<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Anne Hathaway Has Photos Seized by FBI</title>
	<atom:link href="http://anythinghollywood.com/2008/08/anne-hathaway-has-photos-seized-by-fbi/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://anythinghollywood.com/2008/08/anne-hathaway-has-photos-seized-by-fbi/</link>
	<description>Celebrity Gossip, Hollywood gossip, latest entertainment news, celebrity pictures and videos</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:18:19 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Billy</title>
		<link>http://anythinghollywood.com/2008/08/anne-hathaway-has-photos-seized-by-fbi/comment-page-1/#comment-108696</link>
		<dc:creator>Billy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2008 19:36:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://anythinghollywood.com/?p=6352#comment-108696</guid>
		<description>There seems to be some confusion as to just where these photos were, in Follieri&#039;s apartment ,or in a storage unit and it would be interesting to know which address was on the search warrent,  I wonder if the Judge who issued the warrent would consider nude photos constitute evidence against Follieri if not presumably there should never have been removed even if they were at the right address.   One might assume that the FBI would be required to log all items removed under a search warrent.  Perhaps M/S Hathaway shoud apply to the Judge for the return of her property as they have no bearing on the investigation for which the warrent was issued. If the Judge did agree then all items returned should be checked aginst that log.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There seems to be some confusion as to just where these photos were, in Follieri&#8217;s apartment ,or in a storage unit and it would be interesting to know which address was on the search warrent,  I wonder if the Judge who issued the warrent would consider nude photos constitute evidence against Follieri if not presumably there should never have been removed even if they were at the right address.   One might assume that the FBI would be required to log all items removed under a search warrent.  Perhaps M/S Hathaway shoud apply to the Judge for the return of her property as they have no bearing on the investigation for which the warrent was issued. If the Judge did agree then all items returned should be checked aginst that log.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.717 seconds -->
