The truth of this AIM-scam situation is hard to come by, what with the damage control spin doctors throwing crap all over the place. It's amazing the stories you hear.
A couple days ago I received, by e-mail, a copy of a memo under the heading of "Resignation". The memo was from "Radio" Bob Letourneau. The insight that comes from the time line of the events leading up to Pepper Massey-Swan's resignation are being painted with a "cover up" brush as wide as the problem. But I don't think Bish can climb over this:
To: Richard Lester, NCOM BOA, & LTF
From: "Radio" Bob Letourneau
Date:(3 Aug 1996)
Subject: Leg Protector Law Suit Issue -Time Line and
comments
Mid May::
Simon Milward attended and Experimental Safety of Vehicles (ESV) conference in Australia and learned that there were around 100 cases brought against manufactures for not fitting leg protectors or similar devices. He e-mailed Pepper and asked if AIM was involved. She replied that she didn't think so however she would ask Richard. Per Richard, this would not be tolerated, and if discovered they would no longer do business with those attorneys. June 28, 1996:
Craig Clinch called the office and was told that AIM had zero tolerance on this type of Law Suit. July 2, 1996:
Craig called again with a list of attorneys names involved and there were two that Pepper was familiar with and one of them was from the home office. Pepper then searched the files and found three cases. July 3, 1996:
Pepper spoke with Richard while he was on vacation. He tried to assure her that she was mistaken, she insisted that she was correct and that it was clear that the office was involved. She further indicated that they needed to drop that portion of the law suit. Richard stated that he would not. Pepper resigned effected July 3, 1996 Stating that it was clear to her that "the motivation behind the office was money not motorcyclists rights and that it was a devastating blow to motorcyclists, one that's sting would be felt for many years to come." July 6, 1996 (Sunday night):
I received a call from Ed Netterberg apprising me of the situation and asking me what I thought of it. I was completely taken back and thought how could this happen. I told him that I would call him the next day with my thoughts on the issue. I was devastated. July 7, 1996:
Received Richard's mail dated 7/5/96 with three memo's.
The letter to Simon and the FEM, Richard states he would not have intentionally created this obvious conflict and that it was his screw up. Could he please meet with them in London on July 13 at 8:30 pm. Asking them to accept his deepest apology for his giant case of inattention and resulting blunder.
In the memo to the attorneys, Richard mention's the obvious conflict and that repercussions to our credibility could be enormous and that he was trying to do damage control. However how could they (the attorneys) could continue to maintain the highest standards of representation if they limited their complaints to the design defects, and that they should continue to represent their current cases with complete vigor.
Memo to the BOD & LTF titled for your eyes only and read and destroy. Richard states that he takes complete responsibility for his inattentiveness to this matter and failed to note the obvious conflict. He also states that he can do nothing about the past and current cases, it is now under 25 cases. July 8, 1996:
I e-mailed Simon and Craig asking them for their input on the
situation. July 10, l996:
I received Mail back from Simon and Craig They are both horrified and will get back to me. You have copies of their comments and remarks. July 17, 1996:
Richard called me and we discussed the issue at length. I explained to him that the damage was done and that we as a rights organization have lost credibility. He stated that we have accomplished much in the past and that we could get over it. I told him I wasn't as sure. He also stated that he thought that it was a misunderstanding in terminology, leg protectors vs leg protection. I am not a lawyer however it sounds the same to me and more than likely it will sound the same to a state legislator. He also stated the legislation has never come about from law suits. I respectfully disagreed. He also told me that he had spoken with most of the board and that they were in agreement with him, I pointed out that I was not in the same frame of mind. July 22, 1996:
I received a call from Ed Netterberg, the stress of this issue and the up coming Sturgis Rally has severely effected his health to the point that he more than likely would not be able to attend this meeting. (He suffered a mild stoke Friday afternoon) We had a long discussion on the issue and came to the conclusion that it would be business as usual for AIM and things would not change. We both felt that our (NCOM) creditability as a rights organization had been damaged and that would not change. He had decided to resign and would I bring his letter of resignation and comments to the Vegas meeting.
Craig Clinch called me and sent me e-mail to be copied and distributed to the board. Tittle, The AIM Scandal, you all should have copies.
We all have a copy of a boiler plate law suit against Harley Davidson. This is a computer generated copy that all you need is a name of a rider involved in an accident with this particular type of bike and a date and you have got an instant law suit. Safety guards are mentioned no less than 70 times in this 11 page document. Apparently they all have this in their computers, so much for no AIM Attorney involvement. Personal Comments:
While I do not place blame on Richard and the AIM attorneys for doing what they think is best for their clients. I do believe that their actions is extremely bad for the motorcycling community in general, that is all of us including our brothers and sisters back in our home states. These are the people who depend on our judgment on these matters. They will be the ones who will ultimately pay the price for these type of law suits, in the form of higher prices for the product we purchase and more importantly the legislation that could result from this. Will we be forced to put leg protectors on our bikes in the form of government mandates? Will we be forced to bear the existence of these devises due to the insurance companies demands forcing the manufactures to make this part of the frame of the future motorcycles? Let all of us ask ourselfs one question, Why are we
here, and what is expected of us from our membership?
Does anyone remember what happened to the 3 wheel ATV's a number of years ago? That was the result of product liability litigation. There were so many cases that it got the attention of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, a US government agency. The manufactures were forced into agreeing to stop manufacturing 3 wheel ATV's and to provide training to each person at their expense who bought an ATV. What do you think what would happen to two wheel motorcycles if a government agency started to poke around in these types of product liability law suits?
We as motorcycle rights activists are always preaching self-responsibility and freedom of choice. We know the dangers of riding our machines, it comes with the territory, are we going to sue because they are unsafe to ride?
What will our children and grandchildren be riding? We have to think long and hard on these issues we are responsible for our actions and we will be judged on them by those who trust us with this awesome responsibility.
On the defense of the attorneys all product liability law suits are not necessarily bad, for example if a wheel is found to be defective and accidents and personal injury results I think that it would be justifiable to pursue a law suit on behalf of the injured party for the defective wheel against its manufacture. Another case would be if a gas cap was of defective design and came off in a collision spilling gas all over the rider and a running motorcycle, this would be another case. I think you get my point.
However I now believe that there is a flaw in the relationship between motorcycle rights activists and attorneys. It is painfully clear in this situation that there is a conflict of interest that exist between us and puts us on a collision
course. We cannot have it both ways.
In closing I am also disappointed in the way this whole matter has been handled, it obvious to me that credibility and integrity takes a back seat to money and power. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. This board needs to make a decision on where it wants to be on this issue. I see this as a major problem for motorcylists in the very near future.
(end)
NOTE: Last things first, I disagree that there is a "flaw in the relationship between motorcycle rights activists and attorneys." We believe, because we know it to be true, that it is the nature of this particular relationship that is the problem, not just the mere fact that Lester is a lawyer. If Richard Lester were not the Chairman of the Advisory Board of NCOM, the fact that the built the organization for the sole purpose of generating leads for himself as a litigator would not be a problem. That's the flaw in the relationship between motorcycle rights activists and self-serving individuals, regardless of their respective agendas.
However, that doesn't mean that Mr. Letourneau is not right about the impact of the improprieties of Lester. Yes, the type of litigation he is involved with is just what will bring about mandates that motorcycles be manufactured with leg protectors . . . if at all. He's right when he points out that we cannot attempt to hold other people responsible because we choose to ride motorcycles, and not expect them to come back and try to take our motorcycles away from us. He's especially right when he talks about the fact that these lawsuits of Lester's have not begun to impact us . . . but they will.
Working backwards, that brings us to the time line of the events that happened leading up to, and through, the resignation of Pepper Massey-Swan. Check the stuff the damage control experts have put out and see if it matches. This time line absolutely proves that Pepper Massey-Swan did the right thing for the right reasons; and that the rest are running from the truth! Today, August 5, 1996, this time line record of these events has value as to the events of today. Believe me, when these events are brought up again, it will be a few years down the road when somebody starts asking how we got in the mess we're in . . . having to chose between attaching leg protectors to our scoots, or not riding at all. It will have different meaning then, but will still be significant. (And, we'll still be around trying not to say: "We tried to tell you.")
This memo is something you are not supposed to know exists. This memo is little different in that respect than Lester's, marked "For your eyes only, read and destroy." But, here it is. And with any luck, the people who have the rest of the evidence of the TRUTH of what is going on, will send it to me and I will add that to the evidence pile.
Check back. I'm doing my job.
quig