Flyertalker files suit against TSA [merged threads]
Nov 18, 2010, 12:45 pm
#32
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 436
Greetings from the secure area of MIA! AA terminal D has 3 separate security checkpoints, numbered 1, 2, and 3. I arrived closest to D c/p 2 and noticed what appeared to be one metal detector and one millimeter wave device. I wandered to D c/p 3 and found that there were only 2 metal detectors, one of which was in use. Did not see D c/p 1. No problems today.
Update: I was able to see from the secure area that D c/p 1 has at least one MMW device, so the only safe c/p for terminal D is c/p 3.
--Jon
Update: I was able to see from the secure area that D c/p 1 has at least one MMW device, so the only safe c/p for terminal D is c/p 3.
--Jon
Last edited by Affection; Nov 18, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Nov 18, 2010, 2:17 pm
#33
Join Date: Aug 2007
Programs: AA EXP, Amex Plat
Posts: 572
My suggestion is to retain counsel that regularly practices in the federal court system that knows the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and any applicable local rules. Even if you only retain counsel to review the work you do and file it, it will pay dividends. Even for lawyers that litigate only in state court, the Federal Court System can be quite daunting. I would hate to see your lawsuit get sidetracked just because you inadvertently forgot to cross all the t's and dot the i's.
Good luck with your suit! I hope it stops the madness.
Last edited by tacostuff; Nov 18, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Nov 18, 2010, 2:29 pm
#37
Join Date: Aug 2007
Programs: AA EXP, Amex Plat
Posts: 572
Unlike my last post, now I disagree with eyecue. Unless there is a specific statutory exception, Federal Magistrate judges only get to decide the merits of the case if both sides consent. A magistrate could be assigned to deal with some of the underlying issues (e.g., discovery disputes). In any event, however, you can always appeal, so I'm not sure it makes a real difference whether a Magistrate Judge or an appointed Federal Judge decides the case.
Last edited by tacostuff; Nov 18, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Nov 18, 2010, 2:35 pm
#38
Join Date: Oct 2008
Programs: NWA Tears
Posts: 979
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.
Nov 18, 2010, 3:02 pm
#39
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: MSP
Programs: Fallen Plats, ex-WN CP, DYKWIW; still a Hilton Diamond & Club Cholula™ R.I.P. Super Plats
Posts: 25,415
It is beyond credulity that a such a person would give that up & become one of the Supervising Gropers.
Nov 18, 2010, 3:10 pm
#40
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Somewhere near BWI
Programs: DL DM, HH Dia, SPG Gold, MR Plat, Hertz PC
Posts: 3,654
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.
Nov 18, 2010, 3:21 pm
#42
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Agreed. If the details are wrong, then having to correct them distracts from the main point of the case.
Nov 18, 2010, 4:01 pm
#43
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Kingdom of the Sun
Programs: DL GM/MM
Posts: 3,708
Nov 18, 2010, 6:42 pm
#44
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
lol according to his profile, he works for the TSA, which would explain his comment. 
But, I'd be interested in hearing what he thinks is inaccurate, if he does legitimately think so. I actually don't expect the government to challenge the facts of my case at all, but rather to try and find a technicality or try to persuade a jury that it's reasonable for them to be in our pants.
--Jon
But, I'd be interested in hearing what he thinks is inaccurate, if he does legitimately think so. I actually don't expect the government to challenge the facts of my case at all, but rather to try and find a technicality or try to persuade a jury that it's reasonable for them to be in our pants.--Jon
But here is a tidbit for the "violating the 4th Amendment" crowd. 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.
Nov 18, 2010, 7:21 pm
#45
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 96
Eyecue is correct, your suit is factually inaccurate in several instances. Dont ask me to help you out, I wont. Its your money and if you want to toss it into the fire who am I to stop you.
But here is a tidbit for the "violating the 4th Amendment" crowd. 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.
But here is a tidbit for the "violating the 4th Amendment" crowd. 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 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 (bolded) 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.