↧
PIC OF THE DAY
↧
The Original One-Percenters,And Why You Do NOT Want To FUCK With Them
OFF THE WIRE
By Rachelle Hruska
To contact the author of this post, email rachelle@guestofaguest.com
http://guestofaguest.com/instant-expert/the-original-one-percenter/
There's an undeniable camaraderie forming amongst the 99% and their supporters over a common joy of throwing the "one per-centers," (the upper 1% of Americans who control the majority of wealth), under the bus. And, it's left me wondering, "How do the original 'One Percenters' feel about sharing their title with a bunch of rich assholes?"
Protest groups across the country have no problem banding together in solidarity to protest outside of these new "1%'ers" houses. Nor do they feel remorse after tweeting witty slogans and slurs against these scumbags abundant and unfair wealth. This may fly in New York City, but, where I come from, the One-Percenters are the baddest of all the bad asses, and they are not the people you want to f*ck with....
I was taught in my DARE classes not to come in contact with anyone bearing a 1% tattoo on their body, and have found that many of my East Coast friends have never even heard of this group. Well, here are some:
Quick facts on the Original One-Percenters: (be careful who you f*ck with):
![]( "1percenterpatch_2")
The clubs origins: Members wear this diamond shape patch over the hear of their leather jackets, the inspiration traced to 1947 when members of the "Pissed Off Bastards" (ha) and the "Boozefighters" motorcycle clubs showed up in Hollister, CA for an annual race which then got out of hand.
The Life Magazine story that followed provoked the American Motorcyclists Association to denounce the boozed-up bikers. It assured worried citizens that 99% of its members were law-abiding citizens, thereby marginalizing the remaining "1%" as outlaws. [Read More HERE]
More Facts:
![]( "one_percent")
More info on the "One percenter" on Wiki:
[One Percenter, the outlaw biker]
[Understanding the 1%]
[Hell's Angels by Hunter S. Thompson]
[Motocycle Gangs, Missouri State]
[List of Bikers Clubs That Identify As "One Percenters"]
Now that you have all you have all the information you need on the Original "One Percenters," you may want to think twice before throwing out the insults this week.
To recap:
This "One Percenter" is okay to f*ck with:
![]( "jamie-dimon")
This one isn't:
![]( "1-9")
You can egg this guy's Park Ave townhouse...
![]( "john-paulson")
...but stay away from throwing anything at these dudes:
![]( "kickin1")
By Rachelle Hruska
To contact the author of this post, email rachelle@guestofaguest.com
http://guestofaguest.com/instant-expert/the-original-one-percenter/
There's an undeniable camaraderie forming amongst the 99% and their supporters over a common joy of throwing the "one per-centers," (the upper 1% of Americans who control the majority of wealth), under the bus. And, it's left me wondering, "How do the original 'One Percenters' feel about sharing their title with a bunch of rich assholes?"
Protest groups across the country have no problem banding together in solidarity to protest outside of these new "1%'ers" houses. Nor do they feel remorse after tweeting witty slogans and slurs against these scumbags abundant and unfair wealth. This may fly in New York City, but, where I come from, the One-Percenters are the baddest of all the bad asses, and they are not the people you want to f*ck with....
I was taught in my DARE classes not to come in contact with anyone bearing a 1% tattoo on their body, and have found that many of my East Coast friends have never even heard of this group. Well, here are some:
Quick facts on the Original One-Percenters: (be careful who you f*ck with):
The clubs origins: Members wear this diamond shape patch over the hear of their leather jackets, the inspiration traced to 1947 when members of the "Pissed Off Bastards" (ha) and the "Boozefighters" motorcycle clubs showed up in Hollister, CA for an annual race which then got out of hand.The Life Magazine story that followed provoked the American Motorcyclists Association to denounce the boozed-up bikers. It assured worried citizens that 99% of its members were law-abiding citizens, thereby marginalizing the remaining "1%" as outlaws. [Read More HERE]
More Facts:
- They are a member of an Outlaw Motorcycle Club that has actually killed someone. (Translated: earning the "One Percenter" tattoo ain't easy.)
- The most feared and respected riders roaming the blacktop, one percenters are a breed apart from all others. These individuals bow to no one, test the boundaries of all and give their devotion to few. [via SalemNews]
- Could include a member from: The Hells Angels, Outlaws, Banditos, Pagans, Warlocks, etc.
- How do you become a One-Percenter? "If you have to ask the question, you won't understand the answer. Only another one percenter can truly understand what belonging takes. [via]
- They are outlaws of culture. [via]
More info on the "One percenter" on Wiki:Some outlaw motorcycle clubs can be distinguished by a 1% patch worn on the colors. This is claimed to be a reference to a comment made by the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) in which they stated that 99% of motorcyclists were law-abiding citizens, implying that the last one percent were outlaws. The comment, supposedly a response to the Hollister riot in 1947,[24][25] is denied by the AMA—who claim to have no record of such a statement to the press, and that the story is a misquotation.[26] As a result, some outlaw motorcycle clubs used it to unite or express themselves and are commonly referred to as "one percenters". According to the ATF they are also known as Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs or OMGs.[27]
[One Percenter, the outlaw biker]
[Understanding the 1%]
[Hell's Angels by Hunter S. Thompson]
[Motocycle Gangs, Missouri State]
[List of Bikers Clubs That Identify As "One Percenters"]
Now that you have all you have all the information you need on the Original "One Percenters," you may want to think twice before throwing out the insults this week.
To recap:
This "One Percenter" is okay to f*ck with:
This one isn't:
You can egg this guy's Park Ave townhouse...
...but stay away from throwing anything at these dudes:
↧
↧
Know Your Rights When Dealing With Police Officers
OFF THE WIRE
"I DON'T WANT TO TALK UNTIL MY LAWYER IS PRESENT"
A Police Officers Worst Enemy Is A Well Informed Citizen Who Knows Their Rights!
Police officers hate to hear these words:
"Am I free to go?"
"I don't consent a search."
"I'm going to remain silent."
When a Police Officer Stops You
To stop you a police officer must have a specific reason to suspect your involvement in a specific crime and should be able to tell you that reason when you ask. This is known as reasonable suspicion. A police officer usually will pull you over for some type of "traffic violation," such as speeding or maybe not using your blinker. Throwing a cigarette butt or a gum wrapper out your car window is reason enough for the police to pull you over, ticket you for littering and start asking you all sorts of personal questions.
Your Rights During a Traffic Stop. Top Five (5) Things to Know About Protecting Yourself from the Police:
#1 - Safety. The first thing is your safety! You want to put the police officer at ease. Pull over to a safe place, turn off your ignition, stay in the car and keep your hands on the steering wheel. At night turn on the interior lights. Keep your license, registration, and proof of insurance always close by.
Build a trust with the police officer be a "good citizen" be courteous, stay calm, smile and don't complain. Show respect and say things like "sir and no sir." Never bad-mouth a police officer, stay in control of your words, body language and your emotions. "All this takes practice, try practicing with a friend." The idea is to get the police officer to understand that you're just an average ordinary citizen and let you get on your way down the road. Never touch a police officer and don't run away!
#2 - Never Talk To A Police Officer. The only questions you need to answer is your name, address and date of birth and nothing else! Instead of telling the police officer who you are, simply give him your drivers license or I.D. card. All the information the police officer needs to know about you can be found on your drivers license. Don't volunteer any more information to the police officer, if he ask you any other questions politely say "Am I free to go?" and then don't say another word.
#3 - I'm Going to Remain Silent. The Supreme Court has made a new ruling that you should Never Talk to a Police Officer without an attorney, but there's a CATCH! New Ruling Before you're allowed NOT to talk to a police officer, you must TELL the police officer "I'm Going to Remain Silent" and then keep your mouth shut!(How can you be falsely accused and charged if you don't say anything?) Anything you say or do can and will be used against you at any time by the police.
#3 - I'm Going to Remain Silent. The Supreme Court has made a new ruling that you should Never Talk to a Police Officer without an attorney, but there's a CATCH! New Ruling Before you're allowed NOT to talk to a police officer, you must TELL the police officer "I'm Going to Remain Silent" and then keep your mouth shut!(How can you be falsely accused and charged if you don't say anything?) Anything you say or do can and will be used against you at any time by the police.
#4 - Just Say NO to Police Searches! If a police officer didn't need your permission to search, he wouldn't be asking. Never give permission to a police officer to search you, your car or your home. If a police officer does search you, don't resist and keep saying "I don't consent to this search."
#5 - "Am I Free to Go?" As soon as the police officer ask you a question ask him "Am I free to go?" You have to ask if you're "free to go," otherwise the police officer will think you are voluntarily staying. If the police officer says that you're are being detained or arrested, say to the police officer"I'm Going to Remain Silent"
#5 - "Am I Free to Go?" As soon as the police officer ask you a question ask him "Am I free to go?" You have to ask if you're "free to go," otherwise the police officer will think you are voluntarily staying. If the police officer says that you're are being detained or arrested, say to the police officer"I'm Going to Remain Silent"
Anything You Say Can And Will Be Used Against You!
Police officers need your permission to have a conversation, never give it to them!
Never voluntarily talk to a police officer, there's no such thing as a "friendly chat" with a police officer. The Supreme Court has recently ruled that you should NOT talk to a police officer without a lawyer and you must say "I'm going to remain silent." It can be very dangerous to talk to a police officer or a Federal Agent. Innocent people have talked to a police officer and ended up in jail and prison, because they spoke to a police officer without an attorney.
Police officers have the same right as you "Freedom of Speech," they can ask you anything they want, but you should never answer any of their questions. Don't let the police officer try and persuade you to talk! Say something like "I'm sorry, I don't have time to talk to you right now." If the cop insists on talking to you, ask him "Am I free to go?" The police officer may not like when you refuse to talk to him and challenge you with words like, "If you have nothing to hide, why won't you speak to me? Say again "I told you I don't have time to talk to you right now, Am I free to go?" If you forget or the police officer tricks you into talking, it's okay just start over again and tell the police officer "I'm going to remain silent."
The Supreme Court has ruled that if a police officer doesn't force you to do something, then you're doing "voluntarily." That means if the police officer starts being intimidating and you do what he ask because you're "afraid," you still have done it voluntarily. (Florida v. Bostick, 1991) If you do what the police officer ask you to do such as allowing him to search your car or answer any of his questions, you are 'voluntarily' complying with his 'requests.'So don't comply, just keep your mouth shut unless you say "Am I Free to Go?" or "I don't consent to a search."
You have every right NOT to talk to a police officer and you should NOT speak to a police officer unless you have first consulted with a lawyer who has advised you differently. Police officers depend on fear and intimidation to get what they want from you. Police officers might say they will "go easy" on you if you talk to them, but they're LIARS! The government has made a law that allows police officers to lie to the American public. Another reason not to trust the police! So be as nice as possible, but stand your ground on your rights! Where do some of your rights come from? Read the Fourth and Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Traffic Stops and Your Rights
First of all keep your license, registration and proof of insurance in an easily accessible place such as attached to your sun visor. The less time it takes for you to get to these items, the less time the officer has to look through your windows and snoop. When pulled over by a police officer stay in the car, turn on the cab lights and keep your hands on the steering wheel. Sit still, relax and wait for the officer to come to you. Any sudden movements, ducking down, looking nervous or appearing to be searching for something under your seat is dangerous! Just sit up naturally be still and try to put the officer at ease."
Police officers like to ask the first question and that usually is, "do you know the reason I pulled you over?" The police officer is trying to get you to do two things, admit that you committed a traffic violation and to get you to "voluntarily" start a conversation with him.Remember the police officer is not your friend and should not be trusted! The only thing you should say is "I'm going to remain silent and am I free to go?"
The police officer might start asking you personal questions such as "where are you going, where have you been and who did you see, ect." At that point it's the perfect time to exercise your rights by asking the police officer "AM I FREE TO GO?" There is NO legal requirement that American citizens provide information about their comings and goings to a police officer. It's none of their damn business! Keep asking the police officers "AM I FREE TO GO?" You have to speak up and verbally ask the police officer if your allowed to leave, otherwise the courts will presume that you wanted to stay and talk to the cops on your own free will.
Passengers in your vehicle need to know their rights as well. They have the same right not to talk to a police officer and the right to refuse a search "unless it's a 'pat down' for weapons." The police will usually separate the passengers from each other and ask questions to see if their stories match. All passengers should always give the same answer and say, "I'm going to remain silent and am I free to go?" Remember you have to tell the police officer that you don't want to talk to him. It's the law
How long can a police officer keep you pulled over "detained" during a traffic stop? The Supreme Court has said no more than 15 minutes is a reasonable amount of time for a police officer to conduct his investigation and allow you to go FREE. Just keep asking the police officer "AM I FREE TO GO?"
A good time to ask "AM I FREE TO GO," is after the police officer has given you a "warning or a ticket" and you have signed it. Once you have signed that ticket the traffic stop is legally over says the U.S. Supreme Court. There's no law that requires you to stay and talk to the police officer or answer any questions. After you have signed the ticket and got your license back you may roll up your window, start your car and leave. If you're outside the car ask the police officer, "AM I FREE TO GO?" If he says yes then get in your car and leave.
Car Searches And Body Searches
Remember the police officer wouldn't be asking you, if he didn't need your permission to search! "The right to be free from unreasonable searches is one of America's most precious First Liberties."
Just because you're stopped for a traffic violation does NOT allow a police officer to search your car. However if you go riding around smoking a blunt and get pulled over, the police officer smells marijuana, sees a weapon or drugs in plain view he now has "probable cause" to search you car and that's your own stupid fault!
Police officers swore an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and not to violate your rights against unreasonable search and seizure Fourth Amendment. Denying a police officers request to search you or your car is not an admission of guilt, it's your American right! Some police officers might say, "if you have nothing to hide, you should allow me to search." Politely say to the police officer "I don't consent to a search and am I free to go?"
The police officer is allowed to handcuff you and/or detain and even put you in his police car for his safety. Don't resist or you will be arrested! There's a big difference between being detained and being arrested. Say nothing in the police car! Police will record your conversation inside the police car, say nothing to your friend and don't talk to the police officers!
If you are arrested and your car is towed, the police are allowed to take an "inventory" of the items in your car. If anything is found that's illegal, the police will get a warrant and then charge you with another crime.
Police Pat Downs...
For the safety of police officers the law allows the police to pat down your outer clothing to see if you have any weapons. If the police officer feels something that he believes is a weapon, then he can go into your pockets and pull out the item he believes is a weapon.
A police officer may ask you or even demand that you empty your pockets, but you have the right to say "NO, AM I FREE TO GO?" There's NO law that requires you to empty your pockets when a police officer "ask you." The only time a police officer should be taking your personal property out of your pockets is after you have been arrested.
If a Police Officer Knocks at Your Door at Home-You Don't Have to Open the Door!
If the police knock and ask to enter your home, you DON'T have to open the door unless they have a warrant signed by a judge. "If the police have a warrant they won't be knocking, they'll be kicking in your door!" There is NO law that requires you to open your door to a police officer.* Don't open your door with the chain-lock on either, the police will shove their way in. Simply shout to the police officers "I HAVE NOTHING TO SAY" or just don't say anything at all.
Guest and roommates staying in your home/apartment/dorm need to be aware of their rights specially "college students" and told not to open the door to a police officer or invite police officers into your home without your permission. Police officers are like vampires, they need your permission to come into your home. Never invite a police officer into your home, such an invitation not only gives police officers an opportunity to look around for clues to your lifestyle, habits, friends, reading material, etc; but also tends to prolong the conversation.
If you are arrested outside your home the police officer might ask if you would like to go inside and get your shoes or a shirt? He might even be nice and let you tell your wife or friend goodbye, but it's a trick! Don't let the police officer into your house!
If you are arrested outside your home the police officer might ask if you would like to go inside and get your shoes or a shirt? He might even be nice and let you tell your wife or friend goodbye, but it's a trick! Don't let the police officer into your house!
Never agree to go to the police station if the police want to question you. Just say, "I HAVE NOTHING TO SAY."
* In some emergency situations (for example when a someone is screaming for help from inside your home, police are chasing someone into your home, police see a felony being committed or if someone has called 911 from inside your house) police officers are then allowed to enter and search your home without a warrant.
Children have rights also, if you're under 18 click here. If your children don't know their rights and go talking to a teacher, school principal, police officer or a Federal agent without an attorney could cost your family dearly and change the lives of your family forever!
If a Police Officer Stops You On The Sidewalk...
NEVER give consent to talk to a police officer. If a police officer stops you and ask to speak with you, you're perfectly within your rights to say to the police officer "I do not wish to speak with you, good-bye. "New Law At this point you should be free to leave. The next step the police officer might take is to ask you for identification. If you have identification on you, tell the officer where it is and ask permission to reach for it. "Some states you're not required to show an I.D. unless the police officer has reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime." Know the laws in your state!
The police officer will start asking you questions again, at this point you may ask the officer "Am I Free to Go?" The police officer may not like this and may challenge you with words like, "If you have nothing to hide, why won't you speak to me?" Just like the first question, you do not have to answer this question either. Just ask "Am I Free to Go?"
Police officers need your permission to have a conversation, never give it to them. There is NO law that says you must tell a police officer where you are going or where you have been, so keep your mouth shut and say nothing! Don't answer any question (except name, address and age) until you have a lawyer.
Police officers need your permission to have a conversation, never give it to them. There is NO law that says you must tell a police officer where you are going or where you have been, so keep your mouth shut and say nothing! Don't answer any question (except name, address and age) until you have a lawyer.
Probable Cause...
A police officer has no right to detain you unless there exists reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime or traffic violation. However a police officer is always allowed to initiate a "voluntary" conversation with you. You always have the right not to talk or answer any questions a police officer ask you. Just tell the police officer "I'm going to remain silent."
Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, police may engage in "reasonable" searches and seizures. To prove that a search is reasonable, the police must generally show that it's more likely than not that a crime has occurred and that if a search is conducted it is probable that the police officer will find evidence of the crime. This is called "probable cause."
Police may use first hand information or tips from an informant "snitch" to justify the need to search your property or you. If an informant's information is used, the police must prove that the information is reliable under the circumstances to a judge.
Here's a case when police officers took the word of a "snitch," claiming he knew where a "drug dealer" lived. The police officers took it upon themselves to go to this house that the snitch had "picked at random" and kick in the door at 1:30 in the morning ,without obtaining a search warrant from a judge. The aftermath was six police officers firing over 30 shots and shooting an innocent man 9 times in the back as he laid on the ground. Read How Police In Texas Are Allowed to Murder Innocent People and Get Away With It
Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, police may engage in "reasonable" searches and seizures. To prove that a search is reasonable, the police must generally show that it's more likely than not that a crime has occurred and that if a search is conducted it is probable that the police officer will find evidence of the crime. This is called "probable cause."
Police may use first hand information or tips from an informant "snitch" to justify the need to search your property or you. If an informant's information is used, the police must prove that the information is reliable under the circumstances to a judge.
Here's a case when police officers took the word of a "snitch," claiming he knew where a "drug dealer" lived. The police officers took it upon themselves to go to this house that the snitch had "picked at random" and kick in the door at 1:30 in the morning ,without obtaining a search warrant from a judge. The aftermath was six police officers firing over 30 shots and shooting an innocent man 9 times in the back as he laid on the ground. Read How Police In Texas Are Allowed to Murder Innocent People and Get Away With It
Can We Trust Police Officers?
Are police officers allowed to lie to you? Yes the Supreme Court has ruled that police officers can lie to the American public. Police officers are trained at lying, twisting words and to be manipulative. Police officers and other law enforcement agents are very skilled at getting information from people. So don't try to "out smart" the police officer or try being a "smooth talker" because you will loose! If you can keep your mouth shut, you just might come out ahead more than you expected.
Teach your children that police officers are not always their friend and police officers must contact a parent for permission before they ask your child any questions. Remember police officers are trained to put you at ease and to gain your trust. Their job is to find, arrest and help convict a suspect and that suspect is you!
The federal government created a law that says citizens can't lie to Federal Agents and yet the government can lie to American Citizens. Makes perfect since doesn't it? The best thing you can do is ask for a lawyer and keep your mouth shut. How can you be charged with something if you haven't said anything?
Although police officers may seem nice and pretend to be on your side they are wanting to learn your habits, opinions, and affiliations of other people not suspected of wrongdoing. Don't try to answer a police officers questions, it can be very dangerous! You can never tell how a seemingly harmless bit of information that you give to a police officer might be used and misconstrued to hurt you or someone else. Keep in mind that lying to a federal agent is a crime. "This why Martha Stewart went to prison, not for insider trading but for lying to a Federal Agent."
Police officers may promise shorter sentences and other deals for statements or confessions from you. The police cannot legally make deals with people they arrest, but they can and will lie to you. The only person who can make a deal that can be enforced is the prosecutor and he should not talk with you without a lawyer present.
Lies That Police Officers Use To Get You To Talk...
There are many ways a police officer will try to trick you into talking. It's always safe to say the Magic Words: "Am I free to leave, if not I'm going to remain silent and I want a lawyer."
The following are common lie's the police use when they're trying to get you to talk to them:
* "You will have to stay here and answer my questions" or "You're not leaving until I find out what I want to know."
* "I have evidence on you, so tell me what I want to know or else." (They can fabricate fake evidence to convince you to tell them what they want to know.)
* "You're not a suspect, were simply investigating here. Just help us understand what happened and then you can go."
* "If you don't answer my questions, I won't have any choice but to take you to jail."
* "If you don't answer these questions, you'll be charged with resisting arrest."
* "Your friend has told his side of the story and it's not looking good for you, anything you want to say in your defense?"
If The Police Arrest You...
"I DON'T WANT TO TALK UNTIL MY LAWYER IS PRESENT"
* Don't answer questions the police ask you, (except name, address and age)until you have a lawyer.
* Even if the police don't read your Miranda Rights to you, refuse to say anything until your lawyer/public defender arrives. If you "voluntarily" talk to the police , then they don't have to read your Miranda Rights.
* If you're arrested and can not afford an attorney, you have the right to a public defender. If you get a public defender always make it clear to the judge that the public defender is not representing you, but merely is serving as your counsel.
* Do not talk to other jail inmates about your case.
* Within a reasonable time after your arrest or booking, you have the right to make a local phone call to a lawyer, bail bondsman, relative or any other person. The police may not listen to the call to the lawyer.
* If you're on probation or parole tell your P.O. you've been arrested and say nothing else!
COMMENT
COMMENT
Yesterday, when I was discussing this law with a group, a citizen asked "If you have nothing to hide, why not comply with the officer?" I answered with a sime question: "If the police have no probably cause, why are they intruding into my life?"
When did government intrusion become patriotic or accepted? For heaven's sake, this country was founded on the government staying out of our lives.
Lawyer Motorcycle Association
If a police officer demands that you produce identification, that demand is not a valid.
In The Hiibel case, the US Supreme Court (highest court in the land) specifically interprets Nevada's "Duty to Identify" statute (NRS 171.123) and ruled:
"It apparently does not require him to produce a driver's license or any ...other documentation. If he chooses either to state his name or communicate it to the officer by other means, the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs." Hiibel v Sixth Judicial Court of Nevada, 542 US 177 (2004)
Please note: the driver of a vehicle is required to produce a driver's license under a different law (but NOT the passenger)
COMMENT`
Don’t kill a cop. You will lose in Court. Enjoy life, get even as a juror (providing you’re eligible for jury service) and vote not guilty no matter what the evidence shows.
Slapstick and Pig,
If driving or riding and you have been pulled over, turn over your license, registration and insurance when asked. If cop starts asking ANY questions simply ask “am I free to leave?” If cop says “yes” then leave. If cop says “no” then say I “want a lawyer.” And continue to remain silent!
If walking down street and cop detains you in any way ask if you are free to go about your business. If cop says no then request a lawyer and remain silent. You do NOT have to take off your glasses, hat, do-rag, whatever … You do NOT have to turnover your cell phone. Do NOT allow a cop to search you or your house, car, bike, etc. without a warrant. When the cop does search without a warrant in violation of your Constitutional Rights immediately file a complaint against that cop. Immediately! Go to the cops station/division and file that complaint.
Cops put paper on us, we put paper on them. That simple.
And ALWAYS password protect your cell phone. Cops can search your cell phone in many instances without a warrant. Remain silent and don’t give up the password.
All of the above aggravates the shit out of cops. I know, I have done it many times.
![]()
When did government intrusion become patriotic or accepted? For heaven's sake, this country was founded on the government staying out of our lives.
Lawyer Motorcycle Association
If a police officer demands that you produce identification, that demand is not a valid.
In The Hiibel case, the US Supreme Court (highest court in the land) specifically interprets Nevada's "Duty to Identify" statute (NRS 171.123) and ruled:
"It apparently does not require him to produce a driver's license or any ...other documentation. If he chooses either to state his name or communicate it to the officer by other means, the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs." Hiibel v Sixth Judicial Court of Nevada, 542 US 177 (2004)
Please note: the driver of a vehicle is required to produce a driver's license under a different law (but NOT the passenger)
COMMENT`
Don’t kill a cop. You will lose in Court. Enjoy life, get even as a juror (providing you’re eligible for jury service) and vote not guilty no matter what the evidence shows.
Slapstick and Pig,
If driving or riding and you have been pulled over, turn over your license, registration and insurance when asked. If cop starts asking ANY questions simply ask “am I free to leave?” If cop says “yes” then leave. If cop says “no” then say I “want a lawyer.” And continue to remain silent!
If walking down street and cop detains you in any way ask if you are free to go about your business. If cop says no then request a lawyer and remain silent. You do NOT have to take off your glasses, hat, do-rag, whatever … You do NOT have to turnover your cell phone. Do NOT allow a cop to search you or your house, car, bike, etc. without a warrant. When the cop does search without a warrant in violation of your Constitutional Rights immediately file a complaint against that cop. Immediately! Go to the cops station/division and file that complaint.
Cops put paper on us, we put paper on them. That simple.
And ALWAYS password protect your cell phone. Cops can search your cell phone in many instances without a warrant. Remain silent and don’t give up the password.
All of the above aggravates the shit out of cops. I know, I have done it many times.
↧
DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF CLOTHING OR CLUB MEMBERSHIP IS ILLEGAL
OFF THE WIRE
Comment,
- Law enforcement love this shit and are probably also posing as bikers, posting comments and feeding into the hype… divide and conquer. The attention from the real threat to the MC world and society as a whole keeps getting diverted.
- At this very moment in the United States, this has become the norm …. Law enforcement officers are involved in criminal activity. In addition, these individuals are involved in violating citizen’s civil and constitutional rights and they have more latitude to cause death, physical, financial and emotional harm to U.S. citizens than any other organization. Their actions are overlooked and encouraged by their department leadership, making those individuals complicit in the crimes.
- America’s #1 Terrorist Threat is Law Enforcement
![]()
The Unruh Civil Rights Act (C-C Section 51 et seq) provides 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 and persons or establishments who discriminate on the basis of clothing or club membership are subject to lawsuit.
↧
A RICO Primer
OFF THE WIRE
agingrebel.com
![A RICO Primer]()
Many readers, including defense attorneys, continue to seem confused by RICO. The usual response to a RICO charge is, “How can they do this?” The following passages, from the book Out Bad, might help clear up some confusion.
From Out Bad
RICO was the centerpiece of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. The law was written by a Senatorial aide named G. Robert Blakey, who is now the William and Dorothy O’Neill Professor of Law at Notre Dame. And, it is named for the fictional character Rico “Little Caesar” Bandello who was inhabited on film by Edward G. Robinson.
Robinson’s Rico character, in turn, was a parody of a notorious entrepreneur named Alphonse Gabriel “Scarface” Capone. “Every time a boy falls off a tricycle,” Capone once lamented, “every time a black cat has gray kittens, every time someone stubs a toe, every time there’s a murder or a fire or the Marines land in Nicaragua, the police and the newspapers holler ‘get Capone.’”
Capone regretted his reputation as a criminal. Starting in 1926 he tried to diversify into legitimate businesses. Eventually he discovered milk. “Honest to God, we’ve been in the wrong racket right along,” Capone exclaimed when he discovered that the profit margins were higher in milk than in whiskey. In February 1932, three months before he went to prison, Capone invested $50,000 in a legitimate business named Meadowmoor Dairies. In the 1960s the descendants of Capone liked to invest in bowling alleys because they were a good way to explain where the money came from. The upshot of that was that the main supplier of automatic pin setting machines, the AMF company, became prosperous enough to buy, and almost ruin, the Harley-Davidson company.
The original intent of the RICO statute – at least by the Congressmen who voted for it – was to protect legitimate dairies, bowling alleys and other businesses, from investment by thugs like Al Capone. That did not work because the threat posed to the nation by the Italian-American Mafia was always overblown and because as years went by the very same acts the Mafia had always been condemned for doing began to be accepted as standard business practice. The Mafia used to sell sin. The gangsters profited from gambling, usury, prostitution, liquor, drugs and theft. Now states, the nation, Indian tribes, rural counties in Nevada, credit card brands, mortgage lenders, banks in general and asset confiscating police all profit from exactly the same sins.
This may or may not be a good thing. It is certainly not something new in the American pageant. Wyatt Earp enforced the law for big banks and mining companies. Before that he was “muscle.” Before that he was a pimp. Honore de Balzac said, “Behind every great fortune there is a crime.” Crime used to be understood as a kind of cheating for personal gain. Now a crime is anything. Racketeering is anything. The point is to find an excuse to make people suffer.
RICO, as it has evolved, is not intended to punish what most people consider to be crimes, which is to say actions like murder, robbery or what Roman Polanski did to that 13-year-old girl – crimes that lawyers call malum in se. RICO is designed to punish crimes lawyers call malum prohibitum which is Latin for actions that are illegal because they are illegal – like possessing illegal intoxicants or talking on the telephone about illegal intoxicants or smoking in a public place or having a loud and embarrassingly ugly argument with your wife on a Saturday night.
RICO prosecutions virtually ignore malum in se crimes, the actions you have always thought to be a “crime,” although at least a dozen of those did occur or emerge during the Mongols investigation. The predicate crimes that RICO exploits are often trivial and are always state crimes that until 1982 would have been prosecuted in state courts. For example, after the Labor Day Murders, none of the Hells Angels who were charged were ever found guilty of the murders. They confessed to talking about the murders. They confessed to hating Mongols.
Turkette
Then, almost five years later, on June 17, 1981 the law changed. Congress did not write a new law. The United States Supreme Court did. In a case called United States v Turkette, the Supreme Court changed the meaning of an existing law, called the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations law, or RICO. The decision wasn’t even close. Conservatives and liberals agreed.
Turkette opened a philosophical and legal Pandora’s Box that redefined the meaning of words like “crime” and “racket;” and redefined whatever separation or connection might once have existed or not existed between local, state and federal crimes. Today a federal prosecutor can federalize virtually any crime he wants federalized. Under federal law punching somebody in the nose can be a “predicate crime.” This evolution of federal law also created a special circumstance under which defendants can be denied a presumption of innocence.
The Turkette decision changed the meaning of “criminal enterprise” away from a legitimate bar, bowling alley or labor union that had been corrupted by “the mob.” The Scheidler decision a decade later decreed that the “criminal enterprise” no longer had to exist for the purpose of making money. After Turkette and Scheidler, a class reunion could be a criminal enterprise. A federal prosecutor only had to imagine it.
Scheidler
National Organization of Women, Inc. v Scheidler was a civil RICO case brought on behalf of abortion providers against a political organization called Operation Rescue. Joseph Scheidler, for whom the decision is named was one of the leaders of Operation Rescue. Members believed that first-term abortion was morally wrong and should be legally prohibited. They protested outside abortion clinics and harassed and intimidated the women who tried to enter. There was a national consensus that members of Operation Rescue were loutish, cruel and unreasonable. The National Organization of Women accused them of being a racket.
“’We cannot tolerate the use of threats and force by one group to impose its views on others,’” NOW’s lawyer. Fay Clayton explained.
A Federal District judge, dismissed the case on the grounds that RICO could only be applied to “enterprises” motivated by financial gain. The Supreme Court overruled him. A racket could then be any group who members were contemptuous of the law. It was a great victory for federal policemen and prosecutors.
Professor G. Robert Blakely, who wrote the RICO Act and gave it its ironic name, lamented that he had never meant for his law to be applied to political and fraternal groups. He said he was “concerned” that after Scheidler RICO might be used against labor unions and other fringe groups like gay rights activists. Since Scheidler, RICO has been most commonly used a basis for the prosecution of outlaw motorcycle clubs.
RICO Praxis
There are several obvious reasons for the federal prosecution of state crimes. First, RICO allows the investigation of these local crimes by vast police bureaucracies like the ATF. These bureaucracies are self perpetuating and have virtually unlimited resources. All they need to persist are crimes to investigate and RICO provides that. Secondly, RICO allows federal prosecutors a legal fiction that can be used to connect what are actually, in reality, unconnected crimes into a vast, imaginary, criminal conspiracy. Additionally, RICO prosecutors do not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendants actually committed the “predicate crimes” of which they are accused. State prosecutors do but RICO allows federal prosecutors to prove crimes by the civil standard which is a “preponderance of the evidence.” Finally, RICO provides a nice, secure, recession proof way for many lawyers, policemen, and prison guards to make a good living.
Under RICO, if Barack Obama, Henry Louis Gates and Angelina Jolie all like to attend an annual seminar together, and if three people at the seminar have committed two or more criminal predicates, like making a false statement to a federal official or shoplifting, they may be collectively and individually charged with racketeering. They could all be convicted of “the affecting interstate commerce” clause in the RICO law if they sent each other Christmas cards. And the penalty for that racketeering is twenty years in a federal prison.
Many bright and cynical people who should know better still blindly assume that what police do is investigate and solve real crimes. The opposite is true in racketeering investigations. What the ATF, particularly in biker investigations, does is find a way to tie crimes to many related individuals and then create crimes that can be used to prosecute them all. This law enforcement approach is called the “Enterprise Theory of Investigation” and it has a long and twisted history.
A sociologist named Edwin Sutherland coined the term “white collar crime” in the 1930s and wrote a book on the subject in 1949. Sutherland in essence, believed that all businessmen were criminals. With all the best of intentions, after the heartbreak of the Great Depression, Sutherland thought unethical businessmen should be treated worse than murderers. He thought they should be punished for their economic crimes so he advocated that a “person of respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation” should be presumed guilty until proven innocent. Sutherland also attacked the legal concept of mens rea, or guilty mind, which states that a person cannot be guilty of a crime unless he intends to commit a crime. Sutherland’s theories became popular in two seemingly disparate communities – academia and the FBI.
A Sutherland protégé named Donald Cressey created the “enterprise” concept that quickly became the Enterprise Theory of Investigation. Cressey was particularly not talking about bands of anti-materialistic, socially alienated bikers. He intended to oppose what he saw as social injustice. “The people of the business world are probably more criminalistic than the people of the slums,” he wrote in a book he co-authored with Sutherland. The idea of factoring wealth and privilege into the criminal justice equation was attractive to intellectuals. The federal police liked the parts that made prosecutions easier. Of course, in the manner of police bureaucracies everywhere, lest the amateurs know what the professionals are talking about, the Enterprise Theory of Investigation has become simply the ETI.
“The ETI has become the standard investigative model that the FBI employs in conducting investigations against major criminal organizations,” an FBI author explains. “Unlike traditional investigative theory, which relies on law enforcement’s ability to react to a previously committed crime, the ETI encourages a proactive attack on the structure of the criminal enterprise. Rather than viewing criminal acts as isolated crimes, the ETI attempts to show that individuals commit crimes in furtherance of the criminal enterprise itself. In other words, individuals commit criminal acts solely to benefit their criminal enterprise.”
The current idea of the criminal enterprise is very close to what Hannah Arendt meant when she wrote, “Classical totalitarianism predicts possible crimes on the basis of one’s status as an ‘objective enemy.’”
By “criminal enterprise,” the FBI author means any group any Federal Prosecutor decides to prosecute. The Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts of America have not yet been prosecuted as rackets because to do so would create a terrible public backlash. But there is no backlash when the organization is an outlaw motorcycle club. The Scheidler decision completed the legal magic trick by making the “financial motive” disappear.
In motorcycle club cases, in general and against the Mongols in particular, the government uses RICO to enforce a de facto “Bill of Attainder.” Bills, sometimes the word is “writs,” of Attainder are specifically prohibited by Article One, Clause three of the Constitution. This prohibition appears so early in the principal American law because it was one of the “rights” for which the revolutionaries fought and died. Technically, in America it is not illegal to belong to Al Qaeda, the Nazi party, the Ku Klux Klan, La Cosa Nostra, the Communist party or even a motorcycle club. In a case named Uphaus v Wyman in 1959, the Supreme Court called guilt by association “a thoroughly discredited doctrine.”
But RICO allows prosecutors to turn that ruling on its head. It is the same when mass media leads the general public to believe that motorcycle clubs, right wing militias and “cults” are criminal.
Motorcycle clubs are particularly prone to prosecution under RICO because that are so blatantly “organizations” and because their members tend to believe, as Harley-Davidson’s ad agency put it, “in bucking the system that’s built to smash individuals like bugs on a windshield.” More than tribes, more than thugs, motorcycle clubs are an American ideology. And, also for better or worse, a national consensus seems to be building that America is better for renouncing this ideology.
Under RICO, state crimes punishable by months or a year in jail can be punished like murders. RICO also allows the seizure of assets like motorcycles because, the indictments always allege, no motorcycles no motorcycle gang. The enterprise theory also allows indicia searches, which are searches for proof that someone actually belongs to a motorcycle club. In effect, these searches are house wrecking parties. They are inevitably very terrible. Doors and windows are blown open with explosives. Threats like pets are eliminated. Men are beaten and sometimes executed. Wives and children are roughed up. Much glass is broken. Family photo albums, computers and mementos are confiscated.
The nature and practice of modern policing and particularly of racketeering law may help readers understand the trivial nature of many of the charges made in the indictment against the Mongols. The fact that the Mongols are a gossipy family also worked against them because the men who infiltrated the club wrote down all of the gossip. The “preponderance of evidence” rule in RICO cases made that gossip more damning than it would ever be in an ordinary criminal case. The fact that club members often disagreed about Doc Cavazos gave undercover investigators an excuse to get members talking. And, in the end RICO meant that prosecutors didn’t have to use any of the mountains of “evidence” they had collected. They only had to threaten defendants with it. Actually, in many cases they didn’t even show defendants the “evidence.” In many cases prosecutors only alluded to the “evidence” or spread their arms wide and told public defenders the evidence was in two boxes “this big.”
Summing Up
Most of the nonsense that is written about motorcycle outlaws, that they are “international crime empires” and all of that, is based on an amalgamation of sixty years of American history and on a conflation of what most people understand to be the definition of racketeering with the technical, legal definition of racketeering. Most people understand racketeering, a term coined in the 1920s, to refer to something like “protection rackets” or corrupt labor unions, fixed horse races, loan sharking or the Countrywide Home Loan racket. But the Scheidler decision four years before had made it possible to convict almost any fringe group of racketeering.
Depending on where you draw the lines, there were at least four Mongols racketeering cases although subsequent RICO cases against the Pagans and the Outlaws resulted from the same investigation. The main case which began in one Los Angeles courtroom and eventually spread to another Los Angeles courtroom and a courtroom in Orange County, was named United States versus Cavazos and Others. A much smaller case called US versus Maestas and Others was adjudicated in Denver. The smallest racketeering case, against a lone Mongol, is called US versus Christopher Ablett and years after the Mongols bust it is still being contested in Oakland. The fourth case, a civil case over the matter of whether any cop can simply seize what he believes to be “Mongols paraphernalia” when he sees it, was called Ramon Rivera versus Ronnie A. Carter, Acting Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF); John A. Torres, Special Agent in Charge, ATF Los Angeles Field Division; and Eric H. Holder, United States Attorney General.
The obvious clumsiness of even naming the main court cases hints at, but does not begin to explain, why so little was written about the Mongols after the raids in October 2008. None of the usual biker experts has written about the investigation. The prosecution has been, for all practical purposes, secret. But the case is still important enough that even people who detest the Mongols and “their ilk” should know about it because it is a bright marker on the road of flight from the old to the new and improved America.
The point of Operation Black Rain was to put every outlaw in America out bad – to seize his cut, his motorcycle and his memorabilia, to rough him up, wreck his home, scare him and tell him “don’t come around this club no more.” It was, simultaneously emotionally, financially and legally devastating for the men involved. The point of the “enforcement effort” described in this book was never to punish “criminals.” The point was to crush a set of seductive, romantic, dangerous, and maybe obsolete, ideas.
CONTINUE READING
agingrebel.com
agingrebel.com
Many readers, including defense attorneys, continue to seem confused by RICO. The usual response to a RICO charge is, “How can they do this?” The following passages, from the book Out Bad, might help clear up some confusion.
From Out Bad
RICO was the centerpiece of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. The law was written by a Senatorial aide named G. Robert Blakey, who is now the William and Dorothy O’Neill Professor of Law at Notre Dame. And, it is named for the fictional character Rico “Little Caesar” Bandello who was inhabited on film by Edward G. Robinson.
Robinson’s Rico character, in turn, was a parody of a notorious entrepreneur named Alphonse Gabriel “Scarface” Capone. “Every time a boy falls off a tricycle,” Capone once lamented, “every time a black cat has gray kittens, every time someone stubs a toe, every time there’s a murder or a fire or the Marines land in Nicaragua, the police and the newspapers holler ‘get Capone.’”
Capone regretted his reputation as a criminal. Starting in 1926 he tried to diversify into legitimate businesses. Eventually he discovered milk. “Honest to God, we’ve been in the wrong racket right along,” Capone exclaimed when he discovered that the profit margins were higher in milk than in whiskey. In February 1932, three months before he went to prison, Capone invested $50,000 in a legitimate business named Meadowmoor Dairies. In the 1960s the descendants of Capone liked to invest in bowling alleys because they were a good way to explain where the money came from. The upshot of that was that the main supplier of automatic pin setting machines, the AMF company, became prosperous enough to buy, and almost ruin, the Harley-Davidson company.
The original intent of the RICO statute – at least by the Congressmen who voted for it – was to protect legitimate dairies, bowling alleys and other businesses, from investment by thugs like Al Capone. That did not work because the threat posed to the nation by the Italian-American Mafia was always overblown and because as years went by the very same acts the Mafia had always been condemned for doing began to be accepted as standard business practice. The Mafia used to sell sin. The gangsters profited from gambling, usury, prostitution, liquor, drugs and theft. Now states, the nation, Indian tribes, rural counties in Nevada, credit card brands, mortgage lenders, banks in general and asset confiscating police all profit from exactly the same sins.
This may or may not be a good thing. It is certainly not something new in the American pageant. Wyatt Earp enforced the law for big banks and mining companies. Before that he was “muscle.” Before that he was a pimp. Honore de Balzac said, “Behind every great fortune there is a crime.” Crime used to be understood as a kind of cheating for personal gain. Now a crime is anything. Racketeering is anything. The point is to find an excuse to make people suffer.
RICO, as it has evolved, is not intended to punish what most people consider to be crimes, which is to say actions like murder, robbery or what Roman Polanski did to that 13-year-old girl – crimes that lawyers call malum in se. RICO is designed to punish crimes lawyers call malum prohibitum which is Latin for actions that are illegal because they are illegal – like possessing illegal intoxicants or talking on the telephone about illegal intoxicants or smoking in a public place or having a loud and embarrassingly ugly argument with your wife on a Saturday night.
RICO prosecutions virtually ignore malum in se crimes, the actions you have always thought to be a “crime,” although at least a dozen of those did occur or emerge during the Mongols investigation. The predicate crimes that RICO exploits are often trivial and are always state crimes that until 1982 would have been prosecuted in state courts. For example, after the Labor Day Murders, none of the Hells Angels who were charged were ever found guilty of the murders. They confessed to talking about the murders. They confessed to hating Mongols.
Turkette
Then, almost five years later, on June 17, 1981 the law changed. Congress did not write a new law. The United States Supreme Court did. In a case called United States v Turkette, the Supreme Court changed the meaning of an existing law, called the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations law, or RICO. The decision wasn’t even close. Conservatives and liberals agreed.
Turkette opened a philosophical and legal Pandora’s Box that redefined the meaning of words like “crime” and “racket;” and redefined whatever separation or connection might once have existed or not existed between local, state and federal crimes. Today a federal prosecutor can federalize virtually any crime he wants federalized. Under federal law punching somebody in the nose can be a “predicate crime.” This evolution of federal law also created a special circumstance under which defendants can be denied a presumption of innocence.
The Turkette decision changed the meaning of “criminal enterprise” away from a legitimate bar, bowling alley or labor union that had been corrupted by “the mob.” The Scheidler decision a decade later decreed that the “criminal enterprise” no longer had to exist for the purpose of making money. After Turkette and Scheidler, a class reunion could be a criminal enterprise. A federal prosecutor only had to imagine it.
Scheidler
National Organization of Women, Inc. v Scheidler was a civil RICO case brought on behalf of abortion providers against a political organization called Operation Rescue. Joseph Scheidler, for whom the decision is named was one of the leaders of Operation Rescue. Members believed that first-term abortion was morally wrong and should be legally prohibited. They protested outside abortion clinics and harassed and intimidated the women who tried to enter. There was a national consensus that members of Operation Rescue were loutish, cruel and unreasonable. The National Organization of Women accused them of being a racket.
“’We cannot tolerate the use of threats and force by one group to impose its views on others,’” NOW’s lawyer. Fay Clayton explained.
A Federal District judge, dismissed the case on the grounds that RICO could only be applied to “enterprises” motivated by financial gain. The Supreme Court overruled him. A racket could then be any group who members were contemptuous of the law. It was a great victory for federal policemen and prosecutors.
Professor G. Robert Blakely, who wrote the RICO Act and gave it its ironic name, lamented that he had never meant for his law to be applied to political and fraternal groups. He said he was “concerned” that after Scheidler RICO might be used against labor unions and other fringe groups like gay rights activists. Since Scheidler, RICO has been most commonly used a basis for the prosecution of outlaw motorcycle clubs.
RICO Praxis
There are several obvious reasons for the federal prosecution of state crimes. First, RICO allows the investigation of these local crimes by vast police bureaucracies like the ATF. These bureaucracies are self perpetuating and have virtually unlimited resources. All they need to persist are crimes to investigate and RICO provides that. Secondly, RICO allows federal prosecutors a legal fiction that can be used to connect what are actually, in reality, unconnected crimes into a vast, imaginary, criminal conspiracy. Additionally, RICO prosecutors do not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendants actually committed the “predicate crimes” of which they are accused. State prosecutors do but RICO allows federal prosecutors to prove crimes by the civil standard which is a “preponderance of the evidence.” Finally, RICO provides a nice, secure, recession proof way for many lawyers, policemen, and prison guards to make a good living.
Under RICO, if Barack Obama, Henry Louis Gates and Angelina Jolie all like to attend an annual seminar together, and if three people at the seminar have committed two or more criminal predicates, like making a false statement to a federal official or shoplifting, they may be collectively and individually charged with racketeering. They could all be convicted of “the affecting interstate commerce” clause in the RICO law if they sent each other Christmas cards. And the penalty for that racketeering is twenty years in a federal prison.
Many bright and cynical people who should know better still blindly assume that what police do is investigate and solve real crimes. The opposite is true in racketeering investigations. What the ATF, particularly in biker investigations, does is find a way to tie crimes to many related individuals and then create crimes that can be used to prosecute them all. This law enforcement approach is called the “Enterprise Theory of Investigation” and it has a long and twisted history.
A sociologist named Edwin Sutherland coined the term “white collar crime” in the 1930s and wrote a book on the subject in 1949. Sutherland in essence, believed that all businessmen were criminals. With all the best of intentions, after the heartbreak of the Great Depression, Sutherland thought unethical businessmen should be treated worse than murderers. He thought they should be punished for their economic crimes so he advocated that a “person of respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation” should be presumed guilty until proven innocent. Sutherland also attacked the legal concept of mens rea, or guilty mind, which states that a person cannot be guilty of a crime unless he intends to commit a crime. Sutherland’s theories became popular in two seemingly disparate communities – academia and the FBI.
A Sutherland protégé named Donald Cressey created the “enterprise” concept that quickly became the Enterprise Theory of Investigation. Cressey was particularly not talking about bands of anti-materialistic, socially alienated bikers. He intended to oppose what he saw as social injustice. “The people of the business world are probably more criminalistic than the people of the slums,” he wrote in a book he co-authored with Sutherland. The idea of factoring wealth and privilege into the criminal justice equation was attractive to intellectuals. The federal police liked the parts that made prosecutions easier. Of course, in the manner of police bureaucracies everywhere, lest the amateurs know what the professionals are talking about, the Enterprise Theory of Investigation has become simply the ETI.
“The ETI has become the standard investigative model that the FBI employs in conducting investigations against major criminal organizations,” an FBI author explains. “Unlike traditional investigative theory, which relies on law enforcement’s ability to react to a previously committed crime, the ETI encourages a proactive attack on the structure of the criminal enterprise. Rather than viewing criminal acts as isolated crimes, the ETI attempts to show that individuals commit crimes in furtherance of the criminal enterprise itself. In other words, individuals commit criminal acts solely to benefit their criminal enterprise.”
The current idea of the criminal enterprise is very close to what Hannah Arendt meant when she wrote, “Classical totalitarianism predicts possible crimes on the basis of one’s status as an ‘objective enemy.’”
By “criminal enterprise,” the FBI author means any group any Federal Prosecutor decides to prosecute. The Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts of America have not yet been prosecuted as rackets because to do so would create a terrible public backlash. But there is no backlash when the organization is an outlaw motorcycle club. The Scheidler decision completed the legal magic trick by making the “financial motive” disappear.
In motorcycle club cases, in general and against the Mongols in particular, the government uses RICO to enforce a de facto “Bill of Attainder.” Bills, sometimes the word is “writs,” of Attainder are specifically prohibited by Article One, Clause three of the Constitution. This prohibition appears so early in the principal American law because it was one of the “rights” for which the revolutionaries fought and died. Technically, in America it is not illegal to belong to Al Qaeda, the Nazi party, the Ku Klux Klan, La Cosa Nostra, the Communist party or even a motorcycle club. In a case named Uphaus v Wyman in 1959, the Supreme Court called guilt by association “a thoroughly discredited doctrine.”
But RICO allows prosecutors to turn that ruling on its head. It is the same when mass media leads the general public to believe that motorcycle clubs, right wing militias and “cults” are criminal.
Motorcycle clubs are particularly prone to prosecution under RICO because that are so blatantly “organizations” and because their members tend to believe, as Harley-Davidson’s ad agency put it, “in bucking the system that’s built to smash individuals like bugs on a windshield.” More than tribes, more than thugs, motorcycle clubs are an American ideology. And, also for better or worse, a national consensus seems to be building that America is better for renouncing this ideology.
Under RICO, state crimes punishable by months or a year in jail can be punished like murders. RICO also allows the seizure of assets like motorcycles because, the indictments always allege, no motorcycles no motorcycle gang. The enterprise theory also allows indicia searches, which are searches for proof that someone actually belongs to a motorcycle club. In effect, these searches are house wrecking parties. They are inevitably very terrible. Doors and windows are blown open with explosives. Threats like pets are eliminated. Men are beaten and sometimes executed. Wives and children are roughed up. Much glass is broken. Family photo albums, computers and mementos are confiscated.
The nature and practice of modern policing and particularly of racketeering law may help readers understand the trivial nature of many of the charges made in the indictment against the Mongols. The fact that the Mongols are a gossipy family also worked against them because the men who infiltrated the club wrote down all of the gossip. The “preponderance of evidence” rule in RICO cases made that gossip more damning than it would ever be in an ordinary criminal case. The fact that club members often disagreed about Doc Cavazos gave undercover investigators an excuse to get members talking. And, in the end RICO meant that prosecutors didn’t have to use any of the mountains of “evidence” they had collected. They only had to threaten defendants with it. Actually, in many cases they didn’t even show defendants the “evidence.” In many cases prosecutors only alluded to the “evidence” or spread their arms wide and told public defenders the evidence was in two boxes “this big.”
Summing Up
Most of the nonsense that is written about motorcycle outlaws, that they are “international crime empires” and all of that, is based on an amalgamation of sixty years of American history and on a conflation of what most people understand to be the definition of racketeering with the technical, legal definition of racketeering. Most people understand racketeering, a term coined in the 1920s, to refer to something like “protection rackets” or corrupt labor unions, fixed horse races, loan sharking or the Countrywide Home Loan racket. But the Scheidler decision four years before had made it possible to convict almost any fringe group of racketeering.
Depending on where you draw the lines, there were at least four Mongols racketeering cases although subsequent RICO cases against the Pagans and the Outlaws resulted from the same investigation. The main case which began in one Los Angeles courtroom and eventually spread to another Los Angeles courtroom and a courtroom in Orange County, was named United States versus Cavazos and Others. A much smaller case called US versus Maestas and Others was adjudicated in Denver. The smallest racketeering case, against a lone Mongol, is called US versus Christopher Ablett and years after the Mongols bust it is still being contested in Oakland. The fourth case, a civil case over the matter of whether any cop can simply seize what he believes to be “Mongols paraphernalia” when he sees it, was called Ramon Rivera versus Ronnie A. Carter, Acting Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF); John A. Torres, Special Agent in Charge, ATF Los Angeles Field Division; and Eric H. Holder, United States Attorney General.
The obvious clumsiness of even naming the main court cases hints at, but does not begin to explain, why so little was written about the Mongols after the raids in October 2008. None of the usual biker experts has written about the investigation. The prosecution has been, for all practical purposes, secret. But the case is still important enough that even people who detest the Mongols and “their ilk” should know about it because it is a bright marker on the road of flight from the old to the new and improved America.
The point of Operation Black Rain was to put every outlaw in America out bad – to seize his cut, his motorcycle and his memorabilia, to rough him up, wreck his home, scare him and tell him “don’t come around this club no more.” It was, simultaneously emotionally, financially and legally devastating for the men involved. The point of the “enforcement effort” described in this book was never to punish “criminals.” The point was to crush a set of seductive, romantic, dangerous, and maybe obsolete, ideas.
CONTINUE READING
agingrebel.com
↧
↧
USA - A HISTORY OF BIKERS RIGHTS IN AMERICA
OFF THE WIRE
A HISTORY OF BIKERS RIGHTS IN AMERICA
As Seen By Bill Bish NATIONAL COALITION OF MOTORCYCLISTS
About 30 years ago, bikers across America got sick and tired of being told by a bunch of Washington bureaucrats and local politicians who'd never thrown a leg over a motorcycle what they HAD TO WEAR, how they HAD TO RIDE, and what our BIKES HAD TO BE BUILT LIKE!! And over the years, motorcyclists have organized themselves into a viable political force. We are one of the few TRUE grass roots movements in the country. Others may share an avocation, profession or recreation, but they don't share the passion. Bikers have succeeded in taking their passion and turning it into a movement...a "Freedom Movement," because we have the passion for freedom. Freedom is something we believe in, and that motorcycling is just one very enjoyable way to experience it. Well folks, that passion will always be inside you, each of you, the Harley, Honda, Yamaha, BMW or Triumph rider, from the doctor to the construction worker. And that motorcycle will remain an outlet for that passion...as long as we continue to bypass the barriers of appearance or ego and work together to preserve our right to ride. And that's what our movement is all about...a diverse bunch of people, most of us staunch individualists, but with one common denominator and a common goal...Freedom Of The Road. The kind of camaraderie that brought the first two motorcycle riders together to share a ride down a country lane is the same kind of camaraderie that formed our early motorcycle clubs and associations and, eventually, our motorcycle rights organizations. Motorcycle Rights Organizations (MRO's) as we now know them started developing in the early 70's, after the first national helmet effort caused almost every state to pass mandatory lid laws. Since then motorcyclists have never been strangers to political activism. In fact, early motorcycle riders were among the first special interest groups to lobby for better roads. At the turn of the 20th Century as Indian footpaths and trails became rough and rutted dirt roads, motorcycles served as a primary form of transportation, and motorcyclists became vocal about improving the road conditions. Later, riders were among the first groups to push for an interstate highway system. YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHERE YOU'VE BEEN TO KNOW WHERE YOU'RE GOING! My name is Bill Bish, and I'm the former Executive Coordinator of the National Coalition of Motorcyclists and Aid to Injured Motorcyclists (AIM & NCOM), and have been active in bikers rights for over fifteen years. I have served in various state positions with ABATE of California, including two terms as Chairman of the Board and two terms as State Director. Sooo, for you history buffs, I'll try to piece together some of our early beginnings, with apologies to those who were there from the start. I wasn't, so this is only from my early conversations with people like Deacon Dave Phillips, Ron Roloff, Keith Ball, Sherm Packard and others who WERE there, as well as my own research and admittedly spotty memory. But, to help validate this version of Biker History, I ran the article by most of the people mentioned herein. Through NCOM and ABATE of California, I have traveled across the United States to preach unity and spread information, and I will always treasure my memories of the places that bikers' rights has taken me and the friendly faces that have greeted me. Because our issue is so emotional and deeply personal, I have developed close relationships with many Freedom Fighters throughout the country who I am proud to call Brothers and Sisters. It was this deep sense of "family" within the motorcycle rights community that inspired me to trace our Family Tree. Much has been said of the coming new millennium, and of the opportunities and pitfalls our future holds in store, but one thing is certain...YOU CAN'T KNOW WHERE YOU'RE GOING UNLESS YOU KNOW WHERE YOU'VE BEEN! With that thought in mind, I'd like to take you on a brief trip down memory lane, as we open up our Family Album and retrace our History as a bikers' rights movement here in the United States. Don't worry, there won't be a test, and hopefully this brief history lesson will be at least as interesting as your High School History classes!
Easyriders magazine editor Lou Kimzey issued a plea in issue #3, October 1971, for bikers to come together to fight impending restrictions from the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) by joining a new national bikers' rights organization called the National Custom Cycle Association, but because of a conflict with the acronym the name was changed in February 1972 to A Brotherhood Against Totalitarian Enactments (ABATE). I recall Joe Teresi, publisher of Easyriders, telling me that they had a contest around the office to come up with a new name, and one of the secretaries came up with "ABATE". He told me they were on deadline and had to come up with a logo real fast, so they took a stylized German eagle and transformed it into the logo used by many ABATE's to this day. Keith Ball was just 22 when he became the original ABATE manager in 1971, and he later became editor of Easyriders and the National Director of ABATE. He recently retired from Easyriders as the Editorial Director and Executive Vice President of Paisano Publications and went into retirement, though he now operates an internet site called Bikernet.com which still focuses on bikers' rights. Easyriders began granting state charters in 1974, and ABATE's which came into existence around this time were chartered in Kansas, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and New York; and also MMA of California, MMA of Massachusetts, New Hampshire Motorcycle Rights Organization, Rhode Island Motorcycle Association, Connecticut Motorcycle Rights Association, and the Wisconsin Better Bikers Association. Easyriders published phone numbers, contacts and legislative news, and the bikers rights network began to grow. The Modified Motorcycle Association of California was founded at the same time as many ABATEs.
The original federal helmet mandates, which were instituted in 1966 by Congress and later repealed in 1976, were designed by the U.S. DOT (Department of Transportation) as a means to restrict modified or customized "choppers" which they deemed unsafe. Especially extended forks and apehangers which were popular. Deacon, founder of ABATE of California, once related to me that the 60's fad of ridiculously high sissy bars came about because the government started requiring "grab bars" for passenger safety, so the riders of the day flaunted the law by building them as long and garish as they could get by with. Almost every state during this time began passing handlebar height restrictions, eyewear requirements, motorcycle licensing requirements, lights-on laws and other equipment regulations and many other restrictions. The government claimed that the restriction against our "Freedom Machines" were coming down the pike to make motorcycle riding "safer". Funny, but back in the sixties they just wanted to force bikers off the streets. Publicly they tooted that they wanted to SAVE US from ourselves!
In most states, before motorcyclists became politically organized, the clubs were the first to fight helmet laws and other restrictions. In many instances clubs founded the states' motorcycle rights organizations. Before MMA or ABATE of California came into existence, the Hells Angels M/C and Ralph "Sonny" Barger in particular had succeeded in keeping the state of California helmet-free even though Congress had passed legislation in 1966 requiring every state to pass a helmet law or lose 10% of their federal highway funds, (this should sound familiar, since we just recently faced the same type of national helmet law in the nineties). Rumors still circulate around Sacramento about 1,000 Hells Angels on the Capitol lawn, and HA's camped out on the door steps of legislative opponents. Soon the old intimidation tactics wore thin and club leaders realized that they needed to legitimize their efforts by creating a more sophisticated political lobbying arm. In the case of California, the Hells Angels founded the MMA of California. Various states have similar history with local clubs which were the roots of their MRO.
About this same time, the American Motorcyclist Association began to recognize the motorcyclists rights movement and they established the AMA Government Relations Department, but not until 1976. As the rights movement grew, Don Pittsley, a member of the Huns M/C in Connecticut convinced his congressman, Rep Stewart Mckinney, to introduce H.R.3869 to end the Federal authority to withhold highway funds from states without helmet laws. In July of 1975, Rob Rasor of the AMA, Ron Roloff of MMA and Ed Armstrong of ABATE of Chicago presented the House Sub-Committee on Surface Transportation with convincing testimony to repeal the mandates. California was being sued by the DOT, because Governor Ronald Reagan refused to comply with the federal mandate. Roloff helped convince California Senator Alan Cranston to offer the language of the bill as an amendment to the 1975 Federal Highway Act, which passed with overwhelming support from the California delegation because of the impending lawsuit. It was signed by President Gerald Ford on May 5, 1976. Not bad for a rag tag bunch of bikers with little or no previous political ambitions.
Spurred on by many successful protest rallies around the country following the national helmet law repeal, 30 state laws were repealed. ABATE, MMA and other motorcycle rights organizations sprang up in every state across the country and are now a fixture in state houses. There were several failed attempts to start a national motorcycle rights organization, including Easyriders'. In 1985 the Motorcycle Rights Fund (MRF - later changing their name to Motorcycle Riders Foundation) hosted their first Meeting of the Minds conference, and a few months later, in 1986, the National Coalition of Motorcyclists (NCOM) held their first National Convention. Motorcycling leaders realized the need for a united voice and the necessity of networking and communications, and both the MRF and NCOM grew and have become effective partners with state MRO's in protecting riders' rights on the federal, state and local fronts.
The concept of unity was put to the test in the early 1990's, when Congress again attempted to force states into passing helmet laws, and American motorcyclists came together en masse, and in a coordinated effort between the MRF and NCOM virtually every state sent representatives from their State MRO to walk the hallowed halls of Washington, D.C., in search of their U.S. Senators and Representatives. The grand lobbying experiment WORKED, and in just FOUR YEARS bikers were able to convince Congress to once again repeal their misdirected and misguided "nanny" law and return the decision to the individual states. That same legislation also repealed the 55 mph minimum speed limit! Soon afterwards, Arkansas modified their mandatory helmet law to allow Freedom of Choice for adult riders 21 and older. Texas soon followed, as well as Kentucky, Louisiana and, most recently, Florida. Today, the scoreboard reads 20 Helmet Law States vs. 30 Free Choice States!
As a result of our newfound political clout, motorcyclists have successfully approached Congress twice over the past few years, first in 1996 to grant federal protections against insurance discrimination based on mode of transportation because many companies (most notably Ruger Firearms and the Teamsters Union) were denying medical benefits to employees injured in motorcycle accidents). Although this legislation was recently nullified by new federal regulations written in the waning days of the Clinton Administration, this nationwide effort was textbook politics at its best. The fight continues but the movement WILL succeed in reinstating the intent of Congress to protect us against insurance discrimination. Then, in 1998, motorcyclists united once again to put together a pro-active agenda for bikers, and succeeded in lobbying it through Congress. Included in this "wish list" for bikers was a guarantee that motorcyclists would be included during the development of the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) technology, which ensures that motorcycles are guaranteed access to any and all roads built with the use of federal highway funds (no road bans). This effort will restrict anti-motorcycle lobbying efforts by NHTSA and provides $131 million for recreational trails development and maintenance!
During this active span of time, many state rights groups have become proactive within their states instead of RE-acting to legislative threats. Minnesota passed our nation's first law to make it illegal to discriminate against someone because they ride a motorcycle. Arizona, Iowa, Oregon and Washington have successfully repealed or modified their state's handlebar height laws. Virginia and Illinois have lobbied their states to reinforce the federally guaranteed access to roads by passing laws to protect our rights to ride on any roads within their state boundaries. Virginia and Maryland amended their state's parking laws to allow more than one bike per metered space. And several states have fought and defeated "No Fault" insurance proposals that are unfair to motorcyclists. Also, now, through the work of the National Coalition of Motorcyclists, patch holders in nearly 40 states and two Canadian Provinces have come together to form Confederations of Clubs to fight discrimination and police harassment through the courts, bringing the motorcycle rights network full circle with the rejuvenated interest of the motorcycle club community.
While our early bikers' rights leaders paved our way, other dynamic and concerned riders have come forward to take the reigns and lead us into the new millennium. We should never forget the efforts and sacrifices of our predecessors who faced intimidation from law enforcement, indifference from legislators and animosity from a public that saw "The Wild One" one too many times. They got the job done. Were it not for their perseverance and dedication, we would not have become the respected and effective grass roots lobbying group that we are today.
So, there you have it. The roots of ABATE and the American motorcyclists' rights movement run deep in the hearts of those of us who have accepted and, in turn, passed on the torch of Freedom of the Road. To all those who came before, we salute you. Where will the future take us? That's entirely up to you. New restrictions on our freedom and our motorcycles are coming at us now from across the big pond If we don't increase our political strength, we may be looking at the last days of motorcycling as we know it. W need to protect the future of motorcycling against the upcoming European invasion! The biggest threat facing motorcyclists today is not necessarily from our own Government. It may very well be the EUROPEAN THREAT, as the strictest motor vehicle standards in the world are adopted as global standards. On June 25, 1998, the global motorcycle came closer to reality, as the United States, Japan and the 15 member countries of the European Union (EU) signed an agreement in Geneva, under the auspices of the United Nations, to develop global regulations concerning the safety performance of motor vehicles and equipment. So, the UNIVERSAL motorcycle is on it's way. The automotive and motorcycle industries have long advocated global uniformity of standards, because conflicting standards mean expensive design changes for each market. Unfortunately for motorcyclists, this means that European threats such as leg protectors, air bags, noise limits, horsepower restrictions and anti-tampering measures, will now become global issues. There are 300,000 new bikes sold in the USA each year, and 1,000,000 new bikes sold in Europe. Which standards do you think will apply? Construction standards could ban: Air-cooled engines, open chain drives, 2-stroke motors, self-tuning and customizing. Regulations will include Catalytic Converters to reduce emissions, along with reducing power and increasing fuel consumption, while driving up the cost of motorcycles. Medium/Long Term Threats in Europe include the following: Vintage/classics banished to museums, due to End-of-Life issues Construction standards mandated Using "Anti-Tampering" Sheer Bolts to prevent home maintenance and performance work. Armored, high visibility clothing. Bike bans on certain roads, in certain tourist areas and when pollution levels rise. Massive road tax increases and heavy-handed taxes on motorcycles. Multi-stage (tiered) licensing to ride a motorcycle, and very expensive. Yes, and research continues, even today, on leg protectors and air bags! Vision Zero: There's no such thing as an "accident" with today's technologically advanced vehicles. BUT motorcycles will always be subject to human errorŠtherefore they would be BANNED under this proposed Swedish plan which almost became official policy! Intelligent Transportation System: Basically, the purpose of ITS is to use technology to achieve a more efficient flow of traffic. But while the goal is safer, quicker travel, ultimately ITS technology will eliminate human error by taking control of the vehicle away from the driver. NHTSA promises active public participation in the development of the new global motor vehicle safety standards, with public meetings and comment periods as the plan is implemented, and Congress has promised that motorcycles will be included in any future ITS developments. Motorcyclists will have to ensure that our collective voice is heard during the planning stages. So, if we want to continue to ride free, we must spread the word to other concerned riders, to our youth, and to our legislators. Join a motorcycle rights group and support their efforts. Freedom will never die. --Bill Bish
http://www.ridersforjustice.com/Articles/A%20history%20of%20Biker%20Rights.htm
The original federal helmet mandates, which were instituted in 1966 by Congress and later repealed in 1976, were designed by the U.S. DOT (Department of Transportation) as a means to restrict modified or customized "choppers" which they deemed unsafe. Especially extended forks and apehangers which were popular. Deacon, founder of ABATE of California, once related to me that the 60's fad of ridiculously high sissy bars came about because the government started requiring "grab bars" for passenger safety, so the riders of the day flaunted the law by building them as long and garish as they could get by with. Almost every state during this time began passing handlebar height restrictions, eyewear requirements, motorcycle licensing requirements, lights-on laws and other equipment regulations and many other restrictions. The government claimed that the restriction against our "Freedom Machines" were coming down the pike to make motorcycle riding "safer". Funny, but back in the sixties they just wanted to force bikers off the streets. Publicly they tooted that they wanted to SAVE US from ourselves!
In most states, before motorcyclists became politically organized, the clubs were the first to fight helmet laws and other restrictions. In many instances clubs founded the states' motorcycle rights organizations. Before MMA or ABATE of California came into existence, the Hells Angels M/C and Ralph "Sonny" Barger in particular had succeeded in keeping the state of California helmet-free even though Congress had passed legislation in 1966 requiring every state to pass a helmet law or lose 10% of their federal highway funds, (this should sound familiar, since we just recently faced the same type of national helmet law in the nineties). Rumors still circulate around Sacramento about 1,000 Hells Angels on the Capitol lawn, and HA's camped out on the door steps of legislative opponents. Soon the old intimidation tactics wore thin and club leaders realized that they needed to legitimize their efforts by creating a more sophisticated political lobbying arm. In the case of California, the Hells Angels founded the MMA of California. Various states have similar history with local clubs which were the roots of their MRO.
About this same time, the American Motorcyclist Association began to recognize the motorcyclists rights movement and they established the AMA Government Relations Department, but not until 1976. As the rights movement grew, Don Pittsley, a member of the Huns M/C in Connecticut convinced his congressman, Rep Stewart Mckinney, to introduce H.R.3869 to end the Federal authority to withhold highway funds from states without helmet laws. In July of 1975, Rob Rasor of the AMA, Ron Roloff of MMA and Ed Armstrong of ABATE of Chicago presented the House Sub-Committee on Surface Transportation with convincing testimony to repeal the mandates. California was being sued by the DOT, because Governor Ronald Reagan refused to comply with the federal mandate. Roloff helped convince California Senator Alan Cranston to offer the language of the bill as an amendment to the 1975 Federal Highway Act, which passed with overwhelming support from the California delegation because of the impending lawsuit. It was signed by President Gerald Ford on May 5, 1976. Not bad for a rag tag bunch of bikers with little or no previous political ambitions.
Spurred on by many successful protest rallies around the country following the national helmet law repeal, 30 state laws were repealed. ABATE, MMA and other motorcycle rights organizations sprang up in every state across the country and are now a fixture in state houses. There were several failed attempts to start a national motorcycle rights organization, including Easyriders'. In 1985 the Motorcycle Rights Fund (MRF - later changing their name to Motorcycle Riders Foundation) hosted their first Meeting of the Minds conference, and a few months later, in 1986, the National Coalition of Motorcyclists (NCOM) held their first National Convention. Motorcycling leaders realized the need for a united voice and the necessity of networking and communications, and both the MRF and NCOM grew and have become effective partners with state MRO's in protecting riders' rights on the federal, state and local fronts.
The concept of unity was put to the test in the early 1990's, when Congress again attempted to force states into passing helmet laws, and American motorcyclists came together en masse, and in a coordinated effort between the MRF and NCOM virtually every state sent representatives from their State MRO to walk the hallowed halls of Washington, D.C., in search of their U.S. Senators and Representatives. The grand lobbying experiment WORKED, and in just FOUR YEARS bikers were able to convince Congress to once again repeal their misdirected and misguided "nanny" law and return the decision to the individual states. That same legislation also repealed the 55 mph minimum speed limit! Soon afterwards, Arkansas modified their mandatory helmet law to allow Freedom of Choice for adult riders 21 and older. Texas soon followed, as well as Kentucky, Louisiana and, most recently, Florida. Today, the scoreboard reads 20 Helmet Law States vs. 30 Free Choice States!
As a result of our newfound political clout, motorcyclists have successfully approached Congress twice over the past few years, first in 1996 to grant federal protections against insurance discrimination based on mode of transportation because many companies (most notably Ruger Firearms and the Teamsters Union) were denying medical benefits to employees injured in motorcycle accidents). Although this legislation was recently nullified by new federal regulations written in the waning days of the Clinton Administration, this nationwide effort was textbook politics at its best. The fight continues but the movement WILL succeed in reinstating the intent of Congress to protect us against insurance discrimination. Then, in 1998, motorcyclists united once again to put together a pro-active agenda for bikers, and succeeded in lobbying it through Congress. Included in this "wish list" for bikers was a guarantee that motorcyclists would be included during the development of the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) technology, which ensures that motorcycles are guaranteed access to any and all roads built with the use of federal highway funds (no road bans). This effort will restrict anti-motorcycle lobbying efforts by NHTSA and provides $131 million for recreational trails development and maintenance!
During this active span of time, many state rights groups have become proactive within their states instead of RE-acting to legislative threats. Minnesota passed our nation's first law to make it illegal to discriminate against someone because they ride a motorcycle. Arizona, Iowa, Oregon and Washington have successfully repealed or modified their state's handlebar height laws. Virginia and Illinois have lobbied their states to reinforce the federally guaranteed access to roads by passing laws to protect our rights to ride on any roads within their state boundaries. Virginia and Maryland amended their state's parking laws to allow more than one bike per metered space. And several states have fought and defeated "No Fault" insurance proposals that are unfair to motorcyclists. Also, now, through the work of the National Coalition of Motorcyclists, patch holders in nearly 40 states and two Canadian Provinces have come together to form Confederations of Clubs to fight discrimination and police harassment through the courts, bringing the motorcycle rights network full circle with the rejuvenated interest of the motorcycle club community.
While our early bikers' rights leaders paved our way, other dynamic and concerned riders have come forward to take the reigns and lead us into the new millennium. We should never forget the efforts and sacrifices of our predecessors who faced intimidation from law enforcement, indifference from legislators and animosity from a public that saw "The Wild One" one too many times. They got the job done. Were it not for their perseverance and dedication, we would not have become the respected and effective grass roots lobbying group that we are today.
So, there you have it. The roots of ABATE and the American motorcyclists' rights movement run deep in the hearts of those of us who have accepted and, in turn, passed on the torch of Freedom of the Road. To all those who came before, we salute you. Where will the future take us? That's entirely up to you. New restrictions on our freedom and our motorcycles are coming at us now from across the big pond If we don't increase our political strength, we may be looking at the last days of motorcycling as we know it. W need to protect the future of motorcycling against the upcoming European invasion! The biggest threat facing motorcyclists today is not necessarily from our own Government. It may very well be the EUROPEAN THREAT, as the strictest motor vehicle standards in the world are adopted as global standards. On June 25, 1998, the global motorcycle came closer to reality, as the United States, Japan and the 15 member countries of the European Union (EU) signed an agreement in Geneva, under the auspices of the United Nations, to develop global regulations concerning the safety performance of motor vehicles and equipment. So, the UNIVERSAL motorcycle is on it's way. The automotive and motorcycle industries have long advocated global uniformity of standards, because conflicting standards mean expensive design changes for each market. Unfortunately for motorcyclists, this means that European threats such as leg protectors, air bags, noise limits, horsepower restrictions and anti-tampering measures, will now become global issues. There are 300,000 new bikes sold in the USA each year, and 1,000,000 new bikes sold in Europe. Which standards do you think will apply? Construction standards could ban: Air-cooled engines, open chain drives, 2-stroke motors, self-tuning and customizing. Regulations will include Catalytic Converters to reduce emissions, along with reducing power and increasing fuel consumption, while driving up the cost of motorcycles. Medium/Long Term Threats in Europe include the following: Vintage/classics banished to museums, due to End-of-Life issues Construction standards mandated Using "Anti-Tampering" Sheer Bolts to prevent home maintenance and performance work. Armored, high visibility clothing. Bike bans on certain roads, in certain tourist areas and when pollution levels rise. Massive road tax increases and heavy-handed taxes on motorcycles. Multi-stage (tiered) licensing to ride a motorcycle, and very expensive. Yes, and research continues, even today, on leg protectors and air bags! Vision Zero: There's no such thing as an "accident" with today's technologically advanced vehicles. BUT motorcycles will always be subject to human errorŠtherefore they would be BANNED under this proposed Swedish plan which almost became official policy! Intelligent Transportation System: Basically, the purpose of ITS is to use technology to achieve a more efficient flow of traffic. But while the goal is safer, quicker travel, ultimately ITS technology will eliminate human error by taking control of the vehicle away from the driver. NHTSA promises active public participation in the development of the new global motor vehicle safety standards, with public meetings and comment periods as the plan is implemented, and Congress has promised that motorcycles will be included in any future ITS developments. Motorcyclists will have to ensure that our collective voice is heard during the planning stages. So, if we want to continue to ride free, we must spread the word to other concerned riders, to our youth, and to our legislators. Join a motorcycle rights group and support their efforts. Freedom will never die. --Bill Bish
http://www.ridersforjustice.com/Articles/A%20history%20of%20Biker%20Rights.htm
↧
Rusty Coones and Rodrigo Requejo Are Hell Raisers
OFF THE WIRE
For the Illusion Motorsports bike builders, life has been one wild ride
The backroom of Illusion Motorsports is full of bikes: some are set aside like museum pieces, others are jacked up on work tables, here a line of stripped-down and refurbished Harley-Davidsons, there the odd Triumph or Victoria. But two motorcycles in particular stand out inside the construction-in-progress custom-motorcycle shop in a Garden Grove business complex just off Interstate 405 at Golden West. They're distinguished less because of their physical appearance than for what they say about the store's owners, Rodrigo Requejo and Rusty Coones, and the amazing turn of personal fortune both men have experienced in the past few years.
The first bike, an Illusion Hellrazor with a 114-cubic-inch engine custom-manufactured exclusively for the shop, belongs to Kurt Sutter, the creator of the biker drama Sons of Anarchy that airs on FX. Requejo and Coones built the bike for Sutter earlier this year, but Sutter sent it back in for a custom fender and a one-of-its-kind aluminum fairing. It's the second bike Sutter has purchased from the store; the first was custom-made for the show in 2010, and then donated to the Wounded Warrior Foundation, a San Diego charity that benefits wounded and disabled veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A Sons of Anarchy camera crew filmed Requejo and Coones building the bike from scratch for a special feature for the upcoming DVD release of the show's third season. Coones' heavy-metal band, Attika7, for which he plays lead guitar alongside vocalist Evan Seinfeld of Biohazard fame, also contributed two songs to the second season, as well as one (so far) for the upcoming fourth season. Sutter and his wife, actress Katey Sagal (who plays Gemma on the show), met Coones a few years ago on a toy run in the San Fernando Valley.
"My first impression: 'Fuck, he is big,'" Sutter says. "Then I was struck by his enthusiasm and genuine love of bikes and the motorcycle subculture. Plus, he was a huge Sons fan. We became friends when he started talking about bikes."
Sutter says that although he has been riding motorcycles for 20 years, the Hellrazor was his first custom-built motorcycle. "The bike is an incredible mix of art, power and comfort," he says. "Beautiful to look at, a force of nature on the road and easy to ride. I fucking love it."
While Sutter's Hellrazor symbolizes the success Coones and Requejo now enjoy, the other bike in question speaks to the dark days the two men shared in the not-too-distant past. It's a 2004 West Coast Chopper Dominator, gleaming with a spotless, satin black paint job, resting on a rack high up on one wall of the shop. It was a surprise gift to Coones from his pal Jesse James, who personally built it in celebration of Coones' Dec. 27, 2004, release from federal prison for his alleged role in what police, prosecutors and newspaper articles at the time described as Orange County's biggest drug-smuggling network.
Even as Coones walked out of prison a free man that day, Requejo was behind bars, having just been arrested for murder. For weeks, Requejo sat in jail, facing either the death penalty or life in prison without parole until finally being cleared of any wrongdoing. Both men look back at their pasts with a healthy dose of humility.
"You have to make the best of the bad," says Requejo, whose burly frame belies his soft-spoken, philosophical nature. "Every day, we're here making people happy, working on their bikes and having a good time. Life's been good to us. You have two guys who could have gone way down the wrong path and somehow made a U-turn."
* * *
A 6-foot-5-inch tower of tanned flesh and muscle, Howard Irvine Coones, known to friend and foe alike as Rusty, has piercing hazel eyes beneath his black-nylon skullcap. Scrolling down the back of both of his bulging biceps are flaming letters spelling out "Hells Angels." Coones is president of the Orange County chapter of the club, which he refuses to mention by name, much less discuss in detail, because its rules preclude members from doing so.
Coones was raised in the small Sacramento-area farming town of Madera in the 1960s. His father owned a crop-dusting business, and Coones began flying as a youngster, which is also when he began riding Harley-Davidsons. His dad wasn't too enamored of the hobby, and after a girl crashed into Rusty, totaling his bike but leaving him miraculously unscathed, his dad gave him an ultimatum. "He told me, 'If you get another Harley, I'm going to kick you out of the house, and I'm going to fire you,'" Coones recalls.
With nowhere to stay and no work to speak of in rural California in 1974, it seemed as though Coones' riding days were over. "But once you get a Harley, you get kind of hooked," he says. "So the day I got the insurance check, I went out and got a bike." Sure enough, Coones' dad both fired him and evicted him from the house on the spot. "So I rode my bike down here to Orange County and got a job with my uncle doing plumbing, and I've been here ever since."
John Gilhooley
Rusty Coones and Rodrigo Requejo
John Gilhooley
Requejo and an Illusion Motorsports creation
A Sons of Anarchy camera crew filmed Requejo and Coones building the bike from scratch for a special feature for the upcoming DVD release of the show's third season. Coones' heavy-metal band, Attika7, for which he plays lead guitar alongside vocalist Evan Seinfeld of Biohazard fame, also contributed two songs to the second season, as well as one (so far) for the upcoming fourth season. Sutter and his wife, actress Katey Sagal (who plays Gemma on the show), met Coones a few years ago on a toy run in the San Fernando Valley.
"My first impression: 'Fuck, he is big,'" Sutter says. "Then I was struck by his enthusiasm and genuine love of bikes and the motorcycle subculture. Plus, he was a huge Sons fan. We became friends when he started talking about bikes."
Sutter says that although he has been riding motorcycles for 20 years, the Hellrazor was his first custom-built motorcycle. "The bike is an incredible mix of art, power and comfort," he says. "Beautiful to look at, a force of nature on the road and easy to ride. I fucking love it."
While Sutter's Hellrazor symbolizes the success Coones and Requejo now enjoy, the other bike in question speaks to the dark days the two men shared in the not-too-distant past. It's a 2004 West Coast Chopper Dominator, gleaming with a spotless, satin black paint job, resting on a rack high up on one wall of the shop. It was a surprise gift to Coones from his pal Jesse James, who personally built it in celebration of Coones' Dec. 27, 2004, release from federal prison for his alleged role in what police, prosecutors and newspaper articles at the time described as Orange County's biggest drug-smuggling network.
Even as Coones walked out of prison a free man that day, Requejo was behind bars, having just been arrested for murder. For weeks, Requejo sat in jail, facing either the death penalty or life in prison without parole until finally being cleared of any wrongdoing. Both men look back at their pasts with a healthy dose of humility.
"You have to make the best of the bad," says Requejo, whose burly frame belies his soft-spoken, philosophical nature. "Every day, we're here making people happy, working on their bikes and having a good time. Life's been good to us. You have two guys who could have gone way down the wrong path and somehow made a U-turn."
* * *
A 6-foot-5-inch tower of tanned flesh and muscle, Howard Irvine Coones, known to friend and foe alike as Rusty, has piercing hazel eyes beneath his black-nylon skullcap. Scrolling down the back of both of his bulging biceps are flaming letters spelling out "Hells Angels." Coones is president of the Orange County chapter of the club, which he refuses to mention by name, much less discuss in detail, because its rules preclude members from doing so.
Coones was raised in the small Sacramento-area farming town of Madera in the 1960s. His father owned a crop-dusting business, and Coones began flying as a youngster, which is also when he began riding Harley-Davidsons. His dad wasn't too enamored of the hobby, and after a girl crashed into Rusty, totaling his bike but leaving him miraculously unscathed, his dad gave him an ultimatum. "He told me, 'If you get another Harley, I'm going to kick you out of the house, and I'm going to fire you,'" Coones recalls.
With nowhere to stay and no work to speak of in rural California in 1974, it seemed as though Coones' riding days were over. "But once you get a Harley, you get kind of hooked," he says. "So the day I got the insurance check, I went out and got a bike." Sure enough, Coones' dad both fired him and evicted him from the house on the spot. "So I rode my bike down here to Orange County and got a job with my uncle doing plumbing, and I've been here ever since."
By 1982, Coones was firmly entrenched in Southern California's outlaw-biker scene. He'd also developed a penchant for dealing drugs and collecting firearms, which were confiscated from his mansion in Laguna Canyon when police busted him there on drug and gun charges that year. After getting out of prison two years later, he returned to Laguna Beach and operated Lords of Limos and Custom Inc., a business that custom-built cars, limousines and motorcycles. A 1988 Los Angeles Times article about a local car-show appearance by surgically enhanced Playboy model—and mistress of disgraced televangelist James Bakker—Jessica Hahn describes Coones as a "33-year-old bodybuilder" who picked Hahn up at John Wayne Airport and drove her to the event in his "$75,000 gleaming silver limo truck with a computerized bar."
In 1986, Coones met his future wife, Katherine, a half-Italian, half-Mexican firecracker of a woman who goes by the nickname KO; he immediately began courting her, hoping she'd move into his million-dollar mansion. "Rusty is very kind and generous, a cement-covered marshmallow," she says. "He's never hurt me or lied to me and treats me like a princess. I remember when I met him, he had one of those $3,000 cell phones that was as big as a shoebox. He built me a walk-in closet in his home. He showered me with gifts and jewelry, and he had an airplane, a Cessna 210, all black and custom-painted, and would say, 'Let's fly up to San Francisco together.'"
![Rusty's wife, KO]()
In 1981, his brother shot himself in the head. "Rusty always carried that guilt," says KO. "He felt that it was his fault that he couldn't save him."
Local police, however, remained determined to put Coones back in prison, even going so far as to put local informants to work, trying to lure him into drug deals. One Sunday afternoon in 1991, Coones was drinking a beer at a biker bar in Laguna Canyon when a stranger asked if he could buy him a beer. Coones pointed at his own bottle and declined the offer. The following week, the same man showed up and once again offered to buy Coones a drink. Again, Coones, who already had his own, refused, at which point the man began to ask him for advice on how to invest cash from a court settlement he'd just received.
"I've got all this money I want to invest," he began. "What would you do with it?"
"Me, personally, I buy used bikes and sell them—that's my thing," Coones responded. "And real estate; I've never lost money on real estate."
"I'm thinking about something more lucrative," the man said.
"Like what?"
"You know, coke . . ."
Coones didn't let the stranger finish his sentence. "Get the fuck out of here," he commanded, leaning over the table. "I'll beat your ass."
For the next month, Coones watched the same helicopter hovering near his house and following him around town. He knew the cops were suspicious because of the size of his house and the fact he'd just taken a loan against the property for $400,000 cash. "So I'm flush with money and doing cars and bikes and trying to remodel the property and sell it, and all the time, I'm legit," Coones insists. "They didn't know that. They thought I was good for 100 kilos of coke."
Coones knows that number for a fact because it was in the search warrant police used to raid his house one morning in 1991 while he was meeting with a city official about his rehab program. A 60-man task force led by Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) agents backed by two helicopters surrounded his house and blew open his unlocked front door. They wrestled to the floor two guests who were sleeping in different rooms and had to call a fire truck after one of the explosions set off a small fire. One of the hapless houseguests, who, like Coones himself, was never arrested, later told Coones he overheard police saying that 21 bullets had been discharged inside the house as police went from room to room, rifles at the ready.
As it turned out, the police claimed to have an informant who said Coones had a house safe full of cocaine and machine guns, thus they were expecting armed resistance. "They looked like idiots," Coones says. "There wasn't anything to find. I told them they were years too late. They could justify that on the search warrant in front of any judge because, back in 1982, when I did get arrested there, I did have machine guns in my room. I had quite a collection."
In 1986, Coones met his future wife, Katherine, a half-Italian, half-Mexican firecracker of a woman who goes by the nickname KO; he immediately began courting her, hoping she'd move into his million-dollar mansion. "Rusty is very kind and generous, a cement-covered marshmallow," she says. "He's never hurt me or lied to me and treats me like a princess. I remember when I met him, he had one of those $3,000 cell phones that was as big as a shoebox. He built me a walk-in closet in his home. He showered me with gifts and jewelry, and he had an airplane, a Cessna 210, all black and custom-painted, and would say, 'Let's fly up to San Francisco together.'"
John Gilhooley
Rusty's wife, KO
Despite the bling, Coones insists that he went straight after his prison stint. Besides operating a successful bike shop and limo service, he opened First Step Treatment Centers of California, a rehabilitation facility for recovering drug addicts and alcoholics. Coones' younger brother was a heroin addict, and Coones had spent years trying to save him. "Even though I was into a lot of illicit-drug stuff, I wasn't a user," Coones explains. "But he was, and I would get him off the drugs and clean him up, and then he would go right back to it. It went on like that for seven or eight years."
Local police, however, remained determined to put Coones back in prison, even going so far as to put local informants to work, trying to lure him into drug deals. One Sunday afternoon in 1991, Coones was drinking a beer at a biker bar in Laguna Canyon when a stranger asked if he could buy him a beer. Coones pointed at his own bottle and declined the offer. The following week, the same man showed up and once again offered to buy Coones a drink. Again, Coones, who already had his own, refused, at which point the man began to ask him for advice on how to invest cash from a court settlement he'd just received.
"I've got all this money I want to invest," he began. "What would you do with it?"
"Me, personally, I buy used bikes and sell them—that's my thing," Coones responded. "And real estate; I've never lost money on real estate."
"I'm thinking about something more lucrative," the man said.
"Like what?"
"You know, coke . . ."
Coones didn't let the stranger finish his sentence. "Get the fuck out of here," he commanded, leaning over the table. "I'll beat your ass."
For the next month, Coones watched the same helicopter hovering near his house and following him around town. He knew the cops were suspicious because of the size of his house and the fact he'd just taken a loan against the property for $400,000 cash. "So I'm flush with money and doing cars and bikes and trying to remodel the property and sell it, and all the time, I'm legit," Coones insists. "They didn't know that. They thought I was good for 100 kilos of coke."
Coones knows that number for a fact because it was in the search warrant police used to raid his house one morning in 1991 while he was meeting with a city official about his rehab program. A 60-man task force led by Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) agents backed by two helicopters surrounded his house and blew open his unlocked front door. They wrestled to the floor two guests who were sleeping in different rooms and had to call a fire truck after one of the explosions set off a small fire. One of the hapless houseguests, who, like Coones himself, was never arrested, later told Coones he overheard police saying that 21 bullets had been discharged inside the house as police went from room to room, rifles at the ready.
As it turned out, the police claimed to have an informant who said Coones had a house safe full of cocaine and machine guns, thus they were expecting armed resistance. "They looked like idiots," Coones says. "There wasn't anything to find. I told them they were years too late. They could justify that on the search warrant in front of any judge because, back in 1982, when I did get arrested there, I did have machine guns in my room. I had quite a collection."
The next time the cops surrounded Coones' house didn't go so well, although the search came up empty for guns and drugs once again. Appropriately enough, the raid took place on D-Day: June 6, 1999. Under cover of darkness early that morning, Coones slipped out of his house in Garden Grove, having long since sold his Laguna mansion. He knew he'd been under surveillance for weeks by FBI agents driving everything from Dodge Intrepids to beat-up Volkswagen buses. Coones drove to KO's house in Orange. He knew his time was running out: The helicopter hovering somewhere nearby told him the feds were closing in on him.
"Man, it's coming down this morning," he said to himself. He told KO to get dressed. It was like a scene out of the film Goodfellas' climax, in which a coked-out Henry Hill becomes increasingly paranoid about the helicopter following him—except Coones wasn't on drugs. As the noise from the helicopter grew louder, he looked out the window and saw a California Highway Patrol car pull up three doors down. Several officers from the multi-agency task force that was hunting him crouched behind the vehicle, while others began to surround the wrong house. Not wanting any neighbors to end up dead, Coones calmly walked out the front door, his hands raised.
Unlike the other defendants, all of whom tried to work out plea deals, Coones refused to talk to the police or even his lawyer, who made the mistake of telling Coones he could get his bail reduced if he talked to the feds. "I had been taught since I was a youngster that you maintain your right to remain silent," Coones says. "It doesn't matter if you're innocent or guilty. You don't talk to them, and that's that, and that's what I did. I never cooperated, never interviewed, and they didn't expect me to cooperate because they knew that wasn't going to happen."
Coones eventually pleaded guilty to a single count of drug conspiracy for providing Ward with 108 pounds of ephedrine, a component of the highly potent methamphetamine known as "ice" that Ward was trafficking. "In actuality, I did have involvement in ephedrine and hooking people up," he acknowledges. "I introduced one party to another, and I never actually had my hands on it, but I was involved in that conspiracy."
After 21 months at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles, Coones was sentenced to just more than eight years in federal prison; a jury later convicted Ward, who received a term of life in prison without the possibility of parole, while former prosecutor Kazarian, who was promptly fired by DA Tony Rackauckas, got off with a relatively lenient 33 months and a disbarment that was later reversed; he now works as a defense attorney in Westminster. While Coones admits to knowing Ward, he says he never met Kazarian.
"But according to the police reports, the prosecutors and the papers, I was supposed to be associated with him," he says. "It was so outlandish, and most of it was trumped up. They brought up every expert on the Hells Angels they could find."
Although Coones insists the club had nothing to do with his predicament, his status as a high-ranking Hells Angel turned him into a minor celebrity in the war on drugs while he was behind bars. After his arrest, KO took over Illusion Motorsports, selling motorcycles and other gear to pay Coones' legal bills and to keep the business' various state and local licenses current. To raise cash for Coones to use at the prison commissary, she sold "Free Rusty" T-shirts, and she set up a website to keep friends updated on his case and on which she published occasional essays by Coones about the hypocrisy and ineffectiveness of the drug war. While in prison, Coones took up the guitar and began writing songs, including "Lockdown" and "No Redemption," which he still performs with Attika7.
One of Coones' biggest supporters was fellow bike-builder Jesse James, who had worked with Coones on motorcycles and befriended him years before his arrest. During the four seasons that James appeared on Monster Garage, he wore several different "Free Rusty" T-shirts during taping in a quiet tribute to his friend. Then there was the motorcycle James built for Coones just days before Coones got out of prison. Actually, James gave the bike to KO because he wouldn't be able to do it in person.
"He told me that he and Sandy were leaving for Cabo," KO recalls, referring to James' then-wife Sandra Bullock. "'We won't be here when Rusty comes home, so you have to give him the bike.'" James knew that Coones had lost all his motorcycles to legal bills and would have nothing to ride. "He had tears in his eyes when he handed the keys to me. He said, 'KO, a Hells Angel needs a motorcycle.'"
Just six days before Coones walked out of prison a free man, Rodrigo Requejo was driving his battered Ford Dually truck home from a long day at Twisted Metal, his now-shuttered bike shop, when he took his eyes off the road for a few seconds, fumbling for his cell phone. When he looked up, he'd pulled up close behind a pickup. The then-31-year-old Argentinean immigrant and self-employed bike builder swerved around the vehicle and kept driving, unaware that his maneuver had antagonized its occupants. After exiting, he was sitting at a red light when two angry young men rushed his car and pulled him to the pavement.
What happened next is a blur in Requejo's mind. "They beat the hell out of me, man," he says. "I was in a big fog. I got hit so hard in the head and chest and everything. I thought I had pulled out a knife and scared them away. I didn't have a drop of blood on me." Covered in bruises, Requejo managed to fight off his attackers and retrieve his truck, which had rolled away. It wasn't until he saw the news the following day that he realized he had in fact stabbed both men, who turned out to be twins, and that one of them, Justin Ammann, died from his wounds.
The surviving brother, Jason, told police that Requejo, who was a Hells Angels prospect at the time, had forced them off the road and attacked them, yelling the name of the motorcycle club. Based on that version of events, police arrested Requejo, who was charged with murder and attempted murder, with a special-circumstances enhancement alleging the crimes were carried out for the benefit of the Hells Angels. Because of his status as a club prospect at the time, Requejo refused to give his side of the story to police; he even denied being involved in the fight when he was arrested.
"Who's going to believe me?" he wondered. "I'm a Hells Angels prospect. They are going to hang me for this. Had this happened at another place, where there were no witnesses, I'd be gone."
Indeed, at his arraignment, the judge coolly informed Requejo that, if convicted, he'd be eligible for the death penalty, despite the fact he'd never been arrested for a violent crime. In the end, Requejo was spared by pretrial media coverage. Eyewitnesses who saw what really happened came forward to contest the official story, saying it was the two brothers who started the fight and that Requejo had acted in self-defense.
On Feb. 3, 2005, after more than a month behind bars, prosecutors dropped all charges against Requejo. He had been living with two death sentences hanging over him, given that the Ammann brothers were members of the Orange County Skins, a violent white-supremacist street gang that had green-lighted a hit on Requejo. "I don't have a problem with them now," Requejo says. "But while I was inside, I had to watch out."
One inmate had torn a gang rival in half with an AK47, Requejo recalls. Another had murdered his probation officer; stolen his badge, gun and car; and led police on a freeway chase that ended in a shootout. When the cops caught up with him, they found the probation officer's ears in the man's pocket. "I was locked up with dudes who were nuts—you could see right through them," he says, "but there were dudes who were swearing their innocence up and down, and I could honestly believe a couple of them."
Requejo had first met Coones when he was 18 years old and Coones and another hulking Hells Angel showed up at his dad's motorcycle shop. He ran into him again at a bike run not long after he left jail. Requejo reintroduced himself. The two began talking about bikes, and before long, Requejo had shuttered Twisted Metal and become Coones' business partner in Illusion Motorsports. "We've been going at it since," Requejo says.
There was one hitch in the promising partnership, however. On July 27, 2008, several Hells Angels, including Requejo, were drinking beer at Blackie's By the Sea in Newport Beach when they got into a brawl with members of Phil Aguilar's Set Free Soldiers, an evangelical-Christian bike club (see "He Shall Be Set Free," Nov. 25, 2010). Requejo says he threw the first punch when a friend of one of the Set Free Soldiers "disrespected" one of the Hells Angels at the bar. Requejo told the man to mind his own business. "Fuck you," the man responded.
"For me, one 'fuck you' is one too many," Requejo says. "I wouldn't have cared if the president of the United States was there or 100 cops; if somebody tells me, 'Fuck you,' I am going to punch him in the mouth, and that's exactly what I did."
What happened next is well-known, and the security-video footage has since gone viral on YouTube: A dozen or more massive bikers explode in a blur of fists and flying pool cues before, just as suddenly, both sides withdraw and calmly leave the bar. Although he wasn't arrested, Requejo was already on probation for carrying a knife—he claims it was of legal length—so police charged him with seven felonies, including assault with a deadly weapon. They also raided his house; while officers ransacked his home, Requejo's mother suffered a heart attack and had to be taken to the hospital.
The first thing she did when she recovered was to beg her son to quit the Hells Angels. "I didn't want to quit," he recalls. "These were my friends, but she's my mother, man. If she had died in that hospital, I would have blown my brains out. I couldn't have lived with that on my conscience, her dying over me doing something stupid. So I did what I thought was right at the time."
Following the infamous Blackie's bar fight, Requejo pleaded guilty to one assault charge in return for probation, which is now just weeks from running out, at which point the charge will be expunged from his record. Nowadays, he divides his time between his two daughters, age 7 and 15; the bike shop; and racing the only sidecar bike with a Harley-Davidson engine in it at Costa Mesa Speedway on weekend nights. Not a day goes by when he doesn't regret killing another person or that he doesn't ponder the possibility of things working out differently. "What if I had my seatbelt on and I could have hit the gas before they pulled me out?" he asks. "What if I had locked my doors? The fate of that poor guy—I am never going to live that down. I took somebody's life. I'm going to have to answer to the man upstairs for that someday."
Nevertheless, Requejo is grateful for how well life is going now for both him and Coones. "It's a hard life we both have lived," he says. "At one part in both our lives, we had the great potential to be gone away forever, and I was thinking, 'I could never eat a steak or get a cup of coffee from Starbucks in the morning or lay down with a woman again.' Those things go through your mind."
Coones is also a busy man. Besides his work at the shop, he's often up halfway to dawn practicing with Attika7, who have played venues ranging from the Galaxy Concert Theatre and House of Blues in Anaheim to Irvine Lake. He was recently offered a principal role in a three-part film trilogy that has yet to be formally announced.
Thanks in part to his continued membership in the Hells Angels, police love to keep tabs on his movements. When Coones showed up for a Boys & Girls Club toy run in Santa Ana several weeks ago, police wouldn't let him ride with his club patch on. Coones refused to take it off as a matter of principle.
He doesn't complain about such incidents. "I'm just glad I'm where I'm at now and not having to go through the hard times I had," he says. "It's pretty exciting. We have a lot of things going on these days. We get to create art that rolls. Our work is fun; our play is fun. It's a good life."
Although it has been years since he was a member of the Hells Angels, Requejo says the police haven't forgotten about him, either. "I tell Rusty all the time, 'No matter how well we're doing in life, you always have one foot in the successful life and one foot in a prison cell somewhere,'" he says. "It's a balancing act. You have to put more weight on the good foot than the bad because it's easy to put more weight on the other foot and be gone. It's like you have a sidecar of doom."
Requejo is the first to admit he still has his "wild side." One Christmas Day a few years ago, he was eating brunch with his family at Costa Mesa's now-closed Omelette Parlor when he heard a familiar voice behind him. He walked around the corner and saw a table of police officers, including the one who had previously arrested him for carrying a knife. The cops stopped talking, and the one whose voice Requejo recognized walked up to him, facing him nose to nose.
"So I heard you quit," the cop said, referring to Requejo's resignation from the Hells Angels.
"Yeah, you heard right," Requejo responded.
"So you're done, huh?" the cop continued. "You quit. You're done?"
"Let me tell you something," Requejo answered. "I quit, but I'm not done. I'll never be done."
The cop walked back to his table, and Requejo rejoined his family.
This article appeared in print as "Hell Raisers: For Rusty Coones and Rodrigo Requejo of Illusion Motorsports, life has been one wild ride."
"Man, it's coming down this morning," he said to himself. He told KO to get dressed. It was like a scene out of the film Goodfellas' climax, in which a coked-out Henry Hill becomes increasingly paranoid about the helicopter following him—except Coones wasn't on drugs. As the noise from the helicopter grew louder, he looked out the window and saw a California Highway Patrol car pull up three doors down. Several officers from the multi-agency task force that was hunting him crouched behind the vehicle, while others began to surround the wrong house. Not wanting any neighbors to end up dead, Coones calmly walked out the front door, his hands raised.
Seconds later, just after 6:30 a.m., Coones was arrested in a massive operation targeting what authorities billed as a Hells Angels-tied smuggling scheme that brought untold quantities of methamphetamine from California to Hawaii, much of it stashed inside Harley-Davidson motorcycles, netting profits of $1 million per week. Among the 15 people arrested that day were John Ward, a 31-year-old drug kingpin from Orange who was known in Las Vegas as a flashy whale with a $25,000 Rolex on his wrist and whose fleet included Porches, Mercedeses and Ferraris, and Bryan Kazarian, an ambitious young deputy district attorney whose job was targeting street gangs in Orange County.
Coones eventually pleaded guilty to a single count of drug conspiracy for providing Ward with 108 pounds of ephedrine, a component of the highly potent methamphetamine known as "ice" that Ward was trafficking. "In actuality, I did have involvement in ephedrine and hooking people up," he acknowledges. "I introduced one party to another, and I never actually had my hands on it, but I was involved in that conspiracy."
After 21 months at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles, Coones was sentenced to just more than eight years in federal prison; a jury later convicted Ward, who received a term of life in prison without the possibility of parole, while former prosecutor Kazarian, who was promptly fired by DA Tony Rackauckas, got off with a relatively lenient 33 months and a disbarment that was later reversed; he now works as a defense attorney in Westminster. While Coones admits to knowing Ward, he says he never met Kazarian.
"But according to the police reports, the prosecutors and the papers, I was supposed to be associated with him," he says. "It was so outlandish, and most of it was trumped up. They brought up every expert on the Hells Angels they could find."
Although Coones insists the club had nothing to do with his predicament, his status as a high-ranking Hells Angel turned him into a minor celebrity in the war on drugs while he was behind bars. After his arrest, KO took over Illusion Motorsports, selling motorcycles and other gear to pay Coones' legal bills and to keep the business' various state and local licenses current. To raise cash for Coones to use at the prison commissary, she sold "Free Rusty" T-shirts, and she set up a website to keep friends updated on his case and on which she published occasional essays by Coones about the hypocrisy and ineffectiveness of the drug war. While in prison, Coones took up the guitar and began writing songs, including "Lockdown" and "No Redemption," which he still performs with Attika7.
One of Coones' biggest supporters was fellow bike-builder Jesse James, who had worked with Coones on motorcycles and befriended him years before his arrest. During the four seasons that James appeared on Monster Garage, he wore several different "Free Rusty" T-shirts during taping in a quiet tribute to his friend. Then there was the motorcycle James built for Coones just days before Coones got out of prison. Actually, James gave the bike to KO because he wouldn't be able to do it in person.
"He told me that he and Sandy were leaving for Cabo," KO recalls, referring to James' then-wife Sandra Bullock. "'We won't be here when Rusty comes home, so you have to give him the bike.'" James knew that Coones had lost all his motorcycles to legal bills and would have nothing to ride. "He had tears in his eyes when he handed the keys to me. He said, 'KO, a Hells Angel needs a motorcycle.'"
Just six days before Coones walked out of prison a free man, Rodrigo Requejo was driving his battered Ford Dually truck home from a long day at Twisted Metal, his now-shuttered bike shop, when he took his eyes off the road for a few seconds, fumbling for his cell phone. When he looked up, he'd pulled up close behind a pickup. The then-31-year-old Argentinean immigrant and self-employed bike builder swerved around the vehicle and kept driving, unaware that his maneuver had antagonized its occupants. After exiting, he was sitting at a red light when two angry young men rushed his car and pulled him to the pavement.
What happened next is a blur in Requejo's mind. "They beat the hell out of me, man," he says. "I was in a big fog. I got hit so hard in the head and chest and everything. I thought I had pulled out a knife and scared them away. I didn't have a drop of blood on me." Covered in bruises, Requejo managed to fight off his attackers and retrieve his truck, which had rolled away. It wasn't until he saw the news the following day that he realized he had in fact stabbed both men, who turned out to be twins, and that one of them, Justin Ammann, died from his wounds.
The surviving brother, Jason, told police that Requejo, who was a Hells Angels prospect at the time, had forced them off the road and attacked them, yelling the name of the motorcycle club. Based on that version of events, police arrested Requejo, who was charged with murder and attempted murder, with a special-circumstances enhancement alleging the crimes were carried out for the benefit of the Hells Angels. Because of his status as a club prospect at the time, Requejo refused to give his side of the story to police; he even denied being involved in the fight when he was arrested.
"Who's going to believe me?" he wondered. "I'm a Hells Angels prospect. They are going to hang me for this. Had this happened at another place, where there were no witnesses, I'd be gone."
Indeed, at his arraignment, the judge coolly informed Requejo that, if convicted, he'd be eligible for the death penalty, despite the fact he'd never been arrested for a violent crime. In the end, Requejo was spared by pretrial media coverage. Eyewitnesses who saw what really happened came forward to contest the official story, saying it was the two brothers who started the fight and that Requejo had acted in self-defense.
On Feb. 3, 2005, after more than a month behind bars, prosecutors dropped all charges against Requejo. He had been living with two death sentences hanging over him, given that the Ammann brothers were members of the Orange County Skins, a violent white-supremacist street gang that had green-lighted a hit on Requejo. "I don't have a problem with them now," Requejo says. "But while I was inside, I had to watch out."
One inmate had torn a gang rival in half with an AK47, Requejo recalls. Another had murdered his probation officer; stolen his badge, gun and car; and led police on a freeway chase that ended in a shootout. When the cops caught up with him, they found the probation officer's ears in the man's pocket. "I was locked up with dudes who were nuts—you could see right through them," he says, "but there were dudes who were swearing their innocence up and down, and I could honestly believe a couple of them."
Requejo had first met Coones when he was 18 years old and Coones and another hulking Hells Angel showed up at his dad's motorcycle shop. He ran into him again at a bike run not long after he left jail. Requejo reintroduced himself. The two began talking about bikes, and before long, Requejo had shuttered Twisted Metal and become Coones' business partner in Illusion Motorsports. "We've been going at it since," Requejo says.
There was one hitch in the promising partnership, however. On July 27, 2008, several Hells Angels, including Requejo, were drinking beer at Blackie's By the Sea in Newport Beach when they got into a brawl with members of Phil Aguilar's Set Free Soldiers, an evangelical-Christian bike club (see "He Shall Be Set Free," Nov. 25, 2010). Requejo says he threw the first punch when a friend of one of the Set Free Soldiers "disrespected" one of the Hells Angels at the bar. Requejo told the man to mind his own business. "Fuck you," the man responded.
"For me, one 'fuck you' is one too many," Requejo says. "I wouldn't have cared if the president of the United States was there or 100 cops; if somebody tells me, 'Fuck you,' I am going to punch him in the mouth, and that's exactly what I did."
What happened next is well-known, and the security-video footage has since gone viral on YouTube: A dozen or more massive bikers explode in a blur of fists and flying pool cues before, just as suddenly, both sides withdraw and calmly leave the bar. Although he wasn't arrested, Requejo was already on probation for carrying a knife—he claims it was of legal length—so police charged him with seven felonies, including assault with a deadly weapon. They also raided his house; while officers ransacked his home, Requejo's mother suffered a heart attack and had to be taken to the hospital.
The first thing she did when she recovered was to beg her son to quit the Hells Angels. "I didn't want to quit," he recalls. "These were my friends, but she's my mother, man. If she had died in that hospital, I would have blown my brains out. I couldn't have lived with that on my conscience, her dying over me doing something stupid. So I did what I thought was right at the time."
Following the infamous Blackie's bar fight, Requejo pleaded guilty to one assault charge in return for probation, which is now just weeks from running out, at which point the charge will be expunged from his record. Nowadays, he divides his time between his two daughters, age 7 and 15; the bike shop; and racing the only sidecar bike with a Harley-Davidson engine in it at Costa Mesa Speedway on weekend nights. Not a day goes by when he doesn't regret killing another person or that he doesn't ponder the possibility of things working out differently. "What if I had my seatbelt on and I could have hit the gas before they pulled me out?" he asks. "What if I had locked my doors? The fate of that poor guy—I am never going to live that down. I took somebody's life. I'm going to have to answer to the man upstairs for that someday."
Nevertheless, Requejo is grateful for how well life is going now for both him and Coones. "It's a hard life we both have lived," he says. "At one part in both our lives, we had the great potential to be gone away forever, and I was thinking, 'I could never eat a steak or get a cup of coffee from Starbucks in the morning or lay down with a woman again.' Those things go through your mind."
Coones is also a busy man. Besides his work at the shop, he's often up halfway to dawn practicing with Attika7, who have played venues ranging from the Galaxy Concert Theatre and House of Blues in Anaheim to Irvine Lake. He was recently offered a principal role in a three-part film trilogy that has yet to be formally announced.
Thanks in part to his continued membership in the Hells Angels, police love to keep tabs on his movements. When Coones showed up for a Boys & Girls Club toy run in Santa Ana several weeks ago, police wouldn't let him ride with his club patch on. Coones refused to take it off as a matter of principle.
He doesn't complain about such incidents. "I'm just glad I'm where I'm at now and not having to go through the hard times I had," he says. "It's pretty exciting. We have a lot of things going on these days. We get to create art that rolls. Our work is fun; our play is fun. It's a good life."
Although it has been years since he was a member of the Hells Angels, Requejo says the police haven't forgotten about him, either. "I tell Rusty all the time, 'No matter how well we're doing in life, you always have one foot in the successful life and one foot in a prison cell somewhere,'" he says. "It's a balancing act. You have to put more weight on the good foot than the bad because it's easy to put more weight on the other foot and be gone. It's like you have a sidecar of doom."
Requejo is the first to admit he still has his "wild side." One Christmas Day a few years ago, he was eating brunch with his family at Costa Mesa's now-closed Omelette Parlor when he heard a familiar voice behind him. He walked around the corner and saw a table of police officers, including the one who had previously arrested him for carrying a knife. The cops stopped talking, and the one whose voice Requejo recognized walked up to him, facing him nose to nose.
"So I heard you quit," the cop said, referring to Requejo's resignation from the Hells Angels.
"Yeah, you heard right," Requejo responded.
"So you're done, huh?" the cop continued. "You quit. You're done?"
"Let me tell you something," Requejo answered. "I quit, but I'm not done. I'll never be done."
The cop walked back to his table, and Requejo rejoined his family.
This article appeared in print as "Hell Raisers: For Rusty Coones and Rodrigo Requejo of Illusion Motorsports, life has been one wild ride."
↧
Babe of the DAY............Abby Marie
↧
USA - NHTSA To Bypass Public Comment, Adopt Rules Directly
OFF THE WIRE
NHTSA To Bypass Public Comment, Adopt Rules Directly
Posted: 07 Apr 2013 01:07 AM PDT
NHTSA To Bypass Public Comment, Adopt Rules Directly
Posted: 07 Apr 2013 01:07 AM PDT
The US Department of Transportation is looking to fast track adoption of rules, bypassing the public comment process. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) last week proposed to give itself "direct final rulemaking" authority which would allow the agency to declare a regulatory proposal, which carries the force of law, to be non-controversial and rush it into effect.
"NHTSA is proposing to use the direct final rulemaking process when the action to be taken is not anticipated to generate adverse comment, and therefore, providing notice and opportunity for comment would not be necessary," the agency's proposed rule states. "NHTSA believes this procedural option would expedite the issuance of, and thereby save time and agency resources on, rules that are not controversial."
NHTSA is responsible for a number of major rules, including the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) mandates that direct automobile manufacturers to meet certain mileage requirements. It also plays a major role in the design of vehicles by mandating various "safety" features -- most recently it has published a tentative rule mandating video screens and rear-view cameras be installed in every vehicle. The agency also develops lesser-known rules. In 2000, NHTSA published a "trunk entrapment" rule, requiring every vehicle to have an escape latch to prevent kidnappers from storing people in the trunks of automobiles. The administration's "quiet car" rule would require electric vehicles and hybrids to make loud noises so that they will not run over blind pedestrians.
Such rules cost the automobile industry billions of dollars in compliance costs. Lobbyists for manufacturers closely watch the Federal Register for publication of any item affecting the industry, but proposals affecting only consumers could escape notice under procedures that allow a measure to take effect within sixty days of its publication in the Federal Register as a final rule. The public would have just thirty days to file an adverse comment to slow the process down, otherwise the final rule would become effective.
"NHTSA would not consider frivolous or irrelevant comments to be adverse," the fast-track proposal states. "NHTSA would also not consider a comment recommending additional actions or changes to be adverse, unless the comment also stated why the direct final rulemaking would be ineffective without the additional action or change."
The direct final rulemaking proposal is subject to the standard procedures. Anyone wishing to have his view considered has until May 28, 2013 to submit a comment.
"NHTSA is proposing to use the direct final rulemaking process when the action to be taken is not anticipated to generate adverse comment, and therefore, providing notice and opportunity for comment would not be necessary," the agency's proposed rule states. "NHTSA believes this procedural option would expedite the issuance of, and thereby save time and agency resources on, rules that are not controversial."
NHTSA is responsible for a number of major rules, including the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) mandates that direct automobile manufacturers to meet certain mileage requirements. It also plays a major role in the design of vehicles by mandating various "safety" features -- most recently it has published a tentative rule mandating video screens and rear-view cameras be installed in every vehicle. The agency also develops lesser-known rules. In 2000, NHTSA published a "trunk entrapment" rule, requiring every vehicle to have an escape latch to prevent kidnappers from storing people in the trunks of automobiles. The administration's "quiet car" rule would require electric vehicles and hybrids to make loud noises so that they will not run over blind pedestrians.
Such rules cost the automobile industry billions of dollars in compliance costs. Lobbyists for manufacturers closely watch the Federal Register for publication of any item affecting the industry, but proposals affecting only consumers could escape notice under procedures that allow a measure to take effect within sixty days of its publication in the Federal Register as a final rule. The public would have just thirty days to file an adverse comment to slow the process down, otherwise the final rule would become effective.
"NHTSA would not consider frivolous or irrelevant comments to be adverse," the fast-track proposal states. "NHTSA would also not consider a comment recommending additional actions or changes to be adverse, unless the comment also stated why the direct final rulemaking would be ineffective without the additional action or change."
The direct final rulemaking proposal is subject to the standard procedures. Anyone wishing to have his view considered has until May 28, 2013 to submit a comment.
↧
↧
Babe`s of the DAY..... This is 18 and older. Rest assured I will offend you and rest assured I don't give a fuck! If you don't like crude hum or and think you will report me don't like my page. For those with the ability to laugh and take a joke welcome.
↧
USA - When Dealing With The Police - a helpful cheat sheet
OFF THE WIRE
![]()
↧
CALIFORNIA - Barry & Carol Sandberg Memorial Ride andABATE Motorcycle Awareness Party - Sunday, May 5, 2013
OFF THE WIRE
![]()
Hi All,
Please take a moment now to plan on meeting at Kate Sessions by 12 noon or Mt. Soledad by 1 pm Sunday May 5th.
PLEASE FORWARD this flyer to every rider you know and ask them to take a ride for two of their own
and support Motorcycle Awareness Month too!
We are always supporting many other causes, now come out and let’s raise public awareness about our Brother & Sister that were MURDERED in their own home FOUR years ago and it remains UNSOLVED... WHY???
Please bring a friend!
We have two celebrity riders attending that day too!
See YOU there, ride safe!
JD
PLEASE ATTEND 5/5/2013
PLEASE FORWARD AND PRINT/DISTRIBUTE...
Subject: [ABATE Local 6 Elist] Barry & Carol Sandberg Memorial Ride andABATE Motorcycle Awareness Party - Sunday, May 5, 2013
Barry and Carol Sandberg were members of ABATE Local 6 for many years when they were tragically murdered 4 years ago. Thanks goes to Red and JD who have worked with the police department so that they continue to try and solve this case.
This year Mayor Bob Filner will be at Mt. Soledad to honor Barry and Carol. Please join us at the ABATE meeting at 12 noon in Kate Sessions Park and then ride the short distance to Mt. Soledad Cross to pay tribute to Barry and Carol. From there we will ride to the Flinn Springs Inn in El Cajon and join the ABATE Local 6 Motorcycle Awareness Party. Food and drink will be available. Flyers for the ABATE Party will be available soon. Mark your calendar and stay tuned!
Nancy
P.S. Please print some of the flyers and distribute to shops and friends.
↧
Espinoza's Leather Story and Bios..
AFTER TALKING WITH FELLA`S AND LEARNING ABOUT THEM, THEY MAKE ALL THE CLUB CUTS// LET MAKE YOURS CHECK THEM OUT.... NUFF SAID....
JUST LET THE ESPINOSA`S, KNOW THAT YOU SAW IT HERE..
MLH&R
SCREWDRIVER
Philip,
JUST LET THE ESPINOSA`S, KNOW THAT YOU SAW IT HERE..
MLH&R
SCREWDRIVER
Philip,
It was a pleasure meeting you (electronically) and an honor to be on your show. Per you request I have enclosed both the REVOLUCION magazine article and the bio from our website which combined give some background and facts of our shop and history. Just below are the bios of each member in chronological order. Thank you once again for your interest in our business and the opportunity to reach out to your fans.
Regards,
Joe Espinoza
________ THE CAST________
Gilberto Espinoza, SR
Owner/Founder
Rides 2010 Street Glide Trike
Gilbert Espinoza JR
First Son - Works at Shop weekends and Events
Rides 2010 Fatboy
Joe Espinoza
Second Son - Works many evenings, weekends and shows/events
Rides 2000 Softail Duece
Eric Espinoza
Youngest - Works full time at Shop and all events/shows
Rides 2010 Street Bob
Revolucion Magazine Article
Gilberto, Joe, Gilbert Jr. and Eric Espinoza of Espinoza’s Leather tell their story: one of sacrifice and hard work that spreads over three generations.
The vest is sacred throughout the biker world and without saying a word it communicates who we are, where we come from and whom we ride with whether in a group or solo. When Gilberto Espinoza started making leather bracelets and belts after a farmer strike in 1971, he had no idea that it would eventually lead him, and later his three sons, down a path to becoming one of the industry’s most respected makers of biker vests and leathers. But the story of this family-run business goes far beyond leather hides and sewn-on patches. Their story is of one man making sacrifices for his family, only to have his family do the same in return to take care of him. This is the story of Gilberto Espinoza, a quiet and humble man, as told by his three sons, Joe, Gilbert Jr. and Eric.
How did you start making leather goods?
Joe
My dad left his home when he was only 8 years old. He made his way from his childhood home near central Mexico to Tijuana. After some diffucult years he made it into America where he started working as a meat cutter and that’s when he met my mom. My mother’s father was dabbling in belts and leather goods and my dad saw an opportunity to start his own business. He started out making berrets, key chains and bracelets with individual’s name stamped in them. We have pictures of a huge mountain of bracelets where people would come, pick one and we’d stamp in their name. The cost was one dollar and the stamp was free. That’s how my dad’s business first started in ’71.
Gilberto (The Father)
I started my business back in 1971. I was a meat cutter. One time the farmers went on strike and there was no more meat to cut. My father-in-law told me why don’t you go to the store get some leather, make some belts and wallets and sell them at the swap meet. While there I met a lot of bikers who would ask me to do little repairs and some other custom items. That’s how I first started working with bikers.
Joe
My Father started this business in the garage with a couple of wooden tables and a machine we still use today. My dad would be stamping out leather all day and my brother and I would paint the edges. My brother and I sacrificed every summer traveling to all the state fairs. There was one summer we had to work 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. and 10 a.m. to midnight on the weekends. We grew up in that world. We didn’t really see it as a bad thing. It’s just what we did. Little did we know, that 40 years later we’d have this huge retail place with customers from all over the world.
Gilbert Jr.
My dad’s first customers were at the La Mirada swap meet. A guy named Popeye introduced us to the biker scene. We started with only one table and a Dodge Charger. My parents would have to sit in the Charger because we didn’t have a canopy for shade. My dad would always say “I know it’s tough on you guys but in the end it will benefit you.” Sure enough my dad has proven that to be true.
Eric
I was the youngest so I was a little more spoiled and started at age 12. I wasn’t ready to run the business but I had a general knowledge of how things worked. Joe taught me how to measure so we helped each other. Now I’m here everyday taking care of the customers. People come from everywhere. We had a guy come down from Switzerland just to buy an Espinoza T-shirt. Over the years my dad has built a steady clientele. We offer the type of customization others can’t. We can take a basic vest and do whatever you want with it. You might have a small chest and a big belly, but we can make a vest that fits right. That’s what my dad offers to the people that no one else can.
When it comes to the Chicano-style riders, the style has always been clean cut with ironed pants and shirts and never looking grungy. We always presented our bikes and ourselves the right way. That’s how we were as Chicano men back in the day and as time progressed that’s how we still are. Chicano men tend to want the longer vest that is fitted and looking good. They don’t want to go and buy a tiny vest. Also we treat everyone as family and with respect no matter what background you come from.
Joe
As you can see it’s always been a family business so it doesn’t feel like work, just spending time with the family. Eric is 100% like my dad. He has that type of personality that makes people want to come in and talk to him for hours. He acts exactly how my dad does by spending a lot of time with customers, but now my dad gets on his case for doing the exact same thing! (laughs). Two years ago I tried to figure out how to launch a Web site for a mass market. You can’t. How do you show a 100% custom experience to a mass market? The way I try to appeal to the public is to explain why it’s worth it to take a ride here whether you’re in San Diego, San Francisco or other surrounding states. Whenever you’re in California, come on in. I’ve been trying to get the word out that to wear an Espinoza cut is to have something special. We must be doing something right because we realize it’s more than a business when my dad shows up to an event and a crowd surrounds him. They all want to say hi to my pops. That’s when you know it’s more than making cuts for riders. Funny part is, my dad hates crowds and usually tells me ‘Mijo get me a beer’. They love you, huh dad?
Gilberto
The people they love me (big laughs).
Does the family ride together also?
Eric
My dad stopped riding in 1991 until about 3 years ago when I started working full time for him. Watching a pack of bikes leave the shop everyday, I’d get so pissed off and say “I need a bike! I need a bike!” I kept telling my dad I need a co-signer. (laughs) He finally said OK. I bought a 2010 Dyna Street Bob. I guess I was watching too much Sons of Anarchy. (laughs) When my dad was there with me, he fell in love with a trike and bought it on the spot.
Joe
I went with them just for moral support and sat on a Softail. I bought it that same day also. Two months later my brother ( Gilbert Jr.) bought a motorcycle and eventually, his son Gilbert III, bought a bike–now all three generations ride.
Gilberto - Final Thought...Thank you all for your business.
ESPINOZAS LEATHER WEBSITE BIO
Starting in 1971 with the manufacturing of leather bracelets and barrettes, immigrant Gilberto Espinoza was determined to grow his small one man operation into a prosperous business.
Soon leather belts, chain wallets and purses made its way into the inventory. The result was growth warranting the opening of a formal manufacturing location. So the garage was returned to the family car and small but suitable shop was found in a strip mall in Rosemead.
In September of 1985 the first retail store was opened just two short blocks away from the first shop. Espinoza’s Leather Goods retail was born and the offering at the time was the same inventory of wallets and purses with some samplings of import products from Mexico.
That summer the first motorcycle jacket was made and Gilberto never looked back. Leather jackets, vests and chaps are his passion coupled with customer satisfaction.
In September of 1985 the first retail store was opened just two short blocks away from the first shop. Espinoza’s Leather Goods retail was born and the offering at the time was the same inventory of wallets and purses with some samplings of import products from Mexico.
That summer the first motorcycle jacket was made and Gilberto never looked back. Leather jackets, vests and chaps are his passion coupled with customer satisfaction.
↧
↧
LIFE IN THE FAST LANE..
OFF THE WIRE
THANK YOU, JOHN
LIFE IN THE FAST LANE
A collection of lane-related information
by John Del Santo
GENERAL
If our bike is equipped with working electric directional signals the law requires that we use them when changing lanes. (CVC 22110). The State handbook also suggests that during times of heavy traffic, or poor visibility, that we also use hand signals so that cars are better able to see what our intentions are.
SIGNAL LANE CHANGES Before each lane change….Check your mirrors……Signal your intentions……Check your blind spot…..Make your move.
The CA Drivers Handbook suggests that at freeway speeds we signal for at least five seconds before a lane change.
Traffic lanes are often referred to by number. The left, or “fast” lane is called the “Number 1 Lane”. The lane to the right of the “number 1 lane” is called “The Number 2 Lane” ,then the “Number 3 Lane” etc.
If you are pulling a little camping trailer behind your motorcycle or car you now come under the same 3-axle category as a tractor trailer. You are restricted to the two right lanes of the freeway, restricted to 55 MPH, and not allowed to use the HOV lane. (P-35 CA Drivers Handbook)
FOLLOWING DISTANCE California Vehicle Code 21704 (a) States that ) “ The driver of any motor vehicle that is operated outside of a business or residence district, shall keep the vehicle he is driving at a distance of not less than 300 feet to the rear of any other motor vehicle”. That’s a space that would fit about five tractor-trailers, or is almost a football field long.
---------------------------------------------------------
ON THE FREEWAY
Miles per Hour...Times 1 1/2 …Equals Feet-Per-Second traveled. At 65 MPH a vehicle is traveling about 100 feet Every Second.
Many motorcyclists prefer traveling on the freeway in the Number 1 lane (far left). This leaves the rider able to only worry about bad moves from the vehicle to the right, and the vehicle behind. Riding in the number 1 lane also leaves the shoulder on the left as an escape route to avoid dangerous moves from other drivers.
Unlike many other states, If you are traveling in the left lane….the number 1 lane…and you are maintaining the the posted speed limit….There is no legal reason for you to move out of that lane unless an emergency vehicle comes up behind you showing lights and/or siren.
The California Motorcycle Handbook (p-13) tells us “There is no “best lane position” for riders in which to be seen and to maintain a space cushion around the motorcycle. Position yourself in the lane that allows the most visibility and space around you”.
Generally speaking, I have been told by highway police that their attention is most drawn to vehicles that are jumping around from lane to lane, not to those that stay mostly in one lane.
the drivers handbook suggests that at freeway speeds we signal for at least five seconds before a lane change.
GROUP RIDING
“If you ride with others, do it in a way that promotes safety and doesn’t interfere with the flow of traffic” If the group is more than four or five riders, divide it into two or more smaller groups. Use a staggered formation and keep a 2-second following distance from the rider directly in front of you. (P-32 CA DMV motorcycle handbook).
When we are riding in a group on the freeway with five or ten other vehicles, WE ARE NOT AN EXCLUSIVE GROUP……..to the law and to the rest of the world, we are just ……five or ten individual vehicles. If other vehicles want to, or need to, make a lane change into our lane, they have every right to do so, and we have no right to try to stop them from doing so. Even convoys of army trucks or funeral processions lose their right to exclusivity when they are on a freeway.
HOV LANES (HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE )(Carpool lane)
No vehicle may cross double yellow lines into or out of an HOV LANE .
In some areas, such as near Los Angeles , the double-yellow lines are about 18 inches apart. These are still double-yellow lines which no one may cross into or out of an HOV lane……..Contrary to some popular belief, these are NOT teeny little HOV lanes for motorcycles.
ONE OR TWO PERSONS ON A MOTORCYCLE OR TRIKE (3-wheeled motorcycle) ARE ALLOWED TO USE AN HOV LANE, unless otherwise posted. (P-34 CA Drivers Handbook).
No vehicle pulling a trailer may use an HOV Lane .
EMERGENCY VEHICLE STOPPED ON FREEWAY
CVC-21809. (a) A person driving a vehicle on a freeway approaching a stationary authorized emergency vehicle that is displaying emergency lights, a stationary tow truck that is displaying flashing amber warning lights, or a stationary marked Department of Transportation vehicle that is displaying flashing amber warning lights,
shall approach with due caution and, before passing in a lane immediately adjacent to the authorized emergency vehicle, tow truck, or Department of Transportation vehicle, absent other direction by a peace officer, proceed to do one of the following:
(1) Make a lane change into an available lane not immediately adjacent to the authorized emergency vehicle, tow truck, or Department of Transportation vehicle, with due regard for safety and traffic conditions, if practicable and not prohibited by law.
(2) If the maneuver described in paragraph (1) would be unsafe or impracticable, slow to a reasonable and prudent speed that is safe for existing weather, road, and vehicular or pedestrian traffic conditions.
OFF THE FREEWAY
CENTER LEFT-TURN LANES A set of yellow solid lines with dotted yellow lines just inside them. These are to be use to start or complete left turns or to start u-turns. We may not stay in them for more than 200 feet (three tractor trailer lengths).
DOUBLE-DOUBLE YELLOWS SETS OF double-double yellow lines are considered a barrier or island. We may never cross those even to get into or out of our own driveway Or to make a u-turn.
NARROW STREETS When riding in parts of town with small, narrow streets…..where there is not a centerline painted in the street, A CA Driver Handbook suggests that we ride out near the middle of the street, when no traffic is approaching us from the opposite direction. This reduces the chances of someone in a parked car making a move that would surprise or endanger you. Naturally, near an intersection we would be back towards the right side of the roadway.
TURNOUT AREAS AND LANES Special “turnout” areas are sometimes marked on two-lane roads. Drive into these areas to allow traffic behind you to pass. If you are driving slowly, you are required to pull in if there are five or more vehicles behind you that want to go faster. (p-35 CA Drivers Manual).
SOMETIMES THESE TURNOUT AREAS ARE UNLIT AND UNPAVED, AND ESPECIALLY AT NIGHT, MOTORCYCLISTS WOULD HAVE TO MAKE SERIOUS CHOICES TO USE THEM OR NOT.
PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ZONE A "safety zone" is the area or space lawfully set apart within a roadway for the exclusive use of pedestrians and which is protected, or which is marked or indicated by vertical signs, raised markers or raised buttons, in order to make such area or space plainly visible at all times while the same is set apart as a safety zone. CA Vehicle Code 540.
CROSSING BICYCLE LANES As long as there are no bicycles using the bicycle lane anywhere near enough to you to be a hazard, you may cross a bicycle lane to turn into or out of a driveway. If there is a bicycle lane, and no bicycles are using it, and you plan on turning right at the next corner, you should check your mirror, signal, check your blind spot, and move into the bicycle lane NO MORE THAN 200 feet from the corner (three tractor-trailer lengths) to approach your right turn. You may park in a bicycle lane, as long as there is no sign that proclaims “ Bike Lane No Parking”.
Motorists Passing Bicyclists Be patient when passing a bicyclist. Slow down and pass only when it is safe. Do not squeeze the bicyclist off the road. If road conditions and space permit, allow clearance of at least three feet when passing a bicyclist.
Would you like to check out any vehicle laws or rules ? go to http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/vc.htm Ca Vehicle Code OR http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/driver_handbook_toc.htm CA Driver Handbook.
THESE RULES AND LAWS MAY BE DIFFERENT WHEN LEAVING CALIFORNIA AND ENTERING OTHER STATES.
--------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER AND WARNING :This guide is to provide accurate and authoritative information on this subject. If expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought
John Del Santo
At Intersections, and
In Your Blind Spots,
"Check Twice for Motorcycles".
P.S.
I was just reading my article "Life in the fast lane" which is a collection of info regarding lane laws and rules....and I realized that I had not mentioned "Lane Sharing" so I entered these lines into the article FYI thanks John
The California Vehicle Code does not allow “lane sharing, lane splitting, etc.
THANK YOU, JOHN
LIFE IN THE FAST LANE
A collection of lane-related information
by John Del Santo
GENERAL
If our bike is equipped with working electric directional signals the law requires that we use them when changing lanes. (CVC 22110). The State handbook also suggests that during times of heavy traffic, or poor visibility, that we also use hand signals so that cars are better able to see what our intentions are.
SIGNAL LANE CHANGES Before each lane change….Check your mirrors……Signal your intentions……Check your blind spot…..Make your move.
The CA Drivers Handbook suggests that at freeway speeds we signal for at least five seconds before a lane change.
Traffic lanes are often referred to by number. The left, or “fast” lane is called the “Number 1 Lane”. The lane to the right of the “number 1 lane” is called “The Number 2 Lane” ,then the “Number 3 Lane” etc.
If you are pulling a little camping trailer behind your motorcycle or car you now come under the same 3-axle category as a tractor trailer. You are restricted to the two right lanes of the freeway, restricted to 55 MPH, and not allowed to use the HOV lane. (P-35 CA Drivers Handbook)
FOLLOWING DISTANCE California Vehicle Code 21704 (a) States that ) “ The driver of any motor vehicle that is operated outside of a business or residence district, shall keep the vehicle he is driving at a distance of not less than 300 feet to the rear of any other motor vehicle”. That’s a space that would fit about five tractor-trailers, or is almost a football field long.
---------------------------------------------------------
ON THE FREEWAY
Miles per Hour...Times 1 1/2 …Equals Feet-Per-Second traveled. At 65 MPH a vehicle is traveling about 100 feet Every Second.
Many motorcyclists prefer traveling on the freeway in the Number 1 lane (far left). This leaves the rider able to only worry about bad moves from the vehicle to the right, and the vehicle behind. Riding in the number 1 lane also leaves the shoulder on the left as an escape route to avoid dangerous moves from other drivers.
Unlike many other states, If you are traveling in the left lane….the number 1 lane…and you are maintaining the the posted speed limit….There is no legal reason for you to move out of that lane unless an emergency vehicle comes up behind you showing lights and/or siren.
The California Motorcycle Handbook (p-13) tells us “There is no “best lane position” for riders in which to be seen and to maintain a space cushion around the motorcycle. Position yourself in the lane that allows the most visibility and space around you”.
Generally speaking, I have been told by highway police that their attention is most drawn to vehicles that are jumping around from lane to lane, not to those that stay mostly in one lane.
the drivers handbook suggests that at freeway speeds we signal for at least five seconds before a lane change.
GROUP RIDING
“If you ride with others, do it in a way that promotes safety and doesn’t interfere with the flow of traffic” If the group is more than four or five riders, divide it into two or more smaller groups. Use a staggered formation and keep a 2-second following distance from the rider directly in front of you. (P-32 CA DMV motorcycle handbook).
When we are riding in a group on the freeway with five or ten other vehicles, WE ARE NOT AN EXCLUSIVE GROUP……..to the law and to the rest of the world, we are just ……five or ten individual vehicles. If other vehicles want to, or need to, make a lane change into our lane, they have every right to do so, and we have no right to try to stop them from doing so. Even convoys of army trucks or funeral processions lose their right to exclusivity when they are on a freeway.
HOV LANES (HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE )(Carpool lane)
No vehicle may cross double yellow lines into or out of an HOV LANE .
In some areas, such as near Los Angeles , the double-yellow lines are about 18 inches apart. These are still double-yellow lines which no one may cross into or out of an HOV lane……..Contrary to some popular belief, these are NOT teeny little HOV lanes for motorcycles.
ONE OR TWO PERSONS ON A MOTORCYCLE OR TRIKE (3-wheeled motorcycle) ARE ALLOWED TO USE AN HOV LANE, unless otherwise posted. (P-34 CA Drivers Handbook).
No vehicle pulling a trailer may use an HOV Lane .
EMERGENCY VEHICLE STOPPED ON FREEWAY
CVC-21809. (a) A person driving a vehicle on a freeway approaching a stationary authorized emergency vehicle that is displaying emergency lights, a stationary tow truck that is displaying flashing amber warning lights, or a stationary marked Department of Transportation vehicle that is displaying flashing amber warning lights,
shall approach with due caution and, before passing in a lane immediately adjacent to the authorized emergency vehicle, tow truck, or Department of Transportation vehicle, absent other direction by a peace officer, proceed to do one of the following:
(1) Make a lane change into an available lane not immediately adjacent to the authorized emergency vehicle, tow truck, or Department of Transportation vehicle, with due regard for safety and traffic conditions, if practicable and not prohibited by law.
(2) If the maneuver described in paragraph (1) would be unsafe or impracticable, slow to a reasonable and prudent speed that is safe for existing weather, road, and vehicular or pedestrian traffic conditions.
OFF THE FREEWAY
CENTER LEFT-TURN LANES A set of yellow solid lines with dotted yellow lines just inside them. These are to be use to start or complete left turns or to start u-turns. We may not stay in them for more than 200 feet (three tractor trailer lengths).
DOUBLE-DOUBLE YELLOWS SETS OF double-double yellow lines are considered a barrier or island. We may never cross those even to get into or out of our own driveway Or to make a u-turn.
NARROW STREETS When riding in parts of town with small, narrow streets…..where there is not a centerline painted in the street, A CA Driver Handbook suggests that we ride out near the middle of the street, when no traffic is approaching us from the opposite direction. This reduces the chances of someone in a parked car making a move that would surprise or endanger you. Naturally, near an intersection we would be back towards the right side of the roadway.
TURNOUT AREAS AND LANES Special “turnout” areas are sometimes marked on two-lane roads. Drive into these areas to allow traffic behind you to pass. If you are driving slowly, you are required to pull in if there are five or more vehicles behind you that want to go faster. (p-35 CA Drivers Manual).
SOMETIMES THESE TURNOUT AREAS ARE UNLIT AND UNPAVED, AND ESPECIALLY AT NIGHT, MOTORCYCLISTS WOULD HAVE TO MAKE SERIOUS CHOICES TO USE THEM OR NOT.
PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ZONE A "safety zone" is the area or space lawfully set apart within a roadway for the exclusive use of pedestrians and which is protected, or which is marked or indicated by vertical signs, raised markers or raised buttons, in order to make such area or space plainly visible at all times while the same is set apart as a safety zone. CA Vehicle Code 540.
CROSSING BICYCLE LANES As long as there are no bicycles using the bicycle lane anywhere near enough to you to be a hazard, you may cross a bicycle lane to turn into or out of a driveway. If there is a bicycle lane, and no bicycles are using it, and you plan on turning right at the next corner, you should check your mirror, signal, check your blind spot, and move into the bicycle lane NO MORE THAN 200 feet from the corner (three tractor-trailer lengths) to approach your right turn. You may park in a bicycle lane, as long as there is no sign that proclaims “ Bike Lane No Parking”.
Motorists Passing Bicyclists Be patient when passing a bicyclist. Slow down and pass only when it is safe. Do not squeeze the bicyclist off the road. If road conditions and space permit, allow clearance of at least three feet when passing a bicyclist.
Would you like to check out any vehicle laws or rules ? go to http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/vc.htm Ca Vehicle Code OR http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/driver_handbook_toc.htm CA Driver Handbook.
THESE RULES AND LAWS MAY BE DIFFERENT WHEN LEAVING CALIFORNIA AND ENTERING OTHER STATES.
--------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER AND WARNING :This guide is to provide accurate and authoritative information on this subject. If expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought
John Del Santo
At Intersections, and
In Your Blind Spots,
"Check Twice for Motorcycles".
P.S.
I was just reading my article "Life in the fast lane" which is a collection of info regarding lane laws and rules....and I realized that I had not mentioned "Lane Sharing" so I entered these lines into the article FYI thanks John
The California Vehicle Code does not allow “lane sharing, lane splitting, etc.
↧
Secrets Police Don't Want You To Know
OFF THE WIRE
http://youtu.be/B3nok7Cby28
Eddie is an Air Force veteran that began realizing that the government was lying to the people at virtually every turn. He earnestly begin his research into government rules and statutes in the mid 90's after he witnessed his mother breakdown into tears of hopeless frustration over a property tax bill that threatened to take away her property and home.
Angry at the malicious and callous demeanor of those that supposedly worked for the greater good of the People Eddie began to carefully research and document the relationships between the various statutes and the legislative enactments that created them, especially the "ad valorem" property tax, and eventually the federal income tax. He has since spent the past eleven years researching the various Texas Codes such as the Transportation Code. Much to the dismay of many municipalities, police officers, and prosecutors he has thrown a very large monkey wrench into the gears of their money machine, using their own laws! With Randy Kelton's passed down knowledge about due process and criminal actions Eddie's research has become even more dangerous to them.
Vigorous study and research revealed the truth, most government employees know even less about the language and application of the law than the general public! Angered by the cavalier attitudes of public servants acting as if their ignorance was of no consequence, Eddie sought out other like minded people to exchange ideas and find a remedy, which led him to Rule of Law Radio.
Eddie has now dedicated himself to "fighting the good fight" against the total willful ignorance that consumes our public servants at every level of government, an ignorance in which too many people share by way of an apathetic attitude about our rights and liberties. The biggest problem with being apathetic is that it is a word comprised mostly of the word "pathetic".
http://ruleoflawradio.com/
[.
http://youtu.be/B3nok7Cby28
Eddie is an Air Force veteran that began realizing that the government was lying to the people at virtually every turn. He earnestly begin his research into government rules and statutes in the mid 90's after he witnessed his mother breakdown into tears of hopeless frustration over a property tax bill that threatened to take away her property and home.
Angry at the malicious and callous demeanor of those that supposedly worked for the greater good of the People Eddie began to carefully research and document the relationships between the various statutes and the legislative enactments that created them, especially the "ad valorem" property tax, and eventually the federal income tax. He has since spent the past eleven years researching the various Texas Codes such as the Transportation Code. Much to the dismay of many municipalities, police officers, and prosecutors he has thrown a very large monkey wrench into the gears of their money machine, using their own laws! With Randy Kelton's passed down knowledge about due process and criminal actions Eddie's research has become even more dangerous to them.
Vigorous study and research revealed the truth, most government employees know even less about the language and application of the law than the general public! Angered by the cavalier attitudes of public servants acting as if their ignorance was of no consequence, Eddie sought out other like minded people to exchange ideas and find a remedy, which led him to Rule of Law Radio.
Eddie has now dedicated himself to "fighting the good fight" against the total willful ignorance that consumes our public servants at every level of government, an ignorance in which too many people share by way of an apathetic attitude about our rights and liberties. The biggest problem with being apathetic is that it is a word comprised mostly of the word "pathetic".
http://ruleoflawradio.com/
[.
↧
Police Lie Under Oath; Their Testimony Shouldn’t Be TrusteMore Than Any Other Witness
OFF THE WIRE
By Michelle Alexander
Thousands of people plead guilty to crimes every year in the United States because they know that the odds of a jury’s believing their word over a police officer’s are slim to none. As a juror, whom are you likely to believe: the alleged criminal in an orange jumpsuit or two well-groomed police officers in uniforms who just swore to God they’re telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but? As one of my colleagues recently put it, “Everyone knows you have to be crazy to accuse the police of lying.”
But are police officers necessarily more trustworthy than alleged criminals? I think not. Not just because the police have a special inclination toward confabulation, but because, disturbingly, they have an incentive to lie. In this era of mass incarceration, the police shouldn’t be trusted any more than any other witness, perhaps less so.
That may sound harsh, but numerous law enforcement officials have put the matter more bluntly. Peter Keane, a former San Francisco Police commissioner, wrote an article in The San Francisco Chronicle decrying a police culture that treats lying as the norm: “Police officer perjury in court to justify illegal dope searches is commonplace. One of the dirty little not-so-secret secrets of the criminal justice system is undercover narcotics officers intentionally lying under oath. It is a perversion of the American justice system that strikes directly at the rule of law. Yet it is the routine way of doing business in courtrooms everywhere in America.”
Mr. Keane, in his Chronicle article, offered two major reasons the police lie so much. First, because they can. Police officers “know that in a swearing match between a drug defendant and a police officer, the judge always rules in favor of the officer.” At worst, the case will be dismissed, but the officer is free to continue business as usual. Second, criminal defendants are typically poor and uneducated, often belong to a racial minority, and often have a criminal record. “Police know that no one cares about these people,” Mr. Keane explained.
All true, but there is more to the story than that.
Police departments have been rewarded in recent years for the sheer numbers of stops, searches and arrests. In the war on drugs, federal grant programs like the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program have encouraged state and local law enforcement agencies to boost drug arrests in order to compete for millions of dollars in funding. Agencies receive cash rewards for arresting high numbers of people for drug offenses, no matter how minor the offenses or how weak the evidence. Law enforcement has increasingly become a numbers game. And as it has, police officers’ tendency to regard procedural rules as optional and to lie and distort the facts has grown as well. Numerous scandals involving police officers lying or planting drugs — in Tulia, Tex. and Oakland, Calif., for example — have been linked to federally funded drug task forces eager to keep the cash rolling in.
Exposing police lying is difficult largely because it is rare for the police to admit their own lies or to acknowledge the lies of other officers. This reluctance derives partly from the code of silence that governs police practice and from the ways in which the system of mass incarceration is structured to reward dishonesty. But it’s also because police officers are human.
Research shows that ordinary human beings lie a lot — multiple times a day — even when there’s no clear benefit to lying. Generally, humans lie about relatively minor things like “I lost your phone number; that’s why I didn’t call” or “No, really, you don’t look fat.” But humans can also be persuaded to lie about far more important matters, especially if the lie will enhance or protect their reputation or standing in a group.
The natural tendency to lie makes quota systems and financial incentives that reward the police for the sheer numbers of people stopped, frisked or arrested especially dangerous. One lie can destroy a life, resulting in the loss of employment, a prison term and relegation to permanent second-class status. The fact that our legal system has become so tolerant of police lying indicates how corrupted our criminal justice system has become by declarations of war, “get tough” mantras, and a seemingly insatiable appetite for locking up and locking out the poorest and darkest among us.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/12/02/the-worst-kept-secret-cops-lie.aspx
This was shared by Joe via CopBlock.org’s ‘submit tab.’
Thousands of people plead guilty to crimes every year in the United States because they know that the odds of a jury’s believing their word over a police officer’s are slim to none. As a juror, whom are you likely to believe: the alleged criminal in an orange jumpsuit or two well-groomed police officers in uniforms who just swore to God they’re telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but? As one of my colleagues recently put it, “Everyone knows you have to be crazy to accuse the police of lying.”
But are police officers necessarily more trustworthy than alleged criminals? I think not. Not just because the police have a special inclination toward confabulation, but because, disturbingly, they have an incentive to lie. In this era of mass incarceration, the police shouldn’t be trusted any more than any other witness, perhaps less so.
That may sound harsh, but numerous law enforcement officials have put the matter more bluntly. Peter Keane, a former San Francisco Police commissioner, wrote an article in The San Francisco Chronicle decrying a police culture that treats lying as the norm: “Police officer perjury in court to justify illegal dope searches is commonplace. One of the dirty little not-so-secret secrets of the criminal justice system is undercover narcotics officers intentionally lying under oath. It is a perversion of the American justice system that strikes directly at the rule of law. Yet it is the routine way of doing business in courtrooms everywhere in America.”
Mr. Keane, in his Chronicle article, offered two major reasons the police lie so much. First, because they can. Police officers “know that in a swearing match between a drug defendant and a police officer, the judge always rules in favor of the officer.” At worst, the case will be dismissed, but the officer is free to continue business as usual. Second, criminal defendants are typically poor and uneducated, often belong to a racial minority, and often have a criminal record. “Police know that no one cares about these people,” Mr. Keane explained.
All true, but there is more to the story than that.
Police departments have been rewarded in recent years for the sheer numbers of stops, searches and arrests. In the war on drugs, federal grant programs like the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program have encouraged state and local law enforcement agencies to boost drug arrests in order to compete for millions of dollars in funding. Agencies receive cash rewards for arresting high numbers of people for drug offenses, no matter how minor the offenses or how weak the evidence. Law enforcement has increasingly become a numbers game. And as it has, police officers’ tendency to regard procedural rules as optional and to lie and distort the facts has grown as well. Numerous scandals involving police officers lying or planting drugs — in Tulia, Tex. and Oakland, Calif., for example — have been linked to federally funded drug task forces eager to keep the cash rolling in.
Exposing police lying is difficult largely because it is rare for the police to admit their own lies or to acknowledge the lies of other officers. This reluctance derives partly from the code of silence that governs police practice and from the ways in which the system of mass incarceration is structured to reward dishonesty. But it’s also because police officers are human.
Research shows that ordinary human beings lie a lot — multiple times a day — even when there’s no clear benefit to lying. Generally, humans lie about relatively minor things like “I lost your phone number; that’s why I didn’t call” or “No, really, you don’t look fat.” But humans can also be persuaded to lie about far more important matters, especially if the lie will enhance or protect their reputation or standing in a group.
The natural tendency to lie makes quota systems and financial incentives that reward the police for the sheer numbers of people stopped, frisked or arrested especially dangerous. One lie can destroy a life, resulting in the loss of employment, a prison term and relegation to permanent second-class status. The fact that our legal system has become so tolerant of police lying indicates how corrupted our criminal justice system has become by declarations of war, “get tough” mantras, and a seemingly insatiable appetite for locking up and locking out the poorest and darkest among us.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/12/02/the-worst-kept-secret-cops-lie.aspx
This was shared by Joe via CopBlock.org’s ‘submit tab.’
↧
California Has Custodial Limits for Infractions
OFF THE WIRE
By TIM HULL
By TIM HULL
(CN) - Siding with a man who says his trespassing arrest got him strip-searched, the 9th Circuit explained Wednesday when police can take suspects downtown.
The case began in 2000, when San Francisco police officers John Conefrey and David Goff arrested Erris Edgerly at the Martin Luther King/Marcus Garvey Housing Cooperative.
Edgerly, who was not a resident of the housing project, told the cops that he was just "hanging out" in a fenced-in playground that bore several "No Trespassing" signs.
He says the officers searched him and then took him to the station for a strip-search, but the police deny that the strip-search ever occurred. Failing to find anything illegal on Edgerly, they cited him and let him go. He was not prosecuted for trespassing or for any other offense.
Edgerly later sued Goff, Conefrey and their supervisor, along with the city and county of San Francisco, alleging illegal search under the Fourth Amendment, state-level false arrest and various other claims.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco sided with the defendants on the false-arrest claim, finding that the officers had had probable cause.
A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit reversed in 2010, citing the general prohibition in California against custodial arrests for minor infractions. Noting that the law provides only a few exceptions, the panel said probable cause here did not authorize the officers to placed Edgerly in custody.
The panel also found that a strip search, if proven, would have violated Edgerly's constitutional rights.
On remand, the defense came up with a new justification for the arrest, claiming it was legal under the state's misdemeanor code. Judge Breyer agreed, finding that the laws governing when a person can be arrested and placed in custody for a misdemeanor also applied in some cases to infractions. Allowed now to consider this new theory, a jury ruled for the defendants on the false arrest claim.
Edgerly took another trip to the 9th Circuit and found sympathy again Wednesday.
The San Francisco-based panel unanimously reversed the jury's ruling, finding no evidence or precedent to back up the defendants' claims.
It noted that Section 853.5(a) provides just three instances when custody is permitted for an infraction in California: if "the arrestee refuses to sign a written promise to appear; the arrestee is unable to produce satisfactory identification; or the arrestee refuses to provide a thumbprint or fingerprint."
Based on "the statute's plain language, the rule against superfluity and other persuasive authority, we hold that Penal Code § 853.5 provides the exclusive grounds for custodial arrest of a person arrested for an infraction," Judge Raymond Fisher wrote for the three-judge panel.
The panel vacated the judgment on the state-law false arrest claim and sent the case once again back to District Court.
"If there are no further issues pertaining to liability on this claim, the District Court should enter judgment in favor of Edgerly and proceed to a trial on damages," Fisher wrote.![]()
The case began in 2000, when San Francisco police officers John Conefrey and David Goff arrested Erris Edgerly at the Martin Luther King/Marcus Garvey Housing Cooperative.
Edgerly, who was not a resident of the housing project, told the cops that he was just "hanging out" in a fenced-in playground that bore several "No Trespassing" signs.
He says the officers searched him and then took him to the station for a strip-search, but the police deny that the strip-search ever occurred. Failing to find anything illegal on Edgerly, they cited him and let him go. He was not prosecuted for trespassing or for any other offense.
Edgerly later sued Goff, Conefrey and their supervisor, along with the city and county of San Francisco, alleging illegal search under the Fourth Amendment, state-level false arrest and various other claims.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco sided with the defendants on the false-arrest claim, finding that the officers had had probable cause.
A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit reversed in 2010, citing the general prohibition in California against custodial arrests for minor infractions. Noting that the law provides only a few exceptions, the panel said probable cause here did not authorize the officers to placed Edgerly in custody.
The panel also found that a strip search, if proven, would have violated Edgerly's constitutional rights.
On remand, the defense came up with a new justification for the arrest, claiming it was legal under the state's misdemeanor code. Judge Breyer agreed, finding that the laws governing when a person can be arrested and placed in custody for a misdemeanor also applied in some cases to infractions. Allowed now to consider this new theory, a jury ruled for the defendants on the false arrest claim.
Edgerly took another trip to the 9th Circuit and found sympathy again Wednesday.
The San Francisco-based panel unanimously reversed the jury's ruling, finding no evidence or precedent to back up the defendants' claims.
It noted that Section 853.5(a) provides just three instances when custody is permitted for an infraction in California: if "the arrestee refuses to sign a written promise to appear; the arrestee is unable to produce satisfactory identification; or the arrestee refuses to provide a thumbprint or fingerprint."
Based on "the statute's plain language, the rule against superfluity and other persuasive authority, we hold that Penal Code § 853.5 provides the exclusive grounds for custodial arrest of a person arrested for an infraction," Judge Raymond Fisher wrote for the three-judge panel.
The panel vacated the judgment on the state-law false arrest claim and sent the case once again back to District Court.
"If there are no further issues pertaining to liability on this claim, the District Court should enter judgment in favor of Edgerly and proceed to a trial on damages," Fisher wrote.
↧
↧
Assertion of Rights..
Assertion of Rights
Officer, Please understand:
I have the right to have an attorney present if you want to question me or conduct any search of my body or personal effects. I am not giving my consent to any type of search.
If I am under arrest, I wish to invoke and exercise my Miranda Rights. I would like to speak to an attorney now. I do not want my personal property impounded, nor do I consent to any impounment. I request the opportunity to secure my personal effects.
If I am not under arrest, please tell me immediately so that I may leave.
If you are stopped for questioning:
1. It's not a crime to refuse to answer questions, but refusing to answer can make the police suspicious about you. You cannot be arrested for merely refusing to identify yourself on the street.
2. Police may "pat down" your clothing if they suspect a concealed weapon. Don't physically resist, but make it clear you don't consent to further search.
3. Ask if you are under arrest. If you are, you have the right to know why.
4. Don't badmouth the police officer or run away, even if you beleive what is happening is unreasonable. That could lead to your arrest.
2. Police may "pat down" your clothing if they suspect a concealed weapon. Don't physically resist, but make it clear you don't consent to further search.
3. Ask if you are under arrest. If you are, you have the right to know why.
4. Don't badmouth the police officer or run away, even if you beleive what is happening is unreasonable. That could lead to your arrest.
If you are stopped in your car:
1. Upon request, show them your driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance. In certain cases, our car can be searched without a warrant as long as the police have probable cause. To protect yourself later, you should make it clear that you do not consent to a search. It is not lawful for police to arrest you simply for refusing to consent to a search.
2. If you are given a ticket, you should sign it, otherwise you could be arrested. You can always fight the case in court later. If you are suspected of drunk driving (DWI) and refuse to take a blood, urine, or breath test, your driver's license may be suspended.
2. If you are given a ticket, you should sign it, otherwise you could be arrested. You can always fight the case in court later. If you are suspected of drunk driving (DWI) and refuse to take a blood, urine, or breath test, your driver's license may be suspended.
While there are a lot of good LEOs out there just trying to do a hard job, there is no way to tell the good ones from the bad. For your own protection, consider what you read here and know your rights.What the Police preferred you didn't know
Have you ever heard of the old saying "ignorance of the law is no excuse?" Basically that's how police officers and some judges feel about your constitutional rights. What you don't know and never were taught in school could hurt you!
Police officers are generally depicted as public servants, but they can be your worst enemy when they count on people like you not being knowledgeable of their constitutional rights. Just because you or your children didn't know they had rights under the constitution and gave up those rights by talking to a police officer or a federal agent without an attorney could cost you dearly. This includes even a casual conversation that could happen on a traffic stop or on a sidewalk
Educate your kids. Minors have Rights!
What To Do If A Police Officer Stops You
To stop you a police officer must have a specific reason to suspect your involvement in a specific crime and should be able to tell you the reason. This is known as reasonable suspicion. Most times you are probably getting pulled over for a traffic violation such as speeding or maybe a tail light is out. Although the stop may seem wrong or unfair, the police believe they have a reason to stop you
Your Rights During a Police Encounter. Rules you should know to protect yourself from the police:
Rule #1 - Never talk to a police officer. Keep your mouth shut! (You never have to answer any questions a police officer may ask, except for your name, address and date of birth.)
Rule #2 - Never talk to a police officer. Keep your mouth shut! (How can you be charged with something if you haven't said anything?) Remember anything you say or do can be used against you.
Rule #3 - "Am I Free to Go?" As soon as a police officer ask you a question, ask the police officer, "Am I Free to Go?" If you are detained or arrested by a police officer, tell them that you are going to remain silent and that you would like to see a lawyer.
Rule #4 - Safety. Never bad-mouth a police officer. Stay calm and in control of your words, body language and your emotions. Always keep your hands where the police officer can see them. Don't run away and never touch a police officer!
Rule #5 - Refuse to Consent to Searches. Just say NO to searches! Remember if the police didn't need your permission, they wouldn't be asking you. Never give permission to a police officer to search you, your car or your home. If a police officer does search you, don't resist!
Rule #6 - Ask for a Supervisor. If all else fails and you feel the police officer is abusing your rights, ask him to call his "supervisor" to your location.
Traffic Stops
You usually will be required to show the usual documentation, such as your driver's license, registration and proof of insurance. You don't have to open your window more than a crack to hand it out.
On traffic stops the police usually will ask you "personal" questions such as, where are you going, where have you been, who did you see, how long did you visit, ect. At that point it's the perfect time to exercise your RIGHTS by asking the police officer, "AM I FREE TO GO?" There is NO legal requirement that citizens provide information about their comings and goings to police officers! Another words it's none of the police officers damn business!If you are ordered out of your car, lock the door behind you.
Remember that the officer is not trying to be your buddy and become a new friend, they are on a "fishing expedition" to find something against you! They have nothing criminal on you, so they're looking for anything while they have you pulled over.
A good time to ask "AM I FREE TO GO," is after the cop has given you a "warning" or a "ticket" and you have signed it. Once you have signed that ticket the traffic stop is legally over with, so says the Supreme Court. Now if you want to stand around and shoot the breeze with the officer or answer his questions, that is up to you. Just remember you don't have to! After you sign the ticket ask, "AM I FREE TO GO?"
Anything You Say Can And Will Be Used Against You!
Staying silent will not hurt you. Do not let the police persuade you to talk. The officer may not like this and may challenge you with words like, "If you have nothing to hide, why won't you speak to me?" Just like the first question, you do not have to answer this one either. They may tell you that staying quiet will make things worse for you or that they'll go easy on you if you talk but this is not true!
You have every right NOT to talk to a police officer, and you shouldn't speak to them unless you have first consulted with a lawyer who has advised you differently. Some cops are worse than others and some of them may treat you differently if they think you know your rights. The police depend on fear and intimidation to get what they want.
If you run into a really bad cop, talking back to him and standing up for your rights might get you beaten up or killed, so be careful about the realistic limits of the law and of your rights as an American. Cops are perhaps the most dangerous members of our society, so be careful when you talk to them.
The Federal Supreme Court has ruled that as long as the police do not force an individual to do something, the individual is acting voluntarily, even if a normal person would feel very intimidated and would not reasonably feel they could say no. See (Florida v. Bostick, 1991)If you do what a policeman tells you to do before you are arrested, you are 'voluntarily' complying with their 'requests'.
Be as nice as possible, but stand firm on your rights! Read the Fourth & Fifth Amendment
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS CANNOT BE SUSPENDED -- EVEN DURING A STATE OF EMERGENCY OR WARTIME !
Car Searches And Body Searches
Remember they wouldn't ask you if they didn't need your permission!
A police officers swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, not to violate your rights against unreasonable search and seizure. If a cop ask or tries to search you, your home or your car, say repeatedly "I DON'T CONSENT TO THIS SEARCH !"
"The right to be free from unreasonable searches is one of our most precious First Liberties"
You DON'T have to give consent to a law enforcement officer to search your vehicle or home. While you DON'T have to consent, bear in mind that the expectation of privacy in a car is less than the expectation of privacy in your home. Based in part on the lessened expectation of privacy in a car, law enforcement officers are permitted to conduct a warrantless search of a car if the officer has probable cause. "In most cases the police officer will lie and make up a probable cause."
Just for being stopped for a traffic violation should not allow the officer to search your car; however, if the officer saw you throw an empty beer can out the window, that may be sufficient probable cause to search your car. If the officer "thinks" he smells marijuana as he approaches the car, he then may use that as probable cause to search you car.
Police Pat Downs...
The law allows police to pat down your outer clothing for the protection of the officer if you're being detained. The officer may only pat your outer clothing to see if you have any weapons. If the police feel something that could be a weapon, then the police can go into your pockets and search. Otherwise a police officer CAN'T go through your pockets or make you empty your pockets unless you are under arrest.
To protect yourself, make it clear that you "don't consent to a search" and ask why they are searching you. Remember the reason they give you. If they claim to have a warrant, ask to see it. Whether or not they have a warrant, you can protect your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS by making it clear that you do not consent to a search.
If the Police Knock at Your Home-You Don't Have to Open the Door!
If the police knock and ask to enter your home, you DON'T have to open the door unless they have a warrant signed by a judge. Such an invitation not only gives the police officer the opportunity to look around for clues to your lifestyle, friends, reading material, etc; but also tends to prolong the conversation.
There is no law that says you have to open your door to a police officer. Don't open your door with the chain-lock on either, the police can shove their way in. Police are known to kick in doors. Simply shout "I HAVE NOTHING TO SAY!"
If the police do have a search warrant, ask to see it and make sure that it is signed, has the correct date, correct address, and apartment number, ect.
* In some emergency situations (like when a person is screaming for help inside, or when the police are chasing someone) officers are allowed to enter and search your home without a warrant.
NEVER agree to go to the police station for questioning. Simply say, "I HAVE NOTHING TO SAY."
If a Police Officer Stops You On The Sidewalk...
You are perfectly within your rights to say to the officer who asks to speak with you, "Officer I do not want speak with you, good-bye." At this point you should be free to leave the officer's presence. The officer may not like this and may challenge you with words like, "If you have nothing to hide, why won't you speak to me?" Just like the first question, you do not have to answer this question either.
There is NO law that says you must tell a police officer where you are going or where you have been. So keep your mouth shut and say nothing!
The next step the police officer might take is to ask for identification. If you have identification on you, tell the officer where it is and ask permission to reach for it. Some states do not require you to show identification, be aware of the laws in your state.
Probable Cause...
A police officer has no right to detain you unless there exists reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime or traffic violation. However a police officer is always allowed to initiate a voluntary conversation with you.
Sometimes it is unclear whether or not a person is detained. If you are in doubt, you should ask the police officer if you are in "Am I Free to Leave." Now if the police officer doesn't have "probable cause", and you refuse him to search your car, he might bring in a drug dog. At this point since the officer has no probable cause, he may be illegally detaining you.
Under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, police may engage in "reasonable" searches and seizures. To prove that a search is "reasonable," the police must generally show that it is more likely than not that a crime has occurred, and that if a search is conducted it is probable that they will find either stolen goods or evidence of the crime. This is called "probable cause."
Police may use first hand information, or tips from an "informant" to justify the need to search your property. If an informant's information is used, the police must prove that the information is reliable under the circumstances.
Here is a case where the police used an "informant's" word and the police officers took it upon themselves to kick in a door of a home at 1:30 in the morning without obtaining a search warrant. The aftermath was six police officers firing over 30 shots and shooting an innocent man 9 times in the back as he laid on the ground. Read Story
What You Don't Know Could Change Your Life Forever...
You might be wondering, don't police tell me that I have the right not to be searched? After all when a suspect is arrested, he is told before interrogation takes place that he has the right to remain silent.
The Supreme Court has said NO. According to the Court, the fact that a person might not know he has the right to refuse a search is merely one factor in the determination of whether his consent is voluntary. The Court has reasoned that the police do not need to give warnings -- to eliminate any doubt about the suspect's knowledge of her rights -- because warnings might detract from the informality of an otherwise "friendly" interaction between "civilians and the police." So you might ask yourself, is someone that would use something against you really a "friend?"
The Supreme Court has explained that "the community has a real interest in encouraging consent, for the resulting search may yield necessary evidence for the solution and prosecution of crime...." Furthermore, the Court has concluded, it would be "thoroughly impractical" to require an effective warning about the right to refuse.
Can We Trust the Cops?
Are police officers allowed to lie to you? Yes the Supreme Court has ruled that a police officer can lie to a citizen while questioning them. Police officers are very good at lying, twisting words and they are trained to be manipulative. Police officers and other law enforcement agents are very skilled at getting information from people. So don't try to out smart the cop or try being a smooth talker because you will loose! If you can keep your mouth shut, you might just come out ahead more then you expected.
The federal government made a law that says citizens can't lie to federal agents. They can lie to us, but we can't lie to them. Makes perfect since don't it? The best thing you can do is ask for a lawyer and keep your mouth shut. How can you be charged with something if you haven't said anything?
Although police officers may seem nice and pretend to be on your side, they are likely to be intent on learning about the habits, opinions, and affiliations of people not suspected of wrongdoing, with the end goal of stopping political activity with which the government disagrees. Don't try to answer the police officers questions, or try to "educate them" about your cause, it can be very dangerous! You can never tell how a seemingly harmless bit of information that you give the police officer might be used and misconstrued to hurt you or someone else. And keep in mind that lying to a federal agent is a crime.
Officers may promise shorter sentences and other deals for statements or confessions. The police cannot legally make deals with people they arrest. The only person who can make a deal that can be enforced is the prosecutor, and he should not talk with you without a lawyer present who represents you.
Teach your children that the cops are not always their friends, and the police officer must contact a parent for permission to ask your child any questions. Remember that the police are trained to put you at ease and to get you to trust them. Their job is to find, arrest and help convict a suspect. And that suspect is you!
Lies That The Police Use To Get You To Talk...
There are many ways the police will try to trick you into talking. Its always safest just to say the Magic Words: I'm going to remain silent and I want a lawyer.
The following are common lie's the police use when they're trying to get you to talk:
* "You will have to stay here and answer my questions" or "You're not leaving until I find out what I want."
* "I have evidence on you. Tell me what I want to know or else." (They can fabricate ''fake'' evidence to convince you to tell them what they want to know.)
* "You're not a suspect. Were simply investigating here. Just help us understand what happened and then you can go."
* "If you don't answer my questions, I won't have any choice but to take you to jail."
* "If you don't answer these questions, you'll be charged with resisting arrest."
If The Police Arrest You...
If you are arrested, the police can search you and the area close by. If you are in a building, "close by" usually means just the room you are in. If during a search or an arrest the police take anything from you, they must give you a receipt for every item seized, including your wallet and its contents, clothes, and any packages you were carrying when arrested.
"I DON'T WANT TO TALK UNTIL MY LAWYER IS PRESENT"
* Even if your rights weren't read, refuse to talk until your lawyer/public defender arrives.
* If your arrested and can not afford an attorney, you have the right to a public defender. If you get a public defender always make it clear that the public defender is not representing you, but merely is serving as your counsel.
* Do not talk to the inmates in jail about your case.
* Within a reasonable time after your arrest, or booking, you have the right to make a local phone call: to a lawyer, bail bondsman, a relative or any other person. The police may not listen to the call to the lawyer.
* If you're on probation or parole, tell your P.O. you've been arrested, but nothing else.
* You may be released with or without bail following the booking. If not, you have the right to go into court and see a judge the next court day after your arrest. Demand this RIGHT! When you appear before the judge, ask for an attorney. An attorney has a better chance at convincing a judge to let you out on a lower bail then you could.
Have you ever heard of the old saying "ignorance of the law is no excuse?" Basically that's how police officers and some judges feel about your constitutional rights. What you don't know and never were taught in school could hurt you!
Police officers are generally depicted as public servants, but they can be your worst enemy when they count on people like you not being knowledgeable of their constitutional rights. Just because you or your children didn't know they had rights under the constitution and gave up those rights by talking to a police officer or a federal agent without an attorney could cost you dearly. This includes even a casual conversation that could happen on a traffic stop or on a sidewalk
Educate your kids. Minors have Rights!
What To Do If A Police Officer Stops You
To stop you a police officer must have a specific reason to suspect your involvement in a specific crime and should be able to tell you the reason. This is known as reasonable suspicion. Most times you are probably getting pulled over for a traffic violation such as speeding or maybe a tail light is out. Although the stop may seem wrong or unfair, the police believe they have a reason to stop you
Your Rights During a Police Encounter. Rules you should know to protect yourself from the police:
Rule #1 - Never talk to a police officer. Keep your mouth shut! (You never have to answer any questions a police officer may ask, except for your name, address and date of birth.)
Rule #2 - Never talk to a police officer. Keep your mouth shut! (How can you be charged with something if you haven't said anything?) Remember anything you say or do can be used against you.
Rule #3 - "Am I Free to Go?" As soon as a police officer ask you a question, ask the police officer, "Am I Free to Go?" If you are detained or arrested by a police officer, tell them that you are going to remain silent and that you would like to see a lawyer.
Rule #4 - Safety. Never bad-mouth a police officer. Stay calm and in control of your words, body language and your emotions. Always keep your hands where the police officer can see them. Don't run away and never touch a police officer!
Rule #5 - Refuse to Consent to Searches. Just say NO to searches! Remember if the police didn't need your permission, they wouldn't be asking you. Never give permission to a police officer to search you, your car or your home. If a police officer does search you, don't resist!
Rule #6 - Ask for a Supervisor. If all else fails and you feel the police officer is abusing your rights, ask him to call his "supervisor" to your location.
Traffic Stops
You usually will be required to show the usual documentation, such as your driver's license, registration and proof of insurance. You don't have to open your window more than a crack to hand it out.
On traffic stops the police usually will ask you "personal" questions such as, where are you going, where have you been, who did you see, how long did you visit, ect. At that point it's the perfect time to exercise your RIGHTS by asking the police officer, "AM I FREE TO GO?" There is NO legal requirement that citizens provide information about their comings and goings to police officers! Another words it's none of the police officers damn business!If you are ordered out of your car, lock the door behind you.
Remember that the officer is not trying to be your buddy and become a new friend, they are on a "fishing expedition" to find something against you! They have nothing criminal on you, so they're looking for anything while they have you pulled over.
A good time to ask "AM I FREE TO GO," is after the cop has given you a "warning" or a "ticket" and you have signed it. Once you have signed that ticket the traffic stop is legally over with, so says the Supreme Court. Now if you want to stand around and shoot the breeze with the officer or answer his questions, that is up to you. Just remember you don't have to! After you sign the ticket ask, "AM I FREE TO GO?"
Anything You Say Can And Will Be Used Against You!
Staying silent will not hurt you. Do not let the police persuade you to talk. The officer may not like this and may challenge you with words like, "If you have nothing to hide, why won't you speak to me?" Just like the first question, you do not have to answer this one either. They may tell you that staying quiet will make things worse for you or that they'll go easy on you if you talk but this is not true!
You have every right NOT to talk to a police officer, and you shouldn't speak to them unless you have first consulted with a lawyer who has advised you differently. Some cops are worse than others and some of them may treat you differently if they think you know your rights. The police depend on fear and intimidation to get what they want.
If you run into a really bad cop, talking back to him and standing up for your rights might get you beaten up or killed, so be careful about the realistic limits of the law and of your rights as an American. Cops are perhaps the most dangerous members of our society, so be careful when you talk to them.
The Federal Supreme Court has ruled that as long as the police do not force an individual to do something, the individual is acting voluntarily, even if a normal person would feel very intimidated and would not reasonably feel they could say no. See (Florida v. Bostick, 1991)If you do what a policeman tells you to do before you are arrested, you are 'voluntarily' complying with their 'requests'.
Be as nice as possible, but stand firm on your rights! Read the Fourth & Fifth Amendment
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS CANNOT BE SUSPENDED -- EVEN DURING A STATE OF EMERGENCY OR WARTIME !
Car Searches And Body Searches
Remember they wouldn't ask you if they didn't need your permission!
A police officers swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, not to violate your rights against unreasonable search and seizure. If a cop ask or tries to search you, your home or your car, say repeatedly "I DON'T CONSENT TO THIS SEARCH !"
"The right to be free from unreasonable searches is one of our most precious First Liberties"
You DON'T have to give consent to a law enforcement officer to search your vehicle or home. While you DON'T have to consent, bear in mind that the expectation of privacy in a car is less than the expectation of privacy in your home. Based in part on the lessened expectation of privacy in a car, law enforcement officers are permitted to conduct a warrantless search of a car if the officer has probable cause. "In most cases the police officer will lie and make up a probable cause."
Just for being stopped for a traffic violation should not allow the officer to search your car; however, if the officer saw you throw an empty beer can out the window, that may be sufficient probable cause to search your car. If the officer "thinks" he smells marijuana as he approaches the car, he then may use that as probable cause to search you car.
Police Pat Downs...
The law allows police to pat down your outer clothing for the protection of the officer if you're being detained. The officer may only pat your outer clothing to see if you have any weapons. If the police feel something that could be a weapon, then the police can go into your pockets and search. Otherwise a police officer CAN'T go through your pockets or make you empty your pockets unless you are under arrest.
To protect yourself, make it clear that you "don't consent to a search" and ask why they are searching you. Remember the reason they give you. If they claim to have a warrant, ask to see it. Whether or not they have a warrant, you can protect your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS by making it clear that you do not consent to a search.
If the Police Knock at Your Home-You Don't Have to Open the Door!
If the police knock and ask to enter your home, you DON'T have to open the door unless they have a warrant signed by a judge. Such an invitation not only gives the police officer the opportunity to look around for clues to your lifestyle, friends, reading material, etc; but also tends to prolong the conversation.
There is no law that says you have to open your door to a police officer. Don't open your door with the chain-lock on either, the police can shove their way in. Police are known to kick in doors. Simply shout "I HAVE NOTHING TO SAY!"
If the police do have a search warrant, ask to see it and make sure that it is signed, has the correct date, correct address, and apartment number, ect.
* In some emergency situations (like when a person is screaming for help inside, or when the police are chasing someone) officers are allowed to enter and search your home without a warrant.
NEVER agree to go to the police station for questioning. Simply say, "I HAVE NOTHING TO SAY."
If a Police Officer Stops You On The Sidewalk...
You are perfectly within your rights to say to the officer who asks to speak with you, "Officer I do not want speak with you, good-bye." At this point you should be free to leave the officer's presence. The officer may not like this and may challenge you with words like, "If you have nothing to hide, why won't you speak to me?" Just like the first question, you do not have to answer this question either.
There is NO law that says you must tell a police officer where you are going or where you have been. So keep your mouth shut and say nothing!
The next step the police officer might take is to ask for identification. If you have identification on you, tell the officer where it is and ask permission to reach for it. Some states do not require you to show identification, be aware of the laws in your state.
Probable Cause...
A police officer has no right to detain you unless there exists reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime or traffic violation. However a police officer is always allowed to initiate a voluntary conversation with you.
Sometimes it is unclear whether or not a person is detained. If you are in doubt, you should ask the police officer if you are in "Am I Free to Leave." Now if the police officer doesn't have "probable cause", and you refuse him to search your car, he might bring in a drug dog. At this point since the officer has no probable cause, he may be illegally detaining you.
Under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, police may engage in "reasonable" searches and seizures. To prove that a search is "reasonable," the police must generally show that it is more likely than not that a crime has occurred, and that if a search is conducted it is probable that they will find either stolen goods or evidence of the crime. This is called "probable cause."
Police may use first hand information, or tips from an "informant" to justify the need to search your property. If an informant's information is used, the police must prove that the information is reliable under the circumstances.
Here is a case where the police used an "informant's" word and the police officers took it upon themselves to kick in a door of a home at 1:30 in the morning without obtaining a search warrant. The aftermath was six police officers firing over 30 shots and shooting an innocent man 9 times in the back as he laid on the ground. Read Story
What You Don't Know Could Change Your Life Forever...
You might be wondering, don't police tell me that I have the right not to be searched? After all when a suspect is arrested, he is told before interrogation takes place that he has the right to remain silent.
The Supreme Court has said NO. According to the Court, the fact that a person might not know he has the right to refuse a search is merely one factor in the determination of whether his consent is voluntary. The Court has reasoned that the police do not need to give warnings -- to eliminate any doubt about the suspect's knowledge of her rights -- because warnings might detract from the informality of an otherwise "friendly" interaction between "civilians and the police." So you might ask yourself, is someone that would use something against you really a "friend?"
The Supreme Court has explained that "the community has a real interest in encouraging consent, for the resulting search may yield necessary evidence for the solution and prosecution of crime...." Furthermore, the Court has concluded, it would be "thoroughly impractical" to require an effective warning about the right to refuse.
Can We Trust the Cops?
Are police officers allowed to lie to you? Yes the Supreme Court has ruled that a police officer can lie to a citizen while questioning them. Police officers are very good at lying, twisting words and they are trained to be manipulative. Police officers and other law enforcement agents are very skilled at getting information from people. So don't try to out smart the cop or try being a smooth talker because you will loose! If you can keep your mouth shut, you might just come out ahead more then you expected.
The federal government made a law that says citizens can't lie to federal agents. They can lie to us, but we can't lie to them. Makes perfect since don't it? The best thing you can do is ask for a lawyer and keep your mouth shut. How can you be charged with something if you haven't said anything?
Although police officers may seem nice and pretend to be on your side, they are likely to be intent on learning about the habits, opinions, and affiliations of people not suspected of wrongdoing, with the end goal of stopping political activity with which the government disagrees. Don't try to answer the police officers questions, or try to "educate them" about your cause, it can be very dangerous! You can never tell how a seemingly harmless bit of information that you give the police officer might be used and misconstrued to hurt you or someone else. And keep in mind that lying to a federal agent is a crime.
Officers may promise shorter sentences and other deals for statements or confessions. The police cannot legally make deals with people they arrest. The only person who can make a deal that can be enforced is the prosecutor, and he should not talk with you without a lawyer present who represents you.
Teach your children that the cops are not always their friends, and the police officer must contact a parent for permission to ask your child any questions. Remember that the police are trained to put you at ease and to get you to trust them. Their job is to find, arrest and help convict a suspect. And that suspect is you!
Lies That The Police Use To Get You To Talk...
There are many ways the police will try to trick you into talking. Its always safest just to say the Magic Words: I'm going to remain silent and I want a lawyer.
The following are common lie's the police use when they're trying to get you to talk:
* "You will have to stay here and answer my questions" or "You're not leaving until I find out what I want."
* "I have evidence on you. Tell me what I want to know or else." (They can fabricate ''fake'' evidence to convince you to tell them what they want to know.)
* "You're not a suspect. Were simply investigating here. Just help us understand what happened and then you can go."
* "If you don't answer my questions, I won't have any choice but to take you to jail."
* "If you don't answer these questions, you'll be charged with resisting arrest."
If The Police Arrest You...
If you are arrested, the police can search you and the area close by. If you are in a building, "close by" usually means just the room you are in. If during a search or an arrest the police take anything from you, they must give you a receipt for every item seized, including your wallet and its contents, clothes, and any packages you were carrying when arrested.
"I DON'T WANT TO TALK UNTIL MY LAWYER IS PRESENT"
* Even if your rights weren't read, refuse to talk until your lawyer/public defender arrives.
* If your arrested and can not afford an attorney, you have the right to a public defender. If you get a public defender always make it clear that the public defender is not representing you, but merely is serving as your counsel.
* Do not talk to the inmates in jail about your case.
* Within a reasonable time after your arrest, or booking, you have the right to make a local phone call: to a lawyer, bail bondsman, a relative or any other person. The police may not listen to the call to the lawyer.
* If you're on probation or parole, tell your P.O. you've been arrested, but nothing else.
* You may be released with or without bail following the booking. If not, you have the right to go into court and see a judge the next court day after your arrest. Demand this RIGHT! When you appear before the judge, ask for an attorney. An attorney has a better chance at convincing a judge to let you out on a lower bail then you could.
↧
Hang Around
The hang around period is just a honeymoon. You are not a member or representative of the club and neither you or the club has a claim on each other. If something happens to you, the club is not expected to back you up. It is a time when you size up the club and ask yourself if they are what you want. It is also a time when they are sizing you up and asking themselves if you are what they want. It's a gentleman's agreement at this point. There is no dishonor for either of you if you back away from the deal. In making your decision, you should remember that as a prospect in that club, life will be a lot harder than it is in the hang around phase. Until you are patched, you will be sitting out Church meetings as an outsider and not permitted to enter until you get patched in.
While nothing is perfect, there is really only one rule if you decide to back away. There will be conditions on your doing it honorably. That could range from just asking to be let loose to a request that you meet with each patch holder individually and ask their blessing on your decision. Even in the case of an honorable decision, there can be some hard feelings. For instance, you can bet your bottom dollar that the patch holders in that club think it is the second best thing in life to butter and pussy, so a decision on your part to move on could result in some hurt feelings (especially if they thought you were going to make a good prospect). However, if you do it right, and move to another club, those feelings will usually subside with time.
If you do move on, you are OUT. That means that none of them are going to call you to go out for a beer or to hang around with them anymore. When you're in, you're in and when you're out, . . . you're OUT.
Motorcycle Clubs operate on the honor system and you "always dance with the one who brung ya". It is a huge act of dishonor to be doing a hang around with more than one club.
Underneath all of this, I am seeing something which I had to recognize in myself in the beginning of my movement towards a club. It is a common thing that happens to lots of people. In the beginning you feel the exhiliration of being around those guys, but at a certain point, your life begins to get very boxed in. You see their dedication to each other as brothers and realize that your world is about to go from one where you know many people, to one where there are only ten guys who you will spend the rest of your days with. That was for me a very scary moment and I spent a lot of nights questioning myself about what I was doing. Well, to make a long story short, I backed away from that club (got all the brother's permission, etc., ) but it wasn't long before I began to miss what I'd given up. Like the guy who gave up his wife and marriage just because he got laid one night by some bimbo and now is thinking "the grass is greener on the other side of the hill". Motorcycle clubs are a family thing. Your brothers become your brothers because you have all learned to love each other through thick and thin. You know each other's strengths and weaknesses and love each other even when you are fighting. I don't have any trouble telling one of my brothers "I love you", but you will never hear me say those words to my real life blood brothers, because all I share with them is some DNA blood plasma. Brotherhood is based upon a million little moments that run the gamut from life threatening situations, sitting on the side of the road at midnight broke down in the middle of noplace, and watching each other's kids grow up. Lots of joy and lots of tears make up the brotherhood.
It took me a long time to realize why MC chapters are so small. It is because when you get to 14 + guys in a chapter, it begins breaking down into clicks. So you see, while I am in very large club and have lots of brothers, I have only 10 or 15 who I am really tight with.
If you are contemplating not joining because you fear your world will get too small, please remember that what ever club you go to, it will be the same thing, and if you persevere, it will either get better or you will just wake up someday and realize you are not MC material.
Thank you for this insight Fish. 22
While nothing is perfect, there is really only one rule if you decide to back away. There will be conditions on your doing it honorably. That could range from just asking to be let loose to a request that you meet with each patch holder individually and ask their blessing on your decision. Even in the case of an honorable decision, there can be some hard feelings. For instance, you can bet your bottom dollar that the patch holders in that club think it is the second best thing in life to butter and pussy, so a decision on your part to move on could result in some hurt feelings (especially if they thought you were going to make a good prospect). However, if you do it right, and move to another club, those feelings will usually subside with time.
If you do move on, you are OUT. That means that none of them are going to call you to go out for a beer or to hang around with them anymore. When you're in, you're in and when you're out, . . . you're OUT.
Motorcycle Clubs operate on the honor system and you "always dance with the one who brung ya". It is a huge act of dishonor to be doing a hang around with more than one club.
Underneath all of this, I am seeing something which I had to recognize in myself in the beginning of my movement towards a club. It is a common thing that happens to lots of people. In the beginning you feel the exhiliration of being around those guys, but at a certain point, your life begins to get very boxed in. You see their dedication to each other as brothers and realize that your world is about to go from one where you know many people, to one where there are only ten guys who you will spend the rest of your days with. That was for me a very scary moment and I spent a lot of nights questioning myself about what I was doing. Well, to make a long story short, I backed away from that club (got all the brother's permission, etc., ) but it wasn't long before I began to miss what I'd given up. Like the guy who gave up his wife and marriage just because he got laid one night by some bimbo and now is thinking "the grass is greener on the other side of the hill". Motorcycle clubs are a family thing. Your brothers become your brothers because you have all learned to love each other through thick and thin. You know each other's strengths and weaknesses and love each other even when you are fighting. I don't have any trouble telling one of my brothers "I love you", but you will never hear me say those words to my real life blood brothers, because all I share with them is some DNA blood plasma. Brotherhood is based upon a million little moments that run the gamut from life threatening situations, sitting on the side of the road at midnight broke down in the middle of noplace, and watching each other's kids grow up. Lots of joy and lots of tears make up the brotherhood.
It took me a long time to realize why MC chapters are so small. It is because when you get to 14 + guys in a chapter, it begins breaking down into clicks. So you see, while I am in very large club and have lots of brothers, I have only 10 or 15 who I am really tight with.
If you are contemplating not joining because you fear your world will get too small, please remember that what ever club you go to, it will be the same thing, and if you persevere, it will either get better or you will just wake up someday and realize you are not MC material.
Thank you for this insight Fish. 22
↧
Prospect
The prospect./probate
For a prospect its simple, Keep your mouth shut, never discuss club business with anyone, and the reality is a prospect is the bottom of the chain. To be really good, learn all members names, Easy, learn their occupations, hobbies, etc, A club is a brotherhood so be a brother, also make sure you are available for all events, all prospects are expected to do as they are told or instructed, that's a given. IF a officer needs his back watched at a outing or a run, or a brother is broke down at 2 am, just be there. The more you do the easier it is to become a member. You are being watched and it will be noticed, always remember as a prospect you have no rank or privileges, and upon introducing yourself to any patch holder. You must only introduce yourself as a prospect of the ****** Motorcycle club, and keep all other conversation to a minimum, its time to start thinking of a road name. We will pick a name and it will be who you are when in club attire. The road name will be short and describe your personalityor something that happens to you ar that you do that the Patch Holders think would be an appropriate road name. If your probate time gets extended it means you have screwed up, and you should talk to your sponsor. Prospecting should not be looked at as a necessary evil, but a labour of love. All the horrific shit you,ve heard about initianation or rite of passage ritual from prospect to member is true. Good luck.
PS, Never leave a patch holder anyplace, never ever, especially out of town always stay to the end. Unless you have a extreme reason, like your family has a emergency. Parents or children. ( Family ) remember all PH are brothers. Respect is the biggest lesson some guys have to learn..
Ringo.
Acquitted M/C
Canada
↧