Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 02/14/2005 1:34:15 PM PST by rface
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last
To: rface
In other news, a gang held up a pharmacy in Miami and made off with several cases of Viagra.

Police believe they are dealing with hardened criminals.

2 posted on 02/14/2005 1:36:40 PM PST by N. Theknow (A loaf of bread, a jug of wine, and thou beside me....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rface

Rush might have to swallow the bitter pill of irony. (seocnd time today I used that line)


3 posted on 02/14/2005 1:37:00 PM PST by CitizenHelper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rface
full article from Southwest Florida Herald Tribune:

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. -- The prosecutor investigating whether Rush Limbaugh illegally purchased prescription painkillers told the Florida Supreme Court on Monday that investigators should be allowed to review the conservative radio commentator's medical records.

Assistant State Attorney James Martz was responding to arguments Limbaugh and his attorneys made asking that the records remain sealed. Martz said Limbaugh's argument that he should have been notified before the records were seized by investigators is equivalent to saying "that law enforcement is never to be trusted."

"Then search warrants should never be issued and law enforcement should never be permitted to investigate criminal activity for fear that they will abuse the power granted," Martz wrote in a brief filed with the Florida Supreme Court. "Such reasoning would eviscerate law enforcement's ability to protect the public and enforce the law."

Martz added that the 4th District Court of Appeal's ruling, which said Limbaugh's privacy rights were not violated when the records were seized in 2003, should be upheld.

"Privacy rights cannot operate as an impenetrable shield to conceal, camouflage, or secrete evidence of criminal wrongdoing," Martz wrote.

Limbaugh and his attorney, Roy Black, had no comment on Monday.

The court battle over Limbaugh's medical records has crippled the criminal investigation into his drug use for more than a year. Investigators seized the records after learning that Limbaugh received about 2,000 painkillers, prescribed by four doctors in six months, at a pharmacy near his Palm Beach mansion. They contend that Limbaugh engaged in "doctor shopping," or illegally deceived multiple doctors to receive overlapping prescriptions.

Limbaugh has maintained his innocence throughout the investigation and argues that the case threatens the privacy rights of all Floridians - a point which has drawn the support of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Limbaugh has acknowledged he became addicted to pain medication, blaming it on severe back pain. In October 2003, he took a five-week leave from his afternoon radio show to enter a rehabilitation program.

--

On the Net:

4 posted on 02/14/2005 1:39:13 PM PST by rface ("...the most schizoid freeper I've ever seen")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rface
"... is equivalent to saying ``that law enforcement is never to be trusted.'' "

and your point would be, mr prosecutor?

5 posted on 02/14/2005 1:39:35 PM PST by camle (keep your mind open and somebody will fill it with something for you))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rface
The prosecutor investigating whether Rush Limbaugh illegally purchased prescription painkillers told the Florida Supreme Court on Monday that investigators should be allowed to review the conservative radio commentator's medical records.

The first sentence tells you where the journalista stands.

6 posted on 02/14/2005 1:40:25 PM PST by writer33 ("In Defense of Liberty," a political thriller, being released in March)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rface

It means prosecutors must follow the will of the people as expressed in the State Statutes. Of course, in adversary system,neither side should have to trust the other.

Prosecutors are looking for evidence of guilt, not evidence of innocence.


7 posted on 02/14/2005 1:40:32 PM PST by LachlanMinnesota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rface

"`Privacy rights cannot operate as an impenetrable shield to conceal, camouflage, or secrete evidence of criminal wrongdoing,'' Martz wrote."

BUT, the law must provide a court substantial PROOF that a crime has been committed.


The procecutor must, in all cases, show 'just cause' in asking for and receiving a search warrant.

Suspicion of a crime, based on 'gut feelings' is not enough.


9 posted on 02/14/2005 1:41:43 PM PST by Bigh4u2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rface
I have wondered about something, and would like some opinions on it. It seems the libs are so intent on getting to Rush that perhaps they may be shooting themselves in the foot.

Roe v Wade was not a suit about a woman's right to have an abortion. It was a PRIVACY ruling. It basically made it impossible to enforce laws, like the one in Missouri in which it is a felony to cause the death of an unborn child thru the use of an instrument. Since medical records were considered to be part of the "doctor/client privilege" neither they could be subpoenaed nor medical staff summoned and questioned, in order to build such a case.

If they are able to get hold of Limbaughs medical records in this manner, have they not overturned Roe v Wade?
10 posted on 02/14/2005 1:42:26 PM PST by WindOracle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rface

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1329283/posts


12 posted on 02/14/2005 1:43:31 PM PST by writer33 ("In Defense of Liberty," a political thriller, being released in March)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rface

The Screamer


The DNC calling the shots.

14 posted on 02/14/2005 1:44:11 PM PST by BellStar (Pray for our heroes...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rface

``Privacy rights cannot operate as an impenetrable shield to conceal, camouflage, or secrete evidence of criminal wrongdoing,'' Martz wrote."

Seems to me the fonding fathers had a thing or two to say about the government authorities breaking down your door looking for evidence of some sort of crime...sorta like fishing for evidence.


17 posted on 02/14/2005 1:46:02 PM PST by Dat Mon (will work for clever tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rface

Does anyone have a dollar figure on how much this dog and pony show is costing the good people of Florida?

Just another stupid dog and pony show, paid for by we the taxpayers one way or another.

If anything was there worth charging him over, it would have come out when they bought off the maid. Obviously that wasn't enough, and I presume it wasn't enough for a judge to sign off on a warrant to seize the records, either. Otherwise, why risk doing it without a warrant? It doesn't make sense.


28 posted on 02/14/2005 1:54:34 PM PST by AZ_Cowboy ("Be ever vigilant, for you know not when the master is coming")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rface; RS
``Privacy rights cannot operate as an impenetrable shield to conceal, camouflage, or secrete evidence of criminal wrongdoing,'' Martz wrote. Limbaugh and his attorney, Roy Black, had no comment on Monday.

Bump

44 posted on 02/14/2005 2:05:38 PM PST by ClintonBeGone (In politics, sometimes it's OK for even a Wolverine to root for a Buckeye win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rface

On a side note...
Rush said that one thing they did in rehab was to prescribe Vioxx for his pain. Now that it's off the market I wonder what he's using.



51 posted on 02/14/2005 2:09:35 PM PST by Lx (Tuesday is Soylent green day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rface

I wonder was the ACLU there for Rush?


80 posted on 02/14/2005 2:41:54 PM PST by Unicorn (Two many wimps around The democrats would rather win the WH then win the war-Tom Delay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mak5

What's your take on this?


91 posted on 02/14/2005 3:04:06 PM PST by Las Vegas Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rface
``Privacy rights cannot operate as an impenetrable shield to conceal, camouflage, or secrete evidence of criminal wrongdoing,'' Martz wrote.

LOL, one can argue this in many ways.

Search warrants of property were once the only use, then came bank records, phone records, tax records and the like.

The only thing left was medical records, because of the doctor/patient confidentiality, and also religious records for like reasons.

If this bridge gets crossed..............."Houston, we have a problem!"

95 posted on 02/14/2005 4:51:01 PM PST by Cold Heat (What are fears but voices awry?Whispering harm where harm is not and deluding the unwary. Wordsworth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rface

bookmark


136 posted on 02/14/2005 9:23:43 PM PST by razorback-bert (An ASC-American)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rface
This one is so obvious a blind man could see through it.

Everyone has broken some law because there are so many that it is literally impossible to keep them. That is not saying Rush has broken this one.

I will say one thing which Rush should have known better. If you choose to live in an area infested with liberals, don't be surprised if they are hostile to you.

225 posted on 02/16/2005 6:55:30 AM PST by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rface
Well I guess all that privacy crap that I receive by the ton from my doctors and insurance companies means nothing, right? Why is it the government is forcing all the medical providers to assure me my privacy is the single most important thing in the world to them and then I read that in Florida the cops can go get a person's medical records? Now if it were a bookie's records or any illegal enterprise I could understand, but how on earth can they get the records from a legitimate doctor on a specific patient without the patient's approval??
228 posted on 02/16/2005 7:13:03 AM PST by pepperdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson