Prosecutors rebuked in Limbaugh inquiry (FREEP ALERT-Florida Bar)

Sun-Sentinel ^ | 1/29/2004 | Peter Franceschina

[Born Conservative]

This seems to be to be a clear-cut ethics violation on the part of Krisher that shouldn't go unchallenged. There is an obvious smear campaign against Rush, and it would appear as though Mr. Krisher is using the power of his position to accomplish this. Given all of the publicity, as well as the fact that liberals have made it publicly known that they are out to smear Rush and other conservative commentators, it is imperative that this not be treated as a routine case; rather, it should be a public hearing to ensure fair treatment. Please contact the Florida Bar and insist on a public hearing on the ethics complaint against Krisher, and tell them that this should not be treated as a routine matter. Click here to view the complaint that was filed by Landmark Legal.

Pertinent links and emails:

Florida Bar Contacts Page

President of the Florida Bar: President@flabar.org 

Disciplinary Matters: x5839 
Case Files Donna McMahon 
dmcmahon@flabar.org 
x5847 
Complaints - In Person John Barr 
jbarr@flabar.org 

Lawyer Regulation Ken Marvin 
kmarvin@flabar.org 
x5731 

All Others 
Paul Hill 
phill@flabar.org 
x5661 

Rebecca Burke 
rburke@flabar.org 
x5751

 

[Born Conservative]

[ApesForEvolution]

Thanks for the post!

God bless Rush!!

[Always Right]

I can't believe the Palm Beach prosecutors don't understand why you don't release letters concerning negotiation.

[Bush Cheney]

Are you sure these lawyers are not the sames ones who were in charge of the Fl. recount?

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Ethics ? We don't need no stinkin ethics...

[Dante3]

Of course, it is an ethics violation.

[antiRepublicrat]

It's obvious the prosecutor is messed up, abusing his power and completely mishandling the investigation.

BUT, I see a lot of parallels to Clinton/Starr here, attacking the investigator's misconduct in hopes that people forget you are alleged to have committed a crime in the first place. Why is Rush using a standard lib tactic?

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Well...either you live under the rule of law or live in Mexico.

[steve50]

. Why is Rush using a standard lib tactic?

It's the old play the victim game. I never heard a peep out of Rush in support of privacy before. Didn't this come to light as a result of a conservative outfits FOI request?

[ClancyJ]

Rush is fighting for his reputation, his future, and his show. Why is he supposed to fight in a certain way? I would think they would do what is necessary.

[sausageseller]

attacking the investigator's misconduct

SS. Where was it shown Starr commited misconduct? This was lie after lie produced by the clintons and believed by many, even you?

[TigersEye]

BUT, I see a lot of parallels to Clinton/Starr here, attacking the investigator's misconduct in hopes that people forget you are alleged to have committed a crime in the first place.

That is ONE parallel and it pretty much falls apart unless you can show misconduct on the part of Starr and his team. All I remember were the supposed leaks which turned out to have been leaked from the White House to make Starr look bad.

In Rush's case I see a lawyer representing his client and a prosecuter who can't decide on a charge. Apparently after months of investigation as the press reported at the time this all hit the airwaves.

[TigersEye]

I never heard a peep out of Rush in support of privacy before.

Utter nonsense. Rush has long pontificated that there is no Constitutional 'right to privacy' ... in the US Constitution. And he's right. There is one, clearly spelled out, in the FL Constitution.

No one else has had their medical records seized with a warrant for a similar offense. The Palm Beach SAO has never contemplated prosecuting anyone else for addiction to legally prescribed pain killers.

[b4its2late]

Why is Rush using a standard lib tactic?

Sometimes you've gotta fight fire with fire. Water just doesn't do it when you're dealing with a conflagration.

[steve50]

Utter nonsense. Rush has long pontificated that there is no Constitutional 'right to privacy' ... in the US Constitution. And he's right.

That's the problem with conservatives like Rush and Coulter. Somehow they have gotten the wrong opinion that the Constitution grants "rights" to citizens, when in reality it grants severely limited powers to federal government.

[TigersEye]

Do they? I didn't know that. At any rate; nice subject switch.

[antiRepublicrat]

There were lots of allegations not from the White House, just as these are currently allegations. From pressuring witnesses to perjure themselves, to conflicts of interest including personal and political business. The best one was the Rutherford Institute hijacking the Paula Jones suit which was not doing well, handing it to Starr, and then Scaife (Rutherford's main financier and rabid Clinton hater) setting up a chair at Pepperdine for Starr when he's done with the case.

[soozla]

"It's the old play the victim game. I never heard a peep out of Rush in support of privacy before. Didn't this come to light as a result of a conservative outfits FOI request?"

I don't think there's a "Right to Privacy" in the Bill of Rights...but I think what Rush is fighting is the gov't (SAO of FL) stepping on and over a private citizen's "doctor/client" privilege in order to make a case against him vs. privacy protection asserted by publicly elected officials....Rush isn't a "publicly elected official."

[steve50]

I don't think there's a "Right to Privacy" in the Bill of Rights...

The Constitution doesn't grant rights, it grants government limited powers.