Mocek now suing for civil rights violations
May 27, 2011, 3:36 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,120
Mocek now suing for civil rights violations
In a follow up to the whole Phil Mocek situation with the TSA:
http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/daily...ocek_suing.php
Remember the case of Seattle's Phil Mocek, the guy who tried to pass through Transportation Security Administration checkpoint at the Albuquerque airport in November, 2009 without a valid ID? The 37-year-old software developer and political gadfly not only ended up missing his flight home, but was also slapped with a quartet of misdemeanor charges, all four of which were eventually dismissed in January after recordings proved that airport officials made false claims about Mocek's behavior during the incident. But Mocek's acquittal, it seems, isn't the end of his story. He's now planning to sue the City of Albuquerque, their Aviation Police, and, eventually, the TSA for alleged civil rights violations.
Reached by phone this morning, Mocek explains that while his arrest and trial raised awareness about the flimsy legal justification TSA cites to require passengers to show their ID and prevent audio and video recordings in the airport, his ultimate goal is to change the government's policy on the matters. A lawsuit, he believes, is the best means to that end.
"I was wronged in this situation," says Mocek, who is also active with Seattle's Cannabis Defense Coalition. "And if what has happened puts me in a position of getting a court to take a look at what the TSA is doing and possibly force them to change the way they do things, it would be irresponsible of me not to do so."
[trimmed for respect for copyrights. -- Mods]
Here's the letter sent to the City of Albuquerque by Mocek's attorneys, courtesy of The Identity Project, which has been keeping close tabs on Mocek's case since the very beginning:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/56475027/P...of-Albuquerque
http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/daily...ocek_suing.php
Remember the case of Seattle's Phil Mocek, the guy who tried to pass through Transportation Security Administration checkpoint at the Albuquerque airport in November, 2009 without a valid ID? The 37-year-old software developer and political gadfly not only ended up missing his flight home, but was also slapped with a quartet of misdemeanor charges, all four of which were eventually dismissed in January after recordings proved that airport officials made false claims about Mocek's behavior during the incident. But Mocek's acquittal, it seems, isn't the end of his story. He's now planning to sue the City of Albuquerque, their Aviation Police, and, eventually, the TSA for alleged civil rights violations.
Reached by phone this morning, Mocek explains that while his arrest and trial raised awareness about the flimsy legal justification TSA cites to require passengers to show their ID and prevent audio and video recordings in the airport, his ultimate goal is to change the government's policy on the matters. A lawsuit, he believes, is the best means to that end.
"I was wronged in this situation," says Mocek, who is also active with Seattle's Cannabis Defense Coalition. "And if what has happened puts me in a position of getting a court to take a look at what the TSA is doing and possibly force them to change the way they do things, it would be irresponsible of me not to do so."
[trimmed for respect for copyrights. -- Mods]
Here's the letter sent to the City of Albuquerque by Mocek's attorneys, courtesy of The Identity Project, which has been keeping close tabs on Mocek's case since the very beginning:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/56475027/P...of-Albuquerque
Last edited by essxjay; May 27, 2011 at 5:17 pm Reason: copyrights
May 27, 2011, 3:41 pm
#3
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,165
Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8830/4.5.0.138 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/105)
Let's all be disciplined enough with out dialogue so as to not put his lawsuit at risk.
Let's all be disciplined enough with out dialogue so as to not put his lawsuit at risk.
May 27, 2011, 3:52 pm
#4
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
I'm not sure how our discussion could put his lawsuit at risk. Presumably, Phil has good counsel, who will advise him on what to say and not to say during the course of this case. Phil showed remarkable restraint during his criminal trial in not commenting on his own case, beyond obvious matters of public record. If similar behavior is called for in his civil case, he seems quite capable of living underneath the Cone of Silence as along as deemed necessary.
May 27, 2011, 7:18 pm
#6
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,165
I'm not sure how our discussion could put his lawsuit at risk. Presumably, Phil has good counsel, who will advise him on what to say and not to say during the course of this case. Phil showed remarkable restraint during his criminal trial in not commenting on his own case, beyond obvious matters of public record. If similar behavior is called for in his civil case, he seems quite capable of living underneath the Cone of Silence as along as deemed necessary.
May 27, 2011, 10:26 pm
#7
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 28,878
I'm not sure how our discussion could put his lawsuit at risk. Presumably, Phil has good counsel, who will advise him on what to say and not to say during the course of this case. Phil showed remarkable restraint during his criminal trial in not commenting on his own case, beyond obvious matters of public record. If similar behavior is called for in his civil case, he seems quite capable of living underneath the Cone of Silence as along as deemed necessary.
May 27, 2011, 10:27 pm
#8
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
The defense might attmept introduce (and might actually prevail in doing so) various threds and posts on flytertalk and on other sites to attempt to show that Phil was intent on making a scene and testing the law or somehow grandstanding. I assume they will try to introduce evidence of Phil's role in the CBC; it is not relevant and I doubt any judge would let it in.
There isn't much we can do here that would hurt his case, though.
There isn't much we can do here that would hurt his case, though.
May 28, 2011, 3:57 pm
#12
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
May 28, 2011, 4:46 pm
#15
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
Phil is so mild-mannered and unassuming that he seems quite an unlikely hero, but he is indeed exactly that. One day we will be thanking Phil for taking substantial risks -- and paying a high price -- to reestablish our liberties in this country. I just hope we win in the long run. Phil's latest case is one element in a much larger picture.
Bruce
Bruce