GUWonder

It's the US DOJ indeed for whom the USAs and their staff work. This $500 fine will have cost the government many times that amount to defend and claim. I wouldn't be surprised if this litigation cost the US taxpayers more than $10k. My money down the drain again due to the TSA. The US DOJ spent money to try to protect the TSA's ability to intimidate peaceful passengers.

Boggie Dog

Just the government lawyers salaries for billable hours would exceed $10k many times over.

GUWonder

Most of our DOJ lawyer time expense is for people on fixed salaries. That money for backing up the TSA could have been used toward dealing with a violent criminal offender, but that isn't what that office decided to do. What a shame that money is wasted like this.

RadioGirl

Back in college, my friend used to do that for $5 parking fines on campus.
​​​​​​​
The trick was to put in 501 pennies so they had to count it twice.

Boggie Dog

I realize that DOJ lawyers are salary but a way to figure how much this $500 fine will cost to collect is to take their annual salary/2087=hourly rate. Of course that only covers the lawyers cost and not the cost of the court and staff. Only takes a couple of hours of prep and court time to make this a fools errand. Every penny expended should come off the top of TSA's budget.

Section 107

seems like folks on both sides thought the principles involved are more important than the pesos.

nachtnebel

Just because Brennan acted like an idiot [from TSA perspective], it doesn't mean that TSA is obliged to do the same.

It was idiotic to pursue this.

GUWonder

In this case it was US DOJ that decided to pour a ton of money into this for very little immediate return. Just goes to show you how petty the DOJ can be.

Boggie Dog

What would the future return be?

GUWonder

Getting submission from the public, for that is in keeping with a governmental desire to keep the people servile by whatever means it deems practicable to it without material risk of major, negative consequential loss of power arising for it from such pursuit.

To send a public message: we can go after you even if it costs us a hundred dollars to collect a dollar, so surrender now or we will make you pay up whatever we want you to pay up when we want you to pay up.

studentff

It is funny in a disturbing way how tortured the text of some of these pro-TSA rulings is to try to make TSA's behavior seem OK.

"TSA officers had to close down the checkpoint." Really? TSA chose to. If Brennan had set his clothes on fire or spilled a gallon of liquid on the floor or even shouted continuously at the top of his lungs, then the argument that TSA "had to close" might hold water.

And apparently his protest was not protected free speech because he wasn't holding a sign saying he was exercising free speech? That makes about as much sense as rulings (which I think exist) that claim you have to verbally assert your 5th Amendment rights to preserve the right to remain silent.

And vague TSA rules are OK because the penalties are civil not criminal? Really? So they can fine us into oblivion with impunity?

Section 107

Your first comment speaks directly to my position in another thread about searches "away from screening checkpoints"...

as to your questions in the second statement: "not quite but close", "yes" and "almost." That is how the system works; plus, the burden on the government is much lower than with criminal law....