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.
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...
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.
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.
Are you saying that Rush made a mistake by voluntarily going to re-hab?
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**
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.
I said that's what THE PROSECUTOR might say. I made no comment either way as to whether I would believe him.
And how does this make my previous statement any less correct?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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."
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.