Naked man arrested at Portland International Airport after disrobing at security
Jul 5, 2012, 8:49 pm
#76
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: FKB
Programs: Skymiles - FO
Posts: 207
Upholding the Seventh Amendment, something the Supreme Court opted against roughly 150 years to do, would have crippled the Reconstruction-era courts and allowed for more frivolous lawsuits that we can even dream of in today's "if you don't like the answer, sue" society.
But your statement sounds like SCOTUS abandoned the 7th amendment entirely, and I want to clarify that I am not misunderstanding this. If so, then such precedent would be relevant to a flyer who finds himself involved in a federal lawsuit with the TSA, say if the TSA hypothetically made good on its threats to sue someone for $11,000.
Jul 5, 2012, 9:03 pm
#77
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
Jul 5, 2012, 10:14 pm
#78
Join Date: Oct 2011
Programs: Ham Sandwich Medallion
Posts: 889
Do you have the citation for this? You've got me really curious, and I'd like to read the opinion. I've long understood that SCOTUS declined to apply the 7th amendment to the states. And since this thread is about a case that does not appear to be in federal court, I believe such a ruling would be relevant...
But your statement sounds like SCOTUS abandoned the 7th amendment entirely, and I want to clarify that I am not misunderstanding this. If so, then such precedent would be relevant to a flyer who finds himself involved in a federal lawsuit with the TSA, say if the TSA hypothetically made good on its threats to sue someone for $11,000.
But your statement sounds like SCOTUS abandoned the 7th amendment entirely, and I want to clarify that I am not misunderstanding this. If so, then such precedent would be relevant to a flyer who finds himself involved in a federal lawsuit with the TSA, say if the TSA hypothetically made good on its threats to sue someone for $11,000.
Jul 5, 2012, 10:47 pm
#79
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Orange County, CA, USA
Programs: AA (Life Plat), Marriott (Life Titanium) and every other US program
Posts: 6,411
I don't know that it was ever expressly rejected, but I do recall Justices v. Wall (1869) taking on Seventh Amendment issues, and I'm very much certain that the current rules for Federal courts specify that the amount in question much exceed $75,000 for the case to be heard at all--jury or no jury--and the Supreme Court has never agreed to take up the issue as it relates to the $20 clause.
Jul 6, 2012, 10:39 am
#80
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
Jul 6, 2012, 11:53 am
#82
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: FKB
Programs: Skymiles - FO
Posts: 207
What is relevant in the case that started this thread is not an amendment in the bill of rights itself, but the extent to which the provisions of that amendment have been applied to the states (incorporation) by federal precedent via the 14th amendment. The $20 part of the 7th amendment has not been applied to the states; can you imagine the effect on small claims if it had been? While the fines at stake in this case are probably more than 20 bucks, this still appears to be just another indecent exposure case, brought by the state, under state law, with no federal entities as parties in the case (TSA not a plaintiff or defendant, just a possible witness).
Jul 10, 2012, 3:26 pm
#83
Join Date: Sep 2011
Programs: AA SPG Amex
Posts: 4,644
That would hopelessly back up the court system. It could take over five years to get a trial in some jurisdictions if every single violation received trial by jury, or we could just spend even more money we literally don't have on tripling the capacity of the courts.
All criminal defendants should have the right to trial by jury. People pulled over for speeding, stopped for jaywalking, or given some other non-criminal citation still get their trial, but it's in front of a judge, which saves time and money.
All criminal defendants should have the right to trial by jury. People pulled over for speeding, stopped for jaywalking, or given some other non-criminal citation still get their trial, but it's in front of a judge, which saves time and money.
Oh, and for those who would propose prioritizing different cases differently, let me say this: just. won't. happen. Why? Because I'll probably have a better lawyer, with more pull, representing me in my traffic violation trial than many accused of violent crime so will still probably have preference when it comes to scheduling (as well as taking a lawyer who might take another pro bono case out of the running for one more day since they're representing me on some stupid traffic citation).
Jul 10, 2012, 11:02 pm
#84
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Orange County, CA, USA
Programs: AA (Life Plat), Marriott (Life Titanium) and every other US program
Posts: 6,411
Your post brings another important point to mind: With that kind of backlog, think of all the indigent defendants accused of real crimes and misdemeanors (which they may or may not have committed but have not been convicted of) who will spend significant time incarcerated as a result. Think about it, this change in the system, which some here favor, could easily have someone sitting in jail for months on a charge for which they might be sentenced to 60 days at most. Our system isn't perfect, but this scenario takes the injustice to an entirely new level.
Oh, and for those who would propose prioritizing different cases differently, let me say this: just. won't. happen. Why? Because I'll probably have a better lawyer, with more pull, representing me in my traffic violation trial than many accused of violent crime so will still probably have preference when it comes to scheduling (as well as taking a lawyer who might take another pro bono case out of the running for one more day since they're representing me on some stupid traffic citation).
Oh, and for those who would propose prioritizing different cases differently, let me say this: just. won't. happen. Why? Because I'll probably have a better lawyer, with more pull, representing me in my traffic violation trial than many accused of violent crime so will still probably have preference when it comes to scheduling (as well as taking a lawyer who might take another pro bono case out of the running for one more day since they're representing me on some stupid traffic citation).
Jul 18, 2012, 3:04 pm
#85
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: United States
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Amtrak
Posts: 4,647
He had his day in court today. Outcome still to be determined.
Portland man who stripped at PDX airport testifies TSA is 'close to seeing us naked'
Portland man who stripped at PDX airport testifies TSA is 'close to seeing us naked'
Jul 18, 2012, 3:33 pm
#86
Join Date: Jul 2006
Programs: United
Posts: 2,710
He had his day in court today. Outcome still to be determined.
Portland man who stripped at PDX airport testifies TSA is 'close to seeing us naked'
Portland man who stripped at PDX airport testifies TSA is 'close to seeing us naked'
Jul 18, 2012, 4:03 pm
#87
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: United States
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Amtrak
Posts: 4,647
Not Guilty!
Portland man who stripped naked at airport is acquitted of public indecency charge
A Multnomah County judge has acquitted a Northeast Portland man of a public indecency charge for stripping naked at Portland International Airport security.
Judge David Rees said 50-year-old John E. Brennan was indeed stripping in protest of what Brennan saw as invasive Transportation Safety Administration screening procedures.
"It is the speech itself that the state is seeking to punish, and that it cannot do," Rees said.
Judge David Rees said 50-year-old John E. Brennan was indeed stripping in protest of what Brennan saw as invasive Transportation Safety Administration screening procedures.
"It is the speech itself that the state is seeking to punish, and that it cannot do," Rees said.
Jul 18, 2012, 6:54 pm
#89
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: in the sky
Posts: 490
Jul 18, 2012, 7:13 pm
#90
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 28,878
Portland man who stripped naked at airport is acquitted of public indecency charge
A Multnomah County judge has acquitted a Northeast Portland man of a public indecency charge for stripping naked at Portland International Airport security.
Judge David Rees said 50-year-old John E. Brennan was indeed stripping in protest of what Brennan saw as invasive Transportation Safety Administration screening procedures.
"It is the speech itself that the state is seeking to punish, and that it cannot do," Rees said.
Judge David Rees said 50-year-old John E. Brennan was indeed stripping in protest of what Brennan saw as invasive Transportation Safety Administration screening procedures.
"It is the speech itself that the state is seeking to punish, and that it cannot do," Rees said.