Posted on 12/09/2003 6:01:34 AM PST by Maria S
Late last week, rocker Ozzy Osbourne admitted to a 42-pill-a-day addiction to prescription drugs.
Few could be surprised about the revelation. On his MTV show and in other public appearances the aging rock star has appeared incoherent and intoxicated.
Justifiably, California state authorities are going after the pusher. In this case, the state medical board is going after Osbourne’s doctor, though the physician denies any wrongdoing.
Still, no one is suggesting that Osbourne should be prosecuted for his prescription drug addiction, an addiction that started with normal medical treatment. Another sensational case that should have been treated similarly is that of Rush Limbaugh.
His prescription addiction case should have been written off weeks ago as nothing more than a case of prescription drug addiction.
But the Limbaugh story has legs – long ones. The long legs of this story seem to have been generated by a liberal media out to get the conservative radio host by any means possible, including pushing for a legal investigation that seems more like a political inquisition.
If Rush were treated like every other case similar to his, it wouldn’t even rate news time, let alone a legal inquiry.
The facts of this case are now pretty clear: Rush has had a prescription drug addiction that began as a result of a surgical procedure for back problems. Admirably, Rush has admitted the problem and, after intensive rehab, is attempting to save himself.
The facts came to light when Rush’s former housekeeper, Wilma Cline, sold her story to the National Enquirer. In early October, when the Enquirer story broke, it appeared as if the Palm Beach County state attorney, Barry Krischer, was planning to treat Rush like other cases of individuals found to be abusing prescription drugs.
Press reports indicated that the state investigation was focused not on Rush’s addiction, but on the larger issue of enablers and pushers, notably doctors and a wider drug ring that was doling out these drugs. But since then, Krischer has apparently had a change of heart about the direction of his probe.
Soon after Rush came out of rehab, ABC News reported that its “sources” close to the probe were saying Rush was being investigated for money laundering.
Though Rush quickly explained that he had been advised by his bank to withdraw less than $10,000 from his account each time he made a withdrawal, and over the course of years withdrew some $300,000 – not a large sum for a man of his wealth – it was more fodder for his critics.
To further prove that unusual lengths were being employed to hurt Rush, last week the state attorney’s office obtained warrants for Rush’s medical records, with claims – so far unsubstantiated – that Rush was doctor shopping for prescriptions.
Rush’s lawyer, Roy Black, appeared on the “Today” show this past Friday and expressed amazement that Rush is being treated differently from millions of others with prescription drug addictions.
“Have you ever watched people on television leafing through records, calling out the names of their doctors and a list of medications they were using?" Black complained. "The first person is Rush Limbaugh." "Why is Rush Limbaugh the only person who gets treated like this in America?" he added.
Black, of course, is a well-known liberal. He also is honest. Rush is being singled out for political reasons.
Krischer issued a statement Thursday saying that Limbaugh remained under investigation, but added that he "is presumed innocent at this time."
But clearly Rush is being treated differently. Even Geraldo, no Rush fan, said this weekend on his Fox News program that Rush was being singled out, unfairly. Geraldo quipped that if every senior citizen in the state of Florida who “doctor shopped” was prosecuted, there wouldn’t be enough prison cells in the state. Mike Walker, a columnist from National Enquirer, appeared on Fox News and agreed with Geraldo. Walker described the government’s actions toward Rush as “overkill.”
Not privy to all the details here, I am not going to pass judgment on Rush.
But I will pass judgment on the state attorney so far. When Rush is treated for a prescription drug addiction differently from anyone in history with a similar drug addiction, legitimate questions about fairness arise. So much of Rush’s problems have been clouded in charges and countercharges, bogus reports and the like.
They all start with the housekeeper, Wilma Cline, first portrayed by the National Enquirer as a victim of Rush. But it seems to me that she was much more of a classic enabler – a person who encourages another’s addiction. In helping feed Rush’s addiction, Cline collected cash from him. She also kept very careful records of her activities almost from day one. Was this to blackmail Rush? To sell her story to the National Enquirer? Or to help the police?
We do know that Cline first came to the tabloid some two years ago seeking to sell her story about Rush. When the paper’s editors told her she didn’t have a story until there was an official police investigation, she came back to them when that investigation was triggered.
Cline reportedly received a cool $250,000 for the dirt on Rush’s prescription drug addiction.
Cline, by going to the papers, also may have compromised the state’s inquiry into pushers and doctors doling out these prescription drugs for big money.
So much for the Cline-as-victim story.
But when word broke about Rush’s problems, it must have been welcome news to many prominent Democrats who see him as an obstacle in next year’s election.
My guess is that the news also caused these top Democrats to talk about how nice it would be if Rush could be toppled. Those thoughts may have percolated down to the local prosecutor in Palm Beach.
One clue that this was the thinking comes from Kendall Coffey.
Coffey is the former Clinton-appointed U.S. attorney in Miami, a Janet Reno ally who most recently served as Al Gore’s lead recount lawyer in 2000.
Appearing on MSNBC this week, the well-connected Coffey said he didn't think the state attorney wanted to prosecute Rush but apparently feels he has to. Why does he feel this way?
Surely there is no public outcry that Rush be prosecuted, nor would there be if Rush were treated like every other person who has had a prescription drug problem, admitted to it, and immediately went into rehab.
Clearly the prosecutors know that the drug problem alone is not enough to warrant legal charges against Rush, that’s why they are going on a fishing expedition to find something else.
To his credit, State Attorney Krischer has no history of politicizing prosecutions. Hopefully that record will continue.
http://eastbay.bizjournals.com/eastbay/stories/2001/07/16/daily10.html
July 16, 2001
Regulators fine U.S. Trust $10M
Charles Schwab Corp.'s U.S. Trust unit was fined $10 million by regulators for allegedly helping clients around securities laws and allegedly failing to comply with anti-money-laundering rules, among other charges.</b.
U.S. Trust, based in New York, agreed to pay $5 million to the Federal Reserve Bank and $5 million to the New York State Banking Department...
The bank allegedly failed to report transactions of more than $10,000, a federal requirement to combat money-laundering. It also reportedly allowed several dozen customers to deposit or withdraw amounts just under that amount.
==============
Sounds like Rush's bank did just that thing.
Banks and other financial institutions that cater to the wealthy face a difficult balance between trying to comply with money- laundering regulations and serving legitimate customers who don't want transactions delayed by bank compliance procedures, said Bruce Zagaris, a New York attorney who specializes in international law and banking regulation.
"You don't want to be so vigilant that you lose clients, but vigilant enough so that you don't have law enforcement and regulators investigating you, especially if you're going to get fined $10 million and have [reporters] writing stories about you," Zagaris said.
gcruse, honest & upstanding bank teller, loses his job in two days after a squabble with a multi-millionaire customer over transaction reporting requirements.
The Internet sure is a great soapbox, ain't it? Beats having to live in the real world, hey? ;-)
You're becoming confused. The Clintonistas used the machinery of government against their accusers during the impeachment wars. Here, the Democrats are again using the machinery of government against Limbaugh in this matter (leaked information from a New York State Banking investigation into Limbaugh's bank, and a government investigation into "violations" of "doctor shopping" laws).
I'm pretty sure that our vast Right-Wing conspiracy wasn't pulling the strings of the judiciary or the executive branch then, and neither is Limbaugh now.
I guess that you missed this part of the article that I posted, so I'll repeat it:
"The bank allegedly failed to report transactions of more than $10,000, a federal requirement to combat money-laundering. It also reportedly allowed several dozen customers to deposit or withdraw amounts just under that amount."
"The bank allegedly failed to report transactions of more than $10,000, a federal requirement to combat money-laundering. It also reportedly allowed several dozen customers to deposit or withdraw amounts just under that amount."
"The bank allegedly failed to report transactions of more than $10,000, a federal requirement to combat money-laundering. It also reportedly allowed several dozen customers to deposit or withdraw amounts just under that amount."
"The bank allegedly failed to report transactions of more than $10,000, a federal requirement to combat money-laundering. It also reportedly allowed several dozen customers to deposit or withdraw amounts just under that amount."
"The bank allegedly failed to report transactions of more than $10,000, a federal requirement to combat money-laundering. It also reportedly allowed several dozen customers to deposit or withdraw amounts just under that amount."
"The bank allegedly failed to report transactions of more than $10,000, a federal requirement to combat money-laundering. It also reportedly allowed several dozen customers to deposit or withdraw amounts just under that amount."
"The bank allegedly failed to report transactions of more than $10,000, a federal requirement to combat money-laundering. It also reportedly allowed several dozen customers to deposit or withdraw amounts just under that amount."
"The bank allegedly failed to report transactions of more than $10,000, a federal requirement to combat money-laundering. It also reportedly allowed several dozen customers to deposit or withdraw amounts just under that amount."
Amazing how prescient Limbaugh was, getting Charles Schwab Corp.'s U.S. Trust unit prosecuted a couple of years before his problems were outed, so that he could "lay it off" on the bank.
What a magnificent, omnipotent puppetmaster!
You just hate Limbaugh, cruse - go ahead and say it. You'll feel better, and we won't have bother with your drivel on this thread any longer.
I'll allow that this is a true statement, with a qualifier:
Now, he's just another entertainer run afoul of the "law".
Like Linda Tripp and Jim Robinson before him, Rush is in the sights of the "Letter, But Not Spirit, Of The Law" Democrats.
I'm sure it happens some times, but that's a lot of wool to pull over everyone's eyes all the time, isn't it?
It's not everyone, I'm talking about. There are people who are weak or stupid, yet are basically decent, and who need some sort of protection from those who would take advantage of them. And remember, we agree these people should not be punished or turned into criminals for their non-malevolent behavior.
Second, there were at least two times in our history in which manufacturors and distributors of potentially harmful products sught to maximize profits -- through skilful marketing -- at the expense of individuals causing suffering and leading to unfortuante backlashes against freedom.
Many of those taken advantage of where intelligent people and good citizens.
And he's accepted blame. Do you want to see him prosecuted as a criminal? Would you rather he was on the air or off the air? Would you rather he exercised influence in this upcoming political campaign or hamstrung?
This one does! I would love to see Rush, armed with newfound personal experience with the powers the WOD can give rogue prosecutors, come out swinging against it.
Smear is what you do to a bagel. Rush ANNIHILATES liberals... more so socialist liberalism. Take Rush off the air tomorrow & send him to jail if that's what you want. The kitty is out of the bag. We have 15 years of education.
Colonel Trautman: It's over, Johnny. It's over!
Rambo: Nothing is over! Nothing! You just don't turn it off!
(:
Excellent!
Defining deviancy down can create some strange bedfellows.
I guess, but hey, I thought you liked Rush!
Take care buddy.
You too pal.
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.