Rush Limbaugh Plea negotiations

The Smoking Gun ^ | January 23, 2004 | legal documents

[RS]

"An investigation of what? He is not charged with anything."

uh.. you investigate, then you charge....

"Then why doesn't the DA charge him with those ten frigging felonies already?"

Because the investigation is not finished - Rush is blocking it ...

[RS]

They allready have "probable cause", they needed it to get the search warrents issued - They are continuing to investigate to gather whatever the amount of evidence they feel they need to obtain a conviction.

[Cold Heat]

Rush is blocking it ...

Just trying to keep them from fishing in waters that previously were off limits to most if not all investigations that did not involve major criminals.

[Cubs Fan]

--uh.. you investigate, then you charge....---

No you say he's "doctor shopping" to the media and that there is enough for 10 felony counts against him, but don't bother charging him, just try to get his medical records to go on a fishing expedition.

[Cubs Fan]

They are continuing to investigate to gather whatever the amount of evidence they feel they need to obtain a conviction.

Their investigation would have a lot more credibility if they would charge him and then try to sieze his medical records. After all if what they're saying is true, that they have enough evidence to prove 10 felonies, they don't even need those records, do they?

[longtermmemmory]

Different procedure differnt hearing, different standards.

I have done both, not the same.

The ad hoc system that was afforded Rush was NOT the same protections afforded other medical records.

Search warrents are issued on probable cause not proof. If there was a proper hearing the SA would have had to give up more information. Even the warrents state they did not reveal all their information.

Additionally follwoing proper procedure the SA would have had to disclose what specific information they want, not this shotgun approach of the entire medical file.

Thus the SA may have been precluded from finding out how much rush paid his doctors, or intimate details about his implant.

The procedure of law does not change because of one prosecutor's desire to "get" someone based on email pressure.

This prosecutor is beyond zelous. (Le Mis?) The SA expects us to believe these doctors would sift through their files and destroy information? (do doctors want to be charged with evidence tampering.) Will people be forced to keep possession of the medical files in order to avoid some prosecutorial fishing expedition.

aaa phone.

[RS]

"Their investigation would have a lot more credibility if they would charge him and then try to sieze his medical records. After all if what they're saying is true, that they have enough evidence to prove 10 felonies, they don't even need those records, do they?"

I'm not a prosecutor going after a high-profile perp with millions of bucks to spend, a Kennedy lawyer, and 3 hours a day access to the media.

But if I were, I'd make sure I have everything I need and not take a chance that something would come back and bite me because I did not take the time to look where I should have.

If as Rush says, the records will somehow prove him innocent, better they come out now rather then Black release them during a trial.

[RS]

"Different procedure differnt hearing, different standards."

Since you appear to know the difference, are you confusing the issue on purpose ? No matter.

Do you agree that subpeonas are issued on relevance ?

Or as stated in the hearing -


"Relevance being a lower standard than probable cause. We would assert to this court and did so in our written motion that we've established probable cause with two judges in two different states prior to this court being asked to intervene and that that standard is higher. We've achieved that standard."

As far as "fishing" in the records - they are looking to see what is NOT there - that the doctors did NOT know about each others prescriptions, you cannot estabish that without going through the entire record.

[longtermmemmory]

When you have a proper hearing that is devoted to the medical records, the extent of the search in the records can be limited and controlled.

In certain circumstances, the records can even be examined in the presense of the judge.

The prosecutor is mischaracterizing the standard of law. The fact two judges issued search warrants is not the same protection as a proper hearing.

Relevance is different from discoverable material. Discovery will allow just about anything that leads to relavant material. The medical record hearing requires actual relevanance be shown. The prosecutor would have to be very specific as to what they want to find.

They are looking to structure a doctor shopping case. The doctors may provide testimony they knew of Rush's other doctors and that their notes are incomplete. That inevitably will call the usefullness of the records into question. However, since we have not had a proper hearing on the issue, there was no opportunity for testimony.

A full hearing would have afforded the defendant the full opportunity to be heard. Instead of an evidentiary hearing, Rush was only afforded a hearing based on law/rules alone. The method used by the SA bypasses the full hearing and any limitations that would be placed of the files.

If they are really looking for what is not there, why not have the judge read the file? Why not have the doctor come in and testify as to what is or is not there? What is the SA trying to hide? They are hiding their weak case.

[Cubs Fan]

--I'm not a prosecutor going after a high-profile perp with millions of bucks to spend, a Kennedy lawyer, and 3 hours a day access to the media. But if I were, I'd make sure I have everything I need and not take a chance that something would come back and bite me because I did not take the time to look where I should have.--

If I were one and I had enough evidence to prove in excess of ten felonies, I would charge him. THEN I would ask for those record if I thought they might solidify the case. Because to do anything less would look like an unethical attempt to try the case in the media while on a fishing expedition.

My theory is that the SA does not have the evidence it claims. If they did they could charge him, then firm it up with the records. IMO the reason they want the records is to see IF there is evidence that he doctor shopped, AND IF they find it THEN they will charge him with it.

And I expect Rush's reasons for not wanting to give up his records are one of the following--

1) He may indeed be guilty of doctor shopping, but being a public figure realizes that a plea to a felony conviction on his records will be used by his enemies to smear him and damage his credibility. So he'll obstruct them wherever possible and hold out for a better deal until he knows for sure they will charge him, then if they do he'll take the felony and 3 year probation plea.

2) It is also quite possible that this is what Roy Black advised him to do. As his attorney he may not know his clients guilt or innocence, and is just going by the defense attorney's playbook.

or
3) Rush may very well have legitimate reasons for wanting his medical records kept private. Let's say hypothetically he had sexual problems and needed viagra. His enemies would love to have such info to ridicule him with.

So you're, "if he's innocent he should just give up the records" line may not do justice (pun intended) to the situation as it exists.

[RS]

"If they are really looking for what is not there, why not have the judge read the file?"

Even if that were possible, it's up to them to run the case the way they want, from what they said it appears they did it this way to gain control of the records before they might have become unobtainable - Rush could instantly have decided to be treated by a doctor in the Cayman Islands.

Just what would have happened if a judge, looking for the lack of records that the doctors knew about one anothers prescriptions, noticed that before the Clines were cutoff as a source Rush NEVER complained of pain or received any medications at all ?

Would he have the obligation or right to inform prosecutors of that ?

[blackie]

Rush Rocks ~ Bump!

[longtermmemmory]

An in camera examination of the file is usually with both attorney's present and the judge is looking to see that the specific item the prosecutor is asking for is there.

The prosecutor has to state what they are looking for.

The judge would only be responding to the information requested by the prosecution. Speculating on the Clines as a source would not be the judges perview.

However, the prosecutor should be astute enough to ask for the first date of the perscription. They also have another source of that information since they have the locations where the perscription was filled. They also have to prove who picked up the perscription. (I believe Rush was in pain and on pain pills long before he hired the maid)

This is why I find it very surprising the prosecutor did not set up a sting operation. The would have wired the maid, had her do a transaction and then arrested. It would have been a clean transaction which would have been admissible in court.

I think the focus of the SA is not just charging Rush with a crime. The focus of the SA is charging Rush with a crime, ineligible for the drug court divisionl.

[ConservativeMan55]

BUMP!!!!!!

[RS]

"If I were one and I had enough evidence to prove in excess of ten felonies, I would charge him. THEN I would ask for those record if I thought they might solidify the case. Because to do anything less would look like an unethical attempt to try the case in the media while on a fishing expedition. "

Perhaps this SA decided to do what he thinks needs to be done regardless of what people on FR thinks it "looks like".

[Sarah]

Still plugging away!




Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal Docket

Case Docket
Case Number: 4D03-4973
Final Civil Other Notice from Palm Beach County


RUSH LIMBAUGH vs. STATE OF FLORIDA


Lower Tribunal Case(s): 502003CA013316XXOCAN



Date Docketed Description Date Due Filed By Notes
12/24/2003 Case Filing Fee
12/24/2003 order appealed
12/24/2003 Notice of Appeal Filed Roy E. Black 0126088
01/06/2004 Motion For Review Roy E. Black 0126088 T- OF ORDER DENYING A STAY FOR THE DURATION OF APPELLATE REVIEW WITH ATTACHED APPENDIX.
01/06/2004 Docketing Statement AA Roy E. Black 0126088
01/07/2004 ORD-Appellee to File Response 01/12/2004 BY 1/12/04 TO APLNT'S MOTION TO REVIEW...
01/12/2004 Motion To Dismiss James L. Martz
01/12/2004 RESPONSE James L. Martz TO MOTION TO REVIEW
01/12/2004 Motion To File Amicus Curiae Brief Jon May T - AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF FLORIDA
01/13/2004 ORD-Denying Aplee's Motion to Dismiss
01/13/2004 Order to Show Cause 01/20/2004
01/13/2004 Grant Stay PENDING REVIEW.
01/13/2004 ORD-Permitting Amicus Curiae Brief
01/13/2004 Miscellaneous Motion Roy E. Black 0126088 FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION TO REVIEW.
01/20/2004 Ord-Denying Leave to file Reply
01/20/2004 Motion To File Amicus Curiae Brief Brian Kahan BY NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR THE TREATMENT OF PAIN, THE FLORIDA PAIN INITIATIVE, AND THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS
01/20/2004 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Roy E. Black 0126088 WITH ATTACHMENTS
01/22/2004 ORD-Permitting Amicus Curiae Brief
01/23/2004 Mot. to appear pro hac vice Brian Kahan OF MARY BALUSS (WASHINGTON, D.C.) TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF FOR NAT'L FOUNDATION, ETC.
01/23/2004 REPLY TO RESPONSE James L. Martz TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
01/23/2004 Ord-Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice




Supreme Court
First District Court of Appeal
Second District Court of Appeal
Third District Court of Appeal
Fourth District Court of Appeal
Fifth District Court of Appeal


Supreme Court Opinions
First DCA Opinions
Second DCA Opinions
Third DCA Opinions
Fourth DCA Opinions
Fifth DCA Opinions

[RS]

"So you're, "if he's innocent he should just give up the records" line..."

Please don't missquote me if you wish to paraphrase what I have said.

Black said they would prove Rush's innocent, and maybe he should suggest that a judge read them to see if they contain what the prosecutors think they do ...

Since the prosecutors went "pouring over the records" during the day that they were allowed to open them, it seems strange that they have not dropped the case yet if what Black says is true.

Do you are seriously going through this so that they can LOSE the case and then leak the medical records that they could have allready leaked if they wanted to ?

[RS]

"This is why I find it very surprising the prosecutor did not set up a sting operation. The would have wired the maid, had her do a transaction and then arrested. It would have been a clean transaction which would have been admissible in court."

Look at the timeline - the Clines were out as Rush's suppliers before they went to the cops... If they tried to get them in again it would have been entrapment.

[blackie]

Rush Is The Man!

[Matchett-PI]

"I think the focus of the SA is not just charging Rush with a crime. The focus of the SA is charging Rush with a crime, ineligible for the drug court divisionl."

You nailed it.

By the way, Fox News Channel has been advertising that fact that Roy Black will be appearing on the Hannity and Colmes Show tomorrow evening at 9PM, eastern. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he may not also appear on Hannity's radio show between 3 and 6, also.

The SA is using the arm of their left-wing DemocRAT friends in the media and elsewhere in hopes of seeing to it that Rush is found guilty in the court of public opinion. If they succeed in that, then everything else they want to do will be easy.

Rush's enemies have set the rules by which they plan to run their PR war against him.

Roy Black is merely using the PR rules that Rush's enemies set up.

It's called, "fighting fire with fire". The DemocRATS and their stooge SA must lose this PR war against Rush.