Limbaugh's pill use not extraordinary, lawyer says

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

[an amused spectator]

If you don't want to fall into that web, don't break the law.

You sound like one of the crowd that was lecturing us about Linda Tripp, and "copyright violations", zekkie.

There was a crooked man
Who enforced a crooked "law".
He got a crooked sixpence
with his crooked little statutes...

[TigersEye]

Did I say that?

You said this:

The prosecutor might argue convicting Rush will do more to stop the practice than convicting 100 no names.

That sounds to me like you are making the case that the prosecuter is handling this case differently than all other cases of the same nature in order to discourage others from "doctor shopping" or whatever it is they intend to charge him with.

[unsycophant]

I read on another thread recently that some(all?) of the doctors were part of the same practice or group. Mr. Limbaugh saw one as another was out of the office. If this is true, it seems relevant to the charges of 'shopping'.

Originally, the claim went that the maid was busted as part of a sting operation. The documents that appeared on TheSmokingGun did NOT substantiate this. In fact---the timeline was off completely and the criminals denied knowing her.

Just how long was she working with the authorities anyway? She claimed she was wired for meetings with Rush--but the authorities and the Enquirer both denied helping her. So who wired her, exactly?

That Rush was addicted is beside the point as far as I'm concerned. He's entitled to the same legal consequences that every other addict is: little to none, and no violation of his privacy.

[TigersEye]

But gee, what do you say when Rush gave them the rope to hang him and his friends Levin, et al, helped tie one end to the tree?

Are you saying that Rush made a mistake by voluntarily going to re-hab?

[an amused spectator]

If you don't want to fall into that web, don't break the law.

What a starry-eyed little idealist our friend CBG is! I can "break the law" a dozen times on my drive to work every stinking day of the week.

Methinks such Polly Purebredness is a mere affectation, like the rest of his disclaimers.

"Well, no, gosh, I follow the law, ALL the time. I just feel real bad that the pure-as-the-driven-snow prosecutor has to follow the law."

**snort**

[ClintonBeGone]

Are you saying that Rush made a mistake by voluntarily going to re-hab?

Where do you come up with this stuff? I said no such thing. His mistake was getting multiple prescriptions from multiple doctors within 30 days of each other and perhaps not telling these doctors what he did.

[WhiteGuy]

So, is it up to Rush or the government of Florida to decide what the proper dosage of medication should be?

It would be wrong to blame the doctor(s), they work for Rush.


I think most might agree that this decision should be made by each individual.

[ClintonBeGone]

That sounds to me like you are making the case that the prosecuter is handling this case differently than all other cases of the same nature in order to discourage others from "doctor shopping" or whatever it is they intend to charge him with.

I said that's what THE PROSECUTOR might say. I made no comment either way as to whether I would believe him.

[ClintonBeGone]

You sound like one of the crowd that was lecturing us about Linda Tripp, and "copyright violations", zekkie.

And how does this make my previous statement any less correct?

[TigersEye]

I read on another thread recently that some(all?) of the doctors were part of the same practice or group. Mr. Limbaugh saw one as another was out of the office. If this is true, it seems relevant to the charges of 'shopping'.

I'm not sure which doctor is which but I read that at least two (maybe more as you say) doctors were from the same office and one was his ear specialist in CA. That would be entirely relevant to "doctor shopping."

Here's an example. My wife went to the doctor yesterday. Her doc was on her day off so she saw one of the other docs in the office. All she got was a culture for strep throat but if she had been there to get a scrip for pain meds his name would be on the scrip not her regular doctor. But it would be the same as if it had been her regular doc because her stand-in was working with the same charts and history. Suppose she was getting a pain scrip refilled once a week by her regular doc but one time per month the fill-in doctor wrote the scrip. Voila, they all just broke the law if they were in FL according to ClintonBeGone.

[TigersEye]

LOL That's about right.

[an amused spectator]

And how does this make my previous statement any less correct?

By your pretense that the "law" is something immutable, rather than the stealth "revenue enhancement" scheme that the various state legislatures & feral gubbmint are busily crafting it into.

Enough with the doe-eyed act, CBG. It may some of the other zekkies around here, but it don't fool me.

[ClintonBeGone]

Voila, they all just broke the law if they were in FL according to ClintonBeGone.

No, according the law. I've showed you the elements a number of times. The law clearly states PRACTIONER, not medical practice or group practice. PRACTIONER. However, your wife would probably NOT be in violation if the doctors used the same set of records and were aware of the prior script. Really, is there no level you wont go to defend lawbreaking?

[ClintonBeGone]

By your pretense that the "law" is something immutable

It is, unless you're a bleeding heart liberal and believe in a living breathing constitution. I would warn my fellow conservatives before they continue to get in bed with you. You've really shown no compassion for a conservative cause. You (and Tigers Eye) seem to simply be enablers for the lawless.

[holdonnow]

Have you ever smoked pot?

[holdonnow]

If the SAO has a case, why hasn't he brought it? Instead, he insists on seizing doctors' records through the unusual route of search warrants -- issued by lib judges, which the circuit ordered returned to the court from the prosecutor and kept under seal -- in hopes of proving his doctor shopping case. Two of the 4 doctors work in the same office and shared the same records (when one was absent, the other filed in -- read the hearing transcript and learn of what you speak). The other two doctors worked on different problems Rush had. Why haven't you spoken to this, link to the record, etc. And then we have a prosecutor, who I've proven has lied about the advice he received from the Florida Bar, which is a major assault of the judicial process. Meanwhile, you claim to care about the law, consistency, etc. I've read what you said, I've addressed it, and I have to conclude that either you're a very slow learner, a lib, or a putz.

[holdonnow]

Again, have you ever smoked pot? Just curious if you're a lawbreaker. I've not. But I'll bet you have.

[holdonnow]

Again, have you ever smoked pot? Just curious if you're a lawbreaker. I've not. But I'll bet you have.

(There, that's better.)

[holdonnow]

Well, suddenly you're silent. Well, I have to go ... pot-head.

[TigersEye]

The law clearly states PRACTIONER, not medical practice or group practice. PRACTIONER. However, your wife would probably NOT be in violation if the doctors used the same set of records and were aware of the prior script.

PROBABLY not? Gee, thanks. So it's just a guessing game for all us patients as to whether we are in compliance with the law and if some overzealous prosecuter wants to search our medical records and threaten us with "doctor shopping" charges you'll be right there saying "the law is the law, you got drugs from two different PRACTITIONERS, you deserve to go to jail."