Source: http://cryptome.org/gilmore-v-usa-god.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 16:06:32+00:00

Document:
13 Friday 2002. Thanks to JG.
378 U.S. 500, 519 (1964) (Douglas, J, concurring).
Francisco airport for refusing to show ID.
or not board the aircraft is at the discretion of the airline."
must abandon these secret rules.
would involve giving up other constitutionally protected rights.
outlaw or condition all anonymous travel except by foot.
person is on a list of suspects.
stated that these individuals have been deemed "threats to aviation"
habits, a threat assessment score is created using secret criteria.
on your way or strip-searched.
CAPPS, and the No-Fly and Watch Lists.
government's authority and capacity to monitor its own citizens.
identification, is misleading. (Southwest's MPA, page 6).
from being provided to any other governmental agency or private party.
to cross-check these lists with the passengers' names and other data.
individuals believed to be a "threat to civil aviation".
comment period for regulations or security directives.
States v. City of Redwood City, 640 F.2d 963, 966 (9th Cir. 1981).
is unclear." Pegram v. Herdrich (2000) 530 U.S. 211, 230, fn. 10.
if to grant leave to amend or to dismiss with or without prejudice.
v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 38, 41 (1976).
requirement" and redressable by a favorable decision.
list, thereby providing Plaintiff standing to challenge each program.
due process (see Lopez , Satellite, Holmes, Section VII).
redress of grievances... ." Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S.
not been able to attend, and has suffered economic injury as a result.
U.S. v. (SCRAP), 412 U.S. 669, 686 (1973) ("identifiable trifle"
exercising his right associated with travel.
College, 454 U.S. 464, 472 (1982).
Hence, Plaintiff's injuries are "fairly traceable" to these programs.
Southwest that cannot fly unless he submits to providing his identity.
supra; Martinelli, supra; Carey, supra.
forced to provide his name.
claim involves broad constitutional challenges to agency actions.
providing adequate administrative record has been compiled by agency."
Natural Resources Counsel v. Lowe, 109 F.3d 521, 526 (9th Cir. 1997).
Administrator, if supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive."
the appellate court to review for abuse of discretion.
appropriate notice to the parties.
case is United Gas Pipe Line v. FPC, 181 F.2d 796 (D.C. Cir. 1950).
involving Plaintiff's claim for the appellate court to review.
the FAA or TSA within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 46110.
courts do not possess original subject matter jurisdiction.
U.S.C.A. 40101, 49105 (1995), provides no remedy for such claims."
Foster v. Skinner, 70 F.3d 1084, 1088 (9th Cir.1995).
district court subject matter jurisdiction.
F. Supp. 1077, 1098 (1971).
"lists" of people sought by law enforcement or politically disfavored.
and destination points" are objective and do not target individuals.
focus on weapons and explosives.
domestically by air, rail, water and bus within the United States.
transportation (Southwest MPA, p. 13) ignores reality.
waive other rights. Miller relies on Monarch Travel Servs. Inc.
travel too broadly and too indiscriminately cannot be sustained.".
actually do further their compelling state interest.
regulation stating what forms of identification will be accepted.
reasonableness for the U.S. to adopt the British rule.
have been strengthened. Physical searches have been intensified.
Passengers and crew are now advised to resist any hostile takeover.
the government the power to declare "open season" on its citizens.
vagueness test in First Amendment cases).
authorities, denial of the right to travel, and potential arrest.
and neutrality" and avoids "elements of discretion and prejudice."
individual's identity may become part of a large scale data bank."
Lawson, 658 F.2d at 1368.
arrest." Lawson, supra, at 1368.
because they "stepp(ed) from the sidewalks into their automobiles.".
v. Albarado, supra, 495 F.2d at 807.
boarding on a "more intrusive search".
focus, of course, is on weapons and explosives - not ID cards.
pursue a given purpose". Id. at 42.
sifting abusive governmental conduct from that which is lawful."
Indianapolis, 531 F.2d at 46-47.
law enforcement tool in locating weapons and explosives. A "sleeper"
selected. Government-approved photo ID is easily faked.
as discussed elsewhere in this brief.
approach violates the 4th Amendment.
many days to get to these cities by any other method of transport.
significant way the existing members' ability to associate freely".
supra, 364 U.S. at 488).
IX. IF NECESSARY, THE COURT IS REQUESTED TO REVIEW THE "NEW FACTS"
facts" Addendum and/or provide an opportunity to amend the complaint.
a law enforcement tool and not a security screen.
travel, and the 1st and 4th Amendment.
sufficient facts to state the relevant causes of action.

References: v. 
 v. 

v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 

v.