PV speaks out on Phil's case
Feb 5, 2011, 11:44 am
#181
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,425
Don't sweat it. When a wise man talks, intelligent people perceive it. When a dog barks, intelligent people perceive that too.
Feb 5, 2011, 12:21 pm
#182
Join Date: Dec 2007
Programs: DL, WN, US, Avis, AA
Posts: 662
...now, i'm sure you and i agree that the direction was wrong, and we're glad that Phil stood up for himself. but i think you are grossly overstating the facts..)
i thought Phil's attorneys got it right with (paraphrasing) "you can think the defendant is annoying. it's not illegal to annoy the police." imo, that statement off the top made it easy for the ladies of the jury...
i thought Phil's attorneys got it right with (paraphrasing) "you can think the defendant is annoying. it's not illegal to annoy the police." imo, that statement off the top made it easy for the ladies of the jury...
In it he stated that TSA had a policy and procedure for handling passengers who did not posess ID and that he had initiated that procedure with Mr. Mocek. He further stated that Mr. Mocek was participating with that procedure. Finally, Mr. Breedan testified that he was the one who suspended the process and that he did so when Mr. Mocek began using his camera. To me that sounds like Mr. Mocek was completely cooperating up until the time that the TSA person stopped the process. Granted, Mr. Breedon did so in reaction to Mr. Mocek starting to record the process but, as we have been told, that is also an allowed activity.
Feb 5, 2011, 12:29 pm
#183
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: BOS
Programs: riding the lifetime status. DL MM / AA MM
Posts: 2,968
i have listened to all of the trial audio (and i found it fascinating). but i'm basing my beliefs on the video itself -- as stated repeatedly, it's the best evidence of what happened that day. in response to a request for anything containing his name, Mr Mocek did not say "no, i'm really not carrying anything like that" -- he instead insisted on his right to fly without presenting anything like that. he was calm and measured -- very measured. i agree with the prosecutor who stated that he was a man with an agenda, there to test the TSA. but i also fully agree with the defense that there is no crime in that.....
Feb 5, 2011, 12:44 pm
#184
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
restriction of movement is restriction of free association
On November 23, 2009, I posted the following to Flyertalk as "How are right to travel and drug policy reform (specifcally w/r/t cannabis) related?" (emphasis and annotations added and several links updated):
Last week, I had an experience at ABQ that I'm not yet ready to talk about. For Flyertalk discussion of that issue (without input from me), please see, "Flyer “Processed” (Arrested?) in NM After Declining to Show ID" from November 16, 2009.
A legal defense fund was established for me. People who don't even know me but support what I stand for (as well as some who do know me) have been so generous as to donate to that fund. I promise it will go to good use, and that use will be directly related to the issue at hand. I'm extremely thankful to these people.
One donor expressed concern with the fact that his donation is going to the Cannabis Defense Coalition. After explaining the situation to him, I thought that it would likely be of interest to others:
Until I'm able to accept donations directly into my attorney's legal trust fund, donations to my legal defense fund are being collected primarily via Paypal (checks or wire transfers are also gladly accepted). Donations sent via Paypal in this manner will not be co-mingled with CDC's general fund. I'll explain.
Cannabis Defense Coalition is a Washington State 501(c)(3) non-profit that I'm part of. I'm a dues-paying member (one of about 90 who've joined since we were formed in July, 2008 [we reached 200 members around the end of 2010]), I volunteer at least one day a week at our office (headed there in about five minutes), and I'm running for a position on our board of directors next month [I was elected then, and for a second term in 2011]. We support medical marijuana patients (legal with a doctor's recommendation in Washington since 1998; 12 other states now have similar laws), mostly through court room observation of cases we track, collection and dissemination of related information, and calling out county prosecutors who are wasting tax money and hurting sick people. We list other potential projects (mostly waiting for someone to step up and fund them) on our wiki [and more recently, a list of past and current projects].
I was returning home to Seattle from being in Albuquerque at Drug Policy Alliance's the International Drug Policy Reform Conference in representation of CDC when all this (on which I cannot comment now) happened.
My good friend and CDC colleague Ben, who has had his own experiences (1, 2) with TSA's airport ID policies, jumped into action, setting up the legal defense fund, arranging to get some of that money to a bondsman to bail me out, and gathering attorney recommendations.
In our latest cdc-alerts newsletter, Ben wrote (to our approximately 700 subscribers [which have grown to 1,252 as of February 4, 2011]):
A legal defense fund was established for me. People who don't even know me but support what I stand for (as well as some who do know me) have been so generous as to donate to that fund. I promise it will go to good use, and that use will be directly related to the issue at hand. I'm extremely thankful to these people.
One donor expressed concern with the fact that his donation is going to the Cannabis Defense Coalition. After explaining the situation to him, I thought that it would likely be of interest to others:
Until I'm able to accept donations directly into my attorney's legal trust fund, donations to my legal defense fund are being collected primarily via Paypal (checks or wire transfers are also gladly accepted). Donations sent via Paypal in this manner will not be co-mingled with CDC's general fund. I'll explain.
Cannabis Defense Coalition is a Washington State 501(c)(3) non-profit that I'm part of. I'm a dues-paying member (one of about 90 who've joined since we were formed in July, 2008 [we reached 200 members around the end of 2010]), I volunteer at least one day a week at our office (headed there in about five minutes), and I'm running for a position on our board of directors next month [I was elected then, and for a second term in 2011]. We support medical marijuana patients (legal with a doctor's recommendation in Washington since 1998; 12 other states now have similar laws), mostly through court room observation of cases we track, collection and dissemination of related information, and calling out county prosecutors who are wasting tax money and hurting sick people. We list other potential projects (mostly waiting for someone to step up and fund them) on our wiki [and more recently, a list of past and current projects].
I was returning home to Seattle from being in Albuquerque at Drug Policy Alliance's the International Drug Policy Reform Conference in representation of CDC when all this (on which I cannot comment now) happened.
My good friend and CDC colleague Ben, who has had his own experiences (1, 2) with TSA's airport ID policies, jumped into action, setting up the legal defense fund, arranging to get some of that money to a bondsman to bail me out, and gathering attorney recommendations.
In our latest cdc-alerts newsletter, Ben wrote (to our approximately 700 subscribers [which have grown to 1,252 as of February 4, 2011]):
Our tabling volunteers are finally home from the International Drug Policy Reform Conference in Albuquerque, New Mexico. After politely declining to show his ID to a TSA screener, and recording the situation with his phone, Phil was arrested by Albuquerque police, held incommunicado for 34 hours, and charged with disorderly conduct, concealing his identity, disobeying a police officer, and criminal trespass. Jesse, who showed his ID, was driven in a police cruiser to the edge of the airport, dropped off, and told that he was banned from the compound for 24 hours.
We finally managed to post bail for Phil, and he and Jesse returned home last night. The guy at the Southwest Airlines desk recognized him, called him a hero, and with managerial help, provided new tickets free of charge. The story has made it onto a number of security blogs and frequent flyer forums, which have been refreshingly supportive. Thus far, we've received over two dozen online donations for Phil's bail and criminal defense. The internet bailed Phil out.
Question: What does this have to do with marijuana reform?
I (Ben) have been threatened with eviction from public parks for holding political pot posters. To me, that is a first amendment issue, not really a drug policy issue. But when I can't *speak freely* about drug policy reform, I think we have an issue that affects drug policy reform.
Americans have a right to travel freely between the states, without government interference. The United States Supreme Court has reiterated this in United States v. Wheeler (1920), stating that Americans possess a right, "inherent in citizens of all free governments," to freedom of movement, a right very much related to freedom of association and freedom of expression. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wheeler)
Similar to my pot poster analogy, I (Ben) have not flown domestically since June 2008, when TSA created a policy that basically says, "if you lose your ID and cooperate, we'll let you travel, but if you refuse to show your ID, we will restrict your travel." I believe this is a clear violation of the Wheeler case, and my right to travel freely. But, as someone who's been stuck, on a Sunday, in an airport in a distant city, unsure if I'll ever make it home, wishing I could call someone for help, quite frankly I can't handle the stress of it any more; I feel somewhat beaten by TSA and the terrorists who caused our freedoms to disappear.
For the last 18 months, I have been unable to attend political conferences because of this. I want to, but I either need to 1) quash my belief that I can travel freely without showing my papers to the federal government, 2) be ready for a battle, or 3) don't fly. I don't feel supported enough to battle, and I'm not yet willing to give up my belief in constitutional freedom of movement, so for now I choose to not fly.
I would be forever grateful to Phil if he was willing to be the test case on this, someone willing to stand up for my right to attend a political conference without identifying myself to federal agents. In my mind, it's not specifically about pot -- though he was at a drug policy conference, representing a cannabis activism group, and carrying a bunch of marijuana t-shirts -- it's about underlying freedoms which are the foundation on top of which we are able to build our activism.
We finally managed to post bail for Phil, and he and Jesse returned home last night. The guy at the Southwest Airlines desk recognized him, called him a hero, and with managerial help, provided new tickets free of charge. The story has made it onto a number of security blogs and frequent flyer forums, which have been refreshingly supportive. Thus far, we've received over two dozen online donations for Phil's bail and criminal defense. The internet bailed Phil out.
Question: What does this have to do with marijuana reform?
I (Ben) have been threatened with eviction from public parks for holding political pot posters. To me, that is a first amendment issue, not really a drug policy issue. But when I can't *speak freely* about drug policy reform, I think we have an issue that affects drug policy reform.
Americans have a right to travel freely between the states, without government interference. The United States Supreme Court has reiterated this in United States v. Wheeler (1920), stating that Americans possess a right, "inherent in citizens of all free governments," to freedom of movement, a right very much related to freedom of association and freedom of expression. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wheeler)
Similar to my pot poster analogy, I (Ben) have not flown domestically since June 2008, when TSA created a policy that basically says, "if you lose your ID and cooperate, we'll let you travel, but if you refuse to show your ID, we will restrict your travel." I believe this is a clear violation of the Wheeler case, and my right to travel freely. But, as someone who's been stuck, on a Sunday, in an airport in a distant city, unsure if I'll ever make it home, wishing I could call someone for help, quite frankly I can't handle the stress of it any more; I feel somewhat beaten by TSA and the terrorists who caused our freedoms to disappear.
For the last 18 months, I have been unable to attend political conferences because of this. I want to, but I either need to 1) quash my belief that I can travel freely without showing my papers to the federal government, 2) be ready for a battle, or 3) don't fly. I don't feel supported enough to battle, and I'm not yet willing to give up my belief in constitutional freedom of movement, so for now I choose to not fly.
I would be forever grateful to Phil if he was willing to be the test case on this, someone willing to stand up for my right to attend a political conference without identifying myself to federal agents. In my mind, it's not specifically about pot -- though he was at a drug policy conference, representing a cannabis activism group, and carrying a bunch of marijuana t-shirts -- it's about underlying freedoms which are the foundation on top of which we are able to build our activism.
A restriction of our freedom to move about the country is a restriction of our ability to associate. When people within our government have the ability to blacklist someone and prevent him from traveling (even if it's done with the best of "anti-terrorism" intentions [and remember: the difference between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" is politics]), we're all less free.
The idea that TSA's airport antics would stop a determined criminal is a f...ing joke. Showing ID only affects honest people.
Last edited by pmocek; Feb 5, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Feb 5, 2011, 1:15 pm
#185
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,425
However, what we have going on wrt the sexual impositions is something that we cannot allow; it is not in the same category of liquid prohibitions or taking off shoes. Most military people I know, in my family and out, have a highly developed sense of personal honor. They would not allow their wives to be groped to the point of tears by some strange woman at a checkpoint, or to be looked at naked by some random man at a checkpoint, whether via remote peeping or in person. They would not endure some random man at a checkpoint to be touching and manipulating their testicles.
Given the extreme nature of these offenses, to counteract them, to start things in motion to get them STOPPED, I think it justifiable to flood the system with such actions as Phil's. Don't take it personally. Better to shut the whole thing down than to do such evil things to people.
Engaging your elected leaders, appealing formally to the right stakeholders
and getting personally involved outside of checkpoint militancy is gonna get you a bit further, IMHO.
Feb 5, 2011, 1:18 pm
#186
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 90
Feb 5, 2011, 1:20 pm
#187
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
Who doesn't have an agenda? All of us test TSA every time we interact with TSA staff.
I'm a calm and measured person, particularly when dealing with people who operate near the boundaries of the law.
We all "test the TSA" every time we encounter their staff, whether it's by doing everything they ask and watching their reaction, or by declining to do something they have no authority to demand. When several times in 2008 and 2009 I swallowed my principles and complied the airport security guards' "Papers, please!" requests, I usually asked them, "What if I didn't show you ID?"
Since TSA won't publish their rules and regulations, the only way we can learn about those rules and regulations is by experimentation and observation.
Yep.
Feb 5, 2011, 1:41 pm
#188
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,974
Feb 5, 2011, 1:47 pm
#190
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,004
Maybe they are asked to the back of the passenger's head so he can't really be sure he is being questioned, perhaps in Pig Latin. I'm sure that is how Maxwell Smart would do it.
Feb 5, 2011, 1:48 pm
#191
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
We should *know* any requirements for traveling about the country via commercial air
Seat1A, I think that because any law or TSA operating procedure requiring such is secret, what you've written is just a theory. Please don't take this as some sort of aggression or challenge: Do you have information that allows you to know this to be the case? I suspect you've stated a suspicion based on various press releases, blog posts, and "tips for travelers" Web pages, not based on your reading of any law we are required to follow.
This is something that we supposedly-free people should know. I hope someone will test the system and report his or her findings.
Feb 5, 2011, 1:49 pm
#192
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: BOS
Programs: riding the lifetime status. DL MM / AA MM
Posts: 2,968
That's what the security guard testified, but there's no such statement heard in my video. If such a statement was made, it would have to have been made before I started videorecording.
Since TSA won't publish their rules and regulations, the only way we can learn about those rules and regulations is by experimentation and observation.
my issue was with a post that i thought went over the top in your defense, and not at all with your actions. when the truth is on your side, why embellish it?
Feb 5, 2011, 1:54 pm
#193
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: BOS
Programs: riding the lifetime status. DL MM / AA MM
Posts: 2,968
Seat1A, I think that because any law or TSA operating procedure requiring such is secret, what you've written is just a theory. Please don't take this as some sort of aggression or challenge: Do you have information that allows you to know this to be the case? I suspect you've stated a suspicion based on various press releases, blog posts, and "tips for travelers" Web pages, not based on your reading of any law we are required to follow.
This is something that we supposedly-free people should know. I hope someone will test the system and report his or her findings.
This is something that we supposedly-free people should know. I hope someone will test the system and report his or her findings.
i do believe i have accurately stated the TSA's public position.
the minute we really "know", TSA will be sure to change the rules.
Last edited by Seat1A; Feb 5, 2011 at 2:01 pm
Feb 5, 2011, 2:12 pm
#194
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,714
Feb 5, 2011, 5:04 pm
#195
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,145