By David “Double D” Devereaux

Mile High Harley-Davidson of Parker, Colorado has announced that it will be hosting a motorcycle swap meet in support of the Colorado Confederation of Clubs (Colorado COC) and to benefit the Colorado Vets 4 Vets program on January 27th and 28th, 2018. Mile High HD of Parker is in full support of the Colorado COC’s decision to not attend the Motorcycle Expo due to the banning of the Mongols Motorcycle Club, a Colorado COC member club. The swap meet is a perfect example of a responsible response to acts of discrimination against the motorcycle club community.

Background: The Mongols And The Denver Swapmeet.

Although the Colorado Motorcycle Expo was cancelled in 2017, the event has returned for 2018. And now the expo has made the decision to exclude the Mongols MC from attending the swap meet based on events occurring in 2016.

As reported on January 30, 2016, during the annual Colorado Motorcycle Expo, commonly called the Denver Swapmeet, Iron Order MC member Derrick “King” Duran shot two members of the Mongols MC, killing a Mongol named Victor Mendoza. Victor was attempting to disarm Duran because he had already shot one of his club brothers and was pointing and waving a gun at dozens of innocent people. The MPP obtained a photo (that subsequently went viral) showing Duran with a gun in his hand moments before he killed Mendoza.

The IOMC, known to have active law enforcement among their membership, has been involved in a laundry list of confrontations around the country with other motorcycle clubs that have resulted in violence or death. Iron Order members have not been held accountable for any of the violence or killings that they have been involved in. The same holds true for the incident in Colorado. Outrageously, the district attorney declined to charge Duran, at the time a Corrections Officer, with a crime.

In response to this decision, the Colorado COC, with the support of the National Council of a Clubs (NCOC), an organization representing the interests of motorcycle clubs nationwide, has decided to withdraw support for the Colorado Motorcycle Expo. In support of the Colorado COC, Mile High HD of Parker is hosting an alternative to the Colorado Motorcycle Expo at their location in nearby Parker, Colorado on January 27th and 28th, 2018. The event will benefit Veterans in the state of Colorado.

NCOC Responds: Press Release December 19, 2017:

Conclusions

The Denver Swap meet had been going on for decades without any incidents of violence. The Mongols MC had attended for many years, as have most of the bigger clubs around the country. But the first time the Iron Order attend the event a deadly confrontation occurs and a Mongol is murdered. The IOMC, with known connections to law enforcement, is not charged in the crime. The event owners and promoters then respond by banning the Iron Order and the victims of the 2016 shooting. The Colorado COC, with national movement backing, withdraws support for the event and a local Harley dealership hosts an alternative swapmeet that benefits Veterans.

Instead of doing nothing, the Colorado COC responded to the act of discrimination prompting a local Harley-Davidson dealership to host an alternative event that also benefits Veterans, not the promoters. The Colorado COC serves as a textbook example of how to unify the community in response to acts of discrimination.

The post Harley Dealership Swap meet Created After Motorcycle Expo Bans Mongols appeared first on Motorcycle Profiling Project.

Source:: Harley Dealership Swap meet Created After Motorcycle Expo Bans Mongols

By David “Double D” Devereaux

While attending the 2017 Biketoberfest rally in Daytona Beach, Florida, members of the Iron Horsemen Motorcycle Club (IHMC) were the target of blatant profiling and discrimination at the hands of the Daytona Beach PD. The incident, caught on videotape as a result of quick thinking, is irrefutable.

The impact on civil liberties motivated the combined efforts of the North Florida Council of Clubs (NFLCOC), the National Council of Clubs (NCOC), and the Motorcycle Profiling Project (MPP) to immediately respond with a formal complaint and public record requests. These inquiries, based on the video, have sparked an investigation into the actions of the officers involved and a review of Daytona PD policies regarding motorcycle clubs, says a source inside of Chief Craig Capri’s office. Already, as a result of the State Attorney’s inquiry, a curriculum is being constructed and all Daytona PD officers will be re- trained relating to motorcycle profiling. Activism works.

The Story Captured On Video

On October 20th, 2017, members of the IHMC, while walking down the street doing absolutely nothing wrong, were stopped and surrounded by Daytona PD officers and asked to produce identification. Why? Video captured by the IHMC reveals that the seizure and demand for identification was based solely on individuals wearing colors identifying membership in a 1% motorcycle club. In fact, Daytona PD officers explain on video that stopping and documenting motorcycle club members is standard department policy.

A member of the IHMC, exercising his constitutional right to film police in public, captured the entire event on video. Video can be irrefutable proof of wrongdoing in a case of motorcycle profiling. The video also served as the foundation for a successful complaint that is triggering review from within as well as by the state’s attorney.

This is not the first time that the Daytona Beach PD has been caught on videotape further establishing a clear pattern of motorcycle profiling. Video from earlier in 2017 captures DPD Chief Capri confirming that if you wear a patch in Daytona Beach you will get pulled over. These videos prove that the issue of motorcycle profiling is systemic in Daytona Beach, even reaching the highest law enforcement office, the Chief of Police.

The COC Takes Action: Video Triggers DA Review of Daytona Beach PD

After reviewing the video provided by the IHMC to the MPP, Daytona Beach resident and patch holder Bobby Colella was in a unique position to combine the efforts of three entities focused on the same goal. Colella is a member of the NFLCOC, member of the NCOC PR Committee, and an MPP contributing author. Colella immediately drafted a complaint and sent it to the DPD Police Chief Craig Capri and Mayor Henry by email on 10/24/2017 and by certified mail on 11/03/2017. Colella followed the complaint with a public records request asking for any department policies related to motorcycle clubs or profiling and any records related to the event. Eventually he received a response from the DPD. Colella writes:

“On 11/15/2017 I received a phone call from Jessica Wolfflesnider, executive assistant to Daytona Beach Police Department (DBPD) Chief Craig Capri. Wolfflesnider stated that the video has been submitted to the Florida State Attorney’s office for review. Wolfelsneider also stated there has been an officer (Lt. McBride) assigned to internally review the video and work with the DA’s office throughout the review process.”

“Wolfflesnider stated that dependent on the findings of the state attorney, there could be several actions that occur, to include the officers being reprimanded and additional training being mandated for the officers involved in the 20 October incident, and possible adjustments to the department’s policies.”

On December 18, 2017 Colella received an update from the DBPD. Colella writes:

“Wolfflesnider reports that, in response to the video captured at Biktoberfest, the DBPD Training Department is now working in conjunction with the Florida State Attorney’s office to develop a curriculum to retrain all officers in the department.”

“Wolfflesnider also reported that there is an ongoing investigation being conducted by internal affairs relating specifically to the officers involved in an incident that occurred on October 20, 2017, captured on video by a member of the Iron Horsemen Motorcycle Club.”

Activism Works

This incident is a textbook example of how an effective grassroots movement can handle an incident of motorcycle profiling that occurs in the motorcycle club community.

First, the IHMC, from the beginning, made sure to capture the incident on video. The video is the critical piece of evidence referenced in all further developments.

Second, the video was released through grassroots media like the MPP and shared on social media, which resulted in thousands being exposed. Web media and social networking provides an alternative mechanism to communicate an effective message that is not reliant on traditional news media outlets.

Third, the Florida and National Council of Clubs utilized the video as the foundation for a complaint to the Daytona PD which has triggered an inquiry that has resulted in re- training an entire department and could result in reprimand and/or reform for officers caught profiling on the video.

It’s easy to say that things can’t be fixed or that profiling comes with the territory and has always been a problem for bikers. But fighting back using the democratic process and media that isn’t controlled by monetary motivations can help reduce profiling and secure the freedoms all people should enjoy.

The MPP will report any developments or updates.

The post Biketoberfest Motorcycle Profiling Video Sparks Investigation & Retraining appeared first on Motorcycle Profiling Project.

Source:: Biketoberfest Motorcycle Profiling Video Sparks Investigation & Retraining

By David “Double D” Devereaux

A recent incident in Modesto, California further evidences that law enforcement is employing a new strategy to target motorcycle clubs. The MPP has reported on the the national trend towards law enforcement attempting to disarm motorcycle club members, including those that have no criminal record, for no other reason than their association with a motorcycle club. In fact, many incidents, including the instant case in California, involve individuals that have a Carry Concealed Weapon license, which also means they have no criminal record and have undergone extensive background checks.

Infringing on the right to legally carry strikes at the heart of biker culture. There are nearly a million registered motorcyclists in California. According to the National Motorcycle Profiling Survey 2017, the Second Amendment right to bear arms is supported by 99% of all bikers. The Second Amendment is likely the one non- motorcycle related issue that almost all bikers agree on.

Unfortunately for California, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that carrying a weapon outside the home is not covered by the Second Amendment, which means concealed carry is a discretionary privilege and not a right. This also means that revoking CCW’s do not violate the Second Amendment.

The positive impact is the hope that this growing threat to the Second and First Amendments will generate further support and participation in the movement to combat motorcycle profiling legislatively, at the state and federal level.

The Story

In May 2017, an alleged associate of the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club was stopped while riding with two others, one of which authorities claim was a full patched Hells Angel that failed to yield for law enforcement. It was discovered that the alleged associate had a CCW. As a result of this stop, Sheriff Adam Christianson, representing the agency that issued the CCW, was notified by Modesto PD relating to the individual’s alleged association with the Hells Angels MC. Sheriff Christianson then notified the alleged associate that his CCW and right to carry a weapon was revoked based on his alleged association with the Hells Angels.

Sheriff’s Letter Revoking CCW For Associating With Outlaw MC’s. Why do they get away with it?

To many it may seem that this is a blatant violation of the Second Amendment. Essentially, the government is forcing a choice between association and bearing arms, two Constitutional rights. But the applicable 9th Circuit Court of Federal Appeals precedent says that “concealed carry” is a privilege, and not a fundamental right guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The court reasoned “that the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect the right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.” There is no Second Amendment right to carry a concealed weapon, and therefore regulations that limit one’s ability to get a CCW permit do not violate the U.S. Constitution. ¹

Additionally, California is what is termed a “may issue state”, meaning that it is up to the discretion of the jurisdictional Sheriff to approve or revoke an individual’s right to concealed carry.

Is there a solution?

The long-term impact on the civil liberties of patch holders, and then likely others, is very alarming. To blatantly target a community and revoke their rights to carry solely based on association, with no personal guilt of any crime required, sounds like a slippery slope.

The MPP believes that the ultimate solution lies in legislation that directly challenges statutes that allow extreme discretion when imposing restrictions on privelages like CCW’s based on an individual’s 1st Amendment associational rights. Legislative directives that require those reviewing CCW applicants to disregard protected associations like motorcycle club membership, would provide much needed protection related to legal carry.

¹ Peruta v. Cty. of San Diego (June 9, 2016) No. 10-56971

The post Sheriff Revokes Gun Rights for Associating With Hells Angels appeared first on Motorcycle Profiling Project.

Source:: Sheriff Revokes Gun Rights for Associating With Hells Angels

By David “Double D” Devereaux

The first trial of Christopher Jacob Carrizal has come to an end. As an expert consultant to his defense, the MPP refrained from releasing anything related to the trial in an attempt to avoid any negative impact or potential conflicts of interest. But the trial is now over and it’s time to speak the truth.

Judge Matt Johnson declared a mistrial after two days of deliberations in which the jury was hopelessly deadlocked. The President of the Dallas chapter of the Bandidos Motorcycle Club was facing three separate charges relating to events that took place at the Twin Peaks restaurant in Waco, Texas on May 17, 2015. Carrizal was charged with directing a criminal street gang and engaging in organized criminal activity, or conspiring to engage in criminal activity, as a member of a criminal street gang, resulting in 9 murders and 18 instances of aggravated assault.

Although a new trial setting has been scheduled for April 2018, there are many factors that could impact the decision for a retrial. Regardless, based on observing the trial firsthand, there is every reason to have hope that Jake Carrizal will remain a free man. Why? Because Jake chooses courage over cowardice. And that choice makes America a better place.

The State’s Case Against Carrizal

The state’s case rested largely on two text messages sent by Carrizal to other members of the Dallas chapter, and Dallas area support clubs, in the week preceding Twin Peaks. The first text asks for all members of the red and gold (that aren’t working) to attend the COC meeting at Twin Peaks and to leave their Ol’ Ladies at home. The second text simply suggested that everyone bring their tools. The prosecution contended that these texts were sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Fortunately for Jake, the red and gold nation, and the motorcycle club community at large, a jury of 12, all citizens of Waco, disagreed and refused to convict.

The attempt to retry Carrizal will likely be futile. At one point on Friday, November 10th the jury sent a note to Judge Matt Johnson indicating that they had a unanimous verdict on one charge but were hopelessly deadlocked on the other two. But later that day the jury indicated that they were hopelessly deadlocked on all three charges.

According to firsthand accounts, the jury was nearly unanimous in the opinion that Carrizal was NOT GUILTY an all counts. One of the 12 jurors sent a message to Casie Gotro, Carrizal’s attorney, validating this claim after the trial was over:

“Hello my name is ******** and I was one of the jurors on Jake’s case. Please let Jake and his family know that I am so sorry that we couldn’t get 2-3 guys to change their mind to not guilty. They weren’t budging. I hate that you, him, and his family are possibly going to have to do this again. Jake seems like a great guy, and his mom seems so sweet. I think you are an awesome attorney and did a great job. If you have any questions please feel free to reach out to me. If this case happens to go to trial again I hope you get all of the evidence beforehand.”

The Most Important Factors In Carrizal’s Defense

Based on directly observing the trial, the MPP contends that there were two major elements of the defense that resulted in the majority of jurors concluding that Carrizal was not guilty. First, Jake Carrizal, in the MPP’s opinion, was the most credible witness to take the stand during the five week trial in the 54th District Court of McLennan County. Second, Miss Gotro’s closing argument was powerful and convincing. Self- defense and courage are far more credible and persuasive than the McLennan County District Attorney’s discriminatory and specious conclusions related to the Bandidos Motorcycle Club and 1% culture.

Jake Takes The Stand

Carrizal took the stand in his own defense and told the jury a firsthand account of the events of May 17, 2015. Carrizal, arriving in a pack of motorcycles riding from Dallas, was immediately ambushed by a large number of members from the Cossacks Motorcycle Club. Dozens of Cossacks jumped over a rail and poured out of the Twin Peaks patio area surrounding Carrizal’s group. Words were exchanged. Things quickly escalated. A Cossack hit a Bandido. More punches were thrown and gunshots quickly followed. Police responded and subdued the conflict. Police killed four of the Cossacks that died that day. One Bandido and one Bandido supporter were killed by the ambushing Cossacks.

Carrizal, based on his vivid testimony, says he was acting in self-defense when he shot two bullets from a .38 Derringer that his father had given him for protection. (Ballistics confirm that neither of these shots hit anyone.) Carrizal’s father, also ambushed, was shot by a Cossack but survived.

Interestingly, based on Carrizal’s account, there is only one party responsible for the tragedy at Twin Peaks. While many people over the last two and a half years have insisted that law enforcement is the culpable party, Carrizal’s testimony directly disputes this notion. In fact, Carrizal maintains that law enforcement saved his life that day. Not once. But twice. Two Cossacks, shooting at Jake from less than ten feet away, were justifiably shot by officer Jackson of the Waco PD. According to Carrizal, the Cossacks were solely responsible for the conflict that day by violating sacred ground among motorcycle clubs. With the exception of a few minor incidents over decades, Confederation of Clubs meetings have been peaceful gathering places, even among alleged rivals.

Miss Gotro’s Closing Argument

The prosecution contended that Carrizal only had two choices on May 17, 2015. The DA essentially argued that running away like a coward, leaving his father and Club brothers behind, was the only legal option. The state argued that the choice to stand his ground was criminal because they consider the Bandidos MC a criminal street gang. But Miss Gotro rebutted this notion with only one word.

Courage.

Miss Gotro argued that there has to be another choice other than being a coward or a criminal, reminding the jury that they had the option of carving out space in between these two extremes. The courage to stand your ground in the face of an ambush in defense of yourself and others must be an option.

Why? Because, as Gotro argued, men like Jake make the world a better place. We are better off with men that display courage in the face of fear and extreme circumstances instead of those that display cowardice or criminality.

Some Final Thoughts

In a world where our civil liberties and the right to free association and expression are heavily under attack, the MPP strongly agrees with Gotro’s argument. The founding of America was based on courage. There would be no free republic if those that fought for our independence chose cowardice. They too were labeled criminals for displaying courage in the face of oppression and fear.

We are better off because of men like Jake Carrizal and their commitment to loyalty, honor, love and respect. Our world would be a far better place if society defined righteousness by the display of courage as opposed to the cowardice suggested by Reyna, Jarret, and the entire McLennan County DA.

Jake represents a free society. The state’s prosecution represents the lack of honor driving the attempt to erode the freedoms and liberties many real men have fought against for over 200 years. Jake deserves to be fully exonerated and issued an apology from the state of Texas.

Indeed, it’s cowardice that ought to be considered criminal.

The post Waco Mistrial: Here’s Why Bandido Jake Will Remain a Free Man appeared first on Motorcycle Profiling Project.

Source:: Waco Mistrial: Here’s Why Bandido Jake Will Remain a Free Man

By David “Double D” Devereaux

Loma Linda (CA)- Brandon Quaid, Owner/Sales Director at Quaid Harley-Davidson in Loma Linda, emailed the MPP in response to a recent article relating to “no colors or cuts” at a recent Bike Night event. (see Harley-Davidson Dealer Bans Motorcycle Colors at Bike Night, September 21, 2017 )

Quaid feels that the City of Loma Linda imposed the permit conditions without warning. Quaid HD maintains that they refused to enforce the policy, colors and cuts were present for bike night, and that they even contacted local clubs to warn them of the city’s position.

Not complying is better than complying, it is the opinion of the MPP that not signing the permit in the first place would have sent a clear signal and eliminated much misperception and would also preserve standing for Quaid HD to take action against the city.

Although Quaid doesn’t deny that an employee of Quaid HD signed the agreement, he strongly maintains that the dealership was not in collusion or agreement with the city’s conditions requiring a ban on colors or cuts.

The post Harley-Davidson Dealer Blames “No Colors or Cuts” Policy on City appeared first on Motorcycle Profiling Project.

Source:: Harley-Davidson Dealer Blames “No Colors or Cuts” Policy on City

By David “Double D” Devereaux

A Harley Davidson dealership located in California (Quaid HD) agreed to a “no motorcycle colors” policy as a condition of a SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT application provided by the City of Loma Linda. The application was signed by Selene Hinckley of Quaid Harley-Davison. It is well established that motorcycle club colors are protected by the First Amendment from government discrimination. Loma Linda’s permit requirement is a blatant infringement on the protected rights of expression and association. And Harley Davidson, by being complicit, is arguably in collusion with the local PD and may therefore be liable under the state actor doctrine. Maybe more important, Harley-Davidson is discriminating against the very foundations that their brand rests upon. Can you imagine the economic impact if motorcycle clubs, their members, their friends, and their families refused to buy motorcycles or apparel from Harley-Davidson?

The National Council of Clubs (NCOC), a group of motorcycle clubs dedicated to advancing the legal, legislative, and political interests of motorcyclists nationwide, has reported to the MPP that they will be sending an official complaint to the City of Loma Linda requesting that the discriminatory “no colors or cuts allowed” condition be removed from all policies, permits or procedures. Additionally, the NCOC intends to send a complaint to Harley-Davidson, Quaid and Corporate, reminding them that they are a complicit party to unconstitutional behavior and that abandoning the club community is a potential economic disaster for an iconic brand.

The MPP will keep close tabs on any new developments in the story. Until then, the MPP encourages motorcyclists and their supporters to contact Quaid Harley-Davidson, Harley- Davidson Corporate, and the City of Loma Linda to voice their condemnation of blatant discrimination.

The post Harley-Davidson Dealer Bans Motorcycle Colors at Bike Night appeared first on Motorcycle Profiling Project.

Source:: Harley-Davidson Dealer Bans Motorcycle Colors at Bike Night

By David “Double D” Devereaux

The MPP is issuing this Travel Advisory to all members and associates of motorcycle clubs traveling in or to the state of Texas.

WARNING- As a motorcycle club member, there is a legitimate risk of being arrested for Unlawful Carrying of a Weapon in the state of Texas solely because of membership or association with a motorcycle club, even if you posses a legitimate carry permit recognized by the state. The MPP believes that the risk is exponentially higher for members and associates of 1% motorcycle clubs.

ABC News in El Paso reported this last weekend that 5 members of the Bandidos Motorcycle Club were arrested for Unlawful Carrying of a Weapon (click to read article), even though every one could legally possess a weapon, solely because of their membership or association with the motorcycle club. They were initially stopped by the El Paso PD Gang Unit for an alleged failure to properly signal. All 5 men are from New Mexico and were traveling to El Paso to attend a funeral for a deceased member. (NOTE: The MPP has confirmed that only 2 of the 5 were members of the Bandidos Motorcycle Club)

This is not a isolated event. In November 2015, the MPP reported that “the trend to confiscate handguns and revoke legally obtained permits from motorcycle club members in America is on the rise.

From Houston to Long Island, and now back to Texas, law enforcement is aggressively targeting the gun rights of those in motorcycle clubs.” (See Revoking Gun Rights from Motorcycle Clubs is on the Rise, November 12, 2015). That trend, particularly in Texas, shows no signs of slowing down.

This assault on fundamental 1st and 2nd Amendment rights is based on a Texas statute that makes it illegal for a gang member to carry a weapon. Many motorcycle clubs are labeled gangs by law enforcement, so the implications are vast and impact thousands of US citizens.

According to the Texas Penal Code Sec. 46.02, UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01. “Criminal street gang” means three or more persons having a common identifying sign or symbol or an identifiable leadership who continuously or regularly associate in the commission of criminal activities.

This statute is diametrically opposed to fundamental 1st Amendment liberties. To permit the government to impose restrictions on any person “who wears the insignia of [a motorcycle club], without regard to or knowledge of that individual’s specific intent to engage in the alleged violent activities committed by other members, is antithetical to the basic principles enshrined in the First Amendment and repugnant to the fundamental doctrine of personal guilt that is a hallmark of American jurisprudence.” see Coles v. Carlini 162 F.Supp.3d 380 (2015)

Every American should pay attention and be extremely concerned. “In a very real way, the fate of motorcyclists will serve as a blue print for other groups in the future. Disarming bikers, even those associated that have no criminal records of any kind, is a strategy to cripple the rights base of one of the most visible and active grassroots social and political movements in America.

Much of the movement’s efforts are to combat civil liberty abuses by law enforcement targeting motorcyclists. If bikers are successfully marginalized as criminals not worthy of baseline liberties, then the strength of our political movement exposing law enforcement abuses will be crippled as well. It’s a blueprint for social control in the 21st Century.” (See It’s illegal for Motorcycle Club Members to Own Guns? That’s What Authorities Say., August 25, 2015)

The post MC Members Being Arrested For Unlawful Carry Without Cause appeared first on Motorcycle Profiling Project.

Source:: MC Members Being Arrested For Unlawful Carry Without Cause

By David “Double D” Devereaux

There are many unanswered questions relating to the May 17, 2015 shooting at a Twin Peaks restaurant in Waco, Texas. But what is known provides more than enough to establish that an irrefutable miscarriage of justice has occurred.

177 people were arrested without any individualized or specific probable cause. They were arrested solely based on their association with a motorcycle club, including individuals that law enforcement acknowledges committed no crimes. Each individual arrested was given 1-2 million dollar bails explicitly “to send a message”, which is a clear violation of the 8th Amendment’s prohibition against punitive bail.

A cornerstone of a free society is the idea that protecting one innocent person outweighs society’s interest in punishing the guilty. The ends do not justify the means. The issues of false arrest and excessive bail should take priority over the interests of punishing any guilty party present at Twin Peaks. The interests of the innocent are simply more important from a societal perspective.

This is not about any one motorcycle club. What happens in the Waco prosecution will have far reaching impacts on the entire culture of motorcycle clubs and the 1st Amendment issues of expression and association. And the results of the initial trials could have far reaching impacts on the remaining trials.

The Bandidos Motorcycle Club and associates have been targeted and are being prosecuted first. Time is short. Help is needed. The amount of legal resources available often equates to a better defense. The first trial is set for September, 2017.

Any motorcycle club member, motorcyclist, or individual concerned about the wider implications of the Waco tragedy can contribute to the legal defense of the first club being prosecuted by sending checks or money orders to:

USARG Inc./BMC

PO Box 58868

Houston TX 77258

Texas attorney Bill Morian has confirmed that USARG Inc./BMC is a legitimate and registered 501c3 Nonprofit, that all funds will be used strictly for legitimate purposes, and that all funds are absolutely transparent and reported.

Remember, a failure to support those being targeted only means there will be no one left to stand next to your club or loved ones when they are eventually targeted in the same way as those present in Waco on May 17, 2015.

Supporting victims of the Waco prosecution is supporting motorcycle club culture and the idea that constitutional principles protecting innocent people are far more important than the goals of the corrupt criminal justice system in Waco.

The post Support the Legal Defense Fund for Victims of the Waco Tragedy appeared first on Motorcycle Profiling Project.

Source:: Support the Legal Defense Fund for Victims of the Waco Tragedy

By David “Double D” Devereaux

San Marcos (TX)- The San Marcos Police Department (SMPD) has publicly rejected motorcycle profiling and discrimination in response to an inquiry regarding a recent Motorcycle Profiling Project (MPP) request that the SMPD cease and desist from recommending that private owners make their establishments unwelcome to motorcycle clubs by adopting “no motorcycle colors” policies. The department explains that such recommendations are the result of one well-intentioned but misguided officer’s actions that are “not in line with the policies of the San Marcos Police Department.” The SMPD reminds KXAN that the department “has a policy against profiling and discrimination” and “support[s] the rights of people to peaceably assemble regardless of their appearance, clothing or affiliation with any group.”

Although, as of this writing, the SMPD has not directly responded to the MPP’s request, KXAN News in Austin reached out to the MPP and the SMPD for comment, and ran a follow up to the original story exposing the SMPD recommendations.(click to view) In a statement sent to KXAN, in answer to KXAN’s inquiries, the SMPD rejects profiling and separates the agency from the recommendations that private owners exclude club members.

From KXAN- The full statement received from the City of San Marcos:

A San Marcos police officer gave well intentioned advice to some local business owners in response to incidents that took place at their establishments. While well meaning, some of that advice is not in line with the polices of the San Marcos Police Department. In fact, the San Marcos Police Department has a policy against profiling and discrimination.

Our department is here to serve and assist the entire community, that includes both business owners and their patrons. We are sometimes called upon to assist in situations that may arise at a business, and in some cases to assist when a person is criminally trespassing. We also support the rights of people to peaceably assemble regardless of their appearance, clothing or affiliation with any group.

Our downtown, and our entire community welcomes all law-abiding citizens and visitors.

The post Pressure Causes San Marcos Police to Condemn Motorcycle Profiling appeared first on Motorcycle Profiling Project.

Source:: Pressure Causes San Marcos Police to Condemn Motorcycle Profiling

By David “Double D” Devereaux

Motorcyclists from Texas and around the US, many wearing motorcycle-related patches and colors, regularly visit public establishments and bars in San Marcos, Texas.

Recently, the San Marcos Police Department (SMPD) made a prejudicial recommendation to downtown San Marcos businesses to implement a broad policy of discrimination against any individual wearing motorcycle-related insignia or colors.

These recommendations amount to coercive pressure from a government actor to implement policies of discrimination. It is settled law that motorcycle patches and colors are Constitutionally protected by the 1st Amendment from acts of government discrimination. Prohibiting individuals from expressing themselves with patches or insignia exposes the government to liability under 42 USC §1983.

No agent of the government may pressure or coerce any establishment to impose a dress code that prohibits attendees from wearing clothing displaying the name or symbols associated with a motorcycle organization.

The Motorcycle Profiling Project (MPP), an organization representing the interests of motorcyclists in Texas and across America, is requesting that the San Marcos PD cease and desist from any further discriminatory recommendations relating to motorcycle clubs and has sent the following letter:

July 25, 2017

Chase Stapp – Chief of Police

San Marcos Police Department

cstapp@sanmarcostx.gov

tel: 512-753-2110

Dear Chief Stapp,

Recently, the San Marcos Police Department (SMPD) issued a prejudicial recommendation to downtown San Marcos businesses to implement a broad policy of discrimination against any individual wearing motorcycle-related insignia or colors. These recommendations amount to coercive pressure from a government actor to implement policies of discrimination. It is settled law that motorcycle patches and colors are Constitutionally protected by the 1st Amendment from acts of government discrimination.

No agent of the government may recommend, pressure or coerce any establishment to impose a dress code that prohibits attendees from wearing clothing displaying the name or symbols associated with a motorcycle organization. Prohibiting individuals from expressing themselves with patches or insignia exposes the government to liability under 42 USC §1983.

The Motorcycle Profiling Project (MPP), an organization representing the interests of motorcyclists in Texas and across America, is requesting that the San Marcos PD cease and desist from any further discriminatory recommendations relating to motorcycle clubs and issue a statement informing the public based on the attached analysis. (See pages 2-4)

The MPP looks forward to your response and resolution of this issue.

Sincerely,

Motorcycle Profiling Project

info@motorcycleprofilingproject.com

motorcycleprofilingproject.com

The San Marcos PD is Encouraging Private Discrimination

1. Members of motorcycle clubs and motorcycle organizations regularly frequent public establishments in San Marcos, Texas to engage in protected expressive conduct such as charitable and political benefits and political benefits and fundraisers.

2. As reported in the San Marcos Record, the President of the Downtown Association of San Marcos has publicly stated that the San Marcos Police Department has seen “an increase in the presence of the Bandidos Motorcycle Gang in the city and in downtown in recent weeks” and are “recommending that downtown establishments to keep an eye out and consider implementing strategies to make their space unwelcoming to this group.” One of those strategies is to post dress code signage at the door to include rules against “Gang related ‘cuts,’ ‘vests,’ or other insignia” in addition to any dress code rules. ¹

Police Encouraging Private Discrimination Amounts to State Action

3. Prohibited state involvement can be found “even where the state can be charged with only encouraging,” rather than commanding discrimination, such as state actors encouraging owners to exercise their “right to privately discriminate on grounds which admittedly would be unavailable under the Fourteenth Amendment should state action be involved.” ²

4. Public statements by city officials encouraging private discrimination can have as much coercive potential as an actual ordinance. ³ Authorizing private discrimination
   significantly involves the state with invidious discrimination. “The right to discriminate is now one of the basic policies of the State.” State action that encourages private discrimination “establishes the right to discriminate as a basic state policy,”” and “will significantly encourage and involve the State in private discrimination.” ⁴

5. State action “which authorize[s] private discrimination” makes the State “at least a partner in the instant act of discrimination. . . .” The courts “conceive of no other purpose for an application of” such state recommendations “aside from authorizing the perpetration of a purported private discrimination. . . .” Such a recommendation “unconstitutionally involves the State in…discrimination, and is therefore invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment.” ⁵

6. Police recommendations invoke state authority to discriminate so those practicing discrimination “need no longer rely solely on their personal choice.” They can now invoke express state authority, “free from censure or interference of any kind from official sources. All individuals, partnerships, corporations and other legal entities, as well as their agents and representatives, will now discriminate…” ⁶

7. Private Owners are acting on the state’s authority to discriminate in San Marcos. The President of the Downtown Association of San Marcos has publicly endorsed the SMPD’s recommendations at a recent Downtown Association of San Marcos organizational meeting, as reported by the San Marcos Register. (See Supra note #1)

8. If police recommend private discrimination, and are also responsible for enforcing violations of that private policy of discrimination, then both the recommendation and enforcement of violations are unconstitutional. Even when a state recommendation is neutral in its terms, if the result of its application would be to invoke the sanctions of the State to enforce a concededly discriminatory private rule, such as arresting violators for trespassing, then those recommendations and sanctions would violate the Fourteenth Amendment. ⁷ The Supreme Court has made clear the impetus for the forbidden discrimination need not originate with the State if it is state action that enforces privately originated discrimination. ⁸Imagine if the recommendation was to make public establishments unwelcoming to people wearing clothing or insignia indicating that they are republicans, democrats, environmentalists, or Cowboys fans.

9. Private owners confirm pressure from SMPD recommendations, against their own wishes and economic well-being, are driving bikers NBC News affiliate KXAN (Austin) reports that Kristan Alvarez, owner of KnDs in downtown San Marcos, reports:“I want bikers in here; I would love to see more bikers here. Like I said, we do sale biker stuff and I’m totally against it,” says Alvarez.“I know a lot of bikers, Bandidos specifically and I just feel like they aren’t all bad people, they shop here all the time and I want to welcome them here,” said Alvarez. “I was a little upset that they were kind of pushing them away, I lose sales because of that.” ⁹

10. Bar owners have a constitutional right to pursue an occupation free from government coercion. According to the Supreme Court, the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment protects a liberty or property interest in pursuing the “common occupations or professions of life.” ¹⁰ The constitutional right infringed in cases of excessive and unreasonable police pressure is “the right to pursue an occupation.” ¹¹

San Marcos PD’s Recommendations Are Unconstitutional – Motorcycle Colors are Protected from State Discrimination By the 1st Amendment – Courts Have Rejected Generalized Gang Justifications

11. Cohen California establishes that individuals have the 1st Amendment right to wear clothing which displays writing or designs in public places. ¹² The United States Supreme Court has long recognized and protected the right of an individual to freedom of association. Thus, a person’s right to wear the clothing of his choice, as well as his right to belong to any club or organization of his choice is constitutionally protected.

12. Federal Courts say, “On balance, a motorcycle club member’s hardship in not being able to express their views and the public interest in protecting speech outweigh the Government’s interest in suppressing an intimidating symbol.” ¹³ “Though the symbol may at times function as a mouthpiece for unlawful or violent behavior, this is not sufficient to strip speech of its First Amendment protection.”¹⁴ Prohibiting speech of this nature constitutes an attack on a particular viewpoint. ¹⁵

13. In Sammartano First Judicial District Court (2002), the court applied Cohen specifically to motorcycle club colors and rejected the gang argument, the exact same rational being advanced by the SMPD. In Sammartano, 10 individuals wearing motorcycle colors, including the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club, refused to remove their colors and were arrested for trespassing. The state asserted motorcycle club colors were gang attire and could cause a potential threat of violence and intimidation.The Federal Appeals Court rejected the government’s gang argument and concluded generalizations were insufficient, explaining that “a total ban on this expressive activity…is “an unreasonable means” of preserving a safe environment.” Any restrictions must be narrow and “specific to particular (apparently hypothetical) cases involving rival organizations.” Restrictions on motorcycle club colors are unconstitutional “absent a showing in the record of actual (or realistic threat of) interference or disruption.” ¹⁶

14. SMPD’s policy recommendation represents a total ban on expressive conduct and is not based on a reasonable threat. The policy is far too broad to be considered reasonable. The policy is not specific to particular threats. The over-reaching policy encompasses many people wearing motorcycle patches and colors and is therefore an unreasonable means of achieving a safe environment under the 1s Amendment.

15. Generalizations and past actions are insufficient policy justifications. Even a more narrow policy applying only to individuals in a motorcycle club such as the Bandidos would be too general absent proof of an actual and specific threat. Motorcycle clubs, including those clubs labeled organized or criminal gangs by some authorities, are protected associations. Restrictions solely based on expressing those associations violate the 1st Amendment.There is “no evidence that by merely wearing [motorcycle club] “colors,” an individual is “involved in or associated with the alleged violent or criminal activity of other [motorcycle club] members. It is a fundamental principle that the government may not impose restrictions on an individual “merely because an individual belong[s] to a group, some members of which committed acts of violence.” In fact, the Supreme Court has long “disapproved governmental action . . . denying rights and privileges solely because of a citizen’s association with an unpopular organization.” Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169, 185-86 (1972). ¹⁷

16. To permit restrictions on any person “who wears the insignia of [a motorcycle club], without regard to or knowledge of that individual’s specific intent to engage in the alleged violent activities committed by other members, is antithetical to the basic principles enshrined in the First Amendment and repugnant to the fundamental doctrine of personal guilt that is a hallmark of American jurisprudence. ¹⁸

17. SMPD’s recommendations defy logic. Insignia is incapable of action. Removing all insignia does not remove the individual. The standard of a specific and actual threat is superior because it preserves both the 1st Amendment and a safe environment

Associating with (or expressing association with) motorcycle clubs that government authorities label criminal organizations or gangs, is considered expressive conduct relating to an on-going public concern.

18. “[P]ublic concern is something that is a subject of legitimate news interest; that is, a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public at the time of publication.” ¹⁹ Further, the debate over the criminality of motorcycle clubs is a topic of “legitimate news interest.” ²⁰“To deserve First Amendment protection, it is sufficient that the speech concern matters in which even a relatively small segment of the general public might be interested.” ²¹

19. “Wearing motorcycle club insignia is expressive conduct because it conveys a message that the wearer supports or is proud to be affiliated with the organization.” ²²Wearing colors and associating with a labeled organization may be perceived as expressing support for that organization in protest of government condemnation. “Here, [an individual’s] wearing of [outlaw motorcycle club] insignia and associating with [outlaw motorcycle club] members could be perceived as public support of [that motorcycle club]— i.e., approving of the activities of a perceived criminal organization. This is a matter of interest to the community.” ^23,24

Endnotes

¹San Marcos Record, “Merchants Warned About Motorcycle Gangs Downtown”, June 30, 2017

²Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U. S. 369, 387 U. S. 380 (1967) Pp. 387 U. S. 373-381

³Lombard v. Louisiana, 373 U. S. 267

⁴Supra Note 2 Reitman v. Mulkey

⁵ Supra Note 2 Reitman v. Mulkey

⁶Supra Note 2 Reitman v. Mulkey

⁷Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163 (1972), 407 U.S. 179, citing Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U. S. 1 (1948)

⁸Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U. S. 1, 334 U. S. 13 (1948)

⁹http://kxan.com/2017/07/05/san-marcos-police-warn-downtown-businesses-of-biker-gangs/

¹⁰See Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 238-39, 77 S.Ct. 752, 755-56, 1 L.Ed.2d 796 (1957); Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 762 F.2d 753, 757 (9th Cir.1985).

¹¹Benigni v. City of Hemet, 879 F.2d 473 (9th Cir. 1989)

¹²Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)

¹³ Ramon Rivera v. Carter, ATF, Case No. 2:09-cv-2435 (C. D. 2009)

¹⁴ Rivera citing Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234, 253 (2003) (“The mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it. . . .First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end.”)

¹⁵ See supra note 13

¹⁶Sammartano v. First Judicial District Court, 303 F.3d 959 (9th Cir.2002)

¹⁷ Coles v. Carlini 162 F.Supp.3d 380 (2015)

¹⁸ id

¹⁹City of San Diego v. Roe, 543 U.S. 77, 83-84 (2004) (per curiam).

²⁰id

²¹Roe v. City & County of San Francisco, 109 F.3d 578, 585 (9th Cir. 1997)

²² See Supra note 13, Rivera citing e.g., Sammartano v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 303 F.3d 959, 966-67 (9th Cir. 2002), abrogated on other grounds by Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 55 U.S. 7, 21 (2008)

²³RONALD GODWIN v. ROGUE VALLEY YOUTH CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, (RVYCF et al.,) U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, No. 14-35042, AUGUST 10, 2016

²⁴note on Godwin- Different appellate circuits have traditionally handled unpublished opinions differently. Some circuits openly accept them, others do not. In 2006, a new rule was implemented under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Rule 32.1(a) is intended to replace these inconsistent standards with one uniform rule. Under Rule 32.1(a), a court of appeals may not prohibit a party from citing an unpublished opinion of a federal court for its persuasive value or for any other reason. Rule 32.1(a) applies only to unpublished opinions issued on or after January 1, 2007.

The post Police in Texas Pressuring Bars to Ban “Motorcycle Colors” appeared first on Motorcycle Profiling Project.

Source:: Police in Texas Pressuring Bars to Ban “Motorcycle Colors”