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.
Last edited by 4nsicdoc; Sep 6, 11 at 3:39 pm.
Reason: the truth hurts
A necessary issue would be whether our cerulean fingered, stannum badged groper 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.
This would be the only reason I would like to see this one go to trial - especially since, the TSA agent's attorney letter notes that she was following standard operating procedure.
It's not like the TSA can't tell her she can't sue Ms. Alkon, which opens them up for a lawsuit, in my non-lawyerly opinion. If I had to guess, TSA may even push back and say she wasn't following SOP, but then that opens them up to a lawsuit... And it'd be interesting to see the plaintiff need to sue the TSA to allow her to provide the SOP as the main part of her case.
Last edited by Mientree; Sep 6, 11 at 3:38 pm.
Reason: after thought...
Freshly ground sea salt ok? It's a sensible option with the humidity around here, normal don't cut it. I'm using an air popper btw. <g>
<edit to add> Thank you Ayn R Key for the additional links.
From the first column relating the letter she received regarding filing a sexual assault suit against the TSO:
Harvey Silverglate, lawyer and co-founder of the wonderful campus free speech defenders, FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education), emailed me this: <I snipped introductory paragraphs from this letter>
...To win a battle for liberty like this, people must not get accustomed to these indignities, but must complain about them every single time ... and in every forum possible.
and from Amy:
I'll echo Harvey in asking that you all do as I did (and that you spread the word to do as I did): Don't make it easy for the government, through these TSA lackeys, to be violating us -- sexually, and in respect to our right to not be searched without probable cause.
And no -- the fact that some people are terrorists is NOT probable cause. The fact that you are wearing underwire is NOT probable cause. And no -- the fact that you, in 2011, are unwilling to hitchhike thousands of miles instead of taking a plane is NOT probable cause.
The rights of vast number of Americans are being violated daily and it is absolutely essential that we all stand up and defend our rights -- and as loudly and vociferously as possible.
Are you in? Spread the word.
Last edited by loops; Sep 6, 11 at 4:25 pm.
Reason: added quotes
A minor technical point, but one that needs to be made, is that the slope-headed, slack-jawed mouth-breathing minion of Janet Incompitano has not filed a lawsuit. It was a demand letter. That is the normal first shot over the bow in what California law calls a "strategic lawsuit against public participation" or SLAPP suit, something that California has expressly prohibited by enacting anti-SLAPP legislation. So idiot TSO's idiot lawyer files such a suit, loses when Pistole throws her under the bus (no - wait - it would be a 747-800 with 100% screened cargo, wouldn't it?). Then under the Cal. law they get to pay all of our heroine's legal fees and expenses. That, given the lineup of volunteers like the Popehat Group ( http://www.popehat.com/2011/09/06/co...ug-theyll-sue/) and others, including myself, those fees and costs should be enough to bankrupt this sexual pervert, induce homelessness, hunger and poverty and, hopefully, result in one less pervert sucking our oxygen. I think Clerk Magee and her lawyer underestimate the abject hatred of her kind that exists. And not because of what Amy said, but because Magee is still alive.
So [redacted] TSO's [redacted] lawyer files such a suit, loses when Pistole throws her under the bus
Which is why the lawsuit would probably never reach a verdict. As I understand it, this action would be a civil suit, not a criminal one. If the TSO's lawyer saw the TSA "throwing her under the bus", I think they'd drop the suit rather quickly; there's no point in pursuing a case that can't be won.