Caradoc

Give 'em hell, Phil.

And for the love of Ghu, don't accept any out-of-court settlement that includes a gag order for you.

Loose Cannon

When I said "settlement" I meant an out of court settlement where the defendent pays a sum of money to make the lawsuit go away but does not either deny or admit wrongdoing, culpability or liability and the plaintiff has to keep quiet.

Spiff

Time for another donation to Phil's defense fund. Now an offense fund.

N830MH

Here we go yet again!! Gosh, not another civil rights violations against Phil. This is so ridiculous! Why can't have sent the letter to the attorney?

Boggie Dog

No not another incident of civil rights violations but Phil attempting to show that what happened was wrong and establish that if nothing else the police officers acted in a manner not consistent with the law.

castrobenes

Someone needs to explain to me how a TSA employee calling the police is a violation of anyone's rights. When there is a question about whether someone has committed a crime, a law enforcement officer is the appropriate authority to call. LEOs have been given the authority and training to arrest and charge individuals who break the law. They also have been given the responsibility to not arrest individuals who have not broken the law.

TSOs are not LEOs. They can't arrest anyone or use force to maintain the peace. It is therefore appropriate for TSOs to call for law enforcement assistance. It is also appropriate for police officers to make their own independent evaluation of each situation and respond accordingly.

castro

Ari

Lookup the elements of malicious prosecution (or the like) in New Mexico and give the TSOs' affidavits a read-- they might make the cut. The claim would not be for calling the police, but for lying in the affidavits to try to convict Phil with perjury (or to manufacture probable cause with perjury).

I don't have time right now to look them up, but I might later tonight.

castrobenes

OK I concede that someone who was arrested based on lies to the police would have some type of action against the liars whether they be TSOs or anyone else.

I do not concede that calling the police is a civil rights violation, even if the police subsequently violate another person's rights.

castro

Ari

Correct.

I think the issue will not be the initial calling of the police, but the reports they filled out. I still haven't looked up the relevant statute, so I can't be sure . . .

RichardKenner

You mean it isn't necessarily a violation and I certainy agree. If I call the police for a legitimate reason (e.g., a neighbor is playing loud music late at night) and the police, when responding, violate that person's civil rights, I have absolutely no liability for that.

In my opinion, the main reason why a case against the TSOs would be hard to make here is simply that the interaction is too short. The key to successful action is showing intent and I don't think that enough happened before the police took over to be able to do that. Incorrect information in an affidavit isn't enough: it's also necessary to show that the affiant intended to be untruthful, rather than had a faulty memory. And that's hard.

Ari

Have you read the affidavits? I haven't for a while, but I recall that they were pretty far from the truth. I think it might be hard to make the case that the TSOs all 'misremembered it wrong'* the exact same way in light of the tape. I just think it all adds up.

*http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...bered-it-wrong

bdschobel

I attended Phil's trial in Albuquerque and can assure you that both TSA staff and police officers lied, but the police officer who arrested Phil was far and away the biggest, scariest liar. As I posted at the time, it was like watching Ted Bundy: a guy who appears to be perfectly normal, even charming, but is really a dangerous sociopath.

If I were going to sue anybody, it would be the Albuquerque Airport police. Suing TSA is a bit of a stretch, based on what I saw and heard at the trial.

Bruce

RichardKenner

I thought that was mostly the police, though. I don't recall them either, but I think the content from the TSA was pretty thin.

Ari

How come he was the one they chose to put on the stand?-- they had the whole brigade ready the first time 'round and then they came back and only put one cop on the stand.

Given his history, Officer Dildo by now should be used to being hauled into civil court on 1983 causes. During the civil trial, he gets to explain how the tape got deleted . . .

Maybe I misremembered it wrong.

bdschobel

You're correct. There were half a dozen, maybe eight, cops on the prosecution's witness list, but most of them could be shown to have perjured themselves at some time during the Mocek event and its aftermath. Thus, they weren't called to testify. The prosecution really had no choice about putting the arresting officer on the stand; if they hadn't, then the defense would have called him, I imagine. His lying was truly extraordinary. I'm not sure I've ever seen anything like it. At age 59, I like to think that I can spot a liar, but this guy was impeccable. He was tripped up by technology. Without that, Phil would have been convicted -- which would have really been an injustice.

Bruce