Go Back   > > >
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 18, 10, 7:50 pm   #46
  
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: ATL
Programs: DL GM / PC APM / SPG GM / GP PM
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by RVP View Post
Good luck to the OP!

Bolding of TSORon's comments is mine.

I can't respond to the validity or legality of this argument because I'm not an attorney.

But I found TSORon's term "violating the 4th Amendment crowd" to be demeaning. Regardless of his belief in his employer, we are fighting for his rights as well as our own.

Sorry he doesn't get that.

Sorry for the off topic comment. Carry on.
What crowd? I thought Pissy and CBS said everyone was in agreement these things were nessessary to keep us safe?!?!?
N615HL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 10, 8:48 pm   #47
  
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 434
I think it's interesting how brainwashed our two self-alleged TSA employees are. They don't seem to deny that the searches are way over the line, but just suggest that they think that the TSA is above the law (and especially, the Constitution) and can get away with it in court.

This is most definitely not my first time filing a suit in federal court, and I'm quite clear on the process, requirements, etc. Though most defendants and their attorneys assume that a pro se plaintiff won't "have his .... together," I find that around when the judge denies their motion to dismiss, they rapidly sober up to the reality that this pro se plaintiff is not like the others.

I'm in this to win this (for all of us), and this is a fight that I will not be bullied into giving up on by those who think I can't. While I won't publicly detail my legal strategy any further, what I can say is this: Bring 'em on.

--Jon

Last edited by Affection; Nov 18, 10 at 8:59 pm
Affection is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 10, 9:27 pm   #48
  
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 78
Thank you Jon!

Give em hell and I hope you win.
candi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 10, 9:36 pm   #49
  
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: SEA
Posts: 1,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyecue View Post
...The proper term is "standard pat down."...
No, the proper term is "unwarranted, demeaning, molesting, unconstitutional pat down".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Affection View Post
I'm in this to win this (for all of us), and this is a fight that I will not be bullied into giving up on ...
Thank you, Jon.
Your efforts on behalf of all of us are greatly appreciated.

Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Nov 19, 10 at 2:23 am Reason: merge consecutive posts
muji is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 10, 9:45 pm   #50
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
  
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Yiron, Israel
Programs: Bates Motel Plat
Posts: 56,276
Jon, last year I annoyed quite a few TS&S regulars by starting a thread titled I am a Keyboard Kommano. It made fun of those who post here in the most belligerent terms about how they would stand up to any TSO who gave them a problem but, in real life, would never do a thing.

You, very obviously, are not a Keyboard Kommando. Congratuations (and thank you) for your efforts.
Dovster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 10, 10:10 pm   #51
Original Member, Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, OMNI, OMNI/PR, and OMNI/Games
  
Join Date: May 1998
Location: PDX
Programs: TSA Refusenik charter member
Posts: 15,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSFox View Post
You're saying someone went from being a Federal Judge to a Mgr in TSA? It's rather rare that a Federal Judge moves on to anything other than retirement, SCOTUS, law faculty, or inmate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeMpls View Post
A federal judgeship is a lifetime appointment given to experienced, respected attorneys & vetted by the both the executive & legislative branches.

It is beyond credulity that a such a person would give that up & become one of the Supervising Gropers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DevilDog438 View Post
Yup, I could not even envision an SSA Administrative Law Judge stepping down to take a "manager" position within TSA, even with the almost daily threats they tend to receive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pharaoh View Post
But makes it easier for TSA to seize the airport
*ROTFL* You guys certainly make up for the lack of a paycheck for modding this forum.
essxjay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 10, 10:12 pm   #52
  
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Somewhere near BWI
Programs: DL DM, HH Dia, SPG Gold, MR Plat, Hertz PC
Posts: 3,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by essxjay View Post
*ROTFL* You guys certainly make up for the lack of a paycheck for modding this forum.
Glad we could bring a little sunshine into your day!
DevilDog438 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 19, 10, 5:03 am   #53
  
Join Date: Aug 2007
Programs: AA EXP, Amex Plat
Posts: 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by TSORon View Post
The question of administrative searches was answered by the US Supreme Court in the 1970's. Suits basing their complaint on that are tossed out of hand by most courts. I'll leave it to you fine folks to research what I am talking about, I doubt you will but at least I have attempted to point you in the right direction.
Bolding mine.

Well, I did. Please refer to Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., 436 U.S. 307 (1978). I found this in about 30 seconds. In this case the Supreme Court stated:
Quote:
"We conclude that the concerns expressed by the Secretary do not suffice to justify warrantless inspections under OSHA or vitiate the general constitutional requirement that for a search to be reasonable a warrant must be obtained. ... We hold that Barlow's was entitled to a declaratory judgment that the Act is unconstitutional insofar as it purports to authorize inspections without warrant or its equivalent and to an injunction enjoining the Act's enforcement to that extent."
tacostuff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 19, 10, 5:43 am   #54
  
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by TSORon View Post
The question of administrative searches was answered by the US Supreme Court in the 1970's.
The Supreme Court ruled that the concept of an administrative search doesn't violate the 4th Amendment. That doesn't mean any conceivable search is permitted by calling it an "administrative search". The normal principle of 4th Amendment cases apply: there's a balancing between the governments interests and privacy interests
RichardKenner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 19, 10, 6:19 am   #55
FlyerTalk Evangelist
  
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 23,230
Interesting (and in character) responses from two different alleged TSOs.

One cites carefully presented specifics to counter the OPs suit.

The other takes an unspecific, demeaning 'us vs. you' attack approach.

As a subsequent poster noted, we're supposed to all be on the same side. From top to bottom, way too many in TSA have lost sight of who the enemy is.

Hint: the enemy is someone who seeks to harm the American way of life, someone who commits an assault on our fundamental rights. It doesn't matter how the goal is achieved, anyone who tries to destroy or deny our freedoms is to be feared.
chollie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 10, 7:49 pm   #56
  
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 434
Quick update for you all -- there is a radio show host who claims to have inside knowledge that my motion for temporary restraining order against the TSA will be granted by Tuesday. His blog is:

http://macsmind.com/wordpress/2010/1...res-next-week/

I do not know the author at all and had not communicated with him prior to this article, so I have no more details than are in the article, including whether or not these sources are reliable. Also, my temporary restraining order covers only me, not the public in general, while it's the permanent injunction that I'm seeking which would cover everyone. But, if this temporary restraining order is approved, there's nothing that prevents me from asking for another one to cover everyone, which is definitely on the table. Either way, this would be a great step forward. Cautiously excited.

--Jon
Affection is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 22, 10, 7:21 pm   #57
  
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 33
Any news on this?
MajorJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 23, 10, 6:33 am   #58
Suspended
  
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by MajorJim View Post
Any news on this?
I second this. Inquiring minds want to know...
Al Coholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 23, 10, 4:12 pm   #59
  
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 434
No decisions yet, guys! I'll be sure to post as soon as there is.
Affection is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 10, 10:57 pm   #60
  
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 434
Gov't Replies to My Suit: A “would-be terrorist would make the same assurances”

Approaching a month ago, I filed the first suit against the new procedures (nude body scanners + molestation) in US District Court, and the first response from the government came back today. Details and the full reply:

http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.co...me-assurances/

--Jon
Affection is offline   Reply With Quote
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Thread Tools
Search Thread
Go to Top
Forum Jump
Contact Us - FlyerTalk - Archive - Top