Ammo For Sale

« « How many federal laws are there? | Home | Gunwalker » »

Lashing out at TSA: update

Remember the woman who was arrested when she ‘lashed out’ at the agents fondling her teenage daughter? She goes to court Monday. And there’s this:

Andrea Fornella Abbott, 41, will appear Monday in a Davidson County courtroom to answer to the misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge.
News of her July 10 afternoon arrest was picked up by national media outlets, and prompted hundreds of people from across the country to contact The Tennessean in support of Abbott. Many of them asked how to donate money to her legal fund. Horst, a Nashville-based criminal defense lawyer, is handling her case free of charge.

I hope it gets to a jury and is nullified. But, hey, a lawyer doing it for free must mean something.

11 Responses to “Lashing out at TSA: update”

  1. Kevin S Says:

    If you’re going to touch my kid’s genitals, damn right you’ll see some disorderly conduct.

  2. jetaz Says:

    I’m glad that she found an attorney to help her pro bono.

  3. Michael Hawkins Says:

    No brainer for the lawyer, you simply cannot buy the kind of publicity this gets him (/her)

    Still, mighty fine thing for him(/her) to do.

  4. blounttruth Says:

    @ Kevin

    You are exactly right, but my two girls would start the conduct and I would finish it. See, I have taught my girls that unwanted advances equate to a bloody nose for a female, and a case of powdered nuts for the boys, no badge or corrupt government will change that. The TSA’s days are numbered, or perhaps it will be the airlines…

    http://libertyfight.0catch.com/hawaiitrip.html

  5. Doc Merlin Says:

    I’d much rather a judge throws it out than a jury. When a judge does it, it sets precedent.

  6. DJMoore Says:

    Doc Merlin Says, “I’d much rather a judge throws it out than a jury. When a judge does it, it sets precedent.”

    And, oh boy, what a precedent that would set!

    Citizens are allowed to fight back against uppity TSA agents, and by extension, uppity civil servants in pretty much any uniform.

    Can’t believe that would happen, but seriously, how many uniforms would take the job if they had to accept that their subjects could do to them what they do to us?

    Beyond that, I’d love to see a rash of nullifications. That would put the judges on notice, too.

  7. Banshee Says:

    I am so glad she got pro bono representation. The Congress and President have ignored this outrage against the Constitutional rights of the American people for far too long.

  8. chris Says:

    “I hope it gets to a jury and is nullified.”

    That is exactly what I was thinking when I saw the part that the matter is heading to court.

    When will juries learn that they hold a dramatic amount of leverage over Congress, state General Assemblies and the President and the judiciary?

    I guess no one has gotten the memo yet.

    My be is that they will.

  9. Ron W Says:

    “When will juries learn that they hold a dramatic amount of leverage over Congress, state General Assemblies and the President and the judiciary?” –chris

    Yes chris,you’re correct. In our Constitutional Republic, a jury of citizens is above all elected officials and the judiciary who are to be “bound by the Law” according to Article VI of the Constitution. The jury sits in judgement of the law according to common law morality and the Constitution and Bill of Rights:

    “The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.” – John Jay, First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1789-1795)

    “The particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms
    and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments are bound by that instrument.”–John Marshall: Opinion as Chief Justice in Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176
    (1803)

    “If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence. … If the jury feels that the law under which
    the defendant is accused is unjust … the jury has the power to acquit …” .–U.S. v. Moylan, U.S. Fourth Circuit Court, 1969

  10. emdfl Says:

    Which is why the corrupt black-robes instuct juries as to how and what they may rule on.

  11. adam Says:

    I checked the original news story…it says the TSA never actually touched the kid. The woman just freaked out.

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges


bisonAd

Categories

Archives