Important First Amendment Case - Siobhan Reynolds

Bartholomew Roberts · November 5, 2010, 12:32 PM

Quick background (as reported by CATO and the New York Times)
:
The federal government prosecuted two Kansas doctors for prescribing painkillers that were later abused by their patients. Siohban Reynolds was an outspoken critic of this prosecution and runs a non-profit critical of this practice.

The government prosecutor in the case became so annoyed, she asked the judge for a gag order on Ms. Reynolds, even though she was not a defendant or lawyer in the case. The judge, of course, denied this, citing Ms. Reynolds First Amendment rights. After this, the prosecutor obained a grand jury supoena with almost 100 subparts demanding Ms. Reynolds submit documents, e-mails, phone records, checks, bank records, credit card receipts, photographs, videos and "Facebook" communications.

Ms. Reynolds challenged the subpoena arguing that the prosecutor was now trying to shut down her First Amendment rights by using the subpoena instead of the gag order to achieve the same effect. The judge denied her challenge. Ms. Reynolds appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. In support of her case, ACLU, the Institute for Justice and the Reason Foundation filed amicus briefs that were highly critical of the federal prosecutor and supporting the First Amendment issues. Citing grand jury secrecy rules, the 10th Circuit sealed those amicus briefs from public view even though everything in the briefs is a matter of public record. In yet another sealed ruling, the Court denied the motion of the parties to unseal their own amicus briefs. So not only can we not know why the Grand Jury subpoena was upheld, we can't even read the legal arguments from third parties as to why this practice may be unconstitutional.

The case is now reached the Supreme Court and is awaiting a decision on cert. You may read the petition here.

Al Norris · November 5, 2010, 01:42 PM

Anything I might say, would have to be redacted!

The Government, going after pain management physicians (and those that support pain management), has a long and sordid history.

The War On Some Drugs, is just another glaring example of the extreme reach of the Commerce Clause.

Musketeer · November 5, 2010, 02:23 PM

Theodore Roosevelt had an interesting approach to laws restricting behavior and substances which were considered irrational by the public.

He advocating prosecuting them to the fullest extent possible.

That was what he stated at a German American organization he was addressing with regards to the rules prohibiting the sale of alcohol on Sunday. Try telling a hall full of German American blue collar 19th century laborers that on their ONLY day off in the week (before the 5 day work week) that they could not relax with a beer.

He made it out not only alive but applauded fr the following reason. His position was such unpopular laws when ignored only served to harm the common man. Whole black markets arise to meet the demand. Public officials are corrupted to turn a blind eye. More violent crime accompanies the illicit practice. In the end people still got what they wanted but the common man had to pay the burden of bribes and crime. The system was self perpetuating.

He advocates ruthless prosecution of such laws. Only in such a manner would outrage reach a level where such unpopular laws would be repealed. Only through vigorous enforcement would such unpopular laws no longer burden the honest man directly or indirectly.

Pretty smart if you ask me. If they really hammered down across the board on said drug laws the entire populace would reject them. Instead we go half way with outrageous government actions occurring but not at the level were people actually reject the laws.

November 5, 2010, 12:32 PM	#1
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	Important First Amendment Case - Siobhan Reynolds Quick background (as reported by CATO and the New York Times) : The federal government prosecuted two Kansas doctors for prescribing painkillers that were later abused by their patients. Siohban Reynolds was an outspoken critic of this prosecution and runs a non-profit critical of this practice. The government prosecutor in the case became so annoyed, she asked the judge for a gag order on Ms. Reynolds, even though she was not a defendant or lawyer in the case. The judge, of course, denied this, citing Ms. Reynolds First Amendment rights. After this, the prosecutor obained a grand jury supoena with almost 100 subparts demanding Ms. Reynolds submit documents, e-mails, phone records, checks, bank records, credit card receipts, photographs, videos and "Facebook" communications. Ms. Reynolds challenged the subpoena arguing that the prosecutor was now trying to shut down her First Amendment rights by using the subpoena instead of the gag order to achieve the same effect. The judge denied her challenge. Ms. Reynolds appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. In support of her case, ACLU, the Institute for Justice and the Reason Foundation filed amicus briefs that were highly critical of the federal prosecutor and supporting the First Amendment issues. Citing grand jury secrecy rules, the 10th Circuit sealed those amicus briefs from public view even though everything in the briefs is a matter of public record. In yet another sealed ruling, the Court denied the motion of the parties to unseal their own amicus briefs. So not only can we not know why the Grand Jury subpoena was upheld, we can't even read the legal arguments from third parties as to why this practice may be unconstitutional. The case is now reached the Supreme Court and is awaiting a decision on cert. You may read the petition here.

November 5, 2010, 02:23 PM	#3
Musketeer Senior Member Join Date: September 12, 2005 Posts: 3,733	Theodore Roosevelt had an interesting approach to laws restricting behavior and substances which were considered irrational by the public. He advocating prosecuting them to the fullest extent possible. That was what he stated at a German American organization he was addressing with regards to the rules prohibiting the sale of alcohol on Sunday. Try telling a hall full of German American blue collar 19th century laborers that on their ONLY day off in the week (before the 5 day work week) that they could not relax with a beer. He made it out not only alive but applauded fr the following reason. His position was such unpopular laws when ignored only served to harm the common man. Whole black markets arise to meet the demand. Public officials are corrupted to turn a blind eye. More violent crime accompanies the illicit practice. In the end people still got what they wanted but the common man had to pay the burden of bribes and crime. The system was self perpetuating. He advocates ruthless prosecution of such laws. Only in such a manner would outrage reach a level where such unpopular laws would be repealed. Only through vigorous enforcement would such unpopular laws no longer burden the honest man directly or indirectly. Pretty smart if you ask me. If they really hammered down across the board on said drug laws the entire populace would reject them. Instead we go half way with outrageous government actions occurring but not at the level were people actually reject the laws. __________________ "Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." Thomas Jefferson "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin

November 5, 2010, 01:42 PM	#2
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	Anything I might say, would have to be redacted! The Government, going after pain management physicians (and those that support pain management), has a long and sordid history. The War On Some Drugs, is just another glaring example of the extreme reach of the Commerce Clause.