What to file to stop Ridiculous Security Zone in Hawaii?

[Mass_Shyster]

Do you really think you have an advantage because responding is too much effort for them? Seriously? LOL...

United States Secret Service: "Oh, my God! Kiter78 filed for discovery! AAARRGGHH!! Settle!! Settle, or we're all doomed!!!!"

They're going to blow you off like a gnat.

I think the conversation will be more along the lines of:

"Hey, where's the new kid? Someone just filed another injunction against the secret service. Let's see if it takes him more than a half hour to type up the 12(b)(6) motion."

 

[>Charlotte<]

I think the conversation will be more along the lines of: "Hey, where's the new kid? Someone just filed another injunction against the secret service. Let's see if it takes him more than a half hour to type up the 12(b)(6) motion."

It's funny 'cause it's true.

 

[Banned_Princess]

Ha ha Charlotte!!!



PRESIDENT probably executive ordered the whole bay for himself and his family.

He's the President, he can do that. Probably waiting all his life to do that.



This is a HILARIOUS thread, is this a joke????






**********************************************************************......

 

[cbg]

Doesn't our idiot of a poster actually have to have some kind of legal standing to file anything with any court?

Does he really think that his right to use the beach trumps the safety of the most powerful man in the world?

Just doesn't get it, does he?

 

[kiter78]

You never need a legal standing to file and create a case...and, my beach use is more important than unneeded B.S. security zones...

You guys also forgot that judges are basically attention loving people that really do not like to dismiss cases and have basically boring days, a case like this would be interesting to them...

And, whatever new guy they put on it would love a trip to Hawaii to oppose the motion in person. In fact, if I was that guy I would try to skip a motion to dismiss...or write it poorly...

I'm disappointed in all of you...the challenge of beating a security zone in open court should appeal to all!

I'm also disappointed that you don't think anyone has the right to question the size of the security zone, what if they said everyone had the leave the island entirely, would that be enough for you?

I doubt the president picked the zone, he just said I'm staying here and some other dumb person said, it'll be easy if we just block off the entire bay. I want to make it less easy for them...

Also, remember they did this all last minute, so perhaps I could pre-arrange something else that would stop it, like a registered protest, an ordinance, etc...

 

[kiter78]

Finally, the case has merit as I'm not question the authority or presence of a security zone, just the size of it. You could easily argue that it is unconciousable and a violation of public policy...There are also a number of state laws that keep beaches public....

If you continue to disagree, please post a link to federal law that supports the authority...I'm interested in the wordage, I would guess it includes words such as "reasonable area"

The fact that a security zone this size is not in effect all the time is proof that the size of it is unneccesary. Furthmore, you could argue that establishing the area and making that information public creates more of a security risk...

 

[cbg]

I'm more interested in what law you think there is that gives you the right to decide what is a reasonable zone and make it binding on the Secret Service, and what legal basis you have to contest their decision.

 

[Some Random Guy]

You never need a legal standing to file and create a case...

Quite correct. But then your opponent will merely file a motion saying that you do not have standing to sue. You can fight that motion but you could end up losing AND paying the fees of the opposing party.

and, my beach use is more important that unneeded B.S. security zones...

And the law's opinion is more importand than your unneeded B.S. opinion

You guys also forgot that judges are basically attention loving people that really do not like to dismiss cases and have basically boring days, a case like this would be interesting to them...

You haven't met many judges, have you? Take a look at the Federal bench and supreme court. They nearly ALWAYS limit themselves to the the bare minimum of what needs to be done. And that't not just because they like clearing out backlogs of cases. They are bound to follow the law. And if the law says you have no standing to sue, then the merits of the rest of your case are moot.

And, whatever new guy they put on it would love a trip to Hawaii to oppose the motion in person. In fact, if I was that guy I would try to skip a motion to dismiss...or write it poorly...

And how could they use their incompetence to get their bosses to agrees to such an extravagant trip?

I'm disappointed in all of you...the challenge of beating a security zone in open court should appeal to all!

While I love a challenge, I really don't care to beat my head against a wall for something I could care less about. As mentioned earlier, read up on the AOPA legal challenges if you want to pursue this.

I'm also disappointed that you don't think anyone has the right to question the size of the security zone, what if they said everyone had the leave the island entirely, would that be enough for you?

And what if the martians said that we weren't allowed to land our rovers on their planet anymore? We could play games with hypotheticals all day.

I doubt the president picked the zone, he just said I'm staying here and some other dumb person said, it'll be easy if we just block off the entire bay. I want to make it less easy for them...

And as soon as you argue in Federal court that the day to day judgment of a secret service officer, in charge of protecting the president's life, should be court supervised because you are temporarily inconvenienced, you will lose.

Also, remember they did this all last minute, so perhaps I could pre-arrange something else that would stop it, like a registered protest, an ordinance, etc...

You will find that local ordinances and permits will not stop executive orders. Similarly, any requirement that the president's movements be publicized in advance will be laughed off.

 

[>Charlotte<]

So, just to get this straight.

In your little fantasy you want to sue to have the President's security decreased so you'll have more beach area to play on.

Part of your strategy depends heavily on the respondant saying "Oh, the heck with it, we give up" and/or the United States Government suddenly realizing that they're inconveniencing and/or screwing over ordinary citizens (because if there's one thing the US Government hates, it's inconveniencing and/or screwing over ordinary citizens) and thereby conceding.

Your proposed compromise is that the President's security be reduced to an area that could be covered by Lindsay Lohan's entourage.

"my beach use is more important than unneeded B.S. (Presidential) security zones..." Because there is no paraphrasing that could beat the actual quote.

Judges are bored so they'll be climbing all over each other to get a piece of this. Judicial bonus: "Pack my robes, we're going to Hawaiieeeeee!!!!" *

I'm disappointed in all of you...

Kiter, from the bottom of my heart, I am most sincerely not disappointed in you. Boring/tedious morning, entertaining diversion sought. Thread delivered. Thank you so much.

Lunch break! Please provide more commentary about the President's security detail being, basically, a lazy travel agent, by 1;00. Thanks again.

*And wait a minute. Wouldn't the judge in this case already be in Hawaii?

 

[Isis1]

Kiter, from the bottom of my heart, I am most sincerely not disappointed in you. Boring/tedious morning, entertaining diversion sought. Thread delivered. Thank you so much.

Lunch break! Please provide more commentary about the President's security detail being, basically, a lazy travel agent, by 1;00. Thanks again.

i'm not. i stooped to having a cup of coffee while reading and noe..i'm out of paper towels.

 

[Banned_Princess]

Reaaly good thread to break up the morning monotony, and a chance to laugh is always appreciated,

The reason I love this site so very much, is contained in the responses from our regular members (aka seniors) to this deliriously ridiculous "plan to control the PRESIDENTS very necessary security", so you can see the same ol' beach you see every day. They are always witty, smart, informed, and ready with the appropriate response. Which occasionally is dumbing it down, for the people.

Cheers to us.


Ha ha ha...

 

[kiter78]

Well, it is almost 1...

There are many laws, both federal and state, that protect the publics access to the ocean and the beach. If a private citizen were to put up a bunch of buoys and tell everyone they can not access that area, it is obviously illegal...so...the question is what law/rule gives secret service / coast guard the authority to do so? That would be first research point...obiviously it exists, but what is the wording, to what extent?

Could they clear out a whole stadium? A whole airport? A whole state? The whole country? Obviously there is a limit...

And, once again, I remind everyone that the security zone in this instance is much much larger than the normal zone, why is it larger?

I would definitely fail quickly if I stated I want to decrease the presidents security for recreation beach users, but I maintain the fact that decreasing the size of this security zone and/or opening it up to non-motorized vehicles has no effect on the actual security of the president. Do you think because of the buoys no one is watching?

 

[kiter78]

Quite correct. But then your opponent will merely file a motion saying that you do not have standing to sue. You can fight that motion but you could end up losing AND paying the fees of the opposing party.

only have to pay the fees if it is not a valid question and I think it is a very valid question because the size of it is so much larger than it normally is.

And the law's opinion is more importand than your unneeded B.S. opinion




You haven't met many judges, have you? Take a look at the Federal bench and supreme court. They nearly ALWAYS limit themselves to the the bare minimum of what needs to be done. And that't not just because they like clearing out backlogs of cases. They are bound to follow the law. And if the law says you have no standing to sue, then the merits of the rest of your case are moot.

I've been to court many times, but not federal court, so maybe they are different. I find most judges are psyched to have something a little different as long as it is not a waste of time...Also, from what I read federal judges like to protect personal civil liberties...like ocean and beach access

And how could they use their incompetence to get their bosses to agrees to such an extravagant trip?

Hawaii trip was sort of a joke

While I love a challenge, I really don't care to beat my head against a wall for something I could care less about. As mentioned earlier, read up on the AOPA legal challenges if you want to pursue this.



And what if the martians said that we weren't allowed to land our rovers on their planet anymore? We could play games with hypotheticals all day.



And as soon as you argue in Federal court that the day to day judgment of a secret service officer, in charge of protecting the president's life, should be court supervised because you are temporarily inconvenienced, you will lose.

I'm not arguing the day to day judgement, I'm arguing a specific event and the need for an expanded area that is not present.

You will find that local ordinances and permits will not stop executive orders. Similarly, any requirement that the president's movements be publicized in advance will be laughed off.

That is my point! the security zone publicizes the presdents movements and his security force!

 

[Proserpina]

Well, it is almost 1...

There are many laws, both federal and state, that protect the publics access to the ocean and the beach. If a private citizen were to put up a bunch of buoys and tell everyone they can not access that area, it is obviously illegal...so...the question is what law/rule gives secret service / coast guard the authority to do so? That would be first research point...obiviously it exists, but what is the wording, to what extent?

Could they clear out a whole stadium? A whole airport? A whole state? The whole country? Obviously there is a limit...

And, once again, I remind everyone that the security zone in this instance is much much larger than the normal zone, why is it larger?

I would definitely fail quickly if I stated I want to decrease the presidents security for recreation beach users, but I maintain the fact that decreasing the size of this security zone and/or opening it up to non-motorized vehicles has no effect on the actual security of the president. Do you think because of the buoys no one is watching?

Based upon the delightfully entertaining posts you've submitted to this thread, I believe that you will not be successfully filing anything other than your toenails. But that's not a bad thing in and of itself - at least your tootsies will be nice and pretty for the beach!

 

[cbg]

Well, have a good time with your lawsuit. Do come back and let us know how it comes out.