The appellate brief for my case is completed. After dozens of hours of research and writing forty-five total pages, I strongly think we have a winner here. I couldn’t think of a better way to have spent my 4th of July!

A huge public thank you to the law firm representing Jesse Ventura, Henson & Efron, P.A, and their attorney David Olsen, for his outstanding work on the motion to dismiss in the Governor’s case. Reading their analysis of the contradictory arguments in EPIC v. DHS, including the idea behind the amazing t-chart starting on page 22, made for a vast improvement on my brief.

Brought to you all first (though I’d imagine the DoJ probably subscribes to the blog… ;))…

Corbett v. US – Appellate Brief (.pdf)

–Jon

“[T]he American public does not and should not defer to anyone that demands to sexually assault them and their families”

On Friday I mailed in my reply to the gov’ts opposition to my motion for a restraining order in the 11th Circuit. This will be heard by a three-judge panel, and unless they ask us for more information or to come in for oral arguments, they’ll decide based on the paperwork they have now.

Corbett v. US – Appellate PI Opposition (.pdf)
Corbett v. US – Appellate PI Reply (.pdf)

PS – For anyone who’s interested in my previous post, I filed a Notice of Claim with the city today. In New York, the first step to suing a government entity is a Notice of Claim, which is basically sending them a bill and letting them know that if they don’t compensate you, you’ll sue. Since federal civil and constitutional rights were implicated, I could sue in federal court without waiting, but I wanted to give the city a chance to settle. I gave them a deadline of July 20th, at which point I’ll file the actual suit in US District Court in Manhattan.

I filed today a Notice of Appeal in US District Court, as well as a motion for a preliminary injunction in the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.  The appeal is of the decision to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, and will ask the court (when I file my opening brief) to reverse the ruling that my complaint can’t be heard in District Court and remand back to the original judge.

I’m quite excited about the appeal generally, but particularly the preliminary injunction.  Back when I filed in District Court on 11/16/2010, I also filed a preliminary injunction, but the core of the argument was never heard because everything was clouded by this issue of jurisdiction.  Here in the circuit court, I shouldn’t have that problem.  If the court decides that I was right and the District Court did have jurisdiction, the Circuit Court can issue the injunction under its appellate jurisdiction.  If the court decides that I was wrong and the District Court does not have jurisdiction, it’s the Circuit Court that has original jurisdiction.  Either way, the court can issue a preliminary injunction, and finally a court will consider the constitutionality of nude body scanners and molestation pat-downs.

I haven’t yet been assigned a Circuit Court case number (the District Court now sends my Notice of Appeal to the Circuit Court, and when they process that, I’ll get a case number), but I’ll post that along with my opening brief within the next couple of weeks.

Case documents:

Corbett v. US – Notice of Appeal (.pdf)
Corbett v. US – Appellate PI (.pdf)

US District Judge Marcia G. Cooke today dismissed my case, saying that “without having been provided a copy of this unpublished statute or regulation [the SOP], I am unable to conduct any meaningful inquiry as to the finality of the Screening Checkpoint SOP” and “this argument would be better addressed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.”

As brief background for those of you at this blog for the first time, the government replied to my lawsuit against the airport nude body scanners and molestation procedures by saying that anything the TSA “orders” is not reviewable by US District Courts, and rather all cases must be filed in the Court of Appeals.  The reason the TSA wants this is because in the Court of Appeals, there is no jury, no discovery, and I don’t get to present evidence — essentially, the court would take the TSA’s word on issues of fact.

With no disrespect intended to the Hon. Judge Cooke, I find this to be a bit of a cop-out (essentially, “I couldn’t decide, so I’ll dismiss the case and let the higher court deal with it”),  though I am happy to appeal this dismissal to the 11th Circuit, and will do so as soon as possible.  Note that this is appealing the decision that there is no jurisdiction, not transferring the case to the 11th Circuit.

The appellate process is expensive (the filing fee is $450 alone!) — if you would like to donate to this cause, please feel free to send donations by PayPal to jon [at] fourtentech.com.

This fight is only beginning.

Corbett v. US – Dismissed (.pdf)

The US District Judge on my case today adopted the magistrate’s recommendation and denied my request for temporary relief, in a one-page order.  Interestingly, the judge has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss, which I almost expected would happen before the ruling on the TRO (if you’re planning on dismissing the case, there’s no point in responding to other motions).

This is definitely a setback for us, and means that the DoJ will try to drag this case out for as long as possible.  However, the motion to dismiss is the real thing to watch, and will almost certainly be appealed whether it is granted or denied.  I will keep you all updated.

Today, Jonathan Blitz filed his reply to the government’s motion to dismiss in his case, so we now have 3 cases in US district courts ready to rumble on the issue of jurisdiction.  

Corbett v. US, 10-CV-24106, SDFL 11/16/2010 (11th Cir.)
Redfern v. Napolitano, 10-CV-12048, MAD 11/29/2010 (1st Cir.)
Blitz v. Napolitano, 10-CV-930, MDNC, 12/03/2010 (4th Cir.)

Blitz is a brilliant guy, and I’ve attached his public filing here, as it’s a great read.  The next cases to get to this point will be in the DC and CO (10th Cir.), and I’ll update everyone as the public filings are made. 🙂

–Jon

Blitz Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (.pdf)