Supreme Court whitewash? Justices ignoring law, facts in Vincent Foster photographs case

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Thursday, December 11, 2003 | Joseph Farah

[savedbygrace]

Worse. The questioning at one point went like this: You can't see the photos because you don't already have evidence of murder. But the photos might be the evidence. Well, you can't see the photos unless you have evidence of murder.

[Bon mots]

[arasina]

That's interesting, because it's exactly what will be presented to them if Rush Limbaugh's case ends up before the SCOTUS. So I suppose we should expect the same opinions there. Just replace photos with medical records and murder with the crime of doctor shopping.

[savedbygrace]

Mr. Favish posted a thread yesterday with links to the transcript of the questioning. Search for it and read it for yourself. It sounds very much like they are going to rule against Favish.

[Hannity4prez]

bump for later scrutiny, LOL

[trustandobey]

This logic didn't work in Florida with Rush's medical records!

[StriperSniper]

From link(pg.8):

But what's being protected here... ...sort of takes three forms,... ...and closure.

When did Oprah join the SCOTUS?

[savedbygrace]

I'm not about to defend any of the judges or justices involved in either of these two cases, but the two are entirely different.

Limbaugh is defending himself against over-zealous prosecuters who are trying to get evidence to enable them to press charges, but Favish is a private citizen, trying to get public access to covered-up crime scene pix of a dead victim.

The privacy concerns are totally different. But I'm not a lawyer (thank God) so I might have it wrong.

[Fred Mertz]

Thanks for that link, leadpenny.

[Taliesan]

The questioning at one point went like this: You can't see the photos because you don't already have evidence of murder. But the photos might be the evidence. Well, you can't see the photos unless you have evidence of murder.

I'm sorry, but I agree with this, and it is the sort of protection you would invoke over your private life in a SIMILAR circumstance.

The family has a right to keep the photos private, unless there is probable cause a crime has been committed, then they could be seized under the 4th amendment. Apparently, no judge anywhere has yet thought there was sufficient evidence of a crime to invade the family's right to property.

This is called "a fishing expedition".

[savedbygrace]

The family has a right to keep the photos private

Did you read the transcript? If you did, then you'd know that's the legal issue to be decided. Favish argues that so far, the courts have not granted survivors the right to privacy on behalf of a dead crime victim. IOW, Foster's family doesn't get the right to keep Foster's crime scene photos private.

The reason the FOIA was passed was, in part, to protect the public against government cover-ups. This case has all the earmarks of a cover-up, and needs sunshine.

Even so, I think the USSC will rule against Favish. I hope I'm wrong.

[murdoog]

Bumping for the 13th anniversary of Vincent Foster's death