AP and MSNBC: Colo. lawyer sues over TSA airport screening

[hlthe2b]

I make note of the source of this story, since previous thread on 11/28 "disappeared" with no explanation, even though it linked to the actual court filing on Scribd (moderators, please note: SCRIBD is NOT a RW website).

Colo. lawyer sues over TSA airport screening
Attorney wants agency to abandon procedures for U.S. citizens
By P. SOLOMON BANDA
The Associated Press
updated 11/30/2010 4:36:14 PM ET

DENVER — A Colorado attorney has asked a federal judge to order the Transportation Security Administration to abandon its airport screening procedures for United States citizens.

Gary Fielder filed his lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Denver last week, more than a month after he, his two daughters, ages 9 and 15, and a family friend underwent a TSA pat-down in San Diego. Fielder's lawsuit claimed the pat-downs were "disgusting, unconscionable, sexual in nature" and in violation of the Constitution's protections against unreasonable searches.

He said subjecting U.S. citizens to the new procedures is wrong because no American has been accused of threatening commercial airliners with explosives.

Nationally, at least two other lawsuits have been filed over the TSA's new procedures.

More at link: (MSNBC based on AP wire report): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40439638/ns/travel/
Link to the filing: http://www.scribd.com/doc/44179476/Fielder-Complaint-PDF

********************************************

Other related links to the story:
http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2010/12/gary_fielder_read_tsa_lawsuit_see_co_lawyer_refuse_body_scanning_and_pat-down_video.php


http://homelandsecuritynewswire.com/third-lawsuit-filed-over-tsa-airport-screening
Third lawsuit filed over TSA airport screening Published 1 December 2010

A Colorado attorney has asked a federal judge to order the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to abandon its airport screening procedures for U.S. citizens; the suit claims that the patdowns the plaintiff, his two daughters, ages 9 and 15, and a family friend were subjected to in San Diego were "disgusting, unconscionable, sexual in nature" and in violation of the Constitution's protections against unreasonable searches; nationally, at least two other lawsuits have been filed over the TSA's new procedures; public opinion appears to be shifting against TSA's "enhanced patdowns," even as support for full-body scanning appears to remains high


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/30/travel/main7103932.shtml
(AP) DENVER (AP) - A Colorado attorney has asked a federal judge to order the Transportation Security Administration to abandon its airport screening procedures for United States citizens. --snip--
He said subjecting U.S. citizens to the new procedures is wrong because no American has been accused of threatening commercial airliners with explosives.

Nationally, at least two other lawsuits have been filed over the TSA's new procedures.

[sabrina 1]

1. Good for him. The article says that only two other lawsuits have been

filed, but that is not accurate. Eg, two pilots, one male the other female, filed suit against the TSA about two weeks ago. The Rutherford Institute is representing them I believe.

On Nov. 22nd a class action suit was filed against the TSA by EPIC. EPIC has been following the issue for months, filing a FOIA which resulted in the revelation that contrary to their claims, the Full Body Scanners were capable of storing images, and in fact had done so. They revealed this information on the internet. EPIC files Class Action Suit Against DHS To Suspend Airport Body Scanner Program

Another federal lawsuit was filed by Robert Dean of Arkansas to keep the scanners and patdowns out of the Little Rock Airport Robert Dean fights for no body scans, pat downs

And there are others, don't have time to provide a full list right now. The outrage is not diminishing, it is growing.

And John (don't touch my junk) Tyner who is now being threatened by the TSA with an $11,000 dollar fine for leaving the airport rather than submit to the patdown or screening, has stated that if they pursues him, he will definitely file a counter suit. He has been contacted by the ACLU and the Rutherford Institute both of whom say they will represent him pro bono.

Added to all of this, two states' legislatures, NY and NJ, are presenting bi-partisan bills to ban these practices in their states, with a NY legislator saying that they set a 'dangerous precedent' and 'we don't want them in NY'.

More lawsuits are expected. Just in the past two weeks, at least six suits have been filed.

This fight will not stop until, as John Tyner says, they get rid of these totalitarian practices.

And as predicted, once they got them into airports, they are now planning to bring to our streets. Which is why it is imperative to stop them now, before the police state grows to be 'too big to fail'.

[truedelphi]

2. The legal fight against the TSA should continue until our knuckle headed government

remembers that our Fourth Amendment is indeed part of our rule of law. Especially that "whiny" little section about "probable cause."

[sabrina 1]

6. Yes, and re the 4th Amendment, several of the lawsuits are based

on the fact that these practices are a violation of that amendment. I believe there is also a question about the 5th Amendment, not that anyone being abused by the TSA is guilty of anything. However, as soon as they refuse to participate in the abuse, as we have seen with John Tyner, there are threats of further action being taken against them. He was clear in his questions about simply deciding not to fly. He made a choice. But apparently in doing so, the TSA used his refusal to claim he was in violation of their 'rules'. Rules are not laws, so I hope these lawsuits prevail and I hope there will lots more of them.

[truedelphi]

8. it is weird to me, that so many people attempt to discredit Tyner

By saying that he deliberately set himself up and made himself a case,

I think that is very admirable. Many people cannot take on the TSA - if you' re flying from point A to point B for a scheduled operation for instance.

[sabrina 1]

9. Yes, that was weird, especially coming from the 'left', traditionally

defenders of our civil rights.

However, that effort was completely debunked by people like Jeffrey Scahill and Glenn Greenwald. They both slammed The Nation for an attempt by two of its journalists to discredit Tyner. That resulted in an apology from The Nation to Mr. Tyner.

I wrote an OP here about the defense of John Tyner, and I don't think there is any doubt that he was a citizen who cares deeply about his rights and reacted spontaneously when they were being violated. In the minds of most people who care about these issues, he is a hero.

You can read my OP here if you missed the Scahill/Greenwald debunking of the Nation article:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/sabrina%201/141

[truedelphi]

10. Am about to read it.

First i eed to make sure kitchen is intact - came in from a hike, and realized pan of cooking rice was left on lit burner.

[sabrina 1]

11. Lol, I know what you mean. I have blown up eggs and burned

dinner many times due to being distracted. :-)

[truedelphi]

12. Thank you for directing me to the OP.

Very well done, and glad to see so many on DU willing to side with Scahill against the sloppy thinking done by the Nation.

[hlthe2b]

3. Perhaps it explains why the TSA quietly just took the scanners offline

in most locales, although that may have been only temporary in others. I find the NY and NJ threats to fight the procedures pretty amazing as well. Interesting that there hasn't been more press on those responses....

[intheflow]

4. And here's another one, filed by two Harvard Law students:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9671753

Let the lawsuits begin to rid us of this scourge on the 4th Amendment!

[sabrina 1]

13. That makes about seven so far over the past two weeks or so.

And there will be more I'm sure.

[laughingliberal]

5. K & R nt

[Carolina]

7. Great, let more lawsuits be forthcoming

[struggle4progress]

14. If you read it, you'll see it's a bullshizz lawsuit, involving no legal groundwork whatsoever,

and the attorney is a rightwing wacko with "Sovereign Citizen" movement ties

[hlthe2b]

15. That does not address the issue at hand...

As I told you on your previous posts to me denouncing this lawyer and his lawsuit, I don't really care if he is a rightwing wacko or if he is a lousy lawyer. Some (including an article, since withdrawn by the Nation, with an apology from editor, Katrina vanden Heuvel) have tried to imply RW conspiracy behind John Tyner's protest as well. Frankly, I don't give a damn if it were Newt Gingrich and his whole family filing these suits. More power to them. This Colorado lawyer's Federal suit is one of many addressing the violation of the 4th Amendment. That is the point. And he is right to fight back in the minds of the majority of DUers, whether you agree or not. The legal system will have to rule on this issue eventually-whether his suit goes nowhere or not. As evidenced by the seven or more suits other DUers have indicated are in motion--including several from those associated with Harvard, the flood gates may well open wide. That is a good thing, IMO. The courts appear to be our last possible refuge from these policies that are not evidence-based and which further erode our civil liberties.

[struggle4progress]

16. Nice way for him to get attention, but not a serious lawsuit, as anyone can see by reading

It has no legal content. He mentions an amendment to the Constitution. That's the extent of his legal research. It's garbage

[hlthe2b]

17. actually...

your continuing to beat that dead horse makes me wonder who it is that needs the attention. He is bringing attention to an important issue, regardless. If "lousy" lawyers like him and earnest, yet inexperienced Harvard law students are able to get the ball rolling, then more power to them. Perhaps you'd also like to critique the Rutherford Institute that is likewise involved in these suits?

[struggle4progress]

18. Rutherford Institute (Sourcewatch)

... "Whitehead's Institute has a long history of using standard right-wing themes in fund-raising letters, including attacks on public education, gay people and separation of church and state." ...
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Rutherford_Institute

[hlthe2b]

19. So, just because the RW agrees with many of us on civil rights

abuse of this policy, they are to be denounced? I remember when Bob Barr left the RETHUG party to become a libertarian and actively denounced the civil rights abuses of the Bush* admin. How many of us lauded his efforts, while we ALL remember his nastiness vis-a-vis the Clinton impeachment.

Just because they are our opponents on most issues does not preclude them ever being "right" about an issue that we likewise champion. Nor does it imply they can not be competent allies on a specific issue such as this. The only Raygun quote I am likely to adopt is his "trust but verify." If our own administration is advancing policies that are not defensible and threaten our civil liberties, I will not play the sycophant and ignore that. If that means rooting for RW legal eagles that are willing to take it on in court, then so be it.