Update on Mocek v. Albuquerque et. al.

Old Mar 19, 2015, 11:58 am
  #91  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Francisco, USA
Posts: 79
Report on oral arguments on appeal

Appeals court hears argument on appeal by “Freedom Flyer” Phil Mocek (PapersPlease.org)

I didn't see any other FTers or members of the general public in the courtroom, but maybe they were in mufti and didn't introduce themselves.
ehasbrouck is offline  
Old Mar 20, 2015, 10:52 am
  #92  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 959
From this report on the "Papers Please" web site, it looks like Phil may have a fighting chance to win this one. ^ I just don't know which defendant would be more culpable, TSA or the Phoenix PD.

Last edited by essxjay; Mar 22, 2015 at 8:13 am
DeafBlonde is offline  
Old Mar 20, 2015, 12:08 pm
  #93  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,010
In my opinion both the TSA and Albuquerque PD are equally at fault for what happened to Phil.

Last edited by essxjay; Mar 22, 2015 at 11:57 am
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Mar 20, 2015, 12:11 pm
  #94  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,237
Albuquerque, not Phoenix.
chollie is offline  
Old Mar 20, 2015, 3:13 pm
  #95  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 959
Originally Posted by chollie
Albuquerque, not Phoenix.
Oops!
DeafBlonde is offline  
Old Mar 21, 2015, 9:02 am
  #96  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: LAS
Posts: 1,279
Originally Posted by DeafBlonde
From this report on the "Papers Please" web site, it looks like Phil may have a fighting chance to win this one. ^ I just don't know which defendant would be more culpable, TSA or the Phoenix PD.
Disagree there is a fighting chance. I'm wondering if there is any chance to win.

Here is the core/opening statement of the defense argument (emphasis added):
This case cannot be evaluated in the context of traditional public space. Rather, the incident occurred in an area inherently encompassing a risk to public safety-a security checkpoint inside an airport. In the wake of the calamitous events of September 11, 2001, the federal government purposefully and intentionally changed security protocols utilized at all airports as a matter of national security. TSA agents were given specific directives which require them to utilize enhanced scrutiny of passenger activity, and to mitigate influences which interfere with or distract them from their responsibilities to the public. Law enforcement officers working at airports are present, in part, to provide support to TSA agents, and most importantly to protect the public. It is against that backdrop that this case must be evaluated, pursuant to existing standards governing Plaintiff’s claims. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s intentional refusal to comply with reasonable regulations in a non-public forum rendered him subject to investigation and eventual arrest, due to his noncompliance. Plaintiff’s subjective belief that he did not interfere with TSA or City Defendants is not borne out by the allegations in his Complaint.
Reasonable regulations? Non-public forum?

Translation:
  1. Remember 9/11. Terrorists are scary. Remember 9/11
  2. You don't have constitutional rights in an airport. Remember 9/11
  3. The right to travel freely is not a right. Flying is a privilege. Government employees can make up secret rules and force citizens to comply with them. You can walk to Hawaii. Remember 9/11
  4. Citizens don't have any right to question what the government does, or how they do it, or why, or whether it's effective. My god, don't you remember 9/11?!?!?!
  5. If you resist or fail to comply with our secret rules (even the super secret ones that don't exist or we make up after the fact), you will be arrested. Remember 9/11
  6. We get to decide what "resists" means and once we do, it's a fact not subject to anyone's review. Remember 9/11
  7. Legal mumbo jumbo, blah, blah, blah. Qualified immunity. Remember 9/11
  8. We can make up allegations, destroy evidence, lie, cheat, and steal. Qualified immunity. Remember 9/11. Qualified immunity.
  9. Legal mumbo jumbo, blah, blah, blah. Qualified immunity. Remember 9/11
  10. Remember 9/11

The State will continue to defend the position that airports are a special "sans freedom zone" and citizens cannot question what happens there. The majority of the public not only thinks this is just fine and dandy, they actively support it ("anything for security" ring a bell?). I don't see anything changing until something so egregious happens that it shocks the consciousness of a majority of the public. In other words, until TSA does something worse than 9/11, they will continue to do what they do with unqualified impunity. You remember 9/11, right?

It saddens me that people would read items 2-6 and not see a problem.

I remember 9/11. We lost so much.
ScatterX is offline  
Old Apr 7, 2015, 8:27 am
  #97  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Francisco, USA
Posts: 79
The court has released its official audio recording of the oral argument, which is available in downloadable podcast and streaming formats here:

https://archive.org/details/MocekvABQ
ehasbrouck is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.