***Update 1/30/2011 I referred to recent media coverage (which was all about Mr. Mocek's acquittal). The purpose of the blog was to focus on TSA checkpoint procedures which have not changed- as some have assumed- and to provide a refresher on TSA procedures.
Mr. Mocek was charged by the Albuquerque Police Department with trespassing, disorderly conduct, refusing to obey an officer, and concealing identity. He was acquitted. In so far as Mr. Mocek wants to fly in the future, like other passengers, he will still need to produce ID or work cooperatively with TSOs to confirm his identity.
TSA verification processes must proceed quickly and without interference. Any passenger holding a camera in the face of TSOs as they try verify identification should not be surprised if asked to step aside so that other passengers in line can be processed expeditiously without further disruption.
TSA's goal is to ensure that all passengers who fly are checked against government watchlists. This can be achieved only if a passenger's identity is confirmed at the checkpoint. ***
Mr. Mocek was charged by the Albuquerque Police Department with trespassing, disorderly conduct, refusing to obey an officer, and concealing identity. He was acquitted. In so far as Mr. Mocek wants to fly in the future, like other passengers, he will still need to produce ID or work cooperatively with TSOs to confirm his identity.
TSA verification processes must proceed quickly and without interference. Any passenger holding a camera in the face of TSOs as they try verify identification should not be surprised if asked to step aside so that other passengers in line can be processed expeditiously without further disruption.
TSA's goal is to ensure that all passengers who fly are checked against government watchlists. This can be achieved only if a passenger's identity is confirmed at the checkpoint. ***
A recent case - New Mexico v. Phillip Mocek - is making the news recently. The case stemmed from Mr. Mocek’s failure to cooperate with the instructions of Albuquerque police officers at the Albuquerque International Sunport Airport after interactions he had with TSA transportation security officers.
Mr. Mocek had a boarding pass, but would not produce ID when asked. As I've said before here on the blog, if you don’t have an ID, TSA will work with you to verify you are who you say you are. On the other hand, if you refuse to provide information, you will not be permitted to fly. This process had begun with Mr. Mocek, but was not completed. Without an ID that matches the individual holding the boarding pass, we can’t be sure the passenger has cleared government watchlists.
As far as photography, as I stated in a previous post, TSA does not prohibit photography at checkpoints as long as there is no interference with the screening process. As TSOs were talking to Mr. Mocek to verify his identity, he was holding a camera up to film them and appeared to be trying to film sensitive security information related to TSA standard operating procedures on ID verification. Such behavior interferes with the ordinary course of business at the checkpoint and may well delay other passengers.
We are grateful for the support provided to TSA by the Albuquerque police.
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
If you’d like to comment on an unrelated topic you can do so in our Off Topic Comments post. You can also view our blog post archives or searchour blog to find a related topic to comment in. If you have a travel related issue or question that needs an immediate answer, you can contact a Customer Support Manager at the airport you traveled, or will be traveling through by using Talk to TSA.
217 comments:
1 – 200 of 217 Newer› Newest»You should not repeat the allegations made against a private citizen without mentioning that he was acquitted of the charges. To do otherwise is irresponsible.
"The case stemmed from Mr. Mocek’s failure to cooperate with the instructions of Albuquerque police officers at the Albuquerque International Sunport Airport after interactions he had with TSA transportation security officers."
The jury did not see it that way. That is why he was found NOT GUILTY on all four charges.
Why do you lie about this? It only puts you in the same company as the Information Ministers of other tyrants.
To tell the whole story would make the TSA look bad.
Hence the omission of Mr. Mocek's acquittal on all charges.
Bob,
Why are you repeating the allegations as if they were fact, when in reality he was found not guilty? You are misleading your readers into believing that Mr. Mocek's behavior was illegal. A jury found that it was not.
Not only was he fount NOT GUILTY on all four charges, but he was found NOT GUILTY without his defense having to present ANY evidence or call ANY witnesses - the TSA's case was so full of holes in its own right.
so photography at the checkpoint is permitted, so long as it does not capture the screening process?
that rings hollow, even for TSA...
How long did it take you to write that spin? Attempting to "film sensitive security information related to TSA standard operating procedures on ID verification?" That's probably the most ludicrous statement I've heard about the case.
Are you trying to claim that the contents of the question-and-answer game TSA plays with no-ID pax are SSI? Or that SSI paperwork is just laying around at the TDC waiting to be filmed? Or are you just trying to create a loophole in TSA's (correct) claim that there is nothing prohibiting photography in airports other than not permitting filming of the x-ray display (which is reasonable)?
And of course you utterly fail to mention that Mr. Mocek was acquitted. Not to mention that the trial very much made it seem that the TSO and LEO were the only ones causing a disturbance at the scene.
Do you care to comment on your TSO's testimony that he doesn't know why TSA checks ID?
A Jury of his PEERS found in favor of Mr. Mocek. This is one of the most important aspects of our system of justice, where CITIZENS can uphold JUSTICE and deny the authoritarianism of the government.
The American people DO NOT SUPPORT THE TSA's CURRENT TACTICS, and this case and many more to follow will clearly show that the TSA is not acting in accordance with the Will of The PEOPLE.
The notion that he was trying to film "sensitive security information" is absurd. The screener testified that Mocek "might" have picked up a form containing his own information on the videotape. Is that supposed to be secret? Good grief, you should be ashamed of yourself.
"To do otherwise is irresponsible."
Or libelous? It seems TSA will go to any ends to attack citizens. TSA personnel maintains an adversarial position with the American people. How can an organization that is contemptuous of the public be expected to run a real security operation?
This post completely misrepresents the facts of the case. Mr. Mocek was acquitted by a jury on all four counts.
Bob, your post was filled with half truths designed to misrepresent the public. That's what I expect out of totalitarian governments, not from an official representative of the United States government. Shame on you.
Why did you intentionally leave out the fact that a jury acquitted Mr. Mocek of all four counts in about an hour?
The Identity Project has a full write up (with video) here: http://papersplease.org/wp/2011/01/22/phil-mocek-found-not-guilty-by-albuquerque-jury/
Yes, Bob, the only thing Phil was guilty of was contempt of cop and TSA. He was acquitted of the charges by a jury of his peers.
It's intellectually dishonest not to mention that key fact, Bob. Not everyone will click on the link, and by the way you wrote it, many would think he was convicted.
If TSA is willing to play fast and loose with the truth, it makes one wonder how much TSA is playing fast and loose with security. Not that we don't already know that they are ...
Al
More doubletalk. We're allowed to take pictures...oh, except when we "appear to be trying to film sensitive security information". What would that be? TSA badges, faces, computer screens? We have no idea.
And you will never tell us, because it is deliberately vague so you can harass and arrest people who insist on their rights.
Not to mention you didn't even mention that the TSA LOST this case. Just another case where the TSA abuses are not legal or supported by the courts.
Our country has a long history of officials reacting badly in the face of proactive non-violent civil disobedience. Mr Mocek was well within his rights as a private citizen, followed TSA rules, and TSA and the police overreacted, anyway.
On another note, how is that new billboard in Philly working out for your PR staff?
"Why do you lie about this? It only puts you in the same company as the Information Ministers of other tyrants."
I believe Curtis is just trying to put the best possible spin on another incident that shows TSA at its finest.
Hey Bob, were you a Philadelphia lawyer in a previous life? Because you certainly twist the truth like one. I might even go so far as to say this post is libel by omission.
Without an ID that matches the individual holding the boarding pass, we can’t be sure the passenger has cleared government watchlists.
Actually, given how easy it is to forge a boarding pass, presenting an ID that matches an alleged boarding pass doesn't provide any assurance, either.
As TSOs were talking to Mr. Mocek to verify his identity, he was holding a camera up to film them and appeared to be trying to film sensitive security information related to TSA standard operating procedures on ID verification.
So one can be arrested in this country for "appearing to be trying" to do something? Oy ve.
WOW! You do realize that the TSA testified in court that there is no law that requires anyone to provide identification in order to fly. Testified in court! Yet you deny this?
Bob, are you even capable of telling the truth about anything?
Bob, I have a problem with the statements you made in your post here on the TSA blog.
You state AS FACT allegations that a jury has DISMISSED.
In your statements you are again accusing Mr. Mocek of behavior already charged and dismissed, and your doing that should be, in itself, a crime against Mr. Mocek - especially as you are stating it as an official representative of your government agency.
Note also that what TSA's TSOs said while being recorded by Mr. Mocek did not comply with TSA "regulations," nor does it match with what you stated in your blog post.
I believe retraction of and apology for your allegations against Mr. Mocek are in order.
(I'm usually not all that hard on you, Bob, but in this case I sincerely believe you have stepped over the line.)
Take care,
Tom
University Place, WA
"As TSOs were talking to Mr. Mocek to verify his identity, he was holding a camera up to film them and appeared to be trying to film sensitive security information related to TSA standard operating procedures on ID verification."
Anytime the TSA invokes UNclassified "sensitive security information" (SSI), alarm bells should sound off and you need to question if there is anything being covered-up.
When the TSA could not fire me for blowing the whistle on them in July 2003 and again in September 2004, they RETROACTIVELY marked my July 2003 whistleblower disclosure with this non-classified designation, and THEN fired me.
I am 100% in favor of reasonable pat-downs because no one has a right to fly on "missiles of mass destruction" that move 500 MPH at 35,000 feet up. But passengers should have the right to film the pat-down process in order to record and expose any possible wrongdoing.
Be safe up there.
Respectfully,
Robert MacLean
Fired Federal Air Marshal
Remember folks that Mr. Mocek was found NOT GUILTY on ALL CHARGES by a jury of his peers. The only party(ies) that should be guilty are the TSA and the Albuquerque Airport Police for trying to interfere with his rights.
Please, Mr. Blogger Bob. Pray tell why, after discovery, the prosecution decided not to call most of its witnesses, and those that did testify in court were not credible with the tribunal?
And, while you are at it, pray tell why TSA is not credible with Congress?
Or American Citizens for that matter.
I eagerly await your response.
Blogger Bob
Once again you are conveniently twisting and leaving out key facts.
If the TSA clerks acted correctly and Mr. Mocek acted wrongly as your article leads the reader to believe then why was he acquitted?
In fact why don't you mention that he was found not guilty?
The only thing that trial proved was that it was the TSO's that were interfering with the screening process by causing the scene, and the only one yelling and "disturbing the peace" was the Alb LEO.
Thank god Phil had recorded this incident otherwise I have a feeling the security footage would have been lost or lacking audio... which isn't the first time TSA has done that.
"Mr. Mocek ... would not produce ID" is inflammatory. A more neutral statement is that Mr. Mocek did not produce ID.
"... appeared to be trying to film sensitive security information..." That is not supported by the video evidence presented in court.
Please remove the bias in your blog post.
It's important to realize that Mocek didn't present any evidence at his trial. He was acquitted based on the evidence submitted AGAINST him by the government. Think about what that means. The government's own evidence, when evaluated by the jury, led to them finding him not guilty of any wrongdoing.
You know how I know TSA is nothing more than security theater?
Apparently the jury disagrees with you and the TSA.
On all charges: NOT GUILTY
Lies of omission are still lies.
Please at least do not repeat allegations for which a man was found not guilty of.
Since Mr. Mocek was found innocent we must assume that he didn't do anything that was illegal or against TSA procedure (that they could prove)
Therefore, when I read this case I see a man who was inconvenienced and was forced to spend thousands of dollars defending himself from a needless situation where TSA and the LEO overreacted.
The fact that you paint the story as that TSA did nothing wrong, and leading us to believe he was trying to video the screening procedure (when it was clear in court that he wasn't) isn't only terrible reporting but destroys your credibility?
Does everything you post have this uneccesary Pro-TSA spin. If the TSA really cares about servicing and building trust and cooperation with the traveling public you can't treat us as if we are stupid.
And he was acquitted of all wrong doing in court.
Why did you leave this out?
"A recent case - New Mexico v. Phillip Mocek - is making the news recently. The case stemmed from Mr. Mocek’s failure to cooperate with the instructions of Albuquerque police officers at the Albuquerque International Sunport Airport after interactions he had with TSA transportation security officers."
It is irresponsible if not downright libelous to assert those charges with no mention to the fact that he was completely acquitted of all charges.
I'm curious what you would call that statement if not an attempt to falsely defame the character of Phillip Mocek?
Why do you lie about this? It only puts you in the same company as the Information Ministers of other tyrants.
January 28, 2011 6:59 PM
................
If it's not a TSA lie Bob won't post it.
Not mentioning Moeck's acquital is a serious omission.
But it was on purpose, wasn't it? You'd prefer to keep that nicely restricted to the comment section.
Our tax dollars at work!
What a dishonest posting Bob.
It was TSA that created the problem.
It was TSA that escalated the problem and then called police.
It was a TSM that put his hands on Phil as clearly seen in Phil's video record. That sir was a battery and possibly an assault.
It was TSA employees not knowing or carrying out TSA policy that was the problem.
Oh, you seem to have missed the tiny little fact that Phil was found guilty on any charges.
Why is it you left that out of your post Bob?
Mocek was acquitted on all four counts. The jury delivered its verdict in less than an hour.
Prosecution witnesses included a single TSA agent and a single Albuquerque police officer.
Defense witnesses included no one. Not a single witness was called in rebuttal. But the jury voted to acquit in less than an hour.
This story was written in such a way as to make Mr. Mocek out to be a criminal, which in fact he is not. In fact, your TSA agents were noted to be disrupting the peace, not Mr. Mocek.
And while you may not like "such behavior," and it may or may not "interfere with the ordinary course of business at the checkpoint" it is neither illegal nor unreasonable to insist that government agents act within very limited powers granted by the Constitution.
You may be grateful for the support provided by the Albuquerque police, but as a law abiding citizen, I am outraged that a law abiding citizen was detained, arrested and forced to endure prosecution for going about his lawful business. As your own agent admitted in court, Mr. Mocek had every right to film what was in pubic view and if TSA has placed in the public view at an airport, sensitive security information, which I as a traveler am in no way bound to not reveal, then shame on you. Not the filmer's fault...it's you agencies.
Blogger Bob wrote: "Mr. Mocek [...] appeared to be trying to film sensitive security information related to TSA standard operating procedures on ID verification."
Your TSO tried to make that argument while testifying. You may not have heard his testimony, but the defense attorney for Mr. Mocek shred it into a million, tiny little pieces.
After all this SSO document is the very document that the TSO, by his own admission while on the stand and under oath, would have to show to Mr. Mocek, so he could verify the information on it and then sign. Some "sensitive" information... What a joke.
Frankly, the video speaks for itself -- and the jury in this case heard it loud and clear and they sent you all a message.
Also, while you did point out that photography is permitted, out you didn't make any comment about the behavior of the TSOs or their inaccurate statements as far as recording video on the checkpoint.
Of course, there was no comment about the TSA person that grabs the camera and tries to either take it from Mr. Mocek or push it down. I would point out that this sort of action can get those of us without a shiny badge cited for assault. As for your guy? Who knows? Was he cited? Was he disciplined? Was he retrained?
And then there's the ABQ police. The people who spouted nonsense like "You're almost there. You pushing it. You really pushing it. OK?" and "Well, you can be arrested and you check into it more." Are these the people you wish to thank?
Good thing that there was video, and that there are sensible jurors out there to protect us from you.
Two quick questions for Mr. Bob.
1. A camera is an inanimate object. How does a camera, by itself, interfere with the screening process without engaging in other unlawful acts, such as battery? I understand how it could be a problem if the camera was being physically shoved into someone's face, but standing back a foot or two with a camera operating would not meet that definition.
2. In regards to "...appeared to be trying to film sensitive security information related to TSA standard operating procedures on ID verification."
It would seem that travelers who do not have valid ID would be not uncommon and the procedure in place to work with those travelers would be well known to any agent with any amount of experience at that position. As such, was the Travel Document Checker new? If not, why would the TDC have sensitive security material out and visible in order to follow a procedure that should be well known for that position?
Bob--
You are a civil servant. I am a citizen. I am requesting the name and contact information of you immediate supervisor. I expect you to provide it. This post is ridiculous and I am outraged that even a fraction of a penny of my tax dollars are paying you to maintain this blog.
Bob: you have already attempted to sell a jury that particular barrel of rotten fish, and they noticed the smell at distance and found Mocek "not guilty", a fact you choose to completely ignore your post.
Then you go on to express gratitude to police officers for their "support," despite the fact that that support was found to be inappropriate, and is undoubtedly going to be the subject of a civil suit.
"SSI" has no legal meaning, and the only reason that particular form has to be kept private under the privacy act is because once completed, it has private information belonging to that individual. You are trying to suggest that there was something wrong with Mocek's filming of a form containing his OWN information. There seems to be no limit to your willingness to attempt to distort and misrepresent fact. Both your blog entry and the TSO's testimony at Mocek's trial attest to that.
Liar liar pants on fire, Bob. Not guilty means you didn't have enough to prove your allegations beyond reasonable doubt. Shame on you.
Bob: please please please just answer one direct question for once.
Why didn't you mention the TSA LOST this case and he was found not guilty? The way you present this in the blog doesn't mention this.
Surely you can see how what you posted was not exactly leading people to the conclusions of the jury.
Please don't just respond here - amend the post.
It looks to me like Francine dictated much of the words that Bob used-- and also that he did't use-- in this post.
Bob,
Mr. Mocek was found innocent of all charges.
Apparently the TSA not only believes guilty until proven innocent, but guilty even when proven innocent.
Your blog post is just another example of why the people simply cannot trust you or the TSA
There are reasons we have laws that your agency is required to follow to keep things like this from happening. We take these laws seriously, unlike your agency, which assumes it can break the law with impunity under the color of SSI, and you report you are grateful for the APD aiding and abetting unlawful activities of the government! Please explain why you operate outside the law.
The "sensitive security information related to TSA standard operating procedures on ID verification" appears to be a form entitled, "Transportation Security Administration Certification of Identity" which asks for a name, address, signature and date. Actually quite reasonable, in my opinion.
However, it contains this notice:
" This information is being collected in accordance with 49 U.S.C. § 114(f) and 49 C.F.R. §§ 1540.105(a)(2),
1540.107 in order to verify your identity and complete the passenger screening process. This information may be
shared with the Department of Justice or other Federal agency in the review, settlement, defense, and prosecution of
claims, complaints, and lawsuits over matters in which TSA exercises jurisdiction, or for routine uses identified in
TSA’s systems of records, DHS/TSA 001 Transportation Security Enforcement Record System (TSERS) or
DHS/TSA 002 Transportation Security Threat Assessment System (TSTAS). Disclosure of this information is
voluntary; however, failure to furnish the requested information may result in an inability to complete the security
screening process and, consequently, an inability to grant you access to the sterile area.
False statements may be punishable under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. Section 1001by fine, imprisonment or both."
What it does not contain is the mandatory OMB control number required under the Paperwork Reduction Act 44 USC 3506(c)(b)(i). To obtain this control number your agency must publish this information in the Federal Register and obtain Office of Management and Budget approval. If you do not, the 44 USC 3506(c)(b)(iii)(V) applies and you may not compel anyone to disclose the requested information nor penalize them for failure to do so.
The precise wording of the applicable law is, "the fact that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number;"
Pointing out further that 44 USC 3512(a) PUBLIC PROTECTION further mandates "no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that is subject to this subchapter if—
(1) the collection of information does not display a valid control number assigned by the Director in accordance with this subchapter; or
(2) the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information that such person is not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a valid control number.
(b) The protection provided by this section may be raised in the form of a complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time during the agency administrative process or judicial action applicable thereto.
If you are statutorily exempt from the Paperwork Reduction Act, please cite the statute that gives you the exemption. Thank you.
This case was not about TSA and Mr. Mocek, this case was between New Mexico and Mr. Mocek. The situation originated with TSA, but once the LEOs arrived, it became a situation between Mr. Mocek and New Mexico. This case has nothing to do with ID requirements (which have not changed at TSA, they remain exactly the same as they have been), or TSA policies (they have not changed either). Filming has been allowed (with the same exceptions that have been there for ages) at the checkpoint areas since before I came to TSA (6 years ago). For all of you trying to present that this was a case against TSA, nothing has changed, the same requirements are there.
West
TSA Blog Team
You messed up with this post. I am still dizzy from the spin.
"GSOLTSO said:
his case was not about TSA and Mr. Mocek, this case was between New Mexico and Mr. Mocek. The situation originated with TSA, but once the LEOs arrived, it became a situation between Mr. Mocek and New Mexico. This case has nothing to do with ID requirements (which have not changed at TSA, they remain exactly the same as they have been), or TSA policies (they have not changed either). Filming has been allowed (with the same exceptions that have been there for ages) at the checkpoint areas since before I came to TSA (6 years ago). For all of you trying to present that this was a case against TSA, nothing has changed, the same requirements are there.
West
TSA Blog Team"
Ah, but it is considering the TSA has no arresting powers they have to bring in Local Law Enforcement.
This gentleman was arrested "because" of the altercation with the TSA and subsequently acquitted of charges without ever bringing any witnesses or testifying himself.. The local cops should have known better as should the TSA.
GSOLTSO said...
This case was not about TSA and Mr. Mocek, this case was between New Mexico and Mr. Mocek. The situation originated with TSA, but once the LEOs arrived, it became a situation between Mr. Mocek and New Mexico. This case has nothing to do with ID requirements (which have not changed at TSA, they remain exactly the same as they have been), or TSA policies (they have not changed either). Filming has been allowed (with the same exceptions that have been there for ages) at the checkpoint areas since before I came to TSA (6 years ago). For all of you trying to present that this was a case against TSA, nothing has changed, the same requirements are there.
West
TSA Blog Team
January 29, 2011 8:28 AM
.......................
The case was clearly about TSA and a citizen who stood up for their rights.
TSA had to call in reinforcements but it was all TSA that created a problem that did not exist.
TSA employees not following secret rules.
TSA employees being afraid to have their actions documented.
TSA employees acting like, well I can't say what they acted like here!
It was TSA.
And it was TSA that didn't post the outcome of the trail while TSA attacked a person on a government publication funded with taxpayer monies.
Blogger Bob has again put his name on something that demonstrates his disregard for the Constitution of the United States.
Is there a reason you don't mention that Mr. MOcek was acquitted of all charges?
Or does that not fit in with your agenda?
"Without an ID that matches the individual holding the boarding pass, we can’t be sure the passenger has cleared government watchlists."
Since ID and boarding passes are both easily faked, you do realize that your ID fetish makes no one safer, correct?
Your own employee admitted at the Mocek trial that he has no idea why you check IDs.
West, care to explain why the blog post doesn't mention that Mr. Mocek was acquitted of all charges in under an hour's jury deliberation?
GSOLTSO said: "This case was not about TSA and Mr. Mocek, this case was between New Mexico and Mr. Mocek. The situation originated with TSA, but once the LEOs arrived, it became a situation between Mr. Mocek and New Mexico. This case has nothing to do with ID requirements (which have not changed at TSA, they remain exactly the same as they have been), or TSA policies (they have not changed either)."
Funny that. Bob's original post does not mention what you're saying. Instead, he insinuates that Mr. Mocek for violating TSA ID requirements and TSA policies. He also doesn't mention that the jury acquitted Mr. Mocek without Mr. Mocek putting a single witness on the stand. Perhaps the comments wouldn't be so harsh if Bob's original posting wasn't written in a manner as to be intentionally misleading.
Dear TSA,
At the heart of this case, and every "incident" with the TSA is that law-abiding Americans do not trust the TSA. In the private sector, when organizations loose credibility, they try and alter their behaviors.
No where in the private sector would I pay someone to treat me badly - only at a TSA checkpoint staffed by employees that are paid by my tax dollars. The TSA will start to improve the day you stop blaming American citizens for your repeated public relations disasters and start to focus internally on your own poor behaviors.
@GSOLTSO This is absolutely a case about the TSA and Mr. Mocek - it was TSA who called the police and created the entire indicent. TSA staff were scared of the camera and escalated to police, even though none of the TSA rules referenced by you and Bob were broken. Mr. Mocek was not interfering with the process nor slowing things down.
What is the process that was being interfered with? The TSA was verifying his identity by asking for ID (he had no ID). How could Mr. Mocek slow down the process of TSA asking him questions by holding a camera?
Facts of the case, including publicly available video, showed that Mr. Mocek was following those procedures you just mentioned, and the statement that Mr. Mocek "appeared to be trying to film sensitive security information" is a lie that borders on slander.
Finally, Bob referenced his previous post that says "we ask that you do not film or take pictures of our monitors". Bob has previously ducked the question - where is it against the rules to do that? You can ask that pictures not be taken, but that doesn't mean it's illegal to do so. Please provide reference - passengers are not covered by SSI rules, so my understanding is that it's not illegal.
Another comment from the notoriously arrogant staff of the TSA. Clearly by now you realize that what you are doing is NOT SUPPORTED BY THE CITIZENS of our nation, but you respond saying that you are going to continue to abuse us and our rights even though we don't consent to what you are doing. This is the very definition of authoritarianism and it has NO PLACE IN A FREE NATION. Shame on all of you.
GSOLTSO said...
This case was not about TSA and Mr. Mocek, this case was between New Mexico and Mr. Mocek. The situation originated with TSA, but once the LEOs arrived, it became a situation between Mr. Mocek and New Mexico. This case has nothing to do with ID requirements (which have not changed at TSA, they remain exactly the same as they have been), or TSA policies (they have not changed either). Filming has been allowed (with the same exceptions that have been there for ages) at the checkpoint areas since before I came to TSA (6 years ago). For all of you trying to present that this was a case against TSA, nothing has changed, the same requirements are there.
West
TSA Blog Team
Another Anonymous poster said…
“Why do you lie about this? It only puts you in the same company as the Information Ministers of other tyrants.”
-------------------------------
The difference between a lie and the truth is that one is false and the other is not. Nothing Bob said about the situation with Mr. Mocek was inaccurate, and therefore not a lie. Its time for folks to recognize the difference between what they wish to believe and the facts.
My god, you really have lost it- you contradict yourself in the same paragraph!!
"Mr. Mocek had a boarding pass, but would not produce ID when asked. As I've said before here on the blog, if you don’t have an ID, TSA will work with you to verify you are who you say you are. On the other hand, if you refuse to provide information, you will not be permitted to fly. This process had begun with Mr. Mocek, but was not completed. Without an ID that matches the individual holding the boarding pass, we can’t be sure the passenger has cleared government watchlists."
So, which is it?
he was holding a camera up to film them and appeared to be trying to film sensitive security information related to TSA standard operating procedures on ID verification.
Exactly what is "sensitive security information related to TSA standard operating procedures on ID verification"?? Your little list of what IDs are valid?
Such behavior interferes with the ordinary course of business at the checkpoint and may well delay other passengers.
No- the TSA insisting on an ID when they have no right to see one is what slows things down and causes problems.
Oh- and despite FALSE charges of “concealing identity, disorderly conduct, refusing to obey an officer, and criminal trespass" being laid on him, the WAS found NOT GUILTY.
West -
This has everything to do with the TSA. The TSA testified, under oath, that there is no law that requires a passenger to produce ID. NO LAW. The TSA officers demanded it, and when Phillip did not produce it the TSO's escalated and brought in the cops. The police then repeated the demand. He was fully acquitted as the demand first by the TSA and then by the police to produce ID was shown to be unlawful. While the TSA policies have not changed, this case has everything to do with ID requirements.
Why is this in the TSA blog if "this case was between New Mexico and Mr. Mocek"?
The situation originated with TSA agent using the local police to enforce a fabricated policy. The man spent time in jail because of the TSA actions, and it took over a year (and apparently many thousands of dollars) to clear his name.
This story continues to do damage to him, when you should be instead making a very public apology.
Al Ames said...
It's intellectually dishonest not to mention that key fact, Bob. Not everyone will click on the link, and by the way you wrote it, many would think he was convicted.
--------------------------------
Al, it is intellectually dishonest to allude that being found “not guilty” is the same as being innocent. We both know better.
Jim Huggins said...
Actually, given how easy it is to forge a boarding pass, presenting an ID that matches an alleged boarding pass doesn't provide any assurance, either.
-------------------------------
Forging a boarding pass is far more difficult than you imagine Jim. One might be able to get it past the TDC, but I highly doubt that a forged pass will allow one to board an aircraft.
avxo said...
After all this SSO document is the very document that the TSO, by his own admission while on the stand and under oath, would have to show to Mr. Mocek, so he could verify the information on it and then sign.
---------------------------
Avxo, you do realize that there is a difference between showing the document to someone and allowing them to film it, right?
Gadfly asked….
“It would seem that travelers who do not have valid ID would be not uncommon…”
----------------------------------
Actually, it’s not common at all. Most passengers know to bring ID with them, it’s the inexperienced passenger that does not. And given today’s media blitz on the subject its very uncommon for someone to not know this.
Rock asked…
Why didn't you mention the TSA LOST this case and he was found not guilty?
--------------------------------
Because to do so would be a lie Rock. The TSA did not prosecute the case, the state of New Mexico did. It seems that Bob is one of the few here actually telling the truth.
GSOLTSO said...
This case was not about TSA and Mr. Mocek, this case was between New Mexico and Mr. Mocek. The situation originated with TSA, but once the LEOs arrived, it became a situation between Mr. Mocek and New Mexico. This case has nothing to do with ID requirements (which have not changed at TSA, they remain exactly the same as they have been), or TSA policies (they have not changed either).
So, you are denying the FACT that the TSA were the ones who involved the police?
Filming has been allowed (with the same exceptions that have been there for ages) at the checkpoint areas since before I came to TSA (6 years ago).
“Is there a problem with using a camera in the airport in publicly – in publicly accessible areas?” Mocek calmly asks.
“Yes, there is,” an officer answers.
For all of you trying to present that this was a case against TSA, nothing has changed, the same requirements are there.
And the same TSA disregard for them.
The TSA has posted a lot of spin, half-truths, and misinformation on this blog, but this post crosses the line.
Watch the video for yourselves: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Pc5DBUK1K8M#
> The case stemmed from Mr. Mocek’s failure to cooperate with the instructions of Albuquerque police officers at the Albuquerque International Sunport Airport after interactions he had with TSA transportation security officers.
No, the case stemmed from false allegations made by the TSA agents to the law enforcement officer. Watch the video.
>Mr. Mocek had a boarding pass, but would not produce ID when asked.
No, Mr. Mocek could not produce ID when asked. He didn't have ID on him. (At least, I've read nothing that contradicts this assertion made in the video. I assume if he had ID and refused to show it, he would have been found guilty on one of the charges. He wasn't.)
> This [backup ID checking] process had begun with Mr. Mocek, but was not completed.
Because of the actions of TSA, not Mr. Mocek.
> Without an ID that matches the individual holding the boarding pass, we can’t be sure the passenger has cleared government watchlists.
Even WITH an ID that matches the boarding pass, you cannot be certain the passenger has cleared the government watchlists. Nothing prevents a terrorist from using a false ID to purchase the ticket and then reprint the boarding pass with his/her real name and present that with real ID, even if his/her real name is on the watch lists. Do not try to distort this into the ID is for everyone's safety. The ID check is merely to destroy the ticket-resale market. It was a concession the government made to the airlines in order to get them to go along with real security measures that the airlines had historically resisted, like reinforcing the cockpit doors.
>As TSOs were talking to Mr. Mocek to verify his identity, he was holding a camera up to film them and appeared to be trying to film sensitive security information related to TSA standard operating procedures on ID verification.
This doesn't make sense. Other people have blogged about ID verification procedure in great detail. Apparently, that's OK. How does video taping the process change that? Remember that the video wasn't even posted until after the acquittal.
>Such behavior interferes with the ordinary course of business ...
The jury found otherwise by clearing him of the disturbing the peace charge.
Mr. Mocek was acquitted of all charges. His defense consisted of little more than the video tape.
So I guess the lesson here is that everyone should video all of their encounters at the checkpoint in order to protect themselves from false accusations made by TSA agents to police officers.
For contrast, imagine a world where TSA makes us safer with real security measures instead of wasting time and money on things that look impressive but don't actually improve security.
Imagine not having to put yourself at risk of identity theft by turning over far more personal information to a third-party airline than should be necessary to purchase a ticket.
Imagine not having to wonder why the reports that supposedly assure us the backscatter x-rays are safe have so many redactions (and why many in the biosciences don't agree with the conclusions and why employees who most work near the machines are denied dosimeters).
Imagine a world where complying with the rules was easy because the rules aren't secret and because they align with common sense.
Imagine not having to worry about how much time and money it's going to take to defend yourself from false allegations made by under-trained screeners at the checkpoint should something not go exactly according to their secret scripts.
Which world do you want to live in?
Some of the TSA officers make several false statements to the police. Will they be charged or disciplined for their actions?
The police officer also made one or two false statements. Will he receive remedial training?
Everything Mr. Mocek said in the video was true.
So Wrong, does that mean that if someone trumps up charges and then found not guilty that they were never innocent to begin with? That they needed to be taught a lesson?
Sorry, Phil didn't do anything wrong. TSA did. If anyone is innocent in this, it's Phil. If anyone is guilty in this, it's TSA and the ABQ airport PD.
Al
Concerning the "SSI" claim that many of you responded to. As Mr. Mocek's attorney very deftly got TSO Breedan to admit on the witness stand during Phil's trial, the process of verifying the identity of someone who wants to fly without ID involves the TSO completing this so-called "SSI" form with detailed personal information provided by the passenger, and then handing the completing form to the passenger, so that they can review it for accuracy, read the privacy act statement, and sign it, confirming that they have read, reviewed and understand it . In other words, not only is the passenger permitted to view this form (which again, Blogger Bob is claiming a big secret that cannot be filmed), the process actually requires the passenger to read it, and to sign a statement confirming they have done so, very possibly under penalty of perjury. So the "SSI" claim is ludicrous on its face.
RE TSORon's comments -- it is possible to lie via saying something that isn't true, but it is also possible to lie by omitting material facts -- IOW only telling a half-truth.
That's why, when testifying under oath, one swears to tell "...the whole truth...".
Mark
qui custodiet ipsos custodes
"We are grateful for the support provided to TSA by the Albuquerque police.
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team"
I am confused. You are greatful that the Albuquerque police brought charges which were not successfully prosecuted? You are greatful that photography of checkpoints was confirmed by a local jury?
What is the intent of this comment? Is the public to believe that it is the TSA's position that policies unpopular to some in the community need support from local police in order to continue harassing the american public?
I wrote: Actually, given how easy it is to forge a boarding pass, presenting an ID that matches an alleged boarding pass doesn't provide any assurance, either.
TSORon responded: Forging a boarding pass is far more difficult than you imagine Jim. One might be able to get it past the TDC, but I highly doubt that a forged pass will allow one to board an aircraft.
Ron, we've explained this to you multiple times. I can use a forged boarding pass with a genuine ID to get past the TDC, and then use a genuine boarding pass with a forged ID to board an aircraft. Voila. Security breach.
See, there's no reason to believe that the boarding pass I present as I board the aircraft is the same one that I present at the TDC.
Which again goes to prove the point: ID checks at a TSA checkpoint can be trivially circumvented.
West, who summoned the police and for what reason were they summoned?
It may not had ended with TSA but it CERTAINLY started there.
Tom
TSORon Said:
"Al, it is intellectually dishonest to allude that being found “not guilty” is the same as being innocent. We both know better. "
Under law being judged "not guilty" is a certification of innocence and it is intellectual dishonesty to pretend otherwise.
TSORon, so it's perfectly intellectually honest to imply the Moeck is in fact guilty of something?
The jury acquitted him. That is a simple fact, no matter how much you prevaricate.
Gadfly asked….
“It would seem that travelers who do not have valid ID would be not uncommon…”
----------------------------------
TSORon responded,
Actually, it’s not common at all. Most passengers know to bring ID with them, it’s the inexperienced passenger that does not. And given today’s media blitz on the subject its very uncommon for someone to not know this.
----------------------------------
Being common and being not uncommon are not necessarily the same thing. Given the sheer volume of passengers, a handful of passengers a day without ID not be a common experience, but it would be enough that the TDC should be able to quickly pick up on the procedure after a few shifts.
Could the TDC go shifts without having to deal with a passenger without ID?
My concern is that if taking pictures (video or otherwise) of SSI was an actual concern, then it would have to be out and visible. I think that this, as a common practice, would normally be bad security, but it doesn't take much thinking to come up with a legitimate reason for SSI to be out (best reason would be a new screener for obvious reasons). After all, it's not that hard to covertly take pictures, and if the passenger can see it from where they normally stand, then it's not all that secure to begin with.
Frankly i'm surprised you haven't deleted all of our dissenting comments. 1 point for you anyway.
TSARon, you wrote:
"Forging a boarding pass is far more difficult than you imagine Jim. One might be able to get it past the TDC, but I highly doubt that a forged pass will allow one to board an aircraft"
Sorry, but this just doesn't fly. Forging a boarding pass is 5 minutes of Photoshop. Getting it past the aircraft staff at the gate is not necessary. Here's how this huge flaw works:
Bad guy suspects he's on the no fly list. Bad guy finds an airport where the airline staff is lax about checking ID at the gate (many are - I used to fly out of SFO with United and a lot of the time they'd ask you to put away your passport at the gate because they were more concerned with getting the flight boarded quickly and they assume the id check has been done at the TSA checkpoint)
Then you find a local homeless person and have *them* buy a ticket in return for a $20
You then fake a boarding pass to fit your id.
You walk past TSA with your real id and fake boarding pass, given that at the checkpoints I've passed, the id's are just visually compared, so not checked against the no fly list.
Then you discard the false boarding pass, and board the plane with the real boarding pass issued to the person you paid.
This massive hole has been well known for 3-4 years at least - all it takes to find it is to fly a couple of times through pretty much any US airport. Any bad guys will know it, and it's easy to exploit.
But all of this of course assumes that the bad guys are on any watch lists in the first place, while as we all know the only terrorists stopped in the last few years were stopped *on the plane* by other passengers and there's no indication they did anything to bypass security checks.
Bob,
Frankly I do not understand what part of the ID verification process is "sensitive". Phillip had previously contacted TSA at the airport and they stated that he could take photos at the airport in TSA areas. Both you and TSA at airports need to get the facts straight regarding taking photos and shooting videos. I am sure that there are some passengers who video the entire security screening process without the TSA even knowing anything about what they are doing. Personally I think that arresting him for this was just TSA's way of getting him to stop commenting on the blog. Next time you post about a "hot button" topic reread the post before publishing.
Outside of the make believe world of "airport security", the rule of law; "innocent until proven guilty" still exists.
Blogger Bob: Fail at the spin. Mr Mocek was acquitted in the Justice system of the United States. Therefore, Mr Mocek was correct in the assumption that we do not have to provide photo ID to fly and that we can record our encounters with the TSA.
As TSOs were talking to Mr. Mocek to verify his identity, he was holding a camera up to film them and appeared to be trying to film sensitive security information related to TSA standard operating procedures on ID verification.
-------------------------------
I watched the video and just like the jury saw no evidence that phil was trying to film any part of the document. I saw a TSO that over-reacted to a passenger breaking no rules or procedures because he did not want to be recorded.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pc5DBUK1K8M
Please point out the part where phil was trying to film the TSA document.
It's funny how you seem to have omitted that he was not only acquitted of all the valid charges- but ALL OF THE FALSE CHARGES WHICH THE TSA CLAIMED.
You know, something that is usually considered A FELONY?
I hope to god he counter-sues the TSA for slander, because there is absolutely no way he could lose such a case, either.
Wow! Did TSORon just say "Al, it is intellectually dishonest to allude that being found “not guilty” is the same as being innocent. We both know better. "
Which part of "presumed innocent" do you not understand?
This certainly tells us something about the mindset of TSOs - apparently we are all presumed guilty.
This is perhaps the most disingenuous post I have ever read. How do you sleep at night, Bob?
Funny, TSORon tells us with all seriousness that 'a forged boarding pass will not get you on an airplane.'
True. But if a terrorist on a watch list wants on a commercial flight all he needs to do is use a false id and buy a ticket in that name.
Or, use a false Id to get past the wily tsa document checker and then get the boarding pass of someone not on a watch list once inside the secured area.
It is so simple to fly being on a watch list Assuming you are a terrorist with the resources of a terrorist organization.
The goal of security shoulD be to keep bad people off airplanes - not To ensure that paperwork is in order and we are safe from nail clippers. I would be 1000 times safer having arMed soldiers on an airplane than with 3 terrorists who have been screened for weapons.
Are you dizzy from all this spinning yet?
TSORon said...
The difference between a lie and the truth is that one is false and the other is not. Nothing Bob said about the situation with Mr. Mocek was inaccurate, and therefore not a lie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Lying_by_omission
"One lies by omission when omitting an important fact, deliberately leaving another person with a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions."
TSORon said...
it is intellectually dishonest to allude that being found “not guilty” is the same as being innocent. We both know better.
A technicality.
Forging a boarding pass is far more difficult than you imagine Jim. One might be able to get it past the TDC, but I highly doubt that a forged pass will allow one to board an aircraft.
::sigh:: The "S" in TSA does stand for "Security", right? And you don't know about the ability some airlines give passengers to print their own Boarding Passes at home? simple change of name, and a reprint, and viola- a forged Boarding Pass.
Avxo, you do realize that there is a difference between showing the document to someone and allowing them to film it, right?
Not really. Please enlighten us.
The TSA did not prosecute the case, the state of New Mexico did.
Then why is this story on the TSA BLOG, if it has nothing to do with the TSA??
"Without an ID that matches the individual holding the boarding pass, we can't be sure the passenger has cleared government watchlists."
Meanwhile, you keep 3-year-olds off the planes as dangerous suspected terrorists. I'm sure little Carbon is quite the troublemaker in nursery school, but the only thing explosive about him is likely to be found in his diaper.
"Forging a boarding pass is far more difficult than you imagine Jim. One might be able to get it past the TDC, but I highly doubt that a forged pass will allow one to board an aircraft."
I don't think I can explain the fatal flaw in your statement on this blog, but I think you and I are both fully aware of it.
If the man had actually committed the crime Bob discussed, which is filming SSI (and failure to provide ID to the TSA is not a crime, you just don't fly) - he would have been charged with that.
The TSA did not give the LEO any accusation of a crime to go on (because he didn't do anything illegal) so they threw on generic charges - and those generic charges usually stick in court, but even that didn't work.
So, as far as the false charge, that's totally on the LEO who should have gathered more evidence before arresting the man. But TSA was wrong for being rude, stating false policies, making threats, and calling LEO when no crime was committed.
Bob, will those TSA agents be apologizing for the false arrest? Or are they remaining silent due to the possibility of future litigation?
Many hours later and the original Blogger Bob post has not been modified to show that Phil was acquitted on all counts.
I imagine that this information will be very useful in any civil case brought against the TSA and/or Alb. authorities. It clearly shows their self-serving agenda and that they have a built-in bias against the FACTS.
I personally hope that Phil sues and is able to not only recover the thousands he spent to defend these trumped-up charges, but is able to inflict *extensive* punitive damages. Blogger Bob and his anti-American bully friends have just demonstrated exactly WHY one must video record their experience through TSA checkpoints: Because the TSA LIES. The video shows it, this blog post shows it, and the verdict of the case shows it.
TSA: WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DO NOT TRUST YOU!
PS: KEEP DIGGING YOUR HOLE!
Mr Mocek was arrested, detained, prevented from flying, charged and ultimately taken through the full Judicial and legal process with both statements and testimony from Airport Police AND Tsa of 'wrong-doing' and his only defence ( let me repeat that, his ONLY defence) was the video that he made, which he was told he was NOT ALLOWED to do.
Shame on TSA for supporting this all the way through the legal process, shame on you Bob for issuing the Blog above with such stupidly obvious spin, and shame on you for then trying to pretend that it wasn’t anything to do with TSA.
In the words of my 4 year old "it wasn’t me, I wasn’t there and anyway he started it"
TSA has problem customers, problems with proceedure, problem situations and problem staff. Guess what? every large organisation does.
Yet its how the situation is managed after the initial problem is the real test of the worth of an organisation;- and the realy scary part is not that that situation occured, not that TSA let it go as far as it did and not that Bobs blog and followup was as pathetic as it was. No the realy scary part is that you STILL just don't get it!
TSORon Said...
Al, it is intellectually dishonest to allude that being found “not guilty” is the same as being innocent. We both know better.
-----------------------------
This is a gross mischaracterization of the spirit, intent and practice of our legal system. And if you are ever falsely accused of a crime one day, perhaps you'll realize why.
TSORon Said...
Forging a boarding pass is far more difficult than you imagine Jim. One might be able to get it past the TDC, but I highly doubt that a forged pass will allow one to board an aircraft.
-----------------------------
Yup, you can get past the checkpoint. Then you can take your REAL boarding pass out of your coat pocket and present it to the gate agent, you doesn't require ID, and will scan it.
TSORon Said...
Avxo, you do realize that there is a difference between showing the document to someone and allowing them to film it, right?
------------------------------
There are people who would sign a document and not demand a copy for themselves? Good luck enforcing that one.
TSORon Said...
Because to do so would be a lie Rock. The TSA did not prosecute the case, the state of New Mexico did. It seems that Bob is one of the few here actually telling the truth.
--------------------------
You state that he failed to produce documentation. You state that law enforcement was summoned. You state that the issue went to court. Regardless of whether or not there is any lying, slander or libel involved, it's fairly disingenuous to fail to mention that the man was found in the eyes of the court of our land to have not violated any law related to the charges brought on by prosecutors after TSA called on law enforcement to intervene.
This just seems like a pretty weak post, slamming a man found not guilty, by an agency that surely didn't need more bad press.
I'm all for openness, but you guys might want to think about posting less... it doesn't seem to work out well, especially when you warp a few details here and there. Or did you think the comments here fairly represented a small minority of dissenters with a populace who pretty much seems to agree you guys are doing a great job.
The "check ID" policy is just pointless. Do you really think terrorists are too stupid to get a fake ID card?
One again, the illusion of providing security, but no real security.
TSORon wrote:
Forging a boarding pass is far more difficult than you imagine Jim. One might be able to get it past the TDC, but I highly doubt that a forged pass will allow one to board an aircraft.
This claim again? Sigh.
The bad guy won't use the forged boarding pass to board the plane. The bad guy will use a real BP printed at home (with no ID check) and purchased under a *fake* name that does not match the blacklist to board the plane.
The forged BP is only needed at the TDC. Then it can be tossed in the trash.
There's nothing at all preventing me form purchasing and printing boarding passes in someone else's name. Nor should there be. I do it all the time (for my spouse, family members, friends, etc.).
Blogger Bob,
This blog post is a joke. Before you parrot internal memos, you should verify the information with other sources. The man was acquitted of all charges...
No, you have it wrong
The case stemmed from =
our government requiring you to have "papers" in order to travel. Not very American to me...
Up until this moment, I have thought that the information TSA places on this blog is free of bias and spin.
You article has taught me that I was wrong. I will not make this mistake again.
TSORon said: "Avxo, you do realize that there is a difference between showing the document to someone and allowing them to film it, right?
We will get back to that in a minute. Let's address something else first, shall we?
On the stand, the TSO under questioning from Mr. Mocek's attorney stated that he had the form on a clipboard and he was holding it in such a way that it would be physically impossible for Mr. Mocek to film the form in question.
The whole notion that he tries to record SSI -- an accusation your people made to the police and which is on video -- collapses at that point.
Now on to your original question: Of course there is a difference, but it is irrelevant. The issue is not whether filming something and seeing something are different -- they are, just as painting something is different from sculpting something.
The issue is whether the TSA can control the actions of private citizens: whether it can require private citizens who are not in it's employ or under contractual obligation to TSA from photographing or filming a document.
A secondary issue is whether you can successfully convinced a Court that a document is so sensitive that it may not be divulged but, somehow, not sensitive enough to prevent those without clearance from seeing it. Because, frankly, you cannot have it both ways.
I suspect that the TSA includes a small statement at the bottom of the document stating that the person signing this (the passenger) agrees not to divulge the content of the document under penalty of law.
Since Mr. Mocek did not sign the document, even if he went on the air today, describing the fields to be filled in on that document, it is highly unlikely that the TSA could mount a successful prosecution.
You will note that they didn't even try...
The fact that a federal employee refers to "Government Watch Lists" so casually is very, very chilling.
Land of the free indeed.
I see the usual "TSO"'s are out with their spin and misinformation.
Keep talking boys. I know you Americans aren't big on "the world", but maybe take a look at Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen - THAT is what the TSA represents and the people WILL rise up eventually. You might want to re-evaluate who's side you are on before that.
Borderline libelous post, since (as many others have noted) he was found NOT GUILTY on all counts. The repeat the charges insinuates he was guilty of a crime.
Bob, thanks for the brief comments.
Contrary to your statement in this blog post and contrary to the testimony of Officer Dilley of the Albuquerque Aviation Police Department, I did not fail to cooperate with the instructions of any police officer when I was at ABQ on November 15, 2009. A jury found me not guilty me of all charges -- including failure to obey a lawful order of a police officer -- before Judge Kevin L. Fitzwater in the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court (criminal case 2573709) on January 21, 2011.
The best evidence available in this case was the video I made of my arrest and several minutes prior. The state presented that video as evidence in court. Your readers can see that video, with subtitles added, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pc5DBUK1K8M.
Much more detail about the case, including photos from trial, a nearly-full audio archive (jury selection was not recorded), and information about donating to my defense fund, can be found on the Identity Project Web site at http://papersplease.org/wp/mocek. The audio is available for download or streaming on the Internet Archive at http://www.archive.org/details/StateOfNewMexicoV.PhillipMocek, and is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license.
--
Phil Mocek
Showing ID only affects honest people.
What if the people with the power to secretly put your name on a "no-fly" list didn't like the reason for which you want to fly?
Blog Post updated.
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
"You should not repeat the allegations made against a private citizen without mentioning that he was acquitted of the charges. To do otherwise is irresponsible."
"Irresponsible" and possibly slanderous.
"Any passenger holding a camera in the face of TSOs "
The TSA simply can't be honest.
Apparently passengers exercising their rights can expect to be hassled retaliated against by poorly trained and unprofessional TSO's
Bob writes: TSA's goal is to ensure that all passengers who fly are checked against government watchlists. This can be achieved only if a passenger's identity is confirmed at the checkpoint.
Again, you fall into a logical fallacy. As has been demonstrated in numerous responses to this item, confirming passenger identities at the checkpoint does not assure that everyone who boards an aircraft has been checked against a government watchlist. It is trivially easy to circumvent such a check.
Bob,
I try and teach my children about honesty and ethics.
I used this blog post of an example of how they should not act. You may believe your post is truthful, but it is far from honest.
I expect more from my children.
Blogger Bob,
Thank you for updating the original post. The original post was very misleading to the average blog viewer, as it left out some very important facts regarding the case.
The TSA's reputation with the general flying public would be greatly improved if they would just be honest and upfront about things. This secrecy and "spinning" of events - that we can see with our own eyes - is what is leading to a huge disconnect between the TSA and the public.
Blogger Bob said...
Blog Post updated.
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
January 30, 2011 3:08 PM
------------------------
Blogger Bob,
You "update" is woefully inadequate. It is merely a throwaway preamble to your poor initial post, which, as far as I can tell, has not been updated at all.
Your preamble does quietly state Mr. Mocek was acquitted, and then continues to repeat the charges. You and your agency should be satisfied that justice has been served and should not feel the need to drag Mr. Mocek through the court of public opinion now that he has been rightfully acquitted.
Until you post a full, public apology to Mr. Mocek and rewrite your entire post to be a more honest representation, you should be ashamed of yourself and your agency.
"Any passenger holding a camera in the face of TSOs as they try verify identification should not be surprised if asked to step aside so that other passengers in line can be processed expeditiously without further disruption."
How does holding a camera slow the process? If my holding a camera slows the process, it is because the TSOs waste time not doing their job and instead focusing on my camera.
Any passenger absolutely should be surprised to be treated in such a manner. Holding a camera is simply not cause for further attention by the TSA or ANY government agency.
Gee, Bob, maybe if you'd told the truth in the first place you wouldn't have had to update it. Any chance you'll bother to apologize to Phil Mocek for your complete disregard for the truth?
Bob continues to claim on behalf of the TSA, even in the updated post above, that:
"The case stemmed from Mr. Mocek’s failure to cooperate with the instructions of Albuquerque police officers at the Albuquerque International Sunport Airport after interactions he had with TSA transportation security officers."
But clearly Bob and the TSA know that's not true. As those authorized by law to answer questions of fact, the jury found that Mr. Mocek had not failed to obey any lawful order of the Albuquerque police.
Bob, you are still lying, with the manifest intent to continue to defame Mr. Mocek. As you well know, a correct statement of the facts would be:
"The case stemmed from false accusations of Mr. Mocek’s failure to cooperate with the instructions of Albuquerque police officers at the Albuquerque International Sunport Airport after interactions he had with TSA transportation security officers."
Should you wish to mitigate (it's too late to cure it) the ongoing damage already done and continuing to be done by your continuing libel, by you personally and by the agency on whose behalf you are acting as official spokesperson, to Mr. Mocek's reputation, I suggest you modify your post immediately to explicitly retract and apologize for your prior libels, and to explicitly describe the claims of "Mr. Mocek’s failure to cooperate with the instructions of Albuquerque police officers" as pertaining to false allegations.
Should you fail to do so, that will of course be further evidence of your personal malice, and the malice of the agency on whose behalf you are acting, toward Mr. Mocek, and your reckless disregard for the truth in knowingly and deliberately continuing to publish the defamatory misstatement of the facts on this Web site even after it has been brought to your attention exactly how it misstates the facts.
TSA verification processes must proceed quickly and without interference. Any passenger holding a camera in the face of TSOs as they try verify identification should not be surprised if asked to step aside so that other passengers in line can be processed expeditiously without further disruption.
.........
Is it now TSA policy that actions going on in a TSA checkpoint may not be filmed or recorded?
...................
TSA's goal is to ensure that all passengers who fly are checked against government watchlists. This can be achieved only if a passenger's identity is confirmed at the checkpoint.
.................
Please explain how the TSA's TDC ensures a person is checked against the governments watchlists? The TDC has no reference material and in fact the traveler is screened against the watchlist when purchasing the ticket. I think TSA calls it "Secure Flight"!
TSA's TDC function is another TSA waste of money and manpower since ID checking has no impact on security.
Your post screams of "COMPLY COMRADE!"
Call Maker
Anon said
The case stemmed from =
our government requiring you to have "papers" in order to travel. Not very American to me...
...................................
Yet Eric Holder and the Courts ruled that its illegal to request papers from suspected Illegal Immigrants...
It just goes to prove you have more rights and privledges; If you're not an American citizen in while inside the USA...
The nice agent at the front of the Scanning Area is not checking my identity against any kind of Watch List. The Airlines are expected to do that for you. The nice Agent is there simply to make sure that I am me and I am holding my ticket and that the names of my id and my ticket match. Your claim of needing to verify against anything other than what is right in front of you at that point in the process is disingenuous.
Which reminds me, if I am holding my pass and my wife's pass (her hands are full) and I have both our ID's, which have our picture on them so it is pretty easy to tell which is whose, why does the nice Agent make me hand my wife's boarding pass and ID back to my wife who then has to hand it to the nice Agent who just took it from me to tell me she has to give him hers and I have to give him mine. Is this really the 'expedience' your Agency is promoting?
I have a question about the requirement to supply one's birthdate when making an airline reservation. This step was intended to reduce "false positives". What's to keep a terrorist or anyone else from supplying a false birthdate to avoid matching by secure flight? Since birthdates don't appear on boarding passes, there's no way for the document checker to verify that the birthdate on the ID matches the birthdate supplied to the airline (and to secure flight).
Thank you Mr Mocek, for standing up to terrorism in our airports.
By the TSA's own admission, they seem to be guilty of mishandling classified information. You can't have classified information exposed (i.e., not double-wrapped or in an approved container) in an area with noncleared people. Fail.
There is another issue in this case; someone tampered with the video card in the camera while it was in the ABQ Airport Police office, and attempted to erase the data. Mr. Mocek was able to recover the data, but there needs to be an investigation into the tampering. This may not be directly related to the TSA in this case, but it taints the integrity of the legal process.
Hmmm... you continue to say that Mr. Mocek "failure to cooperate with the instructions of Albuquerque police officers", yet a jury acquitted him.
Last I checked, we are a nation of laws, and the courts are the place where one is found to have committed the acts or not committed the acts.
Are you substituting your judgment for that of the court? Would doing so be classified as propaganda?
Freedom wins.
Everyone is harping on the "Not Guilty" verdict. A jury of his peers found OJ Simpson not guilty as well while most thinking Americans disagreed. To those idiots spouting drivel about SSI not being classified, you're right but so what. It is controlled information and there is a law that makes it so. All your self righteous whining does not change it. You're the same crowd who became angry when a traitorous private gave away classified information to wikileaks but you think SSI information should be freely handed out to every dimwit who asks for it. That includes you Mr. fired Air Marshall.
There is no misleading here, just a lot of refusal to admit facts that are inconvenient. Interferring with screening? How would you like to be behind this knucklehead in line waiting to get to your flight and have his little public display keep you standing there rather than boarding your flight? I fly a lot and have grown tired of the lunatics who have a point to prove at my expense. Get out of the way and let me go through the legal process to board my flight. If you truly think you have legal grounds to fight with TSA, take it to court and to Congress. Think about it, would you be able to do your job properly with a camera shoved in your face by an antagonistic customer? I don't feel comfortable that the officers are able to do their job right with distractions and protests. Take your camera and step aside, you can film from out of the way and nobody at TSA is going to bother you. That has been the case for years and I have seen it to be true in a dozen airports over the last few years. Just stay out of my way and the officers way and you're fine. Get in the way or act like a priviledged nut and you are interferring in my book.
@Anon: "Everyone is harping on the "Not Guilty" verdict. A jury of his peers found OJ Simpson not guilty as well while most thinking Americans disagreed.
I was waiting for the OJ comment. We might suspect OJ still did it, but it wasn't proven sufficiently in a court of law thanks to a defense lawyer doing his job and a prosecutor not doing hers. However, in Phil's case, he had evidence that showed exactly what happened. A jury of his peers reviewed the evidence and also the testimony of the screener and cop and found in favor of Phil. It's pretty hard to compare Phil to OJ when we could see what exactly happened with Phil and we couldn't with OJ. Apples and oranges, no pun intended.
"To those idiots spouting drivel about SSI not being classified, you're right but so what. It is controlled information and there is a law that makes it so. All your self righteous whining does not change it. You're the same crowd who became angry when a traitorous private gave away classified information to wikileaks but you think SSI information should be freely handed out to every dimwit who asks for it. That includes you Mr. fired Air Marshall.
There's a big difference between leaking actual classified information and an overused SSI. TSA has been found to be overclassifying information to prevent disclosure. Thus what TSA considers might be SSI may not actually be so.
"There is no misleading here, just a lot of refusal to admit facts that are inconvenient. Interferring with screening?"
Had TSA not escalated the situation, there wouldn't have been an issue. TSA is at fault here.
You're also ignoring the facts that there are video that showed exactly what happened, so it's disingenuous to be accusing people of ignoring facts when you yourself are doing it.
" How would you like to be behind this knucklehead in line waiting to get to your flight and have his little public display keep you standing there rather than boarding your flight?
I fly a lot and have grown tired of the lunatics who have a point to prove at my expense. Get out of the way and let me go through the legal process to board my flight."
I would have thanked him for his stand.
Anon, you don't understand how our court system works. In order to go before a judge, one has to experience injury by a law in order to challenge it. So one has disobey an unjust law, get arrested, and then challenge it before the judge. I can't have a judge review a law simply because I think it sucks.
I find it ironic that you're harping about people being selfish and protesting and making a point on the grounds that if affects YOU, as it makes you wait, etc. Seems hypocritical.
"Think about it, would you be able to do your job properly with a camera shoved in your face by an antagonistic customer? I don't feel comfortable that the officers are able to do their job right with distractions and protests"
If I were doing my job properly, I would have no problem with being filmed. As many TSA apologists have said on here, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to be afraid of.
"Take your camera and step aside, you can film from out of the way and nobody at TSA is going to bother you. That has been the case for years and I have seen it to be true in a dozen airports over the last few years. Just stay out of my way and the officers way and you're fine."
Many reported incidents have shown this isn't the case. Are you going to be there to defend someone who does what you say and gets hassled because of it?
"Just stay out of my way and the officers way and you're fine. Get in the way or act like a priviledged nut and you are interferring in my book."
Again, it all comes down to you. If someone doesn't agree, they're a privileged nut. Ever try looking in the mirror when basing your arguments on things like this?
Earl
Digital recordings are the only way to protect ourselves from inaccurate TSA accounts - after the fact accounts with no documentation are useless.
As for the person who asked the "priviledged nuts" to step aside so that he/she won't be delayed through the screening process, too bad. Get in another line.
Most of the delays I witness from my frequent travels are the result of TSA behaviors, not passengers.
Anonymous said:
"Everyone is harping on the "Not Guilty" verdict. "
Yes, it shows that everything the TSA and ABQ police alleged was not supported by the evidence. It is astounding that you don't see the significance of that.
"To those idiots spouting drivel about SSI not being classified, you're right but so what."
Wow.
"There is no misleading here, just a lot of refusal to admit facts that are inconvenient. Interferring with screening?"
NO MISLEADING? You must be joking. To talk about the case without mentioning that the subject of the article was acquited is more than misleading; it is libelous.
"I fly a lot and have grown tired of the lunatics who have a point to prove at my expense."
Then I'd tell you what many have told others on this site: If you don't like it, don't fly. The TSA that you seem to be apologizing for had said that flying is a privilege. I'm not about to restrict American's rights to avoid you being inconvenienced. Take a train.
" Just stay out of my way and the officers way and you're fine. "
So you're more important than me? Not in my book you're not. In fact, by going mindlessly going along with illicit procedures, you're interfering with my rights. Why would you deny me my Constitutionally guaranteed rights?
This is ridiculous. What kind of PR nonsense to confuse the masses is this story anyway. TSA obviously wrongfully arrested a citizen and isn't owning up to it. Apologize, admit that you're wrong and stop this scare tactic already.
During the trial, a witness employed by the TSA testified that police were summoned because Mr. Mocek was trying to record SSI material. This witness was referring to the form used to record information obtained from a traveller with no ID.
Is this form, when not completed, SSI? Does the traveller get a copy of this form after he/she signs it?
Bob -
Does TSA expect TSOs to know why they are required to check ID?
How in the world could all of the TSA employees involved in checking this man's identity not know that it is permissible to record at the checkpoint?
Any TSAers care to comment?
Why did you intentionally leave out the fact that a jury acquitted Mocek?
"If you truly think you have legal grounds to fight with TSA, take it to court and to Congress."
---------------------------------
That is exactly what Mr. Mocek did. Not only did he confront the TSA (indirectly) in court, but he won.
"Think about it, would you be able to do your job properly with a camera shoved in your face by an antagonistic customer? "
----------------------------------
1) I haven't seen any evidence that Mr. Mocek was "antagonistic."
2) Yes, if my job merely required me to pass a UV light over IDs all day, I think I would still be able to do it with a camera in my face. Perhaps you can explain why, in your view, a citizen filming at the checkpoint objectively impedes on a given TSOs ability to perform the functions of their job.
Lastly, I'd like to ask you: Do you believe that citizens have an obligation to follow unlawful orders? Do you think that refusing an unlawful order should itself be considered a crime?
(Also, to Bob: If you are going to make "In so far as you want to fly.." the new "Do you want to fly today," then at least spell it right: insofar= one word
It's funny how the opening of this post implies that Mocek was causing trouble. Asserting one's rights in the face of attempts to remove those rights is not causing trouble. It's great that he did that.
Anonymous wrote: "Everyone is harping on the "Not Guilty" verdict. A jury of his peers found OJ Simpson not guilty as well while most thinking Americans disagreed."
The only opinion poll that matters is the one take by the jurors. Whether most Americans agree or disagree, O.J. was found not guilty in the criminal case brought against him.
Also: "To those idiots spouting drivel about SSI not being classified, you're right but so what. It is controlled information and there is a law that makes it so. All your self righteous whining does not change it."
The government cannot bind private individuals that are not in its employ from divulging information that the government has voluntarily made available to those individuals.
Also: "You're the same crowd who became angry when a traitorous private gave away classified information to wikileaks"
Correction: He allegedly gave away classified information. No charges have been filed against him yet. And at any rate, it's a very different situation. He was in the employ of the government and have entered into binding agreements not to divulge information.
Anonymous wrote: "There is no misleading here, just a lot of refusal to admit facts that are inconvenient."
I don't think that Bob intended to mislead anyone, although I do think the post was poorly written. But I am curious, whom are you talking about?
Anonymous also wrote: "Interferring with screening? How would you like to be behind this knucklehead in line waiting to get to your flight and have his little public display keep you standing there rather than boarding your flight?"
There appears to be no disruption in the screening from the video that Mr. Mocek shot and made available online. What evidence do you have that he did?
Anonymous wrote: "I fly a lot and have grown tired of the lunatics who have a point to prove at my expense."
How many such 'lunatics' have you encountered during your multitude of flights? 5? 25? 100? Were they all equipped with cameras? Were they all arrested? Were they all charged?
Anonymous wrote: "If you truly think you have legal grounds to fight with TSA, take it to court and to Congress. "
You have a fundamental misunderstand of how one gets to take a case to Court. You must have a grievance first in order to have standing. I guess with all the flying you do you don't have much time to study Law. It's understandable.
Anonymous wrote: "Think about it, would you be able to do your job properly with a camera shoved in your face by an antagonistic customer?"
The TSOs already do their job with cameras overhead and they encounter "antagonistic" customers every day. What difference does it make if those customers have a camera or not?
Anonymous wrote: "I don't feel comfortable that the officers are able to do their job right with distractions and protests."
Next thing, you'll actually demand that people not speak until spoken to. Sounds fun.
Anonymous wrote: "Take your camera and step aside, you can film from out of the way and nobody at TSA is going to bother you. That has been the case for years and I have seen it to be true in a dozen airports over the last few years."
Even if you travel extensively, you've only seen an infinitesimally small percentage of the interactions between the public and TSA, and you are extrapolating. Statistically, your inference is bogus. But I guess, with all the traveling you have no time to study statistics either.
Also: "Just stay out of my way and the officers way and you're fine."
What, exactly, will you do if someone gets in your way? Just curious.
Of course, let's not forget that it's been demonstrated that you won't, necessarily, be fine even if you follow all the rules and regulations.
Also: "Get in the way or act like a priviledged nut and you are interferring in my book."
It's a good thing your book means very little in this respect. Just as the TSA's book and the ABQ police's book meant very little in Mr. Mocek's case.
Why haven't you mentioned the handful of TSA agents who were originally scheduled to testify, until their sworn statements were compared against a videotape (that the TSA hoped was deleted) and they weren't then brought out to commit another count of perjury, this time on the stand? Has the TSA taken any action against its perjuring employees? Will it?
Anonymous said...
Everyone is harping on the "Not Guilty" verdict.......How would you like to be behind this knucklehead in line waiting to get to your flight and have his little public display keep you standing there rather than boarding your flight? I fly a lot and have grown tired of the lunatics who have a point to prove at my expense. Get out of the way..........
Thanks for clearing that up. You hit the nail right on the head. I too fly a LOT, and have grown tired of the occasional lunatic TSA screener who let his/her ego inflate thier heads and tie myself or someone else in front of me up in the line with thier passive harrassment and bullying. If they think they have legal authority to detain or delay passengers with make believe rules, go get a different job.
Fact is, as often as I fly, I have never been held up by passengers trying to put on a public display. NEVER!!!!! But I have on many occasions, been held up by ego-inflated TSA screeners who over-extend thier authority.
Anonymous writes: How would you like to be behind this knucklehead in line waiting to get to your flight and have his little public display keep you standing there rather than boarding your flight? I fly a lot and have grown tired of the lunatics who have a point to prove at my expense. Get out of the way and let me go through the legal process to board my flight. If you truly think you have legal grounds to fight with TSA, take it to court and to Congress.
Mr. Mocek did exactly as you suggested. He took his case to court, and won. So what's your problem?
Your omission of the fact that he was acquitted of the bogus charges is a shameful embarrassment to the TSA Blog and in fact to the entire administration.
Your repetition in the posting of the illegal orders your colleagues gave to Mr. Mocek as though they have any relevance whatsoever makes you look downright evil.
Please update the post with a clear, unqualified note that he was acquitted of the wrongful charges.
Anonymous said...
Call Maker
...................................
Yet Eric Holder and the Courts ruled that its illegal to request papers from suspected Illegal Immigrants...
It just goes to prove you have more rights and privledges; If you're not an American citizen in while inside the USA...
*******************************
What a true statement. Sad, isn't it?
What is the penalty for citizens lying to government officials? Well, Martha Stewart spent 5 months in federal prison for making false statements.
What is the penalty for government officials lying to citizens? Oh, right, none.
The video taken by Phillip Mocek shows TSO's making numerous false statements to him. Example: Mocek says that there is no rule baring him from using a video camera in the publicly accessible areas. TSO: "This is a federal checkpoint, you can't do that here."
The TSA has publicly stated that video taping is allowed. The TSA website is very clear on this: http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/taking_pictures.shtm. Here is the policy stated on your own website:
TSA does not prohibit the public, passengers or press from photographing, videotaping or filming at security checkpoints, as long as the screening process is not interfered with or slowed down. We do ask you to not film or take pictures of the monitors.
It says nothing about other secure information. It says nothing about not photographing or videotaping forms or other paperwork. Most intelligent people would assume that this means that nothing that everyone at the checkpoint can see is sensitive information.
The TSO's in the videos do not clarify with something like "You can videotape but there are some things we're going to ask you not to." We see TSO's attempting to grab the camera. We see a police office holding his baton up and prodding the camera. We hear TSO's raising their voices and attempting to intimidate Mr. Mocek.
Why lie about things that are so obvious? Why can't you acknowledge that your agents don't know the rules? Why can't you acknowledge that your agents didn't follow the rules?
Phillip Mocek deserves a public apology from your agency. The TSO's and the police officer in the video caused the commotion, not Phillip Mocek. I'm sorry that the TSO's do not like applying the TSA policy as stated. That is YOUR problem, not our problem.
When will the personnel in the video be retrained or, preferably, fired?
Anon said
Under law being judged "not guilty" is a certification of innocence and it is intellectual dishonesty to pretend otherwise.
January 29, 2011 3:01 PM
-----------------------------------
Tell that to the millions of people that disagreed with the OJ verdict. Then tell that to to all of the people that wouldn't hire him after.
Anonymous said...
Interferring with screening? How would you like to be behind this knucklehead in line waiting to get to your flight and have his little public display keep you standing there rather than boarding your flight?
False premise. It was not "his little display" that caused the delay. It was the TSA.
Get out of the way and let me go through the legal process to board my flight.
Don't get your panties in a bunch- you can snivel and grovel at the feet of Your Masters The TSA in a few minutes, AFTER the Real American stands up for his Rights.
Think about it, would you be able to do your job properly with a camera shoved in your face by an antagonistic customer?
People like you keep using that phrase "camera shoved in your face". Have you even seen the video? He was not "in their face" with the camera. Not at all. And to use that phrase to deliberately make it seem as if he was is... well, let's just say "innaccurate" instead of "lying", okay?
Blogger Bob said...
"TSA verification processes must proceed quickly and without interference. Any passenger holding a camera in the face of TSOs as they try verify identification should not be surprised if asked to step aside so that other passengers in line can be processed expeditiously without further disruption."
OK, Bob... But should a passenger doing this also expect AIRPORT POLICE TO BE CALLED?
Can't you admit that the agents in Phil's video screwed up? You'll freely admit when other agents screw up in less severe ways than what we saw here.
OK, Anonymous, I'll take the troll bait.
On second thought, you aren't worth the effort. Let's just say that I wore our country's uniform for 26 years to preserve your right to write and publish stuff which I personally view as offensive.
And, I wore the same uniform for the same amount of time to preserve the right of Phil and all Americans to protest what they believe to be wrong with the government and to bring redress against the government on the people's terms and not the government's.
I expect all government employees, including myself -- no, I DEMAND that all government employees conduct themselves with honesty, transparency, and integrity. A personal attack using official communication methods against an individual whom they believe to be an antagonist following a court decision to which the agency does not agree is bizarre at best and libelous at worst.
I trust the entire TSA staffing at Albuquerque have been retrained or fired?
Also, I suggest retraining your TSOs responding here, since they don't seem to understand the basic concept of "presumption of innocence".
Blogger Bob TSA Blog Team
Let's face it. You've lied in the past about the interactions of the TSA with the public.. lied about the TSA's interaction with Mr. Mocek.. and will no doubt lie about future TSA interactions with the public.
The fact is Blogger Bob.. you carry NO credibility what so ever when it comes to things that you say.
Knowing the above.. how can one live with themselves knowing they're nothing more than a shill.. a mouthpiece for the TSA? It must be hard looking at one face in the mirror!
TSA peeps - when you're in a hole, stop digging.
Anonymous who gets annoyed at people like Phil M - it's people like you the TSA and other would-be authoritarians rely on to allow them to erode and eventually remove the rights of everyone. Your rights are like your muscles and your mind - exercise them every now and then, or you'll find they're no longer there when you need them.
Frankly, as someone who regularly has to choose between flying via China or via the US, I am far more inclined to trust the Chinese than the US airport security and immigration staff to treat me with respect and not to arbitrarily violate my rights. How the mighty have fallen.
"Any passenger holding a camera in the face of TSOs "
OK, fine, Bob -- how about confirming that holding a camera at chest level during the TSO interaction is just fine in your book? As was revealed in the trial, the whole process was being filmed by your own surveillance cameras; a passenger's camera represents no more of an "interference" in the screening process that these do.
Moreover, the main lesson of this trial for travellers is that TSOs and LEOs are more than willing to lie under oath in order to obtain a conviction, so if your preference is to not be framed for crimes you didn't commit, you had better video record every last encounter you have with such officials. Without that video, Mocek undoubtedly would have been convicted by the perjurious testimony of the 19 TSA and police witnesses you had lined up for the first trial, before you discovered there was a video that contradicted every word of the fabricated testimony they planned to give.
TSA may not have been disbanded for being a lying, self-interested, useless bureaucracy. It repeatedly gets funding. In so far as TSA would care to work with citizens to protect the Nation’s transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce, TSA would still need to refrain from being a lying, self-interested useless bureaucracy.
Any agency that spends tens of billions per year on theatrical measures that bankrupt our country and enrich lobbyists should not be surprised if asked to justify their marginal societal benefits as compared to other systems which actually do save countable numbers of lives.
TSA's goal of ensuring that all passengers are checked against government watchlists cannot be achieved by checking a potential terrorist's identity card against the potential terrorist's self-supplied boarding pass.
The TSA's "Egypt" moment is commming - you violate the bill of rights, employ East German Stasi programs and policies and spout lies in the face of fact. The TSA and DHS are an Embarrassment to America and all freedom loving people.
I just listened to the audio of the trial. Why did the TSO never just say, "Hey, I'd rather you not film this document. Could you point the camera toward the line for a minute?"
This entire incident was so completely unnecessary, and to blame it on Mr. Moceck is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen.
Amen, 10:42 a.m. 1/31!
@ 10:42 a.m. 1/31
"I fly a lot and have grown tired of the lunatics who have a point to prove at my expense."
I take it you are not referring to the TSA as 'lunatics who have a point to prove'.
I had about 70k miles last year.
I have never seen a passenger 'act out'.
How many times have you been affected by "lunatics who have a point to prove"?
None?
"We are grateful for the support provided to TSA by the Albuquerque police."
You are grateful that you got the police to support you in harassing and prosecuting a citizen who was acting lawfully?
That is sad, sick and un-American.
Unfortunately, I think the TSA brought a lot of this down on itself.
If TSA personnel had a reputation for being courteous professionals instead of ill tempered, authoritarian, bullies, there would be a lot less desire to record one's interactions with them.
If the watch list/no fly list process respected the constitutional protections against trail in absentia and the rights of due process, a statement of the charges against you, and the right to confront one's accuser, there'd be less opposition to showing ID.
It is especially ironic that the TSA trots out video when it's convenient for the organization, but not when it's advantageous for the passenger. In the early days of this blog, someone suggested casino-style "eye in the sky" surveillance of checkpoints and checked baggage screening as an accountability measure, and TSA personnel screamed bloody murder. What are they afraid of?
It is also ironic that in the TSA's "papers please" mindset, TSA personnel have a reputation for refusing to identify themselves to a passenger.
As Dr. Phil says, "you create what you fear". The TSA fears the "contempt of TSO" scenario, and ends up giving passengers more reasons not to respect the organization or its personnel.
Mark
qui custodiet ipsos custodes
Anon sez – “West, care to explain why the blog post doesn't mention that Mr. Mocek was acquitted of all charges in under an hour's jury deliberation?
Because the thread was more about the ID requirements than the court case. It was merely stating that this was not between Mr. Mocek and TSA, and it has had no impact on TSA regulations – which remain the same as they were prior to this court case. The thread has since been updated to include the information you are asking about.
A different Anon sez – “So, you are denying the FACT that the TSA were the ones who involved the police?”
Not at all.
Freedom of Movement sez – “I am confused. You are greatful that the Albuquerque police brought charges which were not successfully prosecuted?”
Not at all, Bob was simply thanking the ABQ PD for their assistance, it is a common practice to thank other organizations that come to assist you when you ask them too.
Another Anon sez – “The case stemmed from =
our government requiring you to have "papers" in order to travel. Not very American to me...”
We need you to have a boarding pass and there is a process in place for folks that do not have ID. We use it all the time.
West
TSA Blog Team
Anon began with – “Everyone is harping on the "Not Guilty" verdict. A jury of his peers found OJ Simpson not guilty as well while most thinking Americans disagreed.” And continued with many other comments.
Thanks! Nice to see someone else making a point about what happens when the process is held up for personal reasons instead of sheer volume of traffic. It causes delays and takes away time from other people. Thanks for making these points.
Earl Pitts sez – “There's a big difference between leaking actual classified information and an overused SSI.”
From a end user point of view, there is no difference. The TSO at the checkpoint has to operate under the rules they are given. You may make the case that some of the items rated as SSI should not be SSI, but to the TSO at the TDC, it makes no difference – they still have to follow those rules until the classifying authority rates the information non-SSI. The TSOs all the way up to FSDs and beyond have a duty to follow those rules, to do otherwise could open them up to charges/punitive actions on behalf of the organization.
Anon sez – “So you're more important than me?”
No passenger is more important than any other, so your argument makes the case for both sides of this argument. A passenger making a social statement is no more important than the one wanting to get through screening and go get a coffee. The problem is the one making a stand causes delays for others, and the others have a valid right to make complaint about it – just like you have the right to complain about the procedures in place in the checkpoints.
Anon sez – “How in the world could all of the TSA employees involved in checking this man's identity not know that it is permissible to record at the checkpoint?”
The question was not about filming in the checkpoint area, but about what was being filmed – namely SSI material, which the TSOs have a duty to try and prevent.
Anon sez – “at least spell it right: insofar= one word”
Wow, free English lessons!! Thanks…
West
TSA Blog Team
"The question was not about filming in the checkpoint area, but about what was being filmed – namely SSI material, which the TSOs have a duty to try and prevent."
West, your own screener testified that the form he claimed Mocek was trying to film was not visible to the camera. Please try telling the truth instead of lying.
The TSO at the checkpoint has to operate under the rules they are given.
West,
There is plenty of incidences where TSO's have not operated under the rules.
In this case, the TSO did not operate under the rules of photography at the checkpoint. If he had, the police would not have been called.
We need you to have a boarding pass and there is a process in place for folks that do not have ID. We use it all the time.
West
TSA Blog Team
February 2, 2011 1:20 PM
..................
except at ABQ when the traveler has a camera rolling.
The question was not about filming in the checkpoint area, but about what was being filmed – namely SSI material, which the TSOs have a duty to try and prevent.
West
TSA Blog Team
February 2, 2011 1:21 PM
The SSI material was a form, reportedly on a clipboard that a camera cannot see through and after being filled out requires the travelers signature.
How can this form be SSI if a non-TSA employee gets to read it and sign it?
The ABQ situation was nothing more than TSA's Contempt of Passenger and TSA's whining about be held to account for TSA employee actions.
West, there was no holdup at the line when I was at the airport. The only holdup happened when Johnathon Breedon of TSA "paused" the process (he insisted in court that he did not stop the process) after seeing me using my camera -- lawfully -- at the checkpoint, and that didn't affect other passengers. I had been pulled out of line. I didn't cause that, he did. People can watch this for themselves in the video I created of my arrest.
Officer Dilley claimed that there was a disruption, and that he waived people through, but my video shows that he was facing away from them and could not have done so. In fact, the video shows people flowing through the line without delay.
Your policies and procedures are hearsay until you publish them. When will you publish the rules passengers are required by you to follow? I'm not looking for blog posts, press releases, mobile applications, and tips for travelers, just the definitive source of the rules you impose on us. How are we to determine if they're constitutional? How can we ensure our compliance with them? How can we know whether or not your airport security guards are simply making up rules on-the-fly?
Your My TSA Web site still incorrectly states that all passengers over 18 must present one of certain identity documents. Will TSA correct this, or continue to mislead people?
--
Phil Mocek
Showing ID only affects honest people.
What if the people with the power to secretly put your name on a "no-fly" list didn't like the reason for which you want to fly?
Blogger GSOLTSO said...
The question was not about filming in the checkpoint area, but about what was being filmed – namely SSI material, which the TSOs have a duty to try and prevent.
=======================
If the material is SSI then why is it in public view to begin with?
Are you saying I am allowed to view SSI material as long as i don't record it?
What if I am legally recording the CP and then a clerk passes in front my camera with an SSI clipboard exposed and it gets recorded......can I then be charged with recording SSI material because of the clerks failure to cover-up the clipboard?
Under law being judged "not guilty" is a certification of innocence and it is intellectual dishonesty to pretend otherwise.
Not really. Being judged "not guilty" simply means the government failed to prove it's case against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt (a pretty high standard of proof), and therefore won't have to pay the penalty of a criminal conviction. The crime may still have been committed, but the standard of proof isn't there. Hense the verbiage "not guilty" rather than "innocent"--there's a difference.
GSOLTSO wrote: "The question was not about filming in the checkpoint area, but about what was being filmed – namely SSI material, which the TSOs have a duty to try and prevent."
At no time was Mr. Mocek physically able to film SSI material, a point his attorney made very effectively while your personnel were on the stand.
So please stop repeating this blatant falsehood.
West (GOLTSO) wrote:
===
The question was not about filming in the checkpoint area, but about what was being filmed – namely SSI material, which the TSOs have a duty to try and prevent.
===
Why didn't the TSO's point this out to Mr Mocek then? We've seen the video. The TSO's do not say "You can't film this form." They don't say "Point the camera away from my clipboard." They say "This is a federal checkpoint, you can't do that here."
The facts are clear. You are lying. Your agency is lying. You lost your court case and you continue to try to smear Mr Mocek for following the rules you published.
Mr Mocek was arrested for contempt of TSA and contempt of cop. The fact is that he was complying with all TSA rules and regulations. Your agents did not understand the rules, saw fit to harass him and then used a police officer who was also ignorant of the rules (and, to be fair, he was having the rules explained to him by the TSO's whom he probably assumed knew the regulations) to arrest Mr Mocek.
Stop lying and apologize to Mr Mocek and the public for your illegal harassment and lies.
"Anon said
Under law being judged "not guilty" is a certification of innocence and it is intellectual dishonesty to pretend otherwise.
January 29, 2011 3:01 PM
-----------------------------------
Tell that to the millions of people that disagreed with the OJ verdict. Then tell that to to all of the people that wouldn't hire him after."
The "court of public opinion" is not held to any legal, moral or ethical standards. In a court of Law, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. On as side note, I've met a Medical Examiner who testified at OJ's trial. He has his own theory about who actually committed the murders.
Yet another Annonymous wrote:
"Not really. Being judged "not guilty" simply means the government failed to prove it's case against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt (a pretty high standard of proof), and therefore won't have to pay the penalty of a criminal conviction. The crime may still have been committed, but the standard of proof isn't there. Hense the verbiage "not guilty" rather than "innocent"--there's a difference."
____
Remember too, though, that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty, so that not being proved guilty means that legally one is still innocent.
Tom
Anonymous wrote: The TSO's do not say "You can't film this form." They don't say "Point the camera away from my clipboard." They say "This is a federal checkpoint, you can't do that here."
To be fair, an ABQ police officer made that last statement you quote, not a member of TSA.
Much more interesting - and almost completely ignored - is the exchange of words between Mr. Mocek and a TSA employee that then reaches out and grabs Mr. Mocek's camera. This sort of thing has routinely resulted in people facing assault charges, but in this case, with video of the incident available, not so much as a peep has been heard.
Bob et al., does the TSA have anything to say about that particular event, which is clearly captured on video?
Interesting the vast array of theories that came out after my last post to this thread. You folks are more than welcome to believe each and every one of these pet theories, honestly, I won’t complain. And I honestly hope that the bad guys read them and try each and every one. It’s a good way to reduce the number of bad guys out there in the “wild” and increase the number of bad guys in prison.
RB Said…
The ABQ situation was nothing more than TSA's Contempt of Passenger
----------------------
It’s probably a good thing then that it’s not against the law then isn’t RB.
The ABQ situation was about a person who wanted to make a political point and not about a person who wanted to fly somewhere. Airports are for flyers, not for making political points.
Tomas said ….
Remember too, though, that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty, so that not being proved guilty means that legally one is still innocent.
------------------------
Parsing words now are we Tom? “Innocent” means that you didn’t do it, “Not Guilty” means that guilt cannot be proven. It’s a simple concept, try not making it more difficult than it is.
Avxo said…
is the exchange of words between Mr. Mocek and a TSA employee that then reaches out and grabs Mr. Mocek's camera. This sort of thing has routinely resulted in people facing assault charges
---------------------
I didn’t know that it was possible to “assault” a camera. Can you provide a link to that law for us please?
Tomas said...
Remember too, though, that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty, so that not being proved guilty means that legally one is still innocent.
____
TSORon said...
Parsing words now are we Tom? “Innocent” means that you didn’t do it, “Not Guilty” means that guilt cannot be proven. It’s a simple concept, try not making it more difficult than it is.
________
Not at all, Ronnie. That is US jurisprudence. If you claim that he did something that he is guilty of, please state precisely which law(s) he broke.
Remember, if Mr. Mocek did not break any laws, he is NOT guilty, and that means, very simply, that in the United States he is still considered legally innocent.
Remember, waving one's hands and repeating that he is guilty but it just wasn't proven, doesn't work - in order to be guilty one must have actually broken the law.
The only folks who may have broken the law are the TSOs and the LEOs, one set in making false accusations about Mr. Mocek to the police, the other in falsely arresting him for not IDing himself during a criminal investigation.
In order for there to even be an investigation actually taking place, once again one must start with a Reasonably Articulable Suspicion of a law having been broken, being broken, or about to be broken - which gets right back to the TSO's false accusations that Mr. Mocek broke the law in some way (and the LEO's failure to know better).
The whole mess did not start with Mr. Mocek's legal actions, but with the TSOs either not knowing, or not caring, about the law or their agency's rules or regulations.
If you still claim that Mr. Mocek is guilty of more than just annoying some TSOs, what law did he break? Be specific. It's a simple question, Ronnie.
Tom
TSORon wrote: "I didn’t know that it was possible to “assault” a camera. Can you provide a link to that law for us please?"
The first case that comes to mind is Fisher v Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc., 424 S.W.2d 627 (Texas, 1967):
The plaintiff had a plate snatched out of his hands by the defendant’s employee. The plaintiff was not directly touched and didn’t suffer any physical injury.
The Court stated that basis of an action for battery is the “unpermitted and intentional invasion of the plaintiff’s person and not the actual harm done to the plaintiff’s body”.
You can try to argue that this doesn't apply since this is a decision by a Texas Court that isn't binding in a New Mexico Court. But the fact of the matter is that Courts interpret battery statutes similarly to the Court in Fisher routinely, and that State Courts don't operate in a vacuum but often look to decisions from other states in their deliberations.
Any questions?
TSORon said...
RB Said…
The ABQ situation was nothing more than TSA's Contempt of Passenger
----------------------
It’s probably a good thing then that it’s not against the law then isn’t RB.
The ABQ situation was about a person who wanted to make a political point and not about a person who wanted to fly somewhere. Airports are for flyers, not for making political points.
.................
Actually it is a shame that what the TSA employees, especialy the TSM who appears to assault Phil are not held accountable for the clear violations of a persons civil rights of citizens.
It is high time for TSA employees to get a little hard time for their actions.
There are lots of criminals in aiports and I believe that most are wearing a blue TSA uniform.
You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself, Bob - as well as the screeners who called the airport police on Mr. Mocek, and the police for filing false charges. Phil was acquitted. You posted this propaganda about a guy who did ZERO wrong. You yourself have said that you can clear without an ID, and taking video or photo evidence of anything but the x-ray monitors is permissible. This makes me truly sick. You really have stepped over the line this time with your propaganda.
Any passenger holding a camera in the face of TSOs as they try verify identification should not be surprised if asked to step aside so that other passengers in line can be processed expeditiously without further disruption.
---------------------------------
Bob--
Why did you post this? You know very well that this information is inaccurate. Is there anything in your SOP that indicates that a TSO should ask passengers with cameras to simply "step aside"? Has there been a single case where this has happened? Something tells me no...
In fact, you have repeatedly reminded us that passengers cannot stop in the middle of screening, that they must complete the procedure from beginning to end expeditiously. So where do you get the idea that any TSO in any airport would ever merely ask someone to step aside and continue filming?
As Mr. Mocek's case suggests, this is what will happen if a TSO becomes aware of you filming him or her:
1) You will likely be told that no filming is allowed, despite the claims to the contrary from the TSO.
2) If you persist in filming, a law enforcement officer will be called. He or she will likely defer to the TSOs inaccurate understanding of regulations.
3) TSOs and LEOs will attempt to intimidate you. They may illegally attempt to grab your camera. They will almost certainly raise their voices and create a scene.
4) If you respond by also raising your voice, you run the very serious risk of being placed under arrest.
5) Even if you do not raise your voice, there is a very good chance that TSOs/LEOs will claim that you did.
6) If you are charged with a crime and have no record of the confrontation, it will be your word against the TSOs/LEOs. You will likely be convicted.
7) Even if you have recorded the incident, demonstrated to a jury the falseness of the charges, and secured acquittal (after spending many, many hours and thousands of dollars defending yourself), the TSA will continue to insinuate that you are guilty.
This is shameful.
I didn’t know that it was possible to “assault” a camera. Can you provide a link to that law for us please?
---------------------------------
Ron--
How many times must you be proven wrong before you drop you arrogant, all-knowing tone?
The ABQ situation was about a person who wanted to make a political point and not about a person who wanted to fly somewhere. Airports are for flyers, not for making political points.
----------------------------------
Indeed. Highways are for driving, not for making a political point. Thus, it makes sense that police routinely ticket people for displaying bumper stickers. Oh wait, they don't because this is America, where we have freedom of speech.
Get your facts straight: Mr. Mocek had a ticket for a flight. He had the right to be in an airport. He had the right to film what he was filming. He had a right to respond to the officials who were making unlawful demands. The TSO and airport police had no right to arrest him for perfectly lawful behavior. What part of this is so difficult to understand?
anon said:
"Outside of the make believe world of "airport security", the rule of law; "innocent until proven guilty" still exists"
dont forget here on the blog too, tsa is always guilty before being proven innocent.
Col said:
"I expect all government employees, including myself -- no, I DEMAND that all government employees conduct themselves with honesty, transparency, and integrity. A personal attack using official communication methods against an individual whom they believe to be an antagonist following a court decision to which the agency does not agree is bizarre at best and libelous at worst."
Id start with the president, congree, and house of reps first.
You people are just angry because TSA didn't say they were wrong. You know why? Because they weren't. The police went too far in arresting him. They were the ones that decided to arrest. TSA would have just grounded him. All Bob is doing here is giving some background and explaining that procedures didn't change. People are overreacting.
Anonymous said:
You people are just angry because TSA didn't say they were wrong. You know why? Because they weren't. The police went too far in arresting him. They were the ones that decided to arrest. TSA would have just grounded him. All Bob is doing here is giving some background and explaining that procedures didn't change. People are overreacting."
I'm not angry, I'm disappointed that my tax dollars were used to create an article titled, "New Mexico v. Phillip Mocek: A Quick Reminder on ID and Photography at TSA Checkpoints" designed to leave the impression that Mr. Mocek violated both TSA regulations and the when he did neither.
Time to privatize the whole system.
TSORon said:
"Al Ames said...
It's intellectually dishonest not to mention that key fact, Bob. Not everyone will click on the link, and by the way you wrote it, many would think he was convicted.
--------------------------------
Al, it is intellectually dishonest to allude that being found “not guilty” is the same as being innocent. We both know better. "
So what are you saying, TSOron? That Mr. Mocek did something illegal? Really, Ron, you need to read what you post before you hit the submit button. My opinion of TSOs sinks everytime you post something.
axvo said:
"TSORon wrote: "I didn’t know that it was possible to “assault” a camera. Can you provide a link to that law for us please?"
The first case that comes to mind is Fisher v Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc., 424 S.W.2d 627 (Texas, 1967):
[followed by an excellent explanation of the case - thanks!]"
I'd add that New Mexico Code
30-3-1 defines Assault. Read it, Ron, and be enlightened.
Did you have any further questions, Ron? It's amazing that someone who is paid with taxpayer money can be so contemptuous of the travelling public. When TSOs stop acting like thugs, the public might show some support.
I wonder how the same jury would have treated the TSM, in particular, if the case before it was an assault on Mr. Mocek.
TSOron said:
"Al, it is intellectually dishonest to allude that being found “not guilty” is the same as being innocent. We both know better. "
A jury in New Mexico doesn't have the option of finding a defendant "innocent" so you're point is kind of, well, senseless, isn't it, Ron. But then we both know that.
TSORon said:
"The ABQ situation was about a person who wanted to make a political point and not about a person who wanted to fly somewhere. Airports are for flyers, not for making political points."
Really?
Mr. Mocek was flying home, Ron, and the only thing he is truly guilty of is being disliked by you. So who elected you grand high executioner, judge, and jury? It's a personal opinion, and you are welcome to it, but remember that political speech is a protected First Amendment right, not just for you, but equally for the people who you disagree with. He has done an effective job in making a political point about the legal reality within the checkpoint. No need for you to seem sullen or petty about it.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
anon said:
"Outside of the make believe world of "airport security", the rule of law; "innocent until proven guilty" still exists"
dont forget here on the blog too, tsa is always guilty before being proven innocent.
------------------------------
I think posters assume the TSA is guilty because you respond to so few questions on this blog. After all "what have you got hide" that you would not answer every question....even the repeated ones?
Also this blog does not adhere to the 1st amendment right to free speech based on the fact that you censor posts in accordance with the blog guidelines. So why should posters give you the assumption of being innocent?
Col said:
"I expect all government employees, including myself -- no, I DEMAND that all government employees conduct themselves with honesty, transparency, and integrity. A personal attack using official communication methods against an individual whom they believe to be an antagonist following a court decision to which the agency does not agree is bizarre at best and libelous at worst."
-----------------------------------
Col, you're not in charge anymore. Don't demand anything from me.
All of this complaining about innocent or not guilty. We have both sides of the issue to include Mr. Mocek's version. 182 comments. How many were from members of the jury that found Mr Mocek not guilty. Without hearing from any of them no-one will ever know the reason for the verdict. No one is right and no one is wrong without their input.
"TSM West said...
All of this complaining about innocent or not guilty. We have both sides of the issue to include Mr. Mocek's version. 182 comments. How many were from members of the jury that found Mr Mocek not guilty. Without hearing from any of them no-one will ever know the reason for the verdict. No one is right and no one is wrong without their input.
February 4, 2011 11:08 PM"
Wrong.
Fact: TSA caused this mans arrest.
Fact: Jury found him not guilty.
FACT:TSA was wrong in their actions which resulted in his arrest. SPIN it all you want the result is the same.
TSM West said...
All of this complaining about innocent or not guilty. We have both sides of the issue to include Mr. Mocek's version. 182 comments. How many were from members of the jury that found Mr Mocek not guilty. Without hearing from any of them no-one will ever know the reason for the verdict. No one is right and no one is wrong without their input.
February 4, 2011 11:08 PM
-------------------------
You are correct of course, only the jurors were actually on the jury.
However, it is inappropriate for this government agency to continue to sully Mr. Mocek's name and infer his guilt.
There is a legal process and it was completed. This government agency and its representatives should allow that process to stand.
If you want to post as an individual and not a representative of this agency, your opinion, no matter its position or your awareness of our legal system, would be welcome.
"TSM West said...
All of this complaining about innocent or not guilty. We have both sides of the issue to include Mr. Mocek's version. 182 comments. How many were from members of the jury that found Mr Mocek not guilty. Without hearing from any of them no-one will ever know the reason for the verdict. No one is right and no one is wrong without their input."
I've been on several juries. Just the fact that the jury decided four counts in 50 minutes is very telling. As with all juries in criminal cases, the decision has to be unanimous.
this is ridiculous. just because someone is having a bad day doesn't mean you should arrest them. the TSA could have worked with this man to properly confirm his identity without all this drama. honestly, I hope the police and TSA will focus on arresting the true criminals in the future. What a waste.
p.s. good improvement of this blog by the way, even though I don't necessarily agree with a lot of your posts Mr. blogger bob.
"Without that video, Mocek undoubtedly would have been convicted by the perjurious testimony of the 19 TSA and police witnesses you had lined up for the first trial, before you discovered there was a video that contradicted every word of the fabricated testimony they planned to give."
"19 TSA And police witnesses" - Can this be verified?, if so did they provide statments?, and would'nt be wonderful to then compare their versions of events against the video
TSM West said...
All of this complaining about innocent or not guilty. We have both sides of the issue to include Mr. Mocek's version. 182 comments. How many were from members of the jury that found Mr Mocek not guilty. Without hearing from any of them no-one will ever know the reason for the verdict. No one is right and no one is wrong without their input.
February 4, 2011 11:08 PM
..................
West, I don't understand your comment. Not at all!
We do know the juries opinion, they voted as one that Phil was not guilty of the crimes as charged.
The reason for the verdict was the evidence submitted in sworn testimony, and the government clearly lacked evidence that proved any wrongdoing.
You folks at TSA can try to spin this anyway you want but the fact remains that it was clearly actions by TSA employees that started the problem and then aggravated by these same TSA employees who involved police all for something that was not a prohibited action at a TSA checkpoint.
TSA started the problem and was wrong in doing so.
I wonder what actions have been taken against these TSA employees who violated Phil's civil rights and in turn caused him great expense to defend himself on trump up charges brought by actions of incompetent TSA employees?
Retired MSGT said...
Col said:
"I expect all government employees, including myself -- no, I DEMAND that all government employees conduct themselves with honesty, transparency, and integrity. A personal attack using official communication methods against an individual whom they believe to be an antagonist following a court decision to which the agency does not agree is bizarre at best and libelous at worst."
-----------------------------------
Col, you're not in charge anymore. Don't demand anything from me.
February 4, 2011 11:03 PM
.................
I would suggest that if you are really retired military that you keep in mind that you are still held accountable under the UCMJ for your actions.
GSOLTSO said:
"The question was not about filming in the checkpoint area, but about what was being filmed – namely SSI material, which the TSOs have a duty to try and prevent."
This point was raised during the trial. Obviously the jury didn't agree. As a government employee commenting on the facts of a trial, you should get your facts straight before you comment.
Retired MSGT said...
Col said:
"I expect all government employees, including myself -- no, I DEMAND that all government employees conduct themselves with honesty, transparency, and integrity. A personal attack using official communication methods against an individual whom they believe to be an antagonist following a court decision to which the agency does not agree is bizarre at best and libelous at worst."
-----------------------------------
Col, you're not in charge anymore. Don't demand anything from me."
One assumes he is still a U.S. citizen and is entitled to all the benefits thereof, such as government employees conducting themselves in accordance with their oaths and terms of employment. Why are you trying to deny him (or anyone) that, MSGT?
Another example of TSA not holding its employees accoutable for their actions.
Par for the course.
Perhaps TSA will get some real leadership one day.
im curious, was the verdicted appealed?
have there ever been any verdicts that have been given reversed in an appeals court?
Post a Comment