Search

Professional Troublemaker

 Jonathan Corbett, Civil Rights Advocate

Category

Uncategorized

DHS Detains Entire Domestic Flight, Demands ID From All

On Wednesday, law enforcement from Customs & Border Patrol, a sister agency of the TSA living under the DHS umbrella, stood in a JFK jetway and prevented an entire 757 (capacity: 180 + crew) full of passengers from deplaning until they show ID.  If the flight just came from overseas, it would be unusual but not too surprising.  But Delta Flight 1583 came from San Francisco.

cbp-detains-plane
“Your papers, please!”  Source: Twitter – @annediego

Who were they looking for?  One of Trump’s illegal immigrants, of course.  “According to CBP, the person agents sought had been issued an order of removal based on convictions for domestic assault, driving while impaired, and violation of an order of protection.” (Gothamist).  After checking every ID, they determined that the person they were seeking was not on the flight.

Let’s be clear about a few things here:

  1. Every person on that plane was “seized” as it is defined in Fourth Amendment law.  That is, a reasonable person would not believe they were free to go, and thus, they were detained.  United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980).
  2. The minimum standard for seizing an individual is “reasonable suspicion” that criminal activity is afoot.  Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
  3. There was not reasonable suspicion that the 180 passengers on that flight were involved in a crime.  In fact, there was not even reasonable suspicion that the person they were seeking was committing a crime.
  4. There was no “public safety” or “exigent circumstances” exception here.  This was not a hunt for a terrorist with a bomb — his most serious charge was assault.
  5. Therefore, the Fourth Amendment’s command that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons … against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated” was indeed violated.
  6. Additionally, the elements of civil “false imprisonment” in New York are: (1) intentional confinement, (2) consciousness of the confinement by the victim, (3) lack of consent, and (4) lack of privilege.  Broughton v. New York, 37 N.Y.2d 451 (N.Y. 1975).  Given that they were seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment, there is no privilege, and everyone on this plane has a case for false imprisonment.

It’s times like these when I can’t wait to have my law license, because this would be a perfect class-action.

For future reference, you may be wondering what are your rights in this situation.  Given that the seizure was unconstitutional, you have the right to refuse to participate at all.  You may refuse to show ID, you may refuse an order to stop, and if it were me, I would refuse to retract my middle finger.  Would I have been arrested anyway?  Possibly, although being a white American, I have a feeling they would have just told me to go.

Welcome to Trump’s America.

Insomniac Lawsuit Dismissed on Technicality, Policy Changed (For Now), Open Offer for Help

For those following my lawsuit against music festival producer and Live Nation subsidiary Insomniac, filed last year against their policy banning all OTC medicine and requiring a “consultation” to bring in prescriptions, some updates…

First, the lawsuit was tossed by U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez because, he says, I didn’t provide evidence that I asked Insomniac to change their policy before suing, which he reads as a prerequisite to a federal ADA suit.  There were also state discrimination law claims, but the law allows a federal judge to decline to hear a state claim after the related federal claim is dismissed, so he tossed that too.  No ruling was made on the true merits of the case: whether the medicine policy was legal.

I think Judge G misread the law regarding notice, and he certainly misread my filings alleging that I *did* give notice.  As I wrote about before, this judge is famous among federal judges for seeking ways to get cases out of his courtroom.  I could appeal, or I could re-file the state law claims in state court, but I won’t (in favor of a better plan… keep reading!) for 2 reasons:

  1. Insomniac ran up a fucking massive legal bill.  If the appeal failed, the attorneys have some likelihood of asking me to pay at least a part of that — plus whatever additional amounts they spend defending the appeal.  Insomniac agreed to pay their own bill in exchange for not appealing or re-filing.
  2. Insomniac removed the offending medicine policy from their Web site… for now.  This may be a sign that they are changing their ways, which would be mission accomplished.  But, even if it’s not, it makes it harder to sue them because they are no longer advertising discrimination.

So here’s the new, better plan: an open call for anyone who is ever refused entry over medicine or has their medicine thrown out at the gates of EDC to contact me.  If I think you have a good case, I will find and fund an attorney to fight the case, and offer my assistance to your attorney as his paralegal without cost to you.  If Insomniac did indeed decide to fix their policy, then this won’t be necessary, and if they didn’t, I’ll be able to get a second fight against it, with the benefit of the knowledge I gained the first time, with a different judge, without the “you didn’t give them notice” issue, and without the attorney’s fees and costs from this case able to be threatened.

Flash Factory Nightclub in NYC Sued for Groping Guests During Security Search

flash_factory_sued
The scene inside Flash Factory hosting Elrow on 12/23/2016

Continuing my quest to call out music and nightlife companies that think their patrons should bend over and accept any rule dreamed up, however offensive and illegal, today a friend of mine and I filed suit against New York nightclub “Flash Factory,” located in the Chelsea neighborhood in Manhattan.

The basis of the suit is this: we were heading to a concert at Flash Factory, never before having been to this relatively new venue.  On the way in there was a pat-down, which we assumed was just a quick check of pockets for weapons as some New York nightclubs do.  But, both of us were shocked when a security guard, without warning, lifted my friend’s bra off her chest to feel her breasts, and likewise, decided to flat-out grab my genitals.  I don’t mean TSA-style “sliding hands up your legs until they ‘meet resistance,'” often bumping the sides of their hands into your crotch.  I mean straight-up, full palm and fingertips checking out my junk.

After the incident, I immediately wrote to, and my friend called, Flash Factory, and both of us were entirely ignored.  No apology, no acknowledgement, no response at all.  No one should have to deal with sexual assault to get into a nightclub.  It is atrocious that they feel the need to treat their customers this way, so, a new lawsuit against them for battery and negligence was filed in New York County Supreme Court.

Corbett & Domyan v. Flash Factory et al. – Verified Complaint (.pdf)

Good luck ignoring that, Flash Factory.

U.S. Court of Appeals Allows Restraining Order Against “Muslim Ban” to Continue, Considering Re-Hearing En Banc

angry_trumpThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ordered last night that a Washington state federal judge’s order restraining Trump from enforcing his Muslim ban — the one that effectively bans Muslims from 7 countries from entering the United States, even if they are green card holders or have refugee status — shall not be lifted.

Washington v. Trump – Order Denying Motion to Lift TRO (.pdf)

From the 29-page, well-reasoned opinion:

The States argue that the Executive Order violates the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses because it was intended to disfavor Muslims. In support of this argument, the States have offered evidence of numerous statements by the President about his intent to implement a “Muslim ban” as well as evidence they claim suggests that the Executive Order was intended to be that ban, including sections 5(b) and 5(e) of the Order. …

The States’ claims raise serious allegations and present significant constitutional questions. In light of the sensitive interests involved, the pace of the current emergency proceedings, and our conclusion that the Government has not met its burden of showing likelihood of success on appeal on its arguments with respect to the due process claim…

Since posting my first story about this, I’ve had many comment on the blog that my constitutional analysis (tl;dr: it’s unconstitutional) is wrong and that it’s not a Muslim ban because Trump didn’t ban all Muslims (yet).  I have two questions for you:

  • How many judges must rule that Trump’s ban is unconstitutional before you will stop blaming “activist judges” for getting the law wrong?  The ruling yesterday was a unanimous 3-judge panel, which brings the total up to at least 6 federal judges now ruling against the ban.
  • How many Muslims must Trump ban before you admit it’s a blatant attempt to discriminate based on religion?  (If he adds Indonesia to the list, will that be good enough?)

Transcript of Oral Arguments in Muslim Ban Case Shows Department of Justice Entirely Lost on How to Defend; Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

darweesh_transcriptBefore U.S. District Judge Ann Donnelly issued a temporary restraining order against
Donald Trump and the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol from enforcing a “Muslim ban” — prohibiting travel by green card holders and individuals with refugee status from 7 Muslim-majority countries — a hearing was held in which both attorneys for plaintiff Darweesh and attorneys from the Department of Justice for the government appeared.  Early media reports indicated that the U.S. Attorneys were entirely unprepared and had no defense for Trump’s executive order.  And, yesterday, Trump fired Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, allegedly after “she defiantly refused to defend his executive order closing the nation’s borders to refugees and people from predominantly Muslim countries,” according to the New York Times.

I noticed on the docket today (PDF or live version if you have a PACER account) that the transcript of these oral arguments was ready but not available over the Court’s Web site.  I managed to obtain a copy anyway which I’m now publishing for you all.

Darweesh v. DHS – Transcript of Oral Arguments on Motion for TRO, 1/28/2017 (.pdf)

Some highlights:

  1. There were five attorneys from the government there — four from the U.S. Attorney’s office and one from U.S. Customs & Border Patrol.  Not a single one of them, at any point in the 21 pages of transcript, even remotely attempted to argue that Trump’s order was lawful and the plaintiffs could not succeed on the merits.
  2. The test for whether to issue a stay is a balancing of whether: 1) the requesting party is likely to succeed on the merits, 2) the requesting party will suffer irreparable injury, 3) the opposing party will be injured, and 4) the public’s interest will be harmed.  The only one the government even tried to address was irreparable injury, by saying that Darweesh was already released and therefore couldn’t be harmed.  The judge was not interested.
    not_so_moot
  3. But, the 3 attorneys for the plaintiff from the ACLU successfully argued that they would likely meet the requirements to proceed as a class-action, and thus were arguing on behalf of everyone who was detained or threatened with deportation under Trump’s new order — so Darweesh being released didn’t end the case.
  4. The judge made clear that her ruling applied to all affected by Trump’s order.  Thus, if at other airports across the country CBP was still detaining people, they were clearly in violation of the court’s order.  And for those who feel that Trump’s order is totally constitutional, the judge specifically ruled that it was likely that plaintiffs could prove otherwise:
    so_classy
  5. The judge at times was clearly irritated with the government’s lack of response to her questions, and at one point told them that they would not be able to speak any longer.say_no_more_fam

Apparently, Trump is upset that his Acting Attorney General refused to defend his executive order.  But the real question is: What defense could they have plausibly given, especially given that apparently Trump gave the Department of Justice no notice of his plans?

If you want your executive agencies to work with you, they have to be kept in the loop.  Even then, however, it will be a hard sell for any attorney to walk into a courtroom with a straight face and say that the executive order by the guy who said he’d ban Muslims isn’t about banning Muslims, but just happens to be directed at 7 almost-all-Muslim countries.

I don’t envy anyone in the U.S. Attorney’s office’s civil litigation division right now.  They’re not getting paid enough for this shit.


“Jon Corbett is a civil rights advocate known for filing the first lawsuit against the deployment of TSA nude body scanners, as well as defeating the body scanners live in ‘How to Get ANYTHING Through TSA Nude Body Scanners.’  Presently a law student, he continues to advocate for travel and privacy rights.  Twitter: @_JonCorbett, Web:https://professional-troublemaker.com/

Fighting for civil rights in court is expensive!  Want to contribute to the fight against government assholery? Donate via PayPal, Venmo, Chace QuickPay, Bitcoin, or check

What Are My Rights At The TSA Checkpoint?

tsacheckpointGoing through airport security manned by the TSA is an unpleasant at best, panic-inducing at worst experience, and it definitely helps to know what to expect and what you can do to ensure that you are harassed as little as possible.  The TSA is absolutely horrible at informing travelers as to the procedures they will face (often times declaring that they are “sensitive security information” and therefore cannot be published) and those working the checkpoints often misrepresent the rights and responsibilities of travelers (sometimes to be intentionally difficult, but generally because they were poorly trained).

So, here’s what every traveler should know before they collect their boarding pass at a U.S. airport:

  1. You have the right to opt-out of the body scanners and request a pat-down.  Unless your boarding pass indicates that you are subject to heightened security, which will be denoted by four S’s in big bold letters, you may simply tell the person running the body scanner that you “opt out.”  Try to keep a close eye on your belongings while they find someone to pat you down.
  2. You have the right to take pictures, video, and audio recording.  It can be comforting to many to know that they may document their interaction, especially if it looks like there’s going to be a problem.  You can take pictures, video, and audio recordings of the entire screening process with the following two exceptions: a) you can’t take pictures or videos of the x-ray monitors, and b) you can’t hold your belongings (including a camera) while you’re walking through the body scanner or metal detector, or while receiving a pat-down, but you can have a travel companion who has already been cleared do so on your behalf.  If the TSA ever denies you the ability to record your interaction other than for those two exceptions, please contact me.
  3. You have the right to request the TSA’s video of your experience!  Video from security cameras is almost always a public record covered by the federal Freedom of Information Act or similar state laws.  Generally, the video is in the possession of the local airport authority, so your request should be made to them, but I highly suggest sending simultaneous requests to both the TSA and the airport.  How?  Read about submitting FOIA requests to the TSA.
  4. You have the right to carry medicinal liquids as a carry-on, even if they are over 3 ounces.  Any liquid that you need for a medical purpose must be permitted through the checkpoint.  It does not have to be a prescription, and you do not need a doctor’s note.  If you have diabetes, you can easily justify a bottle of Gatorade.  If you have a baby, you may bring breast milk.  You also need not detail your condition for the TSA; simply take the items out of your bag to be separately screened and let the screener know that the items are medical liquids.
  5. You have the right to fly without ID.  If you forget, or lose, your ID, you may still travel.  They will simply verify your identity by calling in your information.  Leave extra time for the process, but fear not.  Note that if you can, but simply refuse to, show ID, the TSA’s policy is to refuse to screen you, although that policy does not exactly square with court rulings.
  6. You have the right to speak to a supervisor.  Blue-shirted TSA screeners come in 4 varieties, represented by 0 through 3 stripes on their shoulders.  0 = trainee, 1 = Transportation Security Officer (TSO), 2 = Lead TSO, 3 = Supervisory TSO.  If you have a problem and the person with whom you are speaking has less than 3 stripes, ask for an STSO.  If the STSO still gives you trouble, ask for a Transportation Security Manager (TSM), who will be wearing a suit.  A TSM is required to be on duty in the airport; do not believe any assertions that one is not available — they are.  Finally, if the interaction with the TSM is still unsatisfactory, you may ask to contact the Federal Security Director (FSD), who is a regional airport director and may not be on-site but generally has staffers who are.  Another resource is the TSA’s national “TSA Cares” hotline.  While the name is a misnomer, as the TSA certainly does not care, they may be of assistance at (855) 787-2227.
  7. You have the right to make a complaint.  Ask for a comment card on your way out, and the name of anyone who made your TSA experience more unpleasant than usual.  You can also file your TSA complaints online, but it makes them more nervous when you ask for a paper copy.
  8. You have the right to request a police officer supervise.  Did the TSA just ask to conduct an invasive search on your person?  Feel free to request that airport police supervise the situation.  Most, but not all, airport cops understand that the TSA is a disaster and that 0% of the times the TSA has demanded absurd levels of screening has the target actually been a terrorist.  As the saying goes, “‘I just caught a terrorist!’ said no TSA employee ever.”
  9. You have the right to refuse to take off anything but outer garments.  This includes, obviously, your clothes, but also includes any medical devices, prostheses, etc.  The TSA is not permitted to conduct strip searches.  If you are asked to do anything to the contrary, contact a supervisor and airport police.
  10. You have the right to refuse screening.  I cannot stress this enough: if the TSA demands that you continue screening in a private room, you should refuse.  You may miss your flight, but think about it: if the TSA does what you see at the checkpoint in full view of the world, you can only imagine what they will do if they determine you need “private screening.”  And, if you can’t imagine, let me fill you in: they will be touching your genitals with the front of their hands.  Know also that the TSA has not successfully leveled a fine or any other penalty against anyone for refusing screening, and their current policy is to simply escort the traveler out of the checkpoint.  Your airline will almost certainly re-book you at no cost.  It is your body, and your choice — do not let the TSA persuade you otherwise.  Just remain calm and firm.

Finally, if you have a negative experience, please don’t keep your story to yourself.  I would love to hear your story and may be able to help you to find resources to help.  Be in touch.  And, please share, print, and distribute to help others avoid TSA assholery.


“Jon Corbett is a civil rights advocate known for filing the first lawsuit against the deployment of TSA nude body scanners, as well as defeating the body scanners live in “How to Get ANYTHING Through TSA Nude Body Scanners.  Presently a law student, he continues to advocate for travel and privacy rights.  Twitter: @_JonCorbett, Web: https://professional-troublemaker.com/

Fighting for civil rights in court is expensive!  Want to contribute to the fight against government assholery? Donate via PayPal, Venmo, Chace QuickPay, Bitcoin, or check

Jon Corbett’s Endorsement for President

As a younger guy who lives in urban settings, I’m surrounded by individuals who almost uniformly detest Donald Trump, and there is a lot of social pressure to vote for Hillary Clinton in my world.  However, I won’t be voting for Hillary Clinton.  Nor will I be voting for Donald Trump.  For the first time in my life, I’ll be voting for a third-party candidate, Gary Johnson, and I’d like to explain.

First, I agree with those around me that Donald Trump would make a horrible president.  I don’t care about the crude remarks so much as I care that I can’t make out most of his policy, and the parts that I can make out, I dislike more often than not.  In particular, I feel that his immigration policy cannot possibly work, that his foreign policy will get us into more conflicts than out, and that his “tough on crime” viewpoint is not the reform this country needs at a time when it has more prisoners than China despite a quarter of the population.  Beyond his views, I don’t think he has the political experience, the temperament, or the vision to “make America great again.”  I do appreciate that he is a Washington outsider and is willing to speak his mind rather than limit himself to speaking like a politician, but this is insufficient.

So why not vote for the only person who has a chance against him?  On the issues, Hillary and I agree a bit more than Trump, although I am concerned about her perspectives on civil liberties (and not just the second amendment) and on keeping the government lean and efficient.  But, I find Hillary to be dishonest.  It’s more than just her atrocious handling of the e-mail scandal — she just seems like a massive phony whenever she speaks.  Maybe she’s just a bad speaker, but that’s an important part of being president.  I also think her campaign was dishonest in how it played against Bernie Sanders.  I think the DNC is dishonest and does not deserve to be rewarded for its manipulation of the primaries.  I’m tired of the dishonesty, and candidates who can’t keep it real won’t get my vote.  I won’t feel that I am responsible for voting for her for “lesser of two evils” purposes, because this simply lets the DNC (and RNC too) know it can do whatever it wants and we’ll choose whatever it puts out there.     If Trump makes it into office, it is the DNC to blame, not the swing voters who couldn’t stomach Hillary.

The candidate who gets my vote instead is experienced — he’s been the governor of New Mexico for 8 years, and in the political world for over 2 decades — yet he doesn’t sound like a Washington politician.  He commitment to civil liberties is unyielding, and relevant to this blog, he is on the right side of every issue I personally fight for, from abolishing the TSA to securing reasonable gun rights.  He recognizes that the war on drugs has failed, that our national debt is a problem that needs to be fixed now, and that we should get the hell out of the Middle East.

In short, he’s what we need, and even if he has virtually zero chance of getting elected this round, I would rather vote for that than for the “lesser of two evils.”  We’ve done that for too many years now, haven’t we?  It seems to just lead to greater and greater evils.  Let’s stop that now and vote for someone who would actually represent us.  For the purpose of sending a message to the parties, as well as to support someone who I actually would like to see as president, I endorse Gary Johnson for President in 2016.

Check out these three candidates side-by-side on the issues, and don’t forget to vote!  Most states now have early voting, so it’s easier than ever to make it happen.

Why NYC Rent Is So High (It’s *Not* Airbnb)

eastvillageRecently, Airbnb has received a lot of heat from New York City and State officials, who have accused the company of driving up rents for residents by reducing the available housing supply.  The state legislature has gone so far as to pass a bill levying fines of up to $7,500 against Airbnb users for listing their apartments “illegally” (as in, against a law pushed by the hotel lobby that prevents New Yorkers from renting out their own apartments); the bill sits on the governor’s desk awaiting his decision.

What legislators aren’t discussing is that one of the key reasons behind the high rents in Manhattan has nothing to do with supply and demand, but is government-imposed.  As someone who has lived in and around NYC for much of his life, I’m well aware that taxes are high, but when my landlord raised my rent citing his increased property taxes, I did some digging and found that my landlord wasn’t bluffing: I was astounded at how high they actually are.

In Miami Beach, you can expect to pay 1.39% of your condo’s value every year.  In San Francisco, it’s 1.18% for your house on the hill.  If you like the thrill of gunshots on your way to work, Chicago’s tax rate is 1.86%.

But in New York City, you owe the city between 10.6% and 20.0% of your property’s assessed value, every year. For apartment buildings with more than 3 units, the rate is 12.9%.

Let’s put this in perspective.  In the very residential and fairly affordable (for Manhattan) East Village, a pre-war, 5-story, apartment building with 15 1-bedroom units and a storefront may have a market value of about $5M.  “Assessed values” tend to be are lower than actual market values (both in NYC and most other cities), so you might end up with an assessed value of half the actual value, or $2.5M 45% of actual value, or $2.25M.  That building would likely be subject to the Class 2 tax rate of 12.9%, meaning $290,250 in taxes every year.  A typical apartment in these buildings may be $2,500 monthly, and a typical storefront may be $10,000 monthly, making annual rent revenue $570,000.  In this scenario, 51.0% of your rent money goes to the city in taxes, and that’s in addition to the NYC income tax of up to 3.876%, NYS income tax of up to 8.82%, sales tax on everything you buy of 8.875%, and other hidden taxes like the MTA tax on every taxi ride you take.

But, of course, it gets better.  Brand new buildings — which, these days, are almost exclusively luxury towers — get tax abatements, reducing the tax bill for the rich on their homes to pennies on the dollar.  So, while $1,275 of your $2,500 rent bill for a modest 1 BR in the East Village goes to Uncle deBlasio, the multi-million dollar condo owner a few blocks down may be paying only a few hundred dollars per month.

So, we can blame Airbnb for shitty neighbors throwing parties, but let’s not blame Airbnb for our rent bills: when more than half of my rent goes into the city’s coffers — at least if you’re middle class — I think we know where the problem lies.

[Edit: Numbers updated thanks to insight from /u/Tervia regarding the assessed value.]

[Edit 2: Want to look up your building’s taxes?  You’ll need to find a document that lists your building’s “Actual AV” and then multiply it by the tax rate for your building’s class (if you live in a building with more than 3 units, it’s 12.9%).

The Most Epic Court Transcript Ever

Warning: Disturbing language.

denverallen
Denver Allen

Denver Allen, a resident of Floyd County, Ga.’s jail, doesn’t much like judges.  Or attorneys.  Or his cellmate that he allegedly murdered, which led to a preliminary hearing on the matter last week.

The popcorn-worthy part of the full 19-page transcript begins when Mr. Allen requests that the court appoint him a different public defender:

MR ALLEN: He’s misrepresenting my case.  He told me if I wanted him to do a good job, I had to let him give me oral sex…

When the Hon. J. Bryant Durham, Jr. suggests that his claims — both the demand for sex and general allegations of ineffective counsel — are not believable and he won’t be getting a new attorney, he takes it to the next level:

THE COURT: Listen to me.

MR. ALLEN: Fuck you.

THE COURT: Listen to me.

MR. ALLEN: Go fuck yourself.  I’m through here.  Are y’all done?

THE COURT: I’m finding you in contempt of court.

MR. ALLEN: I don’t care.

THE COURT:  I know you don’t.  And I sentence you to 20 days for that.  And if you say anything else, I’m going to add twenty days for everything you say.

MR. ALLEN: Fuck you.

THE COURT: 40 days.

MR. ALLEN: Fuck you again.

THE COURT: 60.

MR. ALLEN: Go fuck yourself.

THE COURT: A year.

MR. ALLEN: Your mama.

THE COURT: 10 years.

MR. ALLEN: Suck my dick.

It doesn’t stop there.  After more general profanity, it gets stepped up another notch, as the judge gets baited into sinking down to his level:

THE COURT: You know, you look like a queer.

MR. ALLEN: Well, okay, so now you’re calling me a queer in the courtroom?

THE COURT: I didn’t call you one.  I said you looked like one.

[…more banter…]

MR. ALLEN: Can we get a court order to get my dick sucked, sir?

THE COURT: You’re so cute.  I know all the inmates just love you to death.

MR. ALLEN: Oh, yeah.

THE COURT: Oh, I bet.

MR. ALLEN: All those white butt boys love me to death, too.

THE COURT: Okay.  Well, I’ll bet they do, and I bet all the rest of them do, too.

MR. ALLEN: You ain’t supposed to smile in court.

THE COURT: I’ll bet everybody enjoys sucking your cock.

But, there’s just one more way to notch this up to the next level:

MR. ALLEN: How about this — I’ll kill your whole family.  When I get in this trial, I will murder your whole family.  I’ll cut your children up into pieces.  I’ll knock their brains out with a fucking hammer and feed them to you

Truly amazing.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑