Silence [about Rush] in the press trenches

The Washington Times ^ | January 30, 2004 | R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.

[xsysmgr]

Really, it is not very amazing a government vendetta has been launched against Rush Limbaugh, the very successful and gifted talk show host.

Governments have attempted to suppress criticism for centuries. The Founding Fathers were acutely aware of that and provided strong protections in our system of government for dissent and for free speech. But would Thomas Jefferson, for instance, have anticipated that a journalist's fellow communicators would remain silent while one of their own was being threatened with jail?

[longtermmemmory]

forgot to add, that doctor shopping charge was going to be proven with a confession.

[RS]

"That lone doctor shopping case was in part procurment of drugs for another. NOT for use himself.

Strange, the doctor-shopping law does not specify that the perp must not be the end user - perhaps you could point me to case law that shows differently ?

OOps, I forgot, this case is unique, there is no case law.... silly me....

[Sarah]

just a little correction to your comment:
'I do disagree with you about street level purchases. A client with money does not purchase drugs on the street, they will fake a prescription, go to a cooperative doctor, even get a surrogate. But they will never ever get near a street purchase unless the money runs out.'

When I said that obviously addiction to pain meds would lead to getting them illegally (ie overlapping or multiple-user prescriptions or STREET purchases) I was including the possible purchase of pills by Rush from the Clines. Not on the actual street, but with cash from a person (ie: not a pharmacy)

[lawdude]

"...and it's darn well less offensice than firing cruise missils at a pharmeceutical plant to distract attention from accusations of sexual harassment of an intern."

But, don't you know that these missles totally destroyed all of Saddam H's stockpiles of WMD. That's why we have been unable to find them. He is my hero. [sigh]

GAG!

[Sarah]

I think what it's gotten down to now is that Yes, we can agree that Rush almost certainly broke the law in one way or another by having the quantity of pills that he did (that led to, and then fed his addiction.) It's impossible otherwise: how could one legally keep prescriptions going when all doctors limit their use as they know how addictive they are...
So all that we're all arguing about now is what should be done to Rush.
What all lawyers here have said (and R Emmet Tyrell reiterates in his new article) is that no one gets prosecuted for this. First timers get to get their act together, and as LTM just posted; it's no cake walk.
I think that you, like myself, disliked the sight of Rush acting all coy and pointing the finger at the Clines (as if they got him hooked!) It just seemed like he was unwilling to face his self created mess....no?
He does though, have the right to point out to the courts the strange coincidence of zealous prosecution in his and his case only.

[lawdude]

"I heard Rush, himself, say that he took drugs because he liked them."

You friggin idiot. I take oxycontin myself for pain. I LIKE THEM (IT) TOO. Sheesh, what a doofus! If you have never experienced pain, good for you. But when you do, remember your are stronger than drugs and will not have to take pain killers!

Go get your wisdom teeth pulled and see what you think? Oh, it is obvious you don't have wisdom teeth.

[end rant]

[RS]

"This also assumes that convicted criminal David Cline and Wilma Cline were not forging prescriptions in Rush's name. A very valid defense claim."

"A very valid defense claim."... HOGWASH !

The Clines were out of Rush's circle and under the cops watch long before the time the records show Rush was buying the drugs leading to the doctor-shopping charge.

Clines went to the cops Dec 2002, Rush's buys were from Mar-Sept 2003.

Longtermmemory simply needs to mark a calender to see the falicy of his argument.

[RS]

"You friggin idiot. I take oxycontin myself for pain. I LIKE THEM (IT) TOO. Sheesh, what a doofus! "

So I suppose, like Rush you found EXCUSES to take them ?
That your health did not matter?

"I took the drugs because I liked them and I found excuses to take them, so I'm not weaseling. I'm just saying that one of the things was that I did not put my health first."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/11/17/235030.shtml

[lawdude]

"So I suppose, like Rush you found EXCUSES to take them ?
That your health did not matter? "

As a matter of fact, jerk, NO, I did not. I was prescribed oxycontin in December of 2001 when I had quadrupal bypass surgery. Now some consider this to be a rather intrusive procedure and oft times, we of weaker constitution than yourself, feel the need to get more than 20-30 minutes of sleep a night due to what we weaker individuals call friggin pain.

I understand that the morally pure ass holes such as you are above such needs and "tough it out" like the brave little he-men you are.

That was in 2001. I also have two disks completely gone in my lower back and am in almost constant pain. I cannot walk more than about 200 feet without sitting and I cannot stand in place for more than about 3 minutes without collapsing. Makes for a real fun life!

The original bottle of 25 oxycontin was refilled once and I still have 10 or so left.

Now, you pompous c**ks**ker, STFU until YOU walk in MY shoes. That is, if you have the balls!

Do you have an excuse to be a jerk?

[RS]

Interesting, but a legal waste of time...

"I understand that the State of Florida is alleging that I have committed a criminal offense and have been charged with: ..."

How would this apply to Rush ?

"I understand that Barry Krischer, State Attorney in and for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida agrees to withhold prosecution for the above stated offense...."

HHmmm ? Think that'll happen while Lapdog Legal is nipping on his heels ??

[RS]

"Do you have an excuse to be a jerk? "

... and I suppose your unfortunate situation gives you the right to be one ?

As far as the law is concerned, you can have all the controlled drugs that you are legally entitled to - but you do NOT have the right to the ones that you are not legally entitled to. Simple enough ?

[longtermmemmory]

You have to date back to the accident of wilma cline's husband and his personal injury case which he lost.

You are mistaken when it comes to what is or is not a valid claim for purposes of reasonable doubt. This is why prosecutors need to have "clean" drug buys under survailance in the typical user case.

The former broward county sheriff, Nick Navarro, took to having the sheriff's department make their own crack cocaine until ordered to stop. He did it because the use of fake crack cocaine opened up the defense argument of "impossibility". The law has subsequently been changed.

Please do not confuse the doctor shopping with the allegation of street buying.

Keep the two separate. Just as the financial transaction violation issue is different from these two.

Only on the issue of the Clines and on Rush buying drugs from the clines. Not doctor shopping. Where is the beef? Where is the admissible evidence? To date there are only four tidbits that have been hinted at message machine tapes, a hand written logbook kept by the clines, alleged emails, and the clines' own testimony. (the cigar box of doom does not count for much) All of those are subject to dispute and all could easily be shot down with various reasonable doubts.

Even so, the SA is not under any time pressure: The statute of limitations on this is potentially at worst three years. This assumes everything happened no more than three years ago and is not a first degree felony.

Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 775
DEFINITIONS; GENERAL PENALTIES; REGISTRATION OF CRIMINALS View Entire Chapter

775.15 Time limitations.--

=snip to remove capital felonies=

(2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, prosecutions for other offenses are subject to the following periods of limitation:

(a) A prosecution for a felony of the first degree must be commenced within 4 years after it is committed.

(b) A prosecution for any other felony must be commenced within 3 years after it is committed.

(c) A prosecution for a misdemeanor of the first degree must be commenced within 2 years after it is committed.

(d) A prosecution for a misdemeanor of the second degree or a noncriminal violation must be commenced within 1 year after it is committed.

(e) A prosecution for a felony violation of chapter 517
=snip=

The maid left her job in July 2001. She claims she was still supplying Rush because the doctor's stopped writing perscriptions since 1999. The reason the SA has dropped pursuing the maid charges is probably because they can't tie any direct contact between the two. If we go by the July 2001 date the statute of limitations runs in July 2001.

If the maid's story is true and Rush's last perscription was 1999, the third degree felony doctor shopping limitation has also passed. If the SA is alleging doctor shopping within the last three years, then the maid's story is incorrect.

It is all well and fun to dicker like this, but you must admit there are enough holes in this prosecution to drive a Mack truck through.

[longtermmemmory]

There is no need to get into a lather over this especially over those who refuse to deal with reality in the daily courts.

Just use it to hone your arguemnts. Remember there are liberals out there who are 1000 times more obtinant and closeminded.

[longtermmemmory]

The statutory commentary when the statute was enacted indicates as much. I am not goint to sit here are retype my annotated copy of FS.

The only reason they were going to be able to proove the elements of the crime in the one case is that they had the defendant's confession to the elements.

At the very least it would achieve a pre-trial motion to dismiss.

[RS]

"If the maid's story is true and Rush's last perscription was 1999, "

Just where did you pull this out of ? Where does Cline say anything about a "last prescription ?



Don't you EVER look at the links I provide ?

Here is the Application of the Search Warrents on the Doctor-shopping allegations -
His buys noted were from Mar-Sept 2003 - AFTER the maid stopped supplying him with drugs in 2002

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/rushsearch1.html

[RS]

"If the maid's story is true and Rush's last perscription was 1999, "

Just where did you pull this out of ? Where does Cline say anything about a "last prescription ?



Don't you EVER look at the links I provide ?

Here is the Application of the Search Warrents on the Doctor-shopping allegations -
His buys noted were from Mar-Sept 2003 - AFTER the maid stopped supplying him with drugs in 2002

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/rushsearch1.html

[longtermmemmory]

according to the enquirer, the doctor's stopped supply rush in 1999. The maid's story is that after that he was buying form her because he could not get any from doctors.

Not my words, just what the maid has indicated publicly.

Do you ever read you own links?

[RS]

"The statutory commentary when the statute was enacted indicates as much. I am not goint to sit here are retype my annotated copy of FS."

Too bad for Rush the comments did not make it into the law, eh ?
I wonder if your annotated copy will be allowed in as evidence ?

Did you happen to notice when you went through the FS that all of the elements you cite are chargable seperately ?

[longtermmemmory]

The list of medications aquired from the pharmacies obviously indicates the 1999 "end" which the maid gave to the enquirer is wrong.

Keep the illegal street purchases seperate from the doctor shopping.

The maid's story has an inconsistency there. She said she was Rush's supplyer because in 1999 he could not get pills from the doctor. BUT the search warrant the SA obtained states that Rush DID have legal perscriptions after 1999, which contradicts the story the maid gave to the Enquirer.

[RS]

"according to the enquirer, the doctor's stopped supply rush in 1999. The maid's story is that after that he was buying form her because he could not get any from doctors."

Got Link ? I've never seen that before ...
( the doctors were simply providing him legal quantities - he wanted more ... )

... but it still dosen't apply to the present doctor-shopping investigation based on his buying drugs from Mar-Sept 2003