Limbaugh Law - Hypocrisy in the defense of liberalism is no vice.

National Review ^ | February 26, 2004 | Mark R. Levin

[wcdukenfield]

You have to hand it to the Palm Beach Post. It doesn't let either principle or consistency get in the way of its own zeal to punish a conservative for his views. And not just any conservative: Rush Limbaugh. Sadly, many conservatives are either unaware of what's occurring, or don't care enough to speak against it.

First, a little background information. The state attorney in Palm Beach County, Democrat Barry Krischer, has spent more than a year and hundreds thousands of dollars trying - without success - to find a criminal charge to bring against Rush. Rush has made no secret that he was addicted to prescription medication. And he has sought rehabilitation, which continues to this day. If Rush had been a Democrat state judge or Democrat state senator in Florida, he would have been applauded for his courage in confronting his problem, as two such officials were, and that would have been that.

But in his zeal to silence Rush, Krischer has pursued a scorched-earth strategy against Limbaugh. Krischer's office has leaked false stories to the news media charging Rush with money laundering, with being part of a drug ring, and now, with doctor-shopping. It also released confidential communications with Rush's lawyer, Roy Black. Although the papers show that Black rejected any suggestion that Rush plead to any offense, the release of the communications was an extraordinary breach of ethical conduct. And to make matters worse, Krischer and his staff actually created a false record claiming that after consulting with the Florida Bar and the attorney general's office, they were advised that they must release the confidential letters. (This prompted Landmark Legal Foundation to file an ethics complaint against Krischer and his top counsel with the Florida Bar.)

Enter the Palm Beach Post editorial page. It has been Krischer's biggest and most blatant cheerleader in his crusade against Rush. When Krischer's office circumvented the lawful subpoena process and seized Rush's personal medical records without warning, the Post (on Dec. 19) had nothing but praise for the prosecutor's outrageous actions. "Belittling the police and prosecutors...might play well inside the talk-show host's small broadcast booth and in the bunkers that a fair number of his paranoid anti-government adherents inhabit," the Post said. "Such descriptions, however, have no place in the real world of courts and serious issues such as drug abuse."

This perverse law-and-order mentality was nowhere to be found, however, when the same Post editorial board denounced the Patriot Act which empowers federal law enforcement to (among other things) obtain and review medical records of suspected terrorists and terrorist supporters. Such measures in the war on terror were "heavy-handed intrusions of privacy" that victimized "innocent Americans, particularly Muslims...." The Post (on April 15, 2002) described the Patriot Act as an "assault on the Constitution," and it attacked the Justice Department for trying "to avoid constitutional checks and balances."

In another editorial (Dec. 26, 2002), the Post attacked other provisions in the Patriot Act on the same premise. "Conservatives and liberals fear heavy-handed intrusions of privacy and worse abuses from the unprecedented surveillance powers now at the executive branch's discretion: home searches, medical-record inspections, electronic surveillance, secret detentions. There are well-founded concerns about the impact on innocent Americans, particularly Muslims...."

And railing against anti-espionage wiretapping, the editorial writers have said (Nov. 20, 2002): "The government might be able to catch more criminals if it can, in essence, disregard the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches. But along the way, the government also will spy on more innocent people."

Apparently, to the Palm Beach Post, Rush Limbaugh and his views are more dangerous than terrorists who seek to sneak into our country and unleash mass destruction. And, so, they cheer Krischer - who is up for reelection - and his tactics. It seems that at the Post's editorial page, hypocrisy in the defense of liberalism is no vice.

Mark R. Levin is president of the Landmark Legal Foundation.

[spacewarp]

I have three problems with this whole thing you're doing tcuoohjohn.

1) You're repeatedly claiming that he was doctor shopping. Yet, you and the press gleefully ignore the fact that the 4 doctors in question were ALL FROM THE SAME CLINIC. If I go to a clinic with 4 doctors, and see one on Tuesday, another on Wednesday, another on Thursday and the fourt on Friday, and they all have my chart, yet still prescribe the same medicine each, then did I break the law? What if the first told me to come back the next day and so on? Did I break the law by following my doctor's orders?

2) You seem to have this zeal to protect the SA office and bash Rush. The SA's office has repeatedly abused their power. Whether Rush is guilty or not is now irrelevant. They've repeatedly abused their power. As such, they've shown repeatedly that this is purly a fishing expidition. Eventually they're going to convict Rush on a misdemenor charge of not recycling a plastic bottle on the first Thursday of November 2002.

3) The SA's office broke the law and should have the prosecutors face criminal charges by falsifying justification for violating Rush's rights. There was no law that allowed them to releash Rush's attorney's private memos with them. None. That violate's Rush's attorney-client privilege, as it is private documents. So, they needed to justify it once they got caught with their pants down around their ankles. So, they got some Florida Bar letterhead and just fabricated an excuse. They've done loopy things, and you just keep ignoring the abuse and cheering anything they do to persecute Rush. Not PROSECUTE, but PERSECUTE.

Paul

[RS]

"1) You're repeatedly claiming that he was doctor shopping. Yet, you and the press gleefully ignore the fact that the 4 doctors in question were ALL FROM THE SAME CLINIC."

simply False information... they were not...

"2) You seem to have this zeal to protect the SA office and bash Rush. The SA's office has repeatedly abused their power."

So far there are three judges who disagree with you, and none that agree with you...

"3) ... There was no law that allowed them to releash Rush's attorney's private memos with them. None."

Lookup the FAQ for Florida's Sunshine law - The fact that Black marked it "confidential" specifically means nothing...

[tcuoohjohn]

1. It doesn't matter if the doctors were on the four quadrants of the earth or lived in the same house.

2.FS 893 is clear. Multiple overlapping prescriptions for schedule C narcotics is crime. If the doctors knowingly participated in the scheme then they too have committed a crime.

3. If you go to four doctors and get four overlapping prescriptions for Schedule C nacotics then yes you have committed a crime. Ignorance is of the law is no quarter.

4. You claim the SA has abused his power but fail to note specifically how and when such " abuse of power" occurred.

5. The investigation followed standard FRCP. Investigatives by PBCS0, To the SA on referral, affidavits by Sheriff's detectives, Issuance of a search warrant. This happens thousands of time a day in this country. If it is a " purly ( sic) a fishing expidition (sic)" then it is a standard fishing expedition exercised under the rules of law and criminal procedure.

6. You claim the SA " broke the law" yet fail to mention what specific law the SA's office broke.

7. You claim the SA's office "falsified Justifications" but fail to specify what was false in their assertions.

8. Attorney client privilege extends to communications between an attorney and his client. Communications between a Lawyer and the SA's office are not priveleged, a fact demonstrated by the Florida Sunshine law in which Landmark Legal Foundation requested the documents and recieved them pursuant to their brief. The resulting embarassment for Black was difficult because publicly Black steadfastly asserted that he wasn't engaging in any plea negotiations when the documents prove otherwise.

9. Every defendant in a criminal matter claims he is being "persecuted". It is the standard refrain. From John Gotti to the guy who gets caught doctor shopping.

[tcuoohjohn]

Landmark made its request pursuant the Florida Sunshine law. The SA's office complied with the requirements.

Landmark is a conservative legal foundation.

[tcuoohjohn]

You point out something interesting. Krischer may have been instrumental in saving Rushes life. As onerous as it may be a court monitored drug testing program might well the the measured accountability that Rush needs. His two prior unsupervised drug rehabs were largely ineffective. I doubt his third unmonitored drug rehab will be any different.

I wish Rush well. However I don't think he will be sucessful in his drug rehabilitation if he continues to see his problem as a " pain management" issue or a " medication administation" problem.

Sometimes when you love or admire someone you have to engage in some " tough love". The first lement of that is holding people accountable for their behavior.

Those who are willing to sweep the issue under the rug for ideological reasons are no friend to Rush. Over the long haul they are signing his death warrant by drug overdose or corollary medical problems related to acute opiate addiction.

[tcuoohjohn]

It will all depend on the appellate decision. If the SA's office wins Rush will plead to a third degree felony and accept court monitored drug testing a small fine and community service with an expungement at the end of his probationary period.

If the appellate decision goes in Rushes favor then the SA's evidence collapses because it cannot be used in court. Rush walks.

[RS]

Now I'm confused...

Is the Palm Beach Post supposed to be a reliable source of info or a poor one ?

... aren't they the ones who got suckered into printing those "leaked" false stories ?

( just how does one leak a false story anyway ? )

[yarddog]

I remember a few years ago when Senator Barron from Crestview said that none of Florida South of Ocala was fit for human habitation.

I think he was halfway serious.

[tcuoohjohn]

Depends on the ideological circumstance of the reader. If you are a last ditch defender of Rush than any story critical of Rush the Palm Beach Post is a " marxist rag" If the story is supportive of Rush and critical of the SA then the Palm Beach Post is clearly the top nominee for the John Peter Zenger Award and a shoe in for a Pulitzer.

Just reverse the calculations for a liberal and you have it in a nut shell.

Neither of which addresses the facts but admirably takes the readers on a fine ideological steeplechase.

[tcuoohjohn]

There are two Floridas.. North Florida is primarily rural and suburban, southern, low income, conservative, strongly flavored with Dixie.

South Florida is international, yankee, liberal, jewish, hispanic and has a higher income range.

Dempsey Barron's comments reflect his world view.

[ClintonBeGone]

The existence of greater crimes does not render a lesser crime not a crime.

It does when your lifeblood flows from the teet of the accused.

[yarddog]

I am at least a 10th generation Floridian. That is not all that unusual in the Panhandle. This part of the state has the best beaches and the best water, both salt and fresh.

My Sister married a guy from South Florida, near Stuart. He, surprisingly enough is also around a 10th generation Floridian. His Mother was of French descent. From what I understand, South Florida was even more backwoods than the Panhandle until maybe the 1920's.

[tcuoohjohn]

Yes...South Florida was a swamp in which Malaria and Yallow fever were endemic. I think the last Yellow fever breakout was in 1917 or so. It was the coming of the railroads, drainage, and mosquito control that made South Florida viable.

As to panhandle beaches...that's debateable. While lovely they are rather barren. I am a diver so I am partial to coral reefs and abundant sea life.

But they are indeed distinctly different cultures. I didn't realize I was a southerner until I went to South Florida. I grew up in Jacksonille which was decidely Dixie. Different worlds both geographically and culturally.

[gatorgriz]

Are you sure you're not the reincarnation of Ash?

[tcuoohjohn]

Who or what is " Ash"?

[gatorbait]

I think you're correct on this, too.

[gatorgriz]

Ash my friend; is a one time troll of old; a legend actually... I've been here since sometime in 1998; and Ash, while frequently banned, would oftentimes re-invent himeself under a new handle only to be exposed once again as the troll he was/is... They've got a link around here somewhere to FReeper Lore and Legend... Ash, like Quidam were some interesting characters; Quidam especially.

[RS]

"Are you sure you're not the reincarnation of Ash?"
"Who or what is " Ash"?"

Join the " you are the reincarnation of Ash "
club my friend...
but then again since I think I got here before Ash, I must be a Preincarnation....

[RS]

"If the appellate decision goes in Rushes favor then the SA's evidence collapses because it cannot be used in court. Rush walks."

Don't know if that follows, the judge in the hearing mentioned that even if he ruled against the State, they could simply issue a suppeona for the same info - the information does not get "poisoned".

[tcuoohjohn]

Thanks for the historical context. I have had people ask me if I am somebody named Jack T. Wells, and now " ash"

Apparently, there is a process here in which if anyone disagrees with you then the most prudent action is to accuse them of some evil troll. Difference of opinion and subtlety of thinking doesn't equate to being a troll. It is merely healthy debate. Conservatism does and should foster frank discussion. Conservatism is no more monolithic and one dimensional than and other set of values and tenets. it is dynamic and evolutionary. The day that it does it represents a morbity. Liberalism began to die in this country because it became intellectually dishonest and squelched rigorous inquiry into it's own beliefs. It fell victim to its own rigid orthodoxy. Let us make sure that doesn't hapeen to conservatism