Harvard Law Students “Approve”

I was doing research today into the other lawsuits filed against the TSA, and downloaded a complaint filed by a pair of Harvard Law students…

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-01/airport-scanners-enhanced-patdowns-bring-lawsuit-by-massachusetts-pair.html

To my surprise, I found that I downloaded a nearly exact copy of my own complaint! I hope they didn’t submit it as their senior project.

Redfern v Napolitano (.pdf)

Strength in Numbers: How You Can Help The Lawsuit Against the TSA (UPDATE)

***UPDATE*** Final version completed, filed, and attached.

Much of the work in a federal lawsuit is not in the courtroom, but rather in written arguments. Right now, a motion for a preliminary injunction is in front of the court, and the US replied in opposition (naturally — see previous post on blog). I’ve spent much of this week preparing a reply to their opposition, and I think I’ve produced a quality argument.

Let’s make it even better. Some of you may have legal experience, many likely do not, but it doesn’t require a law degree to make a coherent argument. So, I open the floor to you for your review, thoughts, ideas, and suggestions. Anything from a comma out of place to a great piece of case law you read that you think might fit.

My draft document is attached. Some rules:

1) The document gets filed on Monday, so the earlier you reply, the better. The latest reply that I can look at before filing is Monday at 9:00 AM.

2) This is essentially a reply to the government’s reply. Please read the government’s reply first (previous post). As background information, the motion at hand is a motion for preliminary injunction against the TSA using nude body scanners on me or “touching my junk.” (Preliminary injunctions are supposed to be narrow in scope, which is why the motion only relates to me, however if the motion is granted, the door is open for anyone to sue to get relief, not to mention the TSA will be forced re-look at their actions!)

3) You can post your thoughts in the comments or e-mail me directly -> jon at fourtentech.com.

4) Nothing will be construed as “legal advice.” You are either not a lawyer or are a lawyer giving a personal, non-professional opinion only. No attorney-client relationship created, and no compensation due.

Thanks for helping! I know that we all wish that there were something we could do to make this better, and hopefully this is a step in that direction. Together we can beat them!

–Jon

Reply to Opp to TRO (.pdf) (FINAL VERSION)

US Reponse to My Suit: A “would-be terrorist would make the same assurances”

The US Department of Justice made its first filing in my case today, in opposition to my motion for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction, attached here for any who would like to review.  While nothing within was terribly surprising, a couple of points were interesting:

•  The DoJ implicitly affirms that they understand that we all have a constitutional right to travel.  However, they proceed to state that there “is no constitutional right to travel by a specific mode of transportation; Plaintiff has the option of traveling by car, bus, or train,” essentially putting it down in writing that the government’s position is, “Don’t like it?  Take the train.”  It goes without saying, but naturally this doesn’t work to overseas destinations (or even the 50th US state), and makes business travel impossible.  The train on my most frequently flown route (NY to Miami) takes about 30 hours — it’s not simply an inconvenience, but impractical.  …and we all know that the trains are next on the TSA’s list, as are buses, and soon enough, the highways.
   
• In order to get a temporary restraining order, one must show that it is unlikely that the other party will be harmed (or if they are, less so that the potential harm to me by not issuing the order).  To that end, part of my request for the temporary restraining order was a declaration that I’m not a terrorist, have no criminal record, and have no intention of blowing up a plane.  The DoJ’s response: A “would-be terrorist would make the same assurances.”  I’ll be sure to ask them if they have any examples of would-be terrorists going to court to petition for their constitutional rights, or perhaps they just assume that anyone opposed to being molested in the name of security may deserve suspicion of being a terrorist.

Next step is a reply from me, and the judge may rule at any time.  I’m confident that the government’s opposition is without merit and will be rejected by the Court — stay tuned!

–Jon

Defendant’s Opposition to TRO/PI (.pdf)