Update on Mocek v. Albuquerque et. al.
Jan 31, 2013, 12:54 pm
#61
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
evidence tampering
Not that I'm aware.
Jan 31, 2013, 5:37 pm
#62
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Yes, but that's a comment about the law, not a factual comment. If I call a cop and say "that guy over there is breaking the law", the cop will most likely ask me "what did he do?". What's relevant to the officer is what happened, not the legal theories of the person doing the reporting. If a TSO calls an LEO and says "that passenger broke the law", the TSO is neither stating a true or false fact: he or she isn't stating a fact at all, just an opinion.
Jan 31, 2013, 11:26 pm
#63
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Orange County, CA, USA
Programs: AA (Life Plat), Marriott (Life Titanium) and every other US program
Posts: 6,411
Yes, but that's a comment about the law, not a factual comment. If I call a cop and say "that guy over there is breaking the law", the cop will most likely ask me "what did he do?". What's relevant to the officer is what happened, not the legal theories of the person doing the reporting. If a TSO calls an LEO and says "that passenger broke the law", the TSO is neither stating a true or false fact: he or she isn't stating a fact at all, just an opinion.
Feb 1, 2013, 4:41 am
#64
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SEA
Programs: Delta TDK(or care)WIA, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 1,869
FT is a web board. It's akin to a conversation in a pub. In fact, NZ (& other) courts have ruled such places as such, so a lower standard applies. If it were a professional forum (such as a site for lawyers with restricted access to entry & posting) it might be a different story.
I think you'll find what they said was not criminal. It might, arguably, be defamatory, but defamation is very rarely a criminal activity, and almost impossible to be such viz a public figure in a public place and in the context in which discussion here occurs. Of course, you accusing them of engaging in criminal acts is also nominally defamatory so they should just respond PKB. Oh, the humanity of it all! Backing to discussing the subject at hand?
I think you'll find what they said was not criminal. It might, arguably, be defamatory, but defamation is very rarely a criminal activity, and almost impossible to be such viz a public figure in a public place and in the context in which discussion here occurs. Of course, you accusing them of engaging in criminal acts is also nominally defamatory so they should just respond PKB. Oh, the humanity of it all! Backing to discussing the subject at hand?
I think he meant "accusations of criminality". I don't think the judge took a bribe, but I'm comfortable with my characterization of his behavior as corrupt. He wanted one of the parties to win, and he perverted the law so they would win. He mischaracterized "creating a disturbance" so as to give it unrestricted breadth, so that it could be applicable to any behavior. The clerks' jobs required them to allow Mocek to video without any interference. Any distraction they experienced was the result of their deciding to ignore the requirements of their job, and any security threat resulted from poor hiring practices at the TSA - the practice of hiring clerks who were more interested in getting into arguments with passengers than in working. Yet the judge blamed Mocek for misbehavior by the clerks. The judge didn't look at the nature of Mocek's behavior, he looked at its effect on a litigant he corruptly favored. The judge's analysis was:
By filming, Mocek disturbed the clerks, and therefore caused a disturbance.
But any action could go in there:
By doing X, Mocek disturbed the clerks, and therefore caused a disturbance.
The judge's analysis appointed the clerks as arbiters of what passengers are and aren't allowed to do and gave them a right to veto any passenger behavior. That's not the law. The judge ignored the law to favor one party over the other, and that's corrupt.
Last edited by essxjay; Mar 22, 2015 at 11:31 am Reason: petty bickering
Feb 1, 2013, 7:30 am
#65
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 574
I don't think the judge took a bribe, but I'm comfortable with my characterization of his behavior as corrupt. He wanted one of the parties to win, and he perverted the law so they would win.
Exactly. Wasn't there a time in American history when judges
had a lot to lose professionally by acting merely as patsies for the
cops, as clearly occurred here? At least in the Graber case in MD it seemed
that way, when the judge wondered aloud, eloquently, "Who will watch the watchers?"
Exactly. Wasn't there a time in American history when judges
had a lot to lose professionally by acting merely as patsies for the
cops, as clearly occurred here? At least in the Graber case in MD it seemed
that way, when the judge wondered aloud, eloquently, "Who will watch the watchers?"
Last edited by yandosan; Feb 1, 2013 at 7:51 am
Feb 1, 2013, 9:07 am
#66
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
I think you're mistaken about the second part, though Jonathon Breedon, the security guard who was a prosecuction witness in my criminal trial, told me in no uncertain terms that what I was apparently doing was not allowed. He said, "There's no videotaping or picture taking allowed at the security screening checkpoint," just before I started video recording and asked him to repeat himself.
Yes, but that's a comment about the law, not a factual comment. If I call a cop and say "that guy over there is breaking the law", the cop will most likely ask me "what did he do?". What's relevant to the officer is what happened, not the legal theories of the person doing the reporting. If a TSO calls an LEO and says "that passenger broke the law", the TSO is neither stating a true or false fact: he or she isn't stating a fact at all, just an opinion.
You made two claims based on your recollection of the details:
- The security guards' description to the police wasn't substantially incorrect; only insignificant details were incorrect
- The security guards claimed my actions were illegal
When you wrote, "Yes, but that's a comment about the law, not a factual comment," it was unclear to me whether you meant to refer to one of the actions described above as #1 and #2 or about one security guard's statement, "There's no videotaping or picture taping allowed at the security screening checkpoint."
While I am aware that we have no evidence that most TSA policies are based in law, the airport police very likely think so. When Breedon told me something directly contradictory to what I'd been told by multiple other TSA employees in writing, he did not explicitly state that the policy he described was law. In fact, he later testified that there was no such policy; that with few exceptions, TSA allows recording and photography at their checkpoints. However, when Dilley and Wiggins arrived, the report they received was "These two are causing a disturbance," (unidentified speaker) "He won't put his camera down, either," (Gerald Romero, TSA shift manager), and "taking pictures of all of us" (also unidentified).
Those statements followed by the following 60 seconds of calm interaction with me apparently resulted in Dilley's belief that I had violated the law:
Code:
14:35:32 00:00:57 Dilley Sir.
14:35:33 00:00:58 Mocek Yes.
14:35:34 00:00:59 Dilley Do me a favor.
14:35:35 00:01:00 Dilley Comply with what they're saying or we're gonna escort you out of the airport.
14:35:39 00:01:04 Dilley Done.
14:35:40 00:01:05 Dilley Done.
14:35:40 00:01:05 unk2 You're causing a commotion.
14:35:41 00:01:06 Dilley Okay? Done.
14:35:42 00:01:07 Mocek I haven't raised my voice. I'm not trying to stop you from doing your job.
14:35:46 00:01:11 [inaudible]
14:35:46 00:01:11 Dilley Did you-- Are you flying out, sir?
14:35:49 00:01:14 Mocek Excuse me?
14:35:49 00:01:14 Dilley Are you flying out?
14:35:50 00:01:15 Mocek Yes.
14:35:50 00:01:15 Dilley Okay. Well, comply with what TSA's rules and regulations are--
14:35:54 00:01:19 Recording devices--
14:35:55 00:01:20 Mocek I plan to comply with all their rules and regulations.
14:35:56 00:01:21 Dilley Before you interrupt me:
14:35:58 00:01:23 Dilley Comply with what they are a-- requesting of you, otherwise we will esc' you-- escort you out of the
airport.
14:36:03 00:01:28 Dilley Stand me?
14:36:04 00:01:29 Mocek I understand you.
14:36:05 00:01:30 Dilley Okay.
14:36:05 00:01:30 Mocek I-- I underst-- I plan to comply with all their rules. I do not believe that there is a rule that
bars me from using a camera in publicly-accessible areas of the airport.
14:36:14 00:01:39 Wiggins This is a federal checkpoint. You can't do it here.
14:36:15 00:01:40 Romero Right now, this is federal.
14:36:15 00:01:40 Dilley You can't do it.
14:36:16 00:01:41 Mocek I-- I've checked into it and I know that I can do it here.
14:36:18 00:01:43 Wiggins Well, you can be arrested, then you can check into it more.
14:36:21 00:01:46 Mocek For using a camera in a public place?
14:36:22 00:01:47 Wiggins This is a federal checkpoint.
14:36:26 00:01:51 Dilley Sir.
14:36:27 00:01:52 Mocek Yes.
14:36:27 00:01:52 Wiggins You're almost there. You pushin' it, okay? You're really pushin' it."
14:36:28 00:01:53 You know, you're--
14:36:29 00:01:54 Now you're-- Now that you--
14:36:30 00:01:55 Delapena Stand by
14:36:31 00:01:56 [inaudible]
14:36:32 00:01:57 There
14:36:32 00:01:57 Delapena He don't want to show his I.D., either.
14:36:33 00:01:58 Wiggins Alright. [inaudible]
Feb 1, 2013, 6:48 pm
#67
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Orange County, CA, USA
Programs: AA (Life Plat), Marriott (Life Titanium) and every other US program
Posts: 6,411
NOTE: I have been very lucky. The LEOs I have encountered have, without fail, been on MY side against all sorts of clerks.
Feb 2, 2013, 6:21 am
#68
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Richard, I don't understand.
You made two claims based on your recollection of the details:
When you wrote, "Yes, but that's a comment about the law, not a factual comment," it was unclear to me whether you meant to refer to one of the actions described above as #1 and #2 or about one security guard's statement, "There's no videotaping or picture taping allowed at the security screening checkpoint."
If my interaction didn't seem to him to be unlawful, then it seems he must have relied on others' reports when determining such. Were those reports statements of fact or of law?
You made two claims based on your recollection of the details:
- The security guards' description to the police wasn't substantially incorrect; only insignificant details were incorrect
- The security guards claimed my actions were illegal
When you wrote, "Yes, but that's a comment about the law, not a factual comment," it was unclear to me whether you meant to refer to one of the actions described above as #1 and #2 or about one security guard's statement, "There's no videotaping or picture taping allowed at the security screening checkpoint."
If my interaction didn't seem to him to be unlawful, then it seems he must have relied on others' reports when determining such. Were those reports statements of fact or of law?
In your case, as I understand it, the TSA told the airport police three things:
1) You were taping at the checkpoint.
2) Said taping wasn't permitted.
3) You were causing a "commotion"
#1 is a factually true statement.
#2 is a legal opinion, which the LEO is not permitted to rely on.
#3 is the tricky one because it hinges on what a "commotion" might mean. My feeling is that the LEO should treat it like somebody saying "that person did something illegal" and ask "what did he do to create a commotion?", but it's a little trickier here because of the nature of the checkpoint and TSA's role in it. Nevertheless, I'd argue that #3 was primarily a legal, not factual, statement because it didn't contain any facts about what you were doing to create the "commotion". (Except possibly "raising his voice", which is the kind of "fact" that a reasonable person could misremember and would be unlikely to be held as actionable.)
Last edited by essxjay; Mar 22, 2015 at 11:53 am Reason: arguementative
Feb 2, 2013, 9:08 am
#69
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SEA
Programs: Delta TDK(or care)WIA, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 1,869
In your case, as I understand it, the TSA told the airport police three things:
1) You were taping at the checkpoint.
2) Said taping wasn't permitted.
3) You were causing a "commotion"
#1 is a factually true statement.
#2 is a legal opinion, which the LEO is not permitted to rely on.
#3 is the tricky one because it hinges on what a "commotion" might mean. My feeling is that the LEO should treat it like somebody saying "that person did something illegal" and ask "what did he do to create a commotion?", but it's a little trickier here because of the nature of the checkpoint and TSA's role in it. Nevertheless, I'd argue that #3 was primarily a legal, not factual, statement because it didn't contain any facts about what you were doing to create the "commotion". (Except possibly "raising his voice", which is the kind of "fact" that a reasonable person could misremember and would be unlikely to be held as actionable.)
"Causing a commotion" is also a factual statement, because there is a general understanding of what "commotion" means, and nothing Phil did came anywhere near that.
Feb 2, 2013, 9:14 am
#70
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: SEA/YVR/BLI
Programs: UA "Lifetime" Gold, AS MVPG100K, OW Emerald, HH Lifetime Diamond, IC Plat, Marriott Gold, Hertz Gold
Posts: 9,490
If, that stands, to repeat myself, "Do you wanna fly today?" can be replaced with "You're distracting me."
Feb 2, 2013, 9:45 am
#71
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,974
Now whether the airport police should have known the report they received was wrong is a different issue. I think they should but I believe most of them simply don't and what's more, don't care.
Feb 2, 2013, 10:33 am
#72
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2012
Programs: A3, AA. Plasticy things! That give me, y'know, Stuff!
Posts: 6,293
An interesting exercise could be had by having one person film as Mr Mocek did (standing somewhat near the TSA while they are "hard at work") and another person filming that from, say, a comfortable seat ~5+ metres away in the boarding area. I'm betting that TSA would get upset about the first activity (there's many instances of exactly that) but not about the second (if they even noticed it once things kicked off).
Feb 2, 2013, 10:50 am
#73
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,956
Been there, done that just last month.
I had my camera out (but the lens cap was never removed during this) after clearing screening when I was at least 5 metres away from my 82-year old mother receiving her pat-down since she also opts out. After a little bit of patting down, I notice that the TSO has stopped in the middle of the procedure. A two-striper comes over and tells me that photography is prohibited. I noted that perhaps a review of Section 2.7 of his SOP was in order. He then storms off and, as he is walking pass the female TSO, states that he is going to get a supervisor. The female TSO continues to refuse to complete the screening of my mother and states loud enough for me to hear that she doesn't want to be on YouTube.
I had my camera out (but the lens cap was never removed during this) after clearing screening when I was at least 5 metres away from my 82-year old mother receiving her pat-down since she also opts out. After a little bit of patting down, I notice that the TSO has stopped in the middle of the procedure. A two-striper comes over and tells me that photography is prohibited. I noted that perhaps a review of Section 2.7 of his SOP was in order. He then storms off and, as he is walking pass the female TSO, states that he is going to get a supervisor. The female TSO continues to refuse to complete the screening of my mother and states loud enough for me to hear that she doesn't want to be on YouTube.
Last edited by essxjay; Mar 22, 2015 at 11:54 am Reason: readability
