Prosecutor argues seizure of Rush Limbaugh's medical records fair

South Florid Sun-Sentinel / AP ^ | February 14 2005, 4:00 PM EST | Jill Barton

[RS]

"Why do you even bother to post on these doctor shopping threads about Rush? "

I guess it's the "truth detector" I've developed, and the absurdity of the OJ and Clinton trials that keep me interested.

My fellow freepers deserve to have someone showing them the truth, even if they wish, like the dems with Clinton and the jury with OJ, to keep their eyes and minds shut.

[yarddog]

What it all boils down to is, did the prosecutor have sufficient reason to go after Rush, or was he simply looking to find something.

I personally think it was a fishing expedition based on guesswork. I think the bar is or should be higher than that.

Of course I don't know all the facts but that is what it sounds like from what has been published.

I think it is also valid to ask if the same procedures would have been used if the allegations had been about Joe Nobody.

[RS]

"What it all boils down to is, did the prosecutor have sufficient reason to go after Rush, or was he simply looking to find something."

I suppose "sufficient" is the key word there... at just what level do you think the prosecutors should ignore criminal activity ?

When it hit the papers that he had been spending hundreds of thousands of dollars supporting criminal activity , do you think they should just ignore it ?

[yarddog]

Seeing something in the newspaper is just about zero reason to issue a search warrant. Or did they even have one?

[Chef Dajuan]

Say the same thing when they grab yours.

They ARE inviolable. Cops and DA's have no business in everything. And if that conceals a "crime"? Well, too bad.

I'd rather keep my rights and have a hundred guilty men get away.

Besides, don't Florida LEO's have REAL criminals, (you know-the VIOLENT ones?), to go after?

I bet you're one of these automatic LEO butt kissers I see here.

[Chef Dajuan]

I'll let a man smarter than anyone here answer that.

"Those who would forsake liberty for safety deserve neither."
-Benjamin Franklin

That's the same argument Hitler and Stalin used...we must keep the (Jews/Anticollectivists/Enemies of the Revolution/whatEVER), from having any privacy for the nation's security......

I thought conservatives were against governmnetal intrusion into their private lives?

Oh, the ONLY medical records a terrorist should ever have is an autopsy report.

[RS]

"Seeing something in the newspaper is just about zero reason to issue a search warrant. Or did they even have one?"

You reaally need to get up to speed -

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/rushsearch1.html

[RS]

"They ARE inviolable."

Strange, then why does the Florida statutes give multiple ways they can be accessed ? ... and why is Rush's lawyer contending that they used the wrong one ?

I'll be more then happy to discuss reality, but if you want to talk about the way things SHOULD be that's a whole 'nother ballpark ....

[eno_]

The really hilarious thing is that many of these jackboot lickers are cops retired on disability. And with the astronomical disability fraud rate for retired cops, nailing them for felony fraud is like shooting fish - errr - pigs in a barrel.

This is an idea that should be promoted to the copwatch boards. Bagging a cop fraud could become quite a sport.

[yarddog]

First of all, I know medical records are not beyond the reach of a search warrant. Second, I have no idea what the newspaper article you posted has to do with taking a newspaper story as evidence.

As far as getting up to speed, I have always been a little slow, but even us slow ones can see a political prosecution, and this one clearly is just that.

[RS]

"And with the astronomical disability fraud rate for retired cops, nailing them for felony fraud is like shooting fish"


Actually you bring up a good point, IF medical records were inviolate, doctors & patients could be crooks, or doctors could simply be incompetant and they could never be prosecuted ... ANY doctor could become a dr.feelgood, issuing prescriptions by the barrellfull with no chance of being caught. Want a free hoverround on medicare's charge card ? - give him a hundred bucks ...

No need anymore for the patient to fake injury - the doctor simply stamps the form, and the blank medical record tells no tales ...

Crash your car when drunk and kill a few people ? You're free and clear, they can't access your medical records for alcohol level ...

No wonder the ACLU is on Rush's side !

[RS]

"Second, I have no idea what the newspaper article you posted ..."

That was NOT a newpaper article, it was scans of the actual application for the search warrant giving the backgound of the probable cause for the issuance of the warrant. The newspaper article was NEVER used as any evidence of anything.

[yarddog]

The judge should have denied the warrant for several reasons. First the accusations of the supposed informant was that he was purchasing illegal drugs, not prescription shopping and has nothing to do with the warrant request which involves prescriptions.

The request has such nonsense in it as claiming Mr. Limbaugh admitted abusing prescription drugs on his radio show. I think I would have suggested a transcript be supplied as an exhibit showing such, or did he really simply say he had become dependent on them? If not why was one not supplied? The only reason I can think of is because they have no evidence to support it other than their guess.

The exhibit seems to be nothing more than a list compiled by who knows who with a list of drugs from different doctors. I also noticed the use of a confidential and unnamed informant.

[RS]

"The judge should have denied the warrant for several reasons."

Gee- too bad you were not advising Roy Black, as this highly paid criminal lawyer did not use any of your arguments, and never disputed any information contained in the application in any way when he had the chance.

BTW - When prescription drugs are obtained illegally, they ARE illegal drugs.
The accusations involving his use of illegal drugs led to the pharmacy investigations which led to the request for the warrants.

[yarddog]

You know, I suspect Roy Black was not even there when the application for warrant was obtained, I also suspect he was not even working for Limbaugh at the time.

[pawdoggie]

Fine points of Florida law aside: this whole business is an elaborate and silly dance with strong political overtones that have no place in the criminal justice system. Limbaugh was probably unaware that his attempts to stockpile the legally prescribed painkillers to which he had become addicted (and to which he had probably developed a tolerance) was illegal. The (Democrat) State's Attorneys know that even if they can persuade a jury that Rush Limbaugh was guilty of "doctor shopping", the worst punishment they could rightfully demand would be the same kind of diversion program into which other first time offenders have been admitted. Clearly, the situation cries out for a compromise solution in the interests of justice, and in the interests of sparing the court and the taxpayers a lot of time and money. When one considers the sort of lightning rod Rush is to the Democrats/Left, however, as well as the remarks made by (if memory serves) the State Attorneys' mother (i.e. to the effect that she hoped "they" would get Rush), it seems that the prosecutors/persecutors will not back down until they get the "frog march" photos, the mug shots and the headlines they so obviously (given the prior public release of information in this case) seek. Which is what will probably be the prosecutors'/persecutors' undoing: that they will seriously overplay their hand, and in so doing clearly reveal their political bias. My belief (and hope) is that when this happens, any conviction against Rush will be reversed, or that Jeb Bush will bite the political bullet, and issue a pardon.

[RS]

"You know, I suspect Roy Black was not even there when the application for warrant was obtained, I also suspect he was not even working for Limbaugh at the time."

Half right, he was not there ( they never are when search warrants are issued ) but he was working for limbaugh by then.

Here's the link to the transcript of the hearing before the records were unsealed when he could have said something -

http://www.royblack.com/notable_cases/rush/hearing_dec2203.html

( You may wish to look around Blacks site - remember what I said about getting up to speed ? )

[RS]

"The (Democrat) State's Attorneys know that even if they can persuade a jury that Rush Limbaugh was guilty of "doctor shopping", the worst punishment they could rightfully demand would be the same kind of diversion program into which other first time offenders have been admitted."

Actually no - they cannot demand diversion, but they can deny it - and diversion would come before a trial.

Since they have not shown all their cards yet, and Rush is so desperate to block any access whatsoever to the records, there may very well be more there then we suspect.

The Democrat State Attorneys KNOW what is in those records, and Rush KNOWS they know.

Since it's allready gotten tossed up to the FlA SC, just how can they "overplay" their hand ?

[yarddog]

I don't need to look at Black's site to know he is a good attorney.

I watched him when he represented that Kennedy Smith kid in the rape case. He was unspectacular but very good. I guess that is what you want in the end.

[RS]

"I don't need to look at Black's site to know he is a good attorney. "

Your opinion of Black's handling of the case seems like you feel he is incompetant, since you have better answers then he has come up with.

You may wish to look at some of the court information regarding Rush's trial so I don't need to spoon feed the info out to you - it's all there to look at.