• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Judge rules no-fly list violates constitutionally protected right to travel

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
I can neither confirm nor deny that I am on any "watch list" maintained by the United States Government, or referred by such to the Government of any other nation-state.

However, it is my assertion that if I am not on at least one such "watch list" maintained by the United States Government, or referred by such to the Government of any other nation-state, that my life's work and political and moral activities to have been in vain.

stay safe.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas

Thank you

I can neither confirm nor deny that I am on any "watch list" maintained by the United States Government, or referred by such to the Government of any other nation-state.

However, it is my assertion that if I am not on at least one such "watch list" maintained by the United States Government, or referred by such to the Government of any other nation-state, that my life's work and political and moral activities to have been in vain.

stay safe.

+1 very quotable
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
I can neither confirm nor deny that I am on any "watch list" maintained by the United States Government, or referred by such to the Government of any other nation-state.

However, it is my assertion that if I am not on at least one such "watch list" maintained by the United States Government, or referred by such to the Government of any other nation-state, that my life's work and political and moral activities to have been in vain.

stay safe.

+1
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
The court read
their complaint to raise only procedural claims regarding the
sufficiency of the grievance procedures available to contest
their apparent inclusion on the List. ...


DHS TRIP does not appear to provide any mechanism
for Plaintiffs to challenge the adequacy of the process itself,
and the record does not reveal whether their procedural chal-
lenge has been reviewed on the merits in any prior administra-
tive proceeding. Accordingly, we also remand Plaintiffs’
procedural challenge to the district court for such further pro-
ceedings as may be required to make an adequate record to
support consideration of their claims.


From opinion ^^^^


Is this a finding that the process is BS?
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-rules-no-fly-list-unconstitutional/11320105/

Sorry if this is already posted, didn't see it.


Very interesting. I think it is score 1 for liberty.

I think that its a revelation, one of many, that the gov'ts don't give a crap about fairness or due process.

I just wrote a brief in which an admin agency wanted to supplement a record to include new arguments (a court case remanded back to admin level hearing wherein the admin body wanted to add new arguments to support their views while not allowing me to offer rebuttal ~ the court is allowing the admin agency to take the newly produced admin arguments and not allow me a rebuttal before the admin agency regarding the new arguments ~ but the court also noted that my motion to strike the new record was denied without prejudice). So I have experienced, as many have, the unfairness of administrative bodies ~ they just make up crap most of the time IMO & this federal case has similarities to mine ~ a person is seen by the admin agency to have no right to rebut.

So while this gets bounced back ... I don't think it will be a win for the people. The admin agency will make up some crap.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
Yeah, it did seem more like she was saying the no due process was the kicker component, which kind of leaves the door open for minor alterations to the practice to allow it to be reinstated till the next court case, which could easily go the other way. So perhaps not the biggest win.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Yeah, it did seem more like she was saying the no due process was the kicker component, which kind of leaves the door open for minor alterations to the practice to allow it to be reinstated till the next court case, which could easily go the other way. So perhaps not the biggest win.

I totally agree with the initial idea of the court though...the process is not fair, and that's what admin processes are supposed to be: FAIR which is beyond "due process". An admin process is different than a regular court proceeding that is governed by well understood evidence rules and due process rules...that's why the notion of "fairness" prevails, or should.
 

Whitney

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
435
Location
Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
Confused ?

Does the opinion inferr we have a right to travel?

I ask because of an incident I had with TSA. I could not find any legal counsel that would take on my complaint, it was finally explained to me air travel is voluntary. You want to fly,, you must comply.

I'm still waving the penalty flag at TSA for thier conduct but have no redress.


~Whitney
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Does the opinion inferr we have a right to travel?

I ask because of an incident I had with TSA. I could not find any legal counsel that would take on my complaint, it was finally explained to me air travel is voluntary. You want to fly,, you must comply.

I'm still waving the penalty flag at TSA for thier conduct but have no redress.


~Whitney

No, the opinion states we have a right to travel. Page 20 of 38.

...Plaintiid have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in travel and reputation....

4th, 5th, 6th Amendment + 14th Amendment rights protect that "liberty interest". (I'd add 8th Amendment in this case. PM me if you do not understand why.)

stay safe.
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
It's so ridiculous. Someone blows up a building and as a result kids in wheelchairs and grandmas are made to strip and take off their shoes. Brilliant.

NOT ONE terrorist was ever caught by the TSA. And the NSA is talking maybe half a dozen, unless they counted wrong.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Does the opinion inferr we have a right to travel?

I ask because of an incident I had with TSA. I could not find any legal counsel that would take on my complaint, it was finally explained to me air travel is voluntary. You want to fly,, you must comply.

I'm still waving the penalty flag at TSA for thier conduct but have no redress.


~Whitney

We have the right to ASSEMBLE = right to travel

One cannot assemble without the right to travel.

I had the TSA tell me that too ... their argument did not affect me at all .. I did not comply & I continued on w/my travel
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Yea, the way I see it rights exist with or without having to defend them. I never blame the victims for the acts of the aggressor.

Defenseless children are victims of horrendous abuse. They still have the right not to be abused.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Yea, the way I see it rights exist with or without having to defend them. I never blame the victims for the acts of the aggressor.

Defenseless children are victims of horrendous abuse. They still have the right not to be abused.
Actually, they have a right to defend themselves which mitigates or obviates abuse. The government makes kids, after a certain age, defenseless. Government goons further enable kids to remain defenseless by enforcing unconstitutional laws and unlawful school policies.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Actually, they have a right to defend themselves which mitigates or obviates abuse. The government makes kids, after a certain age, defenseless. Government goons further enable kids to remain defenseless by enforcing unconstitutional laws and unlawful school policies.


Good points and yes they do have the right to defend themselves.

Like children who capitulate to abuse of a much stronger adult, most in society capitulate to the abuse of the state, the rights still exist whether they do this or not.
 
Top