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 the only exercise I get any more.
Shalom.
but at the same time they do not think they have a right to go after those who commit infanticide?
>>(seocnd time today I used that line)<<
Apparently you think you can afford to pay the fine. 8^>
That is hilarious! I love that answer!
I wish I could claim it. There used to be a sign at an office I worked at that listed three things which were the only exercise we get around here. Jumping to conclusions was one. The second was flying off the handle. I can't remember the third.
Shalom.
If most of us become aware that we are addicted we quickly seek help.
Yes, it is me.:-)
I understand your religious point well, but what I was trying to explain is a propensity for some to have a conviction, but they cannot argue it, explain it, or itemize it in a way that shows how they came to it.
They simply have it, and try like heck to defend. They do it by repetition.
It is really irritating.
For example, take a statement like, "the Bush plan will never work," "Deport them all!"
When challenged, you get more of the same. never explaining why it won't work, and never saying how they came to the conclusion.
IMO,that position is a conviction that is based in a feeling, not a logical assessment.
They cannot argue it, they only want to convince others the statement is true.
This leads to replies like, "you must hate Mexicans!" or "What group do you represent?"
A logical assumption, because there is nothing to back the assertion and the phrase gets repeated again and again.
Same thing happens when a so called Bush Bot, defends the president and refuses to look at the argument presented.
It happens all the time, and what gets my goat is that it is often the irritated respondent that gets in trouble.
It bothered me for a couple years and now I am trying to discuss it and learn from it.
I have, in the past, been a culprit myself.:-)
I posit that it's a gut reaction which the poster knows at the base he/she can't defend. Knowing that makes them angry - either at you for exposing it or themselves for falling into it.
Once upon a time I decided I'd rather be corrected and go forth right than continue to be wrong and pretend I'm right. Don't know how it happened but it mellowed me a lot in these discussions.
Unless I suspect a troll. I suck tobasco sauce all day long in the hopes of a chance to flame a troll.
Shalom.
What he experienced was a bit of physical dependency, not really addiction.
If he used the drug past his need, or went to the Internet and bypassed the DR. to get more, it is a addiction.
The drug replaces natural endorphins, and when you stop the body craves it and the nerves get whacky. You fidgit, move constantly and sweat.....etc. (for about three day, in my case)
Hard to sleep too because of it.
It is a pain in the butt, but all chronic patients endure this. It is the price you pay for using the stuff, but there is really nothing else but morphine.
Nevermind then. I thought it was original. I should've known. :) Hehe!
What exactly should I argue with the AG about? He says the doctor shopping can be dangerous and I say that they are crime is VERY RARELY prosecuted - those are not mutually exclusive.
Please let me know the number of times that someone has been prosecuted for this crime. In the two cases that were mentioned in the article, the investigation was in association with an overdose deaths. If someone had just walked up and told law enforcement that those people had been doctor shopping, we all know that the prosecution would not be interested in pursuing the cases.
The point remains that any normal person would not be pursued by the law enforcement for these crimes - especially when the target has already gone through rehab.
Why not? I honestly do not know and have always wondered. I was under the impression that any doctor would have to report a bullet wound - emergency room or not. The same with potential child abuse.
And how does anything you've said dispute my point. You've only posted inane quotes from the AG that doctor shopping is important to stop - law enforcement says that about everything.
When this first broke it was revealed that there had been only one or two previous prosecutions of this law. If that statement is incorrect, your linked articles don't dispute it.
Are you saying that they should ASSUME that there WAS in fact a crime for him to be guilty of, and drop the investigation anyway because HE says he completed rehab ?
That would be the norm. To the prosecutor, what would be the point of pursuing it if the normal result is rehab?
I'm not saying that this should shield Limbaugh from prosecution. I'm saying that his status is driving the prosecution - any reasonable, unbiased person can see this.
BTW, don't assume that I'm some ditto head or a Bush-bot - I'm quite the opposite. In fact I think that the prosecution of Limbaugh might be good for republicans since it will wake the party to the silliness of the war on drugs. Rush was also upset with the recent SCOTUS sodomy ruling since he said that there is no constitutional right to "privacy". This might wake him and the rest of the GOP up to the fact that privacy is very important.
"That would be the norm."
...and you support this being the "norm" how ?
With the same lack of a record on doctor-shopping cases, just how do you justify this "norm" ?
There is is nothing to point at to prove your assertion that they routinely drop investigations based on the suspects statements about attending rehab.
With no charge of a crime, and court supervised rehab, they have no recourse should there be any relapse.
Are they out to get him, sure, read my tagline - even the liberal dopers get off when they run afowl of the law, but they throw themselves on the mercy of the court, not figure they can handle their OWN judgement.
I think we are saying the same things but not realizing it. I do think they are out to get him but that doesn't mean that he isn't guilty. As I said at the end of previous post, some good things can come of this. I don't think that Limbaugh will ever serve any prison time, however - and I'm glad of that.
The one point that we disagree on is that the law enforcement would never have pursued the case if it wasn't Limbaugh. Many liberal hollywood types publicly talk about their illegal drug use or addictions and law enforcement never starts up an investigation. The only time anyone is every pursued is when the drug use is discovered during some other investigation.
Parts of the GOP and Limbaugh do need a wake up call on the war on drugs and on privacy. This case may keep the GOP from imploding into a prohibitionist party.
"The only time anyone is every pursued is when the drug use is discovered during some other investigation."
Well, his drug use WAS discovered as part of another investigation - the shutting down of the suppliers to the Clines ...
... and do you think it is interesting that one of the doctors being protected by Rush's shielding of his medical records is the SAME doctor/supplier from the other doctor-shopping case ? Hhmmmm ?
The point RS is that Limbaugh did NOT SEEK OUT drugs to take but because addicted to his prescriptions. Why he took them after that is irrelevant. He is right to take the blame for that. He also made three attempts at rehab privately. Getting the monkey off your back is extremely difficult.
There is still a world of difference between seeking recreational drugs and being prescribed legal pain killers to which you become addicted.
It's basic criminal proceedure that the criminally accused gets a copy of all evidence before trial. He could even do his own forensic tests on the documents if he would like. Sorry Jeff, that dog won't hunt.
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.