What Are My Rights When I'm Pulled Over By a Cop?

May 2, 2013, 12:59 am

≫ Next: Bill Is Introduced To Prohibit Federal Funding Of Motorcycle Only Checkpoints, BOUT` TIME...

≪ Previous: USA - Know Your Rights: A Primer

OFF THE WIRE
By Micah McDunnigan,
eHow Contributor
No one likes seeing flashing blue and red lights in his rear view mirror. While the police officer behind you may simply be rushing to the site of some other crime, it could also mean you might have committed a driving infraction, and you may end up paying a ticket. When you are pulled over by a cop, be mindful of your legal rights to avoid incriminating yourself.

You have the right to ask for the officer to identify himself and show his badge and identification. This information is important for two reasons: first, you want to ensure that you aren't about to become the victim of a criminal impersonating a police officer. Second, you will need this information if you feel that you were ill treated by the officer and want to file a complaint.

When you are pulled over, be very careful of what you say. Besides providing your name, drivers license, vehicle registration and proof of insurance, you do not have to answer questions the officer directs at you. You are allowed to answer questions questions like "Do you know why I pulled you over" or "Do you know how fast you were going" with a simple "yes" or "no." You can also choose not to give an answer. Silence is not an admission of guilt, but the officer can use anything you say to write a ticket.

If you are pulled over by the police, they do not automatically have the right to search your car. However, if the officers have probable cause then they can. Probable cause can be established by the officers seeing something in your car through the windows, or by your actions. For example, if they see you throwing something out of your car as you are pulling over or if your actions create suspicion after they pull you over.

When a police officer gives you a ticket for a driving infraction, it is not a summary judgment. Rather, the citation is a charge from the officer to which you can either plead "no-contest" and pay or challenge in court. As this is the case, you do not have to admit anything to the officer when you are pulled over. If he informs you that you were speeding, you can say "I see" or some other non-committal comment. You only have to acknowledge that you are being given a ticket, not that you deserve it.

↧

Bill Is Introduced To Prohibit Federal Funding Of Motorcycle Only Checkpoints, BOUT` TIME...

May 2, 2013, 12:59 am

≫ Next: USA - "Do any of you know what CISPA means? Do any of u care?

≪ Previous: What Are My Rights When I'm Pulled Over By a Cop?

OFF THE WIRE
You may want to comment on Cyril Huze site in reference to bill to prohibit federal funding of motorcycle only checkpoints

http://cyrilhuzeblog.com/2013/04/17/bill-is-introduced-to-prohibit-federal-funding-of-motorcycle-only-checkpoints/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cyrilhuzeblog+%28Cyril+Huze+Post%29

The Motorcycle Riders Foundation (MRF) reports that Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner from Wisconsin, announced Monday, April 15th that he will file a bill to prohibit the federal funding of motorcycle only roadside checkpoints.
Sensenbrenner had this to say in a “Dear Colleague” that is circulating in the House of Representatives. “In the 112th Congress, I introduced H.R. 904, a bill to prohibit the Department of Transportation (DOT) from providing funds to state and local authorities for the purpose of creating motorcycle only checkpoints. Section 1 of the Stop Motorcycle Checkpoint Funding Act contains the same language as H.R. 904. However, this bill also contains language to force the DOT to focus motorcycle safety efforts on crash prevention programs, not national helmet mandates.”
The bill will officially be introduced on May 6, 2013 and get its official bill number then. It’s important to contact your sitting member of the House of Representatives and ask them to be an original cosponsor of this important legislation. Ask them to contact Congressman James Sensenbrenner and lend their support. An “Original Cosponsor” is someone who supports the bill before it is made public and is a way to strongly support a new bill. The more original cosponsors the better. You can contact the US Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121. The entire text of the “Dear Colleague” letter from F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., member of Congress, is reproduced after the jump.
STOP MOTORCYCLE CHECKPOINT FUNDING
Dear Colleague,
On May 6, I will introduce a bill to protect motorcyclists’ rights and promote crash prevention as the most effective use of taxpayer money to save motorcyclists’ lives. I ask for your support as an original cosponsor of the Stop Motorcycle Checkpoint Funding Act.
In the 112th Congress, I introduced H.R. 904, a bill to prohibit the Department of Transportation (DOT) from providing funds to state and local authorities for the purpose of creating motorcycle only checkpoints.
Section 1 of the Stop Motorcycle Checkpoint Funding Act contains the same language as H.R. 904. However, this bill also contains language to force the DOT to focus motorcycle safety efforts on crash prevention programs, not national helmet mandates.
Section 3 of the Stop Motorcycle Checkpoint Funding Act amends Section 153 of Title 23 USC by removing “motorcycle helmets” from the title. This change will prohibit the DOT from providing grants to a State to enforce helmet laws. This will stop the DOT from manipulating State policies with federal money.
Section 4 of this bill amends Section 402 of Title 23 USC. Current law states that highway safety plans must prevent accidents and reduce injuries. The Stop Motorcycle Checkpoint Funding Act would require highway safety plans to include programs that prevent accidents in order to reduce injuries and deaths resulting from accidents involving motor vehicles and motorcycles. This small change will make a significant impact because it highlights that preventing accidents is the best way to save motorcyclists’ lives.
Please contact Todd Washam (todd.washam@mail.house.gov to cosponsor this bill. I look forward to your support on this important issue.
Sincerely,
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Member Of Congress.

A BILL

To stop motorcycle checkpoint funding, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.This Act may be cited as the ''Stop Motorcycle Checkpoint Funding Act''.

SEC. 2. GRANT RESTRICTION.The Secretary of Transportation may not provide a grant or any funds to a State, county, town, or township, Indian tribe, municipal or other local government to be used for any program to check helmet usage or create checkpoints for an operator of motorcycle or passenger on a motorcycle.

SEC. 3. MOTORCYCLE SAFETY.Section 153 of title 23, United States Code, is amended-
(1) in the section heading by striking ''and motorcycle helmets'';(2) in subsection (a) by striking ''such fiscal year-'' and everything that follows through ''(2) a law'' and inserting ''such fiscal year a law'';(3) in subsection (b) by striking ''State laws'' each place it appears and inserting ''a State law'';(4) in subsection (f) by amending paragraphs(2) and (3) to read as follows:

''(2) SECOND-YEAR GRANTS.-A State is eligible for a grant under this section in a fiscal year succeeding the first fiscal year in which a State receives a grant under this section only if the State in the preceding fiscal year had in effect at all times a State law described in subsection (a) and achieved a rate of compliance with such law of not less than 50 percent. ''(3) THIRD-YEAR GRANTS.-A State is eligible for a grant under this section in a fiscal year succeeding the second fiscal year in which a State receives a grant under this section only if the State in the preceding fiscal year had in effect at all times a State law described in subsection (a) and achieved a rate of compliance with such law of not less than 70 percent.''

SEC. 4. HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS.Section 402(a)(2)(A) of title 23, United States Code, is amended by striking clause(iv) and inserting the following:

''(iv) to prevent accidents in order to reduce injuries and deaths resulting from accidents involving motor vehicles and motorcycles;''.
COMMENT

If the feds do not fund these types of activities most likely the states do not spend their own money to try and implement and enforce them. We need more friends like Representative Sensenbrenner.
If you read this legislation it goes a little further in that it prohibits DOT from continuing its national mandatory helmet campaign. Bikers of america you had better wake up. NHTSA was prohibited from lobbying states on madatory helmet laws so they pushed it over to DOT and the Center for Desease Control and the United Nations.
These days everyone wants to be in a club, riding or MC. You had better rethink you affilation attitude and think about the organizations that protect your rights both at the national and state levels. Sit on your ass and the feds will hand it to you.
Hildy

↧

USA - "Do any of you know what CISPA means? Do any of u care?

May 2, 2013, 12:59 am

≫ Next: USA - NDAA: Open Season for the Police State, How the New Indefinite Detention Provisions can be used on Americans

≪ Previous: Bill Is Introduced To Prohibit Federal Funding Of Motorcycle Only Checkpoints, BOUT` TIME...

OFF THE WIRE
Rj wrote: "Do any of you know what CISPA means? Do any of u care? No. To busy with popularity, partying and following what everyone else does, getting caught up in the now. Well your privacy is about to be infringed. Do yourself a favor, Take time, watch this video and learn what is not in the public media. Your rights are disappearing. http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=_EHBWdZBklE&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D_EHBWdZBklE%26feature%3Dyoutu.be"

CISPA: Worse than the Patriot Act | Interview with Michelle Richardson
http://youtu.be/W9PoKVNMAU0

Abby Martin Breaks the Set on CISPA's Return, Disregarding Safety Standards, & Overlooked Tragedies.

EPISODE BREAKDOWN: On this episode of Breaking the Set, Abby Martin talks to Michelle Richardson, Legislative Counsel with the ACLU, about the renewed push for CISPA, and how its implications could be worse than the Patriot Act. Abby then talks to Jacob Remes, Public Affairs and History Professor at SUNY Empire State College, about the recent explosion at the West Fertilizer Company in West, Texas, and the effects of disregarding workplace safety standards. BTS wraps up the show with an update on the Boston Bombings, and a look at some of the most recent tragedies in Iraq and Yemen that have received virtually zero media attention.

↧

USA - NDAA: Open Season for the Police State, How the New Indefinite Detention Provisions can be used on Americans

May 2, 2013, 12:59 am

≫ Next: Officer Safety – Mobile Phones as Weapons, San Diego Police Attack and Arrest Man Video Recording Them, Claiming Phone Could be a Weapon (Updated)

≪ Previous: USA - "Do any of you know what CISPA means? Do any of u care?

OFF THE WIRE

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 7:08 — 6.5MB)

via DownsizeDC
How the New Indefinite Detention Provisions can be used on Americans
Congress just passed, and the President just signed, a bill that gives legal authority to the President to kidnap and perpetually imprison persons, including American citizens, without the benefit of due process.
Members of Congress, in the days leading up to the vote, tried to assure their constituents that they have nothing to fear — that the bill doesn’t apply to Americans.
Some were lying. Most were deceived.
Now, I don’t want to imply that Barack Obama plans to sweep up every one of his critics (or even a select few) because of statements they’ve uttered publicly. That is overstatement. The law doesn’t permit that. But consider the following scenario…
You object to the way the Federal Leviathan State is run. You gather, every other Tuesday, with others who share your values. We’ll call your fictional group the Constitution League (CL).
One night, a new fellow shows up. He’s frustrated and outspoken. He complains that the time for meetings is over. Something must be done — something that will “get their attention.” You’re uncomfortable with his remarks but unsure how to respond.
You hope he never returns, and he doesn’t.
What you don’t know, until months later, is that one of our CL colleagues, the chapter Vice President, followed the vocal man out to the parking lot. The two exchanged email addresses and phone numbers. Then, your local VP reached out to a third man, a member of a CL chapter in the nearest big city. The three met regularly. They plotted and executed their own terrorist plot on a U.S. Government facility.
Now, your group meeting was the place they met. The Vice President used his CL email account. CL is all over the news. CL is now, for all intents and purposes, a terrorist group.
And you? Well, you’ve donated to the terrorist organization. You’ve participated in its meetings. The night this angry man walked in, you didn’t call the authorities.
* Can the President have the military come and arrest you? Yes!
* Can he (or she) send you to a military tribunal for trial or just hold you indefinitely in a military facility, without charges? Yes!
Even the bill co-sponsor, Senator McCain, appears to agree with this assessment. Senator Rand Paul asked John McCain, on the Senate floor, “…under the provisions, would it be possible that an American citizen could be declared an ‘enemy combatant’ and sent to Guantanamo Bay, and detained indefinitely?” McCain responded, “I think that as long as that individual, NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE, if they POSE A THREAT to the security of the United States of America, should not be allowed to continue the threat.” {Emphasis Added}
Wait a minute. Wasn’t there a provision in this bill that exempted Americans?
Despite what your Congressional office may have told you (if you called during the debate over this bill) the answer to that question is an emphatic NO!
The relevant sections of the bill are 1021 and 1022.
* Section 1021 asserts the President’s authority to arrest suspected (not convicted) terrorists and gives him the option to choose whether or not they even get a trial, and if so, what kind of trial.
* Section 1022 requires that a certain class of terrorist get no trial. Instead they must be held in military prisons, for as long as this President, or any future President desires.
SECTION 1021
Section 1021 is very expansive in its reach. It “includ[es] any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.”
* Who is “any person?”
* What is a “belligerent act?”
* What is “direct support?”
One could be safe in assuming these words mean whatever a creatively-minded prosecutor, a flexible judge, and an ignorant jury define them to mean — EXCEPT THAT, UNDER THIS ACT, ONE MIGHT NEVER GET AS FAR AS A COURT HEARING.
These terms will be defined by the bureaucrats in power.
They could be used against political opponents.
1021 has NO exceptions. There’s not even a hint of an exception. Remember, that section gave the President the authority to arrest you and a set of options on how you were to be handled. These choices are completely divorced from the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments, as well as the Treason provisions of Article III. The President’s new alternatives are…
1. Detention without trial by the military
2. Trial by a military commission
3. Trial by some other court of the President’s choosing
4. Shipping you off to a foreign jurisdiction (info here)
SECTION 1022
1022 is a REQUIREMENT — a binding mandate upon the President. President Obama threatened to veto the bill, but only because he feared 1022 would restrict his power too much. http://gawker.com/5866210/jon-stewart-bashes-obama-for-backing-indefinite-detention-bill
This section is for your fellow CL members/plotters. Whereas, you got snatched up for “support” or “aid” to the plot, they actually carried out an attack, or as the section itself indicates…
“…participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.”
Section 1022 requires the President to go with option #1 above — the other three options are off the table. In other words, no trial, either in a civilian court or military tribunal.
In the final version of the bill, after a public storm started to erupt, the title of the section was changed to indicate that it only applied to “foreign al-Qaeda terrorists.” However, titles are not normally considered part of the law but merely summary descriptions to the reader of a bill.
But this title is especially IRONIC, because it’s this section that includes the so-called exemption for American citizens. Why would you need to exempt American citizens from a section of law that applies to “foreign al-Qaeda terrorists?”
The answer is because the section applies to any kind of “terrorist,” domestic or foreign, no matter what the title says.
And here’s the so-called exemption, with the key word highlighted…

The REQUIREMENT to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

That means that military custody, without a trial, is mandated by law, but that the President, at his discretion or by written policy, may issue a waiver on the basis that a person is an American citizen.
If this provision was a true safeguard for American citizens, then the line would’ve been written like this…

Military custody of citizens of the United States is still prohibited under this act.

See the difference? It’s a requirement that can be waived at discretion, as opposed to a prohibition.

Become a member and support the TAC!

Now, do you realize Congress has given the Federal State the power to use military detention on its own citizens? And that they’ve made it possible to wage a war on peaceful activists, if they can just incite someone in your group to attempt something violent?
Don’t worry. It’s not like the FBI is busy infiltrating meetings, entrapping some dullard into a plot, equipping and financing his efforts, and then claiming credit for stopping another terrorist attack! Oh wait, that’s happened about 40 times since 9/11.
Thus, to complete our story, the angry man who showed up at the CL meeting might’ve work for the FBI. And he duped two idiots in your group, who put you and your fellow members in legal jeopardy.
This new law is that serious. President Obama has claimed he won’t use this power. All that needs to happen now is a provocative incident. Then, all bets are off. Since these nearly unlimited, un-constitutional powers are now law, this President, or a future one, will be able to kidnap and disappear Americans. It could very easily be open season for the police state.
—–
Jim Babka is the President of Downsize DC Foundation and DownsizeDC.org, Inc.. DownsizeDC.org will soon launch a campaign to repeal these sections from the law.
Copyright © 2012 by Jim Babka. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit to the author, DownsizeDC.org and TenthAmendmentCenter.com is given.

COMMENT

I charge that Barack Obama has not done the duties required of the President of the USA as defined by the US Constitution, actively and knowingly went against the duties of the POTUS; and needs to be impeached. Then he needs to be charged, arrested, and held for prosecution, as he is a flight risk.
The Constitution of the United States specifies that an officer is to be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors"; experts agree that impeachment is permitted for noncriminal misconduct (e.g., violation of the Constitution), and can include criminal/civil actions.
It has invited considerable debate, but it is generally read to mean both indictable offenses and other serious noncriminal misconduct. The latter has included corruption, dereliction of constitutional duty, and violation of limitations on the power of an office
Actions he committed against our laws require prosecution.
Few of those who currently serve within the three branches of our federal government have been performing their duties as required by our US Constitution, which they knew before taking those offices and positions defined the way those offices and positions defined the exact way those offices/positions operated.

That Obama:
(1) Actively and knowingly went against the US Constitutional and the citizens of the United States. (impeachable)
Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office
NDAA
Patriot Act extensions and additions to
Warrantless Search and Seizures
TSA warrantless searches
Denial of First Amendment Rights
Denial of Second Amendment Rights
Maladministration
Misapplication
Mandate to make us all buy health insurance
Using our military for UN war efforts
(2) Did not keep the oath required of him by the US Constitution. (impeachable)
President Obama had/has taken an oath to uphold all the laws and he had/has violated his duties as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer. (*Clinton Impeachment)
Took the Oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the US Constitution” (prosecutable, as he is a domestic enemy attacking us from the inside.)
Oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”

↧

Officer Safety – Mobile Phones as Weapons, San Diego Police Attack and Arrest Man Video Recording Them, Claiming Phone Could be a Weapon (Updated)

May 2, 2013, 12:59 am

≫ Next: 13NR13 - MRF News Release - Motorcycle Only Checkpoint Bill To Be Dropped

≪ Previous: USA - NDAA: Open Season for the Police State, How the New Indefinite Detention Provisions can be used on Americans

OFF THE WIRE

By Carlos Miller

San Diego police slapped a cell phone camera out of a man’s hands Saturday, claiming it could be a weapon, before pouncing on him and handcuffing him, lacerating his chin in the process.
Adam Pringle ended up jailed overnight on charges of obstruction because he refused to hand the phone over when the cop ordered him to do so.
But it’s already been established by numerous court cases as well as the U.S. Department of Justice that police do not have the right to take your camera unless it is being used in a commission of a crime.
In this case, Pringle’s only crime was smoking a cigarette on a Mission Beach boardwalk, a violation for which he was already getting cited.
“It is against the law to smoke cigarettes on the boardwalk, so I admit I was breaking the law,” Pringle said in a telephone interview with Photography is Not a Crime Tuesday.
The incident took place at 7 p.m. Saturday evening as Pringle and two buddies were walking on the boardwalk and came across two cops on bicycles who stopped them and started writing Pringle a citation.
Pringle pulled out his Samsung Galaxy smartphone and began recording, which as you can see below, can easily be confused for a weapon – if you find yourself starring in a futuristic science fiction drama.

It all seemed pretty civil until the cop writing the citation told him to stop recording, which Pringle refused to do.
“Phones can be converted into weapons …. look it up online,” the cop told him.
Last month, a South Florida cop confiscated a man’s phone citing the same reason, so maybe this is a new trend.
When Pringle tried to talk sense into the cop, the cop slapped the phone out of his hand where it fell onto the boardwalk and broke apart.
The other cop then pounced on him, slamming him down on the boardwalk where he ended up with a laceration on his chin.
“Blood was everywhere,” Pringle said. “I was laying on my stomach and he had one knee on my back and the other knee on the side of my face.
“They kept telling me ‘to calm down,’ that ‘you’re making this worse for yourself,’ that ‘you have no right to record us.’”
They hauled him up and marched him to the patrol car, telling his two friends that they would be arrested if they chose to follow.
His friends picked up his phone, which was damaged but not to the point where it was unsable, which is why the video survived.
Once out of sight, the officer who tackled him elbowed him to the face.
Because he had several wounds on his body, including his knees, hands and face, an ambulance was called.
An internal affairs officer, Lt. Misty Cedrun, was also called, who spoke to him in the back of the ambulance, but who didn’t seem to think the officers did anything wrong because she allowed the two officers to transport him to jail, even though he told her he fear them.
Unfortunately, Pringle was not provided with their names and it’s difficult to make out the cop’s nametag in the video.
He wasn’t released from jail until 4 a.m. His first hearing will be on May 23 where he hopes to have obtained an attorney. He said he has reached out to the ACLU but hasn’t heard back.
However, this incident is still very fresh and this is a case that is ripe for them.
Pringle said he is an Eagle Scout who is actively involved in his community. He doesn’t mean to be a troublemaker but he is just not afraid to stand up for his rights.
And that obviously makes him a criminal in the eyes of the law.
But because the video survived the assault, we are able to see whom the real criminals are in this matter.
UPDATE: Pringle’s friend continued video recording after he was led away and the cop, whose name is M. Reinhold, didn’t have a problem with that.
In the video below, Reinhold tells his friend that they are trained by the police department to suspect that cell phones can be converted into guns.
He also said that “officer safety” trumps the Constitution, meaning they can claim they are fear for their lives while they throw you in jail for any lame excuse.
Such bullshit but that’s the arrogance of these police officers.
Send San Diego Mayor Bob Filner an email by clicking here to let him know how much respect his officers have for the Constitution.

UPDATE II: Mickey Osterreicher, general counsel of the National Press Photographers Association, sent the following email to the mayor:

Dear Mayor,
As the general counsel for the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) I have been in contact with you police department in an ongoing attempt to help improve police relations and avoid the type of incident that occurred yesterday. See: http://www.photographyisnotacrime.com/2013/04/09/san-diego-police-attack-and-arrest-man-video-recording-them-claiming-phone-could-be-a-weapon/
I spoke at the annual meeting of the IACP held in your city last September regarding the First Amendment rights of the press and public to photograph and record. Apparently more is needed. As I have done training with other police departments around the country I renew my offer to help yours.
Please feel free to contact me.
Thank you for your attention in this matter.

Very truly yours,

Mickey H. Osterreicher
General Counsel
National Press Photographers Association (NPPA)

↧

13NR13 - MRF News Release - Motorcycle Only Checkpoint Bill To Be Dropped

May 2, 2013, 12:59 am

≫ Next: Flipping Off Police Officers Constitutional, Federal Court Affirms

≪ Previous: Officer Safety – Mobile Phones as Weapons, San Diego Police Attack and Arrest Man Video Recording Them, Claiming Phone Could be a Weapon (Updated)

OFF THE WIRE
MRF E-MAIL NEWS Motorcycle Riders Foundation
236 Massachusetts Ave. NE | Suite 510 | Washington, DC 20002-4980
202-546-0983 (voice) | 202-546-0986 (fax) | http://www.mrf.org

13NR13 - MRF News Release - Motorcycle Only Checkpoint Bill To Be Dropped

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
16 April 2013

Contact:Jeff Hennie, Vice President of Government Ralations and Public Affairs
Motorcycle Only Checkpoint Bill To Be Dropped
The Motorcycle Riders Foundation (MRF) reports, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner from Wisconsin, announced Monday, April 15th that he will file a bill to prohibit the federal funding of motorcycle only roadside checkpoints.
Sensenbrenner had this to say in a "Dear Colleague" that is circulating in the House of Representatives. "In the 112th Congress, I introduced H.R. 904, a bill to prohibit the Department of Transportation (DOT) from providing funds to state and local authorities for the purpose of creating motorcycle only checkpoints. Section 1 of the Stop Motorcycle Checkpoint Funding Act contains the same language as H.R. 904. However, this bill also contains language to force the DOT to focus motorcycle safety efforts on crash prevention programs, not national helmet mandates."
The bill will officially be introduced on May 6, 2013 and get its official bill number then. However, we must start the push now. It's important to contact your sitting member of the House of Representatives and ask them to be an original cosponsor of this important legislation. Ask them to contact Congressman James Sensenbrenner and lend their support. An "Original Cosponsor" is someone who supports the bill before it is made public and is a way to strongly support a new bill.
The more original cosponsors the better. You can contact the US Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121
The entire text of the Dear Colleague and the Bill are below.

STOP MOTORCYCLE CHECKPOINT FUNDING
Dear Colleague:
On May 6, I will introduce a bill to protect motorcyclists' rights and promote crash prevention as the most effective use of taxpayer money to save motorcyclists' lives. I ask for your support as an original cosponsor of the Stop Motorcycle Checkpoint Funding Act.

In the 112th Congress, I introduced H.R. 904, a bill to prohibit the Department of Transportation (DOT) from providing funds to state and local authorities for the purpose of creating motorcycle only checkpoints. Section 1 of the Stop Motorcycle Checkpoint Funding Act contains the same language as H.R. 904. However, this bill also contains language to force the DOT to focus motorcycle safety efforts on crash prevention programs, not national helmet mandates.

Section 3 of the Stop Motorcycle Checkpoint Funding Act amends Section 153 of Title 23 USC by removing "motorcycle helmets" from the title. This change will prohibit the DOT from providing grants to a State to enforce helmet laws. This will stop the DOT from manipulating State policies with federal money.

Section 4 of this bill amends Section 402 of Title 23 USC. Current law states that highway safety plans must prevent accidents and reduce injuries. The Stop Motorcycle Checkpoint Funding Act would require highway safety plans to include programs that prevent accidents in order to reduce injuries and deaths resulting from accidents involving motor vehicles and motorcycles. This small change will make a significant impact because it highlights that preventing accidents is the best way to save motorcyclists' lives.

Please contact Todd Washam
( todd.washam@mail.house.govto cosponsor this bill. I look forward to your support on this important issue.

Sincerely,

F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.
MEMBER OF CONGRESS
A BILL
To stop motorcycle checkpoint funding, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ''Stop Motorcycle Checkpoint Funding Act''.
SEC. 2. GRANT RESTRICTION.
The Secretary of Transportation may not provide a grant or any funds to a State, county, town, or township, Indian tribe, municipal or other local government to be used for any program to check helmet usage or create checkpoints for an operator of motorcycle or passenger on a motorcycle.
SEC. 3. MOTORCYCLE SAFETY.
Section 153 of title 23, United States Code, is amended-
(1) in the section heading by striking ''and motorcycle helmets'';
(2) in subsection (a) by striking ''such fiscal year-'' and everything that follows through ''(2) a law'' and inserting ''such fiscal year a law'';
(3) in subsection (b) by striking ''State laws'' each place it appears and inserting ''a State law'';
(4) in subsection (f) by amending paragraphs(2) and (3) to read as follows:
''(2) SECOND-YEAR GRANTS.-A State is eligible for a grant under this section in a fiscal year succeeding the first fiscal year in which a State receives a grant under this section only if the State in the preceding fiscal year had in effect at all times a State law described in subsection (a) and achieved a rate of compliance with such law of not less than 50 percent. ''(3) THIRD-YEAR GRANTS.-A State is
eligible for a grant under this section in a fiscal year succeeding the second fiscal year in which a State receives a grant under this section only if the State in the preceding fiscal year had in effect at all times a State law described in subsection (a) and achieved a rate of compliance with such law of not less than 70 percent.''

SEC. 4. HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS.
Section 402(a)(2)(A) of title 23, United States Code, is amended by striking clause(iv) and inserting the following:
''(iv) to prevent accidents in order to reduce injuries and deaths resulting from accidents involving motor vehicles and motorcycles;''.

↧

Flipping Off Police Officers Constitutional, Federal Court Affirms

May 2, 2013, 12:59 am

≫ Next: Secrets Police Don't Want You To Know

≪ Previous: 13NR13 - MRF News Release - Motorcycle Only Checkpoint Bill To Be Dropped

OFF THE WIRE
WASHINGTON -- A police officer can't pull you over and arrest you just because you gave him the finger, a federal appeals court declared Thursday.
In a 14-page opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled that the "ancient gesture of insult is not the basis for a reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation or impending criminal activity."
John Swartz and his wife Judy Mayton-Swartz had sued two police officers who arrested Swartz in May 2006 after he flipped off an officer who was using a radar device at an intersection in St. Johnsville, N.Y. Swartz was later charged with a violation of New York's disorderly conduct statute, but the charges were dismissed on speedy trial grounds.
A federal judge in the Northern District of New York granted summary judgement to the officers in July 2011, but the Court of Appeals on Thursday erased that decision and ordered the lower court to take up the case again.
Richard Insogna, the officer who stopped Swartz and his wife when they arrived at their destination, claimed he pulled the couple over because he believed Swartz was "trying to get my attention for some reason." The appeals court didn't buy that explanation, ruling that the "nearly universal recognition that this gesture is an insult deprives such an interpretation of reasonableness."

↧

Secrets Police Don't Want You To Know

May 2, 2013, 12:59 am

≫ Next: BABES OF THE DAY..

≪ Previous: Flipping Off Police Officers Constitutional, Federal Court Affirms

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/

[.

↧

BABES OF THE DAY..

May 2, 2013, 12:57 pm

≫ Next: Assertion of Rights..

≪ Previous: Secrets Police Don't Want You To Know

Photo: <Mikey> http://www.facebook.com/MikeysUncensoredPage see the real uncensored pics @ http://mikeysuncensoredpage.blogspot.com/

↧

Assertion of Rights..

May 3, 2013, 12:54 am

≫ Next: California Law makes helmet violations "fix-it" tickets (correctable).

≪ Previous: BABES OF THE DAY..

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.

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.

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.

When to talk to the Police

Video that explains your rights.

Video

↧

California Law makes helmet violations "fix-it" tickets (correctable).

May 3, 2013, 12:58 am

≫ Next: PIC OF THE DAY.. LEXA

≪ Previous: Assertion of Rights..

OFF THE WIRE
California Law makes helmet violations "fix-it" tickets (correctable).California Vehicle Code
     Division 17Notice to Correct Violation for Specified Infractions40303.5.    Whenever any person is arrested for any of the following offenses, the arresting officer shall permit the arrested person to execute a notice containing a promise to correct the violation in
accordance with the provisions of Section 40610 unless the arresting officer finds that any of the
disqualifying conditions specified in subdivision (b) of Section 40610 exist:

(a) Any registration infraction set forth in Division 3 (commencing with Section 4000).
(b) Any driver's license infraction set forth in Division 6 (commencing with Section 12500), and
subdivision (a) of Section 12951, relating to possession of driver's license.
(c) Section 21201, relating to bicycle equipment.(d) Any infraction involving equipment set forth in Division 12 (commencing with Section 24000                  (Where the helmet law is found.)),Division 13 (commencing with Section 29000), Division 14.8 (commencing with Section 34500),
Division 16 (commencing with Section 36000), Division 16.5 (commencing with Section 38000), and
Division 16.7 (commencing with Section 39000).

Amended Ch. 258, Stats. 1992. Effective January 1, 1993.
Notice to Correct Violation40610.   (a) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), if, after an arrest, accident investigation, or other
law enforcement action, it appears that a violation has occurred involving a registration, license, all-
terrain vehicle safety certificate, or mechanical requirement of this code, and none of the disqualifying
conditions set forth in subdivision (b) exist and the investigating officer decides to take enforcement
action, the officer shall prepare, in triplicate, and the violator shall sign, a written notice containing the
violator’s promise to correct the alleged violation and to deliver proof of correction of the violation to
the issuing agency.

(2) If any person is arrested for a violation of Section 4454, and none of the disqualifying conditions
set forth in subdivision (b) exist, the arresting officer shall prepare, in triplicate, and the violator shall
sign, a written notice containing the violator's promise to correct the alleged violation and to deliver
proof of correction of the violation to the issuing agency. In lieu of issuing a notice to correct violation
pursuant to this section, the officer may issue a notice to appear, as specified in Section 40522.

(b) Pursuant to subdivision (a), a notice to correct violation shall be issued as provided in this section
or a notice to appear shall be issued as provided in Section 40522, unless the officer finds any of the
following:

(1) Evidence of fraud or persistent neglect.

(2) The violation presents an immediate safety hazard.

(3) The violator does not agree to, or cannot, promptly correct the violation.

(c) If any of the conditions set forth in subdivision (b) exist, the procedures specified in this section or
Section 40522 are inapplicable, and the officer may take other appropriate enforcement action.

(d) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (a), the notice to correct violation shall be on a form
approved by the Judicial Council and, in addition to the owner’s or operator’s address and identifying
information, shall contain an estimate of the reasonable time required for correction and proof of
correction of the particular defect, not to exceed 30 days, or 90 days for the all-terrain vehicle safety
certificate.Amended Sec. 27, Ch. 908, Stats. 2004. Effective January 1, 2005.

↧

PIC OF THE DAY.. LEXA

May 3, 2013, 12:58 am

≫ Next: Jonathan"s Journey - I WAS INFORMED OF THIS AND WILL BE HELPING OUT, SO I`M CHALLENGING YOU TO HELP OUT

≪ Previous: California Law makes helmet violations "fix-it" tickets (correctable).

↧

Jonathan"s Journey - I WAS INFORMED OF THIS AND WILL BE HELPING OUT, SO I`M CHALLENGING YOU TO HELP OUT

May 3, 2013, 12:59 am

≫ Next: PUBLIC RECORDS ACT GUIDELINES

≪ Previous: PIC OF THE DAY.. LEXA

https://mail-attachment.googleusercontent.com/attachment/?view=att&th=13ca8892c8a6fcdb&attid=0.2&disp=inline&safe=1&zw&saduie=AG9B_P-YbIBR9gFJR9kIvN8QIF6b&sadet=1360037460375&sads=SoHB3Tx_Imv_oVk0LB71kk6Gin0

OFF THE WIRE

Hi, I am Megan,

I am a first time mom of an almost 3 month old baby boy named Jonathan. My son was born with Cranialsyntosis, or more specifically referred to in this case as Coronal Syntosis. Coronal Syntosis is a premature fusion of a bone in the skull,so because of this he needs Cranial and Facial surgery by Pediatric Neurosurgeons to correct the misshape of my son's head,and to realign his nose. He will be under doctors care for 2 years from the day of surgery,he will have to wear a helmet for 23 hours a day for at least 18 months or more depends on the out come from surgery,he will not be able to be a normal boy and toddler for a long time,everything you will read and see is very overwhelming to myself and it will be with you as well,this is a long journey that I am in need of monetary and prayer support as this journey with Jonathan goes ahead,this page is to be of knowledge as well as prayers and going step by step with us through this. The insurance that is carried only covers so much,I do want to thank all that can help in either manner,as being a young mom that I am this is hard for me to do but I am in need of help and trying to get through all of this as well,my son is my life and I cannot imagine my life without him in it.I have a paypal set up to where you can go to donate and send what you can it is very much appreciated,I have and will post photos as Jonathan goes though this long hard journey of the many surgeries and recoveries. Thank you again so very much to be a part this page and our journey,God Bless you

http://www.gofundme.com/20gmzg

Click here to support Johnathan's Journey by Nora Behnke

www.gofundme.com

My name is Nora Behnke,my daughter Megan had her beautiful baby boy on 11-22-12,he was diagnosed with Craniostynostosis,he requires surgery to correct the premature skull fusion as well as his eyes to be re-aligned and his nose and the final cosmetic surgery to cover the scars from surgeries he w...

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Jonathans-Journey/453841541350330?ref=stream

paypal information: nnora73031@att.net

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/craniosynostosis/DS00959

https://mail-attachment.googleusercontent.com/attachment/?view=att&th=13ca8892c8a6fcdb&attid=0.1&disp=inline&safe=1&zw&saduie=AG9B_P-YbIBR9gFJR9kIvN8QIF6b&sadet=1360037416629&sads=QuKK1TisvITUUqQccrC9_xlDENk

Definition

By Mayo Clinic staff

Cranial sutures and fontanels

Craniosynostosis is a birth defect in which one or more of the joints between the bones of your infant's skull close prematurely, before your infant's brain is fully formed. When your baby has craniosynostosis, his or her brain can't grow in its natural shape and the head is misshapen.
Craniosynostosis can affect one or more of the joints in your infant's skull. In some cases, craniosynostosis is associated with an underlying brain abnormality that prevents the brain from growing properly.
Treating craniosynostosis usually means your infant needs surgery to separate the fused bones. If there's no underlying brain abnormality, the surgery allows the brain adequate space to grow and develop.

↧

PUBLIC RECORDS ACT GUIDELINES

May 3, 2013, 12:59 am

≫ Next: USA - POLICE PROFILING PATCHES

≪ Previous: Jonathan"s Journey - I WAS INFORMED OF THIS AND WILL BE HELPING OUT, SO I`M CHALLENGING YOU TO HELP OUT

OFF THE WIRE
INTRODUCTION
These California Public Records Act guidelines describe the prescribed steps necessary for requesting access to inspect and/or obtain copies of public records maintained by the Department of California Highway Patrol (“the Department”) OR ANY CA POLICE DEPT...
The legislative enactment of the California Public Records Act (“the Act”) constituted a statement of policy that access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state. This policy was made part of the California State Constitution in 2004. It is the policy of the State that governmental records will be disclosed to the public upon request, unless the law provides an exemption from disclosure.
The general assumption is that all records held by state agencies are public and must be made available to the public promptly upon request. However, the Legislature has recognized the need to balance the public’s right to know against compelling rights to privacy and the government’s need to perform its functions in a reasonable efficient manner. As such, the Act contains several specific exemptions from disclosure and incorporates several other statutes that prohibit state employees from disclosing certain types of public records. It is the Department’s burden to justify any withholding of public records.
The Act also establishes reasonable procedures providing for prompt disclosure while allowing state agencies the time to locate records and to determine which records, if any, are exempt from disclosure. The Department’s policy is to provide all members of the public convenient access to, and to promptly make the fullest possible disclosure of, its public records. Department personnel are available to assist persons making such requests and will solicit the assistance of the requestor when clarification of requested records is needed so as to make focused and effective requests that reasonably describe identifiable records. As a law enforcement agency the Department is entitled to treat certain records as exempt from disclosure, and express provisions of the Act, Penal Code, and Vehicle Code, among others, preclude public disclosure of certain records. When a request to review or obtain records is received, whether made in person, by mail, or by other means, it may be necessary for staff to first locate, then secure, and then review the requested items so that a determination can be made whether one or more exemptions apply, prior to having the records made available for viewing or copies provided.
HOW TO REQUEST ACCESS TO A PUBLIC RECORD
Anyone wishing to make a public records request in person may do so during regular business hours at any Department office that is open to the public. Department personnel shall not ask or demand that persons requesting to inspect records provide their identification or the reasons for wanting to inspect records. However, if records are to be picked up or mailed to a requestor, relevant identifying information must be provided. Written requests to inspect or to obtain a copy of a public record should be
addressed to the Department, to any area office, field division office, or to Department Headquarters. The Headquarters address is
California Highway Patrol
601 North 7th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811
Attention: Public Records Coordinator
The Headquarters facsimile for requests under the Act is 916-322-3219. The written request need not be in any particular form, but should sufficiently describe the requested records to enable Department personnel to identify and locate the records sought. While not required by the Act, it is helpful for the request to include a telephone number or address where the person requesting the record can be reached to expedite the resolution of any questions concerning the request that may arise.
THE DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE TO PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS
If the records are clearly disclosable, they will be made available as soon as possible. However, in most cases staff will have to review the records to determine whether all or part maybe privileged, confidential, or otherwise exempt from disclosure. Within 10 days from the date the request is received, the Department will determine whether the request, in whole or in part, seeks copies of disclosable public records in the Department’s possession and notify the requestor of such determination. In unusual circumstances, the 10-day time limit may be extended up to an additional 14 days by written notice to the requestor, setting forth the reason for the time extension (i.e., the request is too voluminous, seeks records held off site, or requires consultation with other agencies). The Department may need to request additional information if the request is not specific enough to permit the identification of the requested records. If the determination by the Department is made to comply with the request, the records will be made available as promptly as is reasonably practicable. While the Department will disclose or otherwise make available identifiable and existing records, the Act does not require the Department to create, synthesize, manufacture, or summarize records: the Act specifically does not obligate the Department to develop new records so as to be able to respond to a request.
Any request may be denied if the records sought are determined to be privileged, confidential or otherwise exempt from disclosure, or are not found in the Department’s files or records. Notification of such a determination will be provided. The Department must justify the withholding of any record by demonstrating that the record is exempt under the Act or that the public interest in nondisclosure outweighs the public interest in disclosure. In most circumstances, when the Department removes or redacts exempt information from the record, it will disclose the remainder of the record.
REQUESTS TO VIEW PUBLIC RECORDS
Public records may be reviewed during regular business hours (generally weekdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. excluding holidays), at Department offices open to the public. Individuals who are interested in viewing public records are encouraged to make an appointment in advance. Appointments are not mandatory but can help Department staff facilitate the request, and the failure to make an appointment may result in a delay while the records are located and reviewed. Persons wishing to enter secured parts of the Department buildings must comply with the Department’s security protocol, including providing identification.
REQUEST FOR COPIES OF PUBLIC RECORDS
The Department will make copies of records for members of the public upon request. The Act provides that copies of records will be made promptly available upon payment of fees that cover the direct costs of duplication. The Department currently charges $0.30 per page for copying. The direct cost of duplication includes the pro rata expense of the duplicating equipment and the staff required to make a copy of that record. Direct costs of duplication does not include the staff person’s time in researching, retrieving, redacting and mailing the record. When the Department must compile electronic data, extract information from an electronic record, or undertake computer programming to satisfy a request, the Department may require the requestor to bear the full costs, not just the direct cost of duplication.
A public record that is not exempt from disclosure that is in an electronic format will be made available in an electronic format, if requested, but only if it does not jeopardize the security or integrity of the record or any proprietary software. The requestor will be charged the cost of producing an electronic copy of the record. Alternative charges apply for public records that are maintained in other formats, such as audio or video.
HOW TO CHALLENGE THE DEPARTMENT’S DETERMINATION NOT TO DISCLOSE RECORDS
Under the Act any person may seek mandamus, injunctive or declarative relief in any court of competent jurisdiction to enforce the right to inspect or to receive a copy of any public record.
These guidelines are posted in a conspicuous public place at Department offices that are open to the public, are available free of charge to any person who requests them, and are also available on the Department’s website (www.chp.ca.gov).

↧

USA - POLICE PROFILING PATCHES

May 3, 2013, 12:59 am

≫ Next: Know Your Rights When Dealing With Police Officers - 2013 Update

≪ Previous: PUBLIC RECORDS ACT GUIDELINES

OFF THE WIRE

If you ride a motorcycle and you are a member of a club, wear club support clothing or have club support stickers on your helmet or bike you probably have been pulled over by some dirty cop who has it in for anyone wearing club stuff. And during that traffic stop your rights were violated, you were treated as a criminal, had the officer make-up charges against you, lie about what happened or what you said, handcuffed for no reason, abused, degraded and spoken to with profanity, threaten, and treated with disrespect.
What the site is all about; the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which guarantees the right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause and the Fourteenth Amendment which requires that all citizens be treated equally under the law.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
What we are fighting:
Profiling, according to the Washington State Legislature’s current policies, occurs when law enforcement targets an individual exhibiting characteristics of a class that an officer believes more likely than others to commit a crime. The practice of targeting an individual because they are riding a motorcycle or wearing motorcycle paraphernalia is a perfect example of profiling. (Definition of profiling in SB 5852 passed in 2002.) From Motorcycle Profiling in Washington State, we are fighting the fight here. It’s time to stand up and be heard.
This is the place for you to vent, share your story or ask a question.

↧

Know Your Rights When Dealing With Police Officers - 2013 Update

May 3, 2013, 12:59 am

≫ Next: Lane Splitting Guidelines

≪ Previous: USA - POLICE PROFILING PATCHES

OFF THE WIRE

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.

#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"

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!

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.

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

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!

↧

Lane Splitting Guidelines

May 3, 2013, 12:59 am

≫ Next: 1%er defined - One Percenters, Gangs and Outlaws.

≪ Previous: Know Your Rights When Dealing With Police Officers - 2013 Update

Lane Splitting Guidelines

Lane splitting in a safe and prudent manner is not illegal in the
state of California. The term lane splitting, sometimes known as lane
sharing, filtering or white-lining, refers to the process of a
motorcyclist riding between lanes of stopped or slower moving traffic
or moving between lanes to the front of traffic stopped at a traffic
light.

Lane Splitting Guidelines - Quick Guide
Lane Splitting General Guidelines - Expanded Version

In all cases, the CHP urges extreme caution when splitting lanes.

Lane Splitting - Getting home safely is everyone's responsibility.

The CHP presents Thrill or Buzz Kill?, a motorcycle safety video reminding
motorcyclists about the added responsibility and attention the road demands.

California Motorcyclist Safety Program (CMSP) - The CHP is statutorily
responsible for California's official motorcycle safety training
program. Pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 2930-2935, the
CHP administers the program through a primary contractor, currently
the Motorcycle Safety Foundation. As of March 2012, over 800,000
motorcycle riders have received training at one of the CMSP's 134
training sites since the program began in July 1987.
The program consists of a 15-hour classroom and on-cycle Basic
RiderCourse (BRC). The BRC is mandatory for those under the age of 21
but is also recommended to those 21 and older who are seeking to
obtain a motorcycle endorsement on their California driver license.
The CMSP also offers the Premier Program which is an extended BRC
consisting of 7.5 hours of classroom and 13.5 hours of on-cycle time.
While not part of the CMSP, the CHP and its partners encourage all
riders to be life long learners. Riders can refresh or enhance skills
at a Basic RiderCourse2. A website, www.ca-msp.org, serves as the
training course referral service. Find out more about the California
Motorcyclist Safety Program.
[A beginning motorcycle rider receives instruction from an instructor]

Data received from the California Office of Traffic Safety shows:
Motorcycle fatalities in California increased 175% in ten years, from
204 in 1998 to 560 in 2008. These increases in motorcyclist deaths
occurred at a time when significant gains were achieved in other areas
of traffic safety. Although we did experience reductions in motorcycle
fatalities in 2009 and 2010, preliminary 2011 data indicates a
possible increase and motorcyclists are over represented in overall
numbers of traffic deaths.
[Beginning motorcycle riders in a training class] [A line of
beginning motorcycle riders in a training class]
A class of beginning motorcycle riders receive instruction.

California Motorcycle-Involved Statistics - Between 1986 and 1999,
California enjoyed a 13-year decline in motorcycle-involved fatal and
severe injury collisions. However, starting in 1999, these numbers
steadily increased over a 10-year period peaking in 2008. It is
important to note, however, that according to 2009 and 2010 data,
motorcycle-involved fatal and injury collisions are down
significantly.

Despite the strides in reducing motorcyclist fatality and injury
collisions over the past couple of years, statistics on motorcyclists
show a disproportionate rate of collisions compared to numbers of
riders and to other traffic. A National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration report shows that for the same per-mile exposure,
motorcyclists are roughly 28 times more likely to die than occupants
of other vehicles.

Another conspicuous trend involves the number of motorcyclist
fatalities and age. Several groups of riders are over represented,
compared to their presence within the motorcycle riding population.
For example, a small percentage of the motorcycle operators are riders
aged 15-19 (4 percent) and 20-24 (6 percent), yet represent nearly
twice that percentage of fatalities (11-13 percent). A second group of
riders over represented according to their presence in the population
is riders aged 25-54. It should also be noted that 90 percent of the
fatal victims are male.

The primary cause for 59 percent of the motorcycle collisions were
attributed to three factors: unsafe speed, improper turning, and
driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs.

Lastly, 65 percent of the fatal and 56 percent of the injury
motorcycle-involved collisions were the fault of the motorcyclist.

View Sections 7H - 7L (Motorcycle Data) of the Statewide Integrated
Traffic Records System

Motorcycle Helmets - Repeated attempts to repeal California's
motorcycle helmet law and substitute it with a lesser version
requiring those under 18 to wear a United States Department of
Transportation compliant helmet have failed in the state legislature.
Statistical information continue to support the helmet law, but some
adult riders have been advocating its repeal from the moment the law
went into effect on January 1, 1992. Advocates of repeal contend it is
a matter of individual choice whether to wear a helmet or not, and a
personal right to decide whether to take the risk. The idea that
motorcyclists over 21 should be exempt from the requirement for
helmets completely ignores some other facts that prompted passage of
the helmet law. In 1987, before the law was passed, 77 percent of
motorcyclist fatalities involved victims over the age of 21, with 69
percent of those injured over the age of 21.

Motorcycle Safety Grants: The California Highway Patrol (CHP) will
implement a 12-month traffic safety grant to reduce
motorcycle-involved collisions on popular roadways and mountain range
areas throughout California. To maximize enforcement efforts, each CHP
Division will identify and concentrate on problematic locations on
routes within their respective Areas, where motorcycle-involved
collisions are the highest. Grant activities will include enhanced
enforcement, a public awareness and educational campaign, and paid
media campaign will be launched to show a "share the road" Public
Service Announcement. The project ends September 30, 2012 . The grant
will be disseminated throughout CHP field Divisions between October 1,
2011, and September 30, 2012.

Strategic Highway Safety Plan, Challenge Area 12, Improve Motorcycle
Safety - The MSP Unit is responsible for co-leading and participating
on this dedicated challenge area. A most recent accomplishment was the
internal development and distribution of a 12-minute DVD, 700 Gs, It's
a Killer, which provides education about proper and legal motorcycle
safety helmets. The MSP Unit is in the process of developing
additional action items in collaboration with its partners including
the Department of Motor Vehicles, California Department of
Transportation, and Office of Traffic Safety. Action items are
expected to commence in October 2011 with a target date of completion
for most items to be October 2013.

From Bikernet 4/4/2013 Post

ALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL POSTS RULES FOR LEGAL LANE-SPLITTING-- This is ridiculous. Now we have Greg Covel, executive director of ABATE of California telling us "They are very reasonable" Who does he work for the CHP, he's suppose to be supporting us. Well there is another group not to belong to.

--Joseph Guarino
iamguarino@yahoo.com
Tombstone, AZ

From Bikernet 4/4/2013 Post

↧

1%er defined - One Percenters, Gangs and Outlaws.

May 4, 2013, 12:57 am

≫ Next: The Original One-Percenters,And Why You Do NOT Want To FUCK With Them

≪ Previous: Lane Splitting Guidelines

1%er defined

NOTE: This is the defininition given in Wiki-pedia, if you belive anything to be an error, please e-mail us and we will check it out.
One Percenters, Gangs and Outlaws.

Motorcycle clubs are often perceived as criminal organizations or, at best, gangs of hoodlums or thugs by traditional society. This perception has been fueled by the movies, popular culture, and highly publicized isolated incidents, the earliest of which was a brawl in Hollister, California in 1947 between members of the Boozefighters MC (motto: a drinking club with a motorcycle problem) and the Pissed Off Bastards MC (precursor to the Hells Angels).
The press asked the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) to comment, and their response was that 99% of motorcyclists were law-abiding citizens, and the last one percent were outlaws. Thus was born the term, "one percenter".

During the 1940's and 1950's, at rallies and gatherings sponsored by the AMA, prizes were awarded for nicest club uniform, prettiest motorcycle, and so forth. Some clubs, however, rejected the clean-cut image and adopted the "one percenter" moniker, even going so far as to create a diamond (rhombus) shaped patch labeled "1%" to wear on their vests as a badge of honor.

The 1% patch is also used to instill fear and respect from the general public and other motorcyclists. Other clubs wore (and still wear) upside down AMA patches.

*Another practice was to cut their one piece club patches into three or more pieces as a form of protest, which evolved into the current form of three piece colors worn by many MCs today.
One percent clubs point out that the term simply means that they are simply committed to "biking and brotherhood", where riding isn't a weekend activity, but a way of living. These clubs assert that local and national law enforcement agencies have co-opted the term to paint them as criminals.

While it is a fact that individual members of some MCs, and even entire chapters have engaged in felonious behavior, other members and supporters of these clubs insist that these are isolated occurrences and that the clubs, as a whole, are not criminal organizations. They often compare themselves to police departments, wherein the occasional "bad cop" does not make a police department a criminal organization, either.

At least one biker website has a news section devoted to "cops gone bad" to support their point of view.
Many one percenter clubs, including the Hells Angels, sponsor charitable events throughout the year for such causes as Salvation Army shelters and Toys for Tots.

Alternatively, both the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Criminal Intelligence Service Canada (CISC) have designated certain MCs as Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs (OMGs), among them the Pagans, Hells Angels, Outlaws MC, and Bandidos.

Canada, especially, has experienced a significant upsurge in crime involving members and associates of these MCs, most notably in what has been dubbed the Quebec Biker war.
Some members of the Hells Angels MC have been indicted on various charges, including RICO charges, murder, robbery, extortion, trafficking in stolen and VIN-switched motorcycles, methamphetamine and cocaine distribution.

In April, 2006, eight members or associates of the Bandidos MC were found murdered in a farm field in Ontario, Canada in what police have described as an internal cleansing of the Bandidos organization. One of the men charged with the murders is, himself, a Bandidos MC full patch member.

As recently as September 29, 2006, the president and another officer of the San Francisco chapter of the Hells Angels were indicted on charges of methamphetamine and cocaine distribution.

http://www.bikerdotcom.com/

↧

The Original One-Percenters,And Why You Do NOT Want To FUCK With Them

May 4, 2013, 12:58 am

≫ Next: What Is Jury Nullification?

≪ Previous: 1%er defined - One Percenters, Gangs and Outlaws.

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):

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]

And some more reading for you:
[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:

↧

What Is Jury Nullification?

May 4, 2013, 12:59 am

≫ Next: Lane Splitting Guidelines

≪ Previous: The Original One-Percenters,And Why You Do NOT Want To FUCK With Them

OFF THE WIRE
From Station.6.Underground
What is Jury Nullification? You won’t find it defined in your dictionary or described in your encyclopedia. You weren’t taught about it in school, and indeed it is even considered a crime to tell other people about it in some circumstances. Imagine that for a moment – it is a crime to inform a citizen as to their right, even the scope of their duty while serving on a jury.
According to the Wikipedia entry:

Jury nullification is a constitutional doctrine which allows juries to acquit criminal defendants who are technically guilty, but who do not deserve punishment. It occurs in a trial when a jury reaches a verdict contrary to the judge’s instructions as to the law.
A jury verdict contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it. If a pattern of acquittals develops, however, in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offence, this can have the de facto effect of invalidating the statute. A pattern of jury nullification may indicate public opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment…

Most Americans have never even heard of such a doctrine. Thanks to numerous TV shows and real-life judges telling us that the only function of the jury is to render a decision based strictly upon the facts of the case, a key tenet of the justice system envisioned by the Founding Fathers has been lost. You see, it is not only the job of the jury to weigh guilt or innocence against the letter of the law, but also to judge the just nature of the statutes themselves. In this way, The People ultimately retain power over the government, rather than the government dictating to The People what is and what is not justice. This tenet is instrumental in protecting ourselves, as The People, from tyrannical laws and cronyism. This is why we have a jury system in the first place, not simply to act as a cog in the wheel of the justice system, but to be the justice in the system.
Let us imagine for a moment, that you live in a city where the Mayor makes soda-pop illegal. So illegal that he actually signs into law a criminal statute that makes it a jailable offense to dispense soda-pop. He makes a public campaign to warn about the evils of soda-pop, how detrimental it is to your health, while being crowned king of national doughnut day, and holding a vast amount stock in the city’s number-one importer of iced-tea.
Fascist Food and Nutrition Nazis
Now let us imagine that you are sitting on the jury for a criminal trial of a single-mom arrested for selling soda-pop to her neighbor, which had been “smuggled” in from outside of the city limits, and that the transaction was captured on an audio-video recording by police. You see that she is plainly guilty of violating the law, technically, but can’t in good-conscience send her off to jail for a year. You, and other jury members voice that dilemma to the judge, who then instructs you to render a verdict based strictly on the facts of the case, the evidence presented, and that all other considerations have no bearing on your duty to render a verdict. What do you do? It appears that you have no choice, and you find her guilty.
But if you had actually been a FULLY INFORMED JUROR, rather than just listening to the instructions of the judge who owed his career to the Mayor, you would have known that you did have an alternative. That it was not actually illegal for you to ignore the judge’s instructions, and that you could have rendered a verdict based on your conscience rather than a law in a book. You would have known that Jury Nullification not only gives you this right, but that it is your duty as a juror to render your verdict in such a manner. In this way, you see, not only have you protected the accused from overzealous and tyrannical prosecution, but you have also struck a blow against cronyism. Cronyism by the Mayor who stands to make a profit from the law he made, in relation to the company stocks he owns and the companies that own him. Cronyism by police and prosecutors who turn a profit on the backs of the taxpayers for every arrest and prosecution they make, maintaining their job security and giving the United States the largest prison population in the world in the process.

Imagine how many ridiculous laws would be suddenly rendered obsolete. Imagine how many frivolous prosecutions would be avoided. Imagine how many people would not be sitting in prison today for victimless crimes. Imagine how much lower your taxes would be if you didn’t have to pay for all this nonsense. Imagine how powerless the government would suddenly find itself, in the face of a population that was no longer going to take any of their shit.
Maybe that’s why the principle of Jury Nullification is the most taboo subject in our justice system today, and has been continually eroded in landmark decisions by the courts since 1895, as time has distanced us from the core principles of liberty on which this nation was founded.
In 1794, the case of Georgia v. Brailsford was being heard before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). The court’s first Chief Justice, John Jay, established precedent that the Common Law practice of Jury Nullification was valid in the United States. He wrote, in part…

“It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old
rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on
questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must
be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable
distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon
yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we
have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of
the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the
best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumbable, that the
court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are
lawfully, within your power of decision.”

That precedent held, unmolested, for 99 years. Prior to the Civil War, the Fugitive Slave Act made it a Federal Crime to help escaped slaves, but jury nullification was instrumental in undermining that law and bringing an end to slavery America. Jurors refused to render a guilty verdict against those who had helped escaped slaves. But in 1895, the Supreme Court of the United States struck it’s first blow against the Common Law principle of Jury Nullification. In Sparf v. United States, SCOTUS held in a 5-4 decision that federal judges were not required to inform jurors of their inherent right to judge the law in a case.
In the 1969, the Fourth Circuit upheld in the case of U.S. v. Moylan that a court could refuse to allow instruction to a jury regarding nullification, yet hypocritically upheld the jurors inherent right to nullify. In other words, they were denying the right of the juror to be informed of their right, while still maintaining the validity of Jury Nullification stating,

“If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of
the jury to acquit.”

In the 1972 case of United States v Dougherty the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit maintained that the courts could deny the defense a chance to instruct a jury on their right to nullify.
In 1988, in U.S. v. Krzyske, the jury asked the judge about jury nullification. The judge responded “There is no such thing as valid jury nullification.” The jury convicted the defendant, and the judge’s answer was upheld on appeal. Another judge did dissent however, and cited United States v. Wilson, 629 F. 2d 439 – Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit 1980, that the panel had unanimously decided “In criminal cases, a jury is entitled to acquit the defendant because it has no sympathy for the government’s position.”
In 1997, the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law, under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 23(b). There have even been instances of jurors being removed and mistrials declared after informed-jury activists distributed literature near courthouses.
Now here’s one final gut-check for the uninformed public. We often assume that it is the job of the defense attorney to defend their client to the best of their ability, with all of the knowledge at their disposal. This is not true, however. Attorneys, including defense attorneys, are an Officer of the Court. This means that their first duty is to the law, and not their client. With a sworn oath to uphold the law, they are forbidden from advocating jury nullification. Your lawyer works for the court, not you.
If you ever sit on a jury, remember one important fact. You do not work for the court.
Lawmall.com
A History of Jury Nullification
The Straight Dope
stationsixunderground@gmail.com

↧

What Are My Rights When I'm Pulled Over By a Cop?

Officer Identification

Do Not Answer Questions

Vehicle Search

Admission of Guilt

Bill Is Introduced To Prohibit Federal Funding Of Motorcycle Only Checkpoints, BOUT` TIME...

USA - "Do any of you know what CISPA means? Do any of u care?

USA - NDAA: Open Season for the Police State, How the New Indefinite Detention Provisions can be used on Americans

Officer Safety – Mobile Phones as Weapons, San Diego Police Attack and Arrest Man Video Recording Them, Claiming Phone Could be a Weapon (Updated)

13NR13 - MRF News Release - Motorcycle Only Checkpoint Bill To Be Dropped

Flipping Off Police Officers Constitutional, Federal Court Affirms

Secrets Police Don't Want You To Know

BABES OF THE DAY..

Assertion of Rights..

California Law makes helmet violations "fix-it" tickets (correctable).

PIC OF THE DAY.. LEXA

Jonathan"s Journey - I WAS INFORMED OF THIS AND WILL BE HELPING OUT, SO I`M CHALLENGING YOU TO HELP OUT

http://www.gofundme.com/20gmzg

Definition

PUBLIC RECORDS ACT GUIDELINES

USA - POLICE PROFILING PATCHES

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Know Your Rights When Dealing With Police Officers - 2013 Update

Lane Splitting Guidelines

From Bikernet 4/4/2013 Post

From Bikernet 4/4/2013 Post

1%er defined - One Percenters, Gangs and Outlaws.

The Original One-Percenters,And Why You Do NOT Want To FUCK With Them

What Is Jury Nullification?