|
Banned
|
The SCOTUS, just a few months ago, refused the opportunity to "rule" on this very issue. Up until this latest case, as the deliberations posted below indicate, the "right" to personal, unimpeded transport via walking was not at issue. Now, even that mode of interstate transport is not protected by the court.....
John Gilmore's efforts in court concerning the "right" to travel inside the U.S.:
http://www.postgazette.com/pg/05058/462446.stm
Quote:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gilmor...nzales_Opinion
Gilmore v. Gonzales Opinion
From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
<Gilmore v. Gonzales
FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-15736 D.C. No. CV-02-03444-SI
OPINION
JOHN GILMORE, Plaintiff-Appellant,...
.......Argued and Submitted December 8, 2005—San Francisco, California
Filed January 26, 2006
Before: Stephen S. Trott, Thomas G. Nelson, and Richard A. Paez, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge Paez....
OPINION
PAEZ, Circuit Judge:
....Rather, for purposes of its jurisdictional ruling, the district court assumed, as Gilmore alleged, that the identification policy was a Security Directive issued by TSA. Gilmore timely appealed. Shortly after oral argument in this case, we ordered the Government to file under seal the relevant material pertaining to the identification policy so that we could conduct an in camera, ex parte review......
....Discussion
I. Jurisdiction & Standing
Jurisdiction....
..[2] Finality is usually demonstrated by an administrative record and factual findings....
.....<b>As noted, we have reviewed in camera the materials submitted by the Government under seal, and we have determined that the TSA Security Directive is final</b> within the meaning of § 46110(a). The Security Directive "imposes an obligation" by requiring airline passengers to present identification or be a "selectee," and by requiring airport security personnel to carry out the policy. The Security Directive also provides a "definitive statement" of TSA's position by detailing the policy and the procedures by which it must be effectuated. Because the Security Directive prevents from air travel those who, like Gilmore, refuse to comply with the identification policy, <b>it has a "direct and immediate" effect on the daily business of the party asserting wrongdoing. Finally, the Security Directive "envisions immediate compliance."</b> Pursuant to TSA regulations, aircraft operators that are required to maintain approved security programs "must comply with each Security Directive issued to the aircraft operator by TSA, within the time prescribed in the Security Directive for compliance." 49 C.F.R. § 1544.305(b)(2005).
[3] Therefore, having reviewed the TSA Security Directive that requires airline operators to enforce the identification policy, we hold that it is an "order" within the meaning of § 46110(a). We also determine that the Security Directive was issued by an appropriate government official and under proper authority as required by § 46110(a)......
.....[7] Gilmore also challenges the alleged identification policies of other modes of travel, specifically the interstate bus and train systems. Gilmore asserts in his brief to us that he has standing to challenge the Government's identification policies as they relate to other forms of interstate travel because his "right to travel by all modes has been chilled on an ongoing basis—not just in two airports on July 4, 2002." Once again, however, Gilmore fails to establish standing. Gilmore's challenge to the alleged identification systems of other modes of travel is based on one sentence in his fifty-five paragraph complaint. He did not allege that he attempted to board a bus or train, but rather he alleged that he "is also informed and believes and hereby alleges that similar requirements have been placed on travelers who use passenger trains by the government defendants, and that similar requirements are being instituted for interstate bus travel." This sole allegation, however, is insufficient to establish standing. In fine, Gilmore lacks standing to challenge all components of "the Scheme" except the identification policy.....
....III. Right To Travel
[11] Gilmore alleges that the identification policy violates his constitutional right to travel because he cannot travel by commercial airlines without presenting identification, which is an impermissible federal condition.[10] We reject Gilmore's right to travel argument because <h3>the Constitution does not guarantee the right to travel by any particular form of transportation.</h3>
Because Gilmore lacks standing to challenge anything but the identification policy's impact on air travel, his sole argument is that "air travel is a necessity and not replaceable by other forms of transportation." Although we do not question this allegation for purposes of this petition, it does not follow that Defendants violated his right to travel, given that other forms of travel remain possible.
This circuit's decision in Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 1999), is on point. In Miller, the plaintiff challenged California's requirement that applicants submit their social security numbers to the DMV in order to obtain valid drivers licenses. The plaintiff alleged that this policy violated his fundamental right to interstate travel and his right to freely exercise his religion. In affirming the district court's dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), we concluded that "by denying Miller a single mode of transportation—in a car driven by himself—the DMV did not unconstitutionally impede Miller's right to interstate travel." Id. at 1204. Although we recognized the fundamental right to interstate travel, we also acknowledged that "burdens on a single mode of transportation do not implicate the right to interstate travel." Id. at 1205 (citing Monarch Travel Servs., Inc. v. Associated Cultural Clubs, Inc., 466 F.2d 552, 554 (9th Cir. 1972)).
[12] Like the plaintiff in Miller, Gilmore does not possess a fundamental right to travel by airplane even though it is the most convenient mode of travel for him. Moreover, the identification policy's "burden" is not unreasonable. See Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629 (1969) (noting the right of all citizens to be "free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement"), overruled in part on other grounds by Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 670-71 (1974). The identification policy requires that airline passengers either present identification or be subjected to a more extensive search. The more extensive search is similar to searches that we have determined were reasonable and "consistent with a full recognition of appellant's constitutional right to travel." United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 912-13 (9th Cir. 1973)......
...Conclusion
[21] In sum, we conclude that Defendants did not violate Gilmore's constitutional rights by adopting and implementing the airline identification policy. Therefore, his claims fail on the merits and we deny his petition for review.
TRANSFERRED, PETITION DENIED......
....6.In the district court, <h3>the Government "assumed the truth of the content of the identification policy as alleged in Gilmore's complaint" and refused to confirm or deny its existence.</h3> In its brief to this court, however, the Government stated that "TSA has now confirmed the existence of an identification requirement — that 'as part of its security rules, TSA requires airlines to ask passengers for identification at check-in.'......
|
<b>It should be considered that one of the judges who participated in the 9th Circuit Gilmore hearing and decision is not above reproach:</b>
Quote:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/...llenspy23.html
Monday, October 23, 2006
Former CIA spy branded a traitor wants to clear his name
Like a story in a spy novel, Edwin Wilson is out to prove he was set up
By TRACY JOHNSON
P-I REPORTER
Edwin Wilson began this quest from a solitary-confinement cell, where he wrote letters seeking top-secret documents to show that his own government betrayed him.
....Wilson's lawsuit names five other former assistant U.S. attorneys -- <b>Stephen Trott, now a judge on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals</b>; D. Lowell Jensen, now a federal judge in California; James Powers, retired; Mark Richard, who still works for the Justice Department; and Theodore Greenberg, now senior counsel for the World Bank -- and ex-CIA official Briggs.
In court documents, Briggs' attorneys contend he believed the affidavit he signed was true "and would not have signed it otherwise.".....
|
....and I thorougly documented this controversy in this thread:
Quote:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=88074
Old 04-28-2005, 02:25 AM
ABC Nightline:14 Fed. Justice Officials 1980's Misconduct: False Prosecution
Tonight, soon to retire Nightline news anchor Ted Koppel reported the story of the false prosecution in the mid 1980's of Edwin Wilson, who served more than 20 years in prison as a result of a CIA affadavit that was known to the CIA and 14 Fed. Justice Dept. officials to be false. The agencies and the officials, according to the finding of Federal Judge Lynn Hughes, who released Wilson from prison, knew the evidence was false, but either submitted it as evidence in Wilson's trial, or became aware of it after Wilson's conviction, and failed to inform the court of the misconduct of the CIA and of Justice Dept. officials.
The 14 officials include three who were later appointed to the federal bench, including Reagan appointee, Steven Trott, now a ninth circuit appellate court judge.....
|
In this post,
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...29&postcount=4
on the thread that I just mentioned, I documented that the DOJ "OPR", Office of Professional Responsibility was reported on 11/01/03, to have opened an "investigation" into possible wrongdoing by "two dozen government lawyers", in their prosecution of Edwin Wilson. Judge Stephen Trott was one of those lawyers, nothing has ever been reported from OPR since, and Trott is still free to serve on the 9th Circuit and issue "rulings" that amount to telling us that it is okay to restrict our travel via "secret regulation", and to restrict every mode of personal transport, other than presumably, by the means of walking.....
Quote:
http://papersplease.org/gilmore/
John Gilmore is disappointed that the Supreme Court refused to act on the danger posed by the unconstitutional position of the TSA, and its refusal to release the text of the law that it uses to require travelers to show identification. In his Petition for Certiorari, <b>John asked the Court to decide whether the government may keep secret a law that affects millions of Americans every month, when the government has acknowledged what it claims are the contents of the law, and despite the fact that the government has never enunciated any reasonable basis for maintaining secrecy.</b> This country has a remarkable history of publishing its laws, to give the public notice of the behavior the government demands of them. John has pursued this effort because, as he said on www.papersplease.org, "[u]ntil Americans have the ability to know the contents of the laws being applied to them, our Republic is in danger."
John hoped that the Supreme Court would intervene, and make clear that the government cannot deprive the public of the text of the laws that bind them. This issue now is left to the political process. We must insist that our elected representatives control the TSA, and hold it accountable for its actions by, first, demanding that it make public this and any other laws it promulgates to bind the public.....
|
Quote:
http://www.toad.com/
# John Gilmore's home page
# John's Supreme Court petition against a secret law: the federal requirement that people show ID to travel. (Gilmore v. Gonzales).
# John's Court of Appeals lawsuit against the federal requirement that people show ID to travel inside the US (Gilmore v. Ashcroft/Gonzales).
# John's earlier District Court lawsuit against the same ID-or-no-travel requirement (Gilmore v. Ashcroft).
|
Details the struggle to overcome travel restrictions inside the U.S.:
http://papersplease.org/id.html |