Don’t be fooled by the charm of the 1970s style décor and School House Rock style Artificial Intelligence guided tour, the Time Variance Authority has serious liability issues with its entire “workforce” being Variants with erased memories. For those Variants who learn of their prior lives and what was taken from them, how can they sue the TVA? This raises complex problems of where, and when, to sue the Time Variance Authority for their civil rights violations.

Possible Causes of Action Against the TVA

The Time Variance Authority could be sued for violating the civil rights of those they kidnapped from their timeline, erased their memories, and then forcibly employed those individuals in perpetuating other crimes upon others. While there is no private right to action for kidnapping, the TVA could be sued for assault, false imprisonment, and a laundry list of other torts. Nelson v. Payne, No. 19-cv-1380-pp, at *8 (E.D. Wis. Sep. 29, 2020).

The lawsuit would be similar to a 1983 action for those who cause under color of law, “… any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution…” 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The TVA arresting people screams “color of law,” coupled with police riot uniforms and show trials without defense attorneys. However, the TVA is not functioning under laws from any State or US Territory. That said, signage in English with courtrooms that look like they were built at the end of the Ford Administration certainly raises issues on why a victim could be mistaken in thinking there were being prosecuted by a government agency.

Venue and Jurisdiction

The civil procedure requirements in brining a lawsuit include determining the proper venue for suing the TVA. Just what court would have proper jurisdiction?

A plaintiff may file a civil action in a Federal Court where:

1) Any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located;

2) Where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or

(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.

28 U.S.C. § 1391

Filing suit against the TVA where a Variant was taken would be the easiest way to identify the proper venue, because that is where “a substantial part of the events…giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(2).

The clearest example would be for Ravonna Renslayer (formerly known as Rebecca Tourminet in her original life), since it was revealed she was from Fremont, Ohio in 2018, where she was a high school principal. Fremont, Ohio is located approximately 36 miles from Toledo, so filing suit in the Northern District of Ohio, specifically in the James M. Ashley and Thomas W. L. Ashley U.S. Courthouse, would be the proper venue for litigating the claims against the TVA.

Suing the TVA requires showing there is jurisdiction, either general or specific. As the TVA does not have a physical office in Ohio (and in order to avoid the multiverse of madness for stream of commerce analysis of time travelers), we will focus on specific jurisdiction. In such cases, courts look at “the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.” Olivia v. Airbus Ams., Inc., No. 1:19 CV 1701, at *5-6 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 25, 2020), citing Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 284 (2014) (quoting Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 775 (1984)).

To establish specific jurisdiction over a defendant, a court must find “(1) purposeful availment of the privilege of acting in the forum state or causing a consequence in the forum state, (2) a cause of action arising from activities in the state, and (3) a substantial enough connection with the forum state to make the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant reasonable.” Id, citing Schneider v. Hardesty, 669 F.3d 693, 701 (6th Cir. 2012).

We should not even entertain “purposeful availment,” because the TVA entered Ohio with the intent to kidnap one of its citizens. While the TVA might claim it was conducting a form of “law enforcement” in the name of “maintaining the Sacred Timeline,” the United States does not recognize religious fanatics kidnapping and murdering citizens from cults, foreign countries, or self-appointed rulers of time. There will be no “qualified immunity” to protect the TVA from liability.

Specific jurisdiction over the TVA is proper because 1) the TVA caused the consequence of “removing” Tourminet/Renslayer from her timeline; 2) the kidnapping Tourminet/Renslayer occurred in Ohio, plus setting off a “reset charge”; and 3) jurisdiction over the TVA is reasonable because they entered Fremont, Ohio and assaulted a resident of the state.

If there is a challenge to the reasonableness of suing the TVA in Ohio, the following factors will be analyzed by the Court:

1) The burden on the defendant to litigate in the state;

2) The interest of the forum state;

3) the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining relief; and

4) the interest of other states in securing the most efficient resolution of the controversy.

Shaker Construction Group, LLC v. Schilling, Case Number: 1:08cv278, at *13 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 18, 2008)

As the TVA can travel to any point in time and space, there is little burden on them to defend the case in Ohio. Moreover, Ohio has an extremely high interest in protecting its citizens from being kidnapped and “pruned.” This should go without saying, but those who have had their lives erased have a right to being compensated for their loss. Finally, other states will want to have the same relief for any of its citizens who have been taken by the Time Variance Authority.

The Element of Time for Jurisdiction and Venue

An odd wrinkle in time for suing the TVA is the matter of “when” the injury occurred. If a Variant was taken in 2018 and returned in 2021, suing at the point of return is logical. However, if someone was taken in the early 1990s, should they be returned to that point in time and sue? If that is the case, the entire practice of law gets a huge reset charge to deal with. Courts rely on precedent. Human beings also live in linear existence, so Variants returning to earlier points in time (or present day for those individuals), would cause blips in time. For example, if there were lawsuits against the TVA in 1858, 1955, and 2021, the concept of precedent twists into an inverted Mobius strip. Cases arising from the same set of facts do not get scattered across decades to be litigated at the same time. A lawsuit from 1848 that should be litigated from the same set of facts suddenly is precedent for a court in 2021. That…is not how our system is designed. It would be far less complicated if there was Multi-District Litigation against the TVA at the same time, not scattered across all of time and space.

Service of Process for a Defendant Outside of Time and Space

Serving the TVA raises multiple problems. A defendant must be served with a summons that is directed at the defendant, names the court and parties, with the name and address of the plaintiff’s attorney, and be signed by the court of the court with the court’s seal. None of that is a challenge in order to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(a)(1)(A), (B), (C), F), and (G). The real mess is just how to actually serve the TVA.

Defendants are normally served under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 by a person over 18 years of age by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint personally to an individual, or at a person’s dwelling, or authorised agents.  For corporations that includes a managing or general agent. None of that is doable with the TVA, since they exist outside of our understanding of reality.

The plaintiffs are not without options. Federal Courts can allow for alternative service of process, such as by publication. Given that the TVA is monitoring the “Scared Timeline,” service by publication would get the immediate attention of the TVA. There is also the likelihood the TVA would know of all discovery, motion practice, and the resolution of the case, which would give the TVA a real unfair trial advantage.