Catch us live on BlogTalkRadio every

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

Monday, September 4, 2017

A Law Professor Explains Why You Should Never Talk to Police

Harry Cheadle
Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1

Don't Talk to Cops, Part 2

James Duane says you shouldn't say anything to a cop for any reason, you shouldn't plead the Fifth, and you shouldn't stay silent. So what should you do?

James Duane doesn't think you should ever talk to the police. Not just, "Don't talk to the police if you're accused of a crime," or, "Don't talk to the police in an interrogation setting"—never talk to the cops, period. If you are found doing something suspicious by an officer (say, breaking into your own house because you locked yourself outside), you are legally obligated to tell the cop your name and what you're doing at that very moment.

Other than that, Duane says, you should fall back on four short words: "I want a lawyer."

In 2008, Duane, a professor at Virginia's Regent Law School, gave a lecture about the risks of talking to police that was filmed and posted to YouTube. It's since been viewed millions of times, enjoying a new viral boost after the Netflix documentary Making a Murderer spurred interest in false confessions. His argument, which he's since expanded into a new book called You Have the Right to Remain Innocent, is that even if you haven't committed a crime, it's dangerous to tell the police any information. You might make mistakes when explaining where you were at the time of a crime that the police interpret as lies; the officer talking to you could misremember what you say much later; you may be tricked into saying the wrong things by cops under no obligation to tell you the truth; and your statements to police could, in combination with faulty eyewitness accounts, shoddy "expert" testimony, and sheer bad luck, lead to you being convicted of a serious crime.

Duane's book details several outrageous incidents just like that around the country, clearly showing the many ways the system is stacked against suspects. These include a proliferation of poorly written laws that make nearly anything a potential crime, rules that allow prosecutors to cherry-pick only the most damning parts of police interrogations at trials, and a little-known 2013 Supreme Court ruling allowing prosecutors to tell juries that defendants had invoked the Fifth Amendment—in other words, telling an officer you are making use of your right to remain silent could wind up being used as evidence against you. For that reason, Duane thinks that you shouldn't even tell the police that you are refusing to talk. Your safest course, he says, is to ask in no uncertain terms for a lawyer, and keep on asking until the police stop talking to you.

Though Duane said in his lecture he would never speak to the police, he has no problem speaking to anyone else, and in advance of his book coming out Tuesday, VICE talked to him about that lousy Supreme Court ruling, ways to reduce false confessions, and why he's cool with his book helping guilty people go free.

VICE: How did you get into the business of telling people not to talk to the cops?
James Duane: I never planned or anticipated that this was going to become a specialty of mine. I taught a class at my law school in 2008 and decided to talk about the Fifth Amendment. The particular precipitating catalyst that prompted me to talk about that subject was I had seen some things in the paper quoting various individuals—knowledgeable folks, folks who ought to know better—who were basically suggesting, "Well, if somebody takes the Fifth Amendment, I guess that kind of proves that they're guilty." Which is monstrously false. I thought, Why don't I say something about that? That's what prompted me to do that original recording. When it went viral like that, I started getting phone calls and letters and emails from different people with lots more questions and feedback and many, many invitations to come and speak to different groups of lawyers, judges, law students, and college students—and I said yes to almost every one of them.

I had a lot to learn, too. The thing I didn't fully understand, because I had been in the business for so long, is how surprising and counterintuitive all of this is to the average guy on the street. I spoke to so many sophisticated audiences, college students, law students, and they said, "This was astonishing, we had no idea, we never heard any of this, we never knew any of this." And that was what reminded me, it's important to get this message out to as many people as possible.
In your book, you advise people not to even take the Fifth thanks to a Supreme Court ruling. Could you talk a little about why?
Up until about five years ago, lawyers would give out business cards to their client and say, "Read this to the police," and it'd say, "At the advice of my attorney I decline to answer on the grounds that it may incriminate me, I'm invoking the Fifth Amendment." And there wasn't a lot of soul-searching and agonizing that went into all of this, because as long as the jury never finds out that you took the Fifth, it's a perfectly sensible solution. But the tide turned three years ago in 2013 with this wretched, abominable decision by the Supreme Court in Salinas v. Texas that changed everything.

In the Salinas case, a young man was interrogated by the police, and when they asked him a bunch of questions that didn't seem to be very threatening, he took the bait and answered them all. Then all of the sudden, they [asked a question that made it] obvious they wanted information that might expose him to criminal prosecution, and he just got silent. He didn't say a word. And there's no doubt that he was exercising his Fifth Amendment privilege, but he didn't [formally] assert his Fifth Amendment privilege. So the five Republican [appointees] on the Supreme Court said, Because you didn't tell the police that you were using your Fifth Amendment privilege, your exercise of the privilege, or your decision to remain silent can be used against you as evidence of guilt. Which probably had a dozen Supreme Court justices rolling over in their grave.

"If you're kind of clumsy about the way you assert the Fifth Amendment, you're running a lot of different risks."

The game has changed now that your choice to use the Fifth Amendment privilege can be used against you at trial depending exactly how and where you do it. As I explain in the book, now the problem is, if you're kind of clumsy about the way you assert the Fifth Amendment, you're running a lot of different risks.

What are some reforms to the interrogation process that could reduce the number of innocent people who wind up in prison?
I don't think there's any objective observer who would deny we really ought to be recording, with high-quality audio equipment, every step of every phase of all interaction between the police and the accused. In this day and age, where video and audio surveillance is practically ubiquitous wherever you go, it ought to be a national scandal that police officers and government agents are not generally required to record the entire interview.

"The reality is that over time police officers inevitably come to see themselves as part of the prosecutor's team."

Another thing is that I think police officers should be precluded from sharing information that they acquire in their investigations with witnesses. The Supreme Court has handed down this huge body of case law saying if police obtained evidence in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth amendments, it's inadmissible in trial. It's a naïve solution, because right now our law poses no restriction of any kind on the ability of the police to take information that they've acquired illegally and tell their witnesses about it. You've got a victim who says she saw the defendant's picture—"Oh, I think that's the guy, but I'm not sure." You tell her one month later that he confessed that he says he did it, but the judge says we can't use it because of a technicality. As soon as this woman hears that the guy confessed, trust me, she's gonna show up at trial, and she's going to say to the judge or the jury, "There's no doubt about it in my mind, I'm absolutely certain."

Perhaps the most basic or the most radical suggestion of all is the whole business of conducting criminal investigation should not be placed in the hands of partisans who are assigned the job of putting together the prosecutor's case. Any police officer will tell you, "We're here to get to the truth." But the reality is that over time police officers inevitably come to see themselves as part of the prosecutor's team. They work with the prosecutors, they testify for the prosecutors, they meet with the prosecutors. There are other Western democracies that have legal systems mostly like ours but place significant parts of the criminal investigation in the hands and under the direct supervision of judges and magistrates who really are neutral.

What has the response of law enforcement been to your speeches and your work?
Believe it or not, the numerous responses that I have received from police officers and even more often from former police officers has been overwhelmingly positive. I've received a great number of emails, and I've spoken privately and publicly to many police officers about the whole subject, and almost without exception, they all say, "It's true. What you say is true."

If everyone buys your book and follows your advice, would that make it harder for cops to investigate crimes?
Oh yes, and that's inevitable. It would be at least a little bit more difficult for the police officers to put together successful criminal prosecutions against some people who are now being convicted. Some of them are guilty, some of them are innocent. But that's my objective. I'm trying to make it more difficult for the police to obtain convictions of innocent people.

That would likely mean that some guilty people would go free. Would you be OK with that?
I would definitely take that tradeoff—no doubt about it at all. The Supreme Court has said it's much better for guilty people to go free from time to time if that's the price we're going to pay for innocent people not being convicted, because one innocent man unjustly convicted is much worse than one guilty man going free.

But I must add, it's far from clear that if everybody read my book that the number of guilty people getting off would necessarily increase to any significant extent. This book is going to have the most powerful effect on shaping the conduct of people who right now are talking to the police. And who's talking to the police right now? Generally the least sophisticated people: People who have never been arrested before, people who are innocent. Those are the ones who are most likely to say, "Of course I'll talk, how could this go wrong, I've got nothing to lose, nothing to hide." Many of them regret it and many of them regret it as the biggest mistake they've ever made in their life.

The guiltiest people, the worst criminals in our society—by and large, most of them have been arrested and prosecuted a couple of times already, and they've been through the system, and they've talked to a lawyer and already learned what the book says. So I'm not worried too much that this book is gonna put some helpful information in the hands of criminals that they don't already have, because the truth is most of them understand very well how the system works.

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Buy You Have the Right to Remain Innocent here.

Sunday, September 3, 2017


Image may contain: 1 person, sitting and indoor

National Council of Motorcycle Clubs of the United States


The National Council of Clubs, an organization dedicated to protecting the political and legal interests of hundreds of motorcycle clubs and thousands of their members nationwide.
The goal of the Council of Clubs is to unify all Confederations and Coalitions together in order to deliver a unified and responsible message to the media and the outside world in response to political and legal issues that impact the motorcycle club community.
The Council of Clubs is completely independent, from NCOM. There are many confederations and coalitions that do not participate in NCOM and many that do. The Council of Clubs is not a replacement for NCOM. Rather, the Council provides a mechanism to unite all confederations and coalitions coast-to-coast. COC’s that participate in NCOM can also participate in the Council of Clubs, they are not mutually exclusive.
The National Council of Clubs is the largest unifying movement in the history of motorcycle clubs. We represent the voice of thousands of motorcycle clubs across America. These clubs are comprised of riders from all walks of life. The movement consists of Christian clubs, Military Veterans clubs, Clean and Sober clubs, Women only clubs, Child Abuse Assistance Clubs, 1% clubs, riding clubs and many others, reflective of the rich culture and history of our country and the multitude of personal interests available to us all. We are dedicated to defending the political, legislative and legal interests of millions of motorcycle riders across America and of all of our clubs and club members.

List Of Outlaw Motorcycle Clubs Patches


list of outlaw motorcycle clubs patches
This is an alphabetical list of notable outlaw motorcycle clubs, including those current, defunct, or historic. An outlaw motorcycle club is a motorcycle subculture The following is an alphabetical list of notable outlaw motorcycle clubs, including current, defunct, or historic. Clubs on this list do not necessarily meet Top 10 Notorious American Biker Gangs^Top 10 Notorious American Biker Gangs^When was the international president of The Outlaws Motorcycle Club and The following is an alphabetical list of notable outlaw motorcycle clubs, including current, defunct, or historic. Clubs on this list do not necessarily meet List of outlaw motorcycle club patches This patch is associated with any bikers who consider themselves part of the “outlaw” biker community.Membership. Motorcycle clubs vary a great deal in their objectives and organizations. Mainstream motorcycle clubs or associations typically have elected Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs (OMGs) are organizations whose members use their motorcycle clubs as conduits for criminal enterprises. There are more than 300 active OMGs in Outlaw motorcycle club patches are patches and pins worn by outlaw motorcycle club members to express attitudes, display rank, show affiliation, commemorate events The Outlaws Motorcycle Club has 700 members in 86 chapters and is centered in the upper Midwest, where they compete with Hells Angels for members.Outlaw or “one-percent” motorcycle gangs have been a scourge to the federal government since the 1960s. To this day, there are formidable motorcycle clubs

Images Of List Of Outlaw Motorcycle Clubs Patches

Saturday, September 2, 2017

Espinoza’s Leather Co.


Store Location

8730 Garvey Avenue
Rosemead, CA 91770

Check out our faves of the month of May and see what new styles the Espinoza's have crafted.
#espinozasleather #favesofthemonth #bikerapparel

1. Baller Jacket 

A baller jacket featuring a charcoal grey denim torso and hood with cowhide leather top panels, patch pockets, and sleeves complimented by a red stitching finish.

2. Baller Vest

A baller vest featuring bull denim with cowhide complimented by a white stitching finish.

3. Hybrid Vest

A hybrid vest featuring rustic denim with peanut deerskin complimented by a peanut stitching finish.

4. Club Vest

Browse Our Full Shop

Cras rutrum blandit sem, molestie consequat erat luctus vel. Cras nunc est, laoreet sit amet ligula et, eleifend commodo dui.

Leather and motorcycles are our heritage

Cras rutrum blandit sem, molestie consequat erat luctus vel. Cras nunc est, laoreet sit amet ligula et, eleifend commodo dui.
Our Story

Drop by and visit our family

Cras rutrum blandit sem, molestie consequat erat luctus vel. Cras nunc est, laoreet sit amet ligula et, eleifend commodo dui.
Our Story

Learn and SHARE the knowledge...

No automatic alt text available.
No automatic alt text available.

No automatic alt text available.
No automatic alt text available.
No automatic alt text available.
No automatic alt text available.

Privacy Notice

Privacy Notice
Warning--any person and/or institution and/or Agent and/or Agency of any governmental structure including but not limited to the United States Federal Government also using or monitoring/using this website or any of its as...sociated websites, you do NOT have my permission to utilize any of my profile information nor any of the contained herein including, but not limited to my photos, and/ or the comments made about my photo's or any other "picture" art posted on my profile. You are hereby notified that you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing, disseminating, or taking any other action against me with regard to this profile and the contents herein. The foregoing prohibitions also apply to your employee(s), agent(s), student(s) or any personnel under your direction or control. The contents of this profile are private and legally privileged and confidential information, and the violation of my personal privacy is punishable by law.

Thank you,

Screwdriver & Bill


Image may contain: 1 person

How Long Does THC Stay in Your System?

How Long Does THC Stay in Your System?    
 I think we've all looked this up at one point lol
It is common for employers to drug test employees, and for marijuana users it isn’t unusual to wonder – how long does THC actually stay in the body? Well, of all of the intoxicants human beings like to indulge in, THC is one of the longest lasting in the body. The amount of time THC spends in the body depends on a couple different factors, such as metabolism, frequency of use and method of drug testing. It is probably one of the most common questions among marijuana users – how long will THC stay in your system? The truth of the matter is that it varies from individual to individual, and it will depend on a couple of different factors. For example, most employers take a urine sample to test for drugs, whereas traffic enforcers might take a saliva sample. There are even certain drug tests that are taken from a hair sample (although that’s an unlikely event). Most importantly, all of us metabolise at different rates. These are the kinds of things that affect how long marijuana is traceable in your body.
Considering all of the different factors will allow you to make the most accurate judgment on how long cannabis will be detectable in your body. This article is a guide to all the things that affect how long marijuana is in your blood.

How are you being tested on THC?

THC in saliva

How Long Does THC Stay in Your System? - Weed Seed Shop Blog
Of all the ways to drug test, THC lives for the shortest time in saliva. Mouth swabs are the most common way to drug test drivers. In general, a person can test positive for THC in saliva within 1 hour of using, and can last for up to 12 hours. Frequent smokers may test positive for longer than 12 hours (or perhaps they just never go longer than 12 hours without a smoke), so that’s something to keep in mind. It is unlikely anybody would test positive to THC through saliva 24 hours after smoking.

THC in urine

This is the most common way for employers to test for THC. This is also the method whereby how often you smoke has the biggest bearing on how long THC stays in your system. Even if you are an infrequent user, urine testing can come back positive even after a few days. There has been a case recorded where a smoker of ten years tested positive for a urine test 67 days after stopping. As you might expect, the more frequently you smoke, the longer you can predict it will stay in your system.
Most urine tests are testing for a substance called THC-COOH, which is what THC turns into after your liver has broken it down. It is metabolized from the main ingredient of weed responsible for your high – THC. The difference between these two substances is that THC-COOH lingers around in the body for much longer than THC. This metabolite of THC is also extremely hydrophobic, meaning it avoids water in general, and ends up in the oily and fatty parts of the body. This is what gives THC a cumulative effect in the body, meaning it’s detectable for a long time in the body (after stopping use) especially for chronic pot smokers.
In general, if you have just smoked your first joint or use infrequently (less than once a month), then you could test positive on a urine test for up to four days. After that, you’re basically clear. If you smoke frequently (once a week), you can test positive for up to 10 days after the last use. For chronic users, there are studies that show your urine can test positive for THC for one month after your last use. All of this is based on average urine testing standards, which is 50 ng/mL, according to the National Drug Court Institute.
To be safe, it’s better to stop your marijuana use well ahead of these times to ensure that you won’t test positive after an interview for the job of your dreams.
How Long Does THC Stay in Your System? - Weed Seed Shop Blog

THC in hair and blood

Hair and blood are unlikely ways to be tested for marijuana. Interestingly, if THC does bind to the hair follicle, which is not always guaranteed, it is only detectable 7 days after use, and can be detected for up to 90 days afterwards if use is frequent. After THC is metabolized it begins to appear in the blood as THC-COOH, which coincidentally doesn’t bind to blood for nearly as long as it binds to the liver. As a result, blood tests only detect very recent use of marijuana.

Are there ways to pass a urine test?

There are a few old wives tales out there about how to pass a urine test, and there are also some products available on the market that encourage the process. But do any of them really work? There’s no way to really know for sure unless you try it. It has been suggested to drink loads of water in the days leading up to a drug test, as this naturally cleanses the body of all toxins. This is probably a reasonable way to deal with it, and this includes having a diet that is cleansing as well. However, it’s important to beware that urine that has been heavily diluted can also be detected as being tampered with, so overdoing it could get you into more trouble.
The only real way to know if you’re about to test positive to a drug test is to go out and get yourself a home testing kit. These are available online and in shops these days and give you an opportunity to drug test yourself at home. Of course, they claim to be extremely sensitive and accurate, but we can’t back up their claims. You will have to try for yourself! This method is the closest you could get to knowing the results of your drug test before you actually take it.
The safest way to avoid testing positive is to take a long break from using marijuana. As stated before, it is one of the longest lasting intoxicants in the human body, meaning even alcohol and methamphetamines pass through the body faster. As a result, detecting even an intermittent weed smoker can be easy for employers. As more and more countries begin to legalize marijuana, it’s possible that employer drug testing will become more lenient.
Categories: Consumption

Friday, September 1, 2017

Lane splitting by Motorcyclists is Legal in California.

Motorcyclists should Lane split in a safe and prudent manner
    Motorists should not take it upon themselves to discourage motorcyclists fromlane splitting.

The term lane splitting, defined by Assembly Bill 51 Quirk in 2016 as driving amotorcycle that has Two Wheels in contact with the ground between rows ofstopped or moving vehicles in the same lane on both divided and undivided streets, roads and highways.
    Intentionally blocking or impeding a motorcyclist in anyway (i.e. Opening avehicle door to impede a motorcyclist) is illegal.
    Typically, it is safer to split between the far left lanes, than between the otherlanes of traffic.
    Consider the total environment when you are lane splitting (this includes the widthof lanes, the size of surrounding vehicles, as well as current roadway and weatherconditions.
    Riding on the shoulder is illegal; it is not considered lane splitting

  According to SafeTrec Study by Dr. Tom Rice at the University ofBerkley, Lane Splitting is relatively safe if done in traffic moving at 50mph or less, and if motorcyclists do not exceed the speed of othervehicles by more than 15 mph.

Go to for Updates on MotorcyclistsRights and Join and/or Donate to continue to Fight for your Rights at the State Capitol and in all ofCalifornia.

Emilio Rivera, Words Of Wisdom.

Sometimes the most important life lessons are the ones we end up learning the hard way!
Lots of #Love ❤️& #Respect 👊
to Emilio Rivera
Image may contain: 1 person, text

Federal Court Rules Citizens Have No Right to Film Politicians & Police in Public

In a stunning departure from lengthy precedent, a federal appeals court has ruled citizens have no right to film politicians and police in public.