saizai

Technically, that's a recommendation, not a prescription. Prescriptions are the things that require a medical and/or DEA license to make. (Counting nurse practitioner etc.)

You don't need a license to recommend juice, and a doctor doing so has no legal relevance.

Exactly.

Boggie Dog

I disagree, a doctor can prescribe things other than controlled drugs. Examples, assistive devices, vitamins, and supplementive nutrition. These things may not require a DEA number but they are prescribed non the less.

saizai

Recommended, sure. But it's not a "prescription" in any strict sense — i.e. if you don't need the prescription / doctor's authority to get it.

This may include some non-drugs, but I was making a general point: I don't have or need a "prescription" from my doctor to get juice. They just say "well, it seems like it helps you, so you should keep it around". That's it.

Anyway: do you really want TSA goons reading (or validating) your prescriptions?

Their job is simple: scan the thing. If the scan is bad, rescan. If the scan is good, let it through.

What paper you have with you is irrelevant, unless it's some sort of validated prearrangement for actually dangerous but necessary items, like compressed oxygen cylinders, FAMs' weapons, etc. — in which case, again, they shouldn't be relying on some paper you present to them.

Boggie Dog

There is little about TSA that I like.

If everyone presents with medical liquids over 3.4 ounces the checkpoints will crawl to a stop. TSA has failed to deploy equipment to test liquids so only faulty ETD testing is available. I don't want TSA validating my prescriptions but there has to be some standard of "medically necessary" and if that means a doctors prescription then so be it.

But you refuse to even agree that a doctor can prescribe non-controlled items. If a doctor prescribes a knee brace insurance may cover the cost with a doctors prescription because a doctor said it was medically required. Same concept with juices.

I am not in support of TSA liquid restrictions but the approach you are taking seems likely to fail. Show documented medical need and you will have some ground to stand on.

Carl Johnson

First, the TSA's rules say if a passenger says it's a medical liquid, it's a medical liquid. Second, his approach has succeeded. If you read back up the thread to his response to me, the media got on this story, causing SFO to tell the clerks to follow the rules, and he hasn't had any problems at SFO since then.

saizai

FWIW just on the SFO part, here's proof:

TSA scrambling to respond after it hits BoingBoing
Retraining email to all the TSMs etc re medically exempt liquids scenarios
Entire CAS SFO workforce retrained

I also talked to an SFO CAS manager who had actually addresesed me by name at the checkpoint because they recognized me from having seen the RightThisMinute segment. Got to talking about it. They told me that they thought it was pretty messed up, and personally retrained their subordinates the next day.

Also, that TSM Smith (the belligerent guy in my SFO video) no longer works for the TSA for some reason, dating from around the same time.

I did record that conversation, but haven't published the video (and don't have it readily available; it's in my archival disks).

Boggie Dog

A medical liquid subject to additional screening, that can be quantity limited by TSA, and can be refused clearance for little reason by any TSA screener.

The OP needs to leverage his strength position by taking steps to demonstrate an acknowledge need for his supplements.

As it is now, rules or not, seeking corrective action to a TSA policy or misapplication of that policy is nearly impossible. So why not take steps that might help a TSA screener make a favorable decision.

saizai

The first yes, and I welcome them to screen my liquids w/ the ETD & LCS machines. (In fact, I insist on it.)

The second two no — at least, not legally.

My goal is to force them to obey the law, even if it's at the expense of getting through a single checkpoint more easily. I aim for longer term, and to protect everyone who isn't me too.

Boggie Dog

I appreciate what you are trying to do but hold little hope that you will win the day. TSA has some law they can site too. If you lose this action it will be case law and will make it that more difficult for the next person. You're trying to beat government lawyers who have essentially unlimited funds in a government court without a legal team representing you. I wish you success.

saizai

On the SFO one at least, they've admitted fault on national TV, retrained staff, settled for $75k in a previous case (Armato v TSA, 2:2011cv02462) over breast milk, etc. That one should be an easy win.

On the BOS case, i'm looking for lawyers. Not because it's less meritorious (the opposite really), but because it's just a lot more complicated, with more claims involved, and thus more likely to be defended tooth and nail.

So far my lawsuits are just to get them to answer my complaints and cough up documents — basically, pre-litigation discovery and groundwork. It's been fruitful. It's setup for the main event, which is within ~5 months.

Boggie Dog

Not that it matters but Armato was flying out of PHX when she had her problems. Find out who represented her.

saizai

Correct. Matters mainly only in scope of a lawyer's practice, though I've been offered help by someone to sponsor pro hac vice applications by other lawyers (i.e. to practice

That's easy; it's on the docket & filings:

They're on my list of people to contact.

("Terminated" means on this case; presumably Stacey Armato switched lawyers. Don't know why.)

ETA: Added links.

While I'm at it, here's my collection of TSA documents — including lawsuits (other than mine, which I have filed differently), internal documents, audits, leaked documents, etc:

https://drive.google.com/folderview?...VpUmJycWc#list

It includes a bunch of the documents from the Armato case. (I had to pay for them on PACER, so not everything.)

If you have anything I don't, email it to me and I'll add it. (I prefer versions w/ PACER headers if possible, so I can tag it accurately.)

WillCAD

I wouldn't publish that conversation or reveal the source of that knowledge.

Revealing internal discipline details such as firing for cause, to any member of the public or the media, is undoubtedly prohibited by TSA. Anyone who does so, especially if they embarrass the agency, is likely to lose their job. The info may not be SSI, but any government employee who speaks to the public and reveals internal info without authorization from above is typically subject to discipline themselves.

saizai

I'm holding it in reserve for negotiation w/ CAS.

I don't believe that the supervisor said anything that was SSI or otherwise inappropriate. E.g. they did not say why Smith no longer works for TSA.

Dr. HFH

That's why they had the detailed scanners. So this wouldn't be necessary.


Well, it's not THE question, but it's certainly one of the questions, and a perfectly valid one. And, yes, reasonable people can disagree. What happens the first time that someone gets a weapon on board a plane which would have been picked up by the scanners which give the more detailed image, but was missed by the dumbed down scanners currently in use? What do you say to the surviving families? That your father/mother/son/daughter/etc. was sacrificed in the furtherance of protecting our freedom? I'm glad that I'll never be the one who has to answer that question.


I completely agree. I want the unedited video, though.


You/We have the right to freedom of movement, but not the right to movement by any specific type of conveyance.


If you didn't show your ID, how would you verify your identity?


What about random screenings?


No it's not. There are lots of ways to get from New York to Los Angeles. Sure, flying is the fastest way, but it's hardly the only way.


I disagree. The more detailed scanners do make you safer. They are capable of finding and identifying potentially dangerous items which the dumbed-down scanners cannot.


Interesting. Putting your allegations in an accompanying affidavit does not suffice legally. You have to plead it in the Complaint. That said, I have not read all of the documents you provided. Where's the unedited video?


OK, I understand now. Good that you carried the old passport. I might also carry a certified copy of the court judgment changing your name.