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.

[gatorbait]

I understood yopur thought and agree in principle, but you and I both know that were this to happen, the hue and cry in the media ,as well as in DNC appearances,would be spread like so much molten manure . Jeb is damned if he does and damned if he does not. Certainly the unethical behavior of the State's Attorney and his office ,not too metion outright lying to the Court does smack of partisan politics at best and rather crude Stalinism at worst.

[tcuoohjohn]

Your "understanding" would be incorrect. The SA's office followed standard FRCP. They had duly signed warrants from a Judge , five in all, of which four were executed.

[EQAndyBuzz]

"Terrorism is a crime. Doctor shopping is a crime. The illegal purchase of 30,000 schedule C narcotics is a crime.

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

Also, creating false documents is a crime. Oh thats right, the DA is a RAT. Business as usual.

[Scenic Sounds]

Jeb is damned if he does and damned if he does not.

Well, how was the job of Governor described to him?

If Jeb doesn't pardon Rush, I don't think it will be because Jeb is afraid of controversy. If Jeb doesn't pardon Rush, I think it will be because he doesn't see this investigation as being purely political.

Our society is set up such that it's awfully hard to be an addict without offending some of our laws along the way. ;-)

[tcuoohjohn]

And what specific documents is Krishscher alledged to have fabricated?

[Lucky Dog]

Your "understanding" would be incorrect. The SA's office followed standard FRCP. They had duly signed warrants from a Judge , five in all, of which four were executed.

Sorry I was not more articulate. The question I intended to raise was not the related to the existence of warrants, but rather when these warrants existed relative to when the documents were seized. Again, according to the newspaper accounts (which, admittedly, may be inaccurate), the warrants existed after the seizure.

However, regardless of the accuracy of the these accounts, there remains the issue of prosecutorial misconduct in selectively enforcing laws against those with whom the prosecutor may have political differences versus those with whom he does not.

[EQAndyBuzz]

"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.)"

I think that pretty much sums up a crime that should be investigated to its fullest. Really, Krischer should not only be brought up on criminal charges but disbarment proceedings should take place immediately.

[atomicpossum]

Is this the same Palm Beach Post that helped the National Association of the Deaf paint the administration as a bunch of psycholltic religious fanatics because the Dept. of Ed was not going to cut funding to a program that NAD profits from?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1081169/posts

If so, the Post is truly beneath contempt. Literally as balanced as Al-Jazeera.

[tcuoohjohn]

1.yes

2. What prosecutorial misconduct? PBCSO drug task force detectives brought investigatives indicating that Limbaugh has committed a crime. The SA went to a Judge and presented his probable cause argument and the Judge issued the warrants. This happens thousands of times a day in this country. Why should Rush be the exception? Florida has prosecuted this crime 182 times in Florida.

[tcuoohjohn]

Ironically it was Jeb Bush and Charile Crist and The Republican Legislature that pushed very hard for the Doctor Shopping law.

It is also ironic that Rush made a very big deal about aggressive drug law enforcement. He was merely hoist by his own petard.

[atomicpossum]

He was merely hoist by his own petard.

...foist on his own petard, as in, thrust on his own blade.

[tcuoohjohn]

no..hoist by his own petard. A petard isn't a sword.

Q: What does the phrase "hoisted by his own petard" mean? I heard someone use it to describe President Clinton's situation.

A: First of all, the phrase is "hoist by his own petard." "Hoist" means to be thrown up in the air. A petard is an explosive charge that engineers would put at or under castle walls to knock a hole in them. But back then, explosives safety was pretty much limited to "pray for rain," so the petard was likely to go off at an inappropriate time. When the engineer was standing right next to it, for example.

So, if someone is hoist by his own petard, it means that the plan he laid has backfired and he now feels its ill effects. That, along with the fact that "petard" comes from a root word meaning "flatulence," makes it quite apropos to that recent nastiness in Washington.

- From the Dictionary of Cultural Literacy

[tcuoohjohn]

petard
SYLLABICATION: pe·tard
PRONUNCIATION: AUDIO: p-tärd KEY
NOUN: 1. A small bell-shaped bomb used to breach a gate or wall.
2. A loud firecracker.
ETYMOLOGY: French pétard, from Old French, from peter, to break wind, from pet, a breaking of wind, from Latin pditum, from neuter past participle of pdere, to break wind. See pezd- in Appendix I.
WORD HISTORY: The French used pétard, “a loud discharge of intestinal gas,” for a kind of infernal engine for blasting through the gates of a city. “To be hoist by one's own petard,” a now proverbial phrase apparently originating with Shakespeare's Hamlet (around 1604) not long after the word entered English (around 1598), means “to blow oneself up with one's own bomb, be undone by one's own devices.” The French noun pet, “fart,” developed regularly from the Latin noun pditum, from the Indo-European

[atomicpossum]

no..hoist by his own petard. A petard isn't a sword.

Fair enough, but then what the heck am I thinking of?

I'll swear to the fact that this was what we were taught in (of course) public school.

[tcuoohjohn]

perhaps you are mixing metaphors.. " Fall upon your sword" and " Hoist by your own petard"

[gitmo]

The illegal purchase of 30,000 schedule C narcotics is a crime.

Yes. And the legal purchase of 30,000 schedule C narcotics is not a crime. What's your point?

[quidnunc]

holdonnow wrote: 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.

Normally in cases like this — that of business records sought from a non-suspect third party — a subpoena would be issued.

Undoubtedly the prosecutors wanted to get their hands on the records, knowing that they might well have to eventually return them, so they could surreptitiously mine them for further leads.

This is political character assassination with malice aforethought, pure and simple.

[Minn]

Terrorism is a crime. Doctor shopping is a crime. The illegal purchase of 30,000 schedule C narcotics is a crime

Driving 56 in a 55 zone is a crime.

[tcuoohjohn]

yes...a misdemeanor.

Doctor shopping is a third degree felony. As I said.. The PBC SA didn't write the law and nobody held Rush down and shoved pills down his throat and nobody forced Rush to Doctor shop or procure his housekeeper to perform drug transactions for him.

Those are the facts. Now if you want to get into some arcane discussion of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin..fine.

[Poodlebrain]

Not so, rather than file for a subpoena, the prosecutors applied for a search warrant. The search warrant gave no notice to the target, and Rush's medical records were seized. If the prosecutors had applied for a subpoena, as required by Florida law in Doctor Shopping cases, the target would have been notified and could have fought the subpoena.

The whole point of Rush's appeal to prevent the prosecutors from releasing his records is that the prosecutors used the wrong procedures for obtaining Rush's medical records.