Skip to comments.
The right to change your mind (Rush and Roger Clemens)
msnbc.com ^
| 1/13/2004
| Keith Olbermann
Posted on 01/15/2004 7:38:11 AM PST by Born Conservative
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-27 last
To: clintonh8r
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
To: Doomonyou
Send it to Rush. He's the one who's quoted (see the full article) as saying there's no constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy.
22
posted on
01/15/2004 9:48:06 AM PST
by
clintonh8r
(You know that KoolAid the RATs have been drinking? Well, I'm the guy who's been pissing in it.)
To: Mr. Bird
If a legitimate, duly appointed court of law needs those records to make sure that justice is administered correctly I don't see how they can be withheld.
The only exceptions I know of are National Security and/or Executive Privilige.
23
posted on
01/15/2004 10:17:02 AM PST
by
Az Joe
To: Az Joe
If a legitimate, duly appointed court of law needs those records to make sure that justice is administered correctly I don't see how they can be withheld. I think that's what tripped them up on appeal. The question is whether the state has the authority to seize the documents in order to determine if a crime has occurred. They don't need the records to "administer justice". They need the records to find out if any justice needs to be administered, which is a huge difference. And the only cause they have is the fact that he had more than one doctor, hardly a unique circumstance in Florida (or any other state).
The proper sequence of events in a doctor shopping case would be for one of the physicians to file the complaint, and then have the state subpoena the records; the docs are the only individuals with adequate knowledge of the circumstances to determine whether probable cause exists.
24
posted on
01/15/2004 10:36:45 AM PST
by
Mr. Bird
To: Born Conservative
Is he out of the closet yet?
25
posted on
01/15/2004 10:39:17 AM PST
by
Diddle E. Squat
(www.firethebcs.com, www.weneedaplayoff.com, www.firemackbrown.com)
To: ConservativeMan55
Rush Rocks!
26
posted on
01/15/2004 12:29:07 PM PST
by
blackie
To: Mr. Bird
They also have the emails and the testimony of the maid supposedly. But you have a good point.
27
posted on
01/15/2004 4:43:50 PM PST
by
Az Joe
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-27 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson