TSA agent threatens woman with defamation lawsuit.
Sep 9, 2011, 1:55 pm
#91
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: ORD
Posts: 12
Sometimes I wish I hadn't retired from practicing trial law. This would be a hugely fun case with respect to many issues. One fertile area is that of alleged damages claimed by Clerk Magee. Damages for defamation involve "damage to reputation. So Johan et Pirlouit character Magee's reputation and character are at issue and a ripe area for discovery. It becomes not only prudent but necessary to investigate every potentially untoward incident that might reflect on reputation. Every sexual encounter, male or female,canine or caprine, would need to be deeply investigated. Had she even shoplifted a Baby Ruth in High School? Tattoos? Piercings? Abortions? Did she seem to like it when her pet dog humped her leg?Remember the issue she opens up by filing such a suit is not whether she ever did anything that WAS wrong; it is whether she ever did anything that people in the community might think was wrong. Unlike most cases, where it is character that might be the issue, here it is reputation in the community that she must claim was damaged and that opens the door.
After having fun with Blue Meanie Magee (Wow! Alliteration) we could take a baseball bat upside the head of the TSA. A necessary issue would be whether our cerulean fingered, stannum badged <redacted, so no feelings get hurt> followed SOP. So, a Rule 26 Document Demand accompanied by a Rule 45 Subpoena Duces Tecum gets served demanding that the full, unredacted, non Blogdad Bob edited SOP, gets produced. Finally, we get to see the sacred scroll. They refuse? I will go to sleep tonight dreaming of perp walking Pistole to the contempt slammer."Do you, the jury, believe that the Defendant Alkon was justified in describing the actions of Plaintiff Magee as rape?" When the jury answers "Yes", the headlines the next day will be "Jury finds that TSA raped passenger." Can you say "tipping point?"
And when her former manager is asked, "Was she fired because Alkon called it rape?" he will answer, "No, it's because Magee endangered our ability to successfully suck up the taxpayers' milk by filing this idiotic lawsuit that we fired her."
And we can probably find out whether the badges really are chocolate inside a tin foil wrapper.
After having fun with Blue Meanie Magee (Wow! Alliteration) we could take a baseball bat upside the head of the TSA. A necessary issue would be whether our cerulean fingered, stannum badged <redacted, so no feelings get hurt> followed SOP. So, a Rule 26 Document Demand accompanied by a Rule 45 Subpoena Duces Tecum gets served demanding that the full, unredacted, non Blogdad Bob edited SOP, gets produced. Finally, we get to see the sacred scroll. They refuse? I will go to sleep tonight dreaming of perp walking Pistole to the contempt slammer."Do you, the jury, believe that the Defendant Alkon was justified in describing the actions of Plaintiff Magee as rape?" When the jury answers "Yes", the headlines the next day will be "Jury finds that TSA raped passenger." Can you say "tipping point?"
And when her former manager is asked, "Was she fired because Alkon called it rape?" he will answer, "No, it's because Magee endangered our ability to successfully suck up the taxpayers' milk by filing this idiotic lawsuit that we fired her."
And we can probably find out whether the badges really are chocolate inside a tin foil wrapper.
There are so many things in here that should get an attorney sanctioned it is sad and pathetic.
If you disagree with the SOP of TSA, there are ways to approach the problem. Getting jollies from implying a TSA worker practices bestiality is not one of them.
Sep 9, 2011, 2:13 pm
#92
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 360
If this ever gets to court, I don't see why the SOP would be at all relevant. This isn't a criminal proceeding to determine whether the crime of rape was committed. It's a civil proceding to determine if the passenger was reasonable in her description of the event as "rape". But a "reasonable passenger" doesn't have knowlege of what's in the SOP and therefore couldn't be using it to make a determination of whether what happened was or was not "rape". Therefore it's not material to the case.
Bt the way, you seem to be using "releant" and "material" interchangibly. They are different concepts in evidence law. If I unloaded a right hook (since that's the only arm I have that works) on SATTSO (I know, you shouldn't hit girls.) The fact of a broken nose would be relevant but not material in a criminal assault case, since the only issue would be whether I hit it/he/she. In a civil case resulting from the assault, it would be both, since damages are in issue.
Sep 9, 2011, 2:25 pm
#94
Join Date: May 2006
Location: MSN
Programs: DL, AA, UA
Posts: 294
Well, the possibility that no one seems to want to mention is that Ms. Alkon is exaggerating her experience that day and that the pat-down she received was no worse than what everyone else goes through when they opt out (not that it's OK). I do think that what the TSA is doing is basically sexual assault but I don't think Ms. Alkon is doing anyone any favors by calling it rape. I wonder if she has any witnesses that can testify that the feel-up went past the normal "resistance."
Sep 9, 2011, 2:36 pm
#95
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 360
I didn't imply it. You inferred it. I was simply making the point that if there was a good faith basis for believing that this predatory plaintiff had engaged in caprine capers, it was an area of legitimate inquiry in discovery. Congratulations, though, on knowing what the word means.
Sep 9, 2011, 3:23 pm
#96
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Greater DC
Programs: UA plus
Posts: 12,943
Well, the possibility that no one seems to want to mention is that Ms. Alkon is exaggerating her experience that day and that the pat-down she received was no worse than what everyone else goes through when they opt out (not that it's OK). I do think that what the TSA is doing is basically sexual assault but I don't think Ms. Alkon is doing anyone any favors by calling it rape. I wonder if she has any witnesses that can testify that the feel-up went past the normal "resistance."
Every patdown is different, but we the people are not permitted to know what is acceptable or not even within the TSA
Sep 9, 2011, 3:37 pm
#97
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,726
Sep 9, 2011, 4:48 pm
#98
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DFW
Programs: AS, BA, AA
Posts: 3,670
At all times my client followed proper procedure in connection with your screening at LAX. Notwithstanding that proper procedure, you falsely accused my client of rape, which is actionable.
I don't know if it would be relevant / material if the TSO had a decent attorney, but if one attorney opens up a can of worms, then my understanding is the other party is entitled to count the worms. Is there a name for that legal theory?
I'm going to give SATTSO a pass on that one. Most people are a little offended when someone mistakes their gender. If someone referred to me as "him", I would be irritated, and not simply because men are inferior to women.
That's why I avoid confusion by referring to all infants as "it". 
Sep 9, 2011, 5:17 pm
#99
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Orange County, CA, USA
Programs: AA (Life Plat), Marriott (Life Titanium) and every other US program
Posts: 6,411
However, there is very little in law that is "pretty cut and dried." There is no constitutional right to libelous speech. A, saying that someone raped you is an accusation of a crime and therefore likely to be libel per se if: a) untrue; b) not phrased as an opinion. (Of course, there is always "c)" which is "or if the judge/jury doesn't like you.")
I doubt that this TSO will win, from what has been stated here. First, the "opinion" of rape seems to be a valid defense. Second, I agree that the whole kerfluffle with how the SOP will be handled makes the case more complicated.
Sep 9, 2011, 7:25 pm
#100
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
If I'm walking down the street and somebody pulls out a gun and points it at me and I'm able to get out my gun first and kill that person before they can shoot, the question of whether their gun was loaded or working properly is legally irrelevant. Likewise is what was in the mind of the person pulling the gun on me. A reasonable person is entitled, in that situation, to make the assumption that the gun is a threat.
Sep 9, 2011, 7:26 pm
#101
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Sure, by making the legal claim that it's irrelevant whether the TSO did or did not follow the proper procedure. That's a stronger argument anyway.
Sep 9, 2011, 9:37 pm
#102
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: SNA, LAX
Posts: 418
SLAPP's are not cut and dried. While this action would certainly meet the first part of the statute (it implicates free speech) it only has to have "minimal merit" for the plaintiff to win the motion. The plaintiff would just have to show there's speech that could, possibly, maybe, be defamatory. That is not at all a high bar to hurdle, especially when it will be uncontested that the defamatory speech in question is an accusation of rape.
Sep 9, 2011, 10:05 pm
#104
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,702
Nope. I am not embarrassed to be "outed as a woman". Not at all.
