Zahir Ebrahim’s letter to civil rights attorney Marc Randazza on TSA

Zahir Ebrahim’s letter to civil rights attorney Marc Randazza on TSA

To: Marc Randazza, First Amendment and Civil Rights Law, Randazza Legal Group,

From: Project

Date: Wed, Sep 7, 2011

Dear Mr. Marc Randazza,


I am writing you as a concerned denizen of the United States, and a human being, to first thank you for taking up the legal case of Amy Alkon whom I only heard about last night from an article on Forbes ( ).

The second reason for writing you is as a principled activist and researcher, I would like to leave you a link to my report which you may find pertinent: Body-scan Alert – Not Suffering Indignities at Airports

If I possessed the legal wherewithal, I would have filed a denizen’s Good Samaritan law suit “suo moto” on multiple fronts myself many years ago directly on the head of the rotting fish. Solon, the Athenian law giver, according to Plutarch’s Lives, when asked which city he thought was well-governed, said:

That city where those who have not been injured take up the cause of one who has, and prosecute the case as earnestly as if the wrong had been done to themselves.”

That wisdom unfortunately has been given little educational currency in modernity which is being assaulted full spectrum for the purpose of obedience training the masses. The assault is primarily intellectual, and its effects are visible physically, inter alia, the TSA inflicted vulgarities. Other effects are the war on terror, the financial collapse. The interlinked myriad effects have the same first cause.

My redressal pursuit therefore would not primarily be to the rotting tail of the fish which is TSA, but to principally its head from which all the rot follows, and would rope in the entire fish — which is very large, very compartmentalized, but still inter-connected in one body!

I am given to understand by my study of the Nuremberg transcripts and their contextualized analysis (as the transcripts themselves don’t carry the overarching context of victor’s justice within which both the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials were administered, and without which, the facts noted in the transcripts remain poorly understood by those merely reading the transcripts), that the first principles, the prime-movers, the first act of aggression, those who gave the orders, from which “all the evil that follows” has a long-running legal precedent which was forcefully refreshed at Nuremberg. You perhaps understand its legal modalities better, but I can argue it right at the head of the fish.

Some of my writings referenced in that aforementioned report examine the head of the fish and the nature of the rot, the why, the motivation, which automatically fingers the entire hierarchy of the who, of which the machinery of the state is merely the visible henchmen. That exposure might perhaps indicate the level of abstraction at which such cases really ought to be pursued for an efficacious legal case. It is precisely that abstraction, the head of the fish, which thrives on remaining out of the public limelight. Put the spotlight on the cause, not the effects, and you strip it of its power of thriving on anonymity. You also risk an early grave.

I was struck by your comment which was reported by Amy Alkon on her website: “Some cases are too important to need to get paid for.” ( ). I wanted to know more about someone who’d make a statement like that in this day and age, what a rare breed, and I came to your website and saw you quoting Thurgood Marshall on the First Amendment. I wonder if [you] are aware of Justice Vinsom’s empirical opinion alongside that immanent-speak of Marshall’s:

Nothing is more certain in modern society than the principle that there are no absolutes, that a name, a phrases, a standard has meaning only when associated with the considerations which give birth to nomenclature. To those who would paralyze our Government in the face of impending threat by encasing it in a semantic strait-jacket, we must reply that all concepts are relative.” — Justice Vinson, U.S. Supreme Court, 1951.

While Thurgood Marshall’s is inspiring and a lofty goal of the philosopher, Vinsom’s is empirical, the way reality actually is in legaldom. A legal system which is always primarily in the service of empire, and not the people. As you can witness, that ode to moral relativism was uttered by Justice Vinsom directly on the heels of Nuremberg where Justice Robert H. Jackson, the United States Chief Prosecuting Counsel, had argued in moral absolutes as the victors are always wont to do when administering justice upon the vanquished:

“If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.” — Robert H. Jackson, Nuremberg Military Tribunal, 1946

And therefore, I peg your chance of success in this lawsuit, were you to focus on the fish tail, next to nil (but I am not an expert, just using layman’s commonsense). But I do believe, based on empirical data of “imperial mobilization” and the forces driving it, that such effort will merely be an exhausting run on the treadmill for your client, and not precedent setting (for your cause, only for theirs – the victim of obedience training can no longer complain too loudly of the vile methods employed to do so), nor cause any real impact to the TSA policies which is being administered by Homeland Security as part of “war on terror”.. At best, the claimant, will drop the lawsuit. At worst, your client will go broke both financially and emotionally, despite your pro bono. That is the obvious first-stage strategy any tyrannical government always counts on against individuals. They exhaust themselves on their own given sufficient time and sufficient embroilment.

Whereas, if you were to address the head of the rotting fish, the tail would automatically be included. By being realistically aware of your opponents’ vast arsenal which spans the gamut of Machiavelli to social engineering, and their overarching motivations to use it when the stakes are high, as they are in this momentous epoch in future narratives of history, you can better take on this challenge which you so forthrightly stated transcends mere pecuniary gains.

The stakes are far higher than the first Amendment you cherish and quote. The stakes are police-state and public enslavement of the entire West initially. Unless you can understand the overarching motivation, succinctly summed up by Bertrand Russell in his 1952 book The Impact of Science on Society: “World government could only be kept in being by force.”, your efforts will have marginal efficacy at best.

Even the influential Financial Times has argued that 9/11 finally enabled one-world government:

‘for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible. … it is increasingly clear that the most difficult issues facing national governments are international in nature: there is global warming, a global financial crisis and a “global war on terror”’ ( ).

And the EU president confirmed the FT editor’s self-serving confession, by coldly stating that “2009 is also the first year of global governance” ( )

These are the forces behind the myriad effects, including TSA absurdities of protecting the travelling public by offering them the false dialectics of death by sustained radiation exposure via naked strip-down (body-scan imaging) vs. suffering humiliation by groping and molestation. Its entire purpose is obedience training of the American public. And it is evidently succeeding. The last time I checked the TSA data a few months ago, they reported that of the millions who silently accept the false choices provided them by the TSA, only a minuscule 0.005% public have resisted (that number is from memory and maybe the decimal is misplaced).

You cannot prevent an apple from falling unless you are aware of the nature of gravity. But if you fully understand the force of gravity, then you don’t need to watch an apple fall if you let go of it in positive gravity, to know that it has fallen. That bit of commonsense logic is from Mr. Spock of Star Trek. Because I understand the forces which drive “imperial mobilization”, I don’t need to hear the actual outcome of your case, to know what it will be.

Let me know if you think I can be of any assistance after you have read my work, and if you wish to address the head of the fish. I will be happy to lend whatever hand I can, gratis, on the Solon principle while I am still in the United States (as I spend my time between my home in California and my home country Pakistan), and will also bear my own costs. The stakes are so high that the entire house of cards can potentially be brought down by accurately attacking its Achilles’ heel. That requires more than just a legal team. Inter alia, it requires intellectual capital and full spectrum engagement at many fronts including in the media. The latter will automatically happen, I suspect, if you succeed in shinning the spotlight on the head of the fish and drive it all the way to the Supreme Court. I can already wager stochastically that the highest court in the land will decline to hear it. But we don’t know that for a fact – and in waging a battle, it is not always the strongest who wins. Like Patrick Henry had once observed in his inimitable style:

Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.” — Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

I generally pursue principled moral activism only in full public view. When there are no secrets to keep, there is no fear of their being revealed. That may not always be a good legal, chess, or poker strategy, but it is a great risk mitigation strategy for the public against subversion, entrapment, and cointelpro.

Therefore, any 0.02 cents contribution I can make, if called upon to do so, I will be happy to contribute without the crutch of secrecy and confidentiality with my well-worn pen and my hoarse voice now tiring of repeating the same things over and over again. The power of the public in standing up to tyranny lies only in its open expression of resistance to the absurd and the vile. For instance, if one pre-advertise the fact how one sees the outcome developing, one can (perhaps) preempt that outcome from developing in order for the system to continue to maintain its facades — which I deem is still necessary for it for a while longer. We are presently caught Between Two Ages, a transition period. This epoch still requires maintaining some facades in the mainstream public’s views. That necessity of theirs, is also their Achilles’ heel. If you transform this battle into Judo, using your opponents’ strengths and weakness against them, then who knows…

Thank you once again, it has been a pleasure hearing of someone who is motivated by something other than the worship of their stomach. Thus this letter.

Zahir Ebrahim


bio url:

Submitted on the website form on Wednesday, September 7, 2011, 2:28 PM PST: Resubmitted with typographical correction (in bold) and minor elaboration (in paranthesis), 10:00 PM.

Source URL:

Mirror URL:

Source PDF:

Zahir Ebrahim’s letter to civil rights attorney Marc Randazza on TSA