Mr. Ed Youngblood, President American Motorcycle Association
33 Collegeview Road
Westerville, OH 43081

Dear Mr. Youngblood:

I was recently made aware of your draft column for the American Motorcyclist magazine entitled "The Truth, The Whole Truth and Nothing but . . . .", and respectfully request you to reconsider publishing this article.

First and foremost, regardless of your column's title, it does not represent the "whole truth". And even if it did, the only purpose the column could possibly serve is to attempt to discredit and diminish the work and effort of hundreds of motorcycle rights leaders who have struggled so long and hard to bring unity to the bikers' rights movement. By attacking the credibility of the National Coalition of Motorcyclists without first investigating the facts nor even asking for a meeting with Richard Lester or the Board of Advisors of NCOM, you not only bring into question the validity of the hard work of over 400 motorcycle organizations, but your rush to judgment will do much to once again create disunity and distrust that has held the movement back for so many years.

Now, as to the "whole truth". it is true that 11 years ago Mr. Lester was introduced to you by your "long-time friend who was the leader of ABATE in a nearby state" -- he now helps to administrate a law firm that represents motorcyclists involved in bikers' rights very similar to AIM -- and at that time did not intend to do product liability law suits. However, as you mention in your proposed article, it was while protecting bikers' legal rights that there was definitely a great need for product liability litigation. Manufacturers of various motorcycle products needed to be held accountable for products that are defective in design or production, and injure the motorcyclist. AIM attorneys do not file frivolous law suits, but rather are pledged to aggressively pursue manufacturers who know or should have known their product will cause serious harm to the riders. A prime example was the recent 4 million dollar recovery (structured to 12 million dollars) against a one-size-fits all helmet manufacturer/retailer that was partially responsible for a young man to be ventilated, blind and a quadriplegic.

Now on to "Nothing But the Truth", a complete investigation as opposed to an eager rush to judgment would have shown you that there are no law suits filed by AIM attorneys because "manufacturers had negligently failed to incorporate leg protectors in the motorcycle designs." This is blatantly misreading of the law suit and not true. The law suits -- I believe about 12 to 14 in total -- are against only one manufacturer for a design defect -- a bulge on the lower left-side of the motorcycle primary cover which protrudes out over the clutch -- which has caused countless riders to loose a left leg or foot. In a left-sided accident, the rider's foot is caught on the bulge like a chopping block, and is then traumatically amputated by the impact. The law suit alleges that the motorcycle manufacturer has known about this design defect for over 50 years. A further investigation of the actual law suit and not just the accusations of a past employee, would have shown that the other part of the law suit is not to install the bulky and cumbersome "leg protectors" that our European brothers and sisters are fighting the government from mandating, but for the alleged defective "crash guards/safety guards/motor guards" that are manufactured and installed by the same manufacturer as the above-stated design defect bulge, thus creating a double hazard for the motorcyclist's left leg. These crash guards/safety guards/motor guards the suit alleges, were originally manufactured so as to be made from much more sturdy metal, but then some years back as a cost saving measure, the process was changed resulting in a crash guard/safety guard/motor guard that was much less dependable.

You do a disservice to both NCOM and AIM in printing only partial truths that are out of context. It was NCOM and AIM through the ICOM organization that first brought the proposed mandating of leg protectors and air bags on motorcycles to the attention of the bikers of North America. It was NCOM that reproduced and distributed the video showing the testing of these onerous proposals by the government over in Europe. It was NCOM that financially helped bring the freedom fighters over to the U.S. to advise the motorcycle rights organizations regarding the leg protector issue.

The Aid to Injured Motorcyclists (AIM) nationwide network of attorneys have contributed millions of dollars over the years, and thousands of hours into the motorcycle rights movement. They are the sole financial sponsor of the National Coalition of Motorcyclists which has an annual budget of over $350,000 (The AIM budget is separate and approximately another $250,000). Over the past decade that money has been well spent in defense of riders' rights on the local, state and federal international level, just as was promised from the beginning. Who else puts out that kind of money toward our lobbying, legislative and public awareness efforts? AIM attorneys would never consciously do anything to hurt the rights movement they have fought so hard to protect.

As for the employee's letter of resignation and the subsequent memos that were sent out, the letter was mailed while Richard was still on vacation out of the country, and before "the whole truth" was known (or understood). Richard stated that he "screwed up" not because the suits were to add leg protectors, but because he was not aware that the mention of leg protection in relation to the defective crash guard/safety guard/motor guard might be misconstrued by the enemies of freedom of the road as a need for added leg protectors. This is a problem of semantics. The subject legal complaints are absolutely NOT anti-motorcycle law suits, and have nothing to do with the mandating of leg protectors. A simple request for the facts before your obvious attack on AIM attorneys that also protect the rights for the rider, would have shown the misconceptions in your article. You yourself stated in the proposed draft that there may be a place for product liability law suits, and I respectfully suggest that a known dangerous defect causing permanent and irreparable injury to hundreds if not thousands of unsuspecting riders may be one of them. However, the AIM Attorney Association through its spokesman Richard Lester, to avoid the perception (even though absolutely incorrect ) have agreed to no longer pursue this type of products liability law suits in the future, but to refer the injured motorcyclist to other qualified attorneys outside the AIM network. These seriously injured and maimed bikers still deserve the best legal representation available. NCOM and AIM, who first brought the governmental mandating of leg protectors to the attention of the motorcycle rights community in the United States, still believe that such legislation is absolutely wrong and ill conceived and will continue to pledge all its resources to fight against this governmental intrusion both in Europe and here in the United States.

Again, I beseech you, in the name of continued unity and in the spirit of cooperation between national MRO's, please reconsider and let our organization address this situation ourselves before being tried publicly on the pages of your magazine, and without benefit of the whole truth. (feedback)

Richard Lester is more than anxious to meet with you at your convenience, and share with you the legal complaints in question and discuss your concerns.

Freedom Through Unity,

Bill Bish
AIM National Director
NCOM Public Relations

(end)