Feds Want Ventura's Suit Against TSA Thrown Out

The U.S government wants former Governor Jesse Ventura's lawsuit against the TSA thrown out.

Ventura filed the suit in federal court earlier this year. He says he was sexually assaulted by the TSA during a pat down at Minneapolis- St. Paul International Airport in November.

The U.S. government filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on Monday arguing all challenges to aviation and security-related TSA orders must be filed in the courts of appeal.

Source: http://kstp.com/article/stories/s2039417.shtml

..be may be a little off on somethings, but he is dead-to-rights on this issue...

Who didn't bother to do basic research into the fate of similar actions challenging TSA rules in district courts.

I guess he took his military oath seriously.

Can you elaborate, or provide a link?

-Hoot

what kind of things were said there. The were noting that there as been nothing from him and a couple of people including, I think the moderator?, said that. No new shows listed as far as I can see either.

But here it says only some of his episodes are disappeared:

http://tvovermind.zap2it.com/tv-news/video-censored-jesse-ventura/43667
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=35372

THIS IS REAL INTERESTING;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_Theory_with_Jesse_Ventura

But the game isn't over...yet.

Appellate courts are not finders of facts.

The Federal District Court first needs to hear the case and entertain evidence regarding the facts of what happened. Doing a pat down is one thing - palpitating boy bits in the process is quite another. Before the legal issues can be addressed somebody has to determine just exactly how invasive that pat down was - based on evidence introduced at trial.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/49/46110.html



(a) Filing and Venue.— Except for an order related to a foreign air carrier subject to disapproval by the President under section 41307 or 41509 (f) of this title, a person disclosing a substantial interest in an order issued by the Secretary of Transportation (or the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security with respect to security duties and powers designated to be carried out by the Under Secretary or the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration with respect to aviation duties and powers designated to be carried out by the Administrator) in whole or in part under this part, part B, or subsection (l) or (s) of section 114 may apply for review of the order by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit or in the court of appeals of the United States for the circuit in which the person resides or has its principal place of business. The petition must be filed not later than 60 days after the order is issued. The court may allow the petition to be filed after the 60th day only if there are reasonable grounds for not filing by the 60th day.



-----------

From the brief for dismissal:

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mnd.118270/gov.uscourts.mnd.118270.9.0.pdf


This case is very similar to the case of Thomson v. Stone, No. 05-70825, 2006 WL 770449 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 27, 2006), in which the district court held that it lacked jurisdiction over a challenge like that of Plaintiff’s. In Thomson, an airline passenger whose prosthetic leg routinely set off airport metal detectors raised a Fourth Amendment challenge to the pat-down procedures used to screen her. 2006 WL 770449, at *1. The court found that the plaintiff’s claims necessarily involved TSA’s Standard Operating Procedure for screening passengers with disabilities, which the court concluded was only reviewable by a court of appeals under section 46110.

----

It is pretty striking that Ventura's attorneys didn't bother to research a case on the exact point at issue in his complaint.

Federal District Courts are finders of fact. Appellate courts address legal issues - and only egal issues. The matters you cite address upholding the requirements that TSA screen passengers. They do not address disputed factual matters.

What is at issue here is not that a screeing and pat down was performed but rather the manner in which it was performed. How much palpitating of those boy bits occurred - and was it sufficient to constitute a sexual assault? That is a specific factual issue which falls within the authority of finder of fact. It is not a legal issue. It is a factual issue.

Nobody is arguing thst TSA ought not have performed a security screening and pat down. What they are arguing is that the manner in which it was performmed was inappropriate and in fact constituted a sexual attack. That is a question of fact.

Appellate courts make decisions based on legal briefs and motions - and they do not hear witness testimony. Entering evdence into the record is the provence of the District Court.

If Ventura's attorneys file in Appellate Court they are guaranteed defeat based on the legal right of the TSA to screen and pat down passengers - without there ever being any hearing of evidence as to the manner of the security procedures conducted. If they file in District Court and have the case dismissed they retain the right to appeal the dismissal of the case and to argue that the law is constitutionally inadequate in that it fails to provide a legal opportunity to challenge the manner in which it is implemented. They do not have that opportunity if they file in Appelate Court because they have agreed and submitted to having the dispute determined on the basis of law rather than fact.

I'mn guessing Ventura's attorneys are far more experienced litigators with more expertise in the strategies of civil procedure than either you or I. And I have held two active bar licenses for nearly 3 decades now and many years ago earned an American Jurisprudence award in civil procedure.

The complaint challenges the procedures per se, not that they were not followed. Ventura is seeking an injunction from any patdown or body scan without a warrant. See page 11.

http://ia600406.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.mnd.118270/gov.uscourts.mnd.118270.1.0.pdf


Ventura's lead counsel's background is primarily in sports and entertainment law. Co-counsel likewise has utterly no background in administrative law.

That the patdowns include the genital area is not a disputed fact among the parties in the first place. There is no factual matter to be decided there at all.

Ventura's claim is that the procedures are a per se violation of his constitutional rights. Yes, I full well understand what district courts and circuit courts do, in general. What you fail to understand is that Congress, exercising the Article III provision of jurisdictional assignment, has subjected claims of this type - and Ventura's claim in the case does not resemble what you think it is - to the exclusive original jurisdiction of the circuit courts.



You are clearly thinking of some other lawsuit than this one, alleging:

"27. Absent reasonable grounds for suspicion, WBI scans and pat-down body searches are unwarranted and unreasonable intrusions on Governor Ventura's personal privacy and dignity and his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and are a justifiable cause for him to be concerned for his personal health and well-being."

Ventura is seeking an injunction against all WBI scans and pat-downs not based on an individualized suspicion. Period. Not the way the pat-downs are conducted, but the fact that he is patted down at all.

If you are referring to some other lawsuit, please identify it.

If someone sexually assaulted Jesse Ventura, why aren't they pushing up daisies right about now?

Just a thought. :shrug:

For anyone who cares about the actual issue:

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mnd.118270/gov.uscourts.mnd.118270.9.0.pdf