Scott Millard needs to win an award, because he took a bullet.  Judge Kenneth Post, on the other hand, is a disgrace.  Via WoodTV, Millard was before Post in Hudsonville, Michigan, district court when the fine judge decided that he no longer liked the whole constitutional thing anymore.

JUDGE POST: (to the defendant) When they give you a drug test today, are you going to be clean or dirty?

MILLARD: (My client) is going to stand mute to that question, your honor.

POST:  He’s not going to stand mute. He’s either going to answer the question or I’m going to remand him to jail.

MILLARD: Your honor –

POST: You can have a seat.

MILLARD: Your honor, I’m –

POST: Sit down.

MILLARD: I’m Counsel, your honor.

POST: I’m encouraged. Both of you sit down.

MILLARD: I’m his attorney, your honor.

POST: I’m encouraged.

MILLARD: (My client) has a 5th Amendment right.

POST: Counsel, I’m setting bond. There’s two ways we can do this. I can give him 30 days from the date that he last used to be clean, or I’ll remand him to jail until such time as he’s clean and then we’ll go from there.

MILLARD: And I –

POST: Would you please be quiet? I really appreciate that. Thank you.

MILLARD: I apologize.

POST: (to the defendant) When was the last time that you used controlled substances? Let me have the date please.

MILLARD: Your honor, (my client) has a 5th Amendment –

POST: I’m not charging him with using controlled substance, Counsel. He’s not charged with that charge. I’m interested in getting a clean, honest bond response. Now, if you don’t want to do that, you can leave. Your call.

MILLARD: (My client) has a 6th Amendment right to assist, effective assistance of counsel.

POST: That’s right. And that’s not what he’s getting at the moment.

MILLARD: Your honor, I strongly disagree with that.

POST: I’m glad.

MILLARD: I’ve been nothing but respectful and I will always be respectful to the bench.

POST: Then would you please let him answer my questions?

MILLARD: (My client) has a 5th Amendment right not to make admissions, and, your honor, the manner in which this proceeding is being conducted, strongly has the, at least I’m getting the sense that it threatens to tread on that 5th Amendment right.

The judge and the attorney went back and forth for a bit on the 5th Amendment, the court’s ability to order drug testing and the attorney’s suggestion to set a date for his client to take a drug test. Then —

POST:  I’m not interested in what you think. Haven’t you gotten that yet?

MILLARD: I have gotten that, and I… understand that, and your honor, the court fully, certainly has the right to not care what I say. How —

POST: Thank you. Then be quiet. … (Then, to the defendant) When was the last time that you, the date that you last used controlled substances, sir?

Millard interrupted and stopped his client from answering.

POST: One more word, and I’m going to hold you in contempt.

Soon after, as Millard continued to bring up the constitutional protections his client had, Post cited him in contempt and fined him $100. Millard continued to speak up on his client’s behalf.

Every once in a while, a story like this, of an attorney who was given a choice of whether to risk his own skin or sacrifice his client, comes along.  Few lawyers will show the guts to take the contempt, to refuse to allow their clients to be bullied.  They won’t sit down. They won’t shut up. They will take the bullet.

Awards are given out by criminal defense bar associations to lawyers who have the ability to fill a table with warm bodies.  They should be given to lawyers like Scott Millard for having the guts to risk his own wonderful life in order to protect his client from a judge like Post.  It may not be much, but Millard gets the Simple Justice Lawyer with Balls Award.

And Judge Kenneth Post, filled with self-importance and god-like power, wins nothing, and hopefully the powerful folks in Michigan will swiftly make certain that he is never in a position of power over anyone again.  May he choke on his robes.

H/T Tim Farhill (the Australian one)

Update:  As noted in  Jim Majkowski’s comment below, somebody got 30 days for what happened here, and it wasn’t Scott Millard. Sometimes, the right thing happens, though one could rightfully question whether Post has any business being on any bench anywhere.  Thanks to Jim for the update.

From the 9th Circuit decision in Gonzalez v. Wong, partial concurrence/dissent of William A. Fletcher, a public service announcement.

The underlying case was resulted in the death penalty based upon a jailhouse snitch, with massive Brady issues giving rise to a reversal and remand,  But Judge Fletcher believed the Circuit could resolve the Brady issue without remand, and offered this in explanation.

In October 1988, Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department deputies learned that a jailhouse informant, Leslie White, was writing an article in which he planned to explain how informants were acquiring knowledge about defendants they had never met in order to fabricate those defendants’ confessions. Report of the 1989- 90 Los Angeles County Grand Jury, June 26, 1990, at 69 [hereinafter “Grand Jury Report”]. White agreed to demonstrate the technique to the Sheriff’s Department. The report of what White did is worth repeating in full. The report does not identify White by name, but refers to him as “the informant.”

Just the lead-in. Here’s the beef.

The sergeant gave the informant the name of an inmate who was being held in the Hall of Justice Jail on murder charges. The informant, representing himself to be an employee of a bail bond company, called the jail’s Inmate Reception Center and was able to obtain the inmate’s booking number, date of birth, color of eyes and hair, height, weight, race (Caucasian), bail ($100,000), case number, date of arrest, arresting agency (Sheriff’s Special Enforcement Bureau), next court date, and where the inmate was housed in the jail.

The informant next called the records section of the District Attorney’s Office. He said he was a Deputy District Attorney and asked for information on the inmate’s case. He was given the name of the Deputy District Attorney prosecuting the case, the Deputy District Attorney’s telephone number, and the name of a witness.

A few calls later, the informant called Sheriff’s Homicide and said he was “Sergeant Stevens” at the Central Jail. He was able to obtain the name of the murder victim, and the victim’s age and race.

The informant then called the Deputy District Attorney who was handling the case, initially identifying himself as “Sergeant Williams” with the Los Angeles Police Department. The Deputy District Attorney responded to the informant’s questions by stating, “I’ll tell you anything you want to know about the case,” and proceeded to provide details about what the victim was wearing, where his body was found, the fact that the coroner’s report said that death resulted from suffocation and/or drugs, that the victim’s blood contained a fatally high amount of methamphetamine, that the defendant confessed to stuffing the victim in a trunk, and the prosecutor’s personal opinion of the likely defense in the case. Near the end of the conversation, the informant gave his name as “Sergeant Johnson.”

At this point, the informant said he had obtained enough details about the case to enable him to fabricate a jail house confession which would be accepted by detectives. He then proceeded to demonstrate how he could arrange for contact between himself and the inmate to support the fabricated confession. The informant called a department of the Superior Court in Van Nuys, identifying himself as Deputy District Attorney “Michaels” with the Organized Crime Unit downtown. In response to the informant’s request, the court bailiff ordered the informant and the inmate to be transported to Van Nuys the following day. Id. at 69-71.
________________

White indicated that a fabricated confession based on this information would be sufficient to get him a “hell of a deal” with prosecutors.

And indeed, it would be sufficient to get a “hell of a deal,” and prosecutors would suck it up. Cops would suck it up. Judges and juries would suck it up. And it’s on “hell of a” scam.  The problem is that while a guy in jail might have no qualms whatsoever about burning another person to save his own sorry butt, prosecutors would neither think like this nor have any reason under the sun to scrutinize it any more closely than served their purpose of using it to get the bad guy.

Before some “brilliant” reader feels compelled to opine how the particulars of this scheme couldn’t possibly work in his jurisdiction, let me explain that this completely misses the point. Those inmates inclined to be jailhouse snitches become incredibly innovative in their ability to find ways to manipulate the system and its players.

There’s nothing like prison to bring out the tenacious ability to find ways to do things that shouldn’t be possible.  Just as prisoners are willing to secrete things in their anus that would be too repulsive for most of us to even consider, they find ways to make it happen.  So too do prisoners who want out so badly that they’ll sell another person to the executioner for their own freedom.

And now everyone can see how one prisoner pulled it off.  If you think others aren’t similarly capable, you’re deluding yourself.

H/T Mike Neal, Oregon Law Center

As Manhattan grew too expensive for ordinary humans, the lesser ones were forced over bridges and through tunnels toward places where they wouldn’t take up space to which their betters were entitled.  The worst of these unsavory characters went to New Jersey, and would up in a place called “Hoboken.”  Hoboken is a native American word, created by the Lenni Lenape tribe, meaning “place for outcasts from Manhattan.”

Vesselin Dittrich may not have realized that he stood on a rung so low on the ladder of Importance as to open himself to question.  He likely thought himself entitled to the privileges and immunities of which Americans are so proud.  In Hoboken.

Every once in a while, a seed of an idea appears at Brian Tannebaum’s  My Law License blog. I know, I’m shocked too, but it happens.  His Battle de Jour is over a comment, said to “a friend of his” (itself a jarring notion):

So the lawyer tells me that some lawyer asked whether my friend really believed that I helped them out of unselfish motives. There of course had to be some motive, it couldn’t be just…that…I like this lawyer and was there for the advice.

And that motive is?

To become a judge.

Of course.

“I had no choice, I just couldn’t get out of bed.”

“I had no choice, it was the best program I could get into.”

“I had no choice, he told me to do it…”

Really?

It’s probably more accurate to say, “the short-term benefit/satisfaction/risk avoidance was a lot higher than anything else, so I chose to do what I did.”

Remarkable work often comes from making choices when everyone else feels as though there is no choice. Difficult choices involve painful sacrifices, advance planning or just plain guts.

I make a choice, every single morning, when I wake up, make a pot of coffee, then sit down in front of a computer and start to read, then type.  My choice isn’t going to win me any robes.  It’s not going to get me a chair at Harvard. It isn’t going to earn me a friggin’ dime.  My choice is to exist.

I’m going to die one of these days. Maybe sooner rather than later, and likely sooner than most of my readers. I’ll be damned if I die without having anything to show I was here.  I lack the skills to build the Taj Mahal, or write a symphony, or create a tourbillon.  But I can type words onto a computer screen fast enough to put some ideas on virtual paper that serve to demonstrate, at least for a day, that I was here.

Most of my enemies don’t exist.  They can complain about me all they want, disagree with me and be angry with me until spittle flies out of their mouths.  They can impute evil motives to me and this blawg to anybody who will listen.  I don’t care.

No, this isn’t about Jerry Sandusky, but Utah lawprof cum former federal judge Paul Cassell.  It started with a post by  Doug Berman to a  new article on SSRN.  While the link was as neutral as could be, lacking even the most underwhelming adjective of “interesting,” the name of the article began with “Avenging Amy,” an  inflammatory beginning if ever there was one.

The article was written by Steven Joffee, an unfamiliar name. Even more curious, there was nothing on SSRN to suggest the writer’s scholarly affiliation, though this article was to be published in the Whittier Journal of Child and Family Advocacy, whatever that is.  The abstract of the article included verbiage that couldn’t be ignored:

Although Congress intended for Section 2259 to apply in any case in which a victim has “suffered harm” as a result of a defendant’s conduct, its inclusion of the term “proximate result” in the Act’s catchall loss provision has created much confusion amongst federal courts. As a result of this confusion, several courts have simply ignored the mandatory language of Section 2259 and have flatly refused to award victims of child pornography with restitution, ultimately rendering the Act mere rhetoric.

To resolve this debate, and to end the further victimization of child pornography victims by courts refusing to grant restitution, the United States Supreme Court should grant certiorari to resolve this issue, or alternatively, Congress should amend the Act to make the requisite level of causation more clear. Only by resolving this issue will Congress’ intent to provide all victims harmed by child pornography with full compensation be achieved, ensuring that those who harm the “Amys” of this world will be held fully responsible for their abhorrent conduct. (Emphasis added.)

Former criminal defense lawyer cum television star turned prosecutor, Ken Lammers, presents an homage to truckers in a video showing how a few semis can really screw up a decent low speed escape from the clutches of The Man. 

The only good news for the driver of the fleeing vehicle is that the trucker’s deliberate and reckless use of his tractor trailer to block his escape route seems likely to give rise to a pretty decent lawsuit, which he can spend at his leisure when his sentence is over.

In the meantime, it seems to me only fair to counter Lammers’ Ode to Truckers who have forsaken their “watch out for smokey” heritage for their junior airmen wings with a video of a different sort.



There may not always be two sides to every story, but there’s always a song to bring comfort to those on the wrong side of a crash with a semi.

Every wonder what makes the fad of “drug courts” really special? Via the New York Law Journal, the Westchester County Town of Greenburgh offers a glimpse, prompting the state Office of Court Administration to remove all cases before the court.

The shift in cases occurred after Peter H. Tilem of Tilem & Campbell in White Plains complained of the town drug court’s practices in which the judges apparently presided over the same matters simultaneously and in which a “team” was allowed to vote on such issues as whether an attorney admitted in New York State could practice in the Greenburgh drug court, and whether a defendant should be released on bail.

Bet you didn’t know about the “team” approach to criminal law.  Bet you didn’t know that the “team” had to give you the old “okey-dokey” before you could represent a defendant before the team. And bet there’s more you didn’t know. 

Brooke Ahern pleaded to a petit larceny and was diverted to drug court. She warranted, but returned on her own, only to be remanded without a hearing. So she got a lawyer.  Smart move in most courts. In Greenburgh, however, representation by counsel isn’t necessarily appreciated.

Several days later, Ms. Ahern appeared with Mr. Tilem in Greenburgh drug court, where Justices Forster and Friedman were presiding simultaneously, with one on the bench and the other in the jury box, according to court records.

Mr. Tilem said in an affirmation, supported by a verified petition from his client, that he was told by Justice Forster that he was not admitted to practice in the Greenburgh drug court and the matter was adjourned for nearly a month while Ms. Ahern was in jail. Ultimately, a “team” that included the judges and two attorneys, Bernard Bacharach, the primary drug court attorney, and Alan J. Tomaselli, the alternate drug court attorney, voted to permit Mr. Tilem to represent his client, according to court records.

The records show that without a hearing, the team, along with Mr. Tilem, deadlocked 3-3 on whether Ms. Ahern should be immediately sentenced to a year in jail. Mr. Tilem said he voted against putting his client in jail, resulting in a 3-3 tie.

However, he said he was then asked to leave the room, and when he returned learned that his client was to be sentenced immediately.

“Presumably, with me out of the courtroom the vote was 3-2,” Mr. Tilem said in his affirmation.

My apologies to John Caher for such a lengthy quote, but the background (combined with his good writing) calls for the details.  Does any of this strike any lawyer as even remotely familiar?  Isn’t this how courts typically function, send the lawyer out of the room (assuming the team has deigned to allow him in at all) and then vote to send the defendant to jail?

On what planet does this happen?  Is everybody in this court on drugs?

The only conceivable rationale comes from the nature of drug courts, an invention intended to help criminal defendants overcome drug dependency and deal with their criminal conduct as more (not entirely, but more) as a medical problem than a criminal one.  Standing alone, this sounds just hunky-dory.

But it doesn’t stand alone.  It takes a village, or in this case a team, to really screw things up and undermine every constitutional mandate there is.  And this team did exactly that. 

The rationale for the Greenburgh drug court, which isn’t a recognized drug court under the state system but operating under a federal grant, which apparently meant to the judges of the court that they were free to do whatever popped into their mind.

“We as a group vote on everything and we have our procedures and we follow them,” she said. “Our drug court is not part of OCA and we have our own grant and our own rules and there is no court above who supervises us. Nothing happened in this case that was different, other than private counsel came in and made a lot of noise.”

Damn those noisy lawyers, making a big stink about the fact that the court was run like a private fiefdom, where fealty was due a couple of judges in kangaroo suits.  After all, if the court gets federal money, doesn’t that mean they get to create their own rules?  It’s not like the feds, passing out grants, expects anything of them.

That the Office of Court Administration, upon learning that the Greenburgh drug court defied essentially every precept of constitutional procedure familiar to a first year law student, is to their credit.  It’s not so great that it they had no clue that a court functioning in the State of New York utterly ignored law and procedure until “noisy” Peter Tilem spilled the beans.  After all, they were sending recalcitrant defendants to jail, likely prison as well, and yet nobody had the slightest idea how they managed to arrive at these sentences?

Advocates of drug courts will note that not all courts function like this, that most are both highly professional and deeply caring about the welfare of diverted defendants, cleaning them up and returning them to society as law-abiding citizens who have overcome a drug habit. 

Nice as this sounds, and even if its true, it remains a significant problem that defendants whose conduct is guided by drug dependency are almost invariably required to forego basic rights in exchange for the concession of rehabilitation rather than incarceration.  Why?  Why must a defendant give up his constitutional rights in the process before being offered rehab in the end.  If the concern, as it;s claimed to be, of drug courts is to stop the cycle of crime and dependency by treating addicted defendants, to what good end is there in putting them in jail rather than rehab because they asserted their constitutional rights in the process?

But it’s got to be a bargain if you want to get the benefit. To be given rehabilitation rather than incarceration, even if the former is obviously more appropriate than the latter, defendants have to pay with their constitutional rights.  In Greenburgh, the price was way too high.  In other drug courts, the bargain may not be as bad, but it’s still a trade-off of constitutional rights for drug treatment. 

Engage authentically.  And apparently, they did, even though they wear a gun and shield on duty.  No, they aren’t looking to manufacture the appearance of expertise to get your business, but merely to share the deep thoughts and feelings that cops have when civilians aren’t around.  Except when you post it on Facebook, civilians are around, even if only virtually.  It’s like being best friends with a cop, provided your best friend is outrageous racist, hates your guts and thinks you’re garbage who ought to die.

From the New York Times :

They called people “animals” and “savages.” One comment said, “Drop a bomb and wipe them all out.”

Hearing New York police officers speak publicly but candidly about one another and the people they police is rare indeed, especially with their names attached. But for a few days in September, a raw and rude conversation among officers was on Facebook for the world to see — until it vanished for unknown reasons.

For unknown reasons? Fair enough, Let’s take a wild guess then.  They were talking about the West Indian American Day Parade in Brooklyn.  Some parade details, like St. Patrick’s Day, cops like. Others, like the West Indian Day Parade, not so much.  And they authentically engaged about it. A lot.

The comments in the online group, which grew over a few days to some 1,200 members, were at times so offensive in referring to West Indian and African-American neighborhoods that some participants warned others to beware how their words might be taken in a public setting open to Internal Affairs “rats.”  

But some of the people who posted comments seemed emboldened by Facebook’s freewheeling atmosphere. “Let them kill each other,” wrote one of the Facebook members who posted comments under a name that matched that of a police officer.

And these are the comments that are printable in a family paper. They merely express hatred and the desire to see them all die. 

“Welcome to the Liberal NYC Gale,” said another, “where if the cops sneeze too loud they get investigated for excessive force but the ‘civilians’ can run around like savages and there are no repercussions.”

“They can keep the forced overtime,” said one writer, adding that the safety of officers comes “before the animals.”  

Wrote another: “Bloodbath!!! The worst detail to work.”

How bad must it be for cops to be willing to turn away overtime, their very lifeblood?  That it turns out the cops think blacks are subhuman would be viewed with outrage and disgust by most of us, outsiders though we are, but there’s a far more insidious (yes, it can get more insidious) than mere racial hatred.

“Filth,” wrote a commenter who identified himself as Nick Virgilio, another participant whose name matched that of a police officer. “It’s not racist if it’s true,” yet another wrote.

It’s that last quote that is most revealing.  There isn’t going to be any ebony and ivory moment here. The writer knows that the expressions of hatred toward a race fall under the rubric of “racism,” and that the words are not supposed to be spoken, but deep down, deep in their heart of hearts, they know something that the rest of us don’t, and perhaps never will. They know it’s true.

 
Kirsten Luce for The New York Times

This isn’t to say that every cop in New York City, or your city, or any other city, is outrageously racist.  There are a lot of cops and they hold diverse views, just like everyone else.  But cops see everyone who doesn’t have a shield differently. We, the shieldless, are the “them” to their “us.”  Their eyes see suspicion everywhere. Their eyes see all the bad, whether real or imagined.  And oftentimes it’s real.

That every cop isn’t racist, however, doesn’t alter the pervasive groupthink, a cultural view of people where they believe they know better than we do. A cultural view that relies on our deluding ourselves with some Utopian vision of equality and racial love, when their truth is they’re animals, savages.  It’s far easier to beat an animal. It’s harder to tell lies that put someone in prison for life when you see them as human beings.

Even those police officers who don’t hate people because of the color of their skin or their national origin struggle to see “them” as real people.  Some win the struggle. Most don’t.

Social Media pundits talk about the great wonders of the new medium, how it enables so many wondrous connections that could never before be made.  If we ignore the self-serving adjectives, we can appreciate the point when something like this shows up on Facebook.  Unless you have the opportunity to sit in on a group of cops sipping some brewskis after they’ve completed an overtime shift, you will never hear such frank talk about the job.

“I say have the parade one more year,” wrote a commenter who identified himself as Dan Rodney, “and when they all gather drop a bomb and wipe them all out.”

Now that they know that social media isn’t private enough to keep the animals (or animal lovers) out, they may never have another Facebook discussion like this one again.  Or at least not with names attached. So seize this opportunity to get a better feeling for who the real person is behind the badge.  And maybe it will provide a better understanding of why the officer would be inclined to do what he did to your client, friend, son or daughter. 

We may never get a chance to watch New York’s Finest authentically engage like this well again.  

 

When Gillian Hadfield raised the possibility of lawyers working out of Walmart, she expected the negative backlash to be quick and severe.   She was surprised when I thought she was on to something.  A small firm in Boynton Beach, Florida, took it to the next level.

Just south of the food court and past the $15 “designer style” jewelry stand is an unusual mall kiosk staffed not with vendors hawking holiday ware but attorneys offering legal advice.

The Law Booth at the Boynton Beach Mall was opened Nov. 1 by three Palm Beach County attorneys who said they saw a need for legal counseling outside normal business hours and the traditional office setting.

Founded by Melva Rozier, Richard Carey and Paul Burkhart, the stand, which sits outside American Eagle Outfitters, is typically open from about 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. with “Walmart”-priced advice on legal matters including foreclosure, bankruptcy, estate planning and family law.

Why not?  If the mall is where the people are, then there is no good reason why lawyers shouldn’t be there as well. We serve people.  Ease of use has never been a strong suit of the profession, and the Law Booth changes that. While the fees charged may seem low to most of us, if they satisfy the needs of Rozier, Carey and Burkhart, then that’s all that matters.  That they also happen to be remarkably affordable is wonderful.

My pal, Elie Mystal at  Above the Law found this story impossible to pass, though he includes the sober views of  South Florida Lawyers Blog praising the idea, which entitles him to have some fun.

It’s the notion of “immediate” help that I think bothers me most of all. Legal actions should only be undertaken after careful reflection — you shouldn’t be buying legal services on impulse. “Ooh, we need some potholders, a new step ladder for Uncle Jim, and we should buy a lawyer to sue your bitch of an ex-wife!”

The ABA Journal, tipping its bowler to 800 pound gorilla ATL while completely ignoring the always thoughtful South Florida Lawyers, jumped on the story with this lede:

Shoppers at the Boynton Beach Mall in Florida can get some legal counseling during their quest for the perfect holiday gift.

I can’t help but wonder why they omitted the obvious, that the perfect holiday gift for a lawyer, according to the ABA Journal, is an iPad? It’s such a natural, given their unapologetic adoration of anything electronic.  Their support for Mall Law, however, isn’t nearly so clear.

There may well be some nuts and bolts issues to work out when law is practiced in a kiosk, such as how to keep the loose 8-year-old from sticking his head into a private consultation to see if there some cool spinny-type chair inside to play with.  There’s the question of whether the lawyers involved are sufficiently versed to address every question a mall-dweller might ask.  And then there’s the emergency, when mall cop’s Segway runs down Pandora purchaser.

Kidding aside, this may fall a tad short of brilliant, but it’s most definitely real, and satisfies a very real need, conveniently, inexpensively and promptly.  So you say it’s not sufficiently dignified? Hardly.  While other strut down the boulevard in hotpants to persuade potential clients to give them a whirl, these lawyers are doing three things that others are not.

• They’re providing real legal services to people who need them.
• They’re providing real legal services at a cost that ordinary people can afford.
• They’re providing real legal services.

These are great things, and I applaud them.

Would Lenore Zimmerman lie?

Probably not. When she says that she was strip searched at JFK airport by two TSA agents, who required her to remove her pants and bloomers, it’s unimaginable that she was making it up.  But there’s a problem.  There’s no video of it happening.  She was taken to a private room, where no one else could see what happened.  If there is a video of what happened inside the room, it hasn’t been made public.

Therefore, it never happened.  That’s the TSA’s position, and they’re sticking to it.

That’s not to say that TSA Bob is a heartless fellow.

You may have heard in the news about an elderly woman who is stating she was strip searched at New York’s JFK airport by TSA officers. TSA contacted the passenger to apologize that she feels she had an unpleasant screening experience; however, TSA does not include strip searches in its protocols and a strip search did not occur in this case.

By using bold faced type, TSA Bob makes it absolutely clear that a strip search could not possibly have happened since the TSA doesn’t do such things.  Whew. Dodged a bullet there.

Brian Tannebaum questions the efficacy of even noticing Lenore Zimmerman’s complaint.

I write not to express outrage at the notion that airport security would ask some old lady to take her pants off, I write to ask what the point is in even talking about it?

What’s the point of pounding the keyboard to rant about the unbelievable power of TSA and the cowards in Congress who allow it to continue?

Very little will ever change.

Perhaps he would feel differently if there was a video of this nice old woman without her knickers.  While the existence of video, showing the many things that never, ever happened before the existence of video, informs us that sometimes the very people we think are there to protect us behave very badly, we’ve grown jaded.  We have plenty of video now to show that police lie, beat the crap out of people for no good reason, even kill people needlessly and then lie to cover it up.  We know this because we have video conclusively proving it.

There is no one in America with a computer who can credibly deny these things happen.  They can rationalize why it’s not consequential, whether because the person deserved it anyway, or it’s the price we have to pay for self-preservation, or cops and TSA agents have a very difficult job and it’s too much to expect them to be perfect.  These are very forgiving people.

But the need to rationalize wrong happens only when we’re forced to confront it.  Damn those videos.  Here, there is no video, and thus nothing to stop TSA Bob from doing what government has done successfully forever. Deny it ever happened.

But TSA Bob is a shrewd fellow, well-trained in the magic of marketing, and he seizes the opportunity to remind us that, even though this never happened, there are excellent reasons why it should.

The passenger opted out of advanced imaging technology screening, requested a pat-down and told the officers that she was wearing a back brace or support belt which required private screening.

Private screening was conducted by two female officers. The item was removed, rescreened, and the passenger was cleared for travel. Nothing unusual was depicted on the CCTV as the passenger and two female officers entered and exited the room. The wheelchair attendant assisted the passenger in departing the checkpoint area for the gate.

Terrorists remain focused on attacking transportation through tactics such as concealing explosives under clothing. Further, as evidenced by the Christmas Day 2009 attempted bombing, concealed anomalies under clothing must continue to be resolved and cleared as part of the screening process to ensure the item does not pose a threat to the safety of the traveling public. Terrorists and their targets may also range in age. Read here about a group of elderly men who were planning on using toxic ricin against U.S. citizens, U.S government and officials.

Anyone.  Anyone can be a threat, a terrorist, bent on destruction.  Old women. toddlers, anyone.  Whether it’s a bomb planted in a shoe, or in underwear, or even a bodily crevice.  Why would you question the will of a terrorist, a person who has already made the choice of giving up their life to destroy ours, from having a bomb implanted deep within their anus?  It could happen, and when the TSA finds it and stops it, you will be extremely thankful that it wasn’t you or your child on that plane that would have exploded but for the heroic vigilance of the TSA.

But the TSA doesn’t make airplane passengers remove their old lady undergarments.  It is not included in its protocols.  It didn’t happen, and there’s no video to show otherwise.

So Lenore Zimmerman, who seems to be a lovely woman from Long Island, a snowbird flying to Florida to escape the harsh northern winters that chills her very bones, must have been terribly confused.  Perhaps she had a senior moment. Maybe she’s antagonistic toward the government.  Even anarchists grow old, you know.  This could be her way of trying to embarrass the TSA, by fabricating a story of being strip searched at JFK Airport when protocols preclude it from being possible.  

Without a video, we can never be certain that Lenore Zimmerman isn’t one of them.  But if we had a video, unsavory as the image of Ms. Zimmerman’s knickerless lower torso might be, would it change anything?   It hasn’t thus far.