PDA

View Full Version : Rush Limbaugh arrested: prescription fraud


memyselfI
04-28-2006, 04:28 PM
ROFL ROFL

Breaking news MSNBC. And so the CON crisis CONtinues... Perhaps his mugshot will be as attractive as his CON friend, Tom Delay. Update: his friend taught him well. This CONservative looks like anything but a CONvict. ROFL

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v212/aaargoxx/rusharrestmugshot.jpg

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060428/nyf133.html?.v=2

Settlement Agreement Ends State Investigation of Rush Limbaugh
Friday April 28, 5:57 pm ET


PALM BEACH, Fla., April 28 /PRNewswire/ -- In response to media and other inquiries, Roy Black, Rush Limbaugh's attorney, released the following statement today concerning a settlement agreement with the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office to end the investigation of Mr. Limbaugh:
"I am pleased to announce that the State Attorney's Office and Mr. Limbaugh have reached an agreement whereby a single count charge of doctor shopping filed today by the State Attorney will be dismissed in 18 months. As a primary condition of the dismissal, Mr. Limbaugh must continue to seek treatment from the doctor he has seen for the past two and one half years. This is the same doctor under whose care Mr. Limbaugh has remained free of his addiction without relapse.

"Mr. Limbaugh and I have maintained from the start that there was no doctor shopping, and we continue to hold this position. Accordingly, we filed today with the Court a plea of 'Not Guilty' to the charge filed by the State.

"As part of this agreement, Mr. Limbaugh also has agreed to make a $30,000 payment to the State of Florida to defray the public cost of the investigation. The agreement also provides that he must refrain from violating the law during this 18 months, must pay $30 per month for the cost of "supervision" and comply with other similar provisions of the agreement.

"Mr. Limbaugh had intended to remain in treatment. Thus, we believe the outcome for him personally will be much as if he had fought the charge and won."


The actions taken today are as follows:

-- The State Attorney has filed a single charge of doctor shopping with
the Court. The charge is being held in abeyance under the terms of an
agreement between the State and Mr. Limbaugh.

-- Mr. Limbaugh has filed a plea of "Not Guilty" with the Court.

The formal agreement between Mr. Limbaugh and the State Attorney will be filed with the Court on Monday. The terms of the agreement are substantively as follows:


-- Mr. Limbaugh will continue in treatment with the doctor he has seen for
the past two and one half years.

-- After Mr. Limbaugh completes an additional 18 months of treatment, the
State Attorney has agreed to drop the charge.

-- Mr. Limbaugh has agreed to make a $30,000 payment to the State of
Florida to defray the public cost of the investigation.

patteeu
04-28-2006, 04:38 PM
Looks like this is the state's way of saving face. I'd guess that Limbaugh will be partying tonight (legal intoxicants only) now that the investigation is being shut down.

Sully
04-28-2006, 04:38 PM
Thus, we believe the outcome for him personally will be much as if he had fought the charge and won."




He would've paid $30,000 to Florida had he won?

patteeu
04-28-2006, 04:39 PM
He would've paid $30,000 to Florida had he won?

He would have probably paid more than $30,000 to Roy Black if he won.

memyselfI
04-28-2006, 04:42 PM
Looks like this is the state's way of saving face.

baaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Yes, I'm sure Rush Limbaugh willingly accepted the appearance of guilt just to help the state of FL 'save face.' ROFL ROFL ROFL

Perhaps you could spare some of what you are smokin for Rush's slush fund...

patteeu
04-28-2006, 04:47 PM
baaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Yes, I'm sure Rush Limbaugh willingly accepted the appearance of guilt just to help the state of FL 'save face.' ROFL ROFL ROFL

Perhaps you could spare some of what you are smokin for Rush's slush fund...

What appearance of guilt? He was charged, he plead not guilty, and unless he violates the terms of the agreement, the charges will be dropped. Normally when that happens, people recognize it as a failed prosecution not an appearance of guilt. This agreement screams weak case on the part of the prosecution. The carrot that they've offered Limbaugh is the agreement to stop rocking his boat by investigating him.

memyselfI
04-28-2006, 04:52 PM
What appearance of guilt? He was charged, he plead not guilty, and unless he violates the terms of the agreement, the charges will be dropped. Normally when that happens, people recognize it as a failed prosecution not an appearance of guilt. This agreement screams weak case on the part of the prosecution. The carrot that they've offered Limbaugh is the agreement to stop rocking his boat by investigating him.

Oh please, they probably had so much on him that it would destroy his career. He did this just as much to save his personal shortcomings from coming to light as he did for any other reason...

seeing that it would be really hard for him to be blasting other people's shortcomings while his own were being openly exposed. He was so angry and determined to fight the state of FL that there is no way in hell he would have willingly taken this deal unless it was to avoid further hardship either financially, professionally, or his personal freedom. I heard him say numerous times that he was going to fight the charges with every fiber of his 'glorious naked body' because this was nothing more than a political witch hunt.

Paying the state of FL 30k for their investigation costs is NOT fighting with every fiber of your being.

memyselfI
04-28-2006, 04:58 PM
The entertainment value of the shock and confusion on the Free Republic board cannot be overstated. ROFL ROFL ROFL


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1623446/posts

patteeu
04-28-2006, 05:00 PM
Oh please, they probably had so much on him that it would destroy his career. He did this just as much to save his personal shortcomings from coming to light as he did for any other reason...

seeing that it would be really hard for him to be blasting other people's shortcomings while his own were being openly exposed. He was so angry and determined to fight the state of FL that there is no way in hell he would have willingly taken this deal unless it was to avoid further hardship either financially, professionally, or his personal freedom. I heard him say numerous times that he was going to fight the charges with every fiber of his 'glorious naked body' because this was nothing more than a political witch hunt.

Paying the state of FL 30k for their investigation costs is NOT fighting with every fiber of your being.

Oh please, if they had so much on him that it would have destroyed his career, they would have either gone through with a prosecution or they would have insisted on a guilty plea as a part of the plea agreement. I'm sure that avoiding a trial, even if the case was weak, was worth something to Limbaugh, but getting off completely and avoiding the publicity of a trial for $30K is a huge bargain for someone with his wealth.

patteeu
04-28-2006, 05:02 PM
I see that you've reduced the number of ROFL 's introducing your OP. I guess that means you've lost a little confidence in how damning this piece of news really is. haha

JBucc
04-28-2006, 05:03 PM
HA!

memyselfI
04-28-2006, 05:05 PM
I see that you've reduced the number of ROFL 's introducing your OP. I guess that means you've lost a little confidence in how damning this piece of news really is. haha

Not at all. I didn't want to detract from the SUPERSIZED mug shot.

But you are on a roll with the spinning so, please, continue. ROFL ROFL ROFL

memyselfI
04-28-2006, 05:07 PM
Oh please, if they had so much on him that it would have destroyed his career, they would have either gone through with a prosecution or they would have insisted on a guilty plea as a part of the plea agreement. I'm sure that avoiding a trial, even if the case was weak, was worth something to Limbaugh, but getting off completely and avoiding the publicity of a trial for $30K is a huge bargain for someone with his wealth.

So paying off someone who was out to get you is an ok thing to do after you swore and vowed to fight on principle. Yep, that sounds like Rush and his CONbots.

Adept Havelock
04-28-2006, 05:12 PM
I don't care for the man, myself. I do wish him well with his recovery. Admitting that you have a problem is only the first step on a very long road.

Hillbilly Heroin is potent enough that it's likely more difficult to kick than most.

memyselfI
04-28-2006, 05:13 PM
I don't care for the man, myself. I do wish him well with his recovery. Admitting that you have a problem is only the first step on a very long road.

Hillbilly Heroin is potent enough that it's likely more difficult to kick than most.

Yep, he just admitted he's a junkie if not one lucky SOB that would never get this treatment if he were Joe Blow on blow.

memyselfI
04-28-2006, 05:16 PM
OMG, Patteeu is Matt Drudge.

http://www.drudgereport.com/

jAZ
04-28-2006, 05:25 PM
Looks like this is the state's way of saving face. I'd guess that Limbaugh will be partying tonight (legal intoxicants only) now that the investigation is being shut down.
patteeu = cognitive dissonance.

patteeu
04-28-2006, 06:05 PM
So paying off someone who was out to get you is an ok thing to do after you swore and vowed to fight on principle. Yep, that sounds like Rush and his CONbots.

It's the rational thing to do.

Option A: You pay $30,000 to the state and the hassle of the investigation is guaranteed to go away without a trial or a conviction, versus

Option B: You pay more than $30,000 to your lawyer and you have something less than 100% chance of getting the problem off your back AND the investigation drags on AND if you go to court you have to deal with the publicity

The rational choice is to take option A regardless of what statements Limbaugh has made in the past. It happens all the time in the business world.

Not at all. I didn't want to detract from the SUPERSIZED mug shot.

But you are on a roll with the spinning so, please, continue. ROFL ROFL ROFL

I was just joking about your reason for reducing the number of ROFL's :)

memyselfI
04-28-2006, 06:14 PM
It's the rational thing to do.




It's also the way to keep your past private when you have things to hide... :hmmm:

penchief
04-28-2006, 06:23 PM
Yep, he just admitted he's a junkie if not one lucky SOB that would never get this treatment if he were Joe Blow on blow.

I wonder if he'll count his lucky hypocritical stars instead of maintaining his boundless arrogance. Will the junkie be so bold as to continue bashing junkies? Will he continue to bash the justice system's light treatment of junkies when he got off so lightly? Will he continue to bash the Civil Liberties Union when he solicited their help?

What kind of person is Rush? Is he an honest Henny Penny or just an opportunist?

memyselfI
04-28-2006, 06:26 PM
I wonder if he'll count his lucky hypocritical stars instead of maintaining his boundless arrogance. Will the junkie be so bold as to continue bashing junkies? Will he continue to bash the justice system's light treatment of junkies when he got off so lightly? Will he continue to bash the Civil Liberties Union when he solicited their help?

What kind of person is Rush? Is he an honest Henny Penny or just an opportunist?

He's a CON. Nuff said.

patteeu
04-28-2006, 06:50 PM
I wonder if he'll count his lucky hypocritical stars instead of maintaining his boundless arrogance. Will the junkie be so bold as to continue bashing junkies? Will he continue to bash the justice system's light treatment of junkies when he got off so lightly? Will he continue to bash the Civil Liberties Union when he solicited their help?

What kind of person is Rush? Is he an honest Henny Penny or just an opportunist?

When was the last time he bashed junkies or the justice system's treatment of junkies?

Regarding the ACLU, would you continue to bash George Bush if he stopped to help you change your tire at the side of the road?

the Talking Can
04-28-2006, 07:20 PM
OJ is innocent.

Boyceofsummer
04-28-2006, 07:25 PM
is that he was a confessed addict and drug abuser. Yet, during the course of his addiction there were no apparent physical or mental symptoms. The longest war continues. The drug war. It should have never been fought and can never be won. The problem is, this issue goes against the grain of a conservative political wedge issue.

memyselfI
04-28-2006, 08:11 PM
baaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Greta Van Sustern is on right now with a panel of FOUR pizzed off criminal defense lawyers just BASHING the shit out of drug addict Rush getting off when Joe Blow would get prison. Greta was contorted like a pretzel trying to defend him. I don't think I've ever seen a panel unanimously agree vs. the host like that.

Of course Rush would NEVAH condone going easy on drug users:


"Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up."

-- Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript.

What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug use, too many whites are getting away with drug sales, too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too."
-- Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript.

Ugly Duck
04-28-2006, 08:24 PM
Can someone explain this to the slow people for me? Does this mean that Mr. Hillbilly Heroin is getting off with no jail time?

Ari Chi3fs
04-28-2006, 08:36 PM
He would be ****ed if his name was Martha Limbaugh

memyselfI
04-28-2006, 08:42 PM
He would be ****ed if his name was Martha Limbaugh

ROFL :clap: ROFL :clap: ROFL :clap:

patteeu
04-28-2006, 08:47 PM
Of course Rush would NEVAH condone going easy on drug users:

"NEVAH?" Are those the most recent quotes on the subject that you could find? 1995? It's been a while.

patteeu
04-28-2006, 08:48 PM
Can someone explain this to the slow people for me? Does this mean that Mr. Hillbilly Heroin is getting off with no jail time?

He's getting off without a trial, without a conviction, and without any jail time. The prosecutor basically threw in the towel.

memyselfI
04-28-2006, 08:51 PM
"NEVAH?" Are those the most recent quotes on the subject that you could find? 1995? It's been a while.

Yeah, about as long as he's been a junkie...

seems that, like most CONS, his song changed when it was his life that faced an issue he railed against.

patteeu
04-28-2006, 08:51 PM
He would be ****ed if his name was Martha Limbaugh

I think Martha was screwed although (a) she got a relatively light sentence, and (b) the case against her, as misguided as it was, was pretty solid.

patteeu
04-28-2006, 08:57 PM
Yeah, about as long as he's been a junkie...

seems that, like most CONS, his song changed when it was his life that faced the issue he railed against.

I think a more accurate description would be that "like most PEOPLE, his views changed based on his life experiences." He's a lot more likely to be critical of the potential for prosecutorial abuse now that he's experienced it. In any event, the charge of hypocrisy leveled by penchief is out of place in this circumstance.

Just in the past month or two he was critical of something the Bush administration was doing despite protests from his callers and he attributed his stand to the experience he's had with the Florida authorities. I can't remember the exact subject though.

P.S. Just for the record, in your previous post, you said he'd "NEVAH" take a more moderate stand on the penalties for drug use and in this post you admit that he might (even if you attribute this change of attitude to impure motivations).

Chief Henry
05-01-2006, 10:16 AM
OOPS, guess who's hosting his show today !!!!

So much for that arrest that mefistmewithabroomhandle posted ROFL

Amnorix
05-01-2006, 10:52 AM
What appearance of guilt? He was charged, he plead not guilty, and unless he violates the terms of the agreement, the charges will be dropped. Normally when that happens, people recognize it as a failed prosecution not an appearance of guilt. This agreement screams weak case on the part of the prosecution. The carrot that they've offered Limbaugh is the agreement to stop rocking his boat by investigating him.


Yeah, uhh....no.

Something like 90% of charges brought do not get tried. Most are plea bargained in some fashion. The settlement represents just that and nothing more -- a SETTLEMENT. If the case was that weak, it would've been tossed or the prosecutor would've dropped it.

It's not a "failed prosecution", just a settled case. One of millions...

Amnorix
05-01-2006, 10:53 AM
I think Martha was screwed although (a) she got a relatively light sentence, and (b) the case against her, as misguided as it was, was pretty solid.


Misguided? HTF was it misguided?! She was either guilty as hell or stupid as hell. Either way, she deserved what she got. There's no "I didn't know" in securities laws...

Chief Henry
05-01-2006, 11:01 AM
Yeah, uhh....no.

Something like 90% of charges brought do not get tried. Most are plea bargained in some fashion. The settlement represents just that and nothing more -- a SETTLEMENT. If the case was that weak, it would've been tossed or the prosecutor would've dropped it.

It's not a "failed prosecution", just a settled case. One of millions...



If that prosecutor would have had a remote possibilty of dragging
RUSH through more MUCK he would have. The prosecutor had nothing.

Baby Lee
05-01-2006, 11:02 AM
Yeah, uhh....no.

Something like 90% of charges brought do not get tried. Most are plea bargained in some fashion. The settlement represents just that and nothing more -- a SETTLEMENT. If the case was that weak, it would've been tossed or the prosecutor would've dropped it.

It's not a "failed prosecution", just a settled case. One of millions...
You have to admit, a filed charge, with a 'not guilty plea' and agreement to drop the charge without any action, is pretty novel.
This isn't a plea bargain for a guilty plea on a lesser charge, and it's not an SIS.
At the end, Rush will still have the authority to proclaim innocence. There is no plea, there is no prosecution, just unproven charges. And in America, innocent until proven guilty.

BucEyedPea
05-01-2006, 11:35 AM
Misguided? HTF was it misguided?! She was either guilty as hell or stupid as hell. Either way, she deserved what she got. There's no "I didn't know" in securities laws...

Awe come on...did anyone really follow this case from a legal perspective?
Or did everyone just go by the themedia/govt sensationalism?

True Charges (http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts58.html)
Mrs. Stewart was neither charged with, nor found guilty of, insider trading.

Martha was found guilty for not telling the truth about a legal stock tip. She lied about a non-crime while gov’t investigator’s lied to her.

The laws governing "insider trading," clearly state that alleged violators must have a "fiduciary" relationship with the firm in question. Martha Stewart had no such relationship.

In order to get a conviction, any conviction to send a message to other corporate executives, Comey tried to stretch the legal envelope, considered by some as a "new legal twist" and wound up only being able to pin her with the charge of lying (something that investigators did to her) soley because she defended herself. This is actually fraud of highest order by the govt and which caused the real damage to the shareholders.

Meanwhile NO one was harmed by what Stewart did.

The reason why ImClone shares were set to fall in the first place was due to an incompetent Food and Drug Administration's decision to reject the firm’s request to market their cancer drug—a decision it would hypocritically reverse.

Cochise
05-01-2006, 12:15 PM
You have to admit, a filed charge, with a 'not guilty plea' and agreement to drop the charge without any action, is pretty novel.
This isn't a plea bargain for a guilty plea on a lesser charge, and it's not an SIS.
At the end, Rush will still have the authority to proclaim innocence. There is no plea, there is no prosecution, just unproven charges. And in America, innocent until proven guilty.

Thanks for the actual legal synopsis :thumb:

(not that I don't value the legal opinions of a couch beast that I got in the thread starter or anything... ;) )

patteeu
05-01-2006, 01:25 PM
Yeah, uhh....no.

Something like 90% of charges brought do not get tried. Most are plea bargained in some fashion. The settlement represents just that and nothing more -- a SETTLEMENT.

It's not a "failed prosecution", just a settled case. One of millions...

Although it was indeed a settlement, it's not very accurate to call this a plea bargain. In plea bargains, the accused agrees to plead "guilty" to something (usually in order to avoid the possibility of being found guilty of a crime with more serious consequences but sometimes in order to get the prosecutor to support a lesser penalty for the same crime). In this case, the plea is "not guilty." This settlement is more similar to a diversion program than a plea bargain, but what it really is is the most slender of fig leafs behind which this prosecutor can hide from accusations of a complete defeat.

patteeu
05-01-2006, 01:30 PM
Misguided? HTF was it misguided?! She was either guilty as hell or stupid as hell. Either way, she deserved what she got. There's no "I didn't know" in securities laws...

No, like I said, the case against her for lying to prosecutors/investigators was pretty solid, but what was misguided was the whole witchhunt in the first place. She didn't violate any securities laws (or any non-proceedural laws of any kind) and that should have been apparent to investigators from the very beginning. And the stretch that the prosecutor was pursuing for a while that she defrauded her own company's shareholders by publicly announcing that the investigation into ImClone wouldn't have a signficant impact on her (or some such nonsense) was ridiculous.

DanT
05-01-2006, 03:25 PM
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_050106/content/rushstatement050106.guest.html



RUSH: Before we get into the news of the day, let me take a stab at explaining what happened on Friday since I'm the one that did everything and I'm the one that was involved, and so I know what happened. The sum total of all of this is the case is over, and the operative words that everybody needs to understand here are "not guilty." Not guilty. On Friday I went over to the Palm Beach County Jail in the first step of a process to end this two-year, seven-month investigation of me by the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office. It is now officially at an end. Now, I have maintained from the start of this, folks, that there was no doctor shopping.

I continue to hold this position formally. We have filed with the court a plea of not guilty to a single charge of doctor shopping that the state attorney's office has filed. Additionally, my attorneys and the state attorney's office have jointly filed an agreement with the court under which I will continue treatment for the next 18 months with the same doctor that I have been seeing since I came out of the rehabilitation center in November of 2003 for dependence on prescription pain medication. Now, that charge, the single charge of doctor shopping, will be held in abeyance until that 18 months of treatment has been completed, at which point the charges filed by the state attorney's office will be dismissed, and I'll tell you why I agreed to do this.

From my point of view, the end result will be as if I had gone to court and won, but the matter is concluded much sooner, and at much less expense for both me and for the public. I have spent thousands of hours and millions of dollars with lawyers over the past 2.7 months fighting this at every stage. We finally got a favorable ruling from the last judge to hear a ruling, rule on a motion in this case, in which he basically told the government that, "Well, you can talk to Mr. Limbaugh's doctors but you can't ask them anything that'll help you unless he waves his privacy privilege, and I don't think Mr. Limbaugh is going to do that."

So the matter has been put to bed. I'm thrilled that it's behind me. It's my understanding the state attorney is also pleased and thinks that this is the correct outcome based on the facts in the case, and that's fine with me. The case is closed. Now, let me address what happened on Friday afternoon. By the way, I've got the numbers from the Cure-A-Thon. We set a record. Over $1.7 million raised for leukemia and lymphoma on Friday. We knew we were setting records and we were, as I say, apprehensive about it because gas prices being up and all the Drive-By Media news about the terrible economy, all the doom and gloom that's out there every day.

...


I don't see how agreeing to give the state $30,000 after already spending millions of dollars is the same as "(going) to court and (winning)". Is it a win to give the state $30,000 to pay for their criminal investigation into your behavior? That's not what I'd call a win. That's what I'd call a shakedown.

memyselfI
05-01-2006, 03:26 PM
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_050106/content/rushstatement050106.guest.html



I don't see how agreeing to give the state $30,000 after already spending millions of dollars is the same as "(going) to court and (winning)". Is it a win to give the state $30,000 to pay for their criminal investigation into your behavior? That's not what I'd call a win. That's what I'd call a shakedown.

He's spinning. He's trying to find a way to say he won after fighting as hard as he possibly could for as long as necessary because that is what he vowed to do on MANY occasions on his radio show.

Chief Henry
05-01-2006, 03:36 PM
He gotcha again...

Chief Henry
05-01-2006, 03:41 PM
You guys were foaming at the mouth on all these charges and counts of Doctor shopping and
ahem, money laundering. This is what your
relagated too. Your saying Rush is Spinning.
LOL

patteeu
05-01-2006, 03:42 PM
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_050106/content/rushstatement050106.guest.html



I don't see how agreeing to give the state $30,000 after already spending millions of dollars is the same as "(going) to court and (winning)". Is it a win to give the state $30,000 to pay for their criminal investigation into your behavior? That's not what I'd call a win. That's what I'd call a shakedown.

I'd agree with the "shakedown" description. OTOH, from the perspective of Rush, paying the state money that would have otherwise gone to his lawyers, never changing his stance that he's innocent and continuing with the rehab program that he's already in and, according to him, that he'd planned on continuing anyway, doesn't sound much different from winning in court in terms of non-emotional costs and benefits.

Amnorix
05-01-2006, 03:42 PM
If that prosecutor would have had a remote possibilty of dragging
RUSH through more MUCK he would have. The prosecutor had nothing.


You're assuming that the prosecutor is just a political hack. While some are, some aren't.

And all cases have their strengths and weaknesses. It would make little sense to spend many thousands of taxpayers money battling top legal defense talent over what is, essentially, not exactly a Brink's robbery.

Amnorix
05-01-2006, 03:44 PM
You have to admit, a filed charge, with a 'not guilty plea' and agreement to drop the charge without any action, is pretty novel.
This isn't a plea bargain for a guilty plea on a lesser charge, and it's not an SIS.
At the end, Rush will still have the authority to proclaim innocence. There is no plea, there is no prosecution, just unproven charges. And in America, innocent until proven guilty.

No, it's not. It's SOP for the SEC, I know, and I believe for the IRS as well.

It's especially common in high profile cases, where you can negotiate the whole thing ahead of time and avoid turning a molehill into a mountain unnecessarily.

It is, essentially, a plea bargain. This kind of manuever is also common for kids under 18 in some states where the whole file will be burned if the kid stays clean from the date of the incident to his 18th birthday.

Amnorix
05-01-2006, 03:47 PM
Although it was indeed a settlement, it's not very accurate to call this a plea bargain. In plea bargains, the accused agrees to plead "guilty" to something (usually in order to avoid the possibility of being found guilty of a crime with more serious consequences but sometimes in order to get the prosecutor to support a lesser penalty for the same crime). In this case, the plea is "not guilty." This settlement is more similar to a diversion program than a plea bargain, but what it really is is the most slender of fig leafs behind which this prosecutor can hide from accusations of a complete defeat.

:shake:

It's a plea bargain, but not a standard one. The plea bargained for is not a plea of guilty to a lesser included offense, which is what you usually see. But what you have is an agreement between the accused and the DA's office. Call it whatever you want, but plea bargain fits as well as any other phrase.

Chief Henry
05-01-2006, 03:53 PM
And all cases have their strengths and weaknesses. It would make little sense to spend many thousands of taxpayers money battling top legal defense talent over what is, essentially, not exactly a Brink's robbery.


My Bull Shit detector just went off the charts. The prosecutor would have loved to have been the one to nail MR. BIG. The dems woul dhave ran him for a Senate seat and then President.

Rush Limbaugh is at the top of the Libs target "Hit List". Rush just
stuck his tongue out at the libs again.

DanT
05-01-2006, 04:09 PM
:shake:

It's a plea bargain, but not a standard one. The plea bargained for is not a plea of guilty to a lesser included offense, which is what you usually see. But what you have is an agreement between the accused and the DA's office. Call it whatever you want, but plea bargain fits as well as any other phrase.

According to both definitions of plea bargain on www.dictionary.com, in order for something to be a plea bargain, there has to be a guilty plea. Mr. Limbaugh has not pled guilty to any charge, so his agreement with the prosecutors is not a plea bargain, it seems to me.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=plea%20bargain
plea-bar·gain (plbärgn)
intr.v. plea-bar·gained, plea-bar·gain·ing, plea-bar·gains
To make an agreement in which a defendant pleads guilty to a lesser charge and the prosecutor in return drops more serious charges.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
plea bargain n.
plea-bargain·ing n.


Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


plea bargain

n : (criminal law) a negotiation in which the defendant agrees to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser charge and the prosecutor agrees to drop a more serious charge; "his admission was part of a plea bargain with the prosecutor"; "plea bargaining helps to stop the courts becoming congested" [syn: plea bargaining]


Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

DanT
05-01-2006, 04:14 PM
Here's the text of a newspaper article that is available from Roy Black's website. Mr. Black is Mr. Limbaugh's attorney.

http://www.royblack.com/notable_cases/rush/sunsentinel_dec13_05.html

JUDGE: DOCTORS CAN'T BE ASKED ABOUT LIMBAUGH'S CONDITION

Publication: Sun-Sentinel
Date: Tuesday, Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Written By: John Coté


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If Palm Beach County prosecutors decide to charge Rush Limbaugh for his prescription drug use, they'll have to do it without questioning the conservative radio host's doctors about his medical condition, a judge ruled Monday.

Prosecutors can subpoena Limbaugh's physicians in connection with a "doctor shopping" investigation but can't ask them many meaningful questions unless the Palm Beach resident has been charged, Circuit Judge David Crow ruled.

If prosecutors charge Limbaugh with illegally obtaining overlapping prescriptions from different doctors, his physicians can be subpoenaed and fully questioned at a deposition, hearing or trial, Crow wrote.

Until then, the doctors can't be asked about "the medical condition of the patient [or] any information disclosed to the healthcare practitioner by the patient in the course of the care and treatment of the patient," Crow wrote.

The decision restricts prosecutors' options but also outlines limits to legal protection for physician-patient communication during a criminal investigation.

It came amid Limbaugh's latest effort to raise privacy concerns as prosecutors investigate whether he secretly obtained overlapping prescriptions in a 30-day period.

Limbaugh waged a legal battle to prevent prosecutors from viewing his medical records, which were seized in late 2003. A judge in July released parts of the records to investigators.

Prosecutors are investigating prescriptions Limbaugh received from Florida and California doctors between March 2003 and September 2003, when he allegedly picked up 1,733 hydrocodone, 90 OxyContin, 50 Xanax and 40 time-release morphine pills, search warrants show.

Limbaugh, 54, has not been charged with a crime.

The latest legal skirmish arose after prosecutors sought to question one of his doctors.

It was "common sense" that state investigators would be allowed to question doctors after a court turned , prosecutor James Martz argued at a November hearing.

"I would be devastated, and I kid you not, to go forward with a case against Rush Limbaugh or anybody else in the state of Florida, to find out at trial, ... [when] I actually get to hear what the writer intended, that we put somebody through a criminal prosecution wrongly," Martz said. Prosecutors declined to comment on Monday's ruling, calling the case an ongoing investigation.

Limbaugh's attorney, Roy Black, said he was pleased.

"The state cannot ask the doctors its questions posed to the court during the hearing," Black said in a statement. "We've said from the start that there was no doctor shopping, but Mr. Limbaugh should not have to give up his right to doctor-patient confidentiality to prove his innocence."

The ruling, though, rejected Black's argument that physicians and patients enjoy a legal privilege comparable to that between attorney and client.

The law provides for medical confidentiality, the judge wrote, but that does not extend to the courtroom if "that information is shown to be relevant to the prosecution of a crime."

DanT
05-01-2006, 04:20 PM
Here's another article from Mr. Black's website.

http://www.royblack.com/notable_cases/rush/pbpost_jan21_05.html

LIMBAUGH MAKES APPEAL TO HIGH COURT

Publication: Palm Beach Post
Date: Friday, January 21, 2005
Written By: Susan Spencer-Wendel


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conservative radio king Rush Limbaugh laid out his legal argument over the seizure of his medical records for Florida's highest court Thursday, the first step in landing his case there.

Lawyers for Limbaugh wrote in filings before the Florida Supreme Court that local prosecutors deliberately violated Florida law and seized his medical records without first notifying Limbaugh, a violation of his privacy rights.

"The state chose... to fish through Mr. Limbaugh's medical records and see 'what it can charge, if anything,' " wrote attorneys for Limbaugh, quoting what the prosecutor had once said in court.

Prosecutors must now file their argument within 20 days. They are expected to highlight the age-old right for criminal investigators to seize evidence with search warrants, as they did in Limbaugh's case.

The high court could still decline to hear Limbaugh's appeal.

Limbaugh is asking justices to overturn a 2-1 appeals court ruling he lost last year when the panel ruled that Florida's medical privacy laws don't apply to search warrants.

Limbaugh's unlikely ally, the left-leaning American Civil Liberties Union, has joined the fight, saying the seizure negatively affected the privacy rights of all Floridians. The ACLU also filed their brief before the high court Thursday.

Limbaugh, 54, has not been charged with any crime. Prosecutors seized his medical records from four different doctors in November 2003 while investigating whether he "doctor-shopped," or asked different doctors for overlapping prescriptions. Limbaugh has said he became addicted to painkillers year ago after undergoing spinal surgery.

Assistant State Attorney James Martz, the line prosecutor who's handled the case to date, said Thursday that he will be writing the response for the high court. That signals that one of Florida's most prominent Republican lawyers will not be stepping in to help the state.

State Attorney Barry Krischer and former attorney general candidate Tom Warner had discussed Warner joining their team for the appeal.

Krischer's spokesman declined to comment on the matter Thursday. Warner did not return calls for comment.

Chief Henry
05-01-2006, 04:27 PM
All of this for 40 pills. 40 freaking pills and Rush had to get his named run through the MUCK for 40 PILLS...unbeleavable.

oldandslow
05-01-2006, 04:41 PM
I love the way neo-cons on this board are defending a thrice divorced, drug addicted, draft deferring, failing out of college, blowhard.

You have a paragon of virtue right there fellas.

Says all I need to know about the movement.

Sully
05-01-2006, 04:52 PM
The libs don't need to get this to hammer Limbaugh.
His lies are apparent almost daily. He is proven wrong so many times in his show I can't believe he's the lamp-post that some make him out to be (on either side). Al Franken owns him.

Chief Henry
05-01-2006, 05:01 PM
The libs don't need to get this to hammer Limbaugh.
His lies are apparent almost daily. He is proven wrong so many times in his show I can't believe he's the lamp-post that some make him out to be (on either side). Al Franken owns him.
ROFL

Adept Havelock
05-01-2006, 05:08 PM
I love the way neo-cons on this board are defending a thrice divorced, drug addicted, draft deferring, failing out of college, blowhard.

You have a paragon of virtue right there fellas.

Says all I need to know about the movement.
ROFL :clap:

Chief Henry
05-01-2006, 05:14 PM
I love the way neo-cons on this board are defending a thrice divorced, drug addicted, draft deferring, failing out of college, blowhard.

You have a paragon of virtue right there fellas.

Says all I need to know about the movement.



Sounds like "forward" written for the Ted Kennedy Bio if you ask me.

Adept Havelock
05-01-2006, 05:42 PM
Well, at least the hillbilly heroin junkie will have a good reason to stay clean.

Random drug testing and giving up the right to possess a firearm is part of his deal.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12578855/

Best of luck, Rush. Of all the addictions, kicking opiates ranks among the toughest. Maybe the fear of testing positive will help keep him clean.

Meanwhile, for those who possess or help others possess OxyC through fraudulent or illegal means, the penalities are a little more severe if you don't have buddies in the state and federal administrations:

The statutory maximum penalties for these offenses are twenty (20) years’ imprisonment and a $1,000,000 fine for each count of possession of OxyContin with intent to distribute and conspiracy to do so; four years’ imprisonment and a $250,000 fine for each count of acquiring or obtaining possession of OxyContin by misrepresentation and fraud; and ten (10) years’ imprisonment and a $250,000 fine for health care fraud and conspiracy commit health care fraud.

What a lovely double standard being defended by our resident neo-con apologists. Then again, what do you expect from Limbaugh fans? :D

http://www.dea.gov/pubs/pressrel/pr080405.html

All of this for 40 pills. 40 freaking pills and Rush had to get his named run through the MUCK for 40 PILLS...unbeleavable.

Looks like he got off easy. Those 40 pills carry a hell of a penalty for anyone else, i.e. up to 4 years in the pokey and $250,000 in fines. And that's for 1 prescription obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. I'm sure he got and maintined his addiction for years off of only 1. :rolleyes:

BTW- His name wasn't run through the muck. That pig has wallowed in muck for years. Heh., Maybe that's a little harsh on pigs. Besides, pigs are smarter. :D

patteeu
05-01-2006, 06:45 PM
I love the way neo-cons on this board are defending a thrice divorced, drug addicted, draft deferring, failing out of college, blowhard.

You have a paragon of virtue right there fellas.

Says all I need to know about the movement.

Again, you seem to be confusing neocons with social conservatives, and (perhaps) this board's libertarian conservatives with both.

patteeu
05-01-2006, 06:48 PM
What a lovely double standard being defended by our resident neo-con apologists.

What's the double standard and which resident neo-con apologists are defending it?

Adept Havelock
05-01-2006, 07:17 PM
What's the double standard and which resident neo-con apologists are defending it?


Double Standard: Harsh DEA penalties for OxyC are apparently fine in other cases, but horrible when applied to the neo-con Hillbilly Heroin abusing spokesperson. After all, it's only because they were trying to get a "Rush".

Neo-Con Apologist-Chief Henry.

But you likely knew that already, and for some reason felt a need to be purposefully obtuse. As usual. :rolleyes:

In the interest of clarity, I'll retract "Neo-con" and amend it to "conservative".

If it had been "John Doe" who got nabbed obtaining OxyC like Rush did, you can bet the DEA would have done more, if only to hype the endless money pit that is the "War On Drugs". JMO.

patteeu
05-01-2006, 08:22 PM
Double Standard: Harsh DEA penalties for OxyC are apparently fine in other cases, but horrible when applied to the neo-con Hillbilly Heroin abusing spokesperson. After all, it's only because they were trying to get a "Rush".

Neo-Con Apologist-Chief Henry.

But you likely knew that already, and for some reason felt a need to be purposefully obtuse. As usual. :rolleyes:

In the interest of clarity, I'll retract "Neo-con" and amend it to "conservative".

If it had been "John Doe" who got nabbed obtaining OxyC like Rush did, you can bet the DEA would have done more, if only to hype the endless money pit that is the "War On Drugs". JMO.

I just wanted to make sure what you were talking about before I called it :BS:

If Chief Henry or any other resident here has defended that double standard I've missed it. He may have and I certainly don't follow every thread on this board, but I don't remember the subject being discussed at all.

Is it a double standard to be against the War on Drugs unless a high profile conservative is the target?

Adept Havelock
05-01-2006, 08:35 PM
Is it a double standard to be against the War on Drugs unless a high profile conservative is the target?


Considering that I actually agree with the idea that "judicially-enhanced" recovery is a FAR better approach than chucking someone in jail, even if they are a right-wing hypocritical blowhard, I wouldn't know. :p

However, hypothetically speaking if one is in opposition to the WOD except as it applies to Rush, then yes. They would be just as big a hypocrite as one who supports the inane WOD except as it applies to their favorite purveyor of on-air :BS:

Neither of which has anything to do with my finding it hypocritical if there is a dual standard of justice, (i.e. one for me and another for thee) as clearly exhibited in this case. Where it occurs once, it occurs again, until it rots the whole system. Personally, I have a problem with that.

Hope that clears it up for you, patty. ;)

patteeu
05-01-2006, 09:01 PM
Considering that I actually agree with the idea that "judicially-enhanced" recovery is a FAR better approach than chucking someone in jail, even if they are a right-wing hypocritical blowhard, I wouldn't know. :p

Fair enough.

However, hypothetically speaking if one is in opposition to the WOD except as it applies to Rush, then yes. They would be just as big a hypocrite as one who supports the inane WOD except as it applies to their favorite purveyor of on-air :BS:

I think there is at least as much hypocrisy around here coming from the side that normally wouldn't be cheerleaders for the WoD as there is from the drug warriors side. To be honest, I don't see a lot of people advocating harsh penalties for drug users around here.

Neither of which has anything to do with my finding it hypocritical if there is a dual standard of justice, (i.e. one for me and another for thee) as clearly exhibited in this case. Where it occurs once, it occurs again, until it rots the whole system. Personally, I have a problem with that.

It might be considered a dual standard of justice, I suppose, but I think the biggest thing here is that Limbaugh had enough resources to hire the best attorneys and put up a protracted fight rather than any double standard on the prosecutorial or judicial sides. (This may be what you are referring to, but I'm not sure).

If anything, I suspect that there was a prosecutorial bias against Mr. Limbaugh as I doubt that the authorities would have been too interested in the average oxycodon end user. For example, no one seemed very interested in prosecuting Brett Favre and you almost never hear of oxycodon prosecutions unless the defendant is accused of trafficing.

Hope that clears it up for you, patty. ;)

Thanks for the help. :)

Frankie
05-02-2006, 12:28 AM
Rush Limbaugh arrested:....
Limbaugh to Neo-Cons = Jimmy Swaggert to Bible clutchers

And the parallel is eerie.

Frankie
05-02-2006, 12:30 AM
Limbaugh to Neo-Cons = Jimmy Swaggert to Bible clutchers

And the parallel is eerie.
Disclaimer: The term "Bible-clutcher" here is not to describe those who practice their with intelligence and open mind.

go bowe
05-02-2006, 12:37 AM
disclaimer?

what, are you turning into a freakin' lawyer now, frankie?

Frankie
05-02-2006, 12:40 AM
disclaimer?

what, are you turning into a freakin' lawyer now, frankie?
Nah. But I just could see the resident CP worms coming out and muddy up the point. Just wanted to make sure I'd hush'em up before they did.

go bowe
05-02-2006, 12:44 AM
. . . Is it a double standard to be against the War on Drugs unless a high profile conservative is the target?no, of course not... :shake: :shake: :shake:

go bowe
05-02-2006, 12:45 AM
Nah. But I just could see the resident CP worms coming out and muddy up the point. Just wanted to make sure I'd hush'em up before they did.heh, good luck with that...

memyselfI
05-02-2006, 05:18 AM
It might be considered a dual standard of justice, I suppose, but I think the biggest thing here is that Limbaugh had enough resources to hire the best attorneys and put up a protracted fight rather than any double standard on the prosecutorial or judicial sides. (This may be what you are referring to, but I'm not sure).

If anything, I suspect that there was a prosecutorial bias against Mr. Limbaugh as I doubt that the authorities would have been too interested in the average oxycodon end user. For example, no one seemed very interested in prosecuting Brett Favre and you almost never hear of oxycodon prosecutions unless the defendant is accused of trafficing.



Thanks for the help. :)

I'm not for harsh penalties for drug addicts...

rather, I'd just like Rush to obtain the type of justice he wanted for others for himself. You've seen his quotes. The fact that he got addicted to 'legal' drugs after an accident should not diminish the illegality of the crimes he commited to obtain his fix...

he, and his slime lawyer, are TRYING to make this distinction like they are somehow above the drug addicted heroin addict who's just trying to numb pain in their lives. There is no difference. The bottom line here is that pain was the catalyst and drug abuse was their method of relief.

As far as Brett Favre, did he have his housekeeper (was Rush's legal, I can't remember...wouldn't that be hoot if she were illegal seeing his stance on that issue) buying drugs on his behalf? Is he on record for supporting HARSH criminal penalties for abusers no matter what their substance or circumstance? If so, then he should join Rush in his self prescribed method of justice and punishment.

Amnorix
05-02-2006, 05:24 AM
My Bull Shit detector just went off the charts. The prosecutor would have loved to have been the one to nail MR. BIG. The dems woul dhave ran him for a Senate seat and then President.

Rush Limbaugh is at the top of the Libs target "Hit List". Rush just
stuck his tongue out at the libs again.


:shrug: I don't pretend I know who the prosecutor is. Whether he's a Republican or a Democrat. Whether he bent over backwards to help Limbaugh out of a tough spot, or to quickly get rid of what was likely a weak case.

No clue. Don't really care. But to paint this as a "win" for Limbaugh over a very weak prosecution case is both (1) incorrect, without additional facts, and (2) completely irrelevant.

The agreement is what was reached by BOTH parties, after assessing the strenghts and weaknesses of their respective cases, and analyzing the impact of their decision to enter the agreement, and the alternatives if they didn't. That's what an agreement is, when rationally reached (I've seen some that weren't very rational, I'll agree).

Amnorix
05-02-2006, 05:27 AM
All of this for 40 pills. 40 freaking pills and Rush had to get his named run through the MUCK for 40 PILLS...unbeleavable.

So this is likely the first and last time he ever did this? :shrug: I haven't read much about it, but I know when I get a ticket for speeding, I'm usually not all that pissed off because of the 100 other times I got away with it. :D

Chief Henry
05-02-2006, 07:39 AM
Like i've said several other times on this post.

You libs have wanted, desired, drooled for Rush's head on a platter for years. This prosecutor would have have been the most famouse person on Air America or the Democrat Underground had he nailed Rush. If this prosecutor had anything that would have sunk RUSH he would have persued it
MUCH more VIGOROUSLY. This prosecutor would have been funded by George Soros until the cows cam home if he had a snow balls chance.

The prosecutor folded his hand becuase he knew
that he had nothing.

Some of you guys are so full of shit its amazing.

patteeu
05-02-2006, 08:28 AM
I'm not for harsh penalties for drug addicts...

rather, I'd just like Rush to obtain the type of justice he wanted for others for himself. You've seen his quotes. The fact that he got addicted to 'legal' drugs after an accident should not diminish the illegality of the crimes he commited to obtain his fix...

That's exactly what I'm talking about when I mention hypocrites who are against harsh drug penalties unless the accused is a guy whose politics they don't like. You can try to dress it up however you like, but the bottom line is that it's hypocritical. In fact, it's more hypocritical than what Rush has done because his statements all came before he found himself addicted. It's just as possible that he's changed his mind as it is that he continues to hold views that would make him a hypocrite. In your case, you continue to hold your anti-Drug War views while making a hypocritical exception for Limbaugh.

As far as Brett Favre, did he have his housekeeper (was Rush's legal, I can't remember...wouldn't that be hoot if she were illegal seeing his stance on that issue) buying drugs on his behalf? Is he on record for supporting HARSH criminal penalties for abusers no matter what their substance or circumstance? If so, then he should join Rush in his self prescribed method of justice and punishment.

We don't know how Rush got his drugs. The only charge involved getting prescriptions from doctors under false pretenses, they didn't involve his housekeeper. I would think that if there was proof that had his housekeeper buying them off the black market (which was alleged in press reports early on), the prosecutor wouldn't have found it so hard to prosecute Rush.

patteeu
05-02-2006, 08:35 AM
:shrug: I don't pretend I know who the prosecutor is. Whether he's a Republican or a Democrat. Whether he bent over backwards to help Limbaugh out of a tough spot, or to quickly get rid of what was likely a weak case.

No clue. Don't really care. But to paint this as a "win" for Limbaugh over a very weak prosecution case is both (1) incorrect, without additional facts, and (2) completely irrelevant.

The agreement is what was reached by BOTH parties, after assessing the strenghts and weaknesses of their respective cases, and analyzing the impact of their decision to enter the agreement, and the alternatives if they didn't. That's what an agreement is, when rationally reached (I've seen some that weren't very rational, I'll agree).

Well I guess if your head's been under a rock with respect to this controversy I can see how you'd come to that conclusion. If this deal had been offered shortly after the investigation began, I could believe this was a normal diversion program offered by the prosecution in an effort to get the best outcome for both a suspect who had no significant prior record and the state, but as far as I know it wasn't. This offer comes at the end of an investigation and legal battle that has taken over 2.5 years and has been litigated all the way up to the Florida Supreme Court. There is no way to look at the entire picture and get as neutral a view as you do, IMO. There is no doubt in my mind that this is capitulation obscured by a face saving settlement.

Amnorix
05-02-2006, 10:27 AM
Well I guess if your head's been under a rock with respect to this controversy I can see how you'd come to that conclusion.

It has been, I don't deny it. I care this much >< about Rush and his cronies. Heck, referring to your post above, I'm not big supporter of the War on Drugs, so to me this is all alot of wasted energy.

If this deal had been offered shortly after the investigation began, I could believe this was a normal diversion program offered by the prosecution in an effort to get the best outcome for both a suspect who had no significant prior record and the state, but as far as I know it wasn't. This offer comes at the end of an investigation and legal battle that has taken over 2.5 years and has been litigated all the way up to the Florida Supreme Court. There is no way to look at the entire picture and get as neutral a view as you do, IMO. There is no doubt in my mind that this is capitulation obscured by a face saving settlement.

This is the same case?! Oh lordy, I thought this was a subsequent thing that happened.

In that case, you're likely right. Either that was a problem with proving one of the elements or else there was some other fundamental problem that the prosecutor's office wasn't happy with, so they just took the quick out, most likely.

go bowe
05-02-2006, 01:25 PM
yep...

Baby Lee
05-02-2006, 01:49 PM
yep...
http://www.animationartgallery.com/images/KOT/KOTH6.gif
Uhh, hunh.