She still works for URI as a professor, but URI is still an independent school. It's not like she's head of the research dept for DHS, but that of URI.

DoD has centers of excellence for education in technology fields as well. Doesn't mean that they're part of DoD.

If liquids like this exist, it seems really careless to throw all liquids into the trash next to the checkpoint.

He used a stick of dynamite to "set it off".

Argentina domestic, full 0.5L bottles of water recently went through security np. International (to US at least), liquids > 100 ml confiscated at gate, even where purchased post-security.

I've finally reached a stipulation w/ the TSA on the court's order that they pay my costs of suing them for refusing to answer my Rehabilitation Act greivances.

So I'll get a $600 check from the government at some point. Will have to frame it as a memento of my first federal case decided on the merits.

That's actual costs only, alas. I don't get a cent for my time, because SCOTUS (in Kay v Ehrler) said Congress meant the "Equal Access to Justice Act" to not let pro se plaintiffs get paid for their work… even if we win against an agency violating the law.

Yay, "justice".

Maybe the TSA will obey the APA next time. Maybe not.

But if not, at least next time, it'll be easier to sue them with a quick win. (This case was filed in Nov. 2014…)

So is that the end of it or is there more to come

Much more. This only settles the Rehab Act meta-case.

There's still the others: FOIA/PA, 49 USC § 46110 (re TSA policies), SFO (medical liquids incident), BOS (mutism, BDOs & cop incident), SEA (AIT incident), and collaterals about IFP privacy. And another FOIA suit coming up (once I finish drafting the complaint) to cover all the stuff since I filed the 1st FOIA suit.

1. I finally got the check from DOJ for winning my Rehab Act lawsuit against TSA (which was just to make them respond to my complaint in the first place; they took >2.5y to do so and gave no justification other than "you can't make us"; the judge said "yes I can"). :D

Alas, it only covers my actual costs — court filing fee, printing, copying, mailing, etc. I don't get a cent for my time, though I've set precedent that'll hopefully benefit many others in the future. <deleted by moderator>


2. In my FOIA case against the TSA, I recently received TSA's MSJ and Vaughn declarations, defending thousands of pages of withholdings on a variety of grounds.

I received almost 900 pages of documents so far, most of which have substantial withholdings. There are another ~3-5k pages withheld. These are, for the most part, records of TSA's policies and procedures, as well as records documenting various abuses against me and others.

I need to compile a giant spreadsheet of all the deficiencies, inconsistencies, missing documents, BS exemptions, etc.

There are also some thousands more pages of records that I know exist because they are referenced in stuff I got and/or in filings of administrative record in other cases. These need to be catalogued too, so that I can document the inadequacy of search.

Unlike TSA, I don't have a whole team working on it for months. I have just me — and my deadline is August 8.


Here's what I have so far (with massive redactions I now need to fight). To get a sense of what they're withholding — and why it's important — see their MSJ docs:

• Vaughn declaration
• SSI declaration
• Statement of facts
• Memorandum

I could use a lot of help; contact me privately if you'd be willing to assist with:

1. Going through this massive set of documents, so that I can prepare an opposition and cross-motion to help get TSA's policies, procedures, etc made fully public.

It doesn't require any special legal skill — just common sense and helping fill out a giant spreadsheet. I just have too many documents to go through on my own; TSA needed a whole team and months, I have no team, and one month left. So I could use your help.

2. Analyzing and publishing. I don't want to release documents without accompanying analysis, which is why most of what I have is not yet public. Even with the redactions, there's a lot of interesting material.

3. Info on TSA policy changes from people who work for TSA or have done so before — under condition of anonymity & journalistic source protection. Please use an anonymous account, PGP, and/or an IM service that supports OTR. I can also give you a phone number that supports secure messaging via Signal.

Getting discovery vs TSA re 3.4oz / medical liquids policy; tips & info wanted
 

My litigation against TSA is progressing, slowly but surely, on multiple fronts.

In particular, my civil suit about the SFO incident (among others) has gotten past the first major hurdles (motions to dismiss & motions for summary judgment).

That lawsuit is aimed at abolishing the 3-1-1 / 3.4oz / "medical liquids" rule, and replacing it with a simple rule:
a) TSA must screen everything presented for screening, if they have the technical capability to do so; and
b) they must allow you to take with you anything that passes screening by machine.

No size limits (except the actual physical limits of the screening machines), no limitation to "medical" items, no requirement to declare them "medical" in the first place, and no inquisition about where you bought your medical liquids or why you need it, no asking for prescriptions.

The suit has survived their attempts to block me, leaving in place my Rehabilitation Act injunction claim against TSA (via DHS Secretary Nielsen) and multiple tort & ADA claims against TSA's SFO screening contractor Covenant & its employees. They've filed Answers, which means it's now "at issue". And that means one big thing:

I finally get discovery! :D


I can demand that Covenant, TSA, or relevant third parties produce documents, admit or deny things (including document authenticity), answer questions, and have people submit to depositions under oath.

If you have any suggestions for what might be fruitful targets for discovery into
a) liquids / 3-1-1 / medical policies;
b) TSA's handling of disabilities in general;
c) SPOT/BDA, and/or
d) obstruction of investigations into complaints against TSA (especially Rehab Act or civil rights complaints),
… please contact me privately.

If you have any documents or other files that might be useful to me, that page also has links for how to get them to me securely.

If you work for TSA, or know anyone who does or did, I very much welcome insider tips, documents, and background info, and whatever else you can provide. I've gotten some very helpful info from inside informants so far, e.g. identifying some important national shift briefs, undisclosed SOPs, internal emails & fora, etc.

I promise to keep your identity completely confidential, as I have consistently done in the past. Please be sure to contact me with a method listed as 'secure' on my contact page, since I can only protect what the government hasn't already monitored.


In totally unrelated news: the Supreme Court just approved my proposal to remove a question about SSN last 4 from Federal Appellate Rules Form 4 (IFP application). It's tiny step, but it's something. I'm like an ant jumping on the levers of power. :)

Most basic question.

Why does TSA dispose of potentially explosive LGA's in common trash right at the checkpoint? If these items are too are too dangerous to fly shouldn't they be treated as such?

edit to add: Would a reasonable person dispose of potentially lethal chemicals in common trash unless they know these items are in fact harmless which questions why these items are being interdicted?

These are questions of opinion, which are mostly useless to ask. They'll just give an evasive lawyerly answer.

Also FWIW, my ability to ask questions (25 interrogatories & 10 depositions) is much more limited than my ability to ask them to admit or deny a specific statement, or to ask for production of documents (both of which are unlimited [in quantity; they still have to be reasonably proportionate, relevant or likely to lead to something relevant, etc]). So I have to be much more conservative with how I use the former.

However, I can ask for e.g. records of any liquids related hazmat or bomb squad calls. Or maybe RFPs & specs for checkpoint trash cans…

Again, this is hard for me to use, except against the specific people involved in my incident (because it gets to their subjective state of mind and mens rea).

Perhaps there are policy documents discussing the appropriate way to dispose of "surrendered" liquids, and security justifications for those policies…

I don't know if this helps the OP at all, but I always found it odd that, when it comes to things like toothpaste, antibiotic ointment, Ben Gay topical pain-relieving gel, the TSA ignores its own "volume" of liquid rules. In the U.S., those items are sold -- and labeled -- by weight, not volume, and TSA looks at the item's labeled weight to determine if it is compliant. How 3.4 avoirdupois ounces (or 100 milligrams) of those items compares to 3.4 fluid ounces (or 100 milliliters) is something that a chemist can weigh in on (pun intended), but I imagine that there can be quite a variance, depending on the density of the substance in question.

It seems to me that the TSA should adopt a weight rule for carry-on "liquids" that are sold and labeled by weight, rather than by volume.

TSA expects/requires you to speak when you cannot do so. TSA also tells people to remove braces and casts on injured body parts and then tells those people to walk through the MMW. (Or to get up out of a wheelchair and walk like Lazarus.) Why does TSA request passengers to do something that could very well be harmful the passenger? Unfortunately, most people don't know to refuse such a request because they are intimidated by the false belief that screeners (sorry, Sai, I refuse to call them "officers") have some kind of legal authority to arrest them if they refuse.

Part of my planned discovery requests all documents defining or interpreting the term "ounce". :p