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.

wrong

you're fibbing.

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

...

You are incompetent and willingly ignorant. This conversation has been concluded. I'm not here to waste my time. God speed. Best of luck to you. You are going to need it.

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

so that pesky code section

that felonizes the failure to give an oath on demand is what?

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

...

I'm not going to do your homework for you either. Are you truly interested or you just pulling my leg?

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

well, yes,

the reason I am truly interested is I know better. or at least am 99.999% sure that I do. I can be disabused of this notion, based on being in an around courtrooms for 20 years, but you'll have to "show me."

So, have you done your own homework? If it is a felony, there will be a code section that specifies that. So, what is it?

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

deacon's picture

Only 99.999% sure?

So,there is some doubt? :)

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

how would a mature adult answer this?

A mature adult has a strong opinion when he thinks he is right, but also is willing to be shown the truth if he is wrong.

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

deacon's picture

come now

It was a joke,hence the smileyface

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

htat's what I get

for reading it on my phone! ;)

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

...

The Oath of Office is a sworn affidavit/affirmation that a person will be servant to the people of the United States of America.

Depends on the employee. Judges, Senators, Presidents, Officers, Sheriffs, Bailiffs, Court Recorders, etc. each have their own requirements and code sections at both the state and federal levels.

In the State of California, officers must follow code section 1630 of the GOVERNMENT CODE according to Article 20 Section 3 of the California Constitution.

Failure to perform your duty has many names. Perjury, Extortion, Racketeering, Insurrection, Sedition, Treason etc.

At the Federal level Title 42 USC §1983 for civil and 18 USC §241-242 at minimum for criminal. There are many more code sections that can be included.

You have no rights unless you are willing to stand against those laying claim to them. There is no magic bullet. Fight back!

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

Yep, looks like fibbing to me!

I know without even looking it up on a busy Friday that 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 does not make "failure to provide evidence of oath when asked" a felony. In fact, it has nothing to do with criminalizing of anything. Rather, Section 1983, which I became familiar with as a first year law student, gives authority for civil action against government officials who engage in actions that violate Constitutional rights.

I'll this weekend look up the rest, but your response already tells me you've come up empty. You say that there are "many more code sections" to look at as if the idea that a certain thing is a felony would not be simply stated in a single code section, but rather that you have to rummage around in the code books making arcane inferences that aren't supportable, and then and only then do you get the idea that it could be a felony, if you mis-define enough terms. Sorry, the law doesn't work that way.

I suspect you know that and that is why you aren't directly answering my inquiry.

So, if you have the code section, cite it or quote it, or admit you're fibbing. It's what a man should do.

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

...

Call your mom and ask her. Please do no quote words I did not write. I don't have confidence in your comprehension. I'm sorry but I have to move on now.

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

My Mom

doesn't know beans about law. Neither do you. neither of you have a legal education. At least my Mom knows she doesn't. What is it that Sun Tzu said about people who don't know, but don't know what they don't know?

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

...

She taught you to speak so eloquently. You must be proud.

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

if you're not pulling everyone's leg here

You should be able to show off your immense knowledge (hey, you called me, with two decades of experience, incompetent) in under 25 words. Just cite the code and quote the pertinent parts.

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

...

I don't argue and I don't have time for word play. Violation of the Oath of Office is a felony whether you know it or now. Keep your ignorant believes but don't think you'll ever stand on me servant.

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

violation of oath of office vs. have to show oath to every schmo

of course it is a crime to violate an oath of office but that isn't what you're claiming.

You're claiming it is a felony to not show one's signed oath (and that assumes it is written - I know I took an oral oath once) of office to every idiot that asks for it.

IF your position is that not showing your oath to everyone who asks for it "violates oath of office", first of all, yuo're wrong, and second of all, what is your cite for THAT.

In the legal world, teh law is all written down. People don't go into court saying "I know it" and then calling everyone who disagrees with them incompetent. Well, not if they want to get anywhere they don't; that may very well be your modus operandi, however.

Two different things.

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

...

I just don't like your tone. It's mostly belligerent. Everyone is incompetent at something. If it is not a big deal then show up with your sworn oath of office and put it on the record. Stand on your words of ink and paper.

The reality is this is fearful for you.

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

Tone?

You started off with your ad hominem attacks and despite about a dozen replies, you've not cited a code that says what you claim the law is.

Stop trying to distract everyone, your own incompetence is fully on display here.

I don't even know what "show up with your sworn oath of office and put it on the record" means. One's oath is put on the record once, and that is it. One doesn't have to give it to other people. It's not fearful in the least. In my profession we all take an oath and the fact that we are licensed, and that such licensing requires it, makes that obvious.

If you want to see my oath, you'ol have to travel back in time to the group swearing in ceremeony I attended.

If yuo want to see what a lawyer's oath looks like, go to one of those ceremonies, they're open to the public.

I believe judge swearing in ceremonies are open to the public and on the public record as well.

But that doesn't mean you're going to get anywhere in court asking about it. Again, is it your likely faulty belief that the judge never took an oath? What are the odds of that? Heck, if I were the judge, just to mess with you, I'd take another one right then and there, then ask you if you care to discuss the facts of your case.

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

...

I make the request for the certified oath of office from the secretary of state notary public section.

They are very real and you keep discounting that fact because of incompetence or an intent to deceive. Maybe you just don't know everything.

Are you trying to learn or just berate me with government religion non-sense and grammatical complaints? I can show you what they look like.

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

incompetence again

"I make the request for the certified oath of office from the secretary of state notary public section."

Well, shucky darn...however that says ABSOLUTELY A TON OF NOTHING ABOUT "it is a felony to not produce an oath when asked."

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

...

Piss off. It's the same drama over and over. Your quote is not mine.

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

You're calling me ignorant

yet you misspell beliefs. Now misspelling is something I never try to point out in an online discussion, unless someone gets all high and mighty about how competent and educated they are, when they are obviously full of it. When you're claiming to be a legal expert and don't know to spell a 10-cent word, that spells problems for you and anyone who takes what you say seriously.

Again, this should be really simple for you to do if you have the knowledge. For example, even if I don't know the code section, I can find out a code section for an actual crime in about 20 seconds with the expedient of a code book or a search engine. You're just full of excrement and can't admit it.

Here's a couple of links to start you on the path toward recovery from being a conman:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudolaw

"Lang v. Dieleuterio (D NJ unpub 2/17/99); crank sued a large group of named persons, some judges, the entire US govt, the American Medical Assn, the District of Columbia, his homestate of Idaho, hundreds of unnamed persons, accusing them of a large assortment of crimes and demanding copies of the oaths of office taken by several of the defendants and also by the President, the Chief Justice, the Clerk of the Supreme Court, and other high officials, saying they were "required to file in the record" these oaths, but the court held there was no such requirement; further, the oaths of federal judges are kept in their personnel records in the Administrative Office of the US Courts and presumably, as part of their personnel folders [and thereby exempt from FOIA discovery, 5 USC sec. 552(b)(6)], are considered non-public. Miller v. Johnson (DDC 1982) 541 F.Supp 1165" - Quoted from "Idiot Legal Arguments"

Yes, that is right, you are taking a position that is so inane and frankly stupid that it has been memorialized in a well known and oft-cited legal treatise entitled "Idiot Legal Arguments".

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

...

You are drama. Please provide a bona fide claim? What is your intent? What is your game? What are you so afraid of that you can't leave me in peace?

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

hey, your ad hominem attacks motivate me

arguing with sovereign citizen wannabe idiots is like shooting fish in a barrel. When I approach politely and just ask for support for your position and you go ape - saying I'm incompetent, etc, you can't complain much if things deteriorate.

If you want to be "left in peace" then discuss the issue, avoid ad hominem attacks, and don't claim ridiculous bullcrap.

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

...

Why you so mad for? Do you take medication? I hope you don't talk to your elders that way.

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

elders?

oh so you're all about respecting your elders now? Ok, that's funny.

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

...

The humor is cheap and low class.

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

well, now that we can agree on

.

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

My point is that you are wrong

there is no requirement that a judge, or a bailiff, or a court clerk, or a law clerk, or even the municipal dog catcher, show you their oaths of office just because you ask for it.

There is no law which equates the failure to do so with violating the oath of office.

There is no law that makes the failure to do so actionable in civil court (and several cases say the opposite).

There is no law that makes the failure to do so actionable in criminal court.

And - while we're at it...this is an internet discussion board. You stated your idea that there is a law whcih requires these things. As part of that discussion, I disagree. I don't have to have a "bona fide claim". I infer that you place "magic word" importance on this phrase but it is utterly un-magical.

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