TSA Searches: "Obedience Training For The American Public"
That's how Zahir Ebrahim, of Project Humanbeingsfirst.com, rightly termed the TSA searches -- in his comment on the blog item that led to TSA agent Thedala Magee's demands of me.
Magee is looking for me to pay her $500K, apologize to her, and take down my blog item about her -- because I had the nerve to exercise my First Amendment rights and complain after she jammed her hand sideways into my vagina four times. (Unfortunately for Ms. Magee, I've always made a pretty crappy victim.)
What the TSA searches themselves say about where we're going as a country is the larger issue here, and one I'll be home writing about all day today (I'm doing on op-ed as step two of this. It's not only an explanation of what went on, but a call to action.)
I grew up reading books about Russia and thinking how great it was that no authority figure in America ever demanded our "papers" without reasonable suspicion that we've committed a crime. This is no more the case, and that is tragic and terrible.
I have the Cato Institute copy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights on my phone and read them often. I see that the Fourth Amendment guards us against unreasonable and warrantless search, but that is exactly what millions of Americans are being put through daily, sans probable cause.
Our country was started by people who were fiercely opposed to blind obedience to authority. Oh, how disappointingly -- and dangerously -- far we've fallen.
In recent years, there's been an overreach of government into many areas of our lives -- telling us what kind of lightbulbs we're allowed to use, and the lady in Oak Park, Michigan who faced 93 days in jail for growing vegetables where her front lawn was "supposed" to be.
Encroachments like the light bulb mandate may seem minor compared to the vile TSA searches in the name of "security," but they are part and parcel of the whole.
Every time we relax and allow Big Government to rule us a little more, every time we let one more Constitutional right be taken from us without so much as a peep, it makes it that much easier to take the next one and the next one, until we wake up one day and wonder how we ended up living in a police state.
And finally, thank you to everyone expressing support for me here, by email, and on other websites.
It's been a tough few months (it's scary to possibly be on the hook for the rest of my life to support this woman when I was the one victimized here).
But, I was lucky in that I have an absolutely wonderful guy behind me -- First Amendment lawyer Marc Randazza, who took my case pro bono, and who just asked that I pay any costs (which he said he'd try to keep really low, and which, at this point are maybe just postage. As in, a 44-cent stamp!).
I don't like to not pay people for their work. When I told him I was sorry that, well, this wasn't exactly the golden age of newspapers (or book-authoring), he told me, "Some cases are too important to need to get paid for." I wanted to hug him through the phone.
Marc and two of his associates (Jason A. Fischer and J. Malcolm Devoy) have put in a substantial amount of work on this, and he, himself, personally challenges the "officers," verbally and otherwise when he goes through these checkpoints.
My absolute favorite thing he does when he gets a patdown is stick out his middle finger on each hand. It's his way of showing these people -- people earning a living violating our rights -- the respect they deserve.
I hope some of you will follow his lead, and mine, and those of others who've spoken out. If there's any message here, it's this: Don't go quietly as they yank away your rights.
UPDATE: Even though Marc and his associates are being gracious with their time, there is a bill, and somebody (who understands that legal fees are hundreds of dollars an hour, and that they've spent many hours) just asked if he could donate, which is wonderful.
If you wish to contribute to my legal defense fund, please mail checks to:
Randazza Legal Group
PO Box 5516
Gloucester, MA 01930
Note on memo line, Alkon LDF
This is such BS. It's your blog, your opinion, and protected speech. I'm sorry you're going through it, but I look forward to your resounding victory.
Dangerboy at September 7, 2011 7:33 AM
Hang tough Amy. I found out about this story on Drudge and it sickens me that you're going through this after just exercising your right to free speech. The last time I traveled I looked at this big machine they were putting people though where you had to raise your arms and this metal arm swung around you. As I watched it I thought "I'm not going in that thing, period". I then had to submit to my government groping in order to be allowed to travel. We have to stand up for our Constitutional rights and not let the TSA or anyone else intimidate us into submission.
Dave at September 7, 2011 7:40 AM
I am very proud of your opposition to these Nazi thugs. Thank God for people like you who are brave enough to resist and to speak out.
America needs to wake up.
Dave at September 7, 2011 7:48 AM
Amy,
Good for you. If you are interested, I would be willing to donate to the cause, for help with any costs.
Steve at September 7, 2011 7:52 AM
I have to say, I find it awesome that her (hopefully unwinnable) lawsuit has spread her name across the entire forking internet. The word "backfire" comes to mind.
Dangerboy at September 7, 2011 7:57 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/09/07/obedience_train.html#comment-2463145">comment from SteveAmy, Good for you. If you are interested, I would be willing to donate to the cause, for help with any costs.
Steve, thanks -- everybody's been wonderful. So far, I do think I can handle the 44 cents!
Amy Alkon at September 7, 2011 8:02 AM
Amen, Sister.
Feebie at September 7, 2011 8:16 AM
You all have to take a look at the website for the lawyer. She's a real prize. My guess is that she contracted the TSA rather than the other way around.
http://www.restmycase.com/
KateC at September 7, 2011 8:26 AM
You were NOT raped.
That is what your own lawyer said.
You were not raped. Your lawyer claims that you are only using rape as a 'rhetorical hyperbole'.
According to your lawyer's response you are crying rape where no real rape occurred. Way to go, trivialize rape.
R. Zahau at September 7, 2011 8:40 AM
According to your lawyer's response you are crying rape where no real rape occurred. Way to go, trivialize rape.
Hmmm... perhaps you don't understand what rhetorical hyperbole means, and that the word rape can mean different things in different contexts. Yes, that must be it.
Certainly, you're not being an apologist for government-sanctioned sexual abuse, right?
Christopher at September 7, 2011 8:51 AM
"she jammed her hand sideways into my vagina four times"
Is this improbable claim just more of Amy's rhetorical hyperbole?
R. Zahau at September 7, 2011 9:05 AM
R. Zahau,
Penetration of the vagina with anything -- not just a penis -- is recognized as rape in most if not all states.
Regardless, if you don't realize that thousands of sexual assaults are being committed by TSA agents every day in this country, you're being willfully ignorant. Like half the U.S. population.
Amy, you know my sentiments on this: BRAVA!!
By the way, who leaked the story to Techdirt? I've kept mum since you first told me about the legal proceedings months ago.
Lisa Simeone at September 7, 2011 9:12 AM
Oh, and R. Zahau, Google the name "Sommer Gentry." She's a Math Professor at the U.S. Naval Academy. She has written numerous times all over the web about her sexual assault at the hands of the TSA. She's only one of thousands.
In addition, for the incessant naysayers out there:
Master Lists of TSA Abuses and Crimes:
http://www.travelunderground.org/index.php?threads/master-lists-of-tsa-abuses-crimes.317/
Lisa Simeone at September 7, 2011 9:15 AM
Good luck with your defense and I hope the judge makes her pay costs when you win.
I usually fly only once a year from Canada to a Mexican resort for a mid-winter break. This year, I considered taking a 4 or 5 day weekend around my birthday in November for a trip to Las Vegas. The idea of being groped and seeing my wife groped has put the kibosh on that idea.
Steamer at September 7, 2011 9:25 AM
Steamer, you've made a wise decision.
I've stopped flying entirely, a big sacrifice for me as I love travel more than I can say. But the principles at stake are more important than my personal desires. Too bad so many others don't see it that way.
(P.S. And yes, I know that not everyone can make this decision. Some people are forced to fly for work; they have my sympathy. But millions of people can do what I've done and stop flying. If they did, we'd bring the airlines to their knees so fast their heads would spin. Economic boycotts work.)
Lisa Simeone at September 7, 2011 9:31 AM
Is this improbable claim just more of Amy's rhetorical hyperbole?
No. That's the precipitating event that had Amy, who's not easily upset, crying as she left the checkpoint. & what Lisa Simeone wrote.
Christopher at September 7, 2011 9:36 AM
Checked out her Web page and her IMDb page yesterday and was intimidated by her.
Amy's in trouble. This woman is a "premier legal strategist" who has been "recognized for her talent, dedication, and education."
In addition, she "has received numerous awards and is a member of several organizations."
And she's a piano player and private pilot. Yikes!
Conan the Grammarian at September 7, 2011 9:52 AM
...and is a member of several organizations.
Not one, or two. But several!
Christopher at September 7, 2011 9:54 AM
In composing our emails to the President calling for the dismantling of the TSA, should we use "anti-liberty goon squad" or "feckless half-witted rejects from the fast food industry" when referring to the offenders?
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at September 7, 2011 10:06 AM
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers,
"Smurfs" is also useful. As is "knuckle-draggers." "Clerks" is a good one. (Whatever you do, never use "officers." They aren't officers, they aren't law enforcement, their Halloween-costume-style badges notwithstanding.) You could also use "A.S.S." -- Airport Security Screener. "Spotnik" -- in honor of their laughable SPOT program.
Sigh, so many choices, so little time.
Lisa Simeone at September 7, 2011 10:20 AM
Amy, thank you for your courage in taking on this fight, and to your lawyer too, for assisting you in this.
I hope I will never have to fly again until these searches are stopped. I'm a Navy veteran who served honorably and held a top secret security clearance. There's absolutely no probable cause to search me, and it seriously offends me that it should ever automatically be assumed that I am a potential terrorist.
Angel at September 7, 2011 10:25 AM
How's this for a suggested template, in case anyone needs to fire off an email?
Dear Mr. President:
I thought the arrogance and utterly anti-American viciousness of the TSA had reached its lowest nadir with the groping of little girls and infirm old women and the humiliation of surgical-device-wearing citizens.
Now I see that a nationally-known advice columnist and blogger, Amy Alkon, is threatened with a lawsuit BY A TSA AGENT for complaining of sexual battery during her TSA "pat-down":
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2011/09/06/female-blogger-threatened-with-a-defamation-suit-for-blogging-about-tsa-rape/
This has gone too far.
Please, Mr. President, dismantle the TSA. Shut down this gang of power-mad clerks and return 4th Amendment protection to air travelers.
Your actions to end this abuse will inform my voting decision in 2012.
Thank you.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at September 7, 2011 10:40 AM
All the best with your case.
I'm a fervent believer in civil liberties and a person's right not to be molested by government goons.
As others have already said, I'd also gladly support your cause with a donation if you need help
P Bowe at September 7, 2011 10:41 AM
Hey-here's a better idea. Too much government intrusion?
How about no more licensing of lawyers, so we can get those ridiculous legal bills down to say, $50 an hour, instead of the hundreds of dollars an hour that a closed-markets results in.
Who ever heard of white-collar clerks making $750 an hour. Only in law.
Hearing a lawyer pettifog about government intrusion is a laugh. First, let's get government out of the legal business.
Why should lawyers be licensed?
BOTU at September 7, 2011 10:52 AM
Meanwhile, this is getting play all over the Web.
"What makes Thedala Magee special is that she has reminded the rest of us that the government is still empowering twisted nobodies to take liberties with the bodies of others in an exertion of their petty power. Magee's demand has given us reason to challenge the government's ongoing violation of the body politic, and the bodies of human beings. And no government agent has the authority to insert her hand into a woman's vagina."
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2011/09/07/what-makes.aspx?ref=rss
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at September 7, 2011 10:56 AM
I disagree with Alkon that a TSA patdown is a "rape."
But Alkon has a right to her point of view, and the right to express it.
Shame on Ms. Magee.
BOTU at September 7, 2011 10:59 AM
Best of luck to you, Amy.
lsomber at September 7, 2011 11:08 AM
Mark Bennett has also written about it:
http://blog.bennettandbennett.com/2011/09/tsa-thug-thedala-magee-threatens-suit.html
So has Jennifer Abel. Can't post 2 links in one comment, so go to Feral Genius (one word) - dot - blogspot - dot - com for hers.
Lisa Simeone at September 7, 2011 11:10 AM
According to your lawyer's response you are crying rape where no real rape occurred. Way to go, trivialize rape.
Posted by: R. Zahau at September 7, 2011 8:40 AM
You act as if the courts, prosecutors and feminists have not trivialized rape over the past 30 or so years themselves.
Sio at September 7, 2011 11:11 AM
Gogg_Magog, I'd suggest you also write to Gropenführer Pistole and that incompetent Janet Napolitano, but it'd be a waste of time. Then again, it might be fun to do it just to play the gadfly.
Lisa Simeone at September 7, 2011 11:21 AM
Nice catch, Bennet.
From Roberts' letter:
"They also constitute tortuous infliction of emotional distress."
AND
"...and other problems as a proximate result of your tortuous actions."
-------------------------
Definition of TORTUOUS
1: marked by repeated twists, bends, or turns : winding
2a: marked by devious or indirect tactics : crooked, tricky
2b: circuitous, involved
-------------------------
Definition of TORTIOUS
1: implying or involving tort
-------------------------
Considering that a tort is "a wrongful act other than a breach of contract for which relief may be obtained in the form of damages or an injunction," which word do you think a competent attorney should have used?
Not just once (possibly a typo), but twice did Roberts use the wrong word.
I guess grammar and vocabulary lessons don't come with a BA in Radio, Television, and Film from Cal-State Northridge or a JD from Southwestern Law School.
I'm guessing one of those "several organizations" to which she belongs is not Mensa.
Conan the Grammarian at September 7, 2011 11:23 AM
I know, I just loved the "tortuous"/"tortious" mix-up!
Lisa Simeone at September 7, 2011 11:37 AM
Angel Amy, if you publicly solicit funds, you should publish the account books.... That's how it works.
Not saying you don't deserve our private backing, but bringing money to the fore of this discussion compels transparency, or we won't be able to see the genuine argument happening behind it.
You will of course have my support.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 7, 2011 11:44 AM
I just wanted to temper my earlier praise for your heroic stance against police state creeps with an additional comment about your other posts.
You say that lightbulb regulation is "part and parcel" of what we go through at airports. But I'd say what is more plainly "part and parcel" is buying into the idea that Sharia Law and Muslims are running rampant over Americans. And as someone who has seen your column in alt-weeklies for years, I was sad to see that this was being flogged on this site.
Respectfully, I'd like to suggest that this "Muslims are Coming" thing is a stance that will be laughed at in 50 years the way we laugh at reports of Communists infecting our children with flouride. The people who won't be laughing are the Muslim-Americans who had to live through it.
John W at September 7, 2011 12:35 PM
Seconding John W.
Lisa Simeone at September 7, 2011 12:39 PM
> Respectfully, I'd like to suggest that this
> "Muslims are Coming" thing is a stance that
> will be laughed at in 50 years
If you wanna be really respectful, don't play games with quotation marks: Did Amy, or anyone else here, use that scaremongering phrase?
> buying into the idea that Sharia Law and
> Muslims are running rampant over Americans.
Sharia law is flatly, incontestably incompatible with Western precepts of liberty and responsibility. Yet the Koran is unimprovable; if we asked its offending passages to be removed, we'd be rebuffed. So there's a clash coming, and it can't be avoided.
I'm cool with that. It's what happened with Christianity and every other belief in supernatural forces (e.g., native American spirituality): We beat it out of you, or we beat it into submission to our American aspirations.
I live three blocks from a Baptist Church. But I could tape up bright yellow signs on all the lampposts around here to announce that next Tuesday at noon I was going to burn a New Testament on the corner outside my door, and people probably wouldn't notice. Maybe a few guys would pause, when passing by, to call me an asshole. If a police cruiser happened along, he might give me a ticket for some kind of irresponsible fire hazard. But that's it.
Same with a copy of Dyanetics. Or How to Win Friends and Influence People.
Until Americans are similarly confident about the Koran, we're going to have a problem. And it's not our fault.
> The people who won't be laughing are the
> Muslim-Americans who had to live through it.
I don't want them laughing. I want them thinking very fucking seriously, as if were blood on the line, about which means more to them: The abject idiocies of their primitive religion, or the comforts of American modernity.
The two are not compatible.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 7, 2011 12:55 PM
Nice one, Cridster.
Feebie at September 7, 2011 1:07 PM
Edits-
Sorry. That coulda been one of the great blog posts, too.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 7, 2011 1:08 PM
We can only hope we'll be laughing at this shar'ia "scare" in the future.
Meanwhile, the erosion of our civil rights doesn't help anyone except fear-mongering politicians !!!
DrCos at September 7, 2011 1:19 PM
And by the way, who is "laughing" at communism now? Really, are we sure about that?
Seems to have been accomplished silently at least culturally by subversion here in the US (does this make me crazy, I don't know - but why am I whispering?)
There is a school district out here in California that actually asks parents to purchase a list of materials for their kids to bring on the first day of school (e.g. protractor, crayons, markers...you get the picture) and then each of the children then have to put everything in a pile so it can be "divided equally" amongst the entire class. I don't find that remotely funny....and, call me crazy, (whispering) but it sounds like commie bullshit to me!
Read here: http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/08/29/pol-pot-runs-ca-government-schools/
Feebie at September 7, 2011 1:29 PM
Great post Crid. I am always amazed at those who are so tolerant that they tolerate the most intolerant.
Eric at September 7, 2011 1:33 PM
> And by the way, who is "laughing" at
> communism now?
Exactly. Maybe it's a punchline to teenagers pretending to be worldly... But Commies were the champions of a profoundly bloody century.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 7, 2011 1:40 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/09/07/obedience_train.html#comment-2463675">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]Angel Amy, if you publicly solicit funds, you should publish the account books.... That's how it works
I've seen them (and they're detailed, with what hours were put in and whether by Marc or an associate). Marc sends me bills; I just don't send him checks. I'll have to ask him why he doesn't want them published; I'm guessing it's because he doesn't want to dispense his rates to a global audience. (I did ask him if I could just post the bill and he didn't want me to.)
Amy Alkon at September 7, 2011 1:58 PM
Amy A., on behalf of my wife, my mother and grandmother, my sisters, and our yet to be born daughters, I thank you for being so brave as to publish your experience and take this issue on head-on. I wish you great success with this.
Being a cautious and investigative type, I note that nowhere on the internet is the name "Thedala Magee" mentioned, outside of your blog and news about this blog (there are dozens of links, but all are recent and about this event--no history of this person, no white pages, etc.). Is it known if this is factually the TSA officer's name? Is there another, real name? I ask, because 1) I don't want my family members going near this pervert and 2) there may be legal technicalities if this is not indeed the name of the person who has sued you.
JWash at September 7, 2011 2:07 PM
>> ) I don't want my family members going near this pervert
It is exactly these types of inflammatory statements that will bolster Ms. Magee's case.
Eric at September 7, 2011 2:16 PM
Communists weren't really trying to get our kids with flouride. Muslims ARE trying to blow us up and take us over. There's one difference.
Schools here pool the supplies too, Feeble. I'm not a fan of it, but it does save me money. No point spending $4 for the cool folder for some other kid, so i can just buy the $.50 ones now.
momof4 at September 7, 2011 2:18 PM
And why, exactly, are they muslim-americans? I'm not a christian-american, or a scots-american. The fact that they don't want to be simply "American" is problematic.
momof4 at September 7, 2011 2:20 PM
Hang in there, This is spreading like wildfire across the net. Talk about "Streisand Effect"
I have also updated my blog with all the information and links back to here to help spread the information so more people can see it.
Cito at September 7, 2011 2:22 PM
>> )It is exactly these types of inflammatory statements that will bolster Ms. Magee's case.
Eric, you are mistaken or ignorant. My caution does not provide any evidence about the event that occurred months ago, and the court cannot even identify who I am or if I ever fly through LAX, or even reside or travel in the U.S.A. Though if it makes you "feel" better, I will retract my statement and now re-post it as "I don't want my family members going near this alleged pervert." Good enough?
JWash at September 7, 2011 2:26 PM
Hey Crid, which "comforts of American modernity" do you want to offer us?
Does America want to assassinate our elected officials again? Like you did with the Shah?
Does America want to support bloody, murderous monsters like the Shah and Hussein again? And lesser scum like your ex-tool Mubarek?
Do you Americans want to kill tens of thousands of more innocents? The way you did in Iraq? Your fat ignorant population thinks 'intelligence mistake' instead of a long standing goal of your neoconservative politicians makes the murder of innocents ok.
Americans have been responsible for countless deaths in our region. Deaths in the hundreds of thousands. A few of you die and like the mad dogs you are you kill thousands of people. Innocent people who had no involvement in the attacks on your country and were no threat to you.
Take your damned American modernity and leave our lands.
HBZ at September 7, 2011 2:37 PM
Not strictly related, but definitely related -- you can't make this shit up. Why can I not say it's unbelievable? Because it's all too believable:
The shadow of suspicion falls in the Mall of America
Visitors who have done nothing wrong are winding up identified in counterterrorism reports
BY G.W. SCHULZ, DANIEL ZWERDLING, AND ANDREW BECKER
http://www.salon.com/news/homeland_security/index.html?story=/politics/feature/2011/09/07/mallofamerica
Lisa Simeone at September 7, 2011 2:38 PM
> Eric, you are mistaken or ignorant.
Which is it? When I make a statement like that I have a good idea which it is.
So far I have seen this TSA woman referred to as a pervert, alleged molester, TSA groper, etc. Amy doesn't have your luxury of posting from an anonymous location, but as this wildfire does spread, she may be held accountable for the emotional distress caused by those with a beef against the TSA.
Eric at September 7, 2011 2:38 PM
> Which is it?
Eric, that is for you to distinguish--hard for a reader to know what your trouble is. Are you mistaken, or ignorant? I could be wrong...you could be purposefully deceitful. In no way can Amy A. be held accountable, as she is the victim, unless it is proven that she has fabricated this. If that is the case, then she should be held accountable. In that case some comments on the internet are not going to cause any more emotional distress than already exist. As there are already many dozens of re-posts of the blog and the attorneys' letters, it is quite laughable that you would assert that some trivial comments of concern by the readers would have any importance. Especially my own, as my own do not threaten but rather try to defend one's own family from any possible run-in with an alleged pervert. Though you can post something more to deceive (I guess I have decided that you are neither ignorant nor mistaken at this point) if you wish. Many people in life are accused of being perverted, and there is no re-course or action taken. I feel like I am debating with a 3rd grader..."Mommmmyyy...he called me a pervert....!!!"
You are the one making an unfounded accusation..."by those with a beef against the TSA." Any beef I might have would be with the government forcing the illegal searches upon the TSA, or with individuals who might abuse their work duties at the TSA. I have been well-served by many within the TSA during my life. You deceive the readers with such a broad-based comment (again, I guess you're not mistaken or ignorant, but rather deceitful). Please correct me, if you are not deceitful, but rather mistaken or ignorant, and accept my apologies for miss-interpreting your mistake or ignorance as deceit.
JWash at September 7, 2011 2:58 PM
R. Zahau:
If someone were to jam their hand in your butt-crack - using their fingers to push your under and outer clothes into your anus - perhaps you would now sing a different tune.
R. McBride at September 7, 2011 3:02 PM
> If someone were to jam their hand in your
Four times.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 7, 2011 3:31 PM
> Take your damned American modernity
> and leave our lands.
I'll get to the rest of it when you tell me what you mean about "our lands". Who, and where, are you?
PS— That internet keyboard under your fingertips? The one you're using to bitch about America?
American modernity, babe. Ain't it grand?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 7, 2011 3:34 PM
> I've seen them (and they're detailed, with
> what hours were put in and whether by Marc
> or an associate).
Honestly, that's none of our business. I was being a little bit mouthy earlier...
Especially since this guy is donating his time. What he does with his office is his own business. And in this case he's on the side of... Well, if not on the side of the angels, then on the side of the piss-minded coastal alt-weekly columnists who deserve not to be fondled by TSA idiots on their way into an airliner. That's plenty angelic enough.
So anyway, I don't know what the moral thing to do is. The attorney shouldn't be compelled to disclose his hourly rate, how much time he puts into this, or anything else he doesn't want to share, including his own name.
And since there are no public resources involved, there's no reason for those who send checks to be publicly identified either.
I'm not a business ethics professor... I just think accepting donations, which is a righteous thing to do, probably invokes some corresponding transparency.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 7, 2011 3:44 PM
@BOTU: 'I disagree with Alkon that a TSA patdown is a "rape."'
Here's a suggestion, BOTU, if you really and truly believe and stand behind what you keep saying here over and over, then please, I suggest put your money where your mouth is, and do the following: I suggest find a random female stranger and then by force, jam your fingers hard into her vagina multiple times. If your claims are correct, then you will surely have done absolutely NOTHING wrong, and will have nothing to worry about in terms of legal repercussions against yourself. You stand behind your words, right? So either put your money where your mouth is, or stop lying. I'll be happy when you end up in prison, then we don't have to listen to your puerile drivel anymore. I know you won't do this though, because something tells me you know full well that you are full of shit here.
Lobster at September 7, 2011 4:45 PM
... actually, you don't even have to do that much, just try do by force to a stranger what is done in an average TSA patdown (since the patdowns are also all done by force) and see if there are no legal repercussions. That alone should already suggest something is wrong with even non-sexual-assault TSA patdowns.
Lobster at September 7, 2011 4:49 PM
Have you considered a Bivens Action countersuit against this woman? Even if she backs down with her defamation suit, a Bivens Action should be pursued all the way since it doesn't appear any law enforcement is going to bring her to a criminal trial.
A successful Bivens Action would resonate far and wide across this once great country and inspire more TSA victims to do the same.
John Q Public at September 7, 2011 4:54 PM
Amy A., there is a "Theodora" Magee living under 20 miles from LAX...could that possibly be her name (folks, please leave Theodora M. alone as this is a possible guess at this moment and nothing more)?
All other internet searches/social media/etc. do not show *any* "Thedala" Magee in existence. That is hard to do for any U.S. citizen, under the age of 60 or so. You may have been threatened by someone not using their legal name, thereby releasing you from their claim. Or possibly the person is not even a legal citizen able to bring action against you (shot in the dark--but all too likely in Southern California...and wouldn't that be something if an illegal worker was employed by TSA).
JWash at September 7, 2011 5:05 PM
If you don't want to deal with being properly searched then don't use airlines that require passengers to reach them through a public airport.
Which means you can't fly unless you fly in a private or chartered jet.
So, get rich or shut up and deal with your groping while going through airport security. It's survival of the fittest and you are losing. That's why you are bitching. You are like a little baby leftist protesting about a damn owl.
Why do I need to bring you common sense?
Maurice Searcy at September 7, 2011 5:06 PM
It is a gov. power grab. People need to rise up and voice against this. The police cannot do this to you without probable cause, I used to be a deputy, so why can the TSA do it to anyone they want?
Guess what TSA and Big SIS, you have awakened a sleeping giant. We will not stand idly by and watch you destroy peoples' lives. We will stand in solidarity to stop your tyranny!
Good luck Amy. Ignore the idiots on here whom do not know and understand how our constitution is being ripped up before our eyes.
Trav at September 7, 2011 5:34 PM
> Why do I need to bring you common sense?
Didja ever kiss a girl?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 7, 2011 5:53 PM
"All other internet searches/social media/etc. do not show *any* "Thedala" Magee in existence."
Incorrect. Spokeo.com shows an address in CA for that string.
Radwaste at September 7, 2011 5:56 PM
I just did a google search. Here's the result:
About 1,600 results (0.09 seconds)
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=Thedala+Magee&pbx=1&oq=Thedala+Magee&aq=f&aqi=g-b1&aql=&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=0l0l1l31223l0l0l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=b7e6040383bebbf&biw=1152&bih=749
WooooHOOOOOO! This thing is spreading like wildfire (sorry to those of you in Texas. My heart goes out to you. Please stay safe!)
Flynne at September 7, 2011 6:11 PM
Yeah, I saw that Raddy. Interesting.
Flynne at September 7, 2011 6:14 PM
I recommend you let Thedala sue you asap. Then file counter claim against her and throw in whole TSA machine as her co-defendant. Her lawyer will have a chance to rake thousands of billing hours reading TSA motions. Then, her lawyer can subtract that from the retainer Thedala gave her. :-P
Oh, one more thing: make sure YOU demand jury trial. Chances are, most prospective jurors went through TSA sex abuse.
TSA Fun CLub at September 7, 2011 6:25 PM
I heartily support your courageous fight against the abuses being inflicted on our rights by this corrupt Government agency and confident that you will be vindicated. You have demonstrated that the liberties that many have given their lives to protect are still cherished and will be defended.
I, like many of your supporters, will gladly join you in this fight by contributing to your defense fund. Please let us know if contributions can be made on line or via PayPal.
TSA Crimes & Abuses
http://www.travelunderground.org/index.php?threads/master-lists-of-tsa-abuses-crimes.317/
Bill Fisher at September 7, 2011 6:29 PM
> Chances are, most prospective jurors went
> through TSA sex abuse.
Not at all sure that's true. Have most jurors flown airlines? Often enough to recognize the intrusion?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 7, 2011 6:38 PM
Amy: I watched you on the Alex Jones Nightly News Program...excellent!...sorry you had to endure this!:
Make sure your attorneys' file these charges in FEDERAL COURT!: 18 USC,Sec. 241: "Conspiracy against rights"...18 USC, 242: "Deprivation of rights under color of law" ....42 USC, Sec. 1985(3): "Depriving persons of rights and priveleges"....THIS IS THE BEST FOR REMEDY:42 USC, Sec. 1983: " Civil action for deprivation of rights".
THANKS TO YOU AND GREAT LUCK IN YOUR LEGAL ADVENTURE!!!!!
Dr.greg
greg hanford at September 7, 2011 7:07 PM
"The police cannot do this to you without probable cause"
Apparently flying constitutes 'probable cause'?
We have been led to forget what the word 'probable' in 'probable cause' actually means. If there was a 1 in 100 million chance of lightning striking your home (probability P of 0.00000001), would any sane person claim that it is "probable" that lightning will strike the home? No. What are the odds that any given airplane traveller is a terrorist? Literally less than 1 in 100,000,000. If it is not remotely "probable" that a given traveller is a terrorist, then there is no "probable" cause.
Lobster at September 7, 2011 7:12 PM
God Bless you Amy... Sue the piss out of them!!!(TSA)
I know my ass would be going to jail... Cuz if someone comes up n jams the hand in my crotch?? I'd break everybone in my hand ramming it down their throat...just a momentary loss of moter reflex ya know.
Saw you on Alex Jones,Nightly News...the guy who dose infowars.com n prisonplanet.com ...he is always spot on... I had to write to you, because TSA even took a adult diapier off a 95yr old lady when she was flying home to Michigan to die...the "pat down" took so long, the mother n daughter had to take separate flights.
I told my brother that I would'nt do a patdown if I ever flew...he said oh you ca'nt refuse the groping, n you ca'nt act like you do'nt want it... OH!!! YES I CAN!!! OH YES I WILL!!! TSA are monsters, n pluss they never caught a terrorist in the 9+ years they been around...oh but we need them...right? GO AMY!!!!!
q-reen at September 7, 2011 7:48 PM
I'm going to breakdown comments posted by Maurice Searcy at September 7, 2011 5:06 PM
What part of properly searched involves jamming the hand into vagina or other genital regions of the person being searched?
That is a fantastic idea. Lets extend the TSA to the civilian/general aviation side of the airport? Then they should be extended to Amtrak? Oh, I forgot you need the TSA at all Greyhound® bus stations? But the Greyhound buses aren't going to be safe until we search your car to get on the interstate.
The survival of the fittest was lost by both the winners and the losers 50 minutes after Tower One was hit. That was when Flight 93 impacted outside of Shanksville, PA.
Subsequent winners include those who subdued the shoe bomber and the panty bomber.
I would like you to show me where in the U.S. Constitution the damn owl has the following clearly written statements granted to it:
The TSA is a department of the DHS. They do not have constitutional police authority. You could be carrying a fully automatic, bullpup UZI with a silencer. They have no legal authority to arrest you. The TSA has to call the airport police or other legal agency to actually arrest you.
The TSA employees have no more right to search you than the last person you passed on the street.
As far as the "bitching" portion:
If the individual agent is claiming slander and libel, why isn't the TSA a co-complainant? As a TSA employee, she should be representing the best the TSA has to offer.
When you can show me where any of your "common sense" coincides with rational thought, I'll accept it. Until that time, I'm going to ignore you.
Jim P. at September 7, 2011 8:32 PM
Home address searches are pretty fucking sick. What if this woman has children, or even if she doesn't? If I were her, I would have my child(ren) somewhere miles away tonight.
Maybe starting to think this woman isn't a goose-stepping nazi shooting Jews and Gypsies, just someone trying to be a bread-winner may be more realistic? Oh well, that horse is outta the barn now.
Eric at September 7, 2011 8:37 PM
I agree with Eric about the home searches. But everyone involved is dealing with bigger forces than they should have to deal with.
Americans have selected government to be the most powerful force in society. And government has decided that high school dropouts should be able to earn a living by testing the texture of a traveler's genitals four times in pursuit of "homeland security."
So, yeah, bad things are happening. It's a shame that the simple woman on the other end of this story should feel threatened by internet fame. I sincerely hope she has no difficulties with people away from her job site.
But she was unforgivably foolish if she thought she could righteously make a living that way.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 7, 2011 9:15 PM
I want to support your fight, and I will not be
allowing the full body scanner for myself again.
I would love to give to your lawsuit, but checks?
Mail? C'mon. It's 2011.
This is the age of electronic payment.
Give us a PayPal link.
PayProFlow lets you put a PayPal button right
on your site and even lets you take credit cards.
elmer at September 7, 2011 9:33 PM
elmer,
Find the Goddess' Dog picture on the upper left side of the blog entry. Right below it is a PayPal link.
You can do it that way.
Jim P. at September 7, 2011 9:54 PM
Speak truth to power! Sorry to hear how the TSA nazis violated you. None of us should have to experience this humiliation, especially to get on an airplane. Abolish the federal alphabet agencies! Legalize freedom!
Kurt at September 7, 2011 10:34 PM
You (or someone) should set up a Paypal account for donations. Some will be more likely to chip in if they don't have to actually mail a letter (true; I barely have time these days to even get to a mailbox).
LYT at September 7, 2011 11:42 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/09/07/obedience_train.html#comment-2464640">comment from LYTThanks - good suggestion, Lukey - just sent Marc an email asking him to set one up that goes to his account.
Amy Alkon at September 8, 2011 12:01 AM
"Constitution and the Bill of Rights"? Amy, please do not use that expression if you wish to sound like you know what you're talking about. I can't stand it. The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the Constitution! The expression is redundant. If you've read the Constitution, you've read the Bill of Rights.
Talking about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights makes it sound like you think they're separate documents, when they're not. But the latter is contained in the former.
Perhaps you meant to talk about the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Patrick at September 8, 2011 5:51 AM
Ron Paul was great on the TSA last night. If private companies cna safely move billions in cash, and freight, then they can keep people safe too. No gov't agency needed.
The whole "texas sucks" mediator theme was tiring. I really wish Perry would have said it's hard to provide good schooling when a large chunk of those entering don't speak english. It's hard to have most of your population with health insurance when a large chunk of them are illegal and won't buy it. That response would have been refreshing.
momof4 at September 8, 2011 6:28 AM
Amy, I'm a faithful reader of your blog and columns - I even own your book and lend it to interested friends.
Anyway, after I read this piece I felt a nudge in my soul to pray for you. I mentioned it to my Bible study group last night, and now we're all praying that she drops the lawsuit.
My fear, however, is that even if you win this battle, the U.S. as whole will lose this war.
Keep your chin up!
Tim Webster at September 8, 2011 7:23 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/09/07/obedience_train.html#comment-2465438">comment from Tim WebsterThank you, Tim. And what I hope this will help do is get people to understand that we all need to speak up. If everyone were sobbing at the airport as this terrible, tragic thing is happening -- as the Fourth Amendment is ripped up at the airport door -- I think we wouldn't have the TSA as we know it. By the way, as the wonderful anti-TSA activist Lisa Simeone confirmed for me by email yesterday, they have had ZERO incidences where they've stopped an act of terrorism (they'd surely have crowed about it) in the agency's bajillion-dollar history.
Amy Alkon at September 8, 2011 7:59 AM
I don't doubt that your lawyer knows his stuff, but what about the SLAPP suit statute? If this claim was made in my state (Washington) my first response would be "You now owe $10,000 plus my attorney's fees. Please send a certified check." I'm sure the law is somewhat different in California but I know it exists.
That demand letter reads like it was written by a high school junior with a thesaurus. Way to intimidate someone with your allegedly fantastic legal skills!
You're going to be fine. Don't worry about this.
Michael Nagle at September 8, 2011 8:06 AM
I disagree with the Cuban cigars one.
I should probably say, I am biased though - my family immigrated from Argentina and we are NOT fans of Castro.
Cuban cigars (unless I am mistaken) are the result of a trade embargo on Cuba because of their hostilities against the US (Cuban Missile Crisis, etc) and the fact that they are communistic and absolutely HORRIBLE, to their citizens.
I don't think America needs to support that in any way and I do believe it is a matter of National Security - (Cuban Missile Crisis).
Babalu blog does a good job of keeping up on the atrocities that happen in that country.
Everything else...I err on the side of freedom.
Feebie at September 8, 2011 8:28 AM
momof4 writes: "Ron Paul was great on the TSA last night. If private companies cna safely move billions in cash, and freight, then they can keep people safe too. No gov't agency needed."
Paul has been great in hammering away at the TSA, but this notion of private contractors as some sort of panacea is misguided. The problem isn't public vs. private; it's authoritarianism vs. liberty, paranoia vs. reality, hysteria vs. common sense. The Mall of America has hired private security goons, who abuse people just as much as the TSA does:
The shadow of suspicion falls in the Mall of America
Visitors who have done nothing wrong are winding up identified in counterterrorism reports
http://www.salon.com/news/homeland_security/index.html?story=/politics/feature/2011/09/07/mallofamerica
Lisa Simeone at September 8, 2011 8:39 AM
Uh, Le oops.
Wrong thread!
Shit.
Reposting upstairs.
Feebie at September 8, 2011 9:02 AM
He wasn't pushing private contractors. He was saying the company you buy the ticket from (say southwest) protects their passengers. Much like Loomis protects Loomis trucks.
momof4 at September 8, 2011 9:12 AM
"All other internet searches/social media/etc. do not show *any* "Thedala" Magee in existence."
Incorrect. Spokeo.com shows an address in CA for that string.
Ahh, I do see that now, thanks Rad-good info there. Not sure why I couldn't find that before. However, that is the ONLY piece of information, anywhere, that has been found so far. It is quite odd, as this is a person in her 20's in LA...usually a person in their 20's has many search hits. (Of course, there are many dozens in regards to this blog, but nothing but this one hit before the occurrence.) So we can probably be certain now that this is the name, for our female relatives to avoid at the airport.
JWash at September 8, 2011 10:14 AM
This is "TSA issue" is for stupid people.
Yes, there have been no terrorist attacks--that's because the terrorist threat is feeble, and always has been.
Yet we spend $1 trillion a year on the Department of Defense, the VA and Homeland Security.
But you are worried about pat-downs?
Not the $1 trillion looted out of your pocket and given to the gaggle of grifters and lard-snufflers, and coprolitic agencies that make up this "defense" industry?
Please pat me down but give me back my money.
BOTU at September 8, 2011 10:23 AM
Please pat me down but give me back my money.
It doesn't have to be either/or. One can certainly expect the government to slash their expenses, and also to not waggled their fingers in our genitals. To say that these are exclusive is foolish. Otherwise, one says "it's alright to waggle your finger in my genitals, so long as you steal less from me." What a crock.
JWash at September 8, 2011 12:16 PM
The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the Constitution! The expression is redundant.
What is wrong with you, Patrick? The original Constitution did not include the amendments, so technically there was nothing wrong with Amy's statement. As well, it is just nit-picking and rude to bring this up. By the way, I'm going to eat oranges and mandarins for breakfast tomorrow. Wait...they're both citrus? Mandarins developed from oranges? Guess I just like being specific.
If she did mean the Declaration of Independence rather than the Bill of Rights, big whoop-ty-doo! I am certain that you never make mistakes in your own speech vocabulary. Besides, I am certain that she means the Bill of Rights, as she was pointing out the Fourth Amendment. Don't be rude.
JWash at September 8, 2011 12:27 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/09/07/obedience_train.html#comment-2465838">comment from JWashI like to be specific in mentioning The Bill of Rights because many people only have the vaguest idea of the Constitution, and don't know their rights or where they're located. I was exercising my First Amendment right of freedom of speech in writing about what happened to me, and complaining about the crumpling up of our Fourth Amendment right to not be searched without reasonable suspicion we've committed a crime.
Amy Alkon at September 8, 2011 12:37 PM
In response to the postings by: R. Zahau - Sexual Assault was the actual term, which is not rape, it is Sexual Assault. And if some one jammed their hand up your bum several times, you might be able to relate. Or, maybe you enjoy things being shoved forcibly into your personal orifices? Who knows, but that's not what EVERY ONE is into, so get a grip, get a clue and better still, get a life.
Kudos to you, Miss Alkon. You have a ton of support and no one should be violated by those who were set in place by our own tax dollars and whose job is only to protect, not cause emotional harm.
Mala at September 8, 2011 7:23 PM
Yours is a sad story, and Americans should be more ashamed of the way things are. That should never have happened to you, it's actually wrong. Right and wrong don't matter enough anymore.
JLXC at September 8, 2011 11:27 PM
JWash, shove it. My point was that if Amy wants to sound like she knows what she's talking about, then she wouldn't mention the Bill of Rights as if it were a separate document from the Constitution, and I'll stand by it. If you've read the Constitution, you've read the Bill of Rights, so, yes there's something wrong with that statement. That's was an Amendment is...it AMENDS the Constitution, dumbass. Look up the definition...I'm certain you'll find that one of them is "to add to something." If it's "adding" to the Constitution, it becomes part of it.
And I was not rude, either. I was direct. Rude would have been something like, "Oh, you've read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, did you? Very impressive. And did you experience any sense of deja vu while all this reading was going on? Like perhaps there's something you've read before?"
And furthermore, you could not say with any accuracy that you've read the Constitution without reading the Amendments. Thanks for making an idiot of yourself, JWash. I was looking for online punching bag...but I'll settle for a douchebag.
Patrick at September 8, 2011 11:45 PM
Oh, and by the way, JWash, I almost forgot: the original Constitution was actually not passed at all until the first ten amendments, aka the Bill of Rights, were actually included, so your statement, "The original Constitution did not include the amendments" is obviously something you pulled out your ass without having even the slightest idea what you're talking about. Feel stupid now? You should.
Patrick at September 8, 2011 11:52 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/09/07/obedience_train.html#comment-2466636">comment from PatrickAmy wants to sound like she knows what she's talking about,
The Bill of Rights is a list of amendments to the Constitution (the first 10), and I like to be specific when I'm talking (especially since many people are clueless as to what the Constitution says). I have no problem being accused of improper reference or redundancy. Patrick disagrees with the way I reference it (his prerogative, but I disagree with his disagreement); I reference it as I do on purpose.
Just to reiterate: The Constitution is the original document and the Bill of Rights is the amendments, in the way I refer to it.
More here:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html
And see the timeline from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
Note that they are not created at the same time. (Which is why the amendments are called amendments!)
September 17, 1787 – Final draft of the Constitution is signed and convention adjourns.
September 28, 1787 – Continental Congress approves sending proposed Constitution to states for their consideration.
December 7, 1787 – Delaware is 1st state to ratify the Constitution.
December 12, 1787 – Pennsylvania is 2nd state to ratify the Constitution.
December 18, 1787 – New Jersey is 3rd state to ratify the Constitution.
January 2, 1788 – Georgia is 4th state to ratify the Constitution.
January 9, 1788 – Connecticut is 5th state to ratify the Constitution.
February 6, 1788 – Massachusetts is 6th state to ratify the Constitution.
March 24, 1788 – Rhode Island REFUSES to call ratifying convention.
April 28, 1788 – Maryland is 7th state to ratify the Constitution.
May 23, 1788 – South Carolina is 8th state to ratify the Constitution.
June 21, 1788 – New Hampshire is 9th state to ratify the Constitution.
June 25, 1788 – Virginia is 10th state to ratify the Constitution.
July 26, 1788 – New York is 11th state to ratify the Constitution.
March 4, 1789 – The Constitution goes into effect.
September 25, 1789 – Congress proposes Bill of Rights.
Amy Alkon at September 8, 2011 11:57 PM
Amy, my point was that if you're going to court...as you probably will...you might want to avoid using an expression that sounds like you think the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are separate entities. You might say that you read the Constitution, emphasizing the Bill of Rights, or especially the Bill of Rights. But my point stands. "Constitution and the Bill of Rights" doesn't sound like emphasis. It sounds like you think they're separate documents, and they are not. As you say, that's why they're called AMENDMENTS!
Patrick at September 9, 2011 1:52 AM
And thank you for the research, by the way. Someone has advised me (on the Terry Lakin Action Fund facebook page - where I hang out just to get in some trolling, since I think Terry Lakin is a coward and liar) told him that a Constitutional scholar, Dean Herbert Titus, advised him that the Constitution wouldn't pass without the Bill of Rights. So, I copied and pasted your research to him.
Patrick at September 9, 2011 2:10 AM
Amy
Firstly love your blog! I stumbled across it after searching about the TSA. I am an Australian living here in the US and will be flying home with hubby and 3 small kids probably early next year so wanted to see what kind of treatment I can look forward to....not.
When you wrote about your experience it stuck in my mind so I was shocked to read, of course, that you were being sued.
Just wanted to post my support and wish you luck with this ridiculous law suit.
I am hoping by the time we decide to fly all this groping crap is over and done with if not and you read about an Australian woman getting arrested because some TSA nut decided to mess with her kids you'll know who it is! I will not be sending my kids through the NOS and will not put up with a stranger assulting them and believe me my kids won't either they have been taught to kick scream etc if anyone touches them in a bad way.
Good luck again and give them hell! :)
Rebecca at September 9, 2011 9:20 AM
Amy, Hi5. You are right on target for this (Like we have to tell you this but it is nice to hear any way). All the best and all the support.
H.E. Curtis at September 11, 2011 8:41 PM
@ Patrick: Amy proved that you actually are wrong, and you admit it partially, and yet you called me a douche for being right, but I won't expect an apology from one such as you. Get your head out of your ass. Did you even consider my "mandarins and oranges" comparison?
Your concern about how it may be taken in court is well understood however, since there are plenty of loony-tune judges in courts these days. So worried about if they can prove how high-and-mighty they are, and how ignorant every one else is, that they can't judge what is right from what is wrong.
What you suggest is that they would be so hell-bent about if Amy stated she read both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights...that that would keep them from being able to judge correctly on the law? Well, actually, I agree with you there. Plenty of judges that need to get their heads out of their asses as well. Bunch of elitists that should not have been trusted with the position in the first place. Amy, since the world is as it is, and judges are so awful, you likely should heed the advice to not say both "Constitution" and "Bill of Rights." Not because you're particularly wrong on anything, but because someone like Patrick may likely be the judge assigned to your court case.
JWash at September 11, 2011 9:54 PM
Suggestion: refer to the Lemuel Penn case, as case law that established travel as a Constitutional right.
For the Constitution, with its Bill of Rights, is a basis, but courts will include case law.
The idea is that just as the 1st Amendment does not grant you an audience or guarantee access to another person's property to speak freely, but DOES prevent government from interfering with your free speech...
...Lemuel Penn may let you show that although you are not guaranteed a method of travel offered by a private entity, such as a corporation, government may not prevent you from traveling.
How much mileage you get out of this idea, I dunno, but it's worth looking up.
Radwaste at September 12, 2011 5:53 PM
Leave a comment