Posted on 12/23/2003 7:42:00 AM PST by Hillary's Lovely Legs
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - Prosecutors can examine Rush Limbaugh's medical records to determine whether he should be charged with "doctor shopping" for prescription painkillers, a judge ruled on Tuesday.
Palm Beach Circuit Judge Jeffrey A. Winikoff denied the conservative commentator's request to keep the records sealed.
Limbaugh's attorneys had argued that the seizure of the records from doctors in Florida and California violated the radio host's privacy. Investigators obtained the records last month after discovering that Limbaugh received more than 2,000 painkillers, prescribed by four doctors, at a pharmacy near his $24 million Palm Beach mansion.
Doctor shopping refers to looking for a doctor willing to prescribe drugs illegally, or getting prescriptions for a single drug from more than one doctor at the same time.
The Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office began investigating Limbaugh last year, after his former maid told them she had been supplying him prescription painkillers for years.
Limbaugh recently admitted his addiction, stemming from severe back pain, and took a five-week leave from his afternoon radio show to enter a rehabilitation program.
I feel bad for him also, but less so every day the more and more he whines and makes excuses.
I feel bad for him also, but less so every day the more and more he whines and makes excuses.
I'm trying to read the darn thing but it's more difficult with GPO Access than with the US Code at Cornell Law Institute and CLI simply links it to GPO Access anyway.
Have a read, maybe you can get somewhere with it.
If by "committed an illegal act" you mean "violated some statute," then you are wrong. Rush must not be punished for stuffing his face with fistfulls of hillbilly heroin even if in direct violation of some statute passed by the legislature.
In a free republic such as ours, it is the duty if every cop, prosecuter, judge, and juror to veto every statute that is repugnant to the rights of the people in all cases in which they become involved.
Of course, all of the liberal slime government cops, prosecuters, and judges in Palm Beach county will violate their oaths and execute these statutes against Rush. But, all it takes is just 1 out of 12 of the people to veto these despotic statutes in cases like Rush's.
There's still time for Rush to tell all of his listeners in Palm Beach county about their duties to sneak on to his jury and the juries of others similarly oppressed in order to exercise their ancient duties of overseeing the statutes passed and executed by their servants--the legislators, cops, prosecuters, and judges.
If "conservatives" were serious about opposing "liberalism" in Palm Beach county, jury oversight of "liberal" government servant behavior could end it in a second. The reason the "conservatives" will never do this is because as soon as the conservatives in Palm Beach learn that they can thwart "liberal" oppression in their county, they will set a precedent that can be used by "liberals" to thwart the police state all the way up the "conservative" cowboy corridor from Sheriff Nick Navarro's Broward county up I-95 to Volusia county, where god help you if you are a black heroin user with 1/100th of a Rush habit.
Not in Alabama...
I didn't know of it, but I'm not surprised.
The kernel of HIPAA was (and is) the "HillaryCare" regulations that allow the sharing of info between health care providers and payers --and of course the federal government (just for statistical data, don'cha know).
Somehow it was painted over and sold as giving "portable" health insurance with stronger privacy protections. It does neither.
Ron Paul has also spoken out aginst it, and though I'm not a big fan of Ron Paul, I do agree on doctor-patient priviledge.
Yepper. At the time I was in Paul's 14th district and supported him 99% of the time. Now that I'm in Nicky Lampson's 9th, I'm waiting to see if a decent (R) or (L) will run and is worth my support.
But I'm still going to send a check to Paul's campaign.
I haven't heard him ONCE either. Many times, yes; ONCE, no. Today for example he blamed the prosecutor and claimed he was being persecuted because of who he is and his political views, and said that none of this would be an issue if he was a sports star or Hollyweird celeb. I'm not sure what show you're listening to, but I don't think its Rush.
Rush's whiney opening monologue today was truly ridiculous, and it was also the first time I ever heard him protest the broad authority drug warriors have long had to invade the privacy of individuals with impunity. He's now getting a strong dose of poetic justice from the business end of the drug warriors' intimidating weaponry.
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.