Reply #13: No

[Coyote_Bandit]

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.