My thoughts were that informational propaganda are often put up in office settings, i.e. posters on a break room wall, for example, which might say something that partially or wholely contradicts the more official written directives such as the SOP manual or issued memoranda. "Well, yeah, the memo said to do X, but there's this big poster on the break room wall that said to do Y, and it's been there for, like, EVER, so I figured the poster was the policy and the memo was, like, maybe, outdated, or didn't apply to OUR airport, or something..." Likewise, many government computers have standardized wallpapers on their desktops or their login screens, and those wallpapers can be used to disseminate information. They're not used for official communications, more like reminders, but again, they can be out of sync with the official policy documents.

I was also thinking that you'd want any materials that tell a TSO which method of screening to use in what situation, and when to bump up to another method, and which method to bump to. For example, if the default screening is WTMD, what makes a TSO send someone to the WBI? Random? Every so many pax? Specific circumstances such as a pax with an assistive device or medical equipment? Is there a quota system for WBI referrals or for pat-downs? Are there any directives about which method to use for children, elderly, or handicapped pax? Etc., etc., etc.

Yeah, and deliberate idiocy like this is what I was thinking of with my previous post. I have no doubt that the original deponent knew exactly what "photocopy" meant and was obfuscating by saying that they used the word Xerox. TSA, of course, could easily say, "Well, you asked for all of the official memoranda, the SOP manual, and any supplementary chapters, but you didn't ask about the motivational posters we keep on the break room wall, or the signs we put up at the checkpoint."

That is a hilarious video. I can understand the lawyer's frustration with a guy who claims not to understand the word photocopy, but of course, were I asking that question, I wouldn't have let it get so far - I would simply have rephrased the question, as he finally did at the end, "Do you have a machine into which you can put a piece of paper and get a copy of that piece of paper?"

*nod* That all makes sense. Thanks for the suggestions.

FWIW, I didn't get that impression. That's a genuine linguistic variance, like the pop / soda / coke distinction, where people will honestly not understand you if you don't use the local terminology. (For instance, something I only recently learned: in the UK, "lemonade" specifically means lemonade soda, not lemonade made from still water. And "pavement" doesn't mean the surface a road is made out of, but the thing on the side that pedestrians walk on [i.e. sidewalk]. Among many others.)

That's a bit different. They can legitimately say that if I fail to request it, without dissembling.

Exactly. Same thing just be careful they don't have some secret definition of "copy", like the NSA did when its director testified about how they totes didn't "search" or "collect" everyone's info. Because, y'see, they only counted it as a search or collection if a human looked at it, not if their servers on the Internet backbone saved it all to a giant data warehouse.

There are some terms TSA plays games with like that, for legal reasons, e.g. "search" and "officer". But hopefully I'll have enough pinned down beforehand that they can't do that, so I can just say "when answering my questions, you must use and interpret all words as defined in this comprehensive document of TSA terminology, or tell me explicitly if you do otherwise".

To everyone reading this who's ever said or known anything about my SFO TSA incident or my disabilities, or anything "related to" any such statement: if you have an objection to your statements, name, address, & phone being disclosed to the Government, please have your lawyer contact me ASAFP at [email protected].

Yes, that's incredibly vague. Sorry, but that's what the Government asked me for:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folde...l2JPrOrQLQYP4b

ETA: See particularly requests for production 1–2, 4–6 (esp. 6); and Interrogatory 7 part 3 combined with all requests for admission.

ETA2: To be clear, these requests are only directed at me (for now). It's possible that the government might send a demand to FlyerTalk, but that hasn't happened yet.

If you have an objection to me complying with any of the discovery demands, please email a letter to me at [email protected], in PDF format, that I can share with opposing counsel.

The letter should state exactly how you have a personal interest and why you object to me complying with the discovery request.

Specifically quote and reference which parts of which discovery request(s) you object to, why they would require me to disclose information about you, and why you have a personal legal interest in preventing me from doing so. You have to be very specific, and you have to do your own analysis. You can't say "Sai says it would require disclosing X"; you have to base it directly on the content of the requests.

Remember that I would have to directly share your letter with the defense lawyers, which includes the Government — so your letter should not contain any information that you don't want disclosed.

Preferably, it should come from your lawyer.

FWIW, I certify that the PDFs at the URL above are accurate copies of discovery requests served on me.

IANAL, IANYL, TINLA.


<deleted>

<redacted>

Is it a request by DHS or legal demand?

It's a legal discovery demand under FRCP 26, 33, 34, & 36. I am required by law to comply with the demand, unless I can object on a legally recognized basis, or unless a third party (e.g. you) can make an objection to my compliance with it.

I am required to respond to the demand within 30 days of receipt, and to make reasonable efforts to preserve the records they requested, whether or not it's objectionable, if it's within my control. Anyone else who knows about it and has any records that are responsive to the demand is also required by law to preserve them.

ETA: 30 day response deadline does not necessarily equal when I produce the records. Just that I have to say what I will or won't produce and why. Normally, the records are produced simultaneously, but if it's voluminous and would take a lot of time to compile, then production can be spread out over time.

How would you ever know who has read your accounting of events? That demand is so broad that there is no way to comply. Ridiculous on the face of it. I would object on that point alone. Even if you could give those names exactly how would that impact the events of that encounter. Looks to me like an effort to bog you down in a worthless search for records that have no bearing on the case. Either it happened as you testify or it did not. Isn't it up to government to defend against your accusations? I would suggest that this demand is punishment for challenging TSA!

Want to bet you are on the Secret List 95?

I completely agree, and I already told them so. See also discussion on my google+ post about this about the limits of permissible discovery.

I have no idea. I see no way in which it's reasonably relevant; to my mind it's sanctionably overbroad. Obviously, I intend to fight it.

However, in the meantime, this is what they've demanded. I'm telling you because it includes you, and you might want to take actions in response, or at least be forewarned.

As far as I know, they don't deny any factual part of what I said happened. That's a huge benefit of having gotten it all on audio + video.

Yes. They do, however, have the right to investigate my own claims, such as my claim of being disabled and needing liquids, to the extent that it's relevant.

FWIW, I don't think it's actually relevant at all, since my position is that everyone should be treated equally. I want the "medical liquids" rule abolished outright � to force them to screen everyone's liquids, medical or not, without asking questions, if it's technologically possible to do. To do anything else would be to treat people with disabilities differently than others, or ask them for disability related info, which isn't allowed in the first place unless there's a good reason.

I don't think that it even reaches the question of whether it's a "reasonable accommodation" on an individualized basis � not ultimately. (I do make such claims in my particular case, though.)

I don't currently have evidence for what the AUSA's intentions were.

I. would. be. so. very. shocked. if. that. were. true.

It occurs to me that I could use an interrogatory to demand that they tell me whether I am on any such list. I only get 25 interrogatories, though, so I have to be very sparing in how I use them. I expect I'd want to first have a lot more documents before I start asking questions.

I'm not going to do a thing. Any information I might have is not first hand. I didn't witness the event, I have never met you, traveled through those airports and don't think any testimony on my part would be pertinent to your case. What are they going to do other than make Secret List 95 longer?

I think a claim that the AUSA is trying to make you jump through hoops just to increase the paperwork load for no good reason is suggestive of harassment. I would at least insert that commentary in any response. The judge might agree.

I totally agree that you are irrelevant to the case and that I ought not be required to disclose your information.

However, if you want me to not disclose your information — and everything you've ever posted — then please send me an objection.

I don't have the right to object on your behalf. I can say that it's unreasonably broad, ambiguous, irrelevant, disproportionate, burdensome, etc. for me. I might even be able to assert my own 1st Amendment right of association. I intend to fight the request as much as I can. But I can't assert your right to privacy.

I didn't make the request for no reason. If you want me to be able to object on your behalf, I need something formal from you with which to do so.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1927

I post on the internet as if the NSA/Feds are already monitoring, and they already know that the entity known as this screen name on Flyertalk would be perfectly happy if the entire organization currently going by the moniker of TSA would go collectively suck on a bureaucratic metaphorical tailpipe, so I see no harm in that being on the record.

I completely concur - but they know me already also so who gives a fig?

Many people do. It is not for me to subvert others' privacy interests. I intend to defend them as much as I can, but there are limits to what I am legally allowed to do here, since it involves others' interests, not just mine.

If you don't care whether the TSA gets your name, address, phone, posting history, private messages with me, etc etc., fine. So noted.

I posted for the sake of people who do object to stuff like that. I sure as hell would.

I for one appreciate your concern. For the life of me I don't understand how this information would benefit DHS/TSA in its efforts to defend against your claims.

Have we reached the point where peacefully speaking out against a government agency is a crime in the United States?

If so, then call me a criminal. It'll take more than some vague, meaningless threat to chill my speech.