Posted on 05/04/2006 9:06:05 AM PDT by XenaLee
Limbaugh to Judgment
From: Timothy Noah Wednesday, May 3, 2006, at 4:08 PM ET
On May 1, Rush Limbaugh signed a "deferred prosecution agreement" (see below) with the Palm Beach state attorney. The agreement is the outcome of a three-year investigation into Limbaugh's procurement of OxyContin and other painkillers, to which he became addicted after spinal surgery.
News of Limbaugh's addiction first appeared in an October 2003 National Enquirer story in which a former housekeeper of Limbaugh's claimed Limbaugh paid her tens of thousands of dollars to procure painkillers. Although that claim was never substantiated, Limbaugh publicly admitted his addiction and entered a drug rehab program. Meanwhile, State Attorney Barry Krischer concluded that Limbaugh had acquired painkillers through illegal "doctor shopping"—receiving overlapping prescriptions from different doctors who are unaware of one another—and seized Limbaugh's medical records, which reportedly showed that Limbaugh acquired more than 2,000 painkillers over a period of five months. Limbaugh responded by declaring the seizure illegal and challenging it, unsuccessfully, in court. He also took out full-page ads in the Palm Beach Post and Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel in which he accused Krischer, a Democrat, of pursuing him for political reasons.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Any legal eagles out there that care to comment?
Technically there is probably no difference between this and an autograph.
Of all the works by man's hand, his signature is the one always meant for publication.
(Heavily redacted) FINAL REPORT (Barrett Report) (January 19, 2006)
(there are 120-140 redacted pages of the Barrett Report covering up that someone(s) crimes in Government)
Anyone aware of ANY news reports on court documents when a Hollyweird celeb is caught with cocaine in posession?
Go to Ebay and look at all the signatures you can find pictures of.
1) Could 2000 Painkillers refer to 2000 pills? 2) Limbaugh responded by declaring the seizure illegal and challenging it, unsuccessfully, in court. Not true or he would be incarcerated instead of signing a deal with this abismally weak and politically motivated prosecution.
I can see it now... Mexican illegal immigrant steals Rush Limbaugh's identity to get a job.
Haha...
I haven't seen any evidence that this prosecutor has any interest in going easy on Rush. It appears to me that the prosecutor settled rather that go to court because the he didn't have solid evidence, and his chances of winning the case were poor.
So he worked on negotiating the most punishing settlement he could get.
Considering that there were threats of multiple felony counts, and all the prosecutor could negotiate was this "slap on the wrist", the evidence must have been very lacking.
The reporter's assertion that Rush is getting off easy is based on unsubstantiated accusations.
However, it doesn't appear there was evidence to back up those accusations, which would appear to mean that this is an admission by the prosecutor that he couldn't prove Rush's guilt despite all his previous claims.
Exactly! It looks like another failed leftist attempt to destroy a conservative or Republican icon, much like Earle the Squirrel's attempt to bring down DeLay.
But my question still stands. Rush didn't give his signature freely for publication. Does this mean that anyone at any time can just publish any private citizen's signature....effectively splashing it all over the internet, without any legal consequences?
"I haven't seen any evidence that this prosecutor has any interest in going easy on Rush. It appears to me that the prosecutor settled rather that go to court because the he didn't have solid evidence, and his chances of winning the case were poor."
Slate is a leftist/socialist biased rag. No doubt about it. My question is, if the Slate published your signature or mine without our permission, wouldn't they be liable in some way?
Darn right, he's a superhero like Superman and Batman.
Who has Batman's signature? That would be nobody.
My Rush shrine says "Maed In China" like a proper shrine should.
Well the answer to that bigger question is obvious. The only real news worthy of publishing by leftist conservative/Republican-hating journalists, apparently, is anything that makes the Democrats look good, and anything that makes the Republicans look bad to the voters. Remember, with the Clintons, Kerrys, Kennedys, etc., appearance is everything, and the truth, facts, or reality doesn't count at all. Rush called it symbolism over substance. Same thing.
And yet, an autograph is given freely, and only to someone who is seeking it. This signature was given via publication, without permission given to anyone, and to everyone on the internet.
Does this mean that anyone can legally publish someone's signature on the internet if they so choose, thereby opening the door for malicious mischief, identity theft, and any other fraudulent scams to be committed against that person?
Sorry, but....I just don't see how that is legal. Credit card fraud is at an all time high and someone's signature shouldn't be that available to everyone, without their permission.
Again, I'm no legal expert. That's why I'm asking.
Cool the highlighted part only bans POSSESSIOn of firearms. This means he need only lock them up off site for 18 months.
Confirms he has MAIL IN reporting. This means a letter once a month must be sent.
Seems this is not tellings us anyting new and it is also showing the state really had nothing.
Notice the editorial comments when you hover over the highlighted parts. This is not a story this is a bash Rush editorial slanting the court reporting.
The real question is whether he can early terminate after 1/2 the time has been completed? Most pretrial programs are completed after 12 months and allow for one violation to extend the time to 18 months.
This also does not include the automatic expungment clause.
The author is a pathetic boob who obviously has no knowledge of the law or of the facts of the case and has no interest in the facts. Note he does not mention the PROSECUTOR LYING TO STATE OFFICIALS, THE MEDIA, AND THE COURT bar complaint.
PS I thought slate was gone after it dropped below penny stock status.
note THE PROSECUTOR HAS LESS THAN NOTHING WITH THIS...
IF RUSH VIOLATES IT ONLY MEANS THERE WILL BE A TRIAL!
It is not probation with a VOP hearing.
This is a humiliation for the prosecutor.
perhaps this is another reason to keep court documents from the internet.
Well, the author IS a Bush-hating leftist. Are we surprised?
What is the automatic expungment clause? You're talking Greek to me. I've only worked in corporate legal. Splain, Ricky?
"The author is a pathetic boob who obviously has no knowledge of the law or of the facts of the case and has no interest in the facts. Note he does not mention the PROSECUTOR LYING TO STATE OFFICIALS, THE MEDIA, AND THE COURT bar complaint."
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.