Groped by the TSA? #MeToo And FINALLY, We Can Sue Them

[BADecker]

It's about time that we put the oppressive TSA in its place. Because of the type of ruling this is, we should be able to use it with all law enforcement when they overstep their bounds.


Groped by the TSA? #MeToo And FINALLY, We Can Sue Them

This is great news for those of us who are absolutely fed up with the rampant invasive and humiliating screenings at the hands of TSA agents.

You know what? Let us call those "screenings" what they often are: Sexual assaults, under the guise of "security."

Anyway, back to the story…

In a 9-4 decision, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia said Transportation Security Administration screeners were "investigative or law enforcement officers" for purposes of searching passengers, waiving the government's usual immunity from lawsuits.

Circuit Judge Thomas Ambro said the "intimate physical nature" of airport screenings brought them within the ambit of law enforcement, allowing travelers to pursue some civil claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act for intentional wrongdoing.

He downplayed concern that the decision would open the floodgates to litigation, saying that in 2015 fewer than 200 people, out of more than 700 million screened, filed complaints that might trigger the waiver. (source)

The judges rejected the government's argument that airport screening is different from a search because airline passengers consent to it. They said it's indeed a search – noting that screeners can search a passenger's entire body, including sensitive areas.

The court's decision reversed a July 2018 ruling by a three-judge 3rd Circuit panel.

This decision is a victory for people who have been assaulted by the TSA.

It is a win for people like Nadine Pellegrino, who with her husband sued the TSA for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution over an incident that occurred in 2006 at Philadelphia International Airport, Reuters reports:

Pellegrino, then 57, had objected to the invasiveness of a random screening prior to her scheduled boarding of a US Airways flight to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and was accused of striking a TSA officer.

She was eventually jailed for about 18 hours and charged with assault, making terroristic threats and other crimes, which she denied. Pellegrino was acquitted at a March 2008 trial.

"If you think you are a victim of intentional misconduct by TSA agents, you can now have your day in court," her lawyer Paul Thompson said in an interview. "Nadine never gave up, and it is a real tribute to her courage." (source)

Here's more on Pelligrino's case, from Courthouse News Service:

After she was randomly selected for additional screening, Pellegrino says Transportation Security Administration officers at brought her bags to a private room because she requested discretion.

Once the search, concluded, however, Pellegrino allegedly informed the officers that she planned to report them to her supervisor for excessive conduct. She says they went through her cellphone, counted her coins and currency, smelled each and every one of her cosmetics, and otherwise damaged her property during the ham-fisted search.

It was while Pellegrino was cleaning up the mess of her belongings, she says, that the officers then accused her of striking them. Federal prosecutors in turn brought 10 criminal counts against Pellegrino, only to abandon the case when TSA could not provide any surveillance video of the incident. As for the officers' testimony, one failed to appear in court and the other was unable to keep the story straight. (source)

Pellegrino and her husband asked the TSA for $951,200 in damages. When their claim was rejected, they sued the TSA and three TSA employees.

[1714977274]

1714977274

[1714977274]

1714977274

[1714977274]

1714977274

[1714977274]

1714977274

[squatz1]

Sounds great for right now, but this is just going to be appealed one step further and the Supreme Court is probably just going to let them overstep powers due to the fact that they're 'securing the nation' even though they're just a glorified jobs program for people who live near the airport, and routinely fail tests regarding bombs getting passed them.

[BADecker]

Sounds great for right now, but this is just going to be appealed one step further and the Supreme Court is probably just going to let them overstep powers due to the fact that they're 'securing the nation' even though they're just a glorified jobs program for people who live near the airport, and routinely fail tests regarding bombs getting passed them.

It might certainly happen as you say. But there is one difference, which is...

People are gradually waking up to the fact that government is erasing freedom. And in the States, freedom of the courts is available for anybody to sue anybody. This means that people can sue TSA people rather than their TSA position... with results that are different than when people sue government positions and offices. It is happening more and more all the time in all kinds of places besides the TSA.

The more that government takes freedom away from the people, the more people are going to find out that they have the right to sue even Supreme Court Judges, personally, without suing their Supreme Court governmental office.

[squatz1]

Sounds great for right now, but this is just going to be appealed one step further and the Supreme Court is probably just going to let them overstep powers due to the fact that they're 'securing the nation' even though they're just a glorified jobs program for people who live near the airport, and routinely fail tests regarding bombs getting passed them.

It might certainly happen as you say. But there is one difference, which is...

People are gradually waking up to the fact that government is erasing freedom. And in the States, freedom of the courts is available for anybody to sue anybody. This means that people can sue TSA people rather than their TSA position... with results that are different than when people sue government positions and offices. It is happening more and more all the time in all kinds of places besides the TSA.

The more that government takes freedom away from the people, the more people are going to find out that they have the right to sue even Supreme Court Judges, personally, without suing their Supreme Court governmental office.

Yeah, you can sue those on the Supreme Court. But why'? What would that do for you?

PLUS, you're going to have to show that something they've done, outside of the purview of their office. As they are going to get immunity from cases they've decided on, but not on their personal life. So yeah, take this example from online

There are some stupid examples where a suit like that could survive. For example, if all nine justices (cough cough, or eight justices… this answer was written in late 2016) decided to rent a houseboat, then they absolutely trashed the houseboat in an alcohol-fueled spring break style rager, the houseboat owner could sue the nine justices for the damage.

But that’s a lawsuit against the justices in their personal capacity. Supreme Court justices — or any government official, for that matter — do not get immunity from personal liability.

[BADecker]

Sounds great for right now, but this is just going to be appealed one step further and the Supreme Court is probably just going to let them overstep powers due to the fact that they're 'securing the nation' even though they're just a glorified jobs program for people who live near the airport, and routinely fail tests regarding bombs getting passed them.

It might certainly happen as you say. But there is one difference, which is...

People are gradually waking up to the fact that government is erasing freedom. And in the States, freedom of the courts is available for anybody to sue anybody. This means that people can sue TSA people rather than their TSA position... with results that are different than when people sue government positions and offices. It is happening more and more all the time in all kinds of places besides the TSA.

The more that government takes freedom away from the people, the more people are going to find out that they have the right to sue even Supreme Court Judges, personally, without suing their Supreme Court governmental office.

Yeah, you can sue those on the Supreme Court. But why'? What would that do for you?

PLUS, you're going to have to show that something they've done, outside of the purview of their office. As they are going to get immunity from cases they've decided on, but not on their personal life. So yeah, take this example from online

There are some stupid examples where a suit like that could survive. For example, if all nine justices (cough cough, or eight justices… this answer was written in late 2016) decided to rent a houseboat, then they absolutely trashed the houseboat in an alcohol-fueled spring break style rager, the houseboat owner could sue the nine justices for the damage.

But that’s a lawsuit against the justices in their personal capacity. Supreme Court justices — or any government official, for that matter — do not get immunity from personal liability.

Have you ever heard of the Nuremberg trials? That's the trials of various German military commanders of WW2 who acted under orders. Just because they acted under orders didn't save them from execution for harming people. And that is the point with regard to anyone in government.

The common law is like the Nuremberg trials built right into the USA government. Let the US government people make any and every law they can think of. But if anybody is hurt because of one of those laws, he has right to sue the man who acted as the government official for repayment, even to the point of execution if the man government official won't change his ways.

We are guaranteed the right to be secure in our homes, papers and even our happiness.And it is government's duty to see that this is done. If my happiness is threatened by something a government official did, and I can show that his law that he made did it, I might have legal claims for a suit. But if I bring my claims Nuremberg style - man-to-man - he is open to repayment or execution.

You can find the execution law in this talk by David Myrland - https://www.talkshoe.com/episode/6074645. But you are going to have to listen for almost an hour to ferret it out.




EDIT: Oh, btw. What it would do for you is to get you some money from the suit. Of course, if you don't want money, and they don't have anything else you want, opt for money and donate it to your favorite charity.