Lawyers Allowed through TSA Security to Serve Legal Document
Aug 5, 2007, 7:00 am
#16
Join Date: Dec 2004
Programs: AA, WN RR
Posts: 3,122
"Not responsibility of TSA" sounds like the standard response when a hole in aviation security is noted. Apparently TSA is responsible for only the screening of passengers and their bags, both checked and carry-on, and some other agencies are supposed to be in charge of other airport security, such as access to the sterile areas, especially airliners at gates. 
Way to be comprehensive and decisive about coordinating security. What a useless bureaucracy wasting our tax dollars and hassling us as we try to travel. 
Way to be comprehensive and decisive about coordinating security. What a useless bureaucracy wasting our tax dollars and hassling us as we try to travel.
Aug 5, 2007, 8:33 am
#17
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
It is my understanding that the limitation on who can go through the checkpoint (I find the term "sterile" area to be dumb and misleading) is based on workload, not on security. In other words, if every passenger brought an average of 2 guests (like we did for about 50 years), you would have 3 times as many people to be screened, which would overwhelm the current system.
Aug 5, 2007, 10:14 am
#18
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 105
That's ridiculous. If that were the case, most airports would allow anyone through the screening checkpoints in order to increase business for airport shops and restaurants. Plus, the TSA has generally pretty strict requirements about running passenger and hotel guest names through the "no-fly list" before giving access to terminals.
See, for example, the TSA's Airport Access Authorization to Commercial Establishments
See, for example, the TSA's Airport Access Authorization to Commercial Establishments
(http://www.metwashairports.com/about_the_authority/faqs )
Btw, I have asked my superiors what good is my DHS/TSA I.D. badge, specifically, what can I use it for? They have told me that it allows me to gain access to things like the weight room over at HQ. To which I respond, "I have no need for the dumbbells at HQ".
Last edited by DCA TSO; Aug 5, 2007 at 10:24 am
Aug 5, 2007, 3:04 pm
#19
Join Date: May 2005
Location: various cities in the USofA: NYC, BWI, IAH, ORD, CVG, NYC
Programs: Former UA 1K, National Exec. Elite
Posts: 5,485
Aug 5, 2007, 3:06 pm
#20
Join Date: May 2005
Location: various cities in the USofA: NYC, BWI, IAH, ORD, CVG, NYC
Programs: Former UA 1K, National Exec. Elite
Posts: 5,485
A self-described pedophile who says he is attracted to young girls but doesn't molest them was ordered Friday to stay at least 30 feet away from every person under age 18 in California.
Aug 5, 2007, 4:27 pm
#22
Join Date: May 2005
Location: various cities in the USofA: NYC, BWI, IAH, ORD, CVG, NYC
Programs: Former UA 1K, National Exec. Elite
Posts: 5,485
Aug 5, 2007, 4:34 pm
#23
Join Date: Dec 2004
Programs: AA, WN RR
Posts: 3,122
In many jurisdictions only people who are pre-approved may serve process. Sheriffs/deputies are explicitly allowed by most rules. Many jurisdictions require approval for others, who are often designated special process servers. This is because serving process carries some risks and privileges. In some jurisdictions, special process servers may carry concealed weapons because they may get into precarious situations. Serving process is a unique part of litigation, because it initiates the, for lack of a better word, process. I think it is appropriate that one who serves process should not have a possible stake in the litigation, analogous to a referee in a sporting event.
Aug 5, 2007, 4:50 pm
#24
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,704
Because this guy is most certainly threatening.
Aug 5, 2007, 5:17 pm
#25
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 105
He needs to do something. Have you been following the story of this jackass? He is the perfect example to point out to those people who say, "If all these incidents on planes were truly dangerous someone would have been arrested." This guy points out the fact that you have to commit an actual crime to be arrested, not just pose a threat.
Because this guy is most certainly threatening.
Because this guy is most certainly threatening.
Aug 5, 2007, 5:36 pm
#26
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,704
He confesses his attraction to kids and thinks such laws should be eliminated but states that he has never acted on his interests (yeah, right) so I'm not sure motivation would be provable in any case.
Aug 5, 2007, 8:12 pm
#27
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: District of Columbia
Programs: AA ExecPl, AT Gold, Hyatt Globalist, IHG Diamond, Hilton Diamond, National
Posts: 2,440
This is getting pretty far off topic now...
But yes he's wacko, but he's following the law. I wouldn't be surprised if he turns out to be a hoax. If he truly wanted to commit wrongful acts against children, he'd probably be much more secretive. If he intended to break the law, wouldn't you think it would be in his interest to remain private rather than becoming a public figure?
But yes he's wacko, but he's following the law. I wouldn't be surprised if he turns out to be a hoax. If he truly wanted to commit wrongful acts against children, he'd probably be much more secretive. If he intended to break the law, wouldn't you think it would be in his interest to remain private rather than becoming a public figure?
Aug 6, 2007, 8:12 pm
#28
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Northwest Georgia
Programs: Delta, Hilton, ICH, Hertz
Posts: 302
Careful there. Someone may think you are telling the truth about TSA HQ... wait, no, never mind.
Aug 7, 2007, 7:00 am
#29
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: MIA
Programs: PC Plat/Amb
Posts: 1,152
This is getting pretty far off topic now...
But yes he's wacko, but he's following the law. I wouldn't be surprised if he turns out to be a hoax. If he truly wanted to commit wrongful acts against children, he'd probably be much more secretive. If he intended to break the law, wouldn't you think it would be in his interest to remain private rather than becoming a public figure?
But yes he's wacko, but he's following the law. I wouldn't be surprised if he turns out to be a hoax. If he truly wanted to commit wrongful acts against children, he'd probably be much more secretive. If he intended to break the law, wouldn't you think it would be in his interest to remain private rather than becoming a public figure?
Not if he wants free legal representation from the ACLU.
Aug 13, 2007, 2:51 pm
#30
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: District of Columbia
Programs: AA ExecPl, AT Gold, Hyatt Globalist, IHG Diamond, Hilton Diamond, National
Posts: 2,440
I asked and received an answer from Anthony D. Zinnanti, Esq., the lawyer involved in the case.
"We were accompanied by LAX Airport Police. It was a big deal with TSA. The
respective heads of the departments had to coordinate to get us through. On
the other hand, McClellan made such a scene in California that the
authorities were willing to facilitate getting some kind of control of the
situation. (I've represented TSA Agents before, so I know how it really goes
with them.)"
"We were accompanied by LAX Airport Police. It was a big deal with TSA. The
respective heads of the departments had to coordinate to get us through. On
the other hand, McClellan made such a scene in California that the
authorities were willing to facilitate getting some kind of control of the
situation. (I've represented TSA Agents before, so I know how it really goes
with them.)"