Health Care Bill Violates 4th Amendment Search & Seizure: Lawsuits should be easy $$$

[bucs90]

Guys, I'm prepared to make my first lawsuit on grounds of the 4th amendment. You know, that one that prevents police and gov't agents from illegal search and seizure of your person or property? It's why cops must have probable cause and/or warrants to do anything related to a search or seizure. I had prior years of law enforcement work, and have dealt with the 4th a lot. Here is the grounds:

The government will MANDATE that you purchase health insurance, or face a fine, which unpaid is punishable through arrest (aka threat of violence from armed men if you dont comply). I'll get to that later. But, for now, lets assume you as a law abiding citizen decide to go ahead and buy health insurance.

Well, you are going to have to get a health screening, right? No company will insure you without one. Pre-existing conditions and all. REMEMBER......if you DON'T, the IRS has the authority to arrest you for non-compliance. With the law mandate, the doctor is acting as a government agent, in particular if you are forced to use a government health clinic for that screening (likely). So, I have a choice: A) Go to jail or pay fine for not complying with gov't mandate, or, B) Submit to a WARRANTLESS search of my person, without probable cause of any violation of any law, by a gov't agent, thus violating my 4th amendment protection against warrantless searches without consent or probable cause.

BUT WAIT.....before you liberal Obama lovers cry "BUT YOU CONSENTED TO THE SEARCH" you are mistaken. Coercion can NEVER be an element used by the gov't to gain consent for a search or seizure. AND in this scenario, the fine or arrest for lack of health insurance is a threat and coercion to force compliance with the warrantless search of my person.

And before you liberals begin to whine about "That only applies to cops and the FBI, not doctors" you are again wrong. Read up on your law enforcement deputization statutes. When ANY citizen is requested by any law enforcement agency to provide assistance with enforcement of a law, that person is acting as a "deputy" and gov't agent. It's why a cop can't get his civilian buddy to search you illegally then claim "he's not a cop". And since the IRS is enforcing this, they are a LEO agency, enforcing the mandate for insurance, requesting doctors complete the health screening to make you eligible to purchase insurance. And you are being coerced into compliance with the unlawful search of your person.

Did the Obama Admin think this through? I'm sure they did. I'm sure they see people as too dumb to find this loophole out or to a lawsuit. Or maybe not. Maybe they were in such a rush the past year to pass this, and were looking at everything except the 4th amendment, since the 4th is almost exclusively a law enforcement amendment, and they made the mistake of tasking the IRS with enforcement.

But I know this: I'll be the first in line to file this lawsuit. And they may settle for far less than I ask, and I'll then be like you Obama folks: Living off the government.

So, there you have it boys. 4th amendment. Unlawful search and seizure. The way out.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Where in the bill is it mandated, that an insured must have a required physical screening or face bodily force via a government agent?

 

[jillian]

there isn't... he doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

If you file suit using the IV Amendment as your foundation, you will lose.

 

[bucs90]

If you file suit using the IV Amendment as your foundation, you will lose.

No, I won't. Settle at worst.

Where does it say? Well, lets see: The bill it thousands of pages long. The men voting on it haven't read it, nor have I. But unlike those voting for it, I'm gonna use some common sense here.

1- You are mandated to buy insurance.

2- Insurers are mandated to cover your pre-existing conditions.

3- To do so, they'll need to screen you for those conditions.

4- You are coerced to comply due to threat of fine or jail by the gov't.

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = Lawsuit and lots and lots of Obama gov't $$$$ for me


Or YOUR idea is that the insurers will say "Sure, you're covered, we dont' need to know whats already wrong with you, just send us the bill buddy." Um....yeah.

 

[bodecea]

If you file suit using the IV Amendment as your foundation, you will lose.

No, I won't. Settle at worst.

Where does it say? Well, lets see: The bill it thousands of pages long. The men voting on it haven't read it, nor have I. But unlike those voting for it, I'm gonna use some common sense here.

1- You are mandated to buy insurance.

2- Insurers are mandated to cover your pre-existing conditions.

3- To do so, they'll need to screen you for those conditions.

4- You are coerced to comply due to threat of fine or jail by the gov't.

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = Lawsuit and lots and lots of Obama gov't $$$$ for me


Or YOUR idea is that the insurers will say "Sure, you're covered, we dont' need to know whats already wrong with you, just send us the bill buddy." Um....yeah.

Keep us informed on how your lawsuit goes. Ask the Mods to make it a sticky.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

If you file suit using the IV Amendment as your foundation, you will lose.

No, I won't. Settle at worst.

Where does it say? Well, lets see: The bill it thousands of pages long. The men voting on it haven't read it, nor have I. But unlike those voting for it, I'm gonna use some common sense here.

1- You are mandated to buy insurance.

2- Insurers are mandated to cover your pre-existing conditions.

3- To do so, they'll need to screen you for those conditions.

4- You are coerced to comply due to threat of fine or jail by the gov't.

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = Lawsuit and lots and lots of Obama gov't $$$$ for me


Or YOUR idea is that the insurers will say "Sure, you're covered, we dont' need to know whats already wrong with you, just send us the bill buddy." Um....yeah.

You haven't read the bill but you are going to sue based on assumption. That isn't logical.

I am not suggesting that the health care bill should not be challenged in court should it become law. I believe it should. But, one should read the document before trying to claim a violation of the law.

 

[bucs90]

If you file suit using the IV Amendment as your foundation, you will lose.

No, I won't. Settle at worst.

Where does it say? Well, lets see: The bill it thousands of pages long. The men voting on it haven't read it, nor have I. But unlike those voting for it, I'm gonna use some common sense here.

1- You are mandated to buy insurance.

2- Insurers are mandated to cover your pre-existing conditions.

3- To do so, they'll need to screen you for those conditions.

4- You are coerced to comply due to threat of fine or jail by the gov't.

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = Lawsuit and lots and lots of Obama gov't $$$$ for me


Or YOUR idea is that the insurers will say "Sure, you're covered, we dont' need to know whats already wrong with you, just send us the bill buddy." Um....yeah.

Keep us informed on how your lawsuit goes. Ask the Mods to make it a sticky.

Will do. You guys should read up on some state and federal Supreme Court law relating to the 4th amendment. Cases have been won for far lesser violations than this. I'm shocked this loophole was missed by Obama Inc. They are wide open for lawsuits.

 

[bucs90]

If you file suit using the IV Amendment as your foundation, you will lose.

No, I won't. Settle at worst.

Where does it say? Well, lets see: The bill it thousands of pages long. The men voting on it haven't read it, nor have I. But unlike those voting for it, I'm gonna use some common sense here.

1- You are mandated to buy insurance.

2- Insurers are mandated to cover your pre-existing conditions.

3- To do so, they'll need to screen you for those conditions.

4- You are coerced to comply due to threat of fine or jail by the gov't.

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = Lawsuit and lots and lots of Obama gov't $$$$ for me


Or YOUR idea is that the insurers will say "Sure, you're covered, we dont' need to know whats already wrong with you, just send us the bill buddy." Um....yeah.

You haven't read the bill but you are going to sue based on assumption. That isn't logical.

I am not suggesting that the health care bill should not be challenged in court should it become law. I believe it should. But, one should read the document before trying to claim a violation of the law.

Well, many vote for it and many citizens support it without reading it. I'll concede I haven't read it. But the Democrats have clearly stated the bill WILL do the following:

- Mandate purchasing insurance.
- Mandate covering pre-existing conditions.
- Task the IRS with enforcing this mandate through a fine, which of course is punishable if not paid (just like a traffic ticket).

Those 3 things are without a doubt true. So, unless the bill also includes a suspension of the 4th amendment, then my case will stand. The only way it wouldn't is if insurance companies did in fact say "Who cares whats wrong with you, just send us the bills". You and I know that won't happen. The screenings will be intensive to know EXACTLY what is wrong with you and how much they will have to pay to cover you.

The 4th amendment is a beautiful thing and may be cancerous to this bill eventually.

 

[Douger]

Guys,. I had prior years of law enforcement work

There went your credibility.

 

[bucs90]

Guys,. I had prior years of law enforcement work

There went your credibility.

Oh, yeah, because I'm sure a college sophomore in his dorm reviewing his professors notes knows more about the 4th amendment than the people who use that amendment every day of their life, right?

Thanks for the counter argument that proved my facts wrong by the way.

 

[jillian]

If you file suit using the IV Amendment as your foundation, you will lose.

No, I won't. Settle at worst.

no one is settling anything with you

 

[uscitizen]

Guys, I'm prepared to make my first lawsuit on grounds of the 4th amendment. You know, that one that prevents police and gov't agents from illegal search and seizure of your person or property? It's why cops must have probable cause and/or warrants to do anything related to a search or seizure. I had prior years of law enforcement work, and have dealt with the 4th a lot. Here is the grounds:

The government will MANDATE that you purchase health insurance, or face a fine, which unpaid is punishable through arrest (aka threat of violence from armed men if you dont comply). I'll get to that later. But, for now, lets assume you as a law abiding citizen decide to go ahead and buy health insurance.

Well, you are going to have to get a health screening, right? No company will insure you without one. Pre-existing conditions and all. REMEMBER......if you DON'T, the IRS has the authority to arrest you for non-compliance. With the law mandate, the doctor is acting as a government agent, in particular if you are forced to use a government health clinic for that screening (likely). So, I have a choice: A) Go to jail or pay fine for not complying with gov't mandate, or, B) Submit to a WARRANTLESS search of my person, without probable cause of any violation of any law, by a gov't agent, thus violating my 4th amendment protection against warrantless searches without consent or probable cause.

BUT WAIT.....before you liberal Obama lovers cry "BUT YOU CONSENTED TO THE SEARCH" you are mistaken. Coercion can NEVER be an element used by the gov't to gain consent for a search or seizure. AND in this scenario, the fine or arrest for lack of health insurance is a threat and coercion to force compliance with the warrantless search of my person.

And before you liberals begin to whine about "That only applies to cops and the FBI, not doctors" you are again wrong. Read up on your law enforcement deputization statutes. When ANY citizen is requested by any law enforcement agency to provide assistance with enforcement of a law, that person is acting as a "deputy" and gov't agent. It's why a cop can't get his civilian buddy to search you illegally then claim "he's not a cop". And since the IRS is enforcing this, they are a LEO agency, enforcing the mandate for insurance, requesting doctors complete the health screening to make you eligible to purchase insurance. And you are being coerced into compliance with the unlawful search of your person.

Did the Obama Admin think this through? I'm sure they did. I'm sure they see people as too dumb to find this loophole out or to a lawsuit. Or maybe not. Maybe they were in such a rush the past year to pass this, and were looking at everything except the 4th amendment, since the 4th is almost exclusively a law enforcement amendment, and they made the mistake of tasking the IRS with enforcement.

But I know this: I'll be the first in line to file this lawsuit. And they may settle for far less than I ask, and I'll then be like you Obama folks: Living off the government.

So, there you have it boys. 4th amendment. Unlawful search and seizure. The way out.

the DEA and republicans took care of the illegal search and seizure part.

Damn frivilous lawsuits.

 

[bucs90]

If you file suit using the IV Amendment as your foundation, you will lose.

No, I won't. Settle at worst.

no one is settling anything with you

You don't know much about gov't lawsuits, do you? Settling is far cheaper and less of a PR nightmare than a 2 year civil trial.

 

[bucs90]

Guys, I'm prepared to make my first lawsuit on grounds of the 4th amendment. You know, that one that prevents police and gov't agents from illegal search and seizure of your person or property? It's why cops must have probable cause and/or warrants to do anything related to a search or seizure. I had prior years of law enforcement work, and have dealt with the 4th a lot. Here is the grounds:

The government will MANDATE that you purchase health insurance, or face a fine, which unpaid is punishable through arrest (aka threat of violence from armed men if you dont comply). I'll get to that later. But, for now, lets assume you as a law abiding citizen decide to go ahead and buy health insurance.

Well, you are going to have to get a health screening, right? No company will insure you without one. Pre-existing conditions and all. REMEMBER......if you DON'T, the IRS has the authority to arrest you for non-compliance. With the law mandate, the doctor is acting as a government agent, in particular if you are forced to use a government health clinic for that screening (likely). So, I have a choice: A) Go to jail or pay fine for not complying with gov't mandate, or, B) Submit to a WARRANTLESS search of my person, without probable cause of any violation of any law, by a gov't agent, thus violating my 4th amendment protection against warrantless searches without consent or probable cause.

BUT WAIT.....before you liberal Obama lovers cry "BUT YOU CONSENTED TO THE SEARCH" you are mistaken. Coercion can NEVER be an element used by the gov't to gain consent for a search or seizure. AND in this scenario, the fine or arrest for lack of health insurance is a threat and coercion to force compliance with the warrantless search of my person.

And before you liberals begin to whine about "That only applies to cops and the FBI, not doctors" you are again wrong. Read up on your law enforcement deputization statutes. When ANY citizen is requested by any law enforcement agency to provide assistance with enforcement of a law, that person is acting as a "deputy" and gov't agent. It's why a cop can't get his civilian buddy to search you illegally then claim "he's not a cop". And since the IRS is enforcing this, they are a LEO agency, enforcing the mandate for insurance, requesting doctors complete the health screening to make you eligible to purchase insurance. And you are being coerced into compliance with the unlawful search of your person.

Did the Obama Admin think this through? I'm sure they did. I'm sure they see people as too dumb to find this loophole out or to a lawsuit. Or maybe not. Maybe they were in such a rush the past year to pass this, and were looking at everything except the 4th amendment, since the 4th is almost exclusively a law enforcement amendment, and they made the mistake of tasking the IRS with enforcement.

But I know this: I'll be the first in line to file this lawsuit. And they may settle for far less than I ask, and I'll then be like you Obama folks: Living off the government.

So, there you have it boys. 4th amendment. Unlawful search and seizure. The way out.

the DEA and republicans took care of the illegal search and seizure part.

Damn frivilous lawsuits.

Care to explain? Blanket statements don't do much for a debate.

 

[lawbuff]

It's why cops must have probable cause and/or warrants to do anything related to a search or seizure.

That is incorrect on it's face.

I had prior years of law enforcement work, and have dealt with the 4th a lot.

I took Criminal law in College as my Major, so I am familiar with it, what is your background if I may ask?

Your proposed suit will be declared fatally defective, that is, if you ever have sufficient "Standing" to sue.

I have read quite a lot of 4th AM case law over my time and I have never read, even remotely, any Cause of Action/Declaratory Judgment action concerning a General welfare clause legislation citing a 4th AM violation?

Do you have any citations for that, even in dicta.

 

[jillian]

Well, many vote for it and many citizens support it without reading it. I'll concede I haven't read it. But the Democrats have clearly stated the bill WILL do the following:

- Mandate purchasing insurance.
- Mandate covering pre-existing conditions.
- Task the IRS with enforcing this mandate through a fine, which of course is punishable if not paid (just like a traffic ticket).

Those 3 things are without a doubt true. So, unless the bill also includes a suspension of the 4th amendment, then my case will stand. The only way it wouldn't is if insurance companies did in fact say "Who cares whats wrong with you, just send us the bills". You and I know that won't happen. The screenings will be intensive to know EXACTLY what is wrong with you and how much they will have to pay to cover you.

The 4th amendment is a beautiful thing and may be cancerous to this bill eventually.

Once again... this bill has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the Fourth Amendment.

 

[jillian]

You don't know much about gov't lawsuits, do you? Settling is far cheaper and less of a PR nightmare than a 2 year civil trial.

You think so? Interesting... I'd say your position on this matter is absurd. There are legal issues which might be legitimately raised. But the Fourth Amendment isn't one of them.

And people only settle cases when there is a downside to going forward. Let me tell you how it will really go...

They'd use you for sport and entertainment like I did when I defended a record company client in a friviolous sync licensing suit. We were sued in district court. I got the case dismissed on a summary judgment motion. The plaintiff appealed to the circuit court of appeals. We opposed and the decision below was affirmed. The nutbar then went and filed for a writ of certiorari in the USSC. I opposed. I am not going to tell you what I was paid per hour to do that suit, but I can assure you that it was far more than it would have cost the company to settle the suit. When I would suggest that to my clients, they said there was not a snowball's chance in hell that they'd ever pay the guy. I think the CEO called the case 'extortionate' at one point.

So for quite some time I amused myself with this case.

That is what they will do to you and for the same reason... settlement would be a terrible precedent to set in such a moronic case. And the attorneys will use you for batting practice because they will know that you haven't a shot and it's a slam dunk for them.

And NO ONE concedes UNCONSTITUTIONALITY.. NOT EVER.

 

[rightwinger]

Health Care Bill Violates 4th Amendment Search & Seizure: Lawsuits should be easy $$$

No it doesn't.

Conservative wingnuts will challenge in court and lose.
Just like they did on Social Security, Medicare and Civil Rights

 

[nospacesallowed]

So why if they cover preexisting conditions would they require a screen to see if you had any??????? We are checking for what we are going to cover whether you do or do not have preexisting conditions........