<Text of legal filing. As a complaint filed with the court, this is not hearsay, but is backed up by a sworn affidavit from the plaintiff. Deliberate falsification is prosecutable.

Criminal: burden of proof on the prosecution. Reasonable doubt is grounds to acquit. No double jeopardy. The penalty may involve prison time, fines, or both.

Civil: burden of proof equally distributed. Reasonable doubt is no shield for the defense. Either party may appeal. The penalty does not involve prison time.

This is a civil case.

There has been a pattern of this kind of behavior at airports. That's why I'm not surprised.

And yes, I'm sure her complaint was cherry-picked out of the other complaints. That's why I mentioned it. "Out of the other complaints" is the important phrase here.

OK, "scum" is subjective. I'll put it another way: The defendants made improper requests on no evidence, and when faced with resistance by their target, made sure to use their power to shame and intimidate her. This, according to the statement filed with the court.

Unless the defendents can provide convincing contradictory evidence, that is, can produce witnesses that testify that what was claimed to have occurred never occurred, they are at least guilty of some of the charges. The battery charge attached to the strip search will never be proven because it's two employees against one detainee. Unless they were stupid enough to record it, they can simply deny it.

In cases in which subjects are uncooperative or in violation of the law, law enforcement authorities are to be called so that an arrest can be made by duly deputized officers of the court. I find it hard to believe that there were no police in O'Hare to take care of this threat to national security. None of the defendants had the authority to prevent the plaintiff from leaving, although they did have the authority to keep her from passing the checkpoint and boarding the plane. They exceeded their authority by preventing her from leaving, which is false arrest.

"Citizens' arrest" is only legal when a citizen is restraining a criminal in the process of committing a crime or fleeing the scene of a crime. No crime was committed to flee from. Suspicion of crime, which was obviously held by the defendents, could be allayed using procedures used on other passengers without violating the plaintiff's religious beliefs. No alarm had gone off, no forced entry was attempted, nothing was stolen, no physical threats were made to justify the claim of "citizen's arrest" based on the plaintiff's having committed a crime. Unless the defendants can present evidence of such actions, they are guilty of false arrest.

The plaintiff was discriminated against based on her religion. This is a clear violation of her First Amendment rights which she, a native-born US citizen, retains even in the face of the dreaded private police.

You think she should have complied? I say she offered a reasonable alternative, which would have satisfied security yet not compromised her religious reasons for wearing the garment. The people at the checkpoint refused to honor her suggestion. I can't think of a single good reason why they would do that that doesn't involve teaching the uppity wog a lesson in who's boss.

Yes she's photogenic - that just makes her more suspect. Suicide bombers are now young girls too.

I find it very interesting that you think her being pretty is grounds for a search. I understand they make movies like that...

Instead of whining with the ACLU she should be telling her fellow Muslims what a$$es they are to have brought down the wrath of a nation on those who practice their barbaric religion. But that would make to much sense.

It makes a lot of sense, but she wasn't held against her will long enough to have developed sympathy for her captors' point of view, to wit, Muslim = criminal.

Whether you like it or not, she's acting like an American whose Constitutional right to express her religion has been violated. She's mad as hell. She, a citizen, was treated like an enemy of the state. Her statement will stand unless it is credibly refuted.

Let the defendants offer contradictory evidence in the form of witnesses to their behavior. Until then, I will consider them guilty based on the only legal document to which I have access.

Is that focused enough for you?

Regards--
Mary Anne