45 votes

First no-fly list case in history, witness can't make it because...

... She was just put on the no-fly list and prevented from boarding her flight to testify.

Malaysian PhD student, Rahinah Ibrahim, living with her 14 yr old daughter in Stanford, CA is to go to a conference in Malaysia that Stanford is holding. Recovering from surgery, she asks for a wheelchair to get to the gate at the San Francisco airport. When she gets to the ticket counter, she's told that she's on the no-fly list, and is handcuffed and detained for 2 hours, missing her flight. The FBI tells the airport to let her go, and she hears she is no longer on the no-fly list. She reschedules for the next day, shows up to the airport, but again they tell her she's on the no-fly list. But they let her board the flight anyway and she leaves for her school's conference.

After the conference, at the Malaysian airport, she tries to board her return flight to finish her PhD work at Stanford. She was told she couldn't board the flight, and DHS wanted authorities to arrest her. The Malaysian officials said "fuck the DHS" and didn't arrest her, but they didn't let her board either. She never returned to the US. Her daughter was born here and is a US citizen.

She submitted a request to clear her name from the list and was told they revoked her student visa too. Demolishing her professional goals. Stanford continued to work with her abroad, but she was severely limited in her professional abilities without the ability to travel to CA. This was in 2005.

Rahinah filed suit against the DHS with help from lawyers in CA, but the supposedly unbiased District Court said, "Fuck you!! You think you can sue the DHS?! You're a terrst!! [sic]. We don't care what you say, we won't do shit for you. DHS!! USA!! DHS!! USA!!" (Paraphrase). This was in 2006.

She appealed the dismissal with the help of pro-bono lawyers in the States. The appeals court ruled in 2008 that the district court had jurisdiction and remanded them to try the civil lawsuit.

Fast forward to today, and the District Court in SF is finally hearing the case. This marks the first case in history that a court is trying about the secretive no-fly list. This is a black eye on the reputation of the Judicial System that the unconstitutional no-fly list has been unchallenged for so long. Countless lives affected like Rahinah, many lives ruined.

Anyway, Rahinah can't show up to court because she can't get there, but her lawyers call as a witness her daughter to testify on her behalf. Her daughter, a natural-born US citizen, is now 22 and practices law in Malaysia. On the day of her testimony, she didn't show up to court.

Apparently, a subsidiary of the defendants (DHS), placed Rahinah's daughter on the no-fly list, preventing her from testifying in the trial. Oh the disgusting Irony. After nearly a decade of stress, hard work and government bullshit, all just to get off the no-fly list. She's rewarded with the whimsical press of a button in a secret room so that now her daughter is on the no-fly list too. If her daughter would like to challenge that, she's got a long road ahead.

When the judge asked DHS if this was true, they denied it and said the daughter was lying. Malaysian Airways backed up Rahinah's lawyers with a copy of the no-fly request from DHS, proving she was not allowed to board the flight because of DHS.

The trial is ongoing. And if everything goes just right, and the government doesn't cheat the trial, and the judge actually rules in Rahinah's favor, and the government doesn't appeal, or loses on appeal, the Best-Case scenario for Rahinah at this point is she gets her name taken off the list, and her daughter will possibly be able to challenge her own No-Fly listing in court.

Statists are responsible for this absolute travesty of human rights violations. This case is but one lottery winner who overcame extremely poor odds of getting these human rights violations heard in a courtroom. This is a violation of Rahinah's rights to freedom of speech by association, and her rights to due process. If you think she doesn't have those rights because she's not a US Citizen, well then you're an idiot! Since when did "human rights" become "American rights", you egotistical jerk. It's an exceptionalism farce. America is not exceptional or alone or even in the minority in recognizing human rights like due process, or freedom of speech or association, or trial by jury. The powers that be would like you to think this, so they can deprive us all of our rights in increments. It is impossible to take away the rights of a few, without taking away the rights of us all. If we think rights are just a US thing, for US citizens, then maybe it's not so bad without them, the rest of the world is without rights (FALSE).

Those that don't oppose the TSA or DHS, this is why some of us do. Some people are abused without possibility of repercussion, arbitration, mediation or justice. That is absolutely absurd as some sort of social order, it's disgusting.

Sources used:

Google:
Rahinah Ibrahim

Appeals court ruling:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/02/08/10...

Reporter for the case:
http://papersplease.org/wp/2013/12/02/witness-in-no-fly-tria...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Two blatantly obviously absolutely dangerous laws that should

have repulsed anyone aware of them is this unaccountable, secret "No Fly" list that one cannot get off of, find if one is on or know the reason one is on.

And the civil confiscation laws that let police officer take all your cash with just the mild suspicion (no proof no charges) that one could be involved with drugs.

You know that we have taken a nose dive as a country that these two laws are allowed to exist.

"Who Needs Wings to Fly?" - The Flying Nun, 1967


Witness Tampering presented for those that do not need wings to fly. 1 minute preview for non-believers.

      Witness Tampering, definition @ Cornell University.

18 USC § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

Homeland Security does not have a Monopoly ™ over witnesses against them in court. The following definition of "Witness Tampering" is provide in common English language suitable for legal briefs.

    Current through Pub. L. 113-36. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
    (a)
    (1) Whoever kills or attempts to kill another person, with intent to—
    (A) prevent the attendance or testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
    (B) prevent the production of a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
    (C) prevent the communication by any person to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
    shall be punished as provided in paragraph (3).
    (2) Whoever uses physical force or the threat of physical force against any person, or attempts to do so, with intent to—
    (A) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
    (B) cause or induce any person to—
    (i) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
    (ii) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the integrity or availability of the object for use in an official proceeding;
    (iii) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
    (iv) be absent from an official proceeding to which that person has been summoned by legal process; or
    (C) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, supervised release, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
    shall be punished as provided in paragraph (3).
    (3) The punishment for an offense under this subsection is—
    (A) in the case of a killing, the punishment provided in sections 1111 and 1112;
    (B) in the case of—
    (i) an attempt to murder; or
    (ii) the use or attempted use of physical force against any person;
    imprisonment for not more than 30 years; and
    (C) in the case of the threat of use of physical force against any person, imprisonment for not more than 20 years.
    (b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—
    (1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
    (2) cause or induce any person to—
    (A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
    (B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;
    (C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
    (D) be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or
    (3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation [1] supervised release,, [1] parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
    shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
    (c) Whoever corruptly—
    (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
    (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
    shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
    (d) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from—
    (1) attending or testifying in an official proceeding;
    (2) reporting to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation [1] supervised release,, [1] parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
    (3) arresting or seeking the arrest of another person in connection with a Federal offense; or
    (4) causing a criminal prosecution, or a parole or probation revocation proceeding, to be sought or instituted, or assisting in such prosecution or proceeding;
    or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both.
    (e) In a prosecution for an offense under this section, it is an affirmative defense, as to which the defendant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, that the conduct consisted solely of lawful conduct and that the defendant’s sole intention was to encourage, induce, or cause the other person to testify truthfully.
    (f) For the purposes of this section—
    (1) an official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense; and
    (2) the testimony, or the record, document, or other object need not be admissible in evidence or free of a claim of privilege.
    (g) In a prosecution for an offense under this section, no state of mind need be proved with respect to the circumstance
    (1) that the official proceeding before a judge, court, magistrate judge, grand jury, or government agency is before a judge or court of the United States, a United States magistrate judge, a bankruptcy judge, a Federal grand jury, or a Federal Government agency; or
    (2) that the judge is a judge of the United States or that the law enforcement officer is an officer or employee of the Federal Government or a person authorized to act for or on behalf of the Federal Government or serving the Federal Government as an adviser or consultant.
    (h) There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section.
    (i) A prosecution under this section or section 1503 may be brought in the district in which the official proceeding (whether or not pending or about to be instituted) was intended to be affected or in the district in which the conduct constituting the alleged offense occurred.
    (j) If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.
    (k) Whoever conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Is that Sally Fields? Haha.

Is that Sally Fields? Haha.

Good find on the legal stuff! Well presented too with the Bold.

"Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito."

Sally Field: Yes & thank you.

Sally Field as the Flying Nun, 1967.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

It's stories like this that have killed satire...

TPTB are destroying ridicule by being ridiculous. In other words, you can't make this -s- up...

It was probably the pandas.

I was thinking of that recently

Like this scene. Now it's reality.

so true

so true

Ron Paul 2016

Her daughter is NOT a natural born citizen

Ibrahim isn't a US citizen and an NBC is one whose parents are both US citizens. They don't say what her husband is, though she met him in the US and they married in Seattle.
Aside from that, the no-fly list is bogus and needs to be abolished along with the DHS, TSA and every alphabet agency in DC.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

Your statement is simply untrue.

Why on earth would the term "natural-born citizen" be defined as a person who has two parents born in the US? At the time the term was put into the Constitution, NO ONE had parents born in the US. That's a silly definition.

Natural-born citizen is a citizen at birth. They can be abroad, with two citizen parents, or here with illegal alien parents.

"Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito."

"At the time the term was put

"At the time the term was put into the Constitution, NO ONE had parents born in the US. That's a silly definition."

Actually, no it isn't. The Constitution also covers those who were not "natural-born", but were citizens when the Constitution was authored:

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution..."

That said... even though the daughter may not be a natural-born citizen, her natural rights are the same as any other individual's.

That takes care of people

That takes care of people born before adoption, but those born after adoption of the constitution with parents not born in the US, they were still natural born citizens. Even though they don't get coverage under the "citizen at the time of adoption" clause.

Did citizenship fall upon you at the moment you were born into nature? Then you're a natural born citizen. The only thing your parents have to do with it is if you are born abroad, they can infer citizenship at birth. If you are born inside of the US, the 14th amendment makes clear you are a citizen at birth no matter who your parents are. Because it's an amendment, it would supersede all earlier birth citizenship clauses in the constitution.

I know case law is on my side, so if you have some other theoretical argument, you should clarify you are not talking about the accepted legal definition.

If you have a theoretical argument, my argument is, were they born naturally into citizenship? Then they are a natural born citizen.

Your last post does not help define those born inside the US, shortly after the constitution was adopted, but did not have parents that were born here. Your last post only defines a Presidential qualification, not a natural-born citizen qualification. It says "presidents can only be natural born citizens, or other citizens that are not natural born, but were citizens at the time of adoption of the constitution". It doesn't attempt to define natural born citizen because the term defines itself.

Nonetheless, yes, that has nothing to do with her natural rights, only her ability to run for president. But I do contend that Rahinah's daughter could legally run for President in when she's 35, provided that she's lived here for 14 years.

"Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito."

And subject to the jurisdiction thereof

14th Amendment

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...

Being in the US for whatever reason, visiting, travel, business, illegal; and having children, doesn't NOT grant automatic citizenship. These children have the birthright of their parents.

Your argument falls flat

when you consider the only people who must qualify as natural born citizens are people who seek the presidency and, as amended, the vice presidency. They must be born on US soil to US citizen parents. Otherwise, there would be no need for the grandfather clause.

All people living on US soil are entitled to the protections of the United States Constitution as such life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That's a good point.

There is no ruling on the issue directly concerning president. But that leaves it open. I contend it's ridiculous to think you must've been born inside of the US if your US parents had you on vacation or living abroad temporarily. I think natural born citizen means exactly what it says. What about that baby born and spent their whole life in the US but born to immigrants? That seems a ridiculous reason to stop them from running. This land and country is as much a part of his life as it is mine. Or a baby born while their parents were stationed abroad in the military. He can't run because he was while his parents lived abroad?

I believe if the court ruled, they would take it to mean exactly what it says. The parental requirement is fabricated outside of the direct language.

"Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito."

Only if you think

allegiance to the United States as president or vice president is ridiculous. To answer your question, if the immigrant parents were naturalized citizens at the moment of the child's birth, and the child is born on US soil, that child is a natural born citizen.

If a baby is born to US citizen parents on a military base, which is determined to be US soil, that child is a natural born citizen.

"The parental requirement is fabricated outside of the direct language."

Using your interpretation, how do you explain the grandfather clause?

because

the need for the grandfather clause is that nobody was born in the(se)United States of America because it didn't exist yet. They were born in one of the colonies or maybe just lived in one of the colonies at the time. So boom everyone living there was at time of creation would qualify....after that you had to be born into it.

True enough...

The question is when the Constitution was ratified, all citizens of the several states became citizens of the United States. If every citizen of the several states is now a citizen of the United States, why did the framers include the grandfather clause under Article II qualifications to become president?

Under current thinking, if everyone living in the several states is now a citizen of the United States, and if this is the definition of natural born citizenship when seeking the office of the presidency, why did the framers feel it necessary to grandfather in everyone living in the states, who are now citizens of the United States, under Article II qualifications to become president?

Nobody was a natural born

Nobody was a natural born citizen at the time, therefore the grandfather clause. The grandfather clause has nothing to do with the definition of natural born citizen. It was necessary to allow non-natural born citizens the ability to become president until a natural born citizen met the other requirements to become president.

Natural born citizens, or people born with citizenship, didn't exist, and they certainly weren't 35 at the time.

"Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito."

"Natural born citizens, or

"Natural born citizens, or people born with citizenship, didn't exist, and they certainly weren't 35 at the time."

If you wish to engage me in conversation, you need to do your own research or stop wasting my time. Your assertion is factually incorrect.

"Natural born citizens, or

"Natural born citizens, or people born with citizenship, didn't exist, and they certainly weren't 35 at the time."

"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."

Where does it say anything about "people born with citizenship?"

How could anybody be a

How could anybody be a natural born citizen in a country that didn't exist until the document was signed.

Who was a natural born citizen when the constitution was signed? Answer that.

Maybe people born under the Articles of Confederation, but certainly not those born under the British crown. But they wouldn't have been 35 anyway. Hence the grandfather clause.

"Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito."

However, Chester A Arthur was

However, Chester A Arthur was rumored to have been born in Canada and had an open, non-citizen, Irish father.

"Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito."

That's what I've heard.

This is probably why he didn't run for the office of president after Garfield's term expired. At the time, there was a bit of a dust up about his qualifications for the office, similar to Barack Obama.

all persons living legally

persons living in America illegally have benefits of free medical, not paying taxes, free school, housing, help from local communities that share ethnic and religious agendas, which she is part, and I have every reason to believe, being a CA, and where she was, this is just another "inside job" for the NWO at the 9trh circuit court (and if they can get you to HATE America even more.. they're quite happy with it all actually, after all, this isn't about a better America, it's about controlled demolition of America).

Natural Rights

Regardless, she has natural rights, and due process is one of them.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

.

Exactly, weather his statement is true or untrue is a red herring, it's irrelevant. Though his statement is untrue.

"Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito."

...

You have to stand up for your rights! Demand the Oath of Office!

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

So, uh,

you seem to think there is something magical about doing that. There isn't. No matter what your favorite youtube guru told you, or no matter what you tell your followers (choose shoe that fits).

First, the court and the workers there, incl judge, do not need to 'prove oath of office' to each party. There's caselaw on it.

Second, even if they did, so what? Do you really think they DIDN'T take an oath?

Third, even if they are required, and didn't take an oath, so what? Do you assume that somehow would invalidate everything? Or do you assume that by judicial fiat an oath would be entered "nunc pro tunc."

Get real. Only in your alternative universe does that have any importance. In real court, it's a useless idea.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

...

Please provide a bona fide claim. I have been in court more times than I would like to admit. From my experiences Judges tend to run from the Oath of Office.

Cases are not won in the court room. Cases are won at the bank. I don't have time for belligerence.

I make no assumptions and I know how to defend myself. It is a felony not to provide the oath of office upon demand.

So let's get real assuming you want an intelligent conversation. If you are committing the act of racketeering and you do not know it, is it a crime?

Are you familiar with Title 18 and 42 of the U.S.C.?

Without the Oath of Office there is nothing. Just an administrative de fact court committing fraud without recourse.

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

deacon's picture

are you talking about

title 42 usc chapter 21 1983?

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence