Flyer “Processed” (Arrested?) in NM After Declining to Show ID
Feb 1, 2011, 12:24 pm
#1711
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Winter Garden, FL
Programs: Delta DM-3MM United Gold-MM Marriott Lifetime Titanium Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 13,498
He realized that many of his witnesses had lied and could not be called to testify. Only two of them were called, and one of them was Dilley.
Bruce
Bruce
Feb 1, 2011, 12:36 pm
#1712
In Memoriam
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 361
And as an Officer of the Court he has the OBLIGATION to prosecute perjured testimony and false sworn statements. Will it happen? Not without pressure being brought to bear. Somehow a news organization has to become interested in this. Phil, do you or the organizations who supported you have any contacts?
Feb 1, 2011, 1:02 pm
#1713
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Francisco, USA
Posts: 79
But please remember that, "Anything you say can and will be used against you," and cut Phil and others some slack in what you expect them to say in this forum.
Feb 1, 2011, 1:08 pm
#1714
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Doha, Qatar
Programs: Air Canada Aeroplan, Lufthansa Miles & More, Flying Blue, Hyatt Gold Passport
Posts: 1,894
^^^
I am sure that any LEO of integrity would welcome a tamper-proof system as an aid to memory.
I am sure any LEO of integrity would admit that time and stress and many other factors can affect accurate recollection of facts.
I am sure that any LEO of integrity would want all prosecutions to be based on facts, not faulty recollections or selective memory lapses or enhancements.
I am sure that any LEO of integrity would welcome a tamper-proof system as an aid to memory.
I am sure any LEO of integrity would admit that time and stress and many other factors can affect accurate recollection of facts.
I am sure that any LEO of integrity would want all prosecutions to be based on facts, not faulty recollections or selective memory lapses or enhancements.
Feb 1, 2011, 1:10 pm
#1715
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 331
I don't believe individual citizens are required to comply with a BS SSI classification to begin with. Only the person taking the oath would be required to protect said information.
Feb 1, 2011, 1:23 pm
#1716
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: DTW
Programs: DL 0.22 MM, AA 0.34 MM, PC Plat Amb, Hertz #1 GC 5*
Posts: 7,511
If there is any further "action", it is likely to involve inquiry into both what happened at the Sunport and at the criminal trial, and into Phil's and other actors' states of mind, intent at various times, etc. Phil could be deposed about these issues, and evidence related to them (including anything he says here) could be brought in, in an attempt to use it against him. How? I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. As the person who made and is in possession of the best record of the trial, I could be called as a witness and to authenticate that record.
But please remember that, "Anything you say can and will be used against you," and cut Phil and others some slack in what you expect them to say in this forum.
But please remember that, "Anything you say can and will be used against you," and cut Phil and others some slack in what you expect them to say in this forum.
Feb 1, 2011, 1:35 pm
#1717
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
Feb 1, 2011, 1:43 pm
#1718
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
That's all sensible, and I want to be careful not to exaggerate, so I appreciate you pushing back, Richard.
BUT, there's a big difference between 1) the difference between a) "I'm not going to answer any questions" and b) "I'm going to remain silent" and 2) the difference between a) ordering someone to leave four times, after each of which he refused, sometimes explicitly, followed by issuance of a verbal criminal trespass order and b) never once ordering or even asking someone to leave, eventually telling him to accompany you out, at which point he promptly complies.
BUT, there's a big difference between 1) the difference between a) "I'm not going to answer any questions" and b) "I'm going to remain silent" and 2) the difference between a) ordering someone to leave four times, after each of which he refused, sometimes explicitly, followed by issuance of a verbal criminal trespass order and b) never once ordering or even asking someone to leave, eventually telling him to accompany you out, at which point he promptly complies.
As to one time vs. four times, how often have you meant to tell somebody something, didn't, but then became convinced that you did? If we intend to do something, we often remember that as something we did.
This is clearly a case of "contempt of cop" and it's clear there was a massive overreaction at the airport that day and also that the testimony didn't match what happened, but I'm still not ready to call that testimony an outright fabrication. Human memory is notorously fallible and we can fall into all kinds of traps where we remember what we intended to do instead of what we did, or remember how we interpreted what was said, instead of what was said, and so on. Yes, it could have been fabricated, but it could just as easily have been an example of "wishful memory".
Feb 1, 2011, 2:02 pm
#1719
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: MSP
Programs: DL PM, MM, NR; HH Diamond, Bonvoy LT Gold, Hyatt Explorist, IHG Diamond, others
Posts: 12,159
I wonder what will happen the next time Officer Dilley testifies at any trial, and the defendant's attorney gets access to the complaint in this case and the video recording of the actual event. They ought to be admissible for impeachment purposes, to show that Officer Dilley is known to make false statements despite being under oath and penalty of perjury.
Two or three acquittals based on that ought to put paid to his career.
Feb 1, 2011, 2:15 pm
#1721
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,129
Q
Well, even there, sort of. I'm purposely not going back to the transcript here, but instead relying on my memory. And my memory is that somebody, at some point, said something like "follow me" or "come with me".
As to one time vs. four times, how often have you meant to tell somebody something, didn't, but then became convinced that you did? If we intend to do something, we often remember that as something we did.
This is clearly a case of "contempt of cop" and it's clear there was a massive overreaction at the airport that day and also that the testimony didn't match what happened, but I'm still not ready to call that testimony an outright fabrication. Human memory is notorously fallible and we can fall into all kinds of traps where we remember what we intended to do instead of what we did, or remember how we interpreted what was said, instead of what was said, and so on. Yes, it could have been fabricated, but it could just as easily have been an example of "wishful memory".
As to one time vs. four times, how often have you meant to tell somebody something, didn't, but then became convinced that you did? If we intend to do something, we often remember that as something we did.
This is clearly a case of "contempt of cop" and it's clear there was a massive overreaction at the airport that day and also that the testimony didn't match what happened, but I'm still not ready to call that testimony an outright fabrication. Human memory is notorously fallible and we can fall into all kinds of traps where we remember what we intended to do instead of what we did, or remember how we interpreted what was said, instead of what was said, and so on. Yes, it could have been fabricated, but it could just as easily have been an example of "wishful memory".
Ok, the police officer may have misspoke or misremembered.
But taking all oddities that have come to light such as the officers belt recorder not working, Phil's camera memory being erased certainly would lead me to believe that something is rotten in ABQ.
May never be chargeable, still would watch my back in that place.
Feb 1, 2011, 2:16 pm
#1722
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: MSP
Programs: DL PM, MM, NR; HH Diamond, Bonvoy LT Gold, Hyatt Explorist, IHG Diamond, others
Posts: 12,159
I hope his victim has access to this thread and the supporting evidence, so that Robert F. Dilley's testimony can be impeached.
Feb 1, 2011, 2:21 pm
#1723
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: MSP
Programs: Fallen Plats, ex-WN CP, DYKWIW; still a Hilton Diamond & Club Cholula™ R.I.P. Super Plats
Posts: 25,415
(long list of perjured statements elided)
I wonder what will happen the next time Officer Dilley testifies at any trial, and the defendant's attorney gets access to the complaint in this case and the video recording of the actual event. They ought to be admissible for impeachment purposes, to show that Officer Dilley is known to make false statements despite being under oath and penalty of perjury.
Two or three acquittals based on that ought to put paid to his career.
I wonder what will happen the next time Officer Dilley testifies at any trial, and the defendant's attorney gets access to the complaint in this case and the video recording of the actual event. They ought to be admissible for impeachment purposes, to show that Officer Dilley is known to make false statements despite being under oath and penalty of perjury.
Two or three acquittals based on that ought to put paid to his career.
Feb 1, 2011, 2:34 pm
#1724
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
Feb 1, 2011, 2:40 pm
#1725
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 331
The process itself is flawed.
If the blank form is SSI, why is it readily available for download?
If the completed form is SSI, how can they ask the pax to sign it?
If the process itself is SSI, not the incomplete or completed form, then why are they trying to hide the form under the guise of SSI?
If the blank form is SSI, why is it readily available for download?
If the completed form is SSI, how can they ask the pax to sign it?
If the process itself is SSI, not the incomplete or completed form, then why are they trying to hide the form under the guise of SSI?