Complaint and FTCA demand re Dec 31, 2015 SEA incident — Page 1/4
Complaint and FTCA demand re. Dec 31, 2015 SEA incident To: TSA, DHS, and SEA Sent: Jan. 18, 2016 VIA EMAIL to: DHS OCRL SEA Title VI officer TSA FTCA office Sharon Swingle Jeremy Simon Mark Nebeker Michael Shih
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
This letter is a formal complaint for violation of my civil rights , including but not limited to the Rehabilitation Act, in accordance with 6 CFR 15.70, the ICCPR, EO 13107, 6 USC 345, and DHS Delegation 0400.2, etc. It is also a FTCA demand, in accordance with 28 U.S. Code Chapter 171. You have already received a FOIA and Privacy Act request, and evidence preservation demand, for records related to this incident. See email dated January 17, 2016. Please respond to me only by email, in native, electronic format. Do not send me anything by physical mail without my explicit consent, and do not send me anything that fails to comply with the Rehabilitation Act § 508. Please provide a copy of this letter to Abdi and Cho, and certify to me that you have done so. Please respond to me immediately acknowledging your receipt of both this document and my FOIA/PA and evidence preservation demand.
Background On Dec. 31, 2015, I went through a TSA checkpoint at SEA in a wheelchair.
Complaint and FTCA demand re Dec 31, 2015 SEA incident — Page 2/4
I took video of the incident. It is available here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfijmJ80Ezeu3x32zXtCuQ_d7qunfBFdI Since the video is thorough, objective evidence of what was said and done, I will not repeat its content here, except to certify that the video is accurate (though its burned-in timestamp is not; see video description for correction) and taken by me on Dec. 31, 2015 at SEA. Instead, I will summarize. I was accosted by a TSO whose name I do not know, and harangued for asking him to screen my boots without requiring me to first remove them, since it is painful and difficult for me to do so. He refused, and summoned a supervisor, STSO Abdi. Abdi proceeded to unlawfully interrogate me about my medical conditions, focused particularly on my ability to go through electronic strip search ("AIT") screening. I repeatedly told Abdi that I am neither willing nor able to go through AIT. I further explained that while I was able to stand, with walking sticks, I was not able to stand as required for AIT — i.e. holding my heads above my head, unsupported, for several seconds. I repeatedly stated that I was willing to have a patdown, ETD testing, x-ray bag screening, etc. Abdi unlawfully refused to accommodate me and unlawfully obstructed my international travel. Abdi explicitly stated, multiple times, that I was required to go through electronic strip search screening. Furthermore, after I had already submitted my bags for screening, he ordered them brought back to me — explicitly denying me access to screening — and threatened to remove me from the screening area. I demanded that he call his DFSD. Instead, he called TSM Cho. Cho eventually overruled Abdi and allowed me to opt out of electronic strip search screening. However, Cho interrogated me about my medical liquids (namely, juice), which he had no right to do, given that my liquids are not WEI and can easily be tested to prove that fact. See complaint and administrative appeal re. March 1, 2013 incident at SFO. Furthermore, Cho demanded that I take my boots off, refusing to screen them in place, despite the
Complaint and FTCA demand re Dec 31, 2015 SEA incident — Page 3/4
lack of necessity and my clear statement that it was difficult for me. He also demanded that I stand during the patdown using my walking sticks, refusing to screen me in place, again despite the lack of necessity and my clear statement that this too was difficult for me. These are both refusals of reasonable alternative accommodations within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act. Cho's overruling Abdi in re. AIT opt out in no way ameliorates or excuses the constitutional and statutory injuries done to me by Abdi, nor the injuries done by Cho. I have a right to travel without hindrance, especially internationally, and that right (among several others) was unlawfully abridged under color of law, together with my right to reasonable accommodation. I explicitly preserve both bases of my objection. Were I able, I was not willing. Were I willing, I was not able. You are to respond to this complaint as both denied "opt out" and denied accommodation.
Demand If you wish to settle this matter, you will provide the following: 1. $400,000; 2. privately enforceable, permanent prohibition against any form of mandatory electronic strip search screening; 3. formal disciplinary action to be taken against STSO Abdi; and 4. detailed public apology by senior DHS or TSA personnel, e.g. OCRL Mack. This is my first and final offer.
Conclusion I will file suit to compel your response if I do not receive a response by July 18, 2016. See Sai v. DHS et al., No. 1:14-cv-1876 (D.D.C. Dec. 15, 2015). I will also file suit to vindicate my rights, including my rights under Bivens to obtain damages against Abdi and Cho as individuals, if you do not agree to settle by that date. I am willing to settle my
Complaint and FTCA demand re Dec 31, 2015 SEA incident — Page 4/4
Bivens claims as above. If you do not settle, they will be claimed separately. I have already filed suit under 49 U.S. Code § 46110(a) and 46105(b), and my motion to enjoin the mandatory AIT rule was already pending when this incident happened. See Sai v. Neffenger , No. 15-2356 (1st Cir., pending ). Your choice is only between obeying the law voluntarily and being compelled to do so. I urge you to obey the law and settle this matter promptly. If you do not, as you are already aware, I will vigorously litigate to vindicate my rights — and I will win. You have 180 days to respond. Sincerely, /s/ Sai
[email protected] +1 510 394 4724 500 Westover Dr. #4514 Sanford, NC 27330