Nicholas J. Fuentes vs the TSA - Nick was put on a no fly list. He complained and was removed. The airlines still refused him service. Nick fucked up the paperwork, laughter ensues.

[Angry Shoes]

"I publish myself threatening private citizens...but then I say it was a joke!" - The fuentes defense

Schrödinger's ironybro: he's simultaneously being ironic AND genuine until one is proven.

 

[BlackWaterSails]

I wonder, since it seems to be part of his film's angle about how he was "so cancelled," how many involved with the film knew about the real reason he was put on the "No Fly" list? I imagine at least someone had to have known and still participated. And, if someone did, why did they still participate? Maybe that's why they did the whole premier and put it up on that renting/buying website? To get as much outta it because it was to line multiple pockets?

What would he like more? Them reaching up his groin or looking through his catboy purse?

If I remember correctly, I think he's talked about "feeling molested by TSA" or whatever because they touched his butt or something. It was a while ago. So either he'd definitely prefer the purse or he's trying to convince himself it made him feel violated (but he actually liked it).

 

[Tard Whisperer]

Apparently, separately from the documents in the OP, Nick also filed a lawsuit against: Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Merrick Garland; Christopher Wray; Antony Blinken; Alejandro Mayorkas; Louis Dejoy; David P. Pekoske; Steve Dickson; Lloyd Austin; the Transportation Security Administration of the United States.

He was demanding:

• A declaratory judgment finding that the Defendants’ operation of the No Fly List violates the Plaintiff’s Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights to interstate travel. and is unconstitutional.
• A declaratory judgment finding that the Defendants’ operation of the No Fly List violates the Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment right to procedural due process.
• A declaratory judgment finding that the Defendants’ operation of the No Fly List violates the Plaintiff’s First Amendment right to free speech.
• A declaratory judgment finding that the Defendants’ operation of the No Fly List violates the Plaintiff’s First Amendment right to freedom of the press.
• A declaratory judgment finding that the Defendants’ operation of the No Fly List violates the Plaintiff’s First Amendment right to freedom of association.
• Costs and attorney’s fees.
• Such other relief as this Court deems fair and equitable.

Spoiler: full amended complaint

Joe Biden et al responds

Spoiler: motion to dismiss

(this is the bulk of the content, the full thing is attached as PDF)

A letter from Homeland Security to Nick is included in the appendix

TSA also considered your comments in which you stated that you were joking. TSA determined that you warranted placement on TSA’s Deny Boarding List in light of the graphic and violent nature of your threats directed toward flight attendants, which contributed to TSA’s assessment that you intended to convey a threat by making these statements and were likely to incite or produce such imminent lawless action.

We cannot ensure, however, that your travel will be delay-free. The redress process does not affect other screening procedures in place at airports and borders. For example, individual air carriers may deny passengers boarding pursuant to their own authority, and an individual may be selected for additional screening in order to resolve a walk-through metal detector alarm, because of random selection, or other reasons. While this process may sometimes be stressful, we rely on the patience, cooperation, and understanding of travelers in such cases. The aim of these security measures is to safeguard the people of the United States and visitors to this Nation.

Nick's reply is whiny, poorly constructed, and presents no evidence.

Like many Americans, the plaintiff arrived at an airport one day intending to travel. He was confronted with a Kafkaesque nightmare: He would not be permitted to board; he would not be told why; federal authorities had determined he was a flight risk, and reasons for that determination were to be kept for him reasons, presumably related to the need to keep the methods and criteria used for determining whether to permit a person to board an aircraft secret. He challenged his placement on the Transportation Security Administration’s Deny Boarding List, and was kept in limbo for months. After this suit was filed, he was informed that he is no longer on the list. He was placed on the list, the TSA informs the Court, because he “made threats to suffocate and/or shoot flight attendants on a publicly-available online streaming platform.”

Mr. Fuentes contends that a trial is necessary to make a record as to what standards are applicable and what process is relied upon by the TSA in making decisions about when and whom to declare too toxic to fly. He was turned away from his flight without notice or an opportunity to be heard at great hardship and expense.

The plaintiff has not failed to state a claim. Rather he has stated a claim of particular urgency and this Court should permit the matter to advance to discovery and an evidentiary hearing. The claims he raises are far from speculative. He seeks declaratory relief so that no one in a position of federal authority can seek to enforce this secret screening process.

The right air travel domestically is apparently not a fundamental right, although just why that is so remains a mystery.

Spoiler: opposition to dismiss

Joe Biden et al responds with further evidence, including a declaration from the Acting Executive Director for Intelligence in the TSA.

In a separate video, Fuentes discussed going into a flight attendant school to "shake everyone's hand." He stated, "don't come to flight attendant school tomorrow, I'm coming." "I am going to open the door and everyone is going to [say] AHHHH." He further stated, "You, you thought you could hide in the stall, I'm going to shake your hand too... through the stall door. You think a stall door is going to stop me from shaking your hand?" TSA interpreted Fuentes's statements about "shaking hands" as a euphemism for shooting individuals.

TSA reviewed available information to determine if Fuentes was making continuing threats of violence relevant to TSA's mission to protect transportation security, and found no statements similar to his threats to kill flight attendants made on or about January 4, 2021. TSA also reviewed his travel history for flights for which he was denied boarding at the airport. TSA considered that during his multiple interactions with airline personnel while attempting to fly, Fuentes did not engage in violence and did not appear to violate federal security requirements.

TSA determined, based on that review, that Fuentes no longer posed an imminent threat warranting inclusion on the Deny Boarding List, and TSA removed Fuentes from the Deny Boarding List on November 2, 2021.

TSA will not place Fuentes back on TSA's Deny Boarding List based on the currently available information.

Spoiler: declaration of TSA intelligence director

This document includes a transcript of a call relating to Nick's claim that he was denied boarding a flight at Midway on March 19 2022. The call between a TSA Operator and a Southwest check in agent shows that the TSA Operator saw no issue with checking Nick in, and that this was a tech issue on Southwest's end.

Spoiler: full reply to motion to dismiss

The judge issued an opinion and memorandum granting the defendants' order to dismiss.

Still, that single instance during the nearly six months between his delisting (November 2, 2021) and when he filed his Amended Complaint (May 2, 2022) does not plausibly support that Plaintiff’s claimed injury is “certainly impending.” The court would have to speculate based on that one episode that the next time Plaintiff attempts to fly, TSA will stop him because he is on a no-fly list other than the Deny Boarding List. Standing cannot rest on such speculation, particularly when, as here, the plaintiff is asking the court to evaluate the constitutionality of criteria that TSA uses to restrict persons who “may be a threat to civil aviation or national security.”

Nick filed for an extension of time to appeal through 4/20/23. No further action has been noted on the case so seems Nick has admitted defeat.

Spoiler: case history