Posted on 10/04/2003 1:42:29 AM PDT by Walkin Man
Saturday, October 4
Limbaugh won't be prosecuted, attorneys wager
By John Pacenti, Palm Beach Post Staff Writer Saturday, October 4, 2003
WEST PALM BEACH -- Rush Limbaugh's alleged addiction to painkillers may be documented in e-mails.
His reported drug deals may have been taped by his former housekeeper.
And the talkative maid and her handyman husband could even be willing to testify against the conservative talk-show host. They sure were willing to spill everything to a supermarket tabloid.
But the chance of criminal charges ever being filed against Limbaugh is next to nil, say criminal defense attorneys who have handled numerous drug cases.
And some local lawyers say they are hearing from sources within State Attorney Barry Krischer's office that Limbaugh -- who lives in a $24 million mansion on Palm Beach -- will indeed not be charged.
Sources also said Limbaugh won't even be questioned by law enforcement officials, unless the commentator chooses to cooperate on his own.
Roy Black is the Miami powerhouse attorney Limbaugh has reportedly hired to represent him. But Black, who has represented such celebrities as Marv Albert and William Kennedy Smith, won't return calls to confirm he has been retained. And Limbaugh said on his radio show Friday he wasn't at liberty to address the allegations.
James Martz, the prosecutor who heads up a task force on money-laundering, said he is more interested in finding the heads of such distribution cells as opposed to prosecuting low-level drug users -- whether they are celebrities or not.
Plus, to prosecute drug abusers, authorities need to catch them in possession of the illegal substance, he said. "Shy of that, we have very little leverage in the state system," Martz said.
What it all comes down to, attorneys say, is that the court of public opinion is a far cry from the court of law.
"I think that the state better have a heck of a lot more than what I'm seeing, hearing and reading right now," attorney Michael Salnick said. "First of all you have a major credibility issue with these witnesses. The credibility issue starts with the fact they sold their story to The National Enquirer."
The former maid, Wilma Cline, and her husband, David Cline, told The Enquirer for its latest edition that Limbaugh bulldogged them into supplying him with thousands of painkillers between 1998 and 2002. They said Limbaugh took hydrocodone, Lorcet and OxyContin.
The story came out on the heels of Limbaugh resigning from his job as an ESPN sports analyst after he said Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb was overrated because the media wanted a black quarterback to succeed.
Maid said she taped transactions
It is unknown if the timing was coincidental, but The Enquirer's story is full of juicy details. According to the piece, it all started when Limbaugh asked for some extra pain pills from David Cline's legitimate prescription for a back injury.
Soon, Limbaugh demanded that they continue to supply him with pills when the prescription ran out. That's when Wilma Cline started keeping a log of her deliveries and preserved desperate e-mails from Limbaugh in which he referred to pills as "small blue babies."
Wilma Cline said she would meet Limbaugh in parking lots, passing a cigar box filled with pills through his Mercedes' window.
During her two last drug deliveries, Wilma Cline told The Enquirer, she secretly audiotaped the transactions.
Late last year, the Clines went to prosectors, who gave them immunity. Sources say the couple helped prosecutors in their investigation into tracking some 450,000 pills of hydrocodone back to the source.
Authorities believe some of Limbaugh's supply was dispensed from a small suburban Lake Worth pharmacy, World Health Association. The couple that ran the operation, Gloria and Louis Beshara, were arrested in May, seven months after the Clines came forward. The Besharas currently face trafficking charges.
Also, what could undermine the Clines' credibility is that David Cline has a criminal history.
He was arrested in 1982 in Collier County for cocaine trafficking, serving five years in prison. In 2000, he was arrested on charges of identity theft -- using the name George Earl Taylor -- of possessing a fake driver license and fake vehicle registration, as well as possession of marijuana and resisting arrest. He served 18 months probation.
It is unknown if the couple received full immunity from prosecutors for information they gave about how they provided pills for Limbaugh.
If Wilma Cline did tape Limbaugh without his knowledge, that is a third-degree felony punishable by up to five years in prison, attorneys say.
Plus, Martz said such tapings can't even be heard by prosecutors. As for e-mail evidence, Martz said any such evidence is problematic because there is trouble verifying who sent the e-mail.
So where does this leave Limbaugh's criminal liability?
"I think it's legal suicide to go after a guy like Limbaugh with evidence as flimsy as this," Salnick said.
Two former prosecutors, now in private practice, agree.
Robert Gershman said most of the time, users are prosecuted only for possession. He said the Clines probably wouldn't have even gotten in the door of the state attorney's office if they weren't outing a celebrity.
Marc Shiner said the celebrity issue taints the case. "Why would drug dealers turn in their client unless they are trying to save their own neck -- or trying to make a couple hundred thousand dollars peddling their story to the tabloids?" he asked.
"If I was Roy Black, I'd be sitting on the beach right now sipping a pina colada or watching a Marlins game and not worrying too much about Rush Limbaugh's criminal liability right now."
Exactly. Which is why I don't think the Left is very smart in leveling the Hitler charge against him, because he's a social liberal.
On the way home yesterday, I started laughing about that, and the best thing someone could say is, "Yes, it's true, at one time I praised Hitler -- his power, his deception, the way he got the people to act like sheep, to go along with his hypocrisy and double standards, to look the other way when horrid human abuses were happening, his silencing of critics and anyone who would stand in his way.
But then I became a conservative and saw the error of my ways."
It is not. What is considered a bit ignorant is being judge and jury in a case that only broke 48 hours ago. No one knows the truth in this case.
It is intellectually simple to come out and say Rush is guilty, or Rush is getting special treatment when no one yet knows the true facts or because Rush is not doing things according to someone elses time schedule!
I have bashed Rush myself, last being his comment on ESPN, which I felt was quite stupid to say. But, I will not pass judgement on Rush this early into a story that reeks of liberal fingerprints.
Some of it has to do with the newness of the situation -- it's easier to file a case once you have more of the specifics investigated. The main reason though is that it's hard as all get-out for a celebrity to win a defamation or libel case in the United States. Check out this State Department article entitled Libel Law in the United States for a good summary.Rush could probably sue and would end up settling for a trifling amount that wouldn't even come close to paying his legal fees. Since he has the Golden EIB Microphone for 15 hours a week and his ratings will likely soar because of this, he can actually make money (due to increased ad revenues) to fight this in public rather than the courts.
While not in any way condoning his use of the drugs, I must say that there are people out there who want little more in life than a public lynching of Rush. My concern is that the investigation and prosecutorial decision making process maintain 'equal protection' and treat him as they would any other citizen in similar circumstances. If it turns out that it would be abnormal to prosecute in other similar cases then Rush should not be held more liable than others. If, however, statements in this article are exaggerated and such cases are routinely prosecuted then Rush should be treated similarly. It appears that he has made a very serious error and he must be man enough to let the cards fall where they may.
You would do exactly what your lawyer tells you to do; no more and no less.
Or the email addresses could have been faked by any decent hacker.
His tone seemed to indicate that there was a good deal of apprehension at the Enq about going after Rush, and that they needed to vet their sources well. The Enq may be a rag, but even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. I am inclined to believe that the basics of the story are factual.
Correct.
If Rush had been caught with the pills in his hand, he could have been charged.
Since the pills are gone, there is no physical evidence against Rush, only audio tapes and e-mails.
Therefore, the question remains:
Is it fair to charge a high school kid with possession of a couple of prescription pills while letting off the hook a celebrity on incriminating tapes and e-mails?
I'm not so sure that anyone in Florida has been charged for using drugs without being caught with the prescription pills in hand. Therefore, it seems fair to leave Rush off the legal hook.
After reading the article, it seems that the gist is:
If you use drugs, you can talk about it and write about it without legal repercussions.Since a criminal court will not touch this issue, the court of public opinion is left with the question:If you use drugs and get caught with a couple of pills, you will be charged.
Did he buy illegal prescription pills?
The guy Rush apparently hired is a criminal defense lawyer, not a trial lawyer. Trial lawyers, a class which includes what are known as plaintiff's attorneys and personal injury attorneys, practice high-dollar civil law. They include roughly everything from those large firms that fie mold claims class actions against artificial stucco manufacturers to the guy who runs TV commercials at 3 AM and sues grocery stores for people who slip on spilled grape juice.
Criminal attorneys are an entirely different area of law and one that also cannot be legitimately gotten rid of so long as we hope to keep our judicial system intact. Some of them are just as sleazy as the trial lawyers but the area of law they practice is immeasurably more legitimate than ambulence chasing.
The cops sure didn't tell her to wear a wire as they would have needed a warrant. Wilma engaged in illegal wire-tapping if she did (Florida Law).
When Rush comes out and tells "more than we might want to know", it may be about Wilma and why she hasn't work for the Rush's since 2001.
I have a feeling that the Enquirer is going to get sued and Rush is also looking into "who's behind the scenes" 'cause Wilma has the brains of a ?????.
No matter, the Dems love it. It upsets the flow of Rush's work and pretty soon, we'll hear more things that Rush says that can be interpreted as "Rush is bad". There's no doubt that they want to get him off the air.
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.