1. Whether the attested-as-intentional excessive and unreasonable force striking of a cooperative passenger's genitals by a TSA screener not meeting mandatory precedent thresholds, should be allowed to usurp police powers and be granted qualified immunity to defeat an otherwise obvious 4th Amendment violation actionable under Bivens?

2. Whether the district court's granting of a permanent nation-wide order, verbatim-written by TSA, should be vacated since it grants authority for TSA to retroactively violate 49 U.S.C. § 114@) and makes TSA the sole arbiter of its own decisions, effectively foreclosing all future lawsuits against TSA despite merits and remedies in established law?

8. Whether the Circuit split denying common law felony arrest rights in the 4th Circuit and Virginia district court, should be reconciled to accord with established law in the 9th Circuit, the Supreme Court in Virginia, and state courts nation-wide, to restore the rights of police and citizens to arrest felony suspects without themselves being liable for false arrest charges?

Whether the attested-as-intentional excessive and unreasonable force striking of a cooperative passenger's genitals by a TSA screener not meeting mandatory precedent thresholds, should be allowed to usurp police powers and be granted qualified immunity to defeat an otherwise obvious 4th Amendment violation actionable under Bivens?