contract terms March 2011
- Endace-GCHQ statement of work
- GCHQ purchase order Dec 2010
- Endace purchased support list
- Strategic account list
- Customer purchase list 2010
- Customer list
- Customer list 2
- Upgrade account list
- Medusa weekly status report
- Medusa sprint 2 requirements
- GCHQ ‘important order’
- Endace financial report Sept 2012
- Sprint Endace lawful intercept
- Kraken overview
- GCHQ probe order
- Spanish MoD custom
- Capture cards for FGA only
- GCHQ and Canada DND engineering change
Wednesday, October 26, 2016
SOME POLITICAL POT POURRI
OFF THE WIRE
This makes sense….Although the whole thing makes me sick to my stomach.
Won't vote in this election?Consider this: If you won't vote for Trump think about it this way:a.) If Trump wins and he is an ass as President, he'll be out in 4 years.b.) If Hillary wins you, your children, and grandchildren will live under Hillary's designated Supreme Court justices (and their liberal rulings) for many years to come.This is true even after Hillary is gone AND, even if she is followed by another president of your liking.Food For Thought:
The Supreme Court,
Before You Say You Won't Vote For TrumpJustice Scalia's seat is vacant, and…
Ginsberg is 82 years old,Kennedy is 79,Breyer is 77,Thomas is 67.Nowadays, the data shows that the average age of a Supreme Court retirement or death occurs after 75.These are 5 vacancies that will likely come up over the next 4-8 years.The next President will have the power to potentially create a 7-2 Supreme Court skewed in their ideology.
Think about that...7-2.If the next President appoints 5 young justices, it will guarantee control of the Supreme Court for an entire generation.And 7-2 decisions will hold up much more over time than 5-4 decisions which are viewed as lacking in mandate.Hillary has made it clear she will use the Supreme Court to go after the 2nd Amendment.She has literally said that the Supreme Court was wrong in its Heller decision stating that the Court should overturn and remove the individual right to keep and bear arms. Period.
Anyone and Everyone who is saying that they won't vote for Trump please realize this.Hear this!If Hillary Clinton wins and gets to make these appointments, you likely will never see another conservative victory at the Supreme Court level for the rest of your life. Ever.One final thought: Hillary is already on the record as saying that her buddy, Barack Obama "would make a great Supreme Court Justice."DID YOU JUST READ THAT LAST SENTENCE?NOW ARE YOU SCARED??
Saturday, October 22, 2016
Thursday, October 20, 2016
SOME POLITICAL POT POURRI
OFF THE WIRE
This makes sense….Although the whole thing makes me sick to my stomach.
Won't vote in this election?Consider this: If you won't vote for Trump think about it this way:a.) If Trump wins and he is an ass as President, he'll be out in 4 years.b.) If Hillary wins you, your children, and grandchildren will live under Hillary's designated Supreme Court justices (and their liberal rulings) for many years to come.This is true even after Hillary is gone AND, even if she is followed by another president of your liking.Food For Thought:
The Supreme Court,
Before You Say You Won't Vote For TrumpJustice Scalia's seat is vacant, and…
Ginsberg is 82 years old,Kennedy is 79,Breyer is 77,Thomas is 67.Nowadays, the data shows that the average age of a Supreme Court retirement or death occurs after 75.These are 5 vacancies that will likely come up over the next 4-8 years.The next President will have the power to potentially create a 7-2 Supreme Court skewed in their ideology.
Think about that...7-2.If the next President appoints 5 young justices, it will guarantee control of the Supreme Court for an entire generation.And 7-2 decisions will hold up much more over time than 5-4 decisions which are viewed as lacking in mandate.Hillary has made it clear she will use the Supreme Court to go after the 2nd Amendment.She has literally said that the Supreme Court was wrong in its Heller decision stating that the Court should overturn and remove the individual right to keep and bear arms. Period.
Anyone and Everyone who is saying that they won't vote for Trump please realize this.Hear this!If Hillary Clinton wins and gets to make these appointments, you likely will never see another conservative victory at the Supreme Court level for the rest of your life. Ever.One final thought: Hillary is already on the record as saying that her buddy, Barack Obama "would make a great Supreme Court Justice."DID YOU JUST READ THAT LAST SENTENCE?NOW ARE YOU SCARED??
Police and 1% Motorcycle Clubs – Don’t Believe the Hype
OFF THE WIRE
Maybe even more troubling, the stereotype is so powerful that even other bikers are susceptible. The truth is that many are wary of clubs and many buy into the sensationalized hype and stereotypes, particularly about 1%’ers. But through education regarding the 1st Amendment maybe these perceptions can be overcome in favor of reality. Then the real work of protecting bikers can be more effectively achieved.
Not all independents believe the hype. But the fact remains, many do. A perfect example of this perception became evident to me at the recent “Meeting of The Minds” event hosted by the Motorcycle Riders Foundation, this year held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, June 22-25. The theme this year was “Bridging The Gap” in the motorcycle rights movement among all of the different organizations and elements of the motorcycling community that have common political, legislative and legal interests. And the issue that is beginning to galvanize the unification process is motorcycle profiling.
One of the primary gaps to be bridged is between independent bikers and motorcycle club members, often called “Patch Holders”. Although it is becoming more common for independents and patch holders to work together on legislative goals in some areas of the country, in many places there is still resistance.
At the end of a panel I was participating in titled “Bridging The Gap”, an independent raised his hand and said he had to ask the obvious question. What about 1%’ers being gangs and being involved in criminal activity?
It was the perfect opportunity to explain how that perception violates the fundamental principles of association and expression enshrined in the 1st Amendment. It was an opportunity to educate.
The United States of America is intended to be a free society. Essential to that freedom is the idea that people should be able to associate with whomever they choose and express that association or other political views. The reality is that not all views or associations are very popular either with government entities or other people. This is particularly true with many political views.
What about organizations or clubs that have had members convicted of crimes, including acts of violence? Well, the Supreme Court says that an individual’s association with an organization that has members that have committed acts of violence or other crimes is protected by the 1st Amendment, and that no restrictions may be imposed on any person that associates with such a group absent specific evidence that they intend to participate in the criminal activity of other members.
Recently a federal court concluded:
According to government estimates, there are approximately 44,000 members of motorcycle clubs that the government labels gangs or criminal organizations. It’s absurd to suggest that they are all criminals or gang members. The statistical data simply disproves the claim. The courts understand that the purpose of motorcycle clubs, including 1% clubs, is brotherhood centered around motorcycling. Law enforcement refuses to recognize the truth.
Law enforcement says anything positive 1% clubs do is intended as a smokescreen for illegal activity. This fundamental misperception ignores one of the most important functions of the motorcycle club community. Charity and social activism are a driving force of the biking and club community. Every 1% club has fundraisers and benefits for Veterans, Cancer victims, toys runs for children, and to benefit motorcycle accident victims in the community. This is not a smokescreen. It is genuine and tangible activism.
by David "Double D" Devereaux
Being in a motorcycle club is not illegal. Law enforcement action
should be based on behavior, not appearance. So being in a motorcycle
club should not influence law enforcement’s decision to take action
against a person. Despite this, however, there is a common misconception
that being a member of a 1% motorcycle club is a self-admission of
criminality. Many in law enforcement and some prosecutors label all
members of 1% clubs gang members, and the media is all too willing to
perpetuate a sensationalized perspective.Maybe even more troubling, the stereotype is so powerful that even other bikers are susceptible. The truth is that many are wary of clubs and many buy into the sensationalized hype and stereotypes, particularly about 1%’ers. But through education regarding the 1st Amendment maybe these perceptions can be overcome in favor of reality. Then the real work of protecting bikers can be more effectively achieved.
Do Independent Bikers Stereotype 1%’ers as Criminals?
Not all independents believe the hype. But the fact remains, many do. A perfect example of this perception became evident to me at the recent “Meeting of The Minds” event hosted by the Motorcycle Riders Foundation, this year held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, June 22-25. The theme this year was “Bridging The Gap” in the motorcycle rights movement among all of the different organizations and elements of the motorcycling community that have common political, legislative and legal interests. And the issue that is beginning to galvanize the unification process is motorcycle profiling.
One of the primary gaps to be bridged is between independent bikers and motorcycle club members, often called “Patch Holders”. Although it is becoming more common for independents and patch holders to work together on legislative goals in some areas of the country, in many places there is still resistance.
At the end of a panel I was participating in titled “Bridging The Gap”, an independent raised his hand and said he had to ask the obvious question. What about 1%’ers being gangs and being involved in criminal activity?
It was the perfect opportunity to explain how that perception violates the fundamental principles of association and expression enshrined in the 1st Amendment. It was an opportunity to educate.
Why Membership In A 1% MC is Constitutionally Protected
The United States of America is intended to be a free society. Essential to that freedom is the idea that people should be able to associate with whomever they choose and express that association or other political views. The reality is that not all views or associations are very popular either with government entities or other people. This is particularly true with many political views.
What about organizations or clubs that have had members convicted of crimes, including acts of violence? Well, the Supreme Court says that an individual’s association with an organization that has members that have committed acts of violence or other crimes is protected by the 1st Amendment, and that no restrictions may be imposed on any person that associates with such a group absent specific evidence that they intend to participate in the criminal activity of other members.
What Do The Courts Say?
Recently a federal court concluded:
There is “no evidence that by merely wearing [1% motorcycle club] “colors,” an individual is “involved in or associated with the alleged violent or criminal activity of other [1% motorcycle club] members. It is a fundamental principle that the government may not impose restrictions on an individual “merely because an individual belong[s] to a group, some members of which committed acts of violence.” In fact, the Supreme Court has long “disapproved governmental action . . . denying rights and privileges solely because of a citizen’s association with an unpopular organization.”
- Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169, 185-86 (1972).
To permit [law enforcement officers] to impose restrictions on any person “who wears the insignia of [a 1% motorcycle club], without regard to or knowledge of that individual’s specific intent to engage in the alleged violent activities committed by other members, is antithetical to the basic principles enshrined in the First Amendment and repugnant to the fundamental doctrine of personal guilt that is a hallmark of American jurisprudence.
- (See Coles v. Carlini, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Civil No. 10-6132, Opinion, 9/30/2015, p.28)
What Does Basic Logic And Reality Say?
According to government estimates, there are approximately 44,000 members of motorcycle clubs that the government labels gangs or criminal organizations. It’s absurd to suggest that they are all criminals or gang members. The statistical data simply disproves the claim. The courts understand that the purpose of motorcycle clubs, including 1% clubs, is brotherhood centered around motorcycling. Law enforcement refuses to recognize the truth.
Law enforcement says anything positive 1% clubs do is intended as a smokescreen for illegal activity. This fundamental misperception ignores one of the most important functions of the motorcycle club community. Charity and social activism are a driving force of the biking and club community. Every 1% club has fundraisers and benefits for Veterans, Cancer victims, toys runs for children, and to benefit motorcycle accident victims in the community. This is not a smokescreen. It is genuine and tangible activism.
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
Tuesday, October 18, 2016
Nag, Nag, Nag 2016
OFF THE WIRE
agingrebel.com
agingrebel.com
Last night was the Blood Moon, which
marks the official start of motorcycle hunting season, so it is time for
the annual (usually) sermon about that predictable moment when you meet
the deadliest animal in North America. Motorcycle hunting season
coincides with Cervidae mating season.
Every year, during October and November,
packs of horny, male deer congregate near fermented berry bushes
looking for love. They are like drunken, horny males of all species.
Some of them find a female and some don’t. Some of them are smart. Some
are stupid. Some are risk takers. Some are suicidal.
Just Facts
According to the American Automobile
Association, seven of eight people who die after crashing into a deer
are motorcyclists. Seventy-five percent of all deer versus motorcycle
accidents result in an injury to the motorcyclist. About six percent of
all fatal motorcycle accidents start with hitting a deer.
According to a journal for physicians titled MDEdge:
A “retrospective review of a level I trauma center in Buffalo, New
York, revealed that 40 of 487 (8.2%) of patients admitted because of
motorcycle crashes from May 2007 through June 2011 involved deer. There
were 120 total injuries: the most common were orthopedic (39/120;
32.5%), chest (38/120; 31.7%), head (18/120; 15.0%), spine (10/120;
8.3%), facial (8/120; 6.7%), and abdominal (7/120; 5.8%). Thirty-five of
40 (87.5%) were men and were older… than the average for all motorcycle
crashes during the study period.”
Sharks kill one person each year in the United States. Snakes kill six. Dogs kill 28. Deer kill about 200.
You are most likely to hit a deer in West Virginia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Iowa and Montana.
During motorcycle hunting season, which
runs from now until the middle of December, you may want to consider
wearing your special, Department of Transportation approved, plastic hat
at night. Deer whistles, honking and loud pipes will not protect you.
Deer have evolved to escape wolves, not you. Flashing your lights might
help but you probably won’t have time to do that.
Barbecue
Deer react to your proximity. Their
flight distance is about 60 feet. When you get that close they react.
Drunken, lovelorn deer react more slowly than sober, alpha deer.
Typically, deer jump straight ahead and then run in zig-zags. At 65 mph
you will have about ,6 seconds to react. Brake hard with both brakes as
soon as you see a deer and ride straight. Do not swerve, The person who
told you to swerve when you see a deer was trying to kill you. If you
have time to react before you hit the deer, aim for the ribs. Te ribs
have more give than the hips.
If you hit a deer and kill it, and you
are relatively unscathed and the bike still runs, you get to keep and
eat the deer. You don’t need a hunting license.
As always, be careful and enjoy your barbecue.
Sunday, October 16, 2016
Saturday, October 15, 2016
Friday, October 14, 2016
Thursday, October 13, 2016
Wednesday, October 12, 2016
Police and 1% Motorcycle Clubs – Don’t Believe the Hype
OFF THE WIRE
Being in a motorcycle club is not illegal. Law enforcement action should be based on behavior, not appearance. So being in a motorcycle club should not influence law enforcement’s decision to take action against a person. Despite this, however, there is a common misconception that being a member of a 1% motorcycle club is a self-admission of criminality. Many in law enforcement and some prosecutors label all members of 1% clubs gang members, and the media is all too willing to perpetuate a sensationalized perspective.
Maybe even more troubling, the stereotype is so powerful that even other bikers are susceptible. The truth is that many are wary of clubs and many buy into the sensationalized hype and stereotypes, particularly about 1%’ers. But through education regarding the 1st Amendment maybe these perceptions can be overcome in favor of reality. Then the real work of protecting bikers can be more effectively achieved.
Do Independent Bikers Stereotype 1%’ers as Criminals?
Not all independents believe the hype. But the fact remains, many do. A perfect example of this perception became evident to me at the recent “Meeting of The Minds” event hosted by the Motorcycle Riders Foundation, this year held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, June 22-25. The theme this year was “Bridging The Gap” in the motorcycle rights movement among all of the different organizations and elements of the motorcycling community that have common political, legislative and legal interests. And the issue that is beginning to galvanize the unification process is motorcycle profiling.
One of the primary gaps to be bridged is between independent bikers and motorcycle club members, often called “Patch Holders”. Although it is becoming more common for independents and patch holders to work together on legislative goals in some areas of the country, in many places there is still resistance.
At the end of a panel I was participating in titled “Bridging The Gap”, an independent raised his hand and said he had to ask the obvious question. What about 1%’ers being gangs and being involved in criminal activity?
It was the perfect opportunity to explain how that perception violates the fundamental principles of association and expression enshrined in the 1st Amendment. It was an opportunity to educate.
Why Membership In A 1% MC is Constitutionally Protected
The United States of America is intended to be a free society. Essential to that freedom is the idea that people should be able to associate with whomever they choose and express that association or other political views. The reality is that not all views or associations are very popular either with government entities or other people. This is particularly true with many political views.
What about organizations or clubs that have had members convicted of crimes, including acts of violence? Well, the Supreme Court says that an individual’s association with an organization that has members that have committed acts of violence or other crimes is protected by the 1st Amendment, and that no restrictions may be imposed on any person that associates with such a group absent specific evidence that they intend to participate in the criminal activity of other members.
What Do The Courts Say?
Recently a federal court concluded:
There is “no evidence that by merely wearing [1% motorcycle club] “colors,” an individual is “involved in or associated with the alleged violent or criminal activity of other [1% motorcycle club] members. It is a fundamental principle that the government may not impose restrictions on an individual “merely because an individual belong[s] to a group, some members of which committed acts of violence.” In fact, the Supreme Court has long “disapproved governmental action . . . denying rights and privileges solely because of a citizen’s association with an unpopular organization.”
Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169, 185-86 (1972).
To permit [law enforcement officers] to impose restrictions on any person “who wears the insignia of [a 1% motorcycle club], without regard to or knowledge of that individual’s specific intent to engage in the alleged violent activities committed by other members, is antithetical to the basic principles enshrined in the First Amendment and repugnant to the fundamental doctrine of personal guilt that is a hallmark of American jurisprudence.
(See Coles v. Carlini, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Civil No. 10-6132, Opinion, 9/30/2015, p.28)
What Does Basic Logic And Reality Say?
According to government estimates, there are approximately 44,000 members of motorcycle clubs that the government labels gangs or criminal organizations. It’s absurd to suggest that they are all criminals or gang members. The statistical data simply disproves the claim. The courts understand that the purpose of motorcycle clubs, including 1% clubs, is brotherhood centered around motorcycling. Law enforcement refuses to recognize the truth.
Law enforcement says anything positive 1% clubs do is intended as a smokescreen for illegal activity. This fundamental misperception ignores one of the most important functions of the motorcycle club community. Charity and social activism are a driving force of the biking and club community. Every 1% club has fundraisers and benefits for Veterans, Cancer victims, toys runs for children, and to benefit motorcycle accident victims in the community. This is not a smokescreen. It is genuine and tangible activism.
Being in a motorcycle club is not illegal. Law enforcement action should be based on behavior, not appearance. So being in a motorcycle club should not influence law enforcement’s decision to take action against a person. Despite this, however, there is a common misconception that being a member of a 1% motorcycle club is a self-admission of criminality. Many in law enforcement and some prosecutors label all members of 1% clubs gang members, and the media is all too willing to perpetuate a sensationalized perspective.
Maybe even more troubling, the stereotype is so powerful that even other bikers are susceptible. The truth is that many are wary of clubs and many buy into the sensationalized hype and stereotypes, particularly about 1%’ers. But through education regarding the 1st Amendment maybe these perceptions can be overcome in favor of reality. Then the real work of protecting bikers can be more effectively achieved.
Do Independent Bikers Stereotype 1%’ers as Criminals?
Not all independents believe the hype. But the fact remains, many do. A perfect example of this perception became evident to me at the recent “Meeting of The Minds” event hosted by the Motorcycle Riders Foundation, this year held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, June 22-25. The theme this year was “Bridging The Gap” in the motorcycle rights movement among all of the different organizations and elements of the motorcycling community that have common political, legislative and legal interests. And the issue that is beginning to galvanize the unification process is motorcycle profiling.
One of the primary gaps to be bridged is between independent bikers and motorcycle club members, often called “Patch Holders”. Although it is becoming more common for independents and patch holders to work together on legislative goals in some areas of the country, in many places there is still resistance.
At the end of a panel I was participating in titled “Bridging The Gap”, an independent raised his hand and said he had to ask the obvious question. What about 1%’ers being gangs and being involved in criminal activity?
It was the perfect opportunity to explain how that perception violates the fundamental principles of association and expression enshrined in the 1st Amendment. It was an opportunity to educate.
Why Membership In A 1% MC is Constitutionally Protected
The United States of America is intended to be a free society. Essential to that freedom is the idea that people should be able to associate with whomever they choose and express that association or other political views. The reality is that not all views or associations are very popular either with government entities or other people. This is particularly true with many political views.
What about organizations or clubs that have had members convicted of crimes, including acts of violence? Well, the Supreme Court says that an individual’s association with an organization that has members that have committed acts of violence or other crimes is protected by the 1st Amendment, and that no restrictions may be imposed on any person that associates with such a group absent specific evidence that they intend to participate in the criminal activity of other members.
What Do The Courts Say?
Recently a federal court concluded:
There is “no evidence that by merely wearing [1% motorcycle club] “colors,” an individual is “involved in or associated with the alleged violent or criminal activity of other [1% motorcycle club] members. It is a fundamental principle that the government may not impose restrictions on an individual “merely because an individual belong[s] to a group, some members of which committed acts of violence.” In fact, the Supreme Court has long “disapproved governmental action . . . denying rights and privileges solely because of a citizen’s association with an unpopular organization.”
Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169, 185-86 (1972).
To permit [law enforcement officers] to impose restrictions on any person “who wears the insignia of [a 1% motorcycle club], without regard to or knowledge of that individual’s specific intent to engage in the alleged violent activities committed by other members, is antithetical to the basic principles enshrined in the First Amendment and repugnant to the fundamental doctrine of personal guilt that is a hallmark of American jurisprudence.
(See Coles v. Carlini, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Civil No. 10-6132, Opinion, 9/30/2015, p.28)
What Does Basic Logic And Reality Say?
According to government estimates, there are approximately 44,000 members of motorcycle clubs that the government labels gangs or criminal organizations. It’s absurd to suggest that they are all criminals or gang members. The statistical data simply disproves the claim. The courts understand that the purpose of motorcycle clubs, including 1% clubs, is brotherhood centered around motorcycling. Law enforcement refuses to recognize the truth.
Law enforcement says anything positive 1% clubs do is intended as a smokescreen for illegal activity. This fundamental misperception ignores one of the most important functions of the motorcycle club community. Charity and social activism are a driving force of the biking and club community. Every 1% club has fundraisers and benefits for Veterans, Cancer victims, toys runs for children, and to benefit motorcycle accident victims in the community. This is not a smokescreen. It is genuine and tangible activism.
Tuesday, October 11, 2016
Outlaw Motorcycle Clubs Peacefully Assemble
OFF THE WIRE
Many in the mainstream media have missed the historic significance of who was standing together during the National Council of Clubs Press Conference held in Austin at Shamrock Cycles on May 17, 2016. The press event announced a National Protest Against Motorcycle Profiling and Discrimination. The story took a backseat to regurgitated sensationalism focused on Waco.
Members of clubs that some media and law enforcement have vilified were standing in unity behind the common ground issue of motorcycle profiling and discrimination. There were clubs from around the country in attendance, including representatives from the Outlaws MC, the Mongols MC, the Vagos MC, the Hells Angels MC, the Sons of Silence MC, the Devils Diciples MC, the Hessians MC, the Valiants MC, the Infidels MC, the Outsiders MC, and many clubs from Texas ranging from Christian Clubs to Veterans MC’s.
To be clear, this does not represent any kind of peace treaty or end to historical rivalries among motorcycle clubs. What the NCOC does represent is a decision by participants to stand together and project a unified voice on common ground issues that impact all motorcycle clubs and their members. Issues like the 1st Amendment, discrimination and profiling.
I suppose peaceful political protest is just not interesting enough to most mainstream media outlets, particularly events that disprove and dismantle their choice to perpetuate irresponsible sensationalism relating to motorcycle clubs.
Monday, October 10, 2016
Saturday, October 8, 2016
Friday, October 7, 2016
Sharing: Agenda and notes from yesterday's California Motorcycle Safety Program Advisory Committee Meeting at CHP HQ, Sacramento.
OFF THE WIRE
Sharing: Agenda and notes from yesterday's California Motorcycle Safety Program Advisory Committee Meeting at CHP HQ, Sacramento.
Note: Although the below materials are not available through the internet, all materials and information presented in this meeting are public. Also, the notes are based on the previous meeting in May. I should get the minutes of yesterday's meeting at some point in the future.
Sharing: Agenda and notes from yesterday's California Motorcycle Safety Program Advisory Committee Meeting at CHP HQ, Sacramento.
Note: Although the below materials are not available through the internet, all materials and information presented in this meeting are public. Also, the notes are based on the previous meeting in May. I should get the minutes of yesterday's meeting at some point in the future.
Credit to Surj Gish and CityBike Magazine for the picture of the
meeting. Also, this Saturday, CityBike and BARF is throwing down a big
party in downtown San Francisco to celebrate the passing of AB51 (Lane
Splitting Education Guidelines). See the post below for their event
info..
https://www.facebook.com/events/918874851569080/permalink/952081234915108/
See the link below for the handout in PDF format.
https://drive.google.com/…/0BwARyffUmq8DaVBac01nUnNhT…/view…
Good to see familiar faces from the AMA, BARF, ABATE of CA, CA OTS, MMA of CA, CityBike, DMV and CalTrans.
With the exception of the CHP Special Projects Coord, J Likes, I've never met the current CMSP Staff, but thought it was good that Asst Chief Costigan (CHP Enforcement and Planning Div Chair) attended in person and made himself available for QA.
My main objective was to determine...
1) Current or future plans by the CHP to publish a new version of their Lane Splitting guidelines and whether or not a) members of the committee will be allowed to work with them on their development, b) whether considerations will be based on Dr. Tom Rice's (UC Berkeley) most recent Lane Splitting study results. c) timeline for publication
According to the CHP, they need to wait for 1/17 for the law to go into effect. Jan is also when they can work to allocate funds towards resources into guideline development and other programs like media to support it when they are published. As for participation, although AB51 provides the CHP the avenue to work with several specific groups on these "Lane Splitting Educational Guidelines", all of the groups are either members of or connected to the CMSP advisory committee. Therefore, everyone agreed that it will be the CMSP advisory committed that will be the group the CHP will work with to develop the new guidelines.
2) Update on their outreach programs
- As it relates to Lane Splitting, will learn more at the next meeting on April 12, 2017.
3) Update on the Strategic Highway Safety Plan - Phase I & II
- too big a program for this post, will address separately in the future. More than likely in April 2017 during phase II.
4) Their fiscal budget, allocation process, programs and areas of distribution, spending decision limitations.
- Interesting to me, but wasn't going to post everything here. However, there is $250k allocated for CMSP approved projects.
There were three proposed projects submitted.
- BARF proposed developing specific Lane Splitting tools, such as online awareness videos and instruction on the right way and wrong way to Lane Split safely
- AMA proposed developing a way to determine the value and effectiveness of these programs are to NEW riders and provide additional rider safety considerations for them.
- CHP wants to introduce and or reinforce CMSP students and the public through outreach programs, the importance of wearing high visibility, reflective gear. Note: Desires for Rider Conspicuity programs have been pushed by the NHTSA in the past. Recently, a State Governors meeting was held (reported by MRF) regarding a need to push greater rider conspicuity throughout the country.
5) Latest DMV and other Statistics of note
As of 2015
- 884,665 : number of DMV registered (street legal) motorcycles
- 1,439,501 : number of DMV Class M licenses issued in CA
Top 3 reasons for crashes
1) Driving under the influence
2) Unsafe speed (for road conditions at the time)
3) Unsafe turning moves
Motorcycle Involved Collisions - posting only 2015
Fatalities : 505 (down 25 from 2014)
Injuries : 14,580
6) What connections exist, if any, between CA's Highway Strategic Plan and the Vision Zero programs that San Francisco and other cities in the state are adopting as they relate to motorcycles
- Not enough time to explore this topic.
7) As part of recently passed legislation, CA AB 1932 (Motorcycle Safety Training), what is their implementation plan?
- will report on this separately...or...may wait and see if ABATE of CA publishes this later since they formally supported this bill.
8) Whether the Chief or Commissioner would be open to adding the CA Confederation of Clubs (COC) to the committee.
In a post meeting conversation, according the Chief Costigan, with respect to motorcycle clubs, Buffalo Soldiers MC was there to represent MC's. I explained to him that for the same reasons the current committee has several state Motorcycle Rights Organizations, for broader participation and representation, he should consider adding at least one new seat for the California Confederation of Clubs or US Defenders. As a 30 year CHP vet, he was a motorcycle officer and worked in motorcycle specific gang task force teams and claimed he understood my request and why I thought it was important, ending our talk saying he would consider it for next year.
Other items of interest
The CHP is concerned about the possibility CA Proposition 64 (Marijuana Legalization) passing and its affect on riders/drivers under the influence. Apparently, they have talked with other states where Marijuana is legal, like Colorado and supposably, those state's highway agencies claim that Marijuana influenced accidents are more frequent and more severe than alcohol related accidents.
The CHP (and most likely local law enforcement agencies across the state) will be expanding their Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Expert (ARIDE) certification to help officers in the field determine if riders/drivers are....stoned. Akin to today's existing field sobriety test.
https://www.facebook.com/events/918874851569080/permalink/952081234915108/
See the link below for the handout in PDF format.
https://drive.google.com/…/0BwARyffUmq8DaVBac01nUnNhT…/view…
Good to see familiar faces from the AMA, BARF, ABATE of CA, CA OTS, MMA of CA, CityBike, DMV and CalTrans.
With the exception of the CHP Special Projects Coord, J Likes, I've never met the current CMSP Staff, but thought it was good that Asst Chief Costigan (CHP Enforcement and Planning Div Chair) attended in person and made himself available for QA.
My main objective was to determine...
1) Current or future plans by the CHP to publish a new version of their Lane Splitting guidelines and whether or not a) members of the committee will be allowed to work with them on their development, b) whether considerations will be based on Dr. Tom Rice's (UC Berkeley) most recent Lane Splitting study results. c) timeline for publication
According to the CHP, they need to wait for 1/17 for the law to go into effect. Jan is also when they can work to allocate funds towards resources into guideline development and other programs like media to support it when they are published. As for participation, although AB51 provides the CHP the avenue to work with several specific groups on these "Lane Splitting Educational Guidelines", all of the groups are either members of or connected to the CMSP advisory committee. Therefore, everyone agreed that it will be the CMSP advisory committed that will be the group the CHP will work with to develop the new guidelines.
2) Update on their outreach programs
- As it relates to Lane Splitting, will learn more at the next meeting on April 12, 2017.
3) Update on the Strategic Highway Safety Plan - Phase I & II
- too big a program for this post, will address separately in the future. More than likely in April 2017 during phase II.
4) Their fiscal budget, allocation process, programs and areas of distribution, spending decision limitations.
- Interesting to me, but wasn't going to post everything here. However, there is $250k allocated for CMSP approved projects.
There were three proposed projects submitted.
- BARF proposed developing specific Lane Splitting tools, such as online awareness videos and instruction on the right way and wrong way to Lane Split safely
- AMA proposed developing a way to determine the value and effectiveness of these programs are to NEW riders and provide additional rider safety considerations for them.
- CHP wants to introduce and or reinforce CMSP students and the public through outreach programs, the importance of wearing high visibility, reflective gear. Note: Desires for Rider Conspicuity programs have been pushed by the NHTSA in the past. Recently, a State Governors meeting was held (reported by MRF) regarding a need to push greater rider conspicuity throughout the country.
5) Latest DMV and other Statistics of note
As of 2015
- 884,665 : number of DMV registered (street legal) motorcycles
- 1,439,501 : number of DMV Class M licenses issued in CA
Top 3 reasons for crashes
1) Driving under the influence
2) Unsafe speed (for road conditions at the time)
3) Unsafe turning moves
Motorcycle Involved Collisions - posting only 2015
Fatalities : 505 (down 25 from 2014)
Injuries : 14,580
6) What connections exist, if any, between CA's Highway Strategic Plan and the Vision Zero programs that San Francisco and other cities in the state are adopting as they relate to motorcycles
- Not enough time to explore this topic.
7) As part of recently passed legislation, CA AB 1932 (Motorcycle Safety Training), what is their implementation plan?
- will report on this separately...or...may wait and see if ABATE of CA publishes this later since they formally supported this bill.
8) Whether the Chief or Commissioner would be open to adding the CA Confederation of Clubs (COC) to the committee.
In a post meeting conversation, according the Chief Costigan, with respect to motorcycle clubs, Buffalo Soldiers MC was there to represent MC's. I explained to him that for the same reasons the current committee has several state Motorcycle Rights Organizations, for broader participation and representation, he should consider adding at least one new seat for the California Confederation of Clubs or US Defenders. As a 30 year CHP vet, he was a motorcycle officer and worked in motorcycle specific gang task force teams and claimed he understood my request and why I thought it was important, ending our talk saying he would consider it for next year.
Other items of interest
The CHP is concerned about the possibility CA Proposition 64 (Marijuana Legalization) passing and its affect on riders/drivers under the influence. Apparently, they have talked with other states where Marijuana is legal, like Colorado and supposably, those state's highway agencies claim that Marijuana influenced accidents are more frequent and more severe than alcohol related accidents.
The CHP (and most likely local law enforcement agencies across the state) will be expanding their Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Expert (ARIDE) certification to help officers in the field determine if riders/drivers are....stoned. Akin to today's existing field sobriety test.
Wednesday, October 5, 2016
Tuesday, October 4, 2016
CA - Governor Brown has signed into law AB 1932
Governor Brown has signed into law AB 1932! This is good news for anyone in California that rides. AB 1932 gives ticketed riders the option of attending the Motorcycle Safety Course instead of traffic school. The positives of this law are:
The Motorcycle Safety Course is more in line with motorcycle riding than the standard traffic school.
Many riders are ticketed for not having a motorcycle endorsement, by taking the Motorcycle Safety Course, these riders can bypass the hassle of going through the DMV program to obtain their motorcycle endorsement.
Some insurance companies offer a discount for premiums if you have taken the Motorcycle Safety Course.
Taking the Motorcycle Safety Course may actually teach you something and save your life!
Remember that this law does NOT take effect until January 1, 2017.
Taking the Motorcycle Safety Course may actually teach you something and save your life!
Remember that this law does NOT take effect until January 1, 2017.
LAB-62-Can a Business Legally Refuse Service to Bikers Wearing Patches/Colors?
OFF THE WIRE
A couple of years old, but still highly relevant (if you have time, the radio show playback discussion hits the nail on the head). Is it time to distinguish ourselves from standing case law on the uniform application of dress code like other protected classes of citizens?
PODCAST-Is it legal for private businesses to refuse service to members of the law abiding biker motorcycle clubs for simply wearing “colors”, club affiliation patches worn on biker’s vests? We have been asked this question many times here and recently received a voicemail asking this very question once again. You may hear many different things and less than truthful information and that can be frustrating for many bikers. So, as usual we broke it down for the biker community, so listen in on this debate and information! At the end of the day it doesn’t really always matter what we as bikers believe should happen, but what is fact. Know that this will likely be a civil issue unless your behavior turns it into a criminal issue.
Things to think about before acting:
If you are confronted with a business refusing service to you as a biker then take a breath, leave calmly, and never go back to or support that business. You will never win by causing a scene or getting disorderly. If you believe your civil rights have been trampled then converse with an attorney to see what your legal options are if any. At best it will be a long expensive drawn out civil lawsuit, so choose wisely.
Further, share your experience with as many bikers as you can via podcasts, other social media platforms, local media etc. In this day an age it is not tough to get the word out to let bikers know of “not biker friendly” establishments and we can hit them in the pocket book where it really matters. This may also bring awareness to many. There are websites and social media platforms dedicated to this.
It will serve no purpose to cause a scene, as the business will then really have a reason to have you leave the premises. Plus, that is exactly how these business owners expect you to act, because they watched one television show at some point in their life depicting criminal bikers. Do the entire biker community a favor and walk away and handle it through proper channels. We don’t want to damage the image criminal bikers have already given us, which is why these businesses don’t want us in their establishment in the first place. Do your best to be polite and make them double think their decision.
You have to realize that most persons that aren’t in the motorcycling community may not readily know the difference between patches and clubs, so patience and education over time and our actions is the only way to handle this.
Federal Civil Rights Act:
The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to “full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.”
The right to refuse service-Can they really do this?
Like it or not, businesses or venues appear to have the right to refuse service at times, but there are civil rules and guidelines for that sort of action. Much of this argument is subjective and not objective. What I mean is that if a business simply admits that they refused service to a biker with patches solely for that reason, then that biker may have a civil case. Or clearly, if they refused service based on race, color, religion, or national origin then they would have a civil case.
However, it seems clear that if the business believes that your [biker] admittance may cause issues or safety concerns then they can refuse admittance or service. That would be the “subjective” intent of the business owner. Not just the “objective” matter of you wearing a patch and that you belong to a motorcycle club.
Case law seems to point towards some guidelines:
Owners of establishments, or venues, cannot just arbitrarily discriminate because they don’t like what someone is wearing. If an establishment does have a dress code, they must enforce the dress code uniformly so that it is applicable to all, and so that it is not enforced in a discriminatory manner.
So, it seems that if an establishment has a “no biker club patches allowed” policy and enforce it uniformly to everyone then they seem to be within their authority and following case law.
Additional Considerations:
In addition to the protections against discrimination provided under federal law, many states have passed their own Civil Rights Acts that provide broader protections than the Federal Civil Rights Act. California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate against individuals based on unconventional dress or sexual preference.
Jax cleans up some business by killing Berosky in his bakery. Jax then sits on the steps of the courthouse as August Mark
In a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their “colors,” or patches. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club member’s patches, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members. Again, I point out the subjective intent of the business for the refusal of admittance or service.
Note that a California court decided that a restaurant owner could not refuse to seat a gay couple in a semi-private booth where the restaurant policy was to only seat two people of opposite sexes in such booths. There was no legitimate business reason for the refusal of service, and so the discrimination was arbitrary and unlawful. I point out that this business had no stated purpose or concerns other than they stated.
State of California
The Unruh Civil Rights Act (CC §51 et seq.)
(Does not really seem to change anything. It is still seems to be the subjective intent of the business owner. As long as the refusal is not solely based on the motorcycle club membership or clothing)
The Unruh Civil Rights Act (CC §51 et seq.) provides that in part that: “All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin or blindness or other physical disability are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.” Any person whose exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States has been interfered with, or attempted to be interfered with may institute and prosecute a civil action for injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief, including the award of compensatory monetary damages.
The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Cohen V. California, 403 US 15 (1971) that individuals have the constitutional right under the First Amendment to wear clothing which displays writing or designs. In addition, the right of an individual to freedom of association has long been recognized and protected by the United States Supreme Court Thus, a person’s right to wear the clothing of his choice, as well as his right to belong to any club or organization of his choice, is constitutionally protected. Persons or establishments who discriminate on the basis of clothing or club membership are subject to a lawsuit by the person who was wrongly discriminated against by such persons.
Conclusion
Refusal of service or admittance to patch wearing motorcycle club members, even if a violation if proven, is a matter of civil law and not normally criminal in nature. This will never be decided at the time of the incident and at best would have to be handled later through sometimes long expensive drawn out civil litigations.
You can argue with the business or venue as much as you like and it won’t likely matter in the end. If your are argumentative and causing concern for other customers or the establishment then there is even more reason for them to have you removed from the premises.
By arguing publicly you are confirming ignorant concerns that law abiding bikers are bad people, disrespectful, and on the edge, which is not true. Perception is everything and arguing just feeds the perception we are all trying to get rid of thanks to outlaw motorcycle clubs, television, and other media.
The best thing you can do is spread the word about the “non biker friendly business” and hit them in the pocket book.
You really need to listen in to this podcast episode for all the information and debate!
In no way is this legal advice, but just information and opinions based on research. You need to make your own decisions based on your knowledge and laws in your state, country, or region. Always consult an attorney for any legal matters or advice.
Former-Cop Exposes How Police Will Violate Your Rights During Every Stop & How to Beat It
OFF THE WIRE
Must read article. Let's get real here...who hasn't been a witness to this behavior? Even if you don't care to read the article...the key is...less is better...and not answering questions at all is best. Don't play into their game, give up your rights and become another victim.
Must read article. Let's get real here...who hasn't been a witness to this behavior? Even if you don't care to read the article...the key is...less is better...and not answering questions at all is best. Don't play into their game, give up your rights and become another victim.
"Everything these officers do is meant to trick you into something that they can actually arrest you for."
Collect revenue by force.
And it really is a business, driven by revenue, but possessing the power of the State and with a license to kill. Law enforcement is a revenue collector, producing obscenities like civil asset forfeiture where cash and property are seized from innocent people on made up suspicions.
Craig appeared on the Tom Woods show to discuss how cops are trained to pry into people’s business during traffic stops, violating our rights to gain further admissions of guilt that may lead to a search or arrest.
Most of his former colleagues, however, are not so rational. They are true soldiers of the State, seeking a way into everyone’s privacy to feed the belly of government.
“Everything these officers do is meant to trick you into something that they can actually arrest you for,” said Craig of Texas law enforcement. In the Lone Star state, as soon as a cop puts his lights on to pull you over, you are in custodial arrest. You are treated as if in custody, and anything you say can be used against you.
However, you have the right to remain silent. “The more you say, the worse things will get,” said Craig.
For instance, in Texas one has the right to carry a gun in the vehicle while traveling. Even though it’s “none of his business,” a cop may ask if you have any guns in the vehicle. According to Craig, if you say yes, the cop will get you out of the car, take the gun and scan it. You are now linked to that gun, even if it’s not registered to you.
Craig cited the case of a female attorney, Rebecca Musarra, who declined to answer questions when she was pulled over by a cop in New Jersey. The cop responded by pulling her out of the vehicle and reading Musarra her rights, which includes the right to remain silent. The pending lawsuit could be a wake-up call to roadside rights abuse by police.
“Hi, do you know why I stopped you?” This simple question often asked by a cop when pulling someone over is the first attempt to lure a person into an admission of guilt. If you continue to answer questions like “Where are you coming from?”, it is a sure way to put yourself in danger.
“Oh, were you drinking at this party? Were there drugs at this party? Do you have anything in the car that I should know about…that you should tell me about?”
These are some of the baits in the fishing expedition. The motto of “Don’t answer questions” is generally a good one in police encounters. And Craig reminds us, as always, to record all police encounters.
Craig encourages people to take civil disobedience a step further in his “Transportation Stop” action script. He described it during a mock stop between Tom Woods, the pretend driver, and Craig as the cop.
Make sure to pull over in a public space for your own safety, and acknowledge the pullover by waving or turning on emergency flashers. Do not incriminate yourself by answering questions; invoke your 5th Amendment right to remain silent if necessary.
This next part takes some more chutzpah and is controversial in that it could lead to irrational cops becoming agitated. Further clarification on the legal underpinnings is also necessary, as it relates to the precedence of state traffic code or federally guaranteed constitutional rights.
Craig says the right to remain silent includes the right not to produce anything that can be used against you in a court of law. He asserts that when a cop asks for your license and registration, instead of handing over the documents or refusing, you can say:
“Officer, can any of the information that you are demanding from me be used against me in a court of law or to potentially incriminate me in any way.”
The officer is obligated to tell you the answer, which is that he can indeed use the documents against you. Craig acknowledges that the law states you must hand over the documents, but he believes this is a violation of the 5th and 4th Amendments.
“But he didn’t tell you what your rights were, and now you can show this was not a voluntary surrender,” said Craig. “And that statement can later be suppressed at trial where he can’t use that info against you because it was illegally obtained.”
Some cops might actually just leave you alone. It’s hard to predict, but Craig said that if a cop refuses to answer or gets belligerent, you can say, “Officer, I believe that information can be used against me, therefore I invoke my right to remain silent. Do you intend to retaliate or punish me for simply protecting my right to remain silent?”
Not many people would be brave enough to take the situation that far. Unfortunately, it is easier to have your rights violated but refuse to answer questions, be on your way and pay the State extortion fee or traffic ticket. That is the point of the first quote in this article.
Too many cops like to take out their anger on vulnerable citizens, or they don’t know the laws they are supposed to enforce — or both. As Craig points out, police departments are allowed to intentionally hire lower intelligence people. Why?
“Statutory schemes use terminology that sounds and looks very familiar, but the meaning assigned to that terminology is not the same you understand from common usage,” said Craig.
Regardless of your willingness to take Eddie Craig’s “Transportation Stop” Action Script to its full extent, the question of state traffic statutes versus federal constitutional rights is an interesting one.
Asking the following question could indeed be a paradox for the rare rational cop on the traffic beat.
“As a peace officer you are required to protect me and my rights. One of those is the right to remain silent.”
Collect revenue by force.
“They have made this system convenient to allow your rights to be violated in a way that you would much rather have that happen than stand up for them.”
That’s how Eddie Craig, former Deputy Sheriff, and current show host at Rule of Law Radio, describes the Transportation Code of Texas. It could be applied to traffic statutes of any given state, or maybe he is referring to the entire way in which law enforcement goes about its business.And it really is a business, driven by revenue, but possessing the power of the State and with a license to kill. Law enforcement is a revenue collector, producing obscenities like civil asset forfeiture where cash and property are seized from innocent people on made up suspicions.
Craig appeared on the Tom Woods show to discuss how cops are trained to pry into people’s business during traffic stops, violating our rights to gain further admissions of guilt that may lead to a search or arrest.
“An officer’s first job when he gets you pulled over for a traffic stop is to attempt to escalate that stop to either a DUI or a drug bust. He doesn’t care about the traffic, that’s just his premise for pulling you over. His real goal is to get inside that car and see what else he can find.Craig himself never ticketed anyone during his time as a deputy sheriff. He only pulled people over who were driving dangerously, and if there was no criminal act then he would send them off with a warning to avoid dangerous driving.
They are taught to find ways to keep the person in the car talking and answering questions that will allow them to continue their fishing expedition.”
Most of his former colleagues, however, are not so rational. They are true soldiers of the State, seeking a way into everyone’s privacy to feed the belly of government.
“Everything these officers do is meant to trick you into something that they can actually arrest you for,” said Craig of Texas law enforcement. In the Lone Star state, as soon as a cop puts his lights on to pull you over, you are in custodial arrest. You are treated as if in custody, and anything you say can be used against you.
However, you have the right to remain silent. “The more you say, the worse things will get,” said Craig.
For instance, in Texas one has the right to carry a gun in the vehicle while traveling. Even though it’s “none of his business,” a cop may ask if you have any guns in the vehicle. According to Craig, if you say yes, the cop will get you out of the car, take the gun and scan it. You are now linked to that gun, even if it’s not registered to you.
Craig cited the case of a female attorney, Rebecca Musarra, who declined to answer questions when she was pulled over by a cop in New Jersey. The cop responded by pulling her out of the vehicle and reading Musarra her rights, which includes the right to remain silent. The pending lawsuit could be a wake-up call to roadside rights abuse by police.
“Hi, do you know why I stopped you?” This simple question often asked by a cop when pulling someone over is the first attempt to lure a person into an admission of guilt. If you continue to answer questions like “Where are you coming from?”, it is a sure way to put yourself in danger.
“Oh, were you drinking at this party? Were there drugs at this party? Do you have anything in the car that I should know about…that you should tell me about?”
These are some of the baits in the fishing expedition. The motto of “Don’t answer questions” is generally a good one in police encounters. And Craig reminds us, as always, to record all police encounters.
Craig encourages people to take civil disobedience a step further in his “Transportation Stop” action script. He described it during a mock stop between Tom Woods, the pretend driver, and Craig as the cop.
Make sure to pull over in a public space for your own safety, and acknowledge the pullover by waving or turning on emergency flashers. Do not incriminate yourself by answering questions; invoke your 5th Amendment right to remain silent if necessary.
This next part takes some more chutzpah and is controversial in that it could lead to irrational cops becoming agitated. Further clarification on the legal underpinnings is also necessary, as it relates to the precedence of state traffic code or federally guaranteed constitutional rights.
Craig says the right to remain silent includes the right not to produce anything that can be used against you in a court of law. He asserts that when a cop asks for your license and registration, instead of handing over the documents or refusing, you can say:
“Officer, can any of the information that you are demanding from me be used against me in a court of law or to potentially incriminate me in any way.”
The officer is obligated to tell you the answer, which is that he can indeed use the documents against you. Craig acknowledges that the law states you must hand over the documents, but he believes this is a violation of the 5th and 4th Amendments.
“But he didn’t tell you what your rights were, and now you can show this was not a voluntary surrender,” said Craig. “And that statement can later be suppressed at trial where he can’t use that info against you because it was illegally obtained.”
Some cops might actually just leave you alone. It’s hard to predict, but Craig said that if a cop refuses to answer or gets belligerent, you can say, “Officer, I believe that information can be used against me, therefore I invoke my right to remain silent. Do you intend to retaliate or punish me for simply protecting my right to remain silent?”
Not many people would be brave enough to take the situation that far. Unfortunately, it is easier to have your rights violated but refuse to answer questions, be on your way and pay the State extortion fee or traffic ticket. That is the point of the first quote in this article.
Too many cops like to take out their anger on vulnerable citizens, or they don’t know the laws they are supposed to enforce — or both. As Craig points out, police departments are allowed to intentionally hire lower intelligence people. Why?
The State needs order followers, not those who would question orders.
Craig says there is very superficial training of cops in understanding statutes, leading to a poor understanding of the law. Cops usually don’t know the law any better than the general public.“Statutory schemes use terminology that sounds and looks very familiar, but the meaning assigned to that terminology is not the same you understand from common usage,” said Craig.
Regardless of your willingness to take Eddie Craig’s “Transportation Stop” Action Script to its full extent, the question of state traffic statutes versus federal constitutional rights is an interesting one.
Asking the following question could indeed be a paradox for the rare rational cop on the traffic beat.
“As a peace officer you are required to protect me and my rights. One of those is the right to remain silent.”