Flyer “Processed” (Arrested?) in NM After Declining to Show ID
Dec 7, 2010, 12:35 pm
#976
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 191
That's understandable... I'd be embarrassed too if I had to defend them (TSA) as well.
Dec 7, 2010, 1:00 pm
#977
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DCA
Programs: UA Gold
Posts: 1,653
Dec 7, 2010, 1:12 pm
#978
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Interesting that if this has no bearing on TSA at all as some posters have claimed, that TSA sent a lawyer.
If the lawyer's as good as Francine, Phil has nothing to worry about.
If the lawyer's as good as Francine, Phil has nothing to worry about.
Dec 7, 2010, 1:44 pm
#979
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: boca raton, florida
Posts: 621
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.
Six for misdemeanors here.
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.
Six for misdemeanors here.
Dec 7, 2010, 2:21 pm
#980
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Catania, Sicily/South Jersey (PHL)/Houston, Texas/Red Stick/airborne in-between
Programs: United Global Svs, AA PlatPro, WN RR, AZ/ITA Freccia, Hilton Diam, Bonvoy Gold, Hertz Prez, IHG
Posts: 3,541
Again, a missdemeanor in ABQ court verus APD is not going to change the inane and feckless policies of the federal TSA.
Ciao,
FH
Dec 7, 2010, 2:50 pm
#981
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Francisco, USA
Posts: 79
I'm a freeelance travel journalist observing and reporting on the trial for my own Web site and blog and for the Identity Project (PapersPlease.org), a project of a nonprofit, charitable, 501(c)(3) educational and legal organization.
My report on today's court hearing is here.
My report on today's court hearing is here.
Dec 7, 2010, 2:58 pm
#982
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Denton County, TX
Programs: AA Executive Platinum, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 737
I don't believe for a moment that this lawsuit will affect TSA policy at all.
However, it is an example of an honest US citizen standing up for his rights against a system which attempted to bully and harass him into giving them up.
Although it won't affect TSA policy per se, a not guilty verdict will send a powerful message that abuse of authority in any form will not be tolerated.
However, it is an example of an honest US citizen standing up for his rights against a system which attempted to bully and harass him into giving them up.
Although it won't affect TSA policy per se, a not guilty verdict will send a powerful message that abuse of authority in any form will not be tolerated.
Dec 7, 2010, 3:16 pm
#985
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Denton County, TX
Programs: AA Executive Platinum, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 737
Exactly. I was responding to an earlier post from Flying Houstonian who seems to be against this lawsuit for reasons which I haven't grasped. But then again, I have not read all the posts in this thread so I don't want to speak out of turn.
Last edited by TXagogo; Dec 7, 2010 at 3:17 pm Reason: typo
Dec 7, 2010, 4:55 pm
#986
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 10,037
You should read FH's posts again.
Dec 7, 2010, 6:40 pm
#987
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Benicia CA
Programs: Alaska MVP Gold 75K, AA 3.8MM, UA 1.1MM, enjoying the retired life
Posts: 31,849
I hope they're at least getting the same 4 hour overtime minimum that I got for appearing in court on my days off. Depends what their union negotiated for them.
Dec 7, 2010, 6:53 pm
#988
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,347
Dec 7, 2010, 7:06 pm
#989
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Benicia CA
Programs: Alaska MVP Gold 75K, AA 3.8MM, UA 1.1MM, enjoying the retired life
Posts: 31,849
So basically they're at the mercy or management to compensate them for going in on their days off, or they can ask for a witness fee from the court (think my court paid $15)? I recall one FTer posted a few weeks ago that they are allowed to join a union, so guess I'm a little confused about what the purpose of joining one would be if they can't bargain for you but are allowed to represent you in workplace issues. Wouldn't being paid to go to court be a workplace issue? This was the post in regards to a labor board ruling allowing them to vote on union representation:
Any of our TSA posters know what compensation you get if you go to court on your days off? Does it vary per airport?
Any of our TSA posters know what compensation you get if you go to court on your days off? Does it vary per airport?
Dec 7, 2010, 7:41 pm
#990
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: OOL/DOH
Programs: QF LTS WP, Avis Pres Club, HH Diam.
Posts: 3,192
I hope the employer does NOT pay them and they must attend in their own time, may make some of them reflect on how they behave towards passengers (I know this has nothing to do with the present case).