Mocek now suing for civil rights violations
May 31, 2011, 8:03 am
#61
Join Date: Jun 2009
Programs: SSSSS
Posts: 867
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.
"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."
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."
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?
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?
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?
May 31, 2011, 9:01 am
#62
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 31,188
)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.
May 31, 2011, 9:26 am
#63
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,103
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.
Seems to me that Phil has something coming.
May 31, 2011, 9:32 pm
#64
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
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.
May 31, 2011, 10:45 pm
#65
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
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.
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.
As for lawsuits and punishment, it seems others have tried:
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.
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.
[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.
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 . . .
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 . . .
Nov 28, 2011, 9:47 am
#68
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
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, 2011 at 10:13 am Reason: Add my thoughts on the complaint
Nov 29, 2011, 3:53 am
#72
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NYC
Programs: DL PM, Marriott Gold, Hertz PC, National Exec
Posts: 6,736
Nov 29, 2011, 6:01 am
#73
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
Nov 29, 2011, 6:56 am
#74
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Southwest Florida
Programs: AA lifetime Gold , DL Gold, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 572
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
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
Nov 29, 2011, 8:16 am
#75
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Minneapolis, Hong Kong
Programs: United Airlines 1K MM, Hilton Honors Gold
Posts: 248
At the very least, an internal affairs complaint should be filed with the local department about the individual officers.