US DEFENDERS / C.O.I.R - CALIFORNIA

One Heart, One Voice

News


view:  full / summary

California Motorcycle Safety Program (CMSP) Update

Posted by Webmaster on September 17, 2012 at 7:00 PM Comments comments (0)

8/29 - There was CMSP meeting at the Sacramento CHP. They previewed a 30 second video about sharing the road (with motorcycles). It is not yet released to the public, but will upload it to You Tube on their 'TheCHPChannel'. Other information shared..

• It is illegal to ride on the white line

• CHP will be starting public education about drivers' & bikers having to share the same lane. Berkeley researchers did interviews of cagers at gas stations and asked them about lane sharing.

• The lane splitting survey showed... 53% of cagers know that lane sharing is legal, 17% admitted to deliberately cutting off bikers and 5% preferred not to answer.

• Lane 'splitting' is the correct term. Lane 'sharing' is for side by side riding according to the CHP.

 

American Biker Culture Law Library Opens in October

Posted by Webmaster on September 17, 2012 at 7:00 PM Comments comments (0)

Bikers Against Discrimination (BAD), Rabin Law Firm, NY Rider Magazine and other organizations are sponsoring the opening of a new American Biker Culture Law Library opening Sunday, October 7 in Illion, NY. The library will provide free legal and cultural resources for the biker community.

The ABC Law Library offers:

*Legal and cultural research facility w/computer,books and study area

*Free legal consultation & referrals

*Free law clerk & basic Constitution certificate courses

*American Biker Culture resources

*Biker disability & Veteran resources

http://freeonepercenter.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/american-biker-culture-law-library/

 

Stop-sign cameras are coming...

Posted by Webmaster on September 17, 2012 at 6:55 PM Comments comments (0)

Thinking about rolling through that stop sign the next time nobody’s looking? Think again.

 

On top of red-light cameras and speed cameras, some jurisdictions are starting to install stop-sign cameras in their seemingly never-ending quest to monitor drivers and catch them in the act of some ticket-able offense. California has already rolled out cameras at stop signs. Maryland and the nation's capital could be next.

 

Maryland right now allows only red-light cameras, but the town of Glen Echo wants the state legislature to expand government’s reach to include photo-ticketing for intersections with stop signs.

 

'This could be the camel’s nose under the tent.'

- AAA spokesman John B. Townsend II

 

Glen Echo is just a leafy, suburban Washington town wanting only one camera for an intersection that handles roughly 200,000 vehicles a year.

 

But the country’s biggest motorist-advocacy group has concerns about changes to Maryland law leading to a proliferation of the still-new enforcement technology.

 

“This could be the camel’s nose under the tent,” AAA mid-Atlantic spokesman John B. Townsend II told FoxNews.com.

 

The District of Columbia is already considering a plan to spend $5.8 million on a traffic-enforcement plan that would include stop-sign cameras and ones that could detect and ticket vehicles speeding up to get through a yellow light.

 

Critics of such programs argue they are more about generating cash than making roads safer, including in the District, where some of the cameras are on four-lane roads with no homes or schools in sight. The city’s network of cameras to nab speeders and red-light runners last year took in roughly $55 million, according to AAA.

 

“The push for more automated traffic enforcement has nothing to do with revenue,” Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier said this spring in support of expanding the automated program. “I'm motivated to promote traffic safety because I don't want to see anymore fatal accident victims who have been ejected from their shoes by the force of the crash impact.”

 

Beyond more stop-sign cameras being added to the thousands of other cameras already in more than 550 communities across the country, Townsend has concerns about the technology and how Maryland legislators might rework the statute.

 

He says the law now reads that all four wheels must come to a stop.

 

“That’s so nebulous that nobody knows what you mean,” Townsend said. “And for how long do you have to be stopped?”

 

Still, Townsend points out that 40 percent of all fatal crashes in the country occur at intersections with stop signs.

 

Such cameras are already in the Santa Monica Mountains just west of the city of Los Angeles, which last year shut off its 32 red-light cameras amid questions about their effectiveness and problems collecting fines.

 

The seven cameras in the mountain parks -- from the Hollywood Hills to the Malibu coast -- took in a reported $2.4 million in fiscal 2010, despite posted warnings.

 

Hells Angels Sue Janet Napolitano and Hillary Clinton Over Ban on Members Entering U.S.

Posted by Webmaster on August 21, 2012 at 6:20 PM Comments comments (0)

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2012/08/janet_napolitano_hillary_clinton_hells_angels.php

 

The Hells Angels Motorcycle Club has filed a lawsuit against several federal agency heads, claiming the group's foreign members have been wrongfully banned from entering the United States.

 

Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services Director Alejandro Mayorkas are named as defendants in the lawsuit, as the lawsuit claims their executive rules could be violating the Hells Angels' constitutional rights.

 

The federal lawsuit contends that several foreign Hells Angels members applied for visas last year to attend one of the club's major events in New Hampshire, and they were denied, based on their membership with the Hells Angels.

 

According to the lawsuit, "[m]any members" of the Hells Angels don't have criminal records, and the club says it's not a "criminal organization."

 

On the other hand, the lawsuit recognizes that Homeland Security and the Department of State made an agreement to define the Hells Angels as a "known criminal organization" in the Department of State's Foreign Affairs Manual -- thus making them ineligible to obtain a visa.

 

But the Hells Angels' lawsuit claims this rule flies in the face of the congressional immigration legislation that allows immigration officials to deny visas for security reasons.

 

"Defendants will deny visas to all aliens based solely on their membership in a Hells Angels charter without further analysis into whether or not that individual seeks to enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in unlawful activity," the lawsuit states.

 

The Hells Angels are ultimately seeking a permanent injunction against the rules that are keeping its members from getting visas -- which would likely apply to other biker gangs listed by the State Department, like the Outlaws, Bandidos, and Mongols, as well as street gangs like MS 13 and the 18th Street gang.


RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

Posted by Webmaster on December 14, 2011 at 12:30 AM Comments comments (0)

Sometimes, despite your best efforts, the cops get involved. Maybe someone else called the cops, maybe you felt the situation warranted their involvement, or maybe they showed up at the scene. However they got involved, they’re not going to go away just because you don’t want to deal with them so it’s time to use your head.


A few years ago, I would have said that the first rule in dealing with the cops is to remain calm, keep your cool and don’t lose your temper. Now that’s rule number 2. With the ubiquity of recording devices that we all carry around in our pockets (cell phones), the first rule when dealing with the police is to RECORD EVERYTHING! If you’re in a public place, the police have no expectation of privacy so you can record them (except in Illinois). Check your state and local laws, but in general, you’re allowed to record. The police will tell you that you can’t record but we all know the police will lie to you. If you can, have your recording streamed to one of the several on line services available; that’s even better. And obviously video and audio are better than just audio; but take what you can get.

 

The second rule in dealing with the police is to STAY CALM, keep your cool and don’t lose your temper. No matter how right you are, losing your temper is likely to result in getting cuffed, pepper sprayed, beat, shot, arrested or some combination of all of those. Don’t yell at them, swear at them, give them the finger, or provoke them. Treat them as you would a business client you don’t like. That’s not to say that in order to avoid their wrath you need to compromise anything but if you do end up being caged, there’s a better likelihood that your arrest for “contempt of cop” will not result in any charges sticking if you can substantiate a claim of not guilty of disorderly conduct (which is usually just contempt of cop). Remaining calm and being peaceful is no guarantee that you’re not going to be the victim of abuse; however, you’re more likely to prevail if you don’t act out of anger.


The third rule is, NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE. You should never say anything to them that is not absolutely required by law. It is NEVER in your best interest to give them information. Rather than explain further, I would like to insist that you watch Part I and Part II of this video. Watch the whole thing, it’s worth your time. This rule would have been number one, but if you don’t follow the first two rules, this one could be moot. If you lose your temper with the cops, you’re going to say things that could be used against you later. Furthermore, without a recording, they can falsify your statements.


The fourth rule is, NEVER CONSENT TO A SEARCH. It doesn’t matter if you have nothing to hide. Refusing to consent to a search is your right and court after court has ruled that refusing a search is not probable cause for a search. If the cops tell you to empty your pockets, ask if you’re being detained. If not, you are free to go; just walk away. Unless I’m mistaken, you are never required to empty your pockets, although if they place you under arrest, they might empty them for you. The point is, consenting to a search only opens you up to more trouble. The cops reading this of course will tell you that if you have nothing to hide, consenting to search only helps the process, removes suspicion and moves them on their way faster. Remember, cops lie. Sometimes, if you don’t consent to a search, they’ll bring in the drug sniffing dogs and then signal them to “alert” which means they’ve found something. Then they will search your car claiming probable cause. They will do this to harass you and waste your time. If they’re going to waste your time though, you can waste theirs by demanding that a supervisor comes to the scene. When you do this, a supervisor must come and they cannot leave until that time. Complain to the supervisor about being harassed without probable cause.


The fifth rule is to LEAVE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Ask if you’re being detained; if you’re not, leave. Also, familiarize yourself with the Terry Stop rules. The longer you stick around, the higher the probability is that you will be the victim of some police misconduct, even if you were the one that called the cops.


The sixth rule is, NEVER LET THEM IN YOUR HOUSE without a warrant. In fact, without a warrant, you’re not even required to open the door or say anything at all to them. Just tell them you have nothing to say to them and you would prefer that they leave. Once you invite them in, you have opened your home to a search.


The seventh and last rule is KNOW YOUR RIGHTS. The more your know your rights and assert them (calmly) to the police, the more likely they are to leave you alone. They are bullies and bullies pick on weak, frightened, easily intimidated people. Don’t be one of them. Stay in tune with CopBlock.org and other sources that report on police misconduct and your civil liberties.


These rules not only apply to the police, they apply to any government agent that decides to interfere in your life. If Child Protective Services comes to your door and demands to speak to your children or inspect your home, tell them to leave unless they have a warrant. In fact, feel free to be a little more rude to them than the cops since they don’t have arrest powers.


Also, these are general rules that apply to almost every situation. There are probably dozens of rules related to much more specific situations. If you can think of a few more general rules, please leave them in the comments

 

Lake County, CA Upholds Constitutional Rights

Posted by Webmaster on November 29, 2011 at 7:25 PM Comments comments (6)

Investigation concluded By Staff reports Updated: 11/28/2011 10:06:43 PM PST


LAKE COUNTY -- An investigation surrounding the events of May 14, when Lake County Sheriff (LCSO) Frank Rivero attempted and conspired to stop members of the Hells Angels motorcycle gang at the county line, turn them around and deny them access to the county has been concluded by the Lake County District Attorney's Office.


A report provided by Lake County DA Don Anderson states: "This office will not be seeking any criminal charges against any person involved in this occurrence. At this time it has not been determined that any criminal activity took place by any law enforcement personnel that could be prosecuted at the state level. A violation of Title 18 U.S.C Section 242 is a federal crime, which this office cannot prosecute. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has requested a copy of this report for review."


Complaints were received that Rivero had approximately 30 patrol units respond to the county line with red lights and sirens when there was no immediate and imminent threat to officer's safety or the public. The purpose of the investigation was to determine if any crime was committed by any law enforcement personnel and to assist in establishing proper procedure protocol for future similar events.


DA investigators interviewed more than 30 city, county, state and federal law enforcement personnel who were involved in the incident. Radio logs, audio recordings and video (MAV) tapes were reviewed.


Of those officers involved in the incident,


Rivero and two other deputies refused, or were not interviewed. Below are the undisputed facts as they occurred: The incident occurred when the Vagos motorcycle gang planned a meeting at the Clearlake Club in Lakeport. The purpose of the meeting, in part, was to show support for the local chapter and to claim Lake County as its territory. By noon, 50 to 100 Vagos motorcycle riders were in Lakeport.


Lakeport Police Department detoured all vehicle traffic in the three-block area where the group was congregated. Vehicles were allowed to leave but not return. Pedestrian traffic was allowed to come and go freely from the area. Between 1:30 and 3:30 p.m. approximately 43 law enforcement officers converged in Lakeport for a show of force. Most of the officers were staged on Main Street to monitor the activities of the Vagos. In large part, the actions of the Lakeport Police resulted in no incidents or disturbances during the gathering. After 3 p.m. the LCSO received erroneous information that 150 Hells Angels were headed northbound toward Clear Lake. At 3:30 p.m. the majority of the Vagos started leaving Lakeport traveling in smaller groups in different directions. These groups were followed out of town by law enforcement personnel.


At about 4 p.m. the Sheriff's Department received erroneous information that the 150 Hells Angels were confirmed coming over Mount St. Helena on Highway 29 and law enforcement officers from different agencies headed toward Middletown to provide mutual aid.


Shortly after, believing a large group of Hells Angels were coming to Lake County, and if they meet the Vagos there could be a confrontation, Rivero ordered all law enforcement officers to respond Code 3 to Middletown. He ordered law enforcement officers to block the entrance to Lake County, turn around all Hells Angels and deny them access into Lake County. California Highway Patrol (CHP) command staff ordered its officers not to respond Code 3, but to respond to Middletown at safe speeds. At Bradford Road in Middletown the northbound lane was blocked and traffic stopped or slowed, with only the southbound lane open. One Sheriff's deputy was stopping civilian traffic while armed with an assault rifle. Three LCSO deputies were sent to the hillside with their rifles, to take cover in the brush in case of a violent confrontation with the Hells Angels. At 4:22 p.m. three patrol vehicle responding Code 3 nearly collided at the intersection of highways 29 and 175 in Middletown.


When Rivero arrived at the scene, LCSO staff members and the CHP command staff questioned Rivero about his authority to close the road, stop the Hells Angels and not allow them entry into the county. Shortly after the CHP and Clearlake Police officers left the area because of the legality of the plan to stop the Hells Angels, they staged in the area in case there was a need for back-up or traffic control.


When the roadblock was discontinued LCSO units left the area of Highway 29 and Bradford Road.


Three LCSO deputies were sent into Napa County in an attempt to locate the Hells Angels. Calls were made to Napa, Sonoma and Mendocino county law enforcement agencies, all advised they didn't see any Hells Angels. CHP helicopter searched the surrounding area but did not locate any Hells Angels.


The original information regarding the Hells Angels came from a CHP officer in Sonoma County who reported seeing three Hells Angels eastbound on Highway 12 in southern Sonoma County. He heard of the large number of Vagos in Lakeport. This information was relayed to his dispatch and an FBI agent. The FBI agent then reported receiving uncorroborated information from a credible source that there were Hells Angels traveling in the direction of Lake County.


There was never a group of 150 Hells Angels, nor was there any information that any Hells Angels were en route to Lake County to fight or confront the Vagos, according to the investigation report.


The findings of the investigation state: "Although the intentions of Rivero to prevent a potential fight between the Hells Angels and Vagos were honorable, the law is clear that no single person or government entity can deprive citizens of the rights guaranteed them under the United States Constitution.


"Case law continuously has held that regardless of the criminal history or affiliations, the government cannot stop citizens and deny them the freedom of travel guaranteed them under Article 4 Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, such conduct violates person's rights under the First Amendment to peacefully assemble; Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of life or liberty without due process; and the 14th Amendment right not to be denied of the right of equal protection under the law.


"Title 18 U.S.C Section 242 states "This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.


"Any attempt or conspiracy to violate this law is also a crime. California Vehicle Code section 21055 sets forth the circumstance in which a peace office is exempt from certain rules of the road by responding Code 3, that being with red lights and sirens. Among the circumstances are when responding to an immediate and imminent threat to officer safety or the public. In this occurrence, even if the information was true, there was no immediate threat to officer safety or to the public, which is why CHP refused to respond Code 3."


The investigation concluded stating: "Vehicle Code Section 21055 is administrative in nature and not meant to constitute a criminal violation. It is strongly suggested that the heads of law enforcement agencies work closely together to establish protocol for similar events in the future. It is also suggested that to avoid possible criminal and civil liability, law enforcement personnel at even the highest level receive the proper training in constitutional law and police procedures."


The District Attorney's Office is obligated to investigate complaints of an abuse of authority under the color of law.

 

Congress approves extension of expiring Patriot Act provisions

Posted by Webmaster on May 26, 2011 at 10:41 PM Comments comments (0)


Washington (CNN) -- The U.S. House followed the Senate on Thursday in voting to extend three key provisions of the Patriot Act scheduled to expire at midnight, sending the measure to President Barack Obama to be signed into law.

By a 250-153 vote, the Republican-led House agreed to extend the expiring provisions of the law passed after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. They deal with roving wiretaps, the tracking of alleged "lone wolf" terrorists and the ability of law enforcement officials to obtain any records they deem relevant to an investigation after securing an order from a federal court.

White House spokesman Nick Shapiro said Obama, attending the G8 summit in France, directed the use of an autopen -- a signature reproduction device -- to sign the measure once Congress approved it. The legislation was to be hand-delivered to the White House after the final vote and certification n Congress.

The House had been scheduled to begin its Memorial Day recess Thursday afternoon. However, a protracted dispute over the legislation in the Senate, fueled by conservative newcomer Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, muddied voting schedules and required the House to stay longer than planned.

Paul reached a deal with Senate leaders to allow votes on whether to table two of his amendments. Both amendments failed, and the subsequent Senate vote on the measure to extend the Patriot Act provisions for four years passed easily on a 72-23 vote.

 

The House vote was tighter, with lawmakers on the right and left opposing an extension for various reasons. For example, some members of Congress are concerned about the law's impact on civil liberties, while others support the law but think it should be made permanent.

One of the three provisions, Section 206 of the Patriot Act, provides for roving wiretap surveillance of targets who try to thwart Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) surveillance. Without such roving wiretap authority, investigators would be forced to seek a new court order each time they need to change the location, phone or computer that needs to be monitored.

Another provision, Section 215 of the Patriot Act, allows the FBI to apply to the FISA court to issue orders granting the government access to any tangible items in foreign intelligence, international terrorism and clandestine intelligence cases.

The third provision, Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act of 2004, closes a loophole that could allow individual terrorists not affiliated with specific organizations to slip through the cracks of FISA surveillance. Law enforcement officials refer to it as the "lone wolf" provision.

Legislators opposed to the extensions claim that the provisions -- particularly related to wiretapping -- are intrusive and unconstitutional. Supporters argue that they are a critical component of U.S. anti-terror operations.

Paul, a favorite of the Tea Party movement, engaged in a bitter showdown Wednesday with Senate Majority Harry Reid, D-Nevada, who sought to limit the number of amendments that Paul could offer.

Then on Thursday, Paul complained that it was Senate Republican leaders now holding up consideration of his amendments.

In a rare public rebuke of his own party's leadership, Paul said he was "disappointed" by their actions and urged people to contact GOP leadership offices in protest.

"I've been working for two long days filibustering the Patriot Act in hopes that we can have a constitutional debate over certain provisions of it and we can try to reform it to take away some of the encroachments on our freedoms," Paul said. "Unfortunately, what we're finding now is that the Democrats have agreed to allow me to have amendments, but my own party is refusing to allow me to debate or present my amendments."

In particular, Paul sought to propose an amendment preventing warrantless access to some gun records. Republican leaders don't want a vote on his amendment because they are conflicted by it, Paul said.

They don't want to vote to weaken the Patriot Act by making it more difficult for law enforcement to obtain any information -- including gun records -- related to a terrorism investigation, he said, but they also don't want to take a vote that could be viewed negatively by gun rights groups.

One Senate Republican leader, Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, rejected Paul's analysis but refused to explain why or even if GOP leaders were blocking Paul's amendment.

After reaching the deal to debate two of his amendments, Paul said on the Senate floor that his motivation was to protect personal liberties rather than to harm the Patriot Act or undermine security in any way.

"It's very important that we are always vigilant, that we are eternally vigilant about the powers of government," Paul said in arguing for tighter restrictions on the ability of federal investigators to access some gun ownership records.

He went on to complain in general about what he characterized as a federal overreaction to the 9/11 attacks that reduced individual liberty in the name of security. For example, he said, airline travelers are all considered possible terrorists and screened for security reasons; he described such a strategy as a "shotgun" approach.

"Are we so afraid that we're giving up all of our liberty for security?" Paul asked, calling for tighter restrictions on what the government can investigate without a search warrant.

However, fellow conservative Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Georgia, said Paul's amendment to end warrantless access to gun records would hinder the government's ability to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States.

"I don't understand why we would take this tool away from national security investigators," Chambliss said, adding that there were "no reports that the government has ever used these provisions to violate anyone's Second Amendment rights."

CNN's Deirdre Walsh, Ted Barrett and Dana Bash contributed to this story.

 


Freedom Rally at the Capital - May 23, 2011

Posted by Webmaster on May 21, 2011 at 4:55 AM Comments comments (1)

Unit Commanders,

The Freedom Rally is nearly upon us -- It is imperative that we have a strong showing of motorcyclists from every genre.  Our politicians need to be reminded that YOU are serious about retaining YOUR personal freedoms and that we simply won't go away.  A strong presence at this event is extremely important.  (Please remind riders not to rap their pipes when approaching and leaving the Capitol.)

 

The Freedom Rally is scheduled for Monday, May 23, 2011 at 11 am on the south steps of our State Capitol.

Gimmi Jimmy, National Commander of the US Defenders will be in attendance and will be the featured speaker at the Rally.  Escondido Paul Landers will also address the crowd on the capitol steps.  Gimmi Jimmy has been invited to speak to the ABATE of California membership atit's quarterly board meeting on Sunday, May 22.  We urge each club to send at least one or two representatives to Sacramento -- of course, the more representation the better!

See ya'll in Sac!



Rss_feed