Supreme Court Won't Hear Body-Scanner Appeal

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Supreme Court Won't Hear Body-Scanner Appeal

Posted by samzenpus on Monday October 1, 2012 @05:08AM from the scan-me dept.

stevegee58 writes "After a long string of legal setbacks, the case brought by Jonathan Corbett challenging TSA's use of full body scanners and enhanced pat-downs has come to an end. Today the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, so current TSA practices will stand. The TSA started allowing the use of the advanced imaging technology in October 2010."

51 of 170 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

well, by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 05:12 · Score: 5, Informative

god damn it!
1. Re:well, by ganjadude · 2012-10-01 05:14 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I hate to say it but I kind of figured that nothing would come of it. It seems the same thing always happens.
  
  step one - enact something that pisses off damn near everyone
  
  Tell the angry mob that you will look into it and something will be done
  
  quietly drop it when the mass forgets about it because OHHHH SHINEY!
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
2. Re:well, by pdabbadabba · 2012-10-01 05:34 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  From what I've read, there's really nothing to see here. The original suit was dismissed because it was filed in the wrong court. It was filed in FL district court when the law requires that it be brought before the DC Circuit or the circuit in which he resides (he resides in Michigan). But instead of just bringing his suit in the correct court, he has simply appealed the dismissal all the way up to the supreme court. Of course SCOTUS didn't take it; the lower courts were obviously correct.
  
  --
  caritj.org
3. Re:well, by tsaoutofourpants · 2012-10-01 06:06 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Hello, filer of the lawsuit here. There's perhaps a little bit more to read than what you've read... the first page of my SCOTUS petition or 11th Circuit appellate brief would have cleared things up. :) The brief summary is that my lawsuit was filed in District Court quite intentionally: District Court is the only federal court that has a trial by jury, as well as discovery and witnesses as-of-right. After filing, the TSA invoked a law that was not designed to send challenges to agency "orders" to the US Court of Appeals. The idea behind the law is that some administrative agencies have proceedings with administrative law judges that legitimately should be challenged in the appeals courts. For example, if you try to bring a knife on a plane, the TSA has administrative law judges to assess a civil penalty against you, and you can appeal that decision to the appeals court. However, the TSA has now successfully argued that ANYTHING THEY WRITE DOWN CONSTITUTES AN "ORDER" THAT CANNOT BE THE SUBJECT OF A JURY TRIAL. Think about that for a second: the gatekeepers of our constitutional rights are supposed to be *the people*. Instead, it is now a group of men that are appointed by the President, who happens to be the guy who appoints the head of the TSA who started this mess. My fight against the TSA will continue on in the appeals court, which is the only good news here. You may read more at: http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2012/10/01/supreme-court-declines-to-consider-whether-nude-body-scanners-deserve-a-trial/
4. Re:well, by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 06:22 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  sir, first of all, thanks for your tireless work on this.
  secondly, best nickname ever!
  thirdly, where can I contribute to your work, please do a kickstarter/indygogo on this.
5. Re:well, by pdabbadabba · 2012-10-01 06:23 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Hi there, thanks for replying. I am a lawyer, so I should probably refrain from commenting on the merits of your case too specifically for fear of accidentally giving "legal advice."
  I'll just say/ask these few things:
  1) It remains the case that the matter on appeal to the Supreme Court was the jurisdictional question, not the merits of your complaint (and the complaints of many others) against the TSA.
  2) Regardless of what court you brought suit in, it was always going to be a judge who resolved legal questions like, say, whether TSA's procedures were unconstitutional. A jury would only be tasked with factual questions like figuring out, if it were disputed, what TSA's procedures actually were.
  3) Do you have plans to refile in the 6th or DC Circuit?
  4) Good luck on your lawsuit.
  (It goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway: I am a lawyer, but I am not your lawyer. I know not nearly enough about you or your case to provide you advice that you could rely on. I am also not admitted to the bar in your jurisdiction so I couldn't be your lawyer even if I wanted to.)
  
  --
  caritj.org
6. Re:well, by tsaoutofourpants · 2012-10-01 06:32 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Thank you, and you're quite welcome! There's a donate button on my blog: http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/ I'm considering trying Kickstarter/Indygogo, but for now, just PayPal. :) --Jon
7. Re:well, by tsaoutofourpants · 2012-10-01 06:34 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  0) It's ok... I don't accept legal advice from strangers anyway. ;) 1) Yes. 2) Yes, but there are many questions of fact. For example, are the scanners effective (since effectiveness is a part of the balancing test in deciding if a search is reasonable)? See my video on that: http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/1b-of-nude-body-scanners-made-worthless-by-blog-how-anyone-can-get-anything-past-the-tsas-nude-body-scanners/ 3) 11th Circuit. The wires have mistakenly reported me as a Michigan resident since I used a Michigan mailing address on court documents. I live in Miami Beach, FL. 4) Thank you. :)
8. Re:well, by pdabbadabba · 2012-10-01 06:45 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Ah. I just answered my own question (or, rather, the 11th circuit did):
  
  Finally, under 28 U.S.C. 2347, we may: (1) remand a proceeding to an agency to hold a hearing where one is required by law, (2) transfer certain cases to a district court, or (3) order an agency to take additional evidence and counterevidence. Id. 2347(b)(1), (3), (c).
  
  --
  caritj.org
9. Re:well, by tsaoutofourpants · 2012-10-01 07:33 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Indeed, although the TSA will argue that that particular law doesn't apply to orders under s. 46110. Stay tuned for that fight.
10. Re:well, by LifesABeach · 2012-10-01 07:47 · Score: 2
  
  Why is the TSA not performing an illegal act when they examine the junk of a minor? Or photograph a naked child? Is this for the children?
11. Re:well, by tsaoutofourpants · 2012-10-01 08:12 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  "Examining the junk" of an adult, or photographing the same naked, isn't traditionally a lawful governmental objective either. But it becomes more obvious how wrong it is when you think of the children, elderly, handicapped, breast cancer survivors, rape survivors, etc., that have to deal with this nonsense.
12. Re:well, by anomaly256 · 2012-10-01 11:12 · Score: 3
  
  I wonder what would happen if *everyone* refuses to go through the scanners or be patted down. See, people only have as much power over you as you let them have. The problem is that the majority of people let them have this power without a second thought
13. Re:well, by fustakrakich · 2012-10-01 11:23 · Score: 2
  
  ...intentionally deceptive and sensationalistic.
  And the reasons for the law like this and the patriot act aren't? Please!
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
One thing is missing: by Elbart · 2012-10-01 05:13 · Score: 2

Why?
1. Re:One thing is missing: by Mashiki · 2012-10-01 05:17 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Via drudge:
  http://www.contracostatimes.com/politics-government/ci_21672132/supreme-court-wont-hear-cases-body-scanners-gay?source=rss
  The Supreme Court won't hear a Michigan man's attempt to challenge the use of full body scanners at airports.
  The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal by Jonathan Corbett, who wanted to challenge the Transportation Security Administration's use of full body scanners and/or enhanced pat downs at airport security lines. Federal courts in Florida refused to hear his lawsuit, saying it could only be filed with the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal, and the Supreme Court refused to reopen the case.
  The TSA started allowing the use of the advanced imaging technology in October 2010.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
2. Re:One thing is missing: by ichthus · 2012-10-01 05:24 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  ...and, pick up that can!
  
  --
  sig: sauer
3. Re:One thing is missing: by almitydave · 2012-10-01 05:25 · Score: 2
  
  I read this blurb as well, and it sounds like the issue under appeal was the Florida federal court's dismissal based purely on jurisdiction. Ok, refile in D.C. I don't understand if there's more to it than that - anyone know more? There's no mention of case # or anything in this blurb.
  
  --
  my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
  I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
4. Re:One thing is missing: by Mashiki · 2012-10-01 05:26 · Score: 2
  
  I've looked beyond that but that's the most the wire services have out at the moment, since it was listed as "breaking" so yeah, good on them I guess, there will probably be more out in an hour or two. I'd like to know myself, if I find it I'll post it, unless someone beats me to it.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
5. Re:One thing is missing: by ichimunki · 2012-10-01 05:30 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  They declined because he filed in Florida, not DC. That's pretty simple. So the next step is to file in what is apparently the proper venue. This isn't like they're upholding the law or judging the case on merits... although I'd bet if they wanted to hear the case, they would figure out some loophole to get past the bureaucratic BS, rather than forcing the process back to nearly square one.
  
  --
  I do not have a signature
6. Re:One thing is missing: by pdabbadabba · 2012-10-01 05:40 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  You are correct. There is nothing more to it than that. The case number (on appeal to the 11th Circuit, at least) appears to be 11-cv-12426. Here is the 11th Circuit's opinion itself which makes things pretty clear: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca11/11-12426/11-12426-2012-02-27.html
  
  --
  caritj.org
7. Re:One thing is missing: by Yakasha · 2012-10-01 05:44 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I still have the same question as Elbart. There isn't anything that says why they declined to hear the case?
  SCOTUS gets 1000s of cases every year. They can't review them all. So, they defer to the lower courts unless the lower courts can't figure it out for themselves (i.e., different circuits give conflicting rulings).
  For SCOTUS to take this, most likely multiple suits need to be filed in different districts and at least 2 of them need to hear the case and rule differently.
  The issue is effectively DOA in the courts. But lucky for us, November 6th is approaching fairly rapidly. Fix it there.
  Since Obama clearly supports the Fed's illegal activities, and Romney no doubt does too, you're left with 1 option: vote 3rd party.
  3rd party is not a wasted vote. Federal election laws revolve around a party gaining 5% of the popular vote in the previous election. We only recognize two parties because only those two parties have ever had 5% of the votes!
  If you're curious, Ross Perot picked up 18% in 1992, but officially ran as an Independent, preventing his Reform party from benefiting in 1996.
8. Re:One thing is missing: by OverTheGeicoE · 2012-10-01 05:57 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The plaintiff was hoping to get a jury trial in the district court. All suits regarding TSA in the DC circuit court go straight to appeals, meaning no jury trial is possible there. This is the same court that has been so deferential to DHS in the EPIC suit on the same topic. The plaintiff seemed to think a jury would be more receptive to his arguments.
  Is another suit in the DC court worth the trouble? If not, then Mr. Corbett has been about as effective as Jesse Ventura was in his suit.
9. Re:One thing is missing: by tsaoutofourpants · 2012-10-01 06:11 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  > Is another suit in the DC court worth the trouble? I give that an emphatic, "hell yes." --Mr. Corbett :)
10. Re:One thing is missing: by EuclideanSilence · 2012-10-01 06:42 · Score: 3
  
  Voting 3rd party also greatly influences the positions of the 2 main parties who don't want to lose to each other. If you lose an election by 5%, but a 3rd party got 5% of the vote, it's very likely that taking up the 3rd party position will help the next time around.
11. Re:One thing is missing: by PortHaven · 2012-10-01 06:55 · Score: 2
  
  How come jurisdiction seems to play here, but it always seems like patent suits are filed in that Texas jurisdiction that keeps patent trolls well fed?
12. Re:One thing is missing: by tsaoutofourpants · 2012-10-01 07:01 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Please read http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3156341&cid=41515905 -- not a fuckup, but an intentional decision. I am pro se, although about a dozen members of state bars, including Jesse Ventura's awesome legal team, made the same decision in their similar suits.
13. Re:One thing is missing: by Yakasha · 2012-10-01 11:46 · Score: 2
  
  Well, it is debatable if the vote is 'wasted' or not since the concept is pretty subjective.
  No, its not. There is a very real tangible goal of 5%, which Ross Perot proved is very possible to reach.
  
  As another poster pointed out, significant turnout for a 3rd party can often cause one of the two parties to integrate those issues into its platform, but that really the main 'value' of such votes.
  Not the only value. If the primary parties integrate the issues, awesome. Then in the next election, at the debates the 3rd party candidate can FORCE the issues to be debated.
  
  Mathematically, our system will pretty much always stabilize on two parties, just like other countries that have similar voting laws.
  Have a link or book or articles to that effect? I'm interested.
  
  There will never be a 3rd party that is anything other then a sounding board for new planks. There will never be a critical mass that propels us into a 3 party system with a third of the nation (apx) voting for each one because our system just can not stabilize around that configuration.
  Well, I know you're not speaking from experience since no 3rd party has been a contender in the modern age. So, how did you come to this conclusion?
14. Re:One thing is missing: by Yakasha · 2012-10-01 11:52 · Score: 2
  
  Voting 3rd party also greatly influences the positions of the 2 main parties who don't want to lose to each other. If you lose an election by 5%, but a 3rd party got 5% of the vote, it's very likely that taking up the 3rd party position will help the next time around.
  You know what? If that is what actually fulfills the "No more business as usual" promise, I'm all for it. If that is what gets real campaign reform in, or stops the patriot act, or kills the tsa, or defunds our world wide military ventures... Im cool with it.
15. Re:One thing is missing: by zippthorne · 2012-10-01 14:01 · Score: 2
  
  It seems pretty clear that they did so because the MO of almost all judges in publicly important cases seems to be to
  1) avoid the issue - find any kind of procedural or technical reason why the case cannot be heard. You cant piss of people for making the wrong ruling if you don't even really make a ruling. Although this preserves the status quo, so it really shouldn't be considered as a neutral non-decision...
  2) avoid the issue - find any kind of technical or procedural reason why the case can be dismissed. This technically decides in favor of one of the parties, but only looks like it decides against one of them for not being prepared enough. Also preserves the status quo. Actually, a little moreso, as it makes it more difficult for additional cases to be heard.
  3) avoid the issue - decide just enough of the issue to satisfy the case, being careful to leave the larger portion of the issue safely undecided. If we got to this one in the TSA case, I expect they would find some reason why it was wrong in some specific small set of rather unlikely circumstances, while leaving "undecided" anything that would require substantive changes to the actual practices of the TSA. This preserves the status quo while still presenting an appearance of progress.
  4) split the baby - make the most absurd ruling possible. Possibly finding in favor of one party, or both, or neither, and hang it on a premise that not only angers everyone involved and those who weren't initially involved, but sets a harmful precedent for all future activity. See Marbury v. Madison for an early US example where the court found a way to usurp additional powers for itself, or the recent ruling on PPACA. Named for a biblical ruling that is often presented, also absurdly, as an example of great wisdom. This preserves the status quo by making people wary of initiating cases in the first place....
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Checks and Balances by danbert8 · 2012-10-01 05:14 · Score: 5, Funny

About as useful as the Constitution for determining what is allowed by the government...

--
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
1. Re:Checks and Balances by IgnoramusMaximus · 2012-10-01 06:23 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Actually the "process" is the primary method by which powerful tyrants deny justice to meaningless peasants.
  He was supposed to file in DC wasn't he? Why exactly? Does the court in Florida belong to a different nation? The moon was in an incorrect astral sign? Wind was coming from the wrong compass point?
  When he files in DC (at his own expense of course and on his own time - but I am sure everyone gets many days free time fully paid from his/her job to proudly challenge an entire multi-trillion dollar agency in any state of the agency's choosing) he will promptly find out that while DC was the correct court, the "process" requires him to wait 2 years for a decision, which will be that he "does not have standing" (being a mere peasant) or that he is "not a party" (not being a member of the government) etc and so on.
  Due process my ass.
  The whole point of this exercise is the pretense that average citizens have any say whatsoever in what the government or other wealthy powers do to them. The US courts have been rubber-stamping the aristocracy's decisions for a long time now, all the while creating ever more byzantine "process" in order to insure that the lower classes have to jump through so many hoops as to make participation of anyone without 40 lawyers and 100 paralegals pointless.
  The beauty of this system is that technically everyone can participate but in practice only the very wealthy can do so effectively. And bonus: more byzantine the rules, higher paid and numerous becomes the priesthood that attends to them: the lawyers.
  Everyone wins, well except the average peon who gets to pay for this fun in more ways than one.
This is a Sign... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 05:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

That extensive exercising of the 2nd Amendment will be required to turn back the encroachment upon our liberties.
1. Re:This is a Sign... by luther349 · 2012-10-01 11:31 · Score: 2
  
  sad but true. the day i see a tsa check point on a highway is the day you see dead tsa agents.
2. Re:This is a Sign... by luther349 · 2012-10-01 11:33 · Score: 2
  
  yea it will lead to another civil war. but think bought it you said it yourself they only have support of half the nation just a few years back that number was much larger.
Slightly off topic..but.. by SuperCharlie · 2012-10-01 05:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

Seems like laws and bills and crap should logically go through the Supreme Court *before* being enacted.. This passing laws which are unconstitutional and then having them in effect for years and years until they finally make it to be judged *while they are still enforcing them* seems pretty stupid from the whipped persons point of view. Yea yea yea.. it would take years to pass crap and the backlog would be crippling.. and you say that like its a bad thing...
1. Re:Slightly off topic..but.. by dkleinsc · 2012-10-01 05:56 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Seems like laws and bills and crap should logically go through the Supreme Court *before* being enacted.
  So you want to give veto power to 5 unelected people who have a lifetime term of office? I understand the instincts, but this seems like a really bad idea.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
2. Re:Slightly off topic..but.. by ZeroSumHappiness · 2012-10-01 06:27 · Score: 2
  
  I'd settle for five days of public comment before signing bills. This was a simple proposal that costs almost nothing to implement and would give some value, if only in name, to public comment.
3. Re:Slightly off topic..but.. by jedidiah · 2012-10-01 06:30 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It's 9 people and THEY ALREADY HAVE THAT POWER.
  By design, the SCOTUS is no less powerful than any other branch of the government. Complaints about "activist judges" are a Big Lie propaganda ploy intended to neuter an important part of the government meant to balance the rest.
  Yes. 9 appointees should have that much power. They were intended to. Probably to balance out the influence of politicians that constantly have to campaign for re-election and finance same.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
4. Re:Slightly off topic..but.. by Aryden · 2012-10-01 06:31 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Executive branch creates laws
  Civics 101: Legislative branch creates laws. Executive branch enforces laws. Except where executive orders are in play.
time to face facts by nimbius · 2012-10-01 05:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

and conclude that had the supreme court heard the issue, it would probably have just ruled in favour of the government.
and had it ruled against the government, the TSA and cur->administration() would have ignored it.

The best option at this point is to select "alternative screening" whenever you go through the airport. Refuse the private screening as this only benefits the TSA by allowing it to hide the dissent against this technology. Avoid engaging in smalltalk, even if solicited, during the pat down. I generally stand tall, and fix my vision into the crowd of passengers entering screening.

--
Good people go to bed earlier.
1. Re:time to face facts by dkleinsc · 2012-10-01 05:48 · Score: 2
  
  The best option at this point is to select "alternative screening" whenever you go through the airport. Refuse the private screening as this only benefits the TSA by allowing it to hide the dissent against this technology.
  The best option is to not fly, let the airlines know exactly why, and encourage others who dissent against this policy to change their habits as well. If the airlines start losing big money because of the TSA's practices, they'll bribe^H lobby to change it.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
2. Re:time to face facts by crypticedge · 2012-10-01 06:59 · Score: 2
  
  The best reaction during the alternative screening is to moan and act like you enjoy it too much. Make it as uncomfortable for them as they've made it for everyone else.
Legal Barriers Aside by ohnocitizen · 2012-10-01 05:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

There may have been a legitimate reason for refusing to hear the case, though with the current makeup of the court there is no reason to suspect their hearing the case would have gone well.

Instead let's take this as an impetus to get serious about tackling the TSA's abusive methods.

PR: Publicly boycott air travel as much as possible. When you do travel, avoid airports with the scanners, and opt for public pat down screenings as much as possible if you must use those airports. Do this to slow down the lines, and to let other passengers see you (and thus dampen their enthusiasm for flying). Take out ads in local papers and targeted ads online attacking the TSA and its methods. Promote and share videos and stories that illustrate these abuses.

Legislation: Call your congress critters and let them know how you feel about the TSA. Work to make the TSA a featured issue in the campaigns you can vote in. Get in touch with the lobbyists who represent businesses dependent on air travel (especially airlines), and get them to fight the TSA for economic reasons.

Good luck!
The dull thud of the rubber stamp by gestalt_n_pepper · 2012-10-01 05:57 · Score: 2

is once more heard across the land.

--
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Security at the courts by tgd · 2012-10-01 06:02 · Score: 4, Interesting

I think, in the best interest of the safety and security of the Supreme Court judges, its probably best they require everyone -- including the judges -- to use the full body scanners to enter the Supreme Court building.
As a pinnacle of our republic, not taking its security seriously is an insult to the institution of the Supreme Court and the United States of America.
Re:Actually it's the opposite by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2012-10-01 06:11 · Score: 2

That discussion was actually about weather a tax can be appealed through before it takes effect. The way things currently are is no a tax can not be appealed until it has taken effect. The question around the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) was is the penalty for the individual mandate a tax or not. If it is a tax then it can't be litigated until it takes effect, if it is not a tax then it can be litigated before it goes into effect. The oddity that popped out of the ruling is that Obamacare is both a tax and not a tax. It was not considered a tax as per the first part of the ruling which allowed the 3rd part of the ruling, but for the 3rd part of the ruling it was ruled a tax thus being something congress could enact. There was a second part that dealt with removing funds for states that was overturned but that was a separate issue. Technically speaking the SCOTUS was never granted the constitutionality authority to determine if a law was constitutional but granted them selves that right in the marbury v madison case.

--
Time to offend someone
Funny thing by Murdoch5 · 2012-10-01 06:45 · Score: 2

The funny thing about the TSA is that the rules sound like they were written by grade 1 students. They are comically horrible, I mean in some cases they even cause harm or damage and in others they just cause inconvenience. Shouldn't a system designed to protect / improve security also improve quality of life and travel? I was denied taking medication with me after being searched, I guess I could of somehow smuggled a chemical lab onto the plane and turned the pills into a powerful explosive ......... The TSA should write a book, "How not to implement security".
Simple by Safety+Cap · 2012-10-01 07:01 · Score: 3, Funny

I'd bet if they wanted to hear the case, they would figure out some loophole to get past the bureaucratic BS,

Just tell Thomas, Scalia and Alito that they can't get their daily "newsletter of best-of images" culled from the scanners until they hear the case.
That sucker'll be fast-tracked so fast someone's robe will burst into flames.

--
Yeah, right.
The Checks have bounced... by erroneus · 2012-10-01 10:53 · Score: 2

...the balance is negative.
We no longer have any checks and balances. At every turn, the government claims it has no requirement to address public concerns and does not need to follow its own processes.
As instances like these continue to mount, every government employee places themselves into further jeopardy from the top to the bottom. TSA workers (of which I was once one) who continue to cite that they have bills to pay and are only following orders will faith the most convenient wrath of nutbags out there who will do anything ranging from nude protests to verbal and even physical assaults. This will escallate unless it is addressed. Things I dare not say will happen unless the government begins to once again listen to the people they are supposed to be representing.
offtopic - Sig by TaoPhoenix · 2012-10-01 12:58 · Score: 2

Hi there. Offtopic, but your sig is incredible.
"Don't point out the elephants in the middle of the room. Just play along, be nice and remember to bring lots of peanuts."

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine