3 ms·
A "mootness" justification is perfectly applicable here though. An issue is 'moot' if there is no relief possible. The relief that was sought for lying, accord
by mpyne 13y ago
A "mootness" justification is perfectly applicable here though.
An issue is 'moot' if there is no relief possible. The relief that was sought for lying, according to the ruling, was the release of the checkpoint video. But it had already been released, therefore there's nothing further for the judge to rule on.
Were you suing for other types of damages based on the Broward Co. letter? Did the judge somehow misinterpret the damages you sought?
Either way the judge has not ruled that the agency is "allowed to lie" in general, and even in this specific case only mentioned the idea in passing but then ultimately judged it moot (i.e. no precedent set one way or the other).
- tsaoutourpants 13y agoDeclaratory relief was demanded on all counts and the judge was repeatedly reminded of it, but refused to address it.
- mpyne 13y ago"Declaratory relief refers to a judgment of a court which determines the rights of parties without ordering anything be done or awarding damages. By seeking a declaratory judgment, the party making the request is seeking for an official declaration of the status of a matter in controversy." [1] So, what was the matter in controversy here? And why were you willing to settle for no action being ordered or damages awarded even if you won? Apparently both you and the TSA agree that Broward's initial letter was deliberately inaccurate, so that can't have been the matter under controversy. [1] http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/declaratory-relief/ http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/declaratory-relief/
- tsaoutourpants 13y agoThe controversy is whether it was lawful for the letter to be deliberately inaccurate. Broward maintains that is was, and with good motive: Florida law makes it a criminal matter to lie in a public records response.