View Poll Results: Do you agree or disagree with the action undertaken by MKEbound?
Agree
766
75.92%
Disagree
144
14.27%
Neither agree nor disagree
75
7.43%
Not sure
24
2.38%
Voters: 1009. You may not vote on this poll
I was detained at the TSA checkpoint for about 25 minutes today
Oct 2, 2006, 8:50 am
#1426
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: BOS and vicinity
Programs: Former UA 1P
Posts: 3,725
Originally Posted by nai02fungoid
Just imagine how they would feel if you had had something in that bag that would have exploded and they had not checked up on it. Think how you would feel on your way to wherever you end up after the explosion. The TSA people may overstep their bounds at times but they have a job to perform.
Instead of performing an ETD swab which actually enhances security, they wasted their time detaining him for 25 minutes, harassing him, and calling the police to run a fishing expedition for arrest warrants in hopes that they might get him hauled off, which did nothing to add to the security of the flight.
Oct 2, 2006, 8:55 am
#1427
Join Date: Sep 2006
Programs: Worldperks Silver Elite
Posts: 197
Upon contemplation of the entire thread, I have to agree with Bart that MKEbound's first amendment rights were not violated, however, he may have a cause of action based upon the chilling of those rights. This is beyond my experience.
There are, however, violations of MKEbound's (federal and state) right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure by both the federal and the state actor.
Here is how my federal complaint would read
There are, however, violations of MKEbound's (federal and state) right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure by both the federal and the state actor.
Here is how my federal complaint would read
Comes now, MKEbound, the above-named Plaintiff, in his own person (in propria persona), of his own right (sui juris), and pursuant to the authority of F.R.Civ.P. 3, to submit PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS AND FOR VIOLATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF STATE LAW (“Complaint”). In support of this Complaint, Plaintiff states the following:
I. JURISDICTION
1. Plaintiff invokes the jurisdiction of this Court under the authority of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 42 U.S.C. §1983, 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1367.
II. VENUE
2. At all times relevant herein, all causes of action occurred within the jurisdiction of this Court.
III. PARTIES
3. MKEbound (“MKEbound”), Plaintiff, is and at all times mentioned was, a [race] man domiciled at [county] county, near [city], [state]. Plaintiff’s mailing location is [address], [city], [state] [zip].
4. [First Defendant] (“TSASUPER”), Defendant, is, and at all times mentioned was, a [race] [man/woman] who presumes to exercise the powers of an appointed officer for the federal Transportation Security Administration ("TSA"). As of [date of incident], Defendant’s business address was [location]. At all times relevant to this Complaint, TSASUPER had identified him/herself in his/her official capacity and was exercising the duties of his/her official office.
5. [Second Defendant] (“COP”), Defendant, is, and at all times mentioned was, a [race] [man/woman] who exercises the powers of a [office name] for the [police department name], in and for [county] county, Wisconsin. As of [incident date], Defendant’s business address was [location]. At all times relevant to this Complaint, COP had identified him/herself in his/her official capacity and was exercising the duties of his/her official office.
IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Count One: False arrest and imprisonment
6. At [location], in [city], [state], on [incident date], at or about [time], Defendant TSASUPER, under color and by virtue of his office, and in his official position, maliciously, unlawfully, and without reasonable or probable cause, and without warrant or any process of any court, arrested plaintiff, and incarcerated plaintiff in a [place] at the [airport name] offices situated at [address], in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and kept plaintiff confined there for the space of about twenty-five (25) minutes.
7. Plaintiff was not, at the time of the events alleged in this complaint, or at any other time, committing any offense against federal law, against the city ordinances of Milwaukee, against the county ordinances of [county] county, against the statutes of Wisconsin, or against the common law, and Defendant TSASUPER did not have any reasonable grounds for believing that Plaintiff was committing or had committed any such criminal offense.
8. By reason of the above, Plaintiff was deprived of his liberty, to Plaintiff’s damage in the sum of $5,000 (five thousand dollars).
9. In making the above-described unlawful arrest, Defendant TSASUPER acted willfully, maliciously, and without any excuse or justification whatsoever. Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to exemplary damages in the sum of $5,000 (five thousand dollars).
Count Two: Violation of federally protected rights by federal actor under color of law (Biven's)
10. Plaintiff repeats and realleges 1 through 9, as if expressly set forth herein.
11. At the time of the above-mentioned arrest, Defendant TSASUPER, did, without any cause or provocation, oppressively, maliciously and unlawfully effect an unreasonable seizure of Plaintiff contrary to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
12. By reason of the above, Plaintiff was deprived of his right to be free from unreasonable seizure, to Plaintiff’s damage in the sum of $10,000 (ten thousand dollars).
13. In performing the above-described unreasonable seizure, Defendant TSASUPER acted willfully, maliciously, and without any excuse or justification whatsoever. Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to exemplary damages in the sum of $10,000 (ten thousand dollars).
Count Three: Violation of federally protected rights under color of state law
14. Plaintiff repeats and realleges 1 through 13, as if expressly set forth herein.
15. At [location], in [city], [state], on [incident date], at or about [time], Defendant COP, under color and by virtue of his office, and in his official position, maliciously, unlawfully, and without reasonable or probable cause, and without warrant or any process of any court, demanded that Plaintiff submit to an unreasonable search based upon his identity.
16. Plaintiff was not, at the time of the events alleged in this complaint, or at any other time, committing any offense against federal law, against the city ordinances of Milwaukee, against the county ordinances of [county] county, against the statutes of Wisconsin, or against the common law, and Defendant COP did not have any reasonable grounds for believing that Plaintiff was committing or had committed any such criminal offense.
17. By reason of the above, Plaintiff was deprived of his his right secured by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, to be free from unreasonable search, under color of state law, to Plaintiff’s damage in the sum of $5,000 (five thousand dollars).
18. In making the above-described unreasonable search, Defendant COP acted willfully, maliciously, and without any excuse or justification whatsoever. Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to exemplary damages in the sum of $5,000 (five thousand dollars).
Count Four: Violation of state protected rights by state actor under color of law
19. Plaintiff repeats and realleges 1 through 18, as if expressly set forth herein.
20. At [location], in [city], [state], on [incident date], at or about [time], Defendant COP, under color and by virtue of his office, and in his official position, maliciously, unlawfully, and without reasonable or probable cause, and without warrant or any process of any court, demanded that Plaintiff submit to an unreasonable search based upon his identity.
21. Plaintiff was not, at the time of the events alleged in this complaint, or at any other time, committing any offense against federal law, against the city ordinances of Milwaukee, against the county ordinances of [county] county, against the statutes of Wisconsin, or against the common law, and Defendant COP did not have any reasonable grounds for believing that Plaintiff was committing or had committed any such criminal offense.
22. By reason of the above, Plaintiff was deprived of his right secured by the Wisconsin Constitution at Article I, Section 11, to be free from unreasonable search, to Plaintiff’s damage in the sum of $5,000 (five thousand dollars).
23. In making the above-described unreasonable search, Defendant COP acted willfully, maliciously, and without any excuse or justification whatsoever. Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to exemplary damages in the sum of $5,000 (five thousand dollars).
V. JUDICIAL NOTICE
All officers of this Court are hereby placed on notice under authority of the supremacy and equal protection clauses of the United States Constitution and the common law authorities that non-attorney litigants are held to less stringent standards than bar licensed attorneys; court errs if court dismisses the pleadings of a non-attorney litigant without instruction of how pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings; and all litigants have a constitutionally-secured right to have their claims adjudicated according to the rule of precedent. Any and all emphasis employed herein may be construed to have been added.
VI. RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court assume jurisdiction over this matter and grant relief as follows:
a. Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants; and,
b. Declare that the actions of Defendants have violated constitutionally protected rights and civil rights of Plaintiff; and,
c. On Plaintiff’s first cause of action, award Plaintiff punitive damages against Defendant TSASUPER in the amount of $5,000 in compensatory damages and $5,000 for exemplary damages; and,
d. On Plaintiff’s second cause of action, award Plaintiff punitive damages against Defendants TSASUPER in the amount of $10,000 in compensatory damages and $10,000 for exemplary damages; and,
e. On Plaintiff’s third cause of action, award Plaintiff punitive damages against Defendants COP in the amount of $5,000 in compensatory damages and $5,000 for exemplary damages; and,
f. On Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action, award Plaintiff punitive damages against Defendant COP in the amount of $5,000 in compensatory damages and $5,000 for exemplary damages; and,
g. Award Plaintiff reasonable attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988, as applicable; and,
h. Award fees and costs of this action including, but not limited to, expert fees, and actual litigation expenses, as applicable; and,
i. Award interest on the claims from the date of filing until final judgment (pre-judgment), and then from judgment until satisfied (post-judgment); and,
j. Grant Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
VII. SIGNATURE
SUBSCRIBED and submitted this [day] day of [month], in the Year of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ, Two Thousand [year].
______________________________
MKEbound
I. JURISDICTION
1. Plaintiff invokes the jurisdiction of this Court under the authority of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 42 U.S.C. §1983, 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1367.
II. VENUE
2. At all times relevant herein, all causes of action occurred within the jurisdiction of this Court.
III. PARTIES
3. MKEbound (“MKEbound”), Plaintiff, is and at all times mentioned was, a [race] man domiciled at [county] county, near [city], [state]. Plaintiff’s mailing location is [address], [city], [state] [zip].
4. [First Defendant] (“TSASUPER”), Defendant, is, and at all times mentioned was, a [race] [man/woman] who presumes to exercise the powers of an appointed officer for the federal Transportation Security Administration ("TSA"). As of [date of incident], Defendant’s business address was [location]. At all times relevant to this Complaint, TSASUPER had identified him/herself in his/her official capacity and was exercising the duties of his/her official office.
5. [Second Defendant] (“COP”), Defendant, is, and at all times mentioned was, a [race] [man/woman] who exercises the powers of a [office name] for the [police department name], in and for [county] county, Wisconsin. As of [incident date], Defendant’s business address was [location]. At all times relevant to this Complaint, COP had identified him/herself in his/her official capacity and was exercising the duties of his/her official office.
IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Count One: False arrest and imprisonment
6. At [location], in [city], [state], on [incident date], at or about [time], Defendant TSASUPER, under color and by virtue of his office, and in his official position, maliciously, unlawfully, and without reasonable or probable cause, and without warrant or any process of any court, arrested plaintiff, and incarcerated plaintiff in a [place] at the [airport name] offices situated at [address], in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and kept plaintiff confined there for the space of about twenty-five (25) minutes.
7. Plaintiff was not, at the time of the events alleged in this complaint, or at any other time, committing any offense against federal law, against the city ordinances of Milwaukee, against the county ordinances of [county] county, against the statutes of Wisconsin, or against the common law, and Defendant TSASUPER did not have any reasonable grounds for believing that Plaintiff was committing or had committed any such criminal offense.
8. By reason of the above, Plaintiff was deprived of his liberty, to Plaintiff’s damage in the sum of $5,000 (five thousand dollars).
9. In making the above-described unlawful arrest, Defendant TSASUPER acted willfully, maliciously, and without any excuse or justification whatsoever. Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to exemplary damages in the sum of $5,000 (five thousand dollars).
Count Two: Violation of federally protected rights by federal actor under color of law (Biven's)
10. Plaintiff repeats and realleges 1 through 9, as if expressly set forth herein.
11. At the time of the above-mentioned arrest, Defendant TSASUPER, did, without any cause or provocation, oppressively, maliciously and unlawfully effect an unreasonable seizure of Plaintiff contrary to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
12. By reason of the above, Plaintiff was deprived of his right to be free from unreasonable seizure, to Plaintiff’s damage in the sum of $10,000 (ten thousand dollars).
13. In performing the above-described unreasonable seizure, Defendant TSASUPER acted willfully, maliciously, and without any excuse or justification whatsoever. Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to exemplary damages in the sum of $10,000 (ten thousand dollars).
Count Three: Violation of federally protected rights under color of state law
14. Plaintiff repeats and realleges 1 through 13, as if expressly set forth herein.
15. At [location], in [city], [state], on [incident date], at or about [time], Defendant COP, under color and by virtue of his office, and in his official position, maliciously, unlawfully, and without reasonable or probable cause, and without warrant or any process of any court, demanded that Plaintiff submit to an unreasonable search based upon his identity.
16. Plaintiff was not, at the time of the events alleged in this complaint, or at any other time, committing any offense against federal law, against the city ordinances of Milwaukee, against the county ordinances of [county] county, against the statutes of Wisconsin, or against the common law, and Defendant COP did not have any reasonable grounds for believing that Plaintiff was committing or had committed any such criminal offense.
17. By reason of the above, Plaintiff was deprived of his his right secured by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, to be free from unreasonable search, under color of state law, to Plaintiff’s damage in the sum of $5,000 (five thousand dollars).
18. In making the above-described unreasonable search, Defendant COP acted willfully, maliciously, and without any excuse or justification whatsoever. Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to exemplary damages in the sum of $5,000 (five thousand dollars).
Count Four: Violation of state protected rights by state actor under color of law
19. Plaintiff repeats and realleges 1 through 18, as if expressly set forth herein.
20. At [location], in [city], [state], on [incident date], at or about [time], Defendant COP, under color and by virtue of his office, and in his official position, maliciously, unlawfully, and without reasonable or probable cause, and without warrant or any process of any court, demanded that Plaintiff submit to an unreasonable search based upon his identity.
21. Plaintiff was not, at the time of the events alleged in this complaint, or at any other time, committing any offense against federal law, against the city ordinances of Milwaukee, against the county ordinances of [county] county, against the statutes of Wisconsin, or against the common law, and Defendant COP did not have any reasonable grounds for believing that Plaintiff was committing or had committed any such criminal offense.
22. By reason of the above, Plaintiff was deprived of his right secured by the Wisconsin Constitution at Article I, Section 11, to be free from unreasonable search, to Plaintiff’s damage in the sum of $5,000 (five thousand dollars).
23. In making the above-described unreasonable search, Defendant COP acted willfully, maliciously, and without any excuse or justification whatsoever. Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to exemplary damages in the sum of $5,000 (five thousand dollars).
V. JUDICIAL NOTICE
All officers of this Court are hereby placed on notice under authority of the supremacy and equal protection clauses of the United States Constitution and the common law authorities that non-attorney litigants are held to less stringent standards than bar licensed attorneys; court errs if court dismisses the pleadings of a non-attorney litigant without instruction of how pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings; and all litigants have a constitutionally-secured right to have their claims adjudicated according to the rule of precedent. Any and all emphasis employed herein may be construed to have been added.
VI. RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court assume jurisdiction over this matter and grant relief as follows:
a. Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants; and,
b. Declare that the actions of Defendants have violated constitutionally protected rights and civil rights of Plaintiff; and,
c. On Plaintiff’s first cause of action, award Plaintiff punitive damages against Defendant TSASUPER in the amount of $5,000 in compensatory damages and $5,000 for exemplary damages; and,
d. On Plaintiff’s second cause of action, award Plaintiff punitive damages against Defendants TSASUPER in the amount of $10,000 in compensatory damages and $10,000 for exemplary damages; and,
e. On Plaintiff’s third cause of action, award Plaintiff punitive damages against Defendants COP in the amount of $5,000 in compensatory damages and $5,000 for exemplary damages; and,
f. On Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action, award Plaintiff punitive damages against Defendant COP in the amount of $5,000 in compensatory damages and $5,000 for exemplary damages; and,
g. Award Plaintiff reasonable attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988, as applicable; and,
h. Award fees and costs of this action including, but not limited to, expert fees, and actual litigation expenses, as applicable; and,
i. Award interest on the claims from the date of filing until final judgment (pre-judgment), and then from judgment until satisfied (post-judgment); and,
j. Grant Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
VII. SIGNATURE
SUBSCRIBED and submitted this [day] day of [month], in the Year of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ, Two Thousand [year].
______________________________
MKEbound
Last edited by RgnadKzin; Oct 3, 2006 at 10:57 am
Oct 2, 2006, 8:56 am
#1428
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 40
Originally Posted by Wally Bird
I ceratinly hope so; before the TSA bans bag-writing that is. Mine will simply say Tiny Suspicious Articles.
So then none of you would mind if the rest of us who just want to board our flights without incident ask that you not be allowed to board because we feel threatened that you might cause a disruption on the flight. Do you think that the TSA would take the time to investigate our claims? Would I be violating your rights or would they?
Oct 2, 2006, 8:57 am
#1429
Suspended
Join Date: May 2005
Programs: Count Your Blessings
Posts: 1,548
Originally Posted by 2smrt4u
If you keep teasing the dog, sooner or later he is going to bite you.
Oct 2, 2006, 9:00 am
#1430
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by 2smrt4u
Originally Posted by GUWonder
The graduate course of "logical fallacy" was mentioned. That sounds more like a course than a field of study to me. 
Oct 2, 2006, 9:00 am
#1431
Moderator: Midwest, Las Vegas & Dining Buzz
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 17,976
Originally Posted by 2smrt4u
So then none of you would mind if the rest of us who just want to board our flights without incident ask that you not be allowed to board because we feel threatened that you might cause a disruption on the flight. Do you think that the TSA would take the time to investigate our claims? Would I be violating your rights or would they?
Oct 2, 2006, 9:03 am
#1432
Join Date: Jul 2004
Programs: NW Gold, '06. Good times.
Posts: 7,364
Originally Posted by 2smrt4u
So, I'm not entitled to any rights?
Originally Posted by 2smrt4u
Remember, he went there looking for the attention, he got it and now he's complaining!
Originally Posted by 2smrt4u
I'd like to reiterate that what he posted as his version of the events is strictly hear say.
A spokeswoman for the Milwaukee County Sheriff's Office said the TSA did call the sheriff's office to report an upset customer at the checkpoint. A deputy went to the scene, interviewed all of the participants, ran a wanted check on the man, and referred it back to the TSA after determining no crime had been committed, Deputy Darice Landon said.
Originally Posted by 2smrt4u
You weren't there so you are not the authority on rights judgement.
Oct 2, 2006, 9:04 am
#1433
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 40
Originally Posted by iluv2fly
I'm sure the majority of us would say that if you feel threatened, don't board.
Oct 2, 2006, 9:05 am
#1434
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by 2smrt4u
If you keep teasing the dog, sooner or later he is going to bite you.
Oct 2, 2006, 9:05 am
#1435
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 430
Originally Posted by iluv2fly
I'm sure the majority of us would say that if you feel threatened, don't board.
Oct 2, 2006, 9:06 am
#1436
Join Date: Jul 2004
Programs: NW Gold, '06. Good times.
Posts: 7,364
Originally Posted by 2smrt4u
Like I said before, there are places and forums where you are free to exercise free speech, holding up the security line at the airport is hardly the appropriate forum public or not.
Oct 2, 2006, 9:09 am
#1437
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 40
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Logical fallacies = critical thinking? According to your posts, a graduate course in logical fallacies is the same thing as a graduate course in critical thinking? Sounds logically fallacious to me. Are they teaching logical fallacies or are they teaching critical thinking? It seems more the former than the latter, because the recognition of logical fallacies in your own argument are evidently missing and yet logical fallacies are evident in your posts.
Your word trickery is just silly. Like I said, Critical thinking and fallacies are in fact two different things. To not understand that the two do go hand in hand is your fault not mine. In order to think critically you must be able to look beyond all the trickery just as you've written and come to your own conclusion. Again, my education and intelligence are irrelevant to the discussion so please just get over it.
Oct 2, 2006, 9:11 am
#1438
Moderator: Midwest, Las Vegas & Dining Buzz
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 17,976
Originally Posted by Travellin' Fool
This makes no sense. What if two people where acting retarded and the other passengers thought they would make trouble on the aircraft? The whole flight shouldn't board because of that? NO! They should figure out whats going on with the troublemakers.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=607861
Oct 2, 2006, 9:12 am
#1439
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,974
Originally Posted by 2smrt4u
So then none of you would mind if the rest of us who just want to board our flights without incident ask that you not be allowed to board because we feel threatened that you might cause a disruption on the flight. Do you think that the TSA would take the time to investigate our claims? Would I be violating your rights or would they?
As suggested, there is a wealth of history, principles and experiences in dealing with the TSA in countless other threads as well as just this (narrow) one. All your objections(sic) have been discussed many times; I'm not about to do it again. Others may choose to.
Oct 2, 2006, 9:13 am
#1440
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 40
Originally Posted by hoyateach
The OP did not, at any time, hold up the security line. Please get your facts straight.
So you were there? How slow did the lines move because security was heightened? I can assure you that other screens did in fact have a more watchful eye after the incident.