TSA Admits $1B Nude Body Scanner Fleet Worthless! (My New Video)

Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by Affection, Apr 10, 2012.

  1. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    finally got a chance to watch the whole thing. Very nice Jon. They must hate you by now. You've pretty much shown these machines to have doobious value--just about the only use for them is interdicting doobies.

    Here's to you, TSA!
  2. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

  3. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    No, that's not what it said. It said this:

    The District Court dismissed the cases on the grounds that under a federal statute, it had no jurisdiction in TSA matters. In justifying the dismissal, U.S. District Court Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr. cited a secret order issued by the TSA requiring that the D.C. Court of Appeals hear any reviews of TSA procedures.


    In dismissing the lawsuits, U.S. District Court Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr. relied upon a statute giving the D.C. Court of Appeals “exclusive jurisdiction to affirm, amend, modify or set aside” an order of the Administrator of the TSA.

    The problem is with the statute -- we must get it repealed or amended. If we don't none of these cases will be heard on their merits. We'll have to rely on the Supreme Court, and who knows how that will go.

    So yeah, bad result - again - but for the same reasons all of the other cases have failed.
  4. Affection

    Affection Original Member

    Trennnnnndiiiiiiiinnnng! :) 2 hits per second thanks to Reddit and /.!

  5. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    I saw the /. :)
  6. Doober

    Doober Original Member

    Thanks, Sunny. I thought that's what it said when I read the Rutherford piece.

    The above doesn't make sense. If it's a secret order that the TSA requires the DC Court of Appeals to hear reviews of TSA actions, Kennedy just let the cat out of the bag, didn't he?

    If my thinking is correct, then this sentence doesn't make any sense either:

    Sloppy writing, such as I see this to be, doesn't engender confidence in TRI.
  7. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    Yeah, that is weird phrasing. My understanding is that the statute itself requires people to go directly to the Court of Appeals, not to begin at the District Court level (which is the norm). District Court is where you get discovery, etc., because the District Courts are the 'triers of fact'. Once you get to the Appeals Courts, the facts have been found and litigated, the appeals courts focus on matters of law. And that's why these cases keep getting tossed - the appeals court looks at the jurisdictional matter (a matter of law), and says 'you didn't go to the right court' and tosses them. Grrrr. :mad:

    It could just be sloppy writing like you think, but it seems worth looking into though.....
  8. Affection

    Affection Original Member

  9. CelticWhisper

    CelticWhisper Founding Member

  10. jtodd

    jtodd Original Member

  11. Fisher1949

    Fisher1949 Original Member Coach

    Affection likes this.
  12. Doober

    Doober Original Member

    Affection likes this.
  13. Doober

    Doober Original Member

    Sunny Goth, can one start an action in the Court of Appeals?
  14. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    Not normally, but EPIC's case is in the Appeals court because that's what the statute requires.
  15. Doober

    Doober Original Member

    If cases against the TSA must be filed in the Court of Appeals, why are so many being started in District Court?
  16. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    Because many people won't be able to follow through if their case is started in the correct venue before being shunted to the "allowed" venue. It's just obfuscation on the part of the Feds and the TSA because they're all too aware how things would go in any court not under their complete control.
  17. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    Some people don't know any better and some are trying to beat the jurisdictional hurdle -- that's my guess. And District Court is the normal place to start - just not in this case.

    And it's like Caradoc says - can you imagine what would happen if we were allowed to start in District Court? The court system would be overrun with people suing the TSA (not that that would be a bad thing). Man. Just imagine the discovery! :)

Share This Page