Posted on 07/05/2005 6:47:45 PM PDT by rface
No kidding? Forgive me, but I suspect that most of the so-called "conservatives" and "libertarians" who attack Rush, attack him because they've been unsuccessful in getting him to promote their pet agenda to the largest radio audience in America, or anywhere else.
End of story.
These "prosecutors" and liberl judges have run amuck. ONCE AGAIN proving that we need to appoint judges who interpret and do not create laws based on their ideology.
"That means anyone the prosecution's office lables "an investigator" can see Rush's private medical records, which is likely in direct violation of HIPAA (FEDREAL) LAW."
Nice slide from "clear violation" to "likely violation" but nevertheless,
Keep going .... please explain how the "minimum necessary" has ( will be ? ) violated, since the judge rightly thinks he is not qualified to decide the issue.
Black is going to file a Federal suit over what they MIGHT do now ? ( not that his tactics of delay-stall-delay might not fit here )
Black was pretty foolish in trying to pick which investigators could look at the records - he has to know that they would need experts to look over and testify to the details.
Neverless, you can't seem to get your posters straight. phalynx made that statement, not me.
"Neverless, you can't seem to get your posters straight. phalynx made that statement, not me."
After a while, you guys all look alike to me :-)
I know what you mean. You guys all look alike to me too;)
Apparently you think of yourself that way, but do you think speedy would want you to portray him as a "victim"?
I'll be glad to dub you as also smart enough to be FR's expert on blind squirrels, too, if you like. LOL
Hate to bring this up, but do you have ANYTHING on topic ?
To the best of my knowledge, Rush was, allegedly, shopping for doctors to write prescriptions, for high level controlled drugs (oxycontin), when he already had one in hand. He also, allegedly, wanted to get access to the drugs, without benefit of a prescription, by going through a third party, his domestic employee. What gives that any moral "high ground"?
Michael Jackson is definetly weird, but how do you KNOW he is a pedophile?
Why aren't Rush and MJ equivalents? They had different beginnings, but both found a niche in the entertainment industry. Both have been wildly successful. both have their secrets. Rush is divorced... again..!
At what point do you say they went "passed" the law? Rush? Michael?
Maybe you would prefer the term "courtier"!
Maybe it's that "medical marijuana" kicking in.
Have you anti-Constitutional extremists finished your love fest, yet?
Rush is an entertainer. Rush has some views with which we agree. He states them clearly. He beats them to death. He sells ties. He sells access. He sells himself. He is like a prostitute. He is the same as any other entertainer. He is in public view, vying for that dollar.
I can't stand getting drunk. I love a glass of wine. I like two. I love a classic margarita, on the rocks, with salt... If I were to smoke a doobie, it would be for the pure pleasure!
But, if marijuana were medicine, to me, it would still be none of your business, or the gum'ts'!
"Rush needs to make a deal ala Michael Jackson and Bill O'Reilly and pay to make this go away. Otherwise it will only get worse."
That's what I've been saying from the beginning - but I think he's burnt a lot of bridges following Black's advice ... I sure hope this circus ends so we can get a good voice in place against Hillery.
I agree, I am Rush fan. I hope he beats this on principle, but the big questions is, is it illegal to do what he did, and can they prove it without his medical records. Maybe Ii'm thinking to much.....
From clear to likely. Since no case on Hipaa has been brought to trial yet concerning this, it will be hard to prove or disprove. BUT, common sense will tell you that the minimum neccessary means minimum. He can say 7, but he can't say he won't limit. Surely you can follow this logic. But, if you can't, I will help you. Please tell me how how many people are in a "no limitation" group. The answer: many... all.... limitless.. Next question. How many are in a minimum? It must be defined or it is limitless. Thus, the judge did not set a minimum. Instead, he set "no limitation". This IS A CLEAR violation of Hipaa laws.
"He can say 7, but he can't say he won't limit. "
Sure he can, first off he's not a Federal judge, and without any experience in the matter, common sense says it would have to be left up to the people in charge of investigating to decide how many people they need to perform an investigation. A judge can't simply pull a number out of a hat.
This is another losing arguement for Black, but as long as Rush's wallet holds out - they are all winners.
LOL
Name one other person who has gone to trial for doctor shopping.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.