[opticoax]

Actually, pre-conviction probation is pretty much '"common man's" justice' for the milder cases of drug possession, at least around here. That is essentially what Rush got. The only uncommon thing about this is how the prosecutor did what he could to convict Rush in the press -- and I guess you're evidence he succeeded. Some of us still kind of go for the "innocent until proven guilty" thing, but that's no reason for you to work with that standard. I would caution you that knowing what you're talking about will probably get in the way of condemning people with the gusto you presently display.

I guess you didnt take the time to read the Penny Spence story. BTW, Rush took a plea meaning he plead guilty. Sorry if he's your hero, but I personally feel he is a hypocrite and a liar. Guess I do know what I'm talking about after all. Waiting for your reply.

[Mad Dawg]

I say again: Probation followed by dismissal of the charges IS common man's justice around here for many first offenses involving drugs. (And those "common men" don't have politically motivated DAs spending thousands to crawl all over their lives.) You seemed to suggest that Rush had avoided "common man's justice.

If you have a link to a reliable article which shows that Rush pled guilty, I will go read it. THIS article says he did not admit guilt:
Rush is entering a plea of not guilty.
and
In the end, despite Krischer’s efforts, Rush continues to maintain his innocence—and he does so as a matter of law—by responding once again with not guilty to a phony doctor-shopping charge the state attorney is unwilling to take to a jury. He has admitted to no wrongdoing at all. And now, finally, it is Rush’s innocence that remains unchallenged as this sad chapter comes to an end.

Furthermore we have this:
In November 2005, the assistant state attorney handling the investigation stood up in open court and made the mind-blowing admission that he had “no idea” whether Rush had committed a crime—after pursuing Rush, and crawling through every aspect of his private life, for over two years. He claimed he needed the court to authorize the evisceration of Rush’s doctor-patient privilege so he could interview physicians. Why? Because after months and months of poring over Rush’s actual medical records the prosecutor had no proof that Rush had done anything wrong.

If you have other information, I'll be happy to see it. If you have EVIDENCE, I'd be delighted to see it. But right now all I have is what you've posted and what I can conclude from that is that while hypocrisy is a vice, it is by no means the only or even the worst vice.

As for me, I really don't care whether you respond or not. I already know you don't admit error, you jump to conclusions, you are eager to judge others, and you enjoy calling names and being offensive. It doesn't meet any need I'm aware of having to continue the association.