Do not be decieved!

Help Support The Pipe:

SpatialD

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
2,951
I never said I was God's gift to journalism, but let's review:

So some commenter on a website references some non-descript court case who doesn't say "you'll get arrested" in any of his comments and that turns into you adding "you'll get arrested" to everything you write. Sorry, if you want to be taken seriously you have to actually research the court case on your own and know full well what it involves. Basing your stance on something a poster mentioned online is like basing a legal argument on posts from the crackpipe here. "Poster I-Fly-Jets posted online that he read a court case once that said the government can smack you in the head with salami. As a result I'm forming a group to battle this government policy.
Fact - I said:

You'd have to ask the folks at USAPA where they got it...
Interesting tidbit - then I added:

but a commenter on my site (who happens to be a journalist who's been writing about TSA's illegitimacy since it was established) said this:
I knew about USAPA's statement for some time before I shared it here or on my web site, but I refrained from repeating it until I got my hands on the actual blast mail and read it for myself. I reproduced it for you, above, minus a ton of unrelated crap so you could see it for yourself. USAPA really did tell their members they could be arrested. That is what I reported. Determining whether they were reporting accurate information to their members would require further investigation. Again, I refer you to them if you wish to conduct such an investigation - I'm a little too busy to take that on right now.

Regarding the tidbit, if you need additional details for a research paper or something, I know the lady who made the comment and would be happy to put you in touch with her. As I indicated, she's a professional journalist who was writing about this stuff before I ever started thinking about it. I'm sure she's done her homework and would be happy to share her sources and point you in the right direction for your research.

Now, if I were testifying or arguing a case about this matter in a court of law, then yeah, I'd have a little folder with all my supporting documentation ready to enter into the record. But this is the crack pipe, yo'. I was just trying to give you something to talk about. Jeeze!

If you are offered method A but you decline so you're offered method B. It shouldn't be an issue. Even if you refuse both and leave the airport willingly the TSA shouldn't care one bit. Sadly that hasn't always been the case.
At least we haven't lost the whole freakin' point of the thread. A pax in SAN was confronted with this very issue yesterday. His report and some corroborating camera phone footage can be found here.
 
Last edited:

xjetfa

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2007
Messages
678
Wow...requesting a "private search" along with having a fellow crew member as a witness.

Better get a video copy of the pat down to document the search?????
 
Last edited:

Nova

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2003
Messages
2,538
I never said I was God's gift to journalism, but let's review:
And you left out your quote that started this particular discussion. Nice. You quoted the following as support for the "you'll get arrested". Remember that part that you put in red and bolded?

Failure to do so can, again, result in your arrest.
So you clearly where trying to reiterate that we'll get arrested. Whether they were originally USAPA's words or not you made your point clearly. When others pointed out your grandstanding you quoted the following from your website as support.

This actually isn’t new. A court case 3 or 4 years ago from the Ninth District decreed that once your bag hits the conveyor belt at the checkpoint, you may not leave. In effect, you become the TSA’s prisoner whether you’re a pilot or a passenger.
I'll spell it out again. Your random quote of a vague claim is pointless. You want to support a cause then you can't quote some meaningless sentence. What Ninth District Court? There are 13. What court case? There are probably a lot. How many years ago? 3-4 is pretty vague. If this court case is going to help then it's important to share the details of the actual ruling.

Honestly I really don't care if someone is a "professional journalist", I've rarely been impressed. How many professional journalist can even get the most routine aspects of our job reported correctly? Apparently she's so professional that she doesn't know what District Court had the ruling or when it took place. Yeah, she's wowing me with facts.
 

lj1313

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2003
Messages
175
Michael-

The case I believe the case that your "journalist" friend was referring to was UNITED STATES v. AUKAI, heard by the U.S.
9th Circuit Court of Appeals (Document 04-10226).

Actually a would be a interesting read if someone had never read an judgment on an appeal, what the entail, how they reference case law and Supreme Court rulings. I would offer a link to it but my LexisNexis account will not let me for some reason on this laptop. But Google it if anyone hasn't seen one of these documents before.

LJ
 

SpatialD

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
2,951
And you left out your quote that started this particular discussion. Nice. You quoted the following as support for the "you'll get arrested". Remember that part that you put in red and bolded?



So you clearly where trying to reiterate that we'll get arrested. Whether they were originally USAPA's words or not you made your point clearly. When others pointed out your grandstanding you quoted the following from your website as support.



I'll spell it out again. Your random quote of a vague claim is pointless. You want to support a cause then you can't quote some meaningless sentence. What Ninth District Court? There are 13. What court case? There are probably a lot. How many years ago? 3-4 is pretty vague. If this court case is going to help then it's important to share the details of the actual ruling.

Honestly I really don't care if someone is a "professional journalist", I've rarely been impressed. How many professional journalist can even get the most routine aspects of our job reported correctly? Apparently she's so professional that she doesn't know what District Court had the ruling or when it took place. Yeah, she's wowing me with facts.
Man, maybe it's me, but I don't understand what your problem is. The thing I quoted and bolded in red was a FACT - USAPA did report this information to their pilot group. How is sharing that here and saying, essentially, WTF? grandstanding? Explain to me what has you so wrapped around the axle over this, 'cause I'm just not understanding your complaint.

And again, the interesting bit from my journalist friend was just that - interesting. I was not offering it as evidence or proof of anything. Now if you can't explain your beef over this as plainly as I've explained myself, don't bother. Or at least have someone translate because for some reason it's just not transmitting clearly.
 

Nova

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2003
Messages
2,538
Man, maybe it's me, but I don't understand what your problem is. The thing I quoted and bolded in red was a FACT - USAPA did report this information to their pilot group. How is sharing that here and saying, essentially, WTF? grandstanding? Explain to me what has you so wrapped around the axle over this, 'cause I'm just not understanding your complaint.

And again, the interesting bit from my journalist friend was just that - interesting. I was not offering it as evidence or proof of anything. Now if you can't explain your beef over this as plainly as I've explained myself, don't bother. Or at least have someone translate because for some reason it's just not transmitting clearly.
Now you mentioned it for no other reason but it was interesting? Really? So when lj1313 asked for you to shed light on the "get arrested" part of your post you quoted your journalist friend regarding the court case that was not to support your original post or as evidence of anything. You just did that because it was interesting? I'm not buying it. You're not impressing me. Beyond some cut and paste from other sources you're not interested in understanding the facts you just hope those that you quote do.

Oddly enough someone else did the work for you and found the court case in question. Honestly after reading the court findings it's hilarious that you or your "journalist friend" who use this as support of anything. Just goes to show you don't do your homework.

To summarize the case:

-Gentleman shows to the airport security with his boarding pass that has been marked NO ID since he has no government ID to offer.
-He and his bags pass through their respective detectors without alarm
-Per established procedures he is required to be wanded by an agent because he has no ID
-At this point he wants to leave with his stuff and not do the secondary screening and in fact tries to gather his stuff
-The agents eventually get a chance to use their hand wand and "discovered a glass pipe used to smoke methamphetamine" and several crystals of methamphetamines.
-The man was arrested for possession of drugs.


So this is your response to someone asking for you to shed some light on getting arrested as security? You're right, how dare they arrest someone found to have drugs on their person. Anything else your "journalist friend" have to share?
 

nixon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
4,680
Michael-

The case I believe the case that your "journalist" friend was referring to was UNITED STATES v. AUKAI, heard by the U.S.
9th Circuit Court of Appeals (Document 04-10226).

Actually a would be a interesting read if someone had never read an judgment on an appeal, what the entail, how they reference case law and Supreme Court rulings. I would offer a link to it but my LexisNexis account will not let me for some reason on this laptop. But Google it if anyone hasn't seen one of these documents before.

LJ
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11175683198599254878&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

As far as a court case with VERY similar characteristics to Michael's incident look to:
Hugo TORBET, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED AIRLINES, INC.; Board of Airport Commissioners, City of Los Angeles; Mike Edwards and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees.

Had the TSA detained Michael, found nothing, and Michael sued, this would have been a recent court case with precedent. The TSA would have won.

Again, we are not saying that Michael is wrong for standing up for his rights, rather that he is naive as to the law and the repercussions.
 
Last edited:

SpatialD

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
2,951
Now you mentioned it for no other reason but it was interesting? Really? So when lj1313 asked for you to shed light on the "get arrested" part of your post you quoted your journalist friend regarding the court case that was not to support your original post or as evidence of anything. You just did that because it was interesting? I'm not buying it. You're not impressing me.
Whether you buy it or not is neither here nor there. I can give you the facts - I can't teach you how to think (though, based on this discussion, I do recommend you seek help in that area). One more time, in response to lj1313's query, I said:

You'd have to ask the folks at USAPA where they got it, but>>>BUT!!!<<<but a commenter on my site (who happens to be a journalist who's been writing about TSA's illegitimacy since it was established) said this:
Translation: Here's a factual response to your query. It doesn't answer your question, but it points you to the source of the information you seek. Sorry I don't have it to give in reply myself, BUT here's an interesting tidbit that MIGHT offer a clue as to what USAPA is talking about...

Then you said:

Oddly enough someone else did the work for you and found the court case in question...
How do you know that the case that guy posted on here is what my journalist friend was referring to? I don't know that myself. But here I am trying to teach you how to think after I said I couldn't help you in that regard. Continue to wax deep in your legal analysis and impugn my motives, preparedness, comprehension, etc. if you like - but you'll have to talk to the hand now. I've wasted enough time here with you.

If anyone else shares Nova's doubts or objections, maybe you can present your issues more effectively, and I welcome the opportunity to hear them. He and I just don't seem able to communicate with each other very well. I'm guessing a lot of you have probably lost interest in this ridiculous conversation by now though.
 
Last edited:

SpatialD

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
2,951
...not saying that Michael is wrong for standing up for his rights, rather that he is naive as to the law and the repercussions.
FWIW, the folks at the Rutherford Institute and at least a couple dozen others among the most distinguished legal professionals in the country seem to think otherwise. But maybe you know better.
 

Nova

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2003
Messages
2,538
How do you know that the case that guy posted on here is what my journalist friend was referring to? I don't know that myself.
And here is the crux of your problem, you don't know what you're talking about. You put yourself in the public eye at your choice and have done so as well on this website. Yet, you bring into a conversation things you don't even know about yourself. Sorry, you can't get off that easy. You claim you're sharing the "facts" but it turns out it's meerly smoke and mirrors. If your journalist is such a "friend" why don't you educate yourself and the rest of us with this case you've brought into the discussion. I seems you'd rather paint it's mention as nothing more than something "interesting" but I'm not buying it. You want us to buy into everything you spout hook, line and sinker and not ask questions. Not all of us are sheep.

If this case was such a big deal it would be a lot easier to search and since nothing more substantial is turning up I'm willing to believe this is it. Congratulations some drug user got busted for possession at a checkpoint and attempted to go to court and say it was an illegal search and that is the crap you are going to use to show the general public shouldn't be molested by a TSA agent? The case isn't even relavent.
 

Rooster0826

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 6, 2006
Messages
54
Serious question... Maybe someone already covered this and I missed it but if I request a pat down in private room, and I request a supervisor and I request Law Enforcement, and I have a crew member witness... Wouldn't it be within my rights to ask my crew member witness to video record the entire incident with my cell phone camera.... That would make TSA nervous if evvery one of us requested that much manpower per pat down, and on camera asked for each persons name and employee number. Also while on camera ask them there sexual preference. I am not homophobic but I think that is a more then fair and legal question to ask.
 

Rooster0826

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 6, 2006
Messages
54
Or we could all start going commando, and giggle and squirm and act like we love the pat downs. Then once he's done say, "My turn, my turn" then ask for the TSA dudes phone # and if he wants the g... heehee
 

lj1313

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2003
Messages
175
Or we could all start going commando, and giggle and squirm and act like we love the pat downs. Then once he's done say, "My turn, my turn" then ask for the TSA dudes phone # and if he wants the g... heehee

Now that is funny!
 

SpatialD

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
2,951
Serious question... Maybe someone already covered this and I missed it but if I request a pat down in private room, and I request a supervisor and I request Law Enforcement, and I have a crew member witness... Wouldn't it be within my rights to ask my crew member witness to video record the entire incident with my cell phone camera.... That would make TSA nervous if evvery one of us requested that much manpower per pat down, and on camera asked for each persons name and employee number. Also while on camera ask them there sexual preference. I am not homophobic but I think that is a more then fair and legal question to ask.
You can record it on video. But, even if they follow their rules to a tee, they're going to sexually assault you because that's what their rules tell them to do. And you will have given your consent, so maybe 'assault' doesn't quite fit. But I think humiliate, abuse, degrade, coerce, and hang your job and ability to move about over your head certainly all apply. Still, when you consent, you consent.
 

Taco Jocky

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
190
You can record it on video. But, even if they follow their rules to a tee, they're going to sexually assault you because that's what their rules tell them to do. And you will have given your consent, so maybe 'assault' doesn't quite fit. But I think humiliate, abuse, degrade, coerce, and hang your job and ability to move about over your head certainly all apply. Still, when you consent, you consent.
I disagree! If I consent, it is for a fair and humane pat down in the name of safety and security. It is NOT however, a consent for sexual molestation and harassment! There is a difference! Just food for thought. BTW Mike, I'm behind you 100%!
 

Latest posts

Top