Go Back   > > >
View Poll Results: Do you agree or disagree with the action undertaken by MKEbound?
Agree 766 75.92%
Disagree 144 14.27%
Neither agree nor disagree 75 7.43%
Not sure 24 2.38%
Voters: 1009. You may not vote on this poll

 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 26, 06, 8:25 pm   #76
FlyerTalk Evangelist
  
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Programs: Premier Gold on UA
Posts: 35,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaukau
Digg.com "Man faces jail time for writing curse on IRS check" I googled it.
Smartypants V. IRS
Verdict: Annual audits for life.
I looked on digg.com and only found an article about a man who wrote a curse on a check to pay a parking fine. From the last line of the article: " "There's an avenue for protesting that kind of thing," he said. ACLU lawyer Elsa Shartsis said Militzer's "choice of words may not be the best, and it may offend some people, but it's not illegal."

And it's not.
PTravel is offline  
Old Sep 26, 06, 8:29 pm   #77
FlyerTalk Evangelist
  
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA PLAT, HH Diamond, National Emerald Club Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart
First of all, the TSA supervisor overreacted and violated the first rule of leadership: he let it get personal.

There is nothing wrong with what the OP wrote on the plastic bag as far as being a threatening statement or anything that would remotely fall under the federal regulations that specifically limit speech along the lines of yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater.

I think in many jurisdictions, a police officer has a degree of latitude and discretion. However, the basic rule is that if they have to initiate a report, then they need to collect personal information. At this point, it would be unwise to refuse the information to the police officer. Better to cooperate with the officer and then fight it later under more formal circumstances. As for the TSA incident report, again, once it becomes documented, all that information is required and there's not much you can do about it at the time, but you can certainly challenge it later through a lawyer or other advocate.

I'm going to go ahead and second-guess the police officer. I think he should have pulled the supervisor aside and recommended that he just let it go. I truly think the supervisor should have done the same with the TSO.

Having said all this, now I'm going to pick on the OP...and I accept all the whining and crying that will be directed at me as a result. Today being the first day of this controversial screening method, with frustrations being high on both ends of the WTMD, why inflame it with such an idiotic statement? (Hey, I'm exercising my First Amendment rights, so don't get your Vickie's Secrets in a wad.) This is like showing up to a synagogue with a swastika on an armband. You haven't threatened anyone, but you've certainly inflamed them even if you're within the limits of your First Amendment rights.

Ultimately, the checkpoint supervisor and police officer overreacted and should have shown more professionalism.
Even if the OP was looking to make a statement (and possibly a confrontation), that still does NOT give the TSA ANY reason to say that the Constitution is not in effect at a checkpoint. You may have a valid argument at immigration as you haven't been admitted to the US, though there is government doctrine that says the protections from the government the Constitution grants are in force on a US person even outside the nation (ie the CIA can't tail me in the England simply because I'm not on US soil.)

As a federal employee, you (collectively) take the same oath POTUS does to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic." I took that oath when I was a fed, and I'd be willing to bet you did too. While it may be a stretch to say that this supervisor was an enemy of the constitution, he most certainly trampled on it and that violates the oath.

That supervisor should be placed on LWOP pending an investigation and terminated if found guilty.

It was unconstitutional and you and I both know that.
Superguy is offline  
Old Sep 26, 06, 8:31 pm   #78
  
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Lahaina, Hawai'i
Programs: HA Pua. Platinum WP, PR, QF, UA, AA, DL, NW Prince Preferred
Posts: 4,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTravel
I looked on digg.com and only found an article about a man who wrote a curse on a check to pay a parking fine. From the last line of the article: " "There's an avenue for protesting that kind of thing," he said. ACLU lawyer Elsa Shartsis said Militzer's "choice of words may not be the best, and it may offend some people, but it's not illegal."

And it's not.
And there we have it.
kaukau is offline  
Old Sep 26, 06, 8:32 pm   #79
FlyerTalk Evangelist
  
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 10,896
Translations

As a public service to my fellow FTers, here you go:

English: Kip Hawley is an idiot.
French: Kip Hawley est un idiot
Spanish: La kilolibra Hawley es un idiota
German: Kip Hawley ist ein Idiot
Italian: Il Kip Hawley un idiot

Now for the fun one:

Arabic: كيبي هاولي هو يحتسي

It comes across the same way in any language!
FliesWay2Much is offline  
Old Sep 26, 06, 8:35 pm   #80
  
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1
What seditious violation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bocastephen
This is no laughing matter....this incident was a seditious violation of your Constitutional rights by the parties involved
As Djlawman mentioned, sedition isn't against U.S. law and hasn't been for quite a while.

Most people don't really know what they're talking about when they throw around words like "sedition" and "treason".

Treason usually doesn't mean what you think it means, and even though sedition has an fairly broad definition, it isn't against the law.

As an aside, you don't need ID to travel as long as you're willing to submit to "the full search." That means you don't have to give over ID (to a policeman) that you don't have.

And depending on what state you live in, as long as you don't have any outstanding criminal issues, the worst that can happen is they give you a small fine for not having your driver's license in the car with you.

Yea, I know. The desire to conform is strong.
If you know your rights, you won't think they don't exist.

P.S. ceramic, carbon fibre, & plastic knives/gun parts don't show up terribly well under x-rays.
zusername is offline  
Old Sep 26, 06, 8:35 pm   #81
Suspended
  
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,386
Deleted

Last edited by Bart; Jan 5, 08 at 9:14 am
Bart is offline  
Old Sep 26, 06, 8:37 pm   #82
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
  
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Wild Wild Life, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 56,039
Greek: Kip Hawley είναι ηλίθιος.

Dutch: Kip Hawley is een idiot. (This one is great - Kip is Dutch for Chicken)

Japanese: キップHawley は馬鹿である。

(Thank you Babelfish!)

I'll let my fellow FTers have some fun with other translations.
Spiff is online now  
Old Sep 26, 06, 8:37 pm   #83
FlyerTalk Evangelist
  
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Programs: Premier Gold on UA
Posts: 35,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart
As for the TSA incident report, again, once it becomes documented, all that information is required and there's not much you can do about it at the time, but you can certainly challenge it later through a lawyer or other advocate.
I asked this in another thread, but I'll ask it here:

What happens if, after an incident like this (or one totally beyond my control, for example the explosive swab gives a false alarm that is immediately cleared) if I refuse to provide personal information, including my address to the TSA? My understanding is that neither TSOs nor their supervisors are LEOs. Why should I provide information that has the potential for being misused or mishandled under this kind of circumstance? Will I be kept from flying? Will I be arrested? If, after a TSO (with or without a LEO) says, "Okay, you're clear, but I need information for areport) I walk away, what will happen? Will I be arrested? Shot?

This, by the way, is a very serious question -- I'm not be facetious. The possibility of punitive blacklisting is very, very real here. Nixon's enemies list showed what happens when the executive branch compiles lists of names.
PTravel is offline  
Old Sep 26, 06, 8:42 pm   #84
FlyerTalk Evangelist
  
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Programs: Premier Gold on UA
Posts: 35,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaukau
It's all heresay. As galling as it is. All heresay. Am I wrong? Hard to prove a suit, but makes a great story.
Yes, you're wrong. Hearsay (not "heresay") is an out-of-court statement admitted to prove the truth asserted therein. Admissions by a party are an exception to hearsay, i.e. if a party to a legal action makes an out-of-court statement, a report of that statement would not be hearsay. The TSA supervisor was an agent of the government. In an action against the government, the supervisor might be named as a defendant but, even if not, as an agent for the government his statements would come within the admission by a party exception and the OP could testify, "The supervisor said to me . . . "
PTravel is offline  
Old Sep 26, 06, 8:44 pm   #85
FlyerTalk Evangelist
  
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: FLL/YYZ/TPE
Programs: CO Platinum 1K, SPG Platinum, Hyatt Platinum, National Executive Elite, Platinum TSA Hater
Posts: 30,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by zusername
...

Most people don't really know what they're talking about when they throw around words like "sedition" and "treason".....
I know what it means. This event might not be a direct example of true sedition, but the word is used in my context to represent an act completely grievous and vile against the rights of someone in such a way that it's a direct challenge to the Constitution and the spirit of liberty.

The screener stated the OP had no First Amendrights rights at his checkpoint. That is a direct assault on the OP's Constitutional protections.
bocastephen is offline  
Old Sep 26, 06, 8:49 pm   #86
Suspended
  
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,386
Deleted

Last edited by Bart; Jan 5, 08 at 9:14 am
Bart is offline  
Old Sep 26, 06, 8:53 pm   #87
  
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Northwest Georgia
Programs: Delta, Hilton, ICH, Hertz
Posts: 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKEbound
I was detained for about 25 minutes today after passing though the TSA checkpoint at MKE terminal E.
Not sure what the laws are in Wisconsin, but in most states you can get a copy of the LEO's report if it involves you. I would get a copy of that report before proceeding with any lawsuit (reports have been known to disappear when lawyers get involved).


- Alan
GeorgiaRebel is offline  
Old Sep 26, 06, 8:54 pm   #88
  
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Lahaina, Hawai'i
Programs: HA Pua. Platinum WP, PR, QF, UA, AA, DL, NW Prince Preferred
Posts: 4,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTravel
Yes, you're wrong. Hearsay (not "heresay") is an out-of-court statement admitted to prove the truth asserted therein. Admissions by a party are an exception to hearsay, i.e. if a party to a legal action makes an out-of-court statement, a report of that statement would not be hearsay. The TSA supervisor was an agent of the government. In an action against the government, the supervisor might be named as a defendant but, even if not, as an agent for the government his statements would come within the admission by a party exception and the OP could testify, "The supervisor said to me . . . "
Good. I'm glad I'm wrong. Because it's easier to prove a case, if the details are not hearsay.
kaukau is offline  
Old Sep 26, 06, 8:57 pm   #89
  
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart
I don't understand why you would object to the recording of that information.
I think the worry is that the TSA might have names of people who have legally disagreed with TSA policies added to watch or no-fly lists.
alliance is offline  
Old Sep 26, 06, 8:58 pm   #90
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
  
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 82,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillScann
Paging OP...I have journos that would like to chat with you
Thanks for the help.
GUWonder is offline  
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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