Limbaugh's pill use not extraordinary, lawyer says

Miami Herald ^ | Jan. 26, 2004 | DANIEL de VISE

[AlwaysLurking]

Limbaugh's pill use not extraordinary, lawyer says

BY DANIEL de VISE ddevise@herald.com

Rush Limbaugh's attorney mounted an offensive Monday, accusing Palm Beach County prosecutors of smear tactics and likening his client to any ordinary American with chronic pain.

''This nation is full of people who take medication every day and will do so for the rest of their lives,'' said Roy Black, speaking in a news conference in Miami.

Discussing the prescription-drug abuse allegations in unprecedented detail, Black reasoned that the quantity of medicine Limbaugh is accused of ingesting -- 1,800 pills in 210 days -- works out to roughly 8.5 pills a day, ``certainly not an outrageous amount.''

Black questioned the motives of Palm Beach County State Attorney Barry Krischer in releasing details last week of sensitive plea negotiations between Limbaugh and prosecutors.

The December correspondence, unflattering to Limbaugh, shows the radio talk-show host proposing to settle the case through treatment, potentially averting a permanent criminal record. Prosecutors counter: Plead guilty to a single felony charge of ''doctor shopping'' and avoid prison time. Both offers were rejected.

Black said the plea negotiations shouldn't have been released. He portrayed the incident as part of a politically motivated campaign to discredit his client.

Black said the government's plea offer came with a veiled threat: If Limbaugh did not plead guilty, the state would release his confidential medical records.

''The only conclusion that I can draw is that Mr. Limbaugh ... is being singled out more than anyone else for actions that no one else in this community would be subjected to,'' Black said.

Black and other prominent South Florida attorneys said they couldn't recall another case of plea negotiations released to the public.

''There has to be some thought about the long-term consequence'' of routinely releasing such documents, said Robert Jarvis, a law professor at Nova Southeastern University. ``And the long-term consequence in this case is that no one would begin a negotiation about a plea.''

But Michael Edmondson, spokesman for the Palm Beach County state attorney, said prosecutors were confident they'd done the right thing.

Prosecutors consulted the Attorney General's Office and the Florida Bar in response to the Jan. 15 public records request by the Landmark Legal Foundation, which sought all available documents in the case. They concluded the state public records law required releasing the plea dealings, even though doing so violates ethical rules for lawyers.

''The way the Florida public records law works is, anything that is not specifically exempted under the law is permitted,'' Edmondson said. State law trumps any ethical concerns, he said.

But he offered nothing in writing to back up that account. And Limbaugh's legal team produced documents Monday that seemed to contradict it.

Telephone notes from a Florida Bar attorney, paraphrasing Kirscher himself, state that plea negotiations ``are not normally to be revealed [and] so may or may not be [a] public record.''

Attorney General spokeswoman JoAnn Carrin wouldn't say what legal advice her agency gave the chief Palm Beach County prosecutor, citing the ongoing investigation.

Prosecutors began investigating possible prescription-drug abuses by Limbaugh, 53, last year, based on a report from his former maid. Limbaugh has not been charged with any crime.

Limbaugh's attorney accused Edmondson, the state attorney spokesman, of leaking a false story last month that Limbaugh was poised to plead guilty to doctor-shopping. Edmondson denied the assertion.

Doctor-shopping is duping multiple physicians into dispensing excessive prescription medications.

''I can say categorically now that Mr. Limbaugh would not plead guilty to doctor-shopping, and that's because Mr. Limbaugh did not engage in doctor-shopping of any kind,'' Black said.

[holdonnow]

Now, anyone is free to contact this reporter directly and ask him if he filed a request specifically seeking these documents. -- Peter Franceschina can be reached at pfranceschina@ sun-sentinel.com or 561-832-2894. -- RS is full of crap, as usual.

[RS]

"....but understand where RS is coming from, and how he/she/it has distorted virtually everything that has been done and reported in this case."

No you dont, and I have provided a link whereever I can to back up my positions.

Sorry if I just don't just take your word for things - It appears that at times what YOU say, and what others have said conflict.

Perhaps those good folks at LLF will allow you some space where you can post the actual documents you refer to ?

[CMAC51]

No comments at all about the pills obtained from the maid. My guess is that since she sold her story to the National Inquirer her testimony is of no use. However, the affadavits on Smoking Gun paint an ugly picture of Rush's addiction and I hope he continues to get the help he needs and does submit to random drug testing.

If the States Attorney had even a shred of evidence that Limbaugh received drugs through the maid that weren't accountable by prescription, they wouldn't be fooling with the doctor shopping. They've got nothing and their only hope is to keep fishing.

[holdonnow]

You must be missing the entire point of today's news on this. The memo has been reported about, in which the SAO says they received the ok from the Florida bar to release the letters, when that's not what the Florida bar said. Rush's own website has lots of this information on it. Why haven't you provided any links to it? And on January 22, 2004, the prosecutor wrote a memo to his file, which he released to the media and Landmark, contradicting what the Florida bar had said. I'm sorry to expose you, but axxholes like you need to be exposed.

[ClintonBeGone]

Think this through carefully. The letters do not harm Rush. They help him. The issue is their illegal release under Florida law. The prosecutor thought he was clever in releasing them. He violated Florida law in doing so. He created a very serious ethics issue, and it will be dealt with. So, before you attack those who are trying to confront this and beat it back, think through your criticisms.

I have to disagree. For what it's worth he said he got cover from the state bar and the state attorney's office before releasing the documents. Even if he committed some ethical violation, that's not going to be adjudicated by the trial judge. It will be done by an arm of the state bar, which will probably take many many months. Meanwhile Rush's private negotiations are exposed to the world and doors of opportunity to settle the case close. All because some group thought it would be cute to FOIA the prosecutor.

[habs4ever]

You really make a rotten shill, but if that's what's on offer, go for it.

Haven't you ever noticed that when Roy Black takes on a high profile case, his clients end up with more gunk on them than they thought possible?They begin to emulate the man himself, and the 'Just Win, Baby" attitude sticks with the client long after Roy has cashed his final cheque and is long gone.Your pal isn't being helped by enablers such as yourself, or various toadies around this site.

But I've never thought much of your sagacity, and at least once more, you haven't disappointed me.You're an ace.

[CMAC51]

accused of ingesting means that this is all the pills that Rush's defense team will acknowledge (not admit to). This does not remotely account for the accusations and allegations of the maid he was allegedly buying from, etc. So what we have here is a classic legal defense - stay silent for weeks and weeks and weeks until you have all the information known by your accusers, then only acknowledge the amount your accused of, and ignore all other allegations.

Accused of ingesting in contrast to trafficing.

It does not account for the allegations of the maid since it is obvious they cannot be substantiated. Why fool with doctor shopping if you have evidence of direct illegal purchase? Try using your brain just a wee little bit.

[RS]

Why don't you people provide links !
Do I have to do EVERYTHING around here !

http://www.ablelegalforms.com/flalawyerethics.html


"A lawyer shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication ...."

What statement are you refering to ? Please provide the quote by any lawyer that this could possibly refer to...

... and if I ask pretty please would you provide a link ?

[des]

Also, the size of the person is taken into consideration. I know a 78 pound lady on Duragesic patches that would drop and elephant. She is in a great deal of pain without them due to a severely degenerated spine. She is completely alert and functioning as long as her pain is controlled.

[holdonnow]

So, now your entire argument, such as it is, comes down to my posting the prosecutor's memo to file. I can't post it tonight, but I'll make sure we post it in the next day if we can get to our office outside of DC. But for the real Freepers following this, here's precisely what the memo says, without any alterations from me, and why it places the prosecutor in such difficulty:


(Open quote)
MEMO TO THE FILE
FROM KEN SELVIG (Also initialed by Barry Krischer, SAO for Palm Beach County)
JANUARY 22, 2004

RELEASE OF LETTERS FROM ATTORNEY FOR RUSH LIMBAUGH IN RESPONSE TO PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST

We have received a public records request from Peter Franceschina of the Sun-Sentinel for, among other things, any correspondence to or from Roy Black and his law firm. Black currently represents Mr. Limbaugh in connection with an on-going investigation.

Yesterday afternoon I spoke by telephone with Pat Gleason, the AG's most knowledgeable person on public records law. I did not tell her the particular case I was calling about. the question posed was whether there is an exemption to the public record's law that would allow us to refuse to disclose a letter from an attorney offering to plead guilty in a case that is under investigation by not yet filed. It is my opinion that there is no exception to the law that will allow us to withhold the letter. Ms. Gleason agreed with my position. She recommended, and I agreed, that we should consult the Florida Bar for an opinion on whether the release of the attorney's letter would possible raise an issue under the Rules of Professional Responsibility (RPC).

This morning, Barry [Krischer, the State's attorney spoke with Barbara Moore of the Florida Bar about the issue. Ms. Moore's opinion is that the Florida poublic records law takes precedence over any possible issue raised by the RPC. She said that there is an ethical obligation to follow the requirements of the law and that it would in fact be unethical NOT to disclose the letter unless there is an applicable exception. I agree.

Therefore, we will comply with the request to disclose the letters received from or sent to Mr. Black and his law firm.
(close quote)

[ClintonBeGone]

Oh, and by the way, as the earlier news stories on this point out, the Sun Sentinel asked for these letters, not Landmark. But it wound up helping.

My point has been that Landmark asked for documents and what the prosecutors office turned over included these letters.  In fact, your website actually contains the text from an article that states Landmark started this whole thing with the document request.  Quote below.  Link to this story on your website. Emphasis mine.

 

January 16 2004

By Peter Franceschina
Staff Writer

A conservative nonprofit law firm filed a request Thursday with Palm Beach County State Attorney Barry Krischer seeking any records of his staff's communications with the media relating to his office's investigation into Rush Limbaugh's prescription drug use.

. . . .

The request seeks any records that refer to Limbaugh dating to Jan. 1, 2000, that are not exempt from public review as part of the criminal investigation. Levin could not be reached late Thursday for comment.

 

 

[longtermmemmory]

That would be the leak given to the miami herald lawyer who was able to make the specific request to the SA in order to obtain the settlement letters.

It is also the SA diseminating the documents after the FL Bar Ethics hotline stated they should seek the direction of the judge assigned to the matter.

The release of the letters in addition to providing the leak of the letters' existences is a violation of 4-3.6.

The SA took a deliberate risk in order to ensure release of settlement negotiations. (probably because judges will do everything to protect the settlement negotiation process. They do not want what has happened here to force all cases into trial mode because of fear of negotiation.) The SA took another deliberate risk when they misrepresented what the bar advised them. BIG MISTAKE.

[longtermmemmory]

which is absolute manure. The bar ethics hotline is specifically giving legal advise. This would include stating an ethics opinion is overridden by a law requires a legal opinion of that law.

The memo of the FL Bar is the more important memo now.

[longtermmemmory]

should be sun sentinal not herald.

[Cubs Fan]

''The way the Florida public records law works is, anything that is not specifically exempted under the law is permitted,''

Note that very important word PERMITTED. The law does NOT say that plea agreements MUST be released for an Freedom Of Information request. (Whereas the ethics are clear-- making plea agreements public is unethical.)

State law trumps any ethical concerns, (Edmondson said.) *BUZZ* I don't think so..

State law does not contradict the ethics. Therefore it does not "trump" them.

Check mate-- in releasing the plea agreements ethics were clearly violated.

[holdonnow]

Again, RS is simply placing disinformation on this thread, but for the rest of you -- you can see above that Krischer says the Florida Bar says it would be unethical if he did NOT release the letters requested by the Sun-Sentinel. Now, when inquiries are made of the Florida Bar, they keep a formal call record. I will post this tomorrow on Landmark's website as well, assuming we can get into the office. I received this document from the Florida Bar late today. But for tonight, I've transcribed exactly what it says, and you will see that the Bar did NOT say what the SAO put in its memo, and that Krischer lied about what was said. The BAR did not say he had a duty to release the letters. And you will read further that the AG's office did NOT say state law trumps ethics rules in this case but, instead, to seek an ethics opinion from the Bar's ethics dept. Here's what the Florida Bar's Barbara Moore wrote in her contemporaneous records:

(Open quote)

1/22/04 ... 10:42 AM

Barbara Moore
Caller: Barry Cusher (sp - it's Krischer)

INQUIRY: Caller's office received a public records request in Rush Limbaugh case. File includes letters from atty in SAO to Roy Black, defense counsel. Checked with AG's office and AG says files are public records except that there are 2 letters which include plea negotiations which are not normally revealed so may or may not be public record. AG said to call ethics dept.

ANSWER: Can't provide legal advice or interpret public record statute. All info in file is confidential as to his client, the state, under 4-1.6. Once legally compelled to provide info, it becomes a question of law, whether a/c privilege or public records. If client, state, only agrees to reveal what they are required to under public records law, caller must determine what is legally required and what is not. If unsure, may need to ask court to determine it for them. See 92-5 generally on confidentiality vs. privilege. How legal issues of public record statutes factor in is beyond an ethic opinion.

(End quote.)

So, Barry Krischer, the elected Democrat prosecutor of Palm Beach County, has been exposed -- and so, too, has RS. If not tomorrow, then by Wednesday, this document as well as Krischer's false memo to file will be put on Landmark's website (landmarklegal.org)

[habs4ever]

Can you provide a date to Rush's supposed failed back operation? I sure can't recall him ever taking a significant leave of absence for such an event, but maybe you can refresh my memory.See,if he didn't have surgery, it is a very plausible explanation why Black is fighting tooth and nail on the release of his medical records.It goes to the issue of credibility.

This would be moot if you have some proof you can share with us all.I hope he is getting treatment, right now, for the pain he must be in, because of his back, and you as a good friend,you would be encouraging him, no doubt, to have his back attented, correct? He can seek out the same sort of orthopods that high profile NFL stars use when faced with such pain, correct?Silly to go through a detox when the root cause is still being left unattended, wouldn't it?

This is, of course, predicated on whether he was honest about his addiction with his audience from the start.What would you think of a guy who would lie brazenly to his audience about why he became a junkie, if not to rationalize his illegal actvities?It's a big risk, isn't it?...unless you hire a Roy Black to go play smashmouth as is his style.

Fess up, when did he have surgery and will the medical records now in dispute indicate such a date and who the performing surgeon was?

He owes those, who have built his business, the truth.However it shakes out.

[longtermmemmory]

She is engaged in CYA. The Palm Beach SA was trying to pass responsibility. She KNEW it would be an ethics problem. The Palm Beach SA KNEW it would be a problem for the bar. That why he did not as the ethical question first.

The SA knew it was a violation of 4-3.6

[longtermmemmory]

ok who wants to file an ethics complaint?

[holdonnow]

Stop being so cute. Do you want the facts or not. The Sun Sentinel asked for the letters and got them on Thursday. They wrote about them. They said they asked for them. That's why they were released. The next day, the rest of the media got the information, as did Landmark, after the Sentinel story ran. I can't control what papers are writing. But here I am, in person, telling you what happened, showing you what happened, and that's what happened. Now, correct yourself and stop repeating false information.