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.
U.S. Constitution, Amendment IX:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, SHALL NOT be construed to DENY OR DISPARAGE others (rights) RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE."
Crystal clear, concise, and unambiguous that the right to consume the chemical of your choice is retained by the individual and thus cannot be denied or disparaged by our federal government.
That is why the the first ten amendments are called the Bill of Rights.
FYI: My chemical of choice is beer and wine.
[In other posts] you put too much weight on your own read of the public records stuff. When two laws or regulations are at odds, what is the rule?
Can you be more specific? Either the P will or will not charge Rush. There is only one element of the crime we don't know the answer to - if the doctors knew about the other scripts. Thats not a lot of presumptions.
When two laws or regulations are at odds, what is the rule?
Well, there are a number of rule of stautory construction. One is that the specific trumps the general. Of course, I don't agree that there IS a conflict in the law, but thats where you would start if there is.
"the crime": presumtuous.
"only one element we don't know": presumptuous
Can't stop using Clinton speak, can you? :)
Great. I'm sure Rush is glad to have you on his side.
Thats kinda what prosecutors do. Its their job to act to the detriment of people who commit crimes. And sometimes they cut deals with the little fish to get bigger fish. The fact that Rush was 'unrepresented' has no bearing on this case unless they asked him to waive some right during that time. There is not even an accusation that that happened.
Could you explain the difference between the constitutional requirement that probable cause be found before a warrant is issued, and this statutorily different (?) probable cause you refer to?
Presumptuous. And wrong.
Further ...
That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent natural Rights, of which they cannot, by any Compact, deprive, or divest their Posterity; among which are the Enjoyment of Life and Liberty, with the Means of acquiring and possessing Property, and pursuing and Obtaining Happiness and Safety-- George Mason, Virgina Declaration
I see that you've unilaterally elevated the status of your post to "intelligent". :-)
I agree. But please recognize the distinction between an "amendment" and a "law."
Article V, enumerates the proper procedure to amend the Constitution.
No "law" can amend, abridge, contradict, or violate the Constitution.
Thus, the 18th amendment was a full recognition that prohibiting the consumption of alcohol by our federal government with just the enactment of law, would have been unconstitutional. That the people had the "retained" right to consume the chemical of their choice.
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.