MMA Meeting Talking Points � February 2011 by 32tGOMH

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 20

									          MMA Meeting Agenda & Talking Points – July 2012


Welcome, Pledge of Allegiance

Fallen Local Brothers/Riders: MOMENT OF SILENCE
    Pete Smirl - Hellbent For Glory MC - Sacramento (MMA of CA)

Monthly MMA Membership, Announcements and Events
     September 15-16: End of Summer Campout
     October 28: Division 1 Poker Run
     November 24: Toy Run Pre-Party, Sacramento
     November 25: Annual Toy Run, Sacramento
     December 9: Swap Meet

Next Confederation of Clubs Meeting

     NorCal - Saturday, July 14, Vallejo
     Monterey Bay - Sunday, July 8, Marina
     Central - Sunday, July 15, Fresno
     North Valley - Saturday, August 11
     Far North - Sunday, August 12
     Southern - Wednesday, July 18
     San Diego - Tuesday, July 10


Guest Speakers / Handouts

   Guerilla Warfare - Pamphlet: Encounter, Detainment or Arrest


Calls to Action - Last 30 days

   USD - 7/3. Notice after AB 1047 passed the Assembly Floor on 7/2 that it may be
    beneficial to contact the Governor if he hesitates signing the bill in law - if so a CTA
    will be issued.
   MCANSG - 7/1. Any and all motorcycle riders are encouraged to join us protesting the
    LA Calendar Motorcycle Show at the Calabasas Inn on Sunday, 7/22.




                               Page 1 of 20
         MMA Meeting Agenda & Talking Points – July 2012


Bolt Summit - Sacramento, CA: Saturday, June 30, 2012

   SB 435. EPA can regulate ONLY to manufacturers (title 30, sec 205 > pipes)
   **** Section 1983 ****
       o Section 1983 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code is part of the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT of
           1871. This provision was formerly enacted as part of the Ku Klux Klan Act of
           1871 and was originally designed to combat post-Civil War racial violence in
           the Southern states. Reenacted as part of the Civil Rights Act, section 1983 is as
           of the early 2000s the primary means of enforcing all constitutional rights in
           order to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment. It effectively creates a Fourteenth
           Amendment action for damages (and for injunctive relief) against “Every
           person,” acting under color of state or local law, who deprives a person of his or
           her Fourteenth Amendment rights and thereby causes damage. As it turns out in
           Supreme Court case law, “Every person” includes state and local government
           officials as well as local governments themselves (but not states).
       o In real world terms, this means that whenever a state or local law enforcement
           officer makes an arrest, conducts a search or uses force in alleged violation of
           the Fourth Amendment, section 1983 is potentially implicated.
   California Implied Consent Warning
    Each year, countless California residents are arrested and charged with driving under
    the influence (DUI) based on the results of a breathalyzer or other chemical test. In
    light of this, many drivers mistakenly believe that, by refusing to perform the test,
    they can avoid an arrest. That decision, however, can lead to devastating
    consequences under the California Implied Consent Warning.

     Designed to measure blood-to-alcohol ratio, chemical tests work by calculating the
     amount of alcohol found in a person’s bloodstream—a percentage known as blood
     alcohol content, or BAC. Like most states, California law prohibits any driver from
     operating a vehicle with a BAC of 0.08% or higher. Therefore, when a chemical test
     indicates an individual has a BAC above this limit, the driver in question will be
     arrested for DUI. Likewise, if the individual refuses to perform the test, the state’s
     Implied Consent Law also allows him or her to be charged with driving under the
     influence.

     By accepting a California driver’s license, you agreed to adhere to the state’s BAC
     guidelines; thus, in the event that you are suspected of violating them, you are legally
     obligated to submit to chemical testing. This means that, if an officer suspects you are
     driving under the influence, you must allow him or her to administer a chemical test to
     determine your BAC—so if you refuse, you can expect to be arrested as a result.


                                Page 2 of 20
           MMA Meeting Agenda & Talking Points – July 2012


      It is important to know that the penalties for refusing a chemical test are just as severe
      as for failing. Along with an automatic license suspension, a refusal can cost up to
      $1,000 in fines and carry a maximum four-month jail sentence—and that’s just for a
      first offense. If you have been convicted of any other DUI charge within the past ten
      years, you’ll face even tougher punishment for an Implied Consent violation.

      Fortunately, if you were arrested for refusing to perform a chemical test, you may be
      able to avoid many of the penalties listed above. Under state law, officers are required
      to inform you of the consequences of your actions—which means your charges may be
      dismissed if you were not warned about the state’s Implied Consent law.

      In addition, you also have the right to choose the type of test you perform (be it a
      breathalyzer, blood, or urine test) and you must be placed under arrest before the test
      can be legally administered. If any of these requirements were not met, your case will
      most likely be thrown out of court.


International News

French to require all drivers to carry breathalyzer to curb accidents
 France on Sunday will become the first country to require all drivers, including tourists, to
carry hand-held breathalyzers in all vehicles — a move to help the wine-loving country crack
down on drunken driving.

The law takes effect July 1 and was approved in March 2011. It is aimed at convincing
drivers to check their blood alcohol level before starting their vehicles.

The law is being watched closely by auto safety advocates in the United States. In the U.S.,
10,228 people were killed in 2010 in alcohol-related crashes, down 4.9 percent over 2009

France had about 4,000 road deaths in 2011, down from 16,000 annually in the early 1970s.
Nearly 30 percent of road deaths in France are alcohol-related — or about 1,150. That's about
the same percentage in the United States.

Fines for not carrying one are small — 11 euros — or about $14 and begin in November.
France has also instituted stricter drunk driving laws and tougher penalties in recent years.

France requires drivers to carry a first-aid kit, fire extinguisher and spare light bulbs for

                                   Page 3 of 20
          MMA Meeting Agenda & Talking Points – July 2012


headlamps.

On Friday, the American Beverage Institute, representing more than 8,000 restaurants,
opposed a measure to expand research on alcohol ignition interlocks that could one day
prevent drunken drivers from starting their vehicles.

The highway bill approved by the House and Senate Friday funds the Driver Alcohol
Detection System for Safety, a federal program working to create alcohol detection systems
for installation as standard equipment in all cars.

The bill appropriates $5 million in additional funding over two years for the research
program.

In addition to funding alcohol-detection device research, the highway bill agreement sets
aside $20 million in grants from the Department of Transportation to incentivize states to
pass laws requiring ignition interlocks, in-car Breathalyzers, as punishment for first-time
drunken drivers.

"The House and Senate should amend the interlock provisions of the highway bill to apply
only to the high-BAC and repeat drunk drivers who cause the vast majority of alcohol-
impaired fatalities," said Sarah Longwell, ABI's managing director.

National News
Southern Nevada COC Sues Vegas Metro

The Southern Nevada Confederation of Clubs filed a civil rights lawsuit yesterday in federal
court against the notorious Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, the North Las Vegas
Police Department and numerous sworn peace officers whose names are both known and
unknown.

Dozens of individual members of the Mongols, Vagos, Stray Cats and Bandidos Motorcycle
Clubs are parties to the suit which alleges that “Plaintiffs were willfully, maliciously, and
intentionally prevented from associating and/or assembling without justification or
compelling state interest as a result of their status as a motorcycle club or motorcycle club
member.” The suit alleges that the members of the clubs were both denied their constitutional
rights and defamed.

The plaintiffs seek “damages in a sum in excess of $75,000; punitive and exemplary damages
in a sum in excess of $75,000; a reasonable sum as attorneys’ fees, costs of suit and interest;


                                 Page 4 of 20
                MMA Meeting Agenda & Talking Points – July 2012


      and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.” The plaintiffs are
      represented by an attorney named Stephen P. Stubbs and it briefly summarizes several illegal
      incidents in which clubs or club members were harassed or otherwise inconvenienced.


      US Senator heads up pro-active campaign against the UN's Small Arms Treaty

Dear fellow American,
      Gun-grabbers around the globe believe they have it made.
      Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently announced the Obama Administration will be
working hand-in-glove with the UN to pass a new “Small Arms Treaty.”
      Disguised as an “International Arms Control Treaty” to fight against “terrorism,”
“insurgency” and “international crime syndicates,” the UN’s Small Arms Treaty is in fact a
massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme.
      If passed by the UN and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the UN “Small Arms Treaty” would
almost certainly FORCE the United States to:
*** Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding Americans cut through even more
bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;
*** CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by
the government are excluded, of course);
*** BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;
*** Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun
CONFISCATION.
      I'm sure I don't have to tell you that this is NOT a fight we can afford to lose.
      I’m helping lead the fight to defeat this radical treaty in the United States Senate and I want
your help.
      Please join me by taking a public stand AGAINST this outright assault on our national
sovereignty by signing the Official Firearms Sovereignty Survey below!
For Freedom,

Rand Paul
U.S. Senator (R-KY)

      CONGRESSIONAL RECORD RECOGNIZES VIABILITY OF MOTORCYCLES
      Congressional Motorcycle Safety Caucus Member and House Highways and Transit
      Subcommittee Chairman John Duncan (R-TN) entered a statement to the Congressional
      Record on May 18 recognizing motorcycles and scooters as viable transportation options for
      many Americans. Previously, President Obama had proclaimed May 15 through May 21 as

                                      Page 5 of 20
           MMA Meeting Agenda & Talking Points – July 2012


National Transportation Week and acknowledged that America needs a safer transportation
network that will provide more transportation choices.

“As a Member of the Congressional Motorcycle Safety Caucus, I would like to highlight one
such choice and point out that two wheeled vehicles can be transportation options for many
Americans,” said Chairman Duncan. “In his proclamation, the President called for increased
transportation options that cut commuting time, ease traffic congestion, reduce oil
consumption and lower greenhouse gas emissions. Motorcycles and scooters are options that
can help to meet all of these goals. Motorcycles and scooters also have the advantages of
being much cheaper than cars or trucks as well as considerably easier to park – and a lot of
fun to ride.”

“I own a scooter myself and I enjoy riding when I get the opportunity,” said Duncan. “I
encourage all riders to get trained, licensed and obey traffic laws, and I remind all road users
to be aware of motorcyclists.”


Despite Death Toll, Motorcycle Groups Strive to Muzzle U.S. Regulators
Fatalities from motorcycle crashes have more than doubled since the mid-1990s. The latest
figures show these accidents taking about 4,500 lives a year, or one in seven U.S. traffic
deaths.

Mandatory helmet laws are widely considered the closest thing to a silver bullet that
regulators have to thwart deadly accidents. NHTSA estimates that helmets saved 1,483 lives
in 2009, and that another 732 deaths could have been avoided if all riders had worn them.
The social costs of the carnage are also huge: a 2008 agency estimate concluded that $1.3
billion in medical bills and lost productivity would have been saved if all bikers had worn
helmets.

The paradox between what biker groups are lobbying for versus what most safety experts say
really works riles regulators and other public health advocates.

“You cannot be in this battle and not be frustrated by this senselessness,” said Michael
Dabbs, president of the Brain Injury Association of Michigan.

He added that the personal freedom that riders seek would have socially unacceptable
consequences if carried to its logical extreme. “Maybe we ought to save some of the costs
when police or emergency responders go to the scene of a crash and the person is not wearing
a helmet,” Dabbs said. “Perhaps they ought to be left there like roadkill.”


                                  Page 6 of 20
            MMA Meeting Agenda & Talking Points – July 2012


The repeal of Michigan’s long-standing helmet law had been opposed by a coalition of more
than two dozen medical and public health groups led by the Brain Injury Association of
Michigan. Public opinion, too, weighed against the move — a poll indicated that 80 percent
wanted to keep the helmet law. State safety officials predicted the repeal would lead to at
least 30 more deaths a year.

Motorcycle activists, led by the local chapter of a group calling itself American Bikers
Aiming Toward Education, or ABATE, framed the issue as a matter of personal liberty. They
also argued that the repeal would draw more riders to the state and increase tourism.

In Michigan, riders 20 and younger still must wear helmets, and the new law requires
motorcyclists to have at least $20,000 in medical insurance. But those who advocated
keeping the helmet requirement for all riders said the $20,000 in insurance would not come
close to covering the cost of a catastrophic injury.


CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DO BURNOUTS
When officials cracked down on motorcyclists doing burnouts at this year’s annual Myrtle Beach
Spring Rally, a local biker bar made a federal case out of it, literally. Now it will be up to a judge to
decide if doing burnouts - revving a motorcycle’s engine while applying the front brake to let its
back tire spin to create noise and smoke - is a constitutionally-protected right.

Horry County cracked down on burnouts during bike festivals last year, issuing a special event
permit to Suck Bang Blow that limited the activity to between noon and 9 p.m. and only at the rear
of the bar’s building. This year, the county issued a permit that banned burnouts altogether.

SBB, which claims the activity has been a regular feature of bike rally events at the bar since it
opened in 1996, obtained a temporary restraining order against the county just before the May
rally, allowing the burnouts to continue at least for now.

In a lawsuit filed in state court, SBB claims that burnouts are among several activities patrons
participate in while “expressing their manliness and macho, as all males are prone and inclined to
do to a greater or lesser degree.” The bar says burnouts are “expressive performances to the
public” and is protected by the First Amendment.

Horry County, in its response to the lawsuit, calls burnouts a “public nuisance” and says it “is
expressly authorized by state statute to abate public nuisances.” The county denies that it has
violated any Constitutional rights, but since the lawsuit deals with federal rights it should be heard
in federal court. A decision could come just in time for next year’s rally, with a jury trial scheduled to
begin on May 6, 2013.




                                     Page 7 of 20
           MMA Meeting Agenda & Talking Points – July 2012


Federal Appeals Court Calls Visual Speed Estimate Absurd
Fourth Circuit US Court of Appeals delivers rebuke to judge who convicted a man based on a
visual estimate of speed.

It is absurd to think a police officer can look at a car on the highway and know its speed with
enough precision to perform a traffic stop, the Fourth Circuit US Court of Appeals ruled
Tuesday. Deputy James Elliott had pulled over motorist Sean C. Sowards by looking and
guessing that it was traveling 75 MPH on Interstate 77 in North Carolina, where the speed
limit is 70 MPH. Elliott had a radar gun in his patrol car, but he did not use it.

At trial, Elliott testified his certification to use radar in the state included a visual speed
estimation test. He admitted one of his estimates was off by 12 MPH, but he still passed the
course.

Elliott went on to insist that he could estimate a car's speed without needing to estimate the
distance it traveled. After hearing the case, a lower court refused to throw out the traffic stop
as invalid.

"Officer Elliott had probable cause to believe a traffic violation had occurred based on
speed," US District Court Judge Richard L. Voorhees ruled. "He's trained to estimate speeds.
His difficulty with measurements is immaterial to his estimate of speed as that did not depend
on time or distance."

As a result, Sowards was convicted for possession of the drugs that were uncovered as a
result of the traffic stop. Though he has already served his time in prison for this case, he
appealed on the grounds that the traffic stop itself had been illegal. The appellate panel
majority agreed.

"It was clear error for the district court to find that Deputy Elliott's 'difficulty with
measurements is immaterial to his estimate of speed as that did not depend on time or
distance,'" Judge James A. Wynn, Jr. wrote for the majority. "This finding rings absurd
because one cannot discern the speed of a vehicle measured in miles-per-hour without
discerning both the increment of distance traveled and the increment of time passed."

The Fourth Amendment requires reasonable suspicion, a standard not met with a guess
regarding the slight excess in speed claimed. To find otherwise, the majority argued, would
be to allow police to pull anyone over for any reason, since the courts already overlook
subjective motivations of officers.

"In the absence of sufficient additional indicia of reliability, an officer's visual approximation

                                  Page 8 of 20
           MMA Meeting Agenda & Talking Points – July 2012


that a vehicle is traveling in slight excess of the legal speed limit is a guess that is merely
conclusory and which lacks the necessary factual foundation to provide an officer with
reasonably trustworthy information to initiate a traffic stop," Wynn wrote.

The court also noted that an Ohio Supreme Court decision that had upheld the use of visual
speed estimation was swiftly overturned by the state legislature.

Local News

'Stop And Frisk' In San Francisco? Mayor Considers Adopting
Controversial Policy

San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee said he is considering implementing the controversial stop-and-
frisk policy used in other major cities including New York and Philadelphia to reduce violent
crime.

Lee told the San Francisco Chronicle's editorial board Wednesday that police officers need
stop-and-frisk to get guns off the streets.

A former civil rights lawyer, Lee concedes that the policy is controversial and said he will
likely be tagged for racial profiling. Lee said he wants to explore the idea after discussing the
policy with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Civil rights groups have criticized stop-and-frisk as racial profiling, saying the policy
disproportionately affects Hispanics and blacks. Thousands of demonstrators marched
through New York's streets this month to protest stop-and-frisk.

Lee's revelation also comes as a surprise as San Francisco's violent crime rate in 2011
dropped for a third straight year, hovering at historic lows not seen since the 1960s and
mirroring a current national trend.


License Plate Recognition Logs Our Lives Long Before We Sin
L.A. Weekly has learned that more than two dozen law enforcement agencies in Los Angeles
County are using hundreds of these "automatic license plate recognition" devices (LPRs) —
units about the size of a paperback book, usually mounted atop police cruisers — to devour
data on every car that catches their electronic eye.

The L.A. County Sheriff's Department and the Los Angeles Police Department are two of the

                                   Page 9 of 20
           MMA Meeting Agenda & Talking Points – July 2012


biggest gatherers of automatic license plate recognition information. Local police agencies
have logged more than 160 million data points — a massive database of the movements of
millions of drivers in Southern California.

Each data point represents a car and its exact whereabouts at a given time. Police have
already conducted, on average, some 22 scans for every one of the 7,014,131 vehicles
registered in L.A. County. Because it's random, some cars are scanned numerous times,
others never.

Documents obtained by the Weekly through the California Public Records Act, and
interviews with officials at LAPD, LBPD and the Sheriff's Department, describe one of the
most densely concentrated license plate recognition systems in the United States — soon to
be linked up to a similar system in San Diego.

But privacy-rights advocates, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American
Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, are worried.

Peter Bibring, an attorney with the ACLU, says, "There's nothing wrong with LPR installed
in cars, checking license plates against stolen vehicles or warrant issues."

Still, it doesn't require a tin-foil hat to imagine ways in which it could be misused. Bibring
says that by retaining a history of innocent people's travels — under Chief Charlie Beck, for
example, LAPD hangs onto millions of pieces of data for five years — "law enforcement can
create a clear picture of the movements of law-abiding citizens."

In 2005, just a few police cars in Southern California boasted these futuristic devices, which
were used mostly to spot stolen cars. Without fanfare or public debate, their uses have gone
far past that simple beginning.

The units continuously scan and photograph every license plate within view, logging the time
and location of each. License plates are checked against a "hot list" of wanted vehicles and, if
there's a match, officers do their thing.

Otherwise, the location and photo information is uploaded to a central database, then retained
for years — in case it's needed for a subsequent investigation. LPR devices are even mounted
covertly on unmarked vehicles, such as a Nissan that Sheriff Lee Baca's officials say they use
mostly in terrorism investigations.

Investigators need neither a warrant nor probable cause to do this. Yet the overwhelming
majority of these cars, and their drivers, are not connected with any crime.

                                 Page 10 of 20
           MMA Meeting Agenda & Talking Points – July 2012


Some agencies in L.A. County are clamoring for more of the pricey devices.

LAPD patrol units have about 120 of them, the Sheriff's Department has 77 devices and
another 200 in procurement, and Long Beach plans to triple its numbers, from 15 units to 45.

At $15,000 to $25,000 a pop, that's $1.8 million in costs to LAPD, $4.1 million for the
Sheriff's Department, and $675,000 for LBPD, counting units now being ordered.

Detectives are cooperating across police boundaries, accessing license plate scans taken by
the other jurisdictions. The Back Office Server System, or BOSS data-sharing network, has
made L.A. County's one of the most interconnected LPR systems in the country.

Department of Homeland Security grant documents, obtained by the Weekly through the
Freedom of Information Act, suggest that in addition to the hundreds of LPR devices now
atop police vehicles, about 60 are hidden along strategic roadways near potential terrorist
targets such as LAX and the Port of Long Beach.

In 2005, when LPR made its debut here, police agencies generally threw out all of the
unneeded information that wasn't tied to a stolen or otherwise wanted vehicle.

Now there's a lot of cheap digital storage space, so LAPD holds all of its data for five years,
Long Beach for two, the Sheriff's Department for two.

But Sgt. John Gaw, with the Sheriff's Department, says, "I'd keep it indefinitely if I could."

ACLU's Bibring calls these long retention times "exceedingly troubling," and state Sen. Joe
Simitian has introduced legislation setting a 60-day retention limit, which copies the
California Highway Patrol.


California Legislation

   2012 Agenda

       Lane Sharing Bill - No update

    AB 1047 - Motorcycle Only Checkpoints : Senate amendments were voted on by the
     Assembly on July 2nd and passed unanimously 77-0


                                 Page 11 of 20
        MMA Meeting Agenda & Talking Points – July 2012


      o The Bill was enrolled and presented to the Governor on July 6th

 AB 1890 - Toll transponders for motorcycles.
  Some toll authorities are requiring motorcycle riders to have their transponders out and
  visible creating a safety issue. This bill will allow riders to just have them on bikers,
  displayed or not.
   Some of the display options...
    Rider's pocket
    Inside a cycle net that drapes over the gas tank
    Mount on license plate devices provide by the toll operator
      o Senate amendments were voted on by the Assembly on June 25th and
        passed unanimously 78-0. The Bill was enrolled and presented to the
        Governor on June 29th


 AB2128 - Extending longer yellow warning times at intersections that use red
  light cameras.
  California Assembly Committee Votes for Longer Yellow Times
  Legislative committee in California passes bill increasing yellow time by one second at
  red light camera intersections.

   The California Assembly's Transportation Committee yesterday voted unanimously to
   lengthen yellow warning times at intersections that use red light cameras. The same
   legislation also reduces the cost of a rolling-right turn automated fine from $500 to
   $250.

   The bill addresses yellow timing in two ways. It corrects the negative impact of a
   recently adopted law that authorized cities to round down speed limits, and, in effect,
   shorten yellow times by 0.4 seconds at certain intersections -- both with and without
   cameras. Minimum yellow times in California are determined by posted speed limits,
   so a lower limit allows cities to shorten the amount of warning time provided to
   motorists. Cook's bill requires any city that takes advantage of the rounded-down limit
   to use the rounded-up speed for the purposes of selecting a yellow time. Cook's bill
   also follows the lead of Ohio and Georgia by mandating longer yellows at all photo
   enforced intersections.

   "At an intersection at which there is an automated enforcement system in operation, the
   minimum yellow light change interval shall be established at one second beyond the
   yellow light change intervals as designated pursuant to the California Manual on
   Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), or its successor," AB 2128 states.


                                 Page 12 of 20
           MMA Meeting Agenda & Talking Points – July 2012


       Tickets would not be valid unless the yellow time was set in accordance with the law.
       The Texas Transportation Institute concluded in 2004 that adding an additional second
       to the ITE minimum yellow yielded 53 percent reduction in violations (view report).
       This is so because the vast majority of violations happen within the first 0.25 seconds
       after the light changes.
       In committee: Set, second hearing. Held under submission.

    SB 1303 - Automated Traffic Enforcement Systems
Creates additional standards for the installation of automated red-light camera systems and
makes other changes relating to the notices sent to vehicle owners and to the use of red-light
camera photographs as evidence in court.
Key elements:
       Prohibits a governmental agency that proposes to institute an
            automated traffic enforcement system from considering revenue
            generation, beyond covering operating costs, as a factor when
            considering whether or not to install or operate a system
       Authorizes the mailing of a "notice of non-liability" or
            "courtesy notice" by the issuing agency, manufacturer, or
            supplier of the system to the registered owner or the alleged
            violator prior to issuing a notice to appear, prescribes the
            form that must be sent, and prohibits the manufacturer or
            supplier of the system, or the governmental entity, from
            altering the notice to appear or notice of non-liability.
       Provides that an evidentiary rebuttable presumption that the
            printed representation of computer information is presumed to
            be an accurate representation of the computer information,
            shall apply to the printed representation of
            computer-generated information stored by an automated traffic
            enforcement system.
       Provides that an evidentiary rebuttable presumption that
            printed representations of images stored in a video or digital
            medium is presumed to be an accurate representation of the
            images that it purports to represent, shall apply to the
            printed representation of video or photographic images stored
            by an automated traffic enforcement system.
       Passed (9-0) on 7/3 as amended and re-refered to Appropriations Committee



    SB 1506 - Reducing Penalties for Drug Possession for Personal Use
     With an eye towards ending punitive drug policies that have made the United States
     the world’s largest incarcerator and cost taxpayers billions of dollars a year, Senator
     Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) in February introduced legislation to reduce the penalty
     for Californians who possess small amounts of drugs for their own personal use. The
     bill, SB 1506, co-sponsored by the ACLU of California, Drug Policy Alliance, Ella
     Baker Center for Human Rights and the California NAACP, changes the penalty for


                                 Page 13 of 20
           MMA Meeting Agenda & Talking Points – July 2012


       the simple possession of drugs under state law from a felony, which is punishable by
       up to three years behind bars, to a misdemeanor, which is punishable by up to one year
       behind bars.
               Failed passage (ayes 11, noes 24) during third reading on 5/31

    AB1535 - Highway signs for Motorcycle OK in HOV lanes.
     Support letters needed and contacting Assemblywoman Halderman asking her to make
     this bill her highest priority in suspense file.
     5/25 - Bill died in appropriations committee. Cal Trans put a $7 million price on
     doing it. With CA facing a $16 billion deficit, they are not going to pass any bill
     with a high price. Halderman proposed putting the signs up when normal
     maintenance was done so to not add extra labor costs. CalTrans gave their cost of
     doing it all at once, creating labor costs, lane closures and extra labor costs.

     AB 2312 - Enact Statewide Bureau to regulate medical marijuana commerce in CA
      On Tuesday, April 17, members of the Assembly Committee on Public Safety voted 4-2 in
      favor of AB 2312 The bill now awaits action from the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
      AB 2312 seeks to establish a state regulatory system for medical cannabis under the Dept
      of Consumer Affairs. The bill is based on the proposed Medical Marijuana Regulation
      Control and Taxation initiative drafted by Americans for Safe Access, the UFCW, California
      NORML, and other marijuana law reform organizations. Under this proposal, medicinal
      cannabis dispensaries would become state-licensed. It would also require cities and
      counties to allow at least one marijuana dispensary for every 50,000 residents – unless local
      voters specifically approve a ban or tighter restrictions.
June 25 In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

      AB 2312 - Firearms: Assault Weapon Conversion Kits

   Existing law, with certain exceptions, prohibits the possession of an assault weapon, as
   defined, and makes violations subject to criminal penalties.

   This bill would, commencing July 1, 2013, and with certain exceptions, prohibit any
   person from importing, making, selling, loaning, transferring, or possessing any
   conversion kit, as defined, designed solely and exclusively to convert certain firearms
   with a fixed magazine into firearms with the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and
   other features making the firearm an assault weapon and would make violations subject to
   criminal penalties. By creating new crimes, this bill would impose a state-mandated local
   program.

   Existing law makes possession of an assault weapon a public nuisance, authorizes the
   Attorney General, district attorney, or city attorney to bring a civil action to enjoin



                                  Page 14 of 20
          MMA Meeting Agenda & Talking Points – July 2012


   possession of the weapon, authorizes imposition of a civil fine, and, with certain
   exceptions, requires disposition of the weapon by sale at public auction or by destruction.

   This bill would, commencing July 1, 2013, make possession of a conversion kit a public
   nuisance, would authorize a civil action to enjoin possession of a conversion kit, would
   authorize imposition of a civil fine, and, with certain exceptions, would, similarly, require
   disposition of the conversion kit.

   Existing law authorizes a person to arrange in advance to relinquish an assault weapon to
   a police or sheriff's department.

   This bill would authorize a person to arrange in advance to relinquish a conversion kit to a
   police or sheriff's department.

   The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school
   districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures
   for making that reimbursement.

   This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified
   reason.


   2013-2014 Agenda

   NCOM's End Motorcycle Profiling Act of 2013

Active Judicial Cases in California - Criminal and Civil

California
Police Harassment and Rights Violations
    Monterey Bay COC - Santa Cruz County Gang Task Force
    Henchmen MC San Jose Chapter - San Jose Police Department
    Mayhem MC - Santa Cruz County
    Henchmen MC Sacramento Chapter - Sacramento Police Department

Discuss active member and or club traffic stop cases and civil lawsuit cases - Get case
numbers for all



                                 Page 15 of 20
            MMA Meeting Agenda & Talking Points – July 2012


Government & Law Enforcement Tools, Misconduct and Abuse

Homeland Security Report Lists ‘Liberty Lovers’ As Terrorists
Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority, reverent of individual liberty” deemed
domestic threat Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com Tuesday, July 3, 2012

A new study funded by the Department of Homeland Security characterizes Americans who are “suspicious
of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists.
Entitled Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States, 1970-2008 (PDF), the study was
produced by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the
University of Maryland. The organization was launched with the aid of DHS funding to the tune of $12
million dollars.

While largely omitting Islamic terrorism - the report fails completely to mention the 1993 World Trade
Center bombing – the study focuses on Americans who hold beliefs shared by the vast majority of
conservatives and libertarians and puts them in the context of radical extremism.
The report takes its definitions from a 2011 study entitled Profiles of Perpetrators of Terrorism, produced by
the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, in which the following
characteristics are used to identify terrorists.

- Americans who believe their “way of life” is under attack;
- Americans who are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”;
- People who consider themselves “anti-global” (presumably those who are wary of the loss of American
sovereignty);
- Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”;
- Americans who are “reverent of individual liberty”;
- People who “believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal
liberty.”
The report also lists people opposed to abortion and “groups that seek to smite the purported enemies of God
and other evildoers” as terrorists.

As we have exhaustively documented on numerous occasions, federal authorities and particularly the
Department of Homeland Security have been involved in producing a deluge of literature which portrays
liberty lovers and small government advocates as terrorists.

The most flagrant example was the infamous 2009 MIAC report, published by the Missouri Information
Analysis Center and first revealed by Infowars, which framed Ron Paul supporters, libertarians, people who
display bumper stickers, people who own gold, or even people who fly a U.S. flag, as potential terrorists.
The rush to denounce legitimate political beliefs as thought crimes, or even mundane behaviors, by
insinuating they are shared by terrorists, has accelerated in recent months.

Under the FBI’s Communities Against Terrorism program, the bulk purchase of food is labeled as a potential
indication of terrorist activity, as is using cash to pay for a cup of coffee, and showing an interest in web
privacy when using the Internet in a public place.



                                      Page 16 of 20
            MMA Meeting Agenda & Talking Points – July 2012

As we have documented on numerous occasions, the federal government routinely characterizes mundane
behavior as extremist activity or a potential indicator of terrorist intent. As part of its ‘See Something, Say
Something’ campaign, the Department of Homeland Security educates the public that generic activities
performed by millions of people every day, including using a video camera, talking to police officers,
wearing hoodies, driving vans, writing on a piece of paper, and using a cell phone recording application,” are
all potential signs of terrorist activity.

The DHS stoked controversy last year when it released a series of videos to promote the See Something, Say
Something campaign in which almost all of the terrorists portrayed in the PSAs were white Americans.
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos.
Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.

   1.  Reporting Suspicious Activity? There’s a Homeland Security app for that
   2.  Homeland Security Manual Lists Government Key Words For Monitoring Social Media, News
   3.  DHS Terror Document Lists Yawning, Goose Bumps As Suspicious Behavior
   4.  If You Love “Individual Liberty” Of If You “Believe In Conspiracy Theories” You Are A Potential
       Terrorist
   5. Homeland Security to takeover airline watch lists
   6. Report: More Than 100,000 Americans Are Domestic Terrorists
   7.
   8. Homeland Security Targets Anti-Abortion Activists as Domestic Terrorists
   9. Oklahoma Homeland Security’s Says ‘Controversial Debate’ Suspicious Behavior
   10. Border bill would expand Homeland Security powers
   11. Homeland Security Says It Has Every Right To Spy On Peaceful Protest Groups
   12. Homeland Security Recruiting Neighborhood Busybodies as Informants




MODESTO POLICE PACKING NEW BODY CAMERAS
They're small, light-weight, durable video cameras that attach to an officer's lapel, helmet, or glasses and
records the officer's point of view.
The cameras are the latest invention of Taser International. While there are other body cameras on the
market, Taser representative Steve Tuttle said the design is what makes it better.
"When you raise your arm up you tend to block the body cameras," he explained, "[With our cameras] we're
not missing any of the action. We're watching [a call] from beginning to an end."
Thanks to a grant the department has bought about 150 of the cameras, and just about every officer is going
to wear one.

Another benefit to the cameras is that the view is pretty wide. Also, the video can be recorded and watched
later or seen and streamed real time.
"These videos the officers are capturing will be evidence, and treated as such," said Armendariz. "[The video
will] aid in criminal investigations, administrative investigations, officer involved shootings, all the way up
to citizen complaints."
Even though it's a little 1984 the officers are glad for it.
"It's just that independent witness," said Crawford. "You have the officer's statement, suspect statement, now


                                      Page 17 of 20
            MMA Meeting Agenda & Talking Points – July 2012

you have the cameral; unbiased third eye."
Tuttle added "Big Brother watching" has another benefit. "People's behavior tends to be better, on both sides
of the badge."
The cameras will start being used in Mid-July. Aside from Modesto the only other police department in
Northern California to use these cameras is B.A.R.T. Police - 26 June 2012.


Traffic, Safety & Standards

MOTORCYCLIST FATALITIES REMAIN STEADY
U.S. motorcyclist fatalities have remained roughly the same over the past three years, following a
sharp decline in 2009, according to preliminary data recently released by the Governors Highway
Safety Association.

In a May 21 report, the GHSA projects the final tally for 2011 will be very close to the 4,502
fatalities reported for 2010 and the 4,469 deaths in 2009, which represented a dramatic 16%
decline from 2008.

Earlier, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration projected that overall motor vehicle
fatalities declined 1.7% in 2011, reaching their lowest level since 1949, but the GHSA says high
gas prices are driving more people to ride motorcycles.

Motorcycle deaths increased in 26 states for the first nine months of last year, declined in 23
states, and remained unchanged in one. “States with fewer motorcyclist fatalities attributed the
decrease to poor cycling weather, reduced motorcycle registrations and motorcycle travel,
increased law enforcement, rider training, and motorcycle safety education," according to the
GHSA report. "States with more fatalities cited good cycling weather, increased motorcycle
registrations and travel, and a return to normal levels after an abnormally low fatality count in
2010."




Other/Misc Topics/News

The EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) is circulating petitions for the following
issues..

    Don't Let Privacy Law Get Stuck in 1986: Demand a Digital Upgrade to the
     Electronic Communications Privacy Act

       If the government wants to track our cell phones, or see what web sites we’ve visited,
       or rummage through our Gmail, or read our private messages on Facebook, it should
       be required to go to a judge and get a search warrant based on probable cause. Demand
       a privacy upgrade!

                                      Page 18 of 20
      MMA Meeting Agenda & Talking Points – July 2012


  Sign now and we will add your name to this petition and also send a letter to your
  Representatives and Senators in time for the 25th anniversary of ECPA being signed
  into law:

  Petiton language:
  The government should be required to go to a judge and get a warrant before it
  can read our email, access private photographs and documents we store online, or
  track our location using our mobile phones. Please support legislation that would
  update the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) to require
  warrants for this sensitive information and to require the government to report
  publicly on the use of its surveillance powers.

  ECPA was forward-looking when it was signed into law in October of 1986,
  considering that the World Wide Web hadn't even been invented yet. But now, ECPA
  has become outdated. The privacy standards that it applies to new technologies are
  unclear and weak. For example, the law doesn't specifically address cell phone location
  tracking at all, and it allows the government to seize most emails without ever having
  to go to a judge. Meanwhile, no one is perfectly sure how it applies to newer online
  services like social networks and search engines.

 Don't Let Congress Order Internet Companies to Spy on You: Oppose the Data
  Retention Bill

  The U.S. House of Representatives is currently considering H.R. 1981, a bill that
  would order our online service providers to keep new logs about our online activities,
  logs to help the government identify the web sites we visit and the content we post
  online. This sweeping new "mandatory data retention" proposal treats every Internet
  user like a potential criminal and represents a clear and present danger to the online
  free speech and privacy rights of millions of innocent Americans.

  Tell your Representative to oppose this dangerous bill, before it's too late.

  H.R. 1981 would impose sweeping requirements on a broad swath of online service
  providers to keep new records on all of their customers, just in case the police ever
  want to investigate any of them. In particular, the bill would require any commercial
  providers of Internet access to keep for at least 12 months a record of which users were
  assigned to particular network addresses at particular times.

  Such addresses, like the Internet Protocol (IP) address assigned to your cable modem
  by your cable company, or to your laptop by a wireless router, can be used to identify


                            Page 19 of 20
         MMA Meeting Agenda & Talking Points – July 2012


     who visited particular websites or posted particular content online -- threatening your
     right to privately browse the web and to speak and read anonymously when
     you're online.

     Mandatory data retention would force your Internet Service Provider to create vast
     and expensive new databases of sensitive information about you. That information
     would then be available to the government, in secret and without any court oversight,
     based on weak and outdated electronic privacy laws.

     That same data could become available to civil litigants in private lawsuits--whether
     it's the RIAA trying to identify downloaders, a company trying to uncover and retaliate
     against an anonymous critic, or a divorce lawyer looking for dirty laundry. These
     databases would also be a new and valuable target for black hat hackers, be they
     criminals trying to steal identities or foreign governments trying to unmask anonymous
     dissidents.

     The House Judiciary Committee has already voted to approve the bill despite
     bipartisan privacy concerns, and the bill could be on the House floor for a final vote
     very soon. Now is the time: demand that your Representative protect your online
     privacy and free speech rights by opposing H.R. 1981.

Presentations / Special Topic / Exercise


Open Discussion and fact gathering – Local Issues (Get forms filled out right
there)
           o   Police Harassment / Profiling
           o   Discrimination at local business establishments
           o   Traffic Lights
           o   Road Conditions




                               Page 20 of 20

								
To top