#1
RatherBeOnATrain , Feb 12, 2012 8:18 am
FlyerTalk Evangelist
TodaySome good news from the San Francisco Appeal:
San Francisco Appeal:
Court Clears Way For Lawsuit After Woman Arrested At SFO Over "No-Fly" Status
February 9, 2012 12:55 AM
There is some additional information in this SF Chronicle article:
San Francisco Chronicle:
Ex-Stanford student's no-fly lawsuit reinstated
Thursday, February 9, 2012
A short quote:
A Malaysian professor who claims she was mistakenly placed on the government's no-fly list and arrested at San Francisco International Airport in 2005 has won the right from a U.S. appeals court to go ahead with a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the FBI.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said on Wednesday that Rahinah Ibrahim, who holds a Ph.D. from Stanford University, had enough of a connection with the United States to allow her to sue in an American court.
Source: The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said on Wednesday that Rahinah Ibrahim, who holds a Ph.D. from Stanford University, had enough of a connection with the United States to allow her to sue in an American court.
San Francisco Appeal:
Court Clears Way For Lawsuit After Woman Arrested At SFO Over "No-Fly" Status
February 9, 2012 12:55 AM
There is some additional information in this SF Chronicle article:
San Francisco Chronicle:
Ex-Stanford student's no-fly lawsuit reinstated
Thursday, February 9, 2012
A short quote:
Ibrahim, a mother of four in her mid-40s, eventually earned her doctorate from Stanford and is now a university professor in Malaysia. She settled claims against San Francisco police and others involved in her arrest for $225,000 in 2009 but is still suing over the watch list.
#2
nachtnebel , Feb 12, 2012 11:25 am
Sep 2, 2020Quote:
San Francisco Appeal:
Court Clears Way For Lawsuit After Woman Arrested At SFO Over "No-Fly" Status
February 9, 2012 12:55 AM
There is some additional information in this SF Chronicle article:
San Francisco Chronicle:
Ex-Stanford student's no-fly lawsuit reinstated
Thursday, February 9, 2012
A short quote:
looks like the 9th circuit thinks there is a due process problem with the no fly list...Originally Posted by RatherBeOnATrain
Some good news from the San Francisco Appeal:A Malaysian professor who claims she was mistakenly placed on the government's no-fly list and arrested at San Francisco International Airport in 2005 has won the right from a U.S. appeals court to go ahead with a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the FBI.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said on Wednesday that Rahinah Ibrahim, who holds a Ph.D. from Stanford University, had enough of a connection with the United States to allow her to sue in an American court.
Source: The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said on Wednesday that Rahinah Ibrahim, who holds a Ph.D. from Stanford University, had enough of a connection with the United States to allow her to sue in an American court.
San Francisco Appeal:
Court Clears Way For Lawsuit After Woman Arrested At SFO Over "No-Fly" Status
February 9, 2012 12:55 AM
There is some additional information in this SF Chronicle article:
San Francisco Chronicle:
Ex-Stanford student's no-fly lawsuit reinstated
Thursday, February 9, 2012
A short quote:
Ibrahim, a mother of four in her mid-40s, eventually earned her doctorate from Stanford and is now a university professor in Malaysia. She settled claims against San Francisco police and others involved in her arrest for $225,000 in 2009 but is still suing over the watch list.
#3
We Will Never Forget , Feb 12, 2012 6:19 pm
Why is this list being checked after the plane takes off?
If she is too much of a threat to fly into the U.S., shouldn't she have been stopped beforehand?
If she is too much of a threat to fly into the U.S., shouldn't she have been stopped beforehand?
#4
Quote:
If she is too much of a threat to fly into the U.S., shouldn't she have been stopped beforehand?
There you go again-assuming that logic is involved in any of this. Bad boy!Originally Posted by We Will Never Forget
Why is this list being checked after the plane takes off?If she is too much of a threat to fly into the U.S., shouldn't she have been stopped beforehand?
#5
The ruling is on shaky ground (it is a standing issue only on appeal, not an NFL issue which the court already dealt with); I predict it will be reversed en banc or by the Supreme Court. It might at be clarified to give the correct reason she has standing, but that depends on whether she is still on the NFL.
The NFL case to watch is Latif. It is in the 9th Circuit right now and will most likely be reversed and remanded back to the District Court to consider the challenges to the NFL in the first instance as to the each plaintiff, and as to the TRIP process (i.e. is TRIP 'due process'); the Distrcit Judge completely ignored Ibrahim I the first time around and dismissed the case.
If you want good info on the state of the law on the NFL, read Ibrahim I from the 9th Circuit.
The NFL case to watch is Latif. It is in the 9th Circuit right now and will most likely be reversed and remanded back to the District Court to consider the challenges to the NFL in the first instance as to the each plaintiff, and as to the TRIP process (i.e. is TRIP 'due process'); the Distrcit Judge completely ignored Ibrahim I the first time around and dismissed the case.
If you want good info on the state of the law on the NFL, read Ibrahim I from the 9th Circuit.
#6
Quote:
Finalization of the complete passenger manifest occurs so close to take-off in various instances that it's a safe assumption to presume that some "catches" will occur after take-off. More so when some have (routinely valid) multiple ID travel documents -- some with "variations" in names and/or other data -- or other factors result in being flagged only when post-take-off batch processing takes place (and it takes place for a variety of purposes even after a flight has taken off).Originally Posted by We Will Never Forget
Why is this list being checked after the plane takes off?
Also, some people on the NFL who reside well beyond the Americas do sometimes manage to arrive in the US by avoiding the airspace of the US (and some of our surrender monkey allies) and using surface transport means for part of the journey.
Such situations just provide more fuel for rational people to burn up the US aviation blacklists. ID checks of passengers -- which is the backbone of the flimsy passenger blacklists -- are a wasteful dog and pony show in an environment where WEI interdiction is as ridiculously poor as is the case.
Why are there even these lists? ID isn't security.
#7
RatherBeOnATrain , Dec 3, 2013 10:05 am
FlyerTalk Evangelist
David Kravets has an update:
Wired.com:
Trial Opens in Case Challenging Scholar’s Placement on TSA Watchlist
December 2, 2013
A short quote:
Wired.com:
Trial Opens in Case Challenging Scholar’s Placement on TSA Watchlist
December 2, 2013
A short quote:
Quote:
SAN FRANCISCO — In 2005, Rahinah Ibrahim, a visiting scholar at Stanford University, was handcuffed, detained and interrogated for two hours at San Francisco International Airport, after being told she was on a U.S. government watchlist.
Today, eight years later, the 48-year-old Malaysian academic and mother of four became the first person to take the U.S. to trial after being included in America’s database of suspected terrorists. At issue: whether someone wrongly watchlisted has a right to formally clear their name in court — and whether the government even has to admit that it placed someone on the list to begin with.
The first-of-its-kind trial could have serious implications for the government’s vast secret watchlist system, which contains 875,000 names, according to the most recent figures released this year by the U.S. National Counter-Terrorism Center.
SAN FRANCISCO — In 2005, Rahinah Ibrahim, a visiting scholar at Stanford University, was handcuffed, detained and interrogated for two hours at San Francisco International Airport, after being told she was on a U.S. government watchlist.
Today, eight years later, the 48-year-old Malaysian academic and mother of four became the first person to take the U.S. to trial after being included in America’s database of suspected terrorists. At issue: whether someone wrongly watchlisted has a right to formally clear their name in court — and whether the government even has to admit that it placed someone on the list to begin with.
The first-of-its-kind trial could have serious implications for the government’s vast secret watchlist system, which contains 875,000 names, according to the most recent figures released this year by the U.S. National Counter-Terrorism Center.
#8
Thank goodness for the 9th circuit. I have high hopes for this case. Although this is ridiculous:
Quote:
One hurdle in the trial, which is expected to last two weeks, is that the government so far is refusing to defend itself. “The government cannot respond to any of Professor Ibrahim’s claims,” said Deputy U.S. Attorney Lily Farel.
The Obama administration maintains that the basic question of whether Ibrahim is on a watchlist or not is a “state secret,” and is hence privileged and confidential, even in a civil lawsuit against the government. The federal judge presiding over the lawsuit has sided with federal prosecutors so far.
I guess it makes sense that the case in still under the judge who dismissed it and was overturned, it's just unfortunate.One hurdle in the trial, which is expected to last two weeks, is that the government so far is refusing to defend itself. “The government cannot respond to any of Professor Ibrahim’s claims,” said Deputy U.S. Attorney Lily Farel.
The Obama administration maintains that the basic question of whether Ibrahim is on a watchlist or not is a “state secret,” and is hence privileged and confidential, even in a civil lawsuit against the government. The federal judge presiding over the lawsuit has sided with federal prosecutors so far.
#9
No defense? Find for the Plaintiff! Life without parole for current and former "leaders" of TSA/DHS. Defendants are personally fined $500,000 each, to be given to the victim.
Naphole, Pissant, Kippie, and Skeletor: You are remanded to federal custody and will serve your sentences at SuperMax in Florence, CO. You are the scummiest defendants this Court has even seen.
Next case!
Naphole, Pissant, Kippie, and Skeletor: You are remanded to federal custody and will serve your sentences at SuperMax in Florence, CO. You are the scummiest defendants this Court has even seen.
Next case!
#10
RedSnapper , Dec 5, 2013 5:32 am
Quote:
The NFL case to watch is Latif. It is in the 9th Circuit right now and will most likely be reversed and remanded back to the District Court to consider the challenges to the NFL in the first instance as to the each plaintiff, and as to the TRIP process (i.e. is TRIP 'due process'); the Distrcit Judge completely ignored Ibrahim I the first time around and dismissed the case.
If you want good info on the state of the law on the NFL, read Ibrahim I from the 9th Circuit.
I agree that Latif is a case to watch. (Indeed it was reversed and remanded to the trail court) It appears to be much further along now. That court has already partially completed its evaluation of the NFL procedure under the Mathews test. Here is a link to the discussion...Originally Posted by Ari
The ruling is on shaky ground (it is a standing issue only on appeal, not an NFL issue which the court already dealt with); I predict it will be reversed en banc or by the Supreme Court. It might at be clarified to give the correct reason she has standing, but that depends on whether she is still on the NFL.The NFL case to watch is Latif. It is in the 9th Circuit right now and will most likely be reversed and remanded back to the District Court to consider the challenges to the NFL in the first instance as to the each plaintiff, and as to the TRIP process (i.e. is TRIP 'due process'); the Distrcit Judge completely ignored Ibrahim I the first time around and dismissed the case.
If you want good info on the state of the law on the NFL, read Ibrahim I from the 9th Circuit.
I've just started reading the Ibrahim documents, and I'm already perplexed. The plaintiff's trial brief is so heavily redacted I'm not entirely sure what relief she is seeking. I wouldn't be surprised if the government's brief in response is redacted in its entirety.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I also think that Latif is making a facial attack on the NFL, while Ibrahim is only attacking its application to her.
#11
It has become apparent that there are no depths to which DHS will not sink.
DHS stalls no-fly list trial by putting witness on no-fly list
DHS stalls no-fly list trial by putting witness on no-fly list
Quote:
On the first day of trial, the judge learned that the plaintiff's daughter, scheduled to testify, was delayed because she had been denied boarding of her flight because she was put a Department of Homeland Security no-fly list. DHS staff deny this. The government's lawyers told the judge that the daughter is lying. The airline provided documentation of the DHS no-fly order.
On the first day of trial, the judge learned that the plaintiff's daughter, scheduled to testify, was delayed because she had been denied boarding of her flight because she was put a Department of Homeland Security no-fly list. DHS staff deny this. The government's lawyers told the judge that the daughter is lying. The airline provided documentation of the DHS no-fly order.
#12
Quote:
DHS stalls no-fly list trial by putting witness on no-fly list
So on the one hand the government won;t discuss the NFL and whether someone is or is not on it and on the other they assure the court that the missing witness is not on it. WOriginally Posted by Caradoc
It has become apparent that there are no depths to which DHS will not sink.DHS stalls no-fly list trial by putting witness on no-fly list
w.
#13
Quote:
w.
Yep. And the judge doesn't sound happy about it.Originally Posted by Xyzzy
So on the one hand the government won;t discuss the NFL and whether someone is or is not on it and on the other they assure the court that the missing witness is not on it. Ww.
Quote:
...he made clear that, “I am disturbed by this…. We’ll hear from her [Ms. Mustafa Kamal] when she gets here. If it turns out that the DHS has sabotaged a witness, that will go against the government’s case. I want a witness from Homeland Security who can testify to what has happened. You find a witness and get them here.”
...he made clear that, “I am disturbed by this…. We’ll hear from her [Ms. Mustafa Kamal] when she gets here. If it turns out that the DHS has sabotaged a witness, that will go against the government’s case. I want a witness from Homeland Security who can testify to what has happened. You find a witness and get them here.”
#14
Boggie Dog , Dec 5, 2013 2:58 pm
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Quote:
DHS stalls no-fly list trial by putting witness on no-fly list
If a lawyer is shown to be dishonest in communications to a judge should there not be severe sanctions?Originally Posted by Caradoc
It has become apparent that there are no depths to which DHS will not sink.DHS stalls no-fly list trial by putting witness on no-fly list
#15
Quote:
To call the lawyer "dishonest" assumes that the lawyer knows the truth and is deliberately denying it. Given the bureaucratic monstrosity that DHS is, I could find it plausible that the lawyers were told by higher-ups that it wasn't DHS's fault the witness couldn't board a plane, while some lower-level DHS employee actually performed the action that led to the witness being denied boarding.Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
If a lawyer is shown to be dishonest in communications to a judge should there not be severe sanctions?
Hanlon's Law: never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.