Go Back   > > >
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 31, 11, 8:03 am   #61
  
Join Date: Jun 2009
Programs: SSSSS
Posts: 867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caradoc View Post
Of course - the Maryland State Department of Corrections also cannot operate uncertified-by-the-FDA X-ray equipment.

I'll bet the TSA will try it. Just because they think they're above the law anyway.
My thoughts exactly. DHS has recently been interfering with internet communications by "seizing" web domains, (isn't that what China did?) and redirecting them to government sites. link.

There is a firefox add in that automatically redirects when the feds do this (without the benefit of a warrant, due process or anything else, including knowledge of how the internet is supposed to work). DHS demanded that Mozilla remove the plug in from its web site on May 7. Computerworld article link. Mozilla's Vice President and General Counsel, Harvey Anderson said no thanks.
Quote:
"In recent months, ICE has shut down a large number of websites suspected of selling illegally copied music, movies or counterfeit products. Some free-speech experts have said the seizures may violate freedom-of-speech protections in the U.S. Constitution.

The DHS did not come to Mozilla with a court order, and the group pushed back, asking for proof that Mafiaa Fire is illegal, or at least a legal reason justifying the removal of the add-on.

"To date we've received no response from Homeland Security nor any court order," Anderson said. While content companies see obvious reasons to keep these sites offline, Mozilla sees it as a question of government censorship, and whether agreeing to these informal requests might somehow "threaten the open Internet," Anderson said."
Anderson, in his own blog asked DHS several questions:

Quote:
Have any courts determined that the Mafiaafire add-on is unlawful or illegal in any way? If so, on what basis? (Please provide any relevant rulings)

Is Mozilla legally obligated to disable the add-on or is this request based on other reasons? If other reasons, can you please specify.

Can you please provide a copy of the relevant seizure order upon which your request to Mozilla to take down the Mafiaafire add-on is based?
While this is significantly off topic, I think it demonstrates that the entire DHS/TSA empire is a serious and growing threat to the United States and that it is vitally important that people like Phil Mocek be willing to take the risk of standing up and being counted.

Moderators, I will not be offended if this post is deleted. There are many and increasing threats coming from the DHS including potential threats to sites like this when the government becomes offended at free and open debate. Consider the DHS has armed forces (USCG) armed police (CPB/FAM), the ability to make secret rules an d policies, an arrogant willingness to violate the laws and the constitution, and a similar willingness to harass and intimidate travelers and an ability to avoid civilian trial courts. What more do they need?
greentips is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 11, 9:01 am   #62
FlyerTalk Evangelist
  
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 18,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jenbel View Post
It actually says in the letter linked in this thread that the LEOs had tried to delete what was on the video but that the recording had been recovered.

(the letter to the City of Alberquerque is a good Cliffs Notes )

good luck with the case...
Ahh, I see that now.

Given this I don't understand why the prosecution didn't drop the charges altogether. It seems as if it would have been clear that the cops were lying. This almost smacks of suborning perjury on the part of the D.A.
anrkitec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 11, 9:26 am   #63
FlyerTalk Evangelist
  
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 12,375
The actions of various people at the airport and very long time to bring the case to trial cost Phil a substantial amount of time, money and worry if not in other ways.

Seems to me that Phil has something coming.
Boggie Dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 11, 9:32 pm   #64
FlyerTalk Evangelist
  
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by anrkitec View Post
Ahh, I see that now.

Given this I don't understand why the prosecution didn't drop the charges altogether. It seems as if it would have been clear that the cops were lying. This almost smacks of suborning perjury on the part of the D.A.
Giving the DA the benefit of the doubt, perhaps they were blindsided by the cops' attempted destruction of evidence. Of course, if that's true, then the DA's office should be empaneling a grand jury or seeking appointment of a special prosecutor to decide whether perjury charges should be brought against the cop who lied on the stand and whether evidence tampering/destruction charges should be brought against the cops who attempted to destroy the evidence.

But if the DA knew about it, then some lawyers should be facing disbarment and possible prison terms.

There's something very smelly in the criminal justice system in Alberquerque.
FWAAA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 11, 10:45 pm   #65
  
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 1,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by anrkitec View Post
Maybe someone with a much more precise recollection of the events could correct me but before the trial I seem to remember there being a continuance granted to the prosecution in light of "new video evidence" being offered by the defense.
Correct:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmocek View Post
State of New Mexico v. Phillip Mocek, day one:

I relay the following without comment for those who were not in attendance today. I will not discuss anything that was not observable in open court.

Multiple cases were on the docket for 9am in the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court. A young man repeatedly told Judge Fitzwater that the judge was not listening to the man's story but was nonetheless fined $25 for rear-ending another vehicle while following too closely. Much confusion surrounded a case in which the defendant's translator was late and the one man who in attendance was able to translate did not understand the judge's question, "Are you the alleged victim of battery?" A few other cases were handled briefly.

Around 10am, "State of New Mexico v. Phillip Mossack" was addressed. The prosecutor immediately requested a continuance, claiming that he needed time to review a video that was provided to him by the defense attorney yesterday. The defense attorney said the video is only three minutes long, and just shows what happened during the incident. The judge said it's been over a year and asked why this only came up yesterday. Defense attorney said she only received the video this weekend, and it wasn't known to be needed until after conducting interviews of the prosecution witnesses.

A minor ruckus ensued when a member of the press begin to use a hand-held audio recorder and a camera from the gallery. The TSA attorney, also in the gallery, held up a file folder to hide his face from the camera. An Albuquerque police officer who was seemingly in the courtroom for unrelated reasons became very agitated, then approached the bench and told the judge that the man was taking photographs. The judge reminded the officer that he had stated earlier that photography of jurors was not allowed. There were no jurors in the room at the time.

The prosecutor stated that the state will call no more than eight witnesses. The defense attorney said that defense will call two.

The defense attorney requested that if the trial be continued, it resume this week, as the defendant has traveled from Seattle for the trial. Motion to continue was granted. Case will resume Thursday at 9:00 a.m. Judge Fitwater's two-week military reserve duty is to begin Monday.


Quote:
Originally Posted by anrkitec View Post
At the time I thought that was odd as I assumed that the defense would have given over or the police would have confiscated any and all video evidence at the the time of the incident.
At the end of the video of my arrest, Officer Dilley can be heard saying, "Gimme your camera," and I can be heard responding, "Can I get a receipt?" I was not given a receipt. I was later told that because I was "being processed as a John Doe" the jail would not take my belongings, so they would be held in safe storage for me at the Albuquerque Aviation Police Department at the airport. The day after I was released from jail, I returned to retrieve my belongings. I found that all images on my camera had been deleted. I was able to recover them using forensic analysis software on the plane ride home. That was -- to put it mildly -- a joyous occasion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anrkitec View Post
That led me to wonder at the time if what had happened was that the cops had in fact erased Phil's video on the night in question
It could have been a janitor, but it happened while my camera was in possession of the police.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anrkitec View Post
merely "deleting" digital storage media doesn't actually erase the data until the media has been overwritten by new data - and sometimes even more than once.
Correct. Most digital cameras use a standard MS-DOS FAT file system, so when a file is "deleted" it's really just removed from the index and its storage space is freed up for other files' use.

As for lawsuits and punishment, it seems others have tried:

Quote:
Originally Posted by pmocek View Post
And as you might recall, during preliminary motions (#5, from 14:25 to 17:06 in the audio recording made by IDP), we were barred from mentioning any police internal affairs investigations during the trial.

Judge Fitzwater: "The state is concerned that defense is going to raise the issue that there is an internal affairs complaint or that there's a civil matter hanging on this."

Defense attorney (Hollander): "Your honor, in our discovery motion, we asked for Brady and Giglio as we always do. I learned yesterday that there were some incidents, I believe, involving one of the officers that were serious. I called counsel and said, `What I've learned is hearsay. I want you to check it out, and I want you to represent to the court whether there's Giglio information and Brady information which we should add to this case.' I can only rely on his representation. He says that there isn't."

The prosecutor (Drebing) said he didn't have access to personnel records or IA investigations, but made some inquiry and could represent that based on what was represented to him, there was nothing to be disclosed at that time.

Obviously, I don't have any information about any Albuquerque Police Department or Albuquerque Aviation Police Department internal affairs investigation of Officer Bobby Dilley, Officer Landrow Wiggins, or Officer Julio De La Peña (these are the only three officers who were ever on the prosecution's witness list; we interviewed all three of them; only Dilley testified). If anyone else does, I think lots of people would find it interesting.

Officer De La Peña worked about 26 years as a police officer in schools, and has worked for AAPD for about eight years since. Officer Wiggins worked two years with AAPD, 20 years security with Isleta Pueblo, then back to AAPD. Officer Dilley worked for the Albuquerque Police Department for 20 years, part of which was in "narcotics" (prohibited drugs / controlled substances of all sorts, not just narcotics) investigations, before retiring and then working for the aviation police.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari View Post
[Officer Robert F. "Bobby" Dilley] was sued seven times for in federal court for civil rights violations during the period he was working narcotics. The allegations involved false arrest, bad searches, excessive force and in one case, the seizure of $67,000.00 without a warrant or probable cause. It looks like five of the suits were settled including the cash one. The two suits filed by prisoners were never evaluated on their merits likely because judges don't take prisoners' suits seriously, especially after the PLRA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmocek View Post
Until Ari cites his source, that's hearsay.
Fair enough. All the lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for New Mexico; the case numbers and case titles are below-- Dilley is a named defendant in each case:

93-CV-01195 Blackhurst v. Albuquerque, City of, et al
94-CV-01016 Cadena v. Albuquerque, City of, et al
94-CV-01279 Taylor, et al v. Vincent, et al
95-CV-00297 Clark v. Montano, et al
95-CV-00984 Padilla, et al v. Dilley, et al
01-CV-00651 Mondragon, et al v. New Mexico, State of, et al

I can't find the 7th case for some reason . . .
pmocek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27, 11, 6:18 pm   #66
  
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 228
Has there been any updating of this situation?
rgfloor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27, 11, 6:37 pm   #67
  
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 1,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgfloor View Post
Has there been any updating of this situation?
My civil suit was filed November 14. I still haven't found the time to write about it, but I'll do so soon, then post a notice here.
pmocek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 11, 9:47 am   #68
Ari
FlyerTalk Evangelist
  
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,728
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmocek View Post
My civil suit was filed November 14. I still haven't found the time to write about it, but I'll do so soon, then post a notice here.
Thanks for the update.

A 27-page complaint!?!?-- I'm about to read it now.

Oh, wow-- you want equitable relief, too. Interesting.

----------------------------------------

The Monell claim might be a little weak. The 4th Amendment claim against the TSOs will be dismissed since they didn't effect any detention-- they just caused it by calling the police which isn't enough; the 1st Amendment claim against them for reacting to the filming has a little more teeth. I think the claims against the individual TSOs are not properly plead and should have been plead as state law claims for malicious prosecution (or the NM equiv.) with a claim that the TSOs were acting outside the scope of their duties by intentionally filing a false report (to prevent FTCA nonsense).

Last edited by Ari; Nov 28, 11 at 10:13 am Reason: Add my thoughts on the complaint
Ari is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 11, 10:32 am   #69
FlyerTalk Evangelist
  
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 12,375
Any publicly accessible link to the filing?
Boggie Dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 11, 10:48 am   #70
Ari
FlyerTalk Evangelist
  
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,728
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog View Post
Any publicly accessible link to the filing?
I got it from PACER.
Ari is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 11, 6:28 pm   #71
  
Join Date: Aug 2004
Programs: Marriott Plat
Posts: 818
Any chance you can post a copy somewhere?
amejr999 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 29, 11, 3:53 am   #72
  
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NYC
Programs: DL PM, SPG Gold, Hertz PC
Posts: 4,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by amejr999 View Post
Any chance you can post a copy somewhere?
http://goo.gl/oiruk
cestmoi123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 29, 11, 6:01 am   #73
Suspended
  
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
Quote:
Originally Posted by FWAAA View Post
There's something very smelly in the criminal justice system in Alberquerque.
That same smell can be found in every airport in the United States where the TSA is also found.

It's the smell of corruption.
Caradoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 29, 11, 6:56 am   #74
  
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Southwestern Connecticut
Programs: AA lifetime Gold , DL Gold, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 565
Beside this civil lawsuit, are there any criminal charges being filed against the defendants.

The video evidence alone shows the LEO’s lied in their arrest reports, I would assume that would be enough to bring criminal charges against these LEO’s.

Mr. Elliott
Mr. Elliott is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 29, 11, 8:16 am   #75
  
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Minneapolis, Hong Kong
Programs: United Airlines 1K MM, Hilton Honors Gold
Posts: 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Elliott View Post
Beside this civil lawsuit, are there any criminal charges being filed against the defendants.

The video evidence alone shows the LEO’s lied in their arrest reports, I would assume that would be enough to bring criminal charges against these LEO’s.

Mr. Elliott
At the very least, an internal affairs complaint should be filed with the local department about the individual officers.
DAL4550 is offline   Reply With Quote
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Thread Tools
Search Thread
Go to Top
Forum Jump
Contact Us - FlyerTalk - Archive - Top