Limbaugh May Have Avoided Speeding Tickets (Humor)

Sloth | November 19, 2003 | Sloth

[Sloth]

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) — Authorities are investigating whether Rush Limbaugh, already reeling from drug problems and his expulsion from ESPN, may have driven his vehicle just below the posted speed limits on numerous occasions, a law enforcement source who spoke on condition of anonymity said Wednesday.

As long as four years ago, local law enforcement manning Florida DUI checkpoints and 'speed traps' repeatedly clocked the ultraconservative demagogue at anywhere from one to six miles per hour below the applicable speed limits. Unconfirmed reports indicate that Limbaugh was also seen proceeding through intersections while traffic lights were yellow. One officer who declined to be named told the AP that he had personally observed Limbaugh cruising at 43 in a 45 MPH zone. No charges were filed at that time.

Critics contend that Limbaugh drove very close to the speed limit on at least 30 or 40 occasions, most likely with the deliberate intent of getting to his destination while avoiding tickets for speeding.

Limbaugh's attorney, Roy Black, did not return a phone call for comment Wednesday.

[Rebelbase]

Bump! Good one.

[Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh]

Well, Braniac, you better post it then. Rush doesn't have to incriminate himself, and won't. He has not admitted to any illegalities that I've heard.
You must be smart or somthing. You must have inside information. You know stuff that even the media doesn't know.
YOU know he's guilty, therefore he's dropped a notch on your hero status scale.
Fill us in.

Well, here's the law. Basically, if someone makes a statement in front of you and you don't deny it, it can be considered an admission by silence...

CALJIC 2.71.5
California Jury Instructions, Criminal, 7th Ed.
2.71.5 ADOPTIVE ADMISSION -- SILENCE, FALSE OR EVASIVE REPLY TO ACCUSATION
If you should find from the evidence that there was an occasion when [a] [the] defendant (1) under conditions which reasonably afforded [him] [her] an opportunity to reply; (2) [failed to make a denial] [or] [made false, evasive or contradictory statements,] in the face of an accusation, expressed directly to [him] [her] or in [his] [her] presence, charging [him] [her] with the crime for which this defendant now is on trial or tending to connect [him] [her] with its commission; and (3) that [he] [she] heard the accusation and understood its nature, then the circumstance of [his] [her] [silence] [and] [conduct] on that occasion may be considered against [him] [her] as indicating an admission that the accusation thus made was true. Evidence of an accusatory statement is not received for the purpose of proving its truth, but only as it supplies meaning to the [silence] [and] [conduct] of the accused in the face of it. Unless you find that [a] [the] defendant's [silence] [and] [conduct] at the time indicated an admission that the accusatory statement was true, you must entirely disregard the statement.

So this is how you would fill in the blanks at trial.
If you should find from the evidence that there was an occasion when Rush (1) under conditions which reasonably afforded him an opportunity to reply; (2) failed to make a denial in the face of an accusation, expressed directly to him or in his presence, charging him with the crime for which this defendant now is on trial or tending to connect him with its commission; and (3) that he heard the accusation and understood its nature, then the circumstance of his silence on that occasion may be considered against him as indicating an admission that the accusation thus made was true. Evidence of an accusatory statement is not received for the purpose of proving its truth, but only as it supplies meaning to the silence of the accused in the face of it.

The civil version of the instruction is much less stringent. Bottom line - if someone is accused of something, and has the chance to deny it, and doesn't, then it can come in against them as evidence that they are guilty.

Rush was accused of illegaly buying and using prescription drugs. Rush never denied it. He had every chance to deny it. In a court of law, a jury can use that fact as proof he's guilty.

[Sloth]

Matthew 27:12-14 "... and while He was being accused by the chief priests and elders, He answered nothing. Then Pilate said to Him, 'Do You not hear how many things they testify against You?' But He answered him not one word, so that the governor marveled greatly."

Jesus was guilty!

[LucyJo]

Hello, Longbowwolf, I'm also fairly new here, and became a member because of Rush too. It's a top notch site for many important, and informative reasons that you will discover almost immediately. It is a fun site. I've laughed out loud at the humor displayed here almost every time I visit. I've also found it to be a caring site where heartwrenching, heartwarming, sad, and uplifting stories are told, people are helpful, and prayers are freely prayed. So get ready to shed a tear or two as well. It's a good place with good people for the most part. Welcome, and glad to have you aboard.

[Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh]

Heya Spunky - yeah that's basically the law I'm referring to. But, in that case, the Court (ie the finder of fact) which is just like a jury when its a non-jury trial, found that the silence was not an admission.

Admission by silence is not a 100% finding, it's something in the hands of the jury. Meaning, if YOU personally feel like there's a good reason for his silence you don't have to consider that silence as evidence of guilt.

That's why I love the jury system - it leaves the chance to do the right thing under the circumstance open.

But, when someone like Rush, or Martha Stewart, or etc etc stays silent for months and months and months - there's only one real reason. They have the million dollar lawyer/private-investigator/PR spin machine churning. I truly believe in my heart that its this simple....Rush is guilty of illegally buying and using prescription drugs. Rush is guilty of conspiracy to break the law by cooperating with his maid and her connections to buy and use illegal prescription drugs. And the only reason Rush doesn't come right out and deny it is because (a) he's waiting for his lawyers/investigators to find out all the info possible so his excuse matches the facts, and (b) he doesn't want to say something that gets used against him in his criminal trial.

[M Kehoe]

need to hump your leg. Anyone who makes the Limbaugh show gets humped by Laz.

Somebody needs to turn the hose on you.

LOL!

5.56mm

[Big Giant Head]

California Jury Instructions,

Dude, we're not dealing with a court of law here. These are allegations in a tabloid. He never denied meeting with aliens either, so I guess that's true also.

If he's in court, in California, then what you posted can be applied.

Bottom line is you WANT him to be guilty, you are pushing for it. You are trying to convict on heresay. He is NOT your hero, and you're a liar. Thanks for playing.

[Spunky]

CALJIC 2.71.5
California Jury Instructions, Criminal, 7th Ed. 2.71.5 ADOPTIVE ADMISSION -- SILENCE, FALSE OR EVASIVE REPLY TO ACCUSATION If you should find from the evidence that there was an occasion when [a] [the] defendant (1) under conditions which reasonably afforded [him] [her] an opportunity to reply; (2) [failed to make a denial] [or] [made false, evasive or contradictory statements,] in the face of an accusation, expressed directly to [him] [her] or in [his] [her] presence, charging [him] [her] with the crime for which this defendant now is on trial or tending to connect [him] [her] with its commission; and (3) that [he] [she] heard the accusation and understood its nature, then the circumstance of [his] [her] [silence] [and] [conduct] on that occasion may be considered against [him] [her] as indicating an admission that the accusation thus made was true. Evidence of an accusatory statement is not received for the purpose of proving its truth, but only as it supplies meaning to the [silence] [and] [conduct] of the accused in the face of it. Unless you find that [a] [the] defendant's [silence] [and] [conduct] at the time indicated an admission that the accusatory statement was true, you must entirely disregard the statement.

The way I read this it has to do with someone who has been charged of something and is a "defendent in a trial".

To my knowledge Rush has not been charged or gone to trial for anything.

[Longbowwolf]

California Law is going to be tough to use in Florida.....
Being California Law, I would be dubious of its' constitutionality anyway.
Also, these are just jury instructions. I am unsure as to whether this could be construed as law. Can a court charge a subject of California with violation of such a law? I think not. Not to hammer on all Californians, as I know alot of good folks from your state, but it seems that some juries in your state are picked out of the brain dead bastions of Hollywood. Considering the track record of California Jurors;.....well, Lets just say that a California DA could have pictures and DNA evidence and a Calipornia jury would likely find Michael Jackson innocent. We will soon find out.

[Big Giant Head]

It's also very possible that Rush is cooperating with an ongoing investigation of the dealer of these "illegal" substances and cannot comment without blowing it.

[Spunky]

Yes that is very possible.

[Lazamataz]

Somebody needs to turn the hose on you.

It won't help. It will just make for a wet humpy Laz.

[Lazamataz]

Welcome.

I must warn you, I am completely, merrily, insane.

However -- unless I get the proper ammunition -- I am relatively harmless.

[Longbowwolf]

I can relate. Being ballistically blessed is a wonderful thing. And it sounds like you have met the same women that I previously dumped.

[nopardons]

BTT

[Humidston]

LucyJo, you and Longbowwolf are why FR is so good! With every passing day, and every new FReeper who comes onboard, this place just gets better and better.

Nothing warms a FReeper's heart more than seeing "Newbies" who come into FR with all the passion you guys have. It is a total blast!

Tell your friends and then strap on your seatbelts, turn up the music, and have as much fun as possible with those of us who share your dreams, your sorrows and your hopes!

But WARNING: It IS addictive! ;-)

[dialectus]

So whose direct questions has Rush failed to answer? Palm Beach County's DA? Law enforcement officers and investigators? Or is it that he hasn't revealed the facts to The National Inquirer? Or The New York Times? Or Crossfire? Or his audience? Or YOU? If you were to walk up to me on the street, as a complete stranger, and start asking questions about possible litigation against me and I tell you I won't discuss it with you, am I confessing through my silence?

Rush Limbaugh is in no way obligated to you, sir, or anyone else for that matter, not directly empowered to demand information from him. His silence on the subject in the public arena is not a tacit confession, and wouldn't be admitted as evidence of guilt in a single courtroom in this country. Silence in an interrogation room in the presence of detectives or prosecutors asking direct questions about a case - certainly. But reticence over a microphone that happens to be broadcasting your voice to twenty million private citizens and strangers? "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Mr. Limbaugh had ample opportunity to discuss the details of a pending case in which he was involved with millions of people he did not know and who had no legal right to demand such details from him, as well as with several nationally distributed tabloids that routinely display him shaking hands with bigfoot, but HE.... DID... NOT! His wife even testified that he suspiciously failed to answer the phone once after seeing Entertainment Weekly's number on the caller ID display. I ask... what does that say to YOU?"

Sounds ridiculous, because it IS. No judge would admit such "evidence," because it is NOT evidence. NO ONE need fear that reluctance or even REFUSAL to divulge details of an ongoing case to parties who do not have the authority to demand them can be used in a courtroom to prosecute them. They need not fear it because it is ABSOLUTELY inadmissible.

As an uninvolved party, you have NO IDEA why he's silent on the subject. You have no idea what's happening - you don't even know if he's the TARGET of the investigation, and not a material witness! You don't even know if investigators are THEMSELVES asking him not to divulge information to the public, so as not to disrupt their investigation! Remember the selective and controlled release of information during the sniper shootings? They did it that way for a REASON. Or how about the Ramsey case? Remember how the police kept complaining that information leaks were impeding the investigation?

Don't lay claim to information that, as a private citizen, isn't any of your business, and insist that Rush Limbaugh can be held responsible LEGALLY for failing to update YOU. Go apply for a badge in Palm Beach County, and then get assigned to the case. And if, after having done so, even your good cop/bad cop routine doesn't get him to spill the beans to you, THEN come back here and talk this talk. Because THEN you'd be CORRECT concerning the law - your interpretation of it would be legitimate. As it stands now, your argument is merely an inept attempt to reverse-engineer a concept to make it fit your lame argument. But it's a square peg, sir. As much as you desperately wish, it just won't fit through this round hole.

And by the way - people who use the "I should know, I'm an expert" line in their argumentation are always suspicious, and we'll supplement "suspicious" with SUPREMELY LAME as well, for good measure. "I should know, I'm a lawyer," is just such a line. "I'm right, because I'm an expert on this subject." Or, "How should you know what happened at Normandy? I was ALIVE in 1944. You weren't even BORN." If you are indeed a lawyer, you would of course have attended law school, where you would have learned in your first logic course that this is a logical fallacy known as an "appeal to authority." Or perhaps you wouldn't have learned this in law school - by then, I'm sure, your instructors would probably expect you to ALREADY know something so basic from your undergraduate studies. This line of argumentation is especially douche-esque when attempted online - in anonymous chatrooms or MESSAGEBOARDS, where YOU exist to OTHERS and THEY to YOU as nothing more than disembodied lines of TEXT.

"I'm a lawyer."

Well then, my good, long-time, trusted and intimate friend Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh, who I do not know and who I have never met - point, set, MATCH! I yield! You win the argument! You're right, because you're a LAWYER, and not, in fact, some pimple faced 14-year-old sitting in front of his computer wearing nothing but his Lord of the Rings T-Shirt and tube socks as he switches browser windows between this messageboard and bigblackbooties.com, typing his posts quietly so as not to be discovered by his mother, who will immediately revoke his XBox privileges for messing around with the parental controls on the family AOL account - AGAIN! And you know how I know this? Because we're SUCH GOOD FRIENDS.

Go lie somewhere else. Or - no, stay. Continue on with us here. It's entertaining.

[LowCountryJoe]

Wow! Yes he was and I don't think I've ever heard anyone frame it like that before. Post #203 was another example of an opportunity to draw a brilliant analogy - albeit in a different way than the first. You brain must work differently. I mean, this is like "Bono" brilliant!

[LowCountryJoe]

But your argument really hinges on what you've defined as the words, "is" and "not". See, I may (and probably do) have a completely different concept of was the word "is" is. The word "Not"! Well, give me some time on that one ;)