Posted on 01/26/2004 4:48:57 PM PST by 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.
The prosecutor is free to use them as a witness. It's just that a skilled defense attorney (a la Roy Black) will shred them before the jury. One of the many reasons that Rush is paying so much for Mr. Black's services.
Yep. He's a master. However, I doubt he wants to defend Rush in Palm Beach county when not only do you have her as a witness, albeit damaged, but you'll have medical and bank records along with testimony from some of the top doctors in the country.
I honestly don't think Rush or Black are concerned about any civil liability or civil lawsuit. I believe Black's only goal at this point is to avoid Rush having to plead to or be convicted of a felony. No one in this matter wants to be involved in a civil suit with discovery, etc. Too much dirty laundry will air. And Rush, for the benefit of his career, simply can't plead to a felony. A misdemeanor, maybe, but a felony would really damage his career.
Good morning sand-bagger and trusy side-kick!Sorry I can't get back to you, to engage you forthrightly and directly regarding POVs, perceptions, purposeful distractions, or outright spin on this subject or any other subject immediately ... but rest assured - that time will come!
Now think about what you've written for a second, will you?
Fact is "Medicare's" a kinder, gentler name for "welfare," OK?
You're darned right it doesn't cover "private care" -- of any kind -- nor should it.
Prior to the tightening of Medicare laws governing "home nursing care" the taxpayer was being mercilessly taken to the cleaners, bilked out of tens of millions of dollars by unscrupulous "Home Healthcare" outfits that were popping up like weeds to suckle at the federal teet, unimpeded.
Nevertheless Medicare's the best we have right now, providing the best possible care the taxpayer(s) can afford to those who neglected to prepare for their senior years; and, the "Federal," "State" agencies who police the industry [read: "Surveyors"] see to it standards are met, if not exceeded.
"There are lots of homes that use the residents' assets until they run out."
Well of course they do; then, "Medicare" kicks in.
*That's* how the system -- the system WE taxpayers came up with through via elected reps -- works, my friend.
There's nothing whatsoever unfair about that.
Of course if you're going to endevour to be "fair" than let us not forget to mention those *clever* ones who divested themselves of their assets -- to their greedy, undeserving children -- prior to their entering a nursing home in lieu of paying their fair share, OK?
Doing so dumped the care & welfare of these people squarely into the collective laps of we the taxpayers and did so by relying solely on [our] generosity, charity & humanity, eh?
The LTC industry's -- as a "rule" -- staffed by caring people who're doing a thankless job caring for the mothers, fathers, & others -- who for one reason or another cannot take care of themselves due to accident, natural or otherwise -- of this nation when their own people want nothing to do with 'em.
What's even worse, is "Medicare" isn't paying what it costs to take care of these people, per day, as it is so the private businesses are losing money every day, & that's a fact.
What we never want to see happen is for the "state" to move in & take over the care of our infirm & elderly because that'd been tried with mental institutions; and, those godless places were some of the truest hellholes ever & had to be dismantled out of shame for what was going on in 'em in the name of "We the people."
So don't be an ingrate.
"Ingratitude" is one of the only unforgivable sins there is, in my book.
"There are all kinds of passive ways to speed up death, such as removing feeding tubes."
Again, think about what you've said.
The LTC industry's a "business" & what sense would there be in accelerating the death of the very people whose business it is to care care of??
If anything wouldn't it be logical the LTC industry trys -- valiantly -- to prolong lives?
Think.
"But I suppose I am stupid to believe such things happen."
No, you're not "stupid" to believe such things might have or could happen.
There're some very sick homicidal personality who've been entrusted with caring for the general welfare of people while doing the exact opposite -- for whatever their twisted reason(s) -- & when they reveal themselves they're skinned alive.
I'll tell you where what you suggested will become a real possibility, and that'd be if the "state" were in charge of taking care of our sick & infirm; because, then there'd be a *motive*, wouldn't there?
Please, accept my apology.
...you're not a "stupid asshole."
Because the lawyer is doing what the mouthpiece of any rich guy would do - dodging the issues, weaving, deflecting, etc.
The straight answer to your question is he wasn't taking 8.5 pills a day, he was using them to get high as well as pain relief, and he liked the buzz. He apparently liked the buzz enough to ruin his hearing with pills.
The Florida statute the requires the release of government held documents.
I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to know which interpretation will prevail here, but I can foresee consequenses.
First, this interpretation means that all plea agreements and all negotiations will henceforth be available to the public, both retroactively and prior to trials. Second, if this interpretation holds, there will be no further plea negotiations in the state of Florida.
I have my own guess as to whether this interpretation will stand.
Is that a bad thing? Regardless, this is a policy decision that has been made by the legislative branch. It's not the job of the judiciary to change the will of the legislature. Look at us now, apparently some (not necessarily you) who claim they are conservative are in favor of plea bargains and judicial activism. Its a sad sad day if that is the case.
Back in December there was a thread about the raids on the pharmacies. I did a little research about the charge of doctor shopping because something wasn't adding up to me. I haven't found where any other doctors have been involved other than the ones named back in December.
Disclaimer. There may be other doctors who have been named since December, I am not aware of them though since I haven't been able to keep current with everything that has been going on.
Here's what I posted in that thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1035185/posts?page=139#139
Antonio De La Cruz was the surgeon who did the cochlear implants.
Nathaniel Drourr - Director Pain Management Center - Jupiter Outpatient Surgery Lawrence Deziel - Jupiter Outpatient Surgery Center John Murray - only John Murray I found in Florida was affiliated with Florida Emergency Medicine Foundation John Murray, MD, FACEP
Two of the four search warrants were executed at the offices of Jupiter Outpatient Surgery Center. A third was executed at Palm Beach Ear, Nose and Throat Association in Palm Beach Gardens. A fourth for the same location has not yet been executed.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1035185/posts?page=288#288
I'm not sure it could be called Doctor shopping because he had 2 doctors at the same locations. The argument could be made the Jupiter Clinic was treating him for back pain and the Ear, Nose and Throat Clinic was treating him for his hearing loss and subsequent surgery.
Based upon my own experience, Rush should have one chart with each facility so each of the 2 doctors at the same facility would have access to what had been prescribed to him. The only place he may run into trouble is if he didn't let the Jupiter Clinic know what Palm Beach Ear, Nose and Throat had prescribed him.
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.
comment--Its too bad that when they went permission shopping they didn't get it, nor did they tell the truth about the anwer they received, nor did they seek a judge's ruling. Oh no, it was just too irresistable to try and smear the accused (and as yet uncharged) in the media.
Should there ever be a trial they have deliberately tainted the jury pool.
Guilty of what? We are not talking about a violent crime, theft, fraud, or any offence against persons or property. We are talking about someone becoming addicted. Worst possible case, he exceeded the medically recommended dosage of a prescribed medication.
If Rush were a liberal or a Hollywood star this case would have been over months ago. The only reason he is being persecuted is that it keeps a moment of his human weakness and possible hypocracy floating in the headlines. The only reason for continuing the rant against him is to hurt him. That is the only possible motive for this who want to pursue this.
As for his choice of lawyers, I think there is no excuse for anyone not seeking the most effective counsel. If there are lies here about surgery or purchasing pills illegally, they will come out anyway -- in fact they already have, whether the allegations are true or false.
When you look at how prosecutors work, you have to give some thought to how their tactics will look when applied universally. I have no doubt that the release of documents presumed to be confidential will not stand.
And as for the "plea bargin" I see no plea other than not guilty. Show me otherwise.
You bet it is. Without plea bargains, every case would go to trial. Take a good hard look at what that would mean.
What a coincidence!:
Prosecutors counter: Plead guilty to a single felony charge of "doctor shopping" and avoid prison time.
BTW, "the rule of law" died during the Clinton administration. What we have left is a system of real felonies, "political" felonies & "revenue enhancement" felonies.
This prosecutor is going after Limbaugh with a political & revenue enhancement felony (nice two-fer!).
The Over-Criminalization of Social and Economic Conduct
If we don't speak up now, we'll be next on the platter - whenever it suits our political enemies in the legal system. There IS a reason why the Left is going for the lock on the federal judgeships, and it ain't got a thing to do with the dead "rule of law".
If you don't believe me, just reflect on the "felony" that Linda Tripp "committed" when she taped her own phone calls, and the outrageously transparent SLAPP suit that was filed against this very site.
*BUZZ* Not if they are plea negotiations. And with good reason. They could (and in this case, have been) used to taint any prospectuve jury pool.
but like I said, just like the Clinton apologists, you Rush haters don't care what you mess up just so long as Rush gets screwed. Does it make you feel good to the liberals dirty work for them???
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.