Flyertalker files suit against TSA [merged threads]
Dec 6, 2010, 11:24 pm
#61
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 364
Wishing you the best of luck.
One question, in your blog you state "Next step is a reply from me, and the judge may rule at any time.", but in your complaint filed with the court, you requested a jury.
Is the judge ruling on some aspect of the trial, or do you feel this will actually go to trial and you will demand that it be heard by a jury?
Just my gut feeling, but I think you are going to have an uphill battle with the DOJ. But I hope I am wrong and you get what you are seeking.
One question, in your blog you state "Next step is a reply from me, and the judge may rule at any time.", but in your complaint filed with the court, you requested a jury.
Is the judge ruling on some aspect of the trial, or do you feel this will actually go to trial and you will demand that it be heard by a jury?
Just my gut feeling, but I think you are going to have an uphill battle with the DOJ. But I hope I am wrong and you get what you are seeking.
Dec 6, 2010, 11:31 pm
#62
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 436
Juries only decide questions of fact, while the judge decides any questions of law. Everything that goes on before the trial starts deals with the law and logistics of proceeding. Once all of the preliminaries are taken care of, a jury will be formed to deal with any remaining questions of fact.
Interestingly, a restraining order is sort of an exception to that rule, as one of the things you must show to get a restraining order is a likelyhood of succeeding on the merits of the case, which potentially asks a judge to review questions of fact.
A pro se plaintiff against the entire DoJ is always going to be an uphill battle. I've got my running shoes on.
--Jon
Interestingly, a restraining order is sort of an exception to that rule, as one of the things you must show to get a restraining order is a likelyhood of succeeding on the merits of the case, which potentially asks a judge to review questions of fact.
A pro se plaintiff against the entire DoJ is always going to be an uphill battle. I've got my running shoes on.
One question, in your blog you state "Next step is a reply from me, and the judge may rule at any time.", but in your complaint filed with the court, you requested a jury.
Is the judge ruling on some aspect of the trial, or do you feel this will actually go to trial and you will demand that it be heard by a jury?
Is the judge ruling on some aspect of the trial, or do you feel this will actually go to trial and you will demand that it be heard by a jury?
--Jon
Dec 6, 2010, 11:42 pm
#63
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Western Mass
Programs: AA, HH, Hyatt Gold, Marriott Platinum, UA, DL, US
Posts: 424
Go Jon, go!
Many if not most of us are behind you and applaud your efforts! Thanks for taking the stand for those of us who can't or won't. You are a true American Hero!
JB
Many if not most of us are behind you and applaud your efforts! Thanks for taking the stand for those of us who can't or won't. You are a true American Hero!
JB
Dec 7, 2010, 12:15 am
#64
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 436
Just an update for anyone following the thread that the gov't has replied to my suit --
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...ssurances.html
--Jon
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...ssurances.html
--Jon
Dec 7, 2010, 12:41 am
#65
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 629
The DoJ implicitly affirms that they understand that we all have a constitutional right to travel.
I did find this however:
There is no constitutional right to travel by a specific mode of transportation; Plaintiff has the option of traveling by car, bus, or train.
I really wish you had a lawyer to at least advise you. Such an important case in the history of our country and so lop-sided.
Dec 7, 2010, 12:49 am
#66
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 158
i checked and saw no highway going to Hawaii, or many of the US Territories. Didn't look for rail service, but I'd bet the farm there ain't no train either. Guess you'd just have to swim in order to exercise your right to travel there...
Dec 7, 2010, 12:49 am
#67
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Programs: Star Alliance, One World, Skyteam, BR, GA, EK, VX, SPG, Marriott, Hyatt, Hilton, IC
Posts: 4,065
So that means the only transportation method I have left of going home will be by ship if I don't want to be subjected to all the TSA's practices?
I may not be a citizen of this country, but the statement is really appalling..
I may not be a citizen of this country, but the statement is really appalling..
Dec 7, 2010, 1:44 am
#68
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Denton County, TX
Programs: AA Executive Platinum, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 737
It's really sad. Everything they said is total fear mongering but the sad probability is that the judge will rule in their favor because they make it sound so good. What a crock of BS. I am hoping against hope for ya but I just don't see it happening. We are all in serious trouble. I fear our only chance is years from now with the Supreme Court.
Dec 7, 2010, 1:53 am
#69
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 436
The Supreme Court has long recognized a constitutional right to travel, so there's no use in them denying that. Of issue may be whether or not in 2010 the right to travel is denied by denying air transporation. Previous courts (long ago) have held that one's right to travel is not denied simply because the most convenient mode of transportation was denied. However, I expect that it will be apparent to today's courts that modern day travel cannot be conducted without air transportation. Long distance business trips, for example, quite simply would not be possible by train, and obviously overseas doesn't work.
--Jon
--Jon
Dec 7, 2010, 4:40 am
#70
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: DTW
Programs: DL 0.22 MM, AA 0.34 MM, PC Plat Amb, Hertz #1 GC 5*
Posts: 7,511
Win or lose, the replies from the DoJ are going to be discussion-worthy for quite a while, and I applaud the efforts to bring transparency to this discussion.
Ironic that our own justice department states that we have no expectation of privacy, in varying degrees, in varying situations. The sterile area just might as well be accepted as a no-privacy zone.
Ironic that our own justice department states that we have no expectation of privacy, in varying degrees, in varying situations. The sterile area just might as well be accepted as a no-privacy zone.
Dec 7, 2010, 5:42 am
#71
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: PIT
Programs: Marriott Silver, Priority Club Platinum, Hilton Gold, Airline Peon (United, Delta, Southwest)
Posts: 335
Initial thoughts on the introduction
This challenge should therefore be dismissed or transferred to the court of
appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
There is no constitutional right to travel by a specific mode of transportation;
Plaintiff has the option of traveling by car, bus, or train.
Plaintiff has the option of traveling by car, bus, or train.
* Except airlines
Indeed, Congress has required the Secretary of DHS to “give a high priority to developing, testing, improving and deploying, at airport screening checkpoints, equipment that detects nonmetallic, chemical, biological, and radiological weapons, and explosives, in all forms, on individuals and in their personal property.” 49 U.S.C. § 44925(a).
Only 68 airports around the country have the AIT machines, the majority of security lanes still have metal detectors, and only three percent of the traveling public ultimately receive a pat-down.
Dec 7, 2010, 6:50 am
#72
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: BOS
Programs: DL PM, Hertz Gold Plus, SPG Gold
Posts: 1,049
It is critically important for you to have an attorney. Maybe the ACLU would be able to assist you in finding one who would take your case pro bono. Even if you are a lawyer, it helps for you to have another brain to pick, and it takes away some of the pro se "stigma". In any event, this case sets a precedent, and you need to do everything in your power to come out on top, including finding legal counsel, because if you lose, essentially everyone else loses, too.
Dec 7, 2010, 6:52 am
#73
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Denton County, TX
Programs: AA Executive Platinum, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 737
It is critically important for you to have an attorney. Maybe the ACLU would be able to assist you in finding one who would take your case pro bono. In any event, this case sets a precedent, and you need to do everything in your power to come out on top, including finding legal counsel, because if you lose, essentially everyone else loses, too.
Dec 7, 2010, 8:14 am
#74
In Memoriam
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 361
Shapiro v Thompson (1969): “‘The constitutional right to travel from one State to another . . . has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized.’ … This constitutional right, which, of course, includes the right of ‘entering and abiding in any State in the Union,’ is not a mere conditional liberty subject to regulation and control under conventional due process or equal protection standards. ‘[T]he right to travel freely from State to State finds constitutional protection that is quite independent of the Fourteenth Amendment.’ As we made clear in Guest, it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.”
Dec 7, 2010, 9:37 am
#75
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: BHM
Posts: 118
It is critically important for you to have an attorney. Maybe the ACLU would be able to assist you in finding one who would take your case pro bono. Even if you are a lawyer, it helps for you to have another brain to pick, and it takes away some of the pro se "stigma". In any event, this case sets a precedent, and you need to do everything in your power to come out on top, including finding legal counsel, because if you lose, essentially everyone else loses, too.