Hi,
The HELMET LAW DEFENSE LEAGUE REPORT is the Helmet Law Defense League newsletter, designed to serve Freedom Fighters in the greater motorcycling community by providing the latest information on the plans and players with regard to laws which restrict, nullify, or otherwise impair the rights of motorcycle riders.
Who or what is HLDL?
The Helmet Law Defense League was formally founded in early 1993 as a means of identifying the work of myself and Steve Bianco (National Director), and to provide a banner under which to attract motorcyclists specifically interested with putting an end to California's helmet law, along with the bigotry which underpins the helmet law, and to drag out into the light the people responsible for all forms of bigotry against members of the motorcycling community.
Although originally the HLDL was, officially, just Bianco and myself; we almost immediately joined forces under the HLDL banner with noted bikers' rights activists such as Tony "Pan" Sanfelipo, Steve "Red" Barron, Chico Yasco, and Mike Holt. Although we work closely with many other individuals who represent, or are active members, of many of the motorcyclist rights organizations throughout the United States; these are the names officially put out there for pot shots should anyone (like, say, the government) decide to take one.
It is the primary goal of the HLDL to take out, first, California's helmet law, and then to help the other helmet law oppressed states to do away with theirs. (When this is accomplished, the HLDL will be disbanded . . . and, hopefully, not before.)
It is our basic philosophy that the best defense is any offense, so the strategies that we recommend will be those constituting an attack posture. Our weapons in this fight are information and training to be used in conjunction with a myriad of generic forms . Unlike those we are fighting, we do not advocate violence. There are, however, times when the truth hits harder than any imaginable hammer; especially when applied with our ever-present sense of humor.
Question authority, challenge jurisdiction, peal back the lies to uncover and expose the truth; these are the base tactics of the HLDL. To support this offensive, what we need is information...war stories, if you will. We need all riders who have encountered intolerable situations to contact us, by mail, and tell your story. In future issues we will have a file entitled "FROM THE FRONT" in which we will print those stories submitted by riders who have had encounters of the bigoted kind with the police or the courts.
Clip out news stories from your local papers and magazines and send them to us so that we can either reprint them for all to see, and/or investigate them to find out and REPORT the real story behind them. (Mail to: HLDL, 5886 Fern Flat Rd., Aptos, CA 95003)
By sharing all these stories, and offering strategies for dealing with similar circumstances, we hope to provide all those who want to fight back with the weapons to do so.
It is our sure and certain belief that the helmet law in California will not stand!
How do we plan to help take it out?
In the months to come, we will continue to track the progress of the state with regard to enforcement practices, both on the street and in court, regarding the helmet law and pass along the latest and most complete information to our readers.
Contributing writers from the various MROs will help us keep our view, although broader to a great degree, consistently in harmony with the information and training such organizations are providing to their members. (We are, like everyone else, somewhat restricted by what we do or do not know. If there are any other MROs out there besides MMA, ABATE, BOLT and Easyriders Freedom Fight, in California, and Riders for Justice in Colorado, that we need to meet; please have them contact us so we can draw on their expertise as well.)
Of one thing we are sure: in the absence of a list of helmets which comply with the helmet law, it will ultimately fall as unconstitutionally vague. We are equally sure that, because of the liability incurred by making a list, that neither the State nor the Feds will make ever such a list. (If they were ever going to, they already would have.) The HLDL battle cry is: NO LIST, NO LAW!
If you are among those who believe the time has come to push back, the REPORT is specifically, and exclusively, an activist publication written for you. It is not our intent to entertain, although some may find the "Nominees For The Annual Recto-Cranial Inversion Awards," pretty funny.
What's with the name HLDL?
People frequently tell us they are confused by the name Helmet Law Defense League. They say, "It sounds like you are defending the helmet law."
We explain, when you are dealing with a government that calls the department in charge of everything outdoors the Department of the Interior; that has a Defense Department with a first-strike capability; and a division within the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration called the Safety Countermeasures Division; what else would you call it?
Since HLDL was never intended to be a MRO, membership support is not a consideration -- we don't have any membership. Further, the other MROs have their own game plans which precludes any of them from taking over our expenses. So, it will be up to the readers and advertisers to keep us on line.
We welcome minimum contributions from individuals, business, individual chapters or locals of the various MROs, and anyone else who sees the need for, and supports the value of, our work.
Quig
GOVERNOR WILSON IGNORES FRAUD AND ADDS DECEPTION TO SIGN HELMET BILL INTO LAW
On April 1, 1991, the California Legislature voted, narrowly, to submit a new helmet bill to Governor Pete Wilson for his signature -- following a plea by the statute's author and main proponent, California Assemblyman Richard Floyd -- requiring motorcyclists to wear a "safety helmet" or face a $100 fine.
However, by the time the statute reached the Governor's desk, a revealing investigation had been completed by Bernard Bauer, a reporter for the San Jose Mercury News, concerning the validity of statistics presented to the Legislature by Assemblyman Floyd.
In an article published by the San Jose Mercury News on May 17, 1991, Bauer indicated that Floyd had "won legislative support for his bill by saying that a law requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets will save the taxpayers from $65 million to $100 million a year in medical costs for head-injured motorcycle crash victims." Bauer continued, "However, both sources cited by Floyd denied that they provided those numbers to him. In fact, they said, accurate medical cost figures -- or even reliable estimates -- do not exist."
Senator Don Rogers, who opposed the helmet law, reportedly said of Floyd's claim, "He just pulled it out of the air."
Then, when Bauer confronted Assemblyman Floyd, directly, with the lack of confirmation for his assertions to the Legislature, the reported response from Floyd was, "Who gives a fuck? . . . I don't care what the figures are."
In an interview with Wilson's chief spokesman, Otto Bos, on May 16, 1991, the results of Bauer's investigation were passed on directly to the Governor's office. Bos reportedly assured Bauer that the Governor would ask Floyd to justify his figures. "Credibility is important," said Bos, speaking for the Governor. "We need to make a careful evaluation."
Four days later, May 20, 1991, Wilson signed the helmet bill into law telling Californians, "this new helmet law will save the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in medical expenses plus lost productivity and income."
Not only did the Governor seem to ignore the fraudulant nature of the assertions by Floyd, but chose to add some statistics that he also pulled "out of the air" (or somewhere) on his own. Governor Wilson inflated Floyd's contrived $65 to $100 million dollars of alleged medical costs into "hundreds of millions of dollars" of savings to the taxpayers by adding the elements of "lost productivity and income."
Mort Sahl -- who some will remember as a political humorist of note during the sixties -- pointed out just how much things have changed over the past 200 years when he recently said, "Washington couldn't tell a lie; Nixon couldn't tell the truth; and, Regan couldn't tell the difference." If this new helmet law is any indication, it would seem that the present California administration doesn't care about lies, or the truth, one way or the other.
To make matters worse, the evidence of fraud and deception by California's Legislators and Governor is moot (and nothing new) because this helmet bill has been passed. It is now The Law.
But, if the Constitution is not dead, the solution now lies in having the helmet law overturned as unconstitutional, ...because itis unconstitutional.
The freedom to choose to wear, or not wear, a helmet is the status quo in California.
Before the State can, constitutionally, change the status quo; the State must show a legitimate, and compelling, State interest. That's the other law, Constitutional Law.
Although there can be no doubt that an expense to the taxpayers of hundreds of millions dollars would constitute a legitimate, and compelling, State interest; the State must show that an encumbrance on the Medi-Cal budget actually exists; and, they most show that this encumbrance is directly related to the failure of motorcycle accident victims to wear safety helmets. It is clear that the medical expenses to the taxpayers claimed by Assemblyman Floyd are unfounded, and no other evidence of Medi-Cal costs is available.
Further, and most importantly, the lawmakers have absolutely no right to consider the issue of "lost productivity and income," at all. Even if legitimate statistics were available in that area, the productivity and income of a Citizen can be of interest to the State, but not an interest of the State. Before the productivity of a California resident can be considered an interest of the State, the State must presume the right of ownership of its residents, and/or the Citizens must consider themselves property of the State.
In the real world; the image of freedom as expressed by a motorcyclist cruising down the highway with the wind in his face, and blowing through his hair, constitutes a threat to nothing more than the authority of those who believe that it is the responsibility of every citizen to simply "shut-up and get in line."
David Alcon, a 30 year old ex-Marine and father of three, virtually bet it all that the Justice System would not betray him in his battle against California's helmet law, and lost. He is now in jail.
Alcon, who has become a virtual icon within the motorcycle riding community because of his refusal to wear a motorcycle helmet as mandated by the California helmet law, enacted by fraud on January 1, 1992, has amassed over 80 citations for not complying with a law that he views as a bigoted intrusion on his personal freedoms, and an attack on the Constitution.
Of the citations that have already been before the courts, Alcon has yet to have any of his constitutional challenges of the helmet law seriously considered by any of the presiding judges, referees, or commissioners.
"The California Traffic Court system is a revenue generator, not a place where one can expect to have issues of guilt or innocence decided on the basis of the law, or the Constitution. The point of the Traffic Courts is to serve the State and County treasuries to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Justice has nothing to do with it. The notion of even calling them 'courts,' or the processes they provide 'trials,' is flapdoodle." says Alcon.
This is the system on which Alcon was forced to rely on as he attempted to bring the inadequacies of the helmet law to the attention of the State Government, through the Judicial Branch.
"If a jury of my peers had been allowed to hear my defense, and judge me, and the law -- against one another and the Constitution -- I would never have been convicted the first time." declares Alcon. "The only way they (the State) can make a law like this stick is to keep me in front of people (Judges, commissioners, etc.) who rely on the system for their jobs."
It is a fact that were it not for the way the system is set up, Alcon would never have spent a day in jail. According to California law, it is not permitted to jail a citizen for an infraction -- or for eighty plus infractions -- presumably because the citizen is deprived of a jury in infraction cases.
However, in Alcon's case, he discovered a way to get in front of a Jury of his peers by relying on the fact that he had three convictions for the same infraction in the preceding year. Alcon found a statute in the Vehicle Code which says that in such situations, infractions can be put to a jury; however, the level of the charge has to be raised from an fraction to a misdemeanor.
Traditionally, this move is only made by prosecutors to put an end to persistent and potentially dangerous situations to others -- i.e.; failure of a driver to replace bad tires, repair bad brakes, etc..
At arraignment, however, it was Alcon who requested that at least one ticket be moved up to misdemeanor level so that he could present his case to a jury. By the time the District Attorney and Commissioner were through with him they had converted nine infractions to misdemeanors, each of which carried a possible $2,500 fine, and up to 6 months in jail.
The day of his trial, and not before, the court finally explained to Alcon that the jury would not be permitted to decide "issues of law," only "issues of fact." In other words, the judge was not going to allow a jury to consider Alcon's constitutional challenge of the helmet law, but only whether or not he was wearing a helmet, or something on his head, at the time he was cited -- which he was not.
Alcon accepted this news reluctantly and moved the court to convert the allegations back to infractions -- a motion granted two weeks earlier, without hesitation, by Judge McAdams in a trial in Santa Cruz County for a single count of the same offense. But, unlike the District Attorney in Santa Cruz, the Monterey County District Attorney insisted that Alcon stand trial on nine misdemeanors, with just the Judge as trier of fact and law.
At trial, the Judge ignored the fact that the State provides no notice of how to comply with the helmet law (such as a list of legal helmets) -- a virtual mandate in law -- and found Alcon guilty of nine misdemeanor violations (of infractions) and sentenced him to 30 days in jail and two years probation. (The order of probation to "obey all laws" is still the stupidest phrase ever uttered by any living being, and the subject for a later article.)
Alcon's trial was a judicial sham -- as cruel and deceitful as any game in a carnival midway.
The Monterey County District Attorney and the Judge claim that Alcon was responsible for his choices in this matter, and that they are just enforcing the law; but, that rationalization just doesn't hold up -- especially when the Judge is quoted as taking great pride in being the one to bring an end to Alcon¼s "civil disobedience."
Alcon took an Oath when he entered the Marine Corps to defend the United States (and its Constitution) from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
"In this case, the problem is with enemies of the Constitution, domestic." said Alcon.
Alcon did not, and will not, ignore his Oath. He believes that's what makes him a target for those who will.
The weapon used against him -- rather than that of his own greed used against the mark in a carnival midway con -- seems to be the fact of Alcon's belief in the virtuousness of the system, in the ultimate supremacy of reason, in the rule of Justice to prevail over perfidy . . . in short, his idealism.
Alcon believes, even now, that the system will ultimately right these wrongs, and that the people within the system will, because they took the same Oath that he did, ultimately hold themselves to their sworn promise.
Those who consider Alcon a rebel without a cause, a mere scofflaw flailing at a system trying to protect him from his own stupidity, do not understand the depth of the man's wisdom, strength, or conviction.
"The system may think they have broken me," said Alcon, speaking from jail, "but, what they have done is show me that it is the system which is broken."
"Their conduct has just made the threat to our Constitutional Rights more clear, and made me even more determined about what I must do about it."
Alcon is a great American Patrtiot and courageous United States Freedom Fighter. The sadly few men like him serve as a guiding light to Patriots everywhere.
Just two days before one of California's largest annual Harley Davidson rider get-togethers, the Redwood Run, a news release from the Department of California Highway Patrol let it be known that the CHP had ruled that the most popular helmet style of Harley Davidson riders violates the CHP's sense of what is required by Californias helmet law.
CHP Deputy Commissioner Helmick announced that he had ordered his troops to cite anyone wearing one; and further threatened, by news release, that anyone thereby cited would be fined by the courts as if they were not wearing a helmet at all.
To be precise, his news release stated, in part, the following: "Motorcycle riders and passengers wearing a beanie-style motorcycle helmet made by a Washington manufacturer can henceforth expect to be cited under California's new helmet law, CHP Deputy Commissioner Dwight 'Spike' Helmick announced today."
"'Recent tests conducted by the Department of Transportation determined that this helmet does not meet federal motor vehicle safety standards,' said Helmick."
" . . . he added 'Therefore we shall stop and cite all persons on motorcycles who are wearing this or any other unapproved helmet, as well as those without helmets.'"
If the California Attorney General had determined that the manufacturer of the subject helmet had intentionally misrepresented their product to California consumers, then he has the responsibility, at the very least the option, of prosecuting them for fraud on behalf of the People of the State of California (the same option he had to prosecute Floyd for the fraud he used to pass the helmet law); but, not through the CHP. Nothing in current California law would allow for prosecution of the consumer except by an allegation of conspiracy on the part of the consumer.
On the other hand, if an inadvertent problem is discovered with any governmentally approved product, the traditional answer has been to request a recall, or obtain a court order calling for a recall, by the manufacturer, to repair or replace the defective product.
However, according to the "Spike" Helmick School of Law Enforcement; if it is discovered that a particular model of automobile has faulty seat-belts, then, by his standards, anyone found operating that particular model vehicle, with their seat-belt fastened, would be subject to a citation and fine as if not wearing the belt at all?
Nothing in the Constitution, or any other body of law of California, empowers the California Highway Patrol to prosecute the purchasers of any defective product, for any reason. There must be some motivation, other than traditional, acceptable, law enforcement practices which have brought about this latest attack on Harley Davidson riders by the CHP. What's the motivation?
Some people believe that the main support for helmet legislation comes from the insurance companies. In a fault-oriented liability insurance scheme, the advantage of any act which substantially reduces the number of motorcycles on the road is far greater for insurance companies than for helmet manufacturers. Because the auto drivers are at fault in 85% of collisions involving motorcycles; an up to 60% reduction in motorcycle use, as under this helmet law, has the potential to save the insurance companies hundreds of millions of dollars a year in damages due to the negligence of their insured auto drivers. Be that as it may, it is just hard to believe that the interests of insurance companies (or helmet manufacturers) motivate the likes of Dick Floyd or "Spike" Helmick.
Floyd, the man who presented the fraud which made the law that the truth never had, is not a concern, anymore. He lost his bid for re-election . . . in the primary. He's history.
But, who is this guy, this Deputy Commissioner Dwight "Spike" Helmick? Where did he come from? And, why are motorcycle riders suddenly affected by what he does or does not think of the "beanie style helmet" in relation to the helmet law?
To initiate a news release notifying bikers that a specific brand and/or style of helmet is being re-called because it is dangerous is one thing; but, "Spike"'s news release was, rather, clearly a thinly veiled act of discrimination against bikers, by someone most Californians know little or nothing about. Two days before the Redwood Run, assaulting, or threatening to assault, anyone wearing the most popular style of helmet to HD riders. Coincidence? I think not! .
We first heard of him last January after writing to Commissioner Hannagan to find out why he had initiated a news bulletin seemingly endorsing the fraudlulently won helmet law in the name, and with the reputation, of the California Highway Patrol. "Spike" responded for the Commissioner but never did say why. In this response, "Spike" provided no factual information as to what the CHP was doing involved in supporting, after the fact, with full knowledge of Floyd's fraud, the fraud which underpins California's helmet law. In fact, he sidestepped the whole inquiry using his own made-up bullshit.
One other indicator of what "Spike" is all about appears in this same letter, when he wrote: "As a major supporter of the helmet law, let me assure youäthat the Department performed its own research of nationwide statistical data provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. It was compiled and scrutinized by our Department prior to supporting Assemblyman Richard Floyd's Bill."
Supporting Floyd's Bill? It became clear from the tone and content of that letter that "Spike" has an agenda which is separate from anything called for by his sworn re-sponsibility to law enforcement.
It is clear that "Spike"'s attitude is founded in anti-biker bigotry, and that his activities are not supportable by any lawful, constitutional, application of the authority entrusted to him. What isn't clear is why, or how, he is getting away with it.
(History has proven this September 1992 article to not only be accurate, but an uncanny vision into the future. Ed.)
Jeffery Bean, North San Diego County Times Advocate
VISTA - A San Marcos man has sued the Escondido Police Department, asking the court to stop officers there from issuing citations to motorcyclists who wear so-called beanie-style helmets.
Steve Bianco, the National Director of the Helmet Law Defense League, is representing himself in the suit filed last week in the Vista Superior Court.
Bianco claims that the California Highway patrol does not have jurisdiction to review test results and decide what helmets do not comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.
The CHP has said that the E&R fiberglass beanie helmets are not legal in this state because they do not provide enough protection for the wearers. Local jurisdictions have been following CHP's recommendations.
A mandatory state helmet law has been in effect since January 1, 1992.
Bianco said in the suit that he has the "right to be left alone to enjoy his sport of motorcycling, secure in the knowledge that he will not be harassed" by police ( . . . over his helmet choice. Ed).
The language in one part of the lawsuit is more colorful than the usual attorney-produced prose.
"Clearly, the at-issue citation is without foundation or jurisdiction, and is otherwise a bull-s _ _ t ticket," Bianco wrote.
Bianco said in his suit that he has beaten two citations in court. (Actually, he was found "Not Guilty" in two previous trials. Ed)
A third citation is pending in the Fourth District Court of Appeal and a fourth was issued on April by an Escondido police officer, the suit said.
Last month, CHP Commissioner Maury Hannigan said a judge's ruling "should put to rest any lingering questions" about the legality of citing motorcyclists wearing beanie-type helmets.
A Vista Superior Court judge upheld a June 1992 CHP order to officers to cite wearers of such helmets because they did not meet federal guidelines. (Thus was born the Bianco v. CHP decision. Ed)
Those who were watching have come to know that California's helmet law is the manifestation, in law, of the bigotry of its author, former Assemblyman Richard Floyd.
Since just before enforcement of the helmet law began in January, 1992, as if in response to a rallying cry from Floyd, the bigots started coming out of the woodwork.
From a "Training Bulletin" put out by the Redding Police Department on September 13, 1991, under the subject heading of "Field Interrogation of Bikers (F.I. Cards)," seemingly in preparation for enforcing the then upcoming helmet law, came the following training:
"These are very dangerous people. Do not get done in by a biker because you dropped your guard or level of awareness. When dealing with bikers, be at your best. They surely will be!"
In an article written by Steve Albrech, a San Diego Police Officer in a police officers' newsletter called The Informant, appeared the following observations:
"Fewer words bring a burn to the pit of my stomach than outlaw bikers. The very image of these people -- filthy, bearded, tattoo-covered cretins astride choppers -- gives me indigestion, especially when I cross their paths in a patrol car."
The article continued, "While you automatically know from the start you're probably dealing with a professional crook, here are a few tactical reminders to consider when contacting outlaw biker types:" and then goes on with paragraphs of degrading accusations which include, "Another irritating factor about dealing with outlaw bikers is their total lack of fear of the law." ( Total lack of fear of the law is an irritating factor? Why would anyone expect a citizen to maintain a fear of the law?)
But the worst offenders, for no other reason than their influence on all other police agencies, is the California Highway Patrol.
Even before the helmet law even went into effect, the CHP was warning of aggressive enforcement,further stating that there would be no traditional grace period with regard to enforcement.
Apparently, following these warnings, the virtually total compliance by motorcyclists was not good enough for the CHP. So, in June of 1992 the CHP announced a ban on beanie style helmets, and a campaign against riders who were wearing those and other helmets that they, the CHP and allied agencies didn't like, began.
This campaign has so far resulted in over fifteen thousand citations for so-called "illegal" or "unapproved" helmets. But, of even more significance has been the exposure of riders to violations of due process resulting from the CHP's suspect actions.
Illegal roadblocks, helmet (and even motorcycle) seizures, body searches of both males and females, photo taking, and more; all in the name of enforcement of the helmet law.
To make matters worse, in many cases the courts also refuse to comply with the requirements of due process when dealing with what they consider bikers.
The good news about all this is the way that this conduct has opened an opportunity to identify the anti-biker bigots in the various police agencies, and the traffic courts.
Granted, bigots constitute a very small percentage of police officers and court officials; but, they are all making the list.
Although substantial data has been collected by the HLDL about the individual police officers and judges who are harassing riders; every once in a while the CHP does something special to confirm their bigoted attitudes.
Most recently discovered is the opening slide in a presentation prepared and shown by Sgt. Mike Nivens, Office of Special Projects of the California Highway Patrol, on the subject of "bogus helmets." Nivens was unavailable for comment as to the context in which this cartoon was presented to his classes.
It is unclear how long this particular cartoon has been a part of Nivens's training sessions; but what is clear is how this illustration has no evident redeeming purpose. It is also clear that Nivens is not using this illustration to specifically denounce such bigoted humor.
It appears, instead, that the good Sergeant has revealed the nature and extent of his personal bigotry. It is also interesting to note that Sgt. Nivens is the person responsible for the ban on beanie helmets -- the helmets of choice of many Harley Davidson riders.