Airport staff 'exposed woman's breasts, laughed'

  • Thread starter Thread starter exoflare
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I should point out that some district (states) attorneys also have authority bring civil and regulatory cases. This authority would not allow for a prosecution (or any other type of case) for an alleged constitutional violation.
 
Listen_to_This said:
The only cases that district attorneys bring are criminal prosecutions. You said a district attorney should a case based on alleged constitutional violation. The case would have to a criminal prosecution because that is the type of case a district attorney brings.
Click to expand...
I really have no idea what you are trying to say here.

But about that apology…

I understand if you are reluctant.
After so many pages of letting you run with that false representation of me, I am sure it feels like someone snuck up and trapped you unfairly.

Admittedly I should have grabbed that false representation straight away. But because I have no desire to debate legalese, I simply let it go. But once you decided to bring it back up, and attempted to use the false representation to insult me, I feel the need to correct it.

I have quoted the post you referenced, and it is proven to be a radical departure from what you claimed it is.

The apology, please.
 
Listen_to_This said:
Hey, let’s assume there was some type of case a district attorney might bring. How would the district attorney have standing?

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/standing
Click to expand...
As noted a few posts ago I have no desire to debate legalese.

About that apology…

I understand if you are reluctant.
After so many pages of letting you run with that false representation of me, I am sure it feels like someone snuck up and trapped you unfairly.

Admittedly I should have grabbed that false representation straight away. But because I have no desire to debate legalese, I simply let it go. But once you decided to bring it back up, and attempted to use the false representation to insult me, I feel the need to correct it.

I have quoted the post you referenced, and it is proven to be a radical departure from what you claimed it is.

The apology, please.
 
Listen_to_This said:
I should point out that some district (states) attorneys also have authority bring civil and regulatory cases. This authority would not allow for a prosecution (or any other type of case) for an alleged constitutional violation.
Click to expand...
No one is saying a DA should prosecute the federal government b/c they violated the Constitution; what’s being said is that a DA needs to prosecute someone based on the searches so that the defendent can challenge the search on Constitutional grounds.
 
vz71 said:
I really have no idea what you are trying to say here.

But about that apology…

I understand if you are reluctant.
After so many pages of letting you run with that false representation of me, I am sure it feels like someone snuck up and trapped you unfairly.

Admittedly I should have grabbed that false representation straight away. But because I have no desire to debate legalese, I simply let it go. But once you decided to bring it back up, and attempted to use the false representation to insult me, I feel the need to correct it.

I have quoted the post you referenced, and it is proven to be a radical departure from what you claimed it is.

The apology, please.
Click to expand...
I already posted that I am sorry I assumed you knew the only cases a district attorney brings are prosecution (including cases for civil and regulatory fines). What more do you want the apology to say? You said you wanted a district attorney to bring a case. The cases district attorneys bring are prosecutions. What am I missing?
 
wabrams said:
No one is saying a DA should prosecute the federal government b/c they violated the Constitution; what’s being said is that a DA needs to prosecute someone based on the searches so that the defendent can challenge the search on Constitutional grounds.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

Was what I said really so cryptic?
 
wabrams said:
No one is saying a DA should prosecute the federal government b/c they violated the Constitution; what’s being said is that a DA needs to prosecute someone based on the searches so that the defendent can challenge the search on Constitutional grounds.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand this. Are you saying that a district attorney should prosecute someone who was searched, so the person who was searched can challenge the search?
 
Listen_to_This said:
I don’t understand this. Are you saying that a district attorney should prosecute someone who was searched, so the person who was searched can challenge the search?
Click to expand...
Yes! That is what vz71 has been saying all along! Not just a search in-general which we know is Constitutional, but challenge the New body scanners and/or intrusive pat-downs.
 
vz71 said:
Thank you.

Was what I said really so cryptic?
Click to expand...
Who do you want the DA to prosecute? The person who was searched? The searcher?

If it was the searcher, the 4th amendment would be irrelevant. TSA personnel have statutory immunity. The court would never reach the constitutional issues under constitutional avoidance (see Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288, 347 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring);

Ron Paul is trying to remove the immunity.
csmonitor.com/USA/2010/1120/Travelers-lawmakers-up-in-arms-over-airport-security-measures
 
wabrams said:
Yes! That is what vz71 has been saying all along! Not just a search in-general which we know is Constitutional, but challenge the New body scanners and/or intrusive pat-downs.
Click to expand...
Well, a federal prosecutor would have to bring the case. And I am sure someone will eventually challenge the searches when they are prosecuted for contraband.
 
Listen_to_This said:
Well, a federal prosecutor would have to bring the case. And I am sure someone will eventually challenge the searches when they are prosecuted for contraband.
Click to expand...
You’re right, a federal prosecutor. The actual title got mixed up, but I think you know what he was saying all along.
 
Listen_to_This said:
I wonder why you trying to turn this into a discussion of my personal morality? Maybe because your legal arguments are totally baseless.
Click to expand...
Since you have identified yourself as not a lawyer perhaps you are not qualified to give legal opinions and should refrain from nitpicking legalese.
 
Listen_to_This said:
If it was the searcher, the 4th amendment would be irrelevant. TSA personnel have statutory immunity.
Click to expand...
Immunity from what?
Why would such immunity be granted?
Who would have such forsight and what were they thinking when they put it in place?

Your quote here indicates to me a prosecutable crime is taking place on the part of the TSA agents. else they have no need of this blanket immunity.
You are right, such immunity needs to be stripped first.
 
vz71 said:
My issue was the misrepresentation and then the implied insult abd ignorance the representation of my words presented.

Webrams expressed my point.
Click to expand...
I understood you earlier post to say you wanted a case brought on the basis of a 4th amendment violation (not a case brought for something found during a search). When I said a prosecutor could not bring a prosecution for a 4th amendment violation. You wrote :

“I did not say he did.
I simply stated the case should be based upon it.”

I took it to mean “a 4th amendment” violation (which is not a proper basis for a district attorney to bring a case."

I misunderstood. I am sorry, but I really don’t see how I was supposed to understand “it” to mean anything other than a 4th amendment violation.

Did you mean the case should be based on prosecuting a person for something that was found on the person who was searched?
 
canadianguy1143 said:
Since you have identified yourself as not a lawyer perhaps you are not qualified to give legal opinions and should refrain from nitpicking legalese.
Click to expand...
I do not believe that the only people that have right to comment on legal issues are lawyers.
 
Listen_to_This said:
I misunderstood. I am sorry, but I really don’t see how I was supposed to understand “it” to mean anything other than a 4th amendment violation.
Click to expand...
Thanks.
No harm no foul.
Listen_to_This said:
Did you mean the case should be based on prosecuting a person for something that was found on the person who was searched?
Click to expand...
Well that would be interesting.
If the court is forced to throw out evidence acquired through these scans, would it set them up for having to toss any information they gather from these machines at all?🤷

I am more in favor of prosecuting the people performing the pat-downs.
Of course, my laymen view says that the 4th amendment should factor into it somewhere. But if the prosecutor finds a faster and easier case elsewhere, fine.
 
vz71 said:
Thanks.
No harm no foul.

Well that would be interesting.
If the court is forced to throw out evidence acquired through these scans, would it set them up for having to toss any information they gather from these machines at all?🤷

I am more in favor of prosecuting the people performing the pat-downs.
Of course, my laymen view says that the 4th amendment should factor into it somewhere. But if the prosecutor finds a faster and easier case elsewhere, fine.
Click to expand...
A state prosecutor cannot prosecute a federal employee for conducting his official duties because state laws are pre-empted to the extent they interfere with a federal regulatory scheme.

A passenger could only bring a tort action under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which makes federal employees immune for their official duties.

The federal government could bring a case, but the Office of Legal Council has surely approved the new search procedures. OLC reviews all legislation, and their opinions are binding on executive branch officials, meaning federal prosecutors have to follow their opinions. The attorney general can overturn an OLC opinion, but this almost never happens.

There really is no one to bring a case against the searchers, unless Congressman Paul’s bill passes.
 
vz71, I would like to hear (or see) your answers to these questions:

Is it really your contention that a crime is, at its core, a constitutional violation? Where does the constitution mention theft, battery, rape, drug possession, burglary, child abuse, etc.

How are any of these crimes constitutional violations?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top