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.

[tcuoohjohn]

The records were seized and sequestered under FRCP. This required a presentation for cause before a magistrate who issued the seach warrant ansd subseguent seiezure and sequestration of the records pending Rushes appeal.

As to the matter of charges that is what this issue is about. You cannot charge without evidence and the evidence is the the records. Thus Rush cannot be charged until such time as the corroborating records are released. This is why Roy Black is fighting to hard to keep the records out of the hands of prosecutors. The prosecutors know what is in the records. After all they are the ones who seized them under court sanction. The question is "may the records be used as evidence in court?" If the answer is yes then Rush will probabaly plead to a single count of doctor shopping. No jail time , fine, community service and court monitored drug testing. If the answer is no then Rush will walk.

Hope you liked the dose of reality...

[tcuoohjohn]

The evidence is in the files...that is the fundamental point of the appeal.

[gatorbait]

If this investigation is believed to be purely political, then a political response would be appropriate - Governor Bush could just pardon Rush for any drug offenses and put an end to the whole thing. If this investigation is not purely political, then the investigation should go forward

You're wrong.If Jeb pardoned Rush at any point, the screeching about favoritism,political fixes and the whole litany of sins would be broadcast far and wide, You must know that. The State's Attorney has not acted as the people's advocate, rather he has acted as the DNC's hitman and that too is pretty obvious. Remember this is not Bill Moyers,here,it's the arch enemy of the Stalinist utopians we speak of.

What you wrote would make sense for nearly anyone else, but not for Rush ,nor any other prominent Republican.

[tcuoohjohn]

If My medical records were evidence of committing a crime? Yes, indeed. Those portions of my medical records relevant to the commission of a crime would indeed become public record. Happens every day in this country. Medical records are not sacred and to the degree that bear upon the commission of a crime they are like any other evidence.

[yarddog]

It seems to me that this prosecutor is using the "rock soup" method of making a case.

Just like the hobo who goes to a housewife and asks for a potato to go with his rock, then eventually gets everything to make soup, this prosecutor used a spurious charge by his housekeeper as an excuse to investigate then used that as an excuse to check on bank accounts etc.

He eventually may have enough to make a case. The real problem is everyone has done something for which they could be prosecuted if they check carefully enough.

[Pharmboy]

Are you tucobad by another name? Just curious...

[Pharmboy]

That's why they call him "The Great One"

[safeasthebanks]

"When Krischer's office circumvented the LAWFUL SUBPOENA process and seized Rush's personal medical records without warning (emphasis added)"

Which part of this sentence did you not understand?

[Scenic Sounds]

I agree that a pardon would be a mistake if there are reasons to pursue the invesigation of Rush which aren't just political. However, as I said, "[i]f this investigation is believed to be purely political," then Governor Bush should step up to the plate and do the right thing by putting an end to what would be a waste of government resources for impoper purposes.

[tcuoohjohn]

There were a very lawful subpoenas in which the SA used standard FRCP rules and a reviewing judge issued five subpoenas four of which were exercised by the SA office.

Will there be anything else?

no?

Thanks..

[tcuoohjohn]

I do find your concept of " warning of subpoena process" amusing. It doesn't exist. Under your theory a criminal suspect must be warned prior to subpoena service in any matter related to criminal investigation.

" Mr. Gotti, you are hereby warned that we intend to subpoena your bank records pursuant to our criminal investigation."

Muwhahahahahaha...

[harpo11]

"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."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Krischer and his democrat handlers surely need psycho-medication. Their relentlessly malicious persecution of Rush Limbaugh is more than a so-called search for justice. It is a spit in the blind eyes of Lady Justice.

This is more than just Rush, who just happens to be the point man in this unjust attack. This is about us free Americans. If we stand silent, it will continue until every last conservative is silenced.

Someday, I'd like to see Barry and his goons tarred and feathered and run out of town. But, before that, I'd like to see Barry's medical file just to make sure he is allergic to feathers.

Say it loud and proud....I Support Rush Limbaugh!!!

[holdonnow]

This is crap, and you know it. The use of a search warrant is saved for extraordinary circumstances, such as when there's a fear that evidence might disappear or be tampered with. Otherwise, and especially in a case involving the privacy clause of the Florida Constitution, the usual means to secure information is by subpoena. The lib prosecutor didn't want to give Rush a chance to argue against the seizure of his records. And the fact that an elected state trial judge -- another Democrat -- authorizing the search warrant is currently on appeal and hasn't been resolved as a matter of law. To suggest otherwise, as you do, is to mislead everyone on this thread.

[tcuoohjohn]

Who is tucobad?

note that tcuoohjohn and tucobad are very different..

[holdonnow]

By the way, is your first name "Jack" by any chance? I think I know who you are, and if you're that person, I understand the diminished capacity you're having to operate from.

[safeasthebanks]

Why yes, there will be something else....

SOURCE?!?!?!?!?

Especially considering one of your first posts said the following: "who issued the SEARCH WARRANT and subsequent seizure and sequestration of the records pending Rushes appeal."

Here's a hint, I post something from a respected lawyer that says the lawful subpoena process was circumvented, you responding back basically saying "WERE SO", is not a valid argument.

Any other minor logical problems above your pay grade that I can straighten out for you? No? OK.

[tcuoohjohn]

The SA's office followed standard FRCP rules. Limbaugh used his rights to appeal the release of his records. The records are sealed pending the outcome of that appeal.

Black doesn't assert that the process was illegal. He asserts that the privacy rights of his client outweigh the probative value of the records.

[tcuoohjohn]

You can find the documents on the net in pdf files from the SA's office and the accompany docs from the 15th judical circuit.

[holdonnow]

I take it you've not read any of the appellate briefs. You keep repeating this mantra about the SA following the FRCP. Did the SA go to a judge? Yes, he did, since the prosecutor cannot, by himself, issue a search warrant. And this is the argument you use to promote your absurd position. The wrongful use of a search warrant is directly challenged on appeal. It is one of bases set forth for the violation of the Florida Constitution's privacy clause. Are you able to follow this?

[holdonnow]

I asked you if your first name is Jack. Is that such a difficult question for you to answer? If not, then I'm relieved -- for your sake. If it is, then have the self-respect to out yourself.