Underwear Bomber Victim: US Government Intentionally Allowed Bomb on Plane

Guys, this post is important. The TSA, in its media propaganda and legal arguments, has repeatedly justified the nude body scanner and pat-down molestation program with the Christmas 2009 “Underwear Bomber” attack, in which a man boarded a Detroit-bound flight from Amsterdam with an explosive that failed to fully ignite when he tried to detonate it over US soil.

At the sentencing hearing for the terrorist, one of the victims on that flight is adamant that this man was allowed on to the plane intentionally by US authorities, either with hopes of tracking him to accomplices (just like Fast & Furious), or in his opinion, he was provided the defective bomb and sent on that plane to scare us into accepting the nude body scanner program.

Please read his statement, which is in full here:

I wish to thank the Court for allowing me these 5 minutes to make my statement. My references to the government in this statement refer to the Federal Government excluding this Court and the prosecution. On Christmas Day 2009, my wife and I were returning from an African safari and had a connecting flight through Amsterdam. As we waited for our flight, we sat on the floor next to the boarding gate. What I witnessed while sitting there and subsequent events have changed my life forever. While I sat there, I witnessed Umar dressed in jeans and a white t-shirt, being escorted around security by a man in a tan suit who spoke perfect American English and who aided Umar in boarding without a passport. The airline gate worker initially refused Umar boarding until the man in the tan suit intervened. The event meant nothing to me at the time. Little did I know that Umar would try to kill me a few hours later as our flight approached Detroit. The final 10 minutes of our flight after the attack were the worst minutes of my life. During those 10 minutes I sat paralyzed in fear. Unfortunately, what happened next has had an even greater impact on my life and has saddened me further.

When we landed, I was shocked that our plane taxied up to the gate. I was further shocked that we were forced to sit on the plane for 20 minutes with powder from the so called bomb all over the cabin. The officers that boarded the plane did nothing to ensure our safety and did not check for accomplices or other explosive devices. Several passengers trampled through parts of the bomb as they exited the plane. We were then taken into the terminal with our unchecked carry on bags. Again, there was no concern for our safety even though Umar told the officers that there was another bomb on board as he exited the plane. I wondered why nobody was concerned about our safety, accomplices or other bombs and the lack of concern worried me greatly. I immediately told the FBI my story in order to help catch the accomplice I had seen in Amsterdam. It soon became obvious that the FBI wasn’t interested in what I had to say, which upset me further. For one month the government refused to admit the existence of the man in the tan suit before changing course and admitting his existence in an ABC News article on January 22, 2010. That was the last time the government talked about this man. The video that would prove the truth of my account has never been released. I continue to be emotional upset that the video has not been released. The Dutch police, meanwhile, in this article (show article), also confirmed that Umar did not show his passport in Amsterdam which also meant that he didn’t go through security as both are in the same line in Amsterdam. It upsets me that the government refuses to admit this fact.

I became further saddened from this case, when Patrick Kennedy of the State Department during Congressional hearings, admitted that Umar was a known terrorist, was being followed, and the U.S. allowed him into the U.S. so that it could catch Umar’s accomplices. I was once again shocked and saddened when Michael Leiter of the National Counter terrorism Center admitted during these same hearings that intentionally letting terrorists into the U.S. was a frequent practice of the U.S. Government. I cannot fully explain my sadness, disappointment and fear when I realized that my government allowed an attack on me intentionally.

During this time, I questioned if my country intentionally put a known terrorist onto my flight with a live bomb. I had many sleepless nights over this issue. My answer came shortly thereafter. In late 2010, the FBI admitted to giving out intentionally defective bombs to the Portland Christmas Tree Bomber,the Wrigley Field Bomber and several others. Further, Mr. Chambers was quoted in the Free Press on January 11, 2011 when he indicated that the government’s own explosives experts had indicated that Umar’s bomb was impossibly defective. I wondered how that could be. Certainly, I thought, Al Qaeda wouldn’t go through all of the trouble to plan such an attack only to provide the terrorist with an impossibly defective bomb.

I attended nearly all of the pretrial hearings. At the hearing on January 28, 2011, I was greatly disappointed by the prosecution’s request to block evidence from Mr. Chambers “as it could then be able to be obtained by third parties, who could use it in a civil suit against the government”. It really bothered me that the government apparently was admitting to wrongdoing of some kind as it admitted that it was concerned it would be sued. It further upset me to know that the government was putting its own interests ahead of those of the passengers.

When I attended the jury selection hearings, I questioned why versions of the same two questions kept coming up, those being:

1. Do you think whether you’ll be able to tell whether something is actually a bomb? and
2. Do you realize that sometimes the media doesn’t always tell the truth?

I continued to be greatly saddened at this point as I felt the truth continued to be hidden.

When Umar listed me as his only witness, I was happy to testify, not on his behalf, but on behalf of the truth. I never expected to testify, as my eyewitness account would have been too damaging to the myth that the government and media are putting forward. A mere 5 days after I was announced as a witness, there was an inexplicable guilty plea which exasperated me as I no longer would be testifying.

In closing I will just say that regardless of how the media and government try to shape the public perception of this case, I am convinced that Umar was given an intentionally defective bomb by a U.S. Government agent and placed on our flight without showing a passport or going through security, to stage a false terrorist attack to be used to implement various government policies.

The effect this matter has had on my life has been astounding and due to this case, I will never trust the government in any matter, ever.

In regards to sentencing, nothing I’ve said excuses the fact that Umar tried to kill me. He has waived his valid claim to the entrapment defense. Umar, you are not a great Muslim martyr, you are merely a “Patsy”. I ask the court to impose the mandatory sentence.

Source: http://haskellfamily.blogspot.com/2012/02/victim-impact-statement.html

If either of the two scenarios that involve the US allowing this man on the plane are true, this fraud makes Fast & Furious look innocuous in comparison. The government has given us no reason to do anything but believe this man. Airports are full of cameras, and the “man in the tan suit” could easily be confirmed or denied. The failure to deny is a deafening silence.

–Jon

TSA Re-Names SecOps Center to — Get This — “Freedom Center”

This happened several months ago, but I think it was quietly enough that no one noticed:

On June 21, TSA’s primary operational hub was re-named the Freedom Center, symbolizing the agency’s commitment to protecting the nation’s transportation systems against terrorist threats

Source: http://www.tsa.gov/press/speeches/freedom_dedication.shtm

You’ve got to be fucking kidding me. The TSA stands for the exact opposite of freedom: “securing” our nation by giving up our freedoms at airports and, increasingly, train stations, subways, bus stations, and highways. One has to question whether the TSA management has read Orwell and is applying it intentionally. But, one would first have to question whether TSA management can read.

Disgusted.

–Jon

Amended Complaint against NYPD Ready, New TSA Complaint on 3/2

While my original 10 page complaint against the NYPD was sufficient to get my foot in the door, my new 15 page, 56 count complaint should light a fire under the city’s ass for sure.

The biggest challenge in suing the government (any government) as far as writing the complaint is naming the correct parties. For some claims, you need to name the city, and others, the official him/herself. Complaints the TSA are even more complex, as sometimes you need to name the TSA, sometimes the official, and other times the United States. This legal subterfuge is required even though no matter who I name, it’s the city that will pay the settlement or judgment in the end.

My NYPD case had been challenged by the fact that the city, thus far, cannot “find” the officers who illegally detained and searched me. Despite having some of the best detectives in the world, when it comes to investigating themselves, they seem to have a bit of trouble.

The problem isn’t that the case can’t move forward against the city even if they can’t find the officers, but that all of the charges that require me to name the official would be dismissed if we can’t name them, which would very much limit the suit. The solution: name the commissioner. 🙂 Ray Kelly has presided over the great expansion of the stop-and-frisk abuse, and his actions and inactions are responsible for what happened to me. As such, he’s an official I can name, and even if the four unnamed cops are dismissed from the case, the charges that require a named official may proceed against Mr. Kelly.

My amended complaint is below, and keep an eye out for my new TSA complaint coming in less than 2 weeks!

Corbett v. City of New York – First Amended Complaint with Exhibits (.pdf)

Confirmed: TSA Declares Checkpoint Tapes “SSI”

The County, who initially denied the existance of checkpoint security tapes from the day I was ejected from a TSA security checkpoint at FLL, and I have been going back and forth about the releasability of the security cameras. Despite the fact that the TSA regularly releases security cameras footage as a result of formal or informal requests:

Woman brought to tears by TSA (At same airport! Uploaded by the TSA’s official account!)
TSA illegaly detains US Sen. Rand Paul at checkpoint
Andrea Abbott arrested for being upset about the TSA molesting her daughter
TSA separates family from little boy (Uploaded by the TSA’s official account)
Protester walks through TSA checkpoint in his underwear

…the video of me going through the checkpoint is “Sensitive Security Information” (SSI) and unreleasable, the TSA has told the County.

Well, guess what? Broward County has earned a spot as a co-defendant in the lawsuit that will be filed on February 29th, 2012. All levels of government need to understand that if they help the TSA do illegal things, it is conspiracy and they will be charged as such.

–Jon

Update: Broward County Has Cameras, But No Video

Broward County has now confirmed for me that they own the security cameras, despite telling me that they are in possession of no video taken on the date and time in question. Then they added in this gem:

“Additionally, even if they did exist, we have been informed by the TSA that this particular information (security camera recordings) is … SSI.”

Broward County has some explaining to do. Do these cameras not actually record? Do videos exist, but they are denying their existance because of their (false) belief that they constitute SSI? (SSI is a designation internal to the TSA; a third party’s records cannot be SSI.) Have the videos now been disgarded?

…and I have some research to do: If a third party destroys evidence after being notified of the necessity to preserve evidence, what is their liability?

NYPD Lawyers: Cops Have Right to Ask for ID, Search Pedistrians at Will

I had a discovery hearing yesterday for my NYPD lawsuit (regarding last June, when I was stopped on the street and forcibly searched for being a white guy in a black neighborhood). At the hearing, the magistrate point-blank asked the city’s attorneys if the police had the right to ask for ID and search me, to which the city’s attorneys responded, “yes.”

How many times must this behavior be struck down by courts at every level? In New York, a cop cannot ask you for ID without an “articulable reason” (People v. De Bour, 40 NY2d 210). Under federal law, a cop cannot search you without warrant, probable cause, or suspicion that you are armed and dangerous (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 [1968]); in the last instance, only the minimum search required to show that you are not armed is permissible.

New York City stops and searches something like half a million people annually. It is time that we put a stop to this nonsense, and the courts have given us the tools — we just have to use them.

TSA: What Security Cameras?

I’m sure most of you today read the big news about the TSA detaining U.S. Sen. Rand Paul. Surely Rand will wish to obtain a copy of the video footage of this incident, but like most who have requested checkpoint footage, it’s likely that footage simply “won’t exist.”

The TSA is finishing preparing (redacting) its reply to my FOIA request from the day the TSA detained me at FLL airport, but it has unofficially informed me that its reply will contain no video footage. Broward County, the owner of the airport, similarly said it has no video footage. Which is funny, because I distinctly remember waiving to a video camera as I exited the terminal.

So, who, exactly, owns these cameras?

We’ll find out soon.

–Jon

Appeal Fully Briefed

My appeal is now in the hands of the court.  The documents the court will consider are below (the bottom two of which are new):

Corbett v. US – Record Excerpts (.pdf) – A compilation of District Court documents
Corbett v. US – Appellant’s Brief (.pdf) – My appellate brief
Corbett v. US – Appellee’s Brief (.pdf) – The TSA’s appellate brief
Corbett v. US – Reply Brief (.pdf) – The last word — my reply to the government’s brief

There’s no set timeframe in which the court must rule, but a typical wait would be a month or two.  I’m feeling rather neutral about our chances of success.  A lot of great arguments for the appeal were submitted to the court, but then again, a lot of great arguments were made in the District Court that went ignored.  I’ll update you guys as soon as I hear something!

–Jon

Kicked out of EWR! The Double Opt-Out, Part II

I went to EWR today to I thought were NoS-safe gates, but a new MMW ATD had been installed and was being used as primary for all passengers. I had specifically paid more and taken a less comfortable aircraft because I thought these gates were NoS-free.

When I arrived at the checkpoint, I noticed an abundance of 2- and 3-stripe TSA screeners, which to me signaled likely BDO usage. I wasn’t asked any questions other than how I was doing. The line was extra long, and multiple passengers were complaining that they were going to miss their flights. The reason, of course, was that NoS was being used as primary. One line, and nearly all passengers directed to it.

So, I braced myself for having to deal with Port Authority police, who aren’t generally known for being friendly. I was directed to the NoS and opted out. I walked through the metal detector without alarm (which I think was just because the WTMD was in the way, not because they wanted to screen me with it), and was brought over to the “yellow feet” mat by a friendly older guy. He proceeded to explain that he’d be rubbing his hands on my ass and also would be running his hands “pretty high up on [my] inner thigh.” I told him that I consent to being searched, but do not consent to having my genitals or buttocks touched. He tells me that won’t work, and then tells me it’s not “really” the genitals he’ll be touching. I explain that if he moves my hand up my inner thighs that he’ll reach my balls, and he goes to find a supervisor.

A supervisor (STSO) comes over and starts off with the classic, DYWTFT (“Do you want to fly today?”), to which I tell him, “No, not if it means my rights will be violated.” I could tell by the blank stare on his face that apparently “no” wasn’t a response he often received. After a few moments, he tells me he’ll have to call a cop, and I tell him that he should definitely “call a LEO, and the TSM as well.”

STSO: “A TSM?”
Jon: “Yes, a TSM.”
STSO: “What’s a TSM?”
Jon: “A TSM, a Transportation Security Manager.”
STSO: “I am the manager here.”
Jon: “No, you’re an STSO. The TSM is your boss. I want the TSM.”
STSO: *more blank stare* *goes to get the TSM*

While he’s fetching the TSM, a couple of other assorted-rank screeners ask me why I’m doing this, why I went to the checkpoint knowing the policy if I would just refuse, and why I should just go through the NoS. I give them basics about rights, safety, and efficacy. Nothing special, until STSO Melissa Laughery vomited up the following gem:

“After 9/11, you give up all your rights at the checkpoint!”

Surrounded by about 7 screeners at this point and shocked at the absurdity, I repeated her loudly:

“After 9/11, we have no rights at the checkpoint?! Did everyone else hear this? It’s nice to hear how the TSA thinks of our rights.”

I see a man in a suit approch behind Mel, and brush her aside to say hi to TSM Thomas Willoghby. We briefly clarify the situation, and he tells me if I don’t want to be screened, I can leave. I re-state that I’m willing to be screened, just not molested, but if that’s not possible, I’ll go. So, I go. No cop, no retaliatory search, nothing.

But, as I’m leaving, the other TSOs ask him why he’s just letting me go. He explains to me that the new policy is that if someone declines a pat down, they’re just sent on their way. Could it be that after a certain incident in FLL, the TSA has changed the way they deal with double opt-outs?

One more note: American Airlines would *NOT* re-accommodate my flight, despite having free space on another flight from a nearby airport. After the previous incident at FLL, USAir was happy to re-accommodate. I tried to explain to the AA supervisor the “flat tire rule,” but he claimed AA does not follow this long-standing air travel doctrine, and demanded over $500 to catch the other flight. I will be talking to AA customer relations tomorrow about this, and in the meantime re-booked on USAir.

Appeal Back on Track

In case you’ve been wondering what happened to my 11th Circuit appeal in the lawsuit that started this blog, it was dismissed 2 months ago for a missing document, after the clerk’s office told me they had everything. It’s still my fault (should never trust the clerk! ;)), but today my motion to re-instate was granted, and the government’s appellee’s brief is due on October 24th, 2011.

I have to review the rules to see if I get an opportunity to reply to their brief or not, and additionally, the judges can request to have a hearing for oral arguments, if they so choose. But, it looks like we’re on track for an appeals decision by end of year. A decision in my favor sends the case back to the District Court to proceed, while a decision for the smurfs will prompt me to ask for Supreme Court review.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑