THE PERSECUTION OF RUSH

The Logical View ^ | 12/26/03 | MARK A SITY

[colorado tanker]

There is also a statutory procedure for obtaining medical records that the prosecutor deliberately violated so that he could seize the records before giving notice to Rush or have a hearing, both of which are required.

The Dim's agenda here is the destruction of conservative talk radio, which they know has been very damaging to their cause the last ten years. They want to knock Rush off the air and then go after the rest by bringing back the "fairness" rule. People who don't see this are very, very naive.

A first time offender other than Rush who had already gone into rehab would get probation and diversion into his treatment program, if they would bother to prosecute at all.

[DaGman]

"Have you found anything posted there that was not legal public knowledge ?

Assuming you're referring to things relative to Rush's case, not a thing.

As for anything else, I don't go there enough to give an educated answer.

[Lurking Libertarian]

So, you are sure Rush did this, went to doc after doc to get more and more perscriptions? You have an inside line on this?

I'm not sure he did this, but the affidavit in support of the search warrant makes a pretty strong case that he did.

[RS]

"You also seem to feel that in the case of Rush it is ok for the media to be involved in the investigation..."

You keep saying "you seem to feel" without even asking...

Just how many celebrities nowadays have been involved in criminal investigations WITHOUT having it splashed across the newspapers ?

C'mon... you can do better then that....

[RS]

"There is also a statutory procedure for obtaining medical records that the prosecutor deliberately violated so that he could seize the records before giving notice to Rush or have a hearing, both of which are required."

Amazing... you found this statutory procedure, yet two judges and Rushs lawyer haven't found it.

If you are refering to "least intrusive means", Black brought this before the Judge and he ruled that the warrent was valid and the records could be opened.

So it WAS considered and it was found to not apply.

What statutory violation are you refering to ?

[colorado tanker]

Read the transcript. Black did discuss the statute. The court and the prosecutor also considered it. The court ruled "no harm no foul" because Black was given a hearing after the fact and the court basically said the difference between a search warrant and a subpoena was immaterial. The prosecutor argued that nothing would be served by giving the records back and going through the statutory process to get them by the required hearing and subpoena procedure.Of course, in the area of search and seizure law form often controls over substance. And there is the issue that if the prosecutor can get away with ignoring the statute with no consequences, will anybody follow the statutute in the future.

This is the main issue that is now on appeal. You really ought to read the articles before you claim to be an expert on the facts.

[RS]

"You really ought to read the articles before you claim to be an expert on the facts."

So just where did the Judge say that there was any sort of statutory violation ?

He did NOT say that the search warrent ruling was against statute, and did NOT rule that medical records can only be obtained by supeona.

Black discussed the statute, like he could discuss just about anything - If he and you want to call it a statutory violation, fine, but noone except him ever ruled it that.

It's like Black coming out with these extortion allegations - He got it in the record that he said it, but there is no information that it has any bearing on reality.

It appears the Judge had given Black a lot of leeway to say just about anything he wants - and still ruled against him...

[colorado tanker]

You can choose to spin if you like. Everyone at the hearing conceded the statute had not been followed. What the judge ruled was that it didn't matter because Black/Rush was getting a hearing after the fact. The appellate court will look at that to see if the judge was right. IMHO prosecutors already have enough power without letting them ignore statutes.

I believe Rush has to accept the consequences of his actions, just like most folks. But something stinks here.

This prosecutor gave Rush's housekeeper blanket immunity without doing even a rudimentary investigation, which apparently means she gets a pass for blackmail, a far, far more serious crime than "doctor shopping." Then he blatently ignores a very clear statute for obtaining medical records so he can seize them and review them before Rush can defend himself. All this by an elected Dim official in an overwhelmingly Dim county. Don't you remember the anonymous remark reported after this story broke that the liberals intend to "take him down"?

I excpect Rush to take his medicine, so to speak, but I also expect that he should be treated as any other citizen and not be the victim of a political vendetta.

[RS]

"This prosecutor gave Rush's housekeeper blanket immunity without doing even a rudimentary investigation, which apparently means she gets a pass for blackmail "

... and you know this how ?

... and please address all three points you made if you will

1."This prosecutor gave Rush's housekeeper blanket immunity "

2."without doing even a rudimentary investigation"

3."which apparently means she gets a pass for blackmail"

[antaresequity]

Tough luck Rush...

If you do the crime...do the time...

I for one will not rue the day his fat head is gone from the airwaves.

Now only if we can get him to somehow take ORielly with him...

[colorado tanker]

My source is Roy Black. I don't think a lawyer of that caliber makes that kind of statement without proof.

Obviously, no one, including you, will know the whole story until this thing goes to trial or some other resolution.

One thing you could tell us now, however, is why you decided to join the lynch-Rush mob?

[RS]

"My source is Roy Black. I don't think a lawyer of that caliber makes that kind of statement without proof."

Oh..
..and I suppose " If the glove don't fit, you must acquit" is a valid legal requirement ?





Where did Rush ever say anything like that ?

Where are the charges of Blackmail filed ?

If not - why not ? - since the cat is out of the bag as far as Rush's drug use ?

[Hildy]

If you don't believe that Rush should defend himself to the best of his ability than you're an ass.

[Hildy]

Rush should have just bought his pills from the thousand of websites that offer it legally these days. YEESH.

[colorado tanker]

Now you're just being silly. Roy Black is a very different lawyer than Johnny Cochran. There was no opportunity to file bankruptcy charges because when he quit paying she went to the LE authorities to rat him out and get immunity. If she's gotten blanket immunity she can't be prosecuted.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

I recall that the state attorney conceded that the statute had not been followed. But, I don't recall that the maid was given blanket immunity. Can you post a link?

[colorado tanker]

I don't think it's been established for sure that the maid got blanket immunity. Black implied that and I would have thought the DA would have corrected him if she had only gotten use immunity. But I don't think the DA has publicly stated exactly what he did.

[RS]

" If she's gotten blanket immunity she can't be prosecuted."

IF.... IF..... Wouldn't filing a complaint against them FORCE the cops to reveal this publically ?

Would this not give credence to Rush's story ?

But then again .. this is NOT Rush's story - He has never stated that he was a victim of extortion, just as he has never stated that he did NOT obtain drugs from the Clines.

... and I suppose "blanket immunity" also immunizes you against falsifying evidence against Rush ?

[colorado tanker]

Wouldn't filing a complaint against them FORCE the cops to reveal this publically ?

A citizen cannot file a criminal case. All a citizen can do is complain to the police or DA, who has the call. We don't know what Black has done at this point.

What do you mean this isn't Rush's story. You think he and his lawyer have two different stories???

[DaGman]

"If you don't believe that Rush should defend himself to the best of his ability than you're an ass."

Thank you for your well articulated contribution to the discourse on this topic.