Posted on 02/14/2005 1:34:15 PM PST by rface
WEST PALM BEACH -- The prosecutor investigating whether Rush Limbaugh illegally purchased prescription painkillers told the Florida Supreme Court on Monday that investigators should be allowed to review the conservative radio commentator's medical records.
Assistant State Attorney James Martz said Limbaugh's argument that he should have been notified before the records were seized by investigators is equivalent to saying ``that law enforcement is never to be trusted.''
``Then search warrants should never be issued and law enforcement should never be permitted to investigate criminal activity for fear that they will abuse the power granted,'' Martz wrote in a brief filed with the Florida Supreme Court. ``Such reasoning would eviscerate law enforcement's ability to protect the public and enforce the law.''
Martz added that the 4th District Court of Appeal's ruling, which said Limbaugh's privacy rights were not violated when the records were seized in 2003, should be upheld.
``Privacy rights cannot operate as an impenetrable shield to conceal, camouflage, or secrete evidence of criminal wrongdoing,'' Martz wrote.
Limbaugh and his attorney, Roy Black, had no comment on Monday.
(Excerpt) Read more at sun-sentinel.com ...
That's right. We must protect our citizens from themselves. It's for the children. Right?
This has absolutely nothing to do with a white, wealthy conservative man. :)
I see some of the same folks who rail against the establishment and the patriot act, also push the "war on drugs".
Much of the legal procedures that they detest in the patriot act have their precedents in the war on drugs. I can't say if these things are worth it or not. Similar loss of rights occured to get rid of organized crime however.
Yet few make the connection because their convictions and principles have blinded them.
Unfortunately, convictions cannot be argued against and to try is to get flamed.
The same happens in the Immigration battles on FR, the Terri threads, and the Rush arguments. It is like bringing a gun to a pillow fight.
People with convictions need to state them one time and leave. They cannot argue them because a conviction cannot be compromised, making argument dangerous and tempers at risk.
Just some recent revelations that have come to me recently.:-) I find it a major impediment to discussion, all to often.
I think he is using it because steroids were killing him.
You mean those single issue people. But what would a hick from Arkansas know about anything? Aren't you a simple-minded southerner? Where did you come up with this here logic? :) Hehehe!
LOL!:-)
That's right. Get the straw out of your teeth, pack up your bags and head over to Lucianne.com. :) Hehe!
I understand she was a laugh around here until she got into it with the libertarians or something. She had to go anyway, when she started her own forum. I was not a member then, but I recall reading some of her posts.
That's right. This forum's only for us intellectual, erudite FReepers with single issue convictions. :)
All the sudden, I understood it.
And that's why we like you around here, CH. Keep up the great work.
But I do know that argument/discussion takes two people who are willing to argue a premise, or a fact. But you must drop the convictions, give and take.
But don't tell and tell the same thing, over and over again. People will ascribe ulterior motives to someone who does, and then the crap hits the fan.
While I am not familiar with Florida law, a search like this would hold up in Pennsylvania. I, with some colleagues, represented a top state elected official on similar charges in the appeals from his conviction and impeachment, and the records were made available to the prosecutor. I would not, however, bet against Roy Black.
Don't give away my strategy, CH. :)
Been working on it since the first time I got flamed, and that was on the first day I participated on a thread.
Why did he do that? (I thought to my wounded self)
I don't take nuthin' here a personally. Especially the flamers. They have far too much time on their hands.
It is the situation on the immigration threads and others that cause the loss of otherwise good posters.
Most don't understand why it happens and how hard it is for the mods to decipher what and who is at fault.
I wanted to find some way to explain it. So that it can be prevented in the future.
If anything, it helps me to avoid the big ones, channel the argument by pointing out the difference between defense of a conviction and a true, logical discussion.
I don't know if it will work on everyone. But it is better than avoiding the threads.
If the mods can understand why a conversation went sour, they can perhaps avoid waiting until a offense is committed.
You're just way too logical for someone from Arkansas. You aren't originally from there, are you? :)
Educated mostly in Wisconsin and Florida.
Florida! No wonder!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.