Article 1, Section 9, of the American Constitution

     The Constitution takes the muscle and flab of human endeavor and impulse and arranges it, like a body, into systems that have both possibilities and limitations.
     Whereas the Constitution describes the overall structure and function of our shared governing body, the Articles give specificity to certain organ systems within that body.  They outline how much power these organs--especially the three branches of the federal government--should have, how breaches should be handled, and how the body itself should go about updating or otherwise amending laws for situations that, like DNA transpositions, could not have been foreseen.  Cases, and case law, offer real-life examples of how the general statements set forth in the Constitution operate in the lives of human beings, in an if-this-then-that formulation, and serve as mini-laws, or "precedents," against which new cases can be measured and decisions induced.    
     Article 1 is a description of the powers and limitations of the federal government.  Article 1 concerns me, because it is the federal government, via its agents, which may have overstepped its limits when my office and bank accounts were raided, and Medicare's representatives declined to pay me, without giving a reason.
     Section 1 of Article 1 describes the scope of the legislature, Section 2 that of the House of Representatives, and Section 3, that of the Senate.
     Section 4 outlines the procedures for electing members of Congress, Section 5 the rules of order for conducting congressional meetings, and Section 6 compensation of elected officials.  Section 6 also describes the degree of independence Congress may exercise apart from the executive branch.
     Section 7 gives the procedure for introducing a bill and moving it into law, as well as the uses of the president's veto.  Section 8 enumerates the powers of Congress, including that stipulation that Congress can do whatever is "necessary and proper" to carry out the powers with which it is vested.  Over the years, many such powers have been deduced, or "implied," sometimes by those with a vested interest in pushing through laws that would advance a partisan cause;  therefore the powers of Congress have become broader, perhaps, than our forefathers intended.
     Section 9 outlines the limits of Congress.  Mostly it is out of date, setting a minimum tax on the importation of slaves, and prohibiting taxes on one state over another when there is transport of goods across borders.
     The two paragraphs that may apply to my situation are the following:

     The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

   and

     No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

     Article 1, Section 9 has been referenced by one of my attorneys and by occasional others, offhandedly, when they hear the general outlines of my clinic's raid, as a violation of my rights.  But as I understand it, no specific rights in this Section have been breached by the government.  Habeas corpus is a writ that allows a detained prisoner to come to court with a demand to know why he has been imprisoned.  If the detention is unlawful, the prisoner can be released by order of the court.  I have not been formally detained, therefore cannot insist on a right to know why I have been imprisoned.
     I have, however, been informally, or effectively detained, i.e.,  held hostage by the government's actions against me, and by the assumption of my criminality, made public via media coverage and underlined by the removal of $400,000 from my bank accounts--a fine, or punishment, that has been imposed before an allegation, or trial, or conviction have been tendered.
     Could a writ of habeas corpus be used to force my prosecutor to come forward with the charges against me, since I have already been ruined, in so many ways equivalent to the ruination of a citizen who has been thrown into jail without explanation, and whose public persona has been blackened?
      A "bill of attainder" is a law allowing for a person to be convicted without trial.  The stipulation that no bill of attainder shall be passed insists on the necessity for a citizen's right to a trial, before conviction.
     I have not been formally "convicted," therefore government officials may claim that I don't have a right to a trial under the circumstances.  But I have been effectively convicted, without being detained in jail, insofar as my clinic has been shackled by Medicare's unexplained refusal to pay for my services, and by the forfeiture of clinic and personal funds, rendering the clinic insolvent, and by an investigation hanging over my head like a guillotine blade for two and a half years thus far--and up to ten years, depending on the [concealed--for what reason?] charges being levied against me.
     Do I have any rights, under Article 1, Section 9?  I am going to have to review cases, going all the way back to Lincoln, of individuals who exercised their ability to issue a writ of habeas corpus, and could not be denied by the courts, as they insisted on knowing why public officials threw them in a holding tank--usually jail--but in my case a jail without bars.
     The right to know is what has been infringed.  Unless government officials can claim that we are in a state of national emergency, and that I pose an immediate threat to the public good, they are required to tell me why my clinic was raided, and why my public name has been slandered, and why I have been punished before being convicted. 
     Right?