Limbaugh and Black get the Goods on Brischer

The Rush Limbaugh Website ^ | 1-26-04 | Rush Limbaugh

[Angelica411]

Caller's office received a public records request in Rush Limbaugh case. File includes letters from atty in SAO to Roy Black, defense counsel. Checked with AG's office and AG says the files are public records except there are two letters which include plea negotiations which are not normally to be revealed so may or may not be public record.

...

All info in file is confidential as to his client, the state, under 4-1.6.

[ScreamingFist]

"The readership's discriminator functions have been established."

Actually, I would think a comparison to filters rather than dicriminators would be more appropriate. The NY Times uses some serious band pass filtering, while the Enquirer uses low pass filtering.

[cinFLA]

You are totally confusing legal and illegal drugs. Perhaps you are just a pro-druggie troll?

[ScreamingFist]

"I found it interesting that they gave immunity to the two who were actually blackmailing Rush. That about says it all to me regarding their motives."

Yes, I was just listening to Rush talk about this. Interesting.

[thoughtomator]

Okay, the impeachment process works like this: First, one or more articles of impeachment are drawn up by the House. If passed, these articles constitute an indictment, like a prosecutor filing a charge, or a grand jury issuing an indictment.

An article of impeachment once passed then goes to the Senate, which decides whether the person charged is innocent or guilty. If guilty, that person is removed from office.

The process works the same for the President and for judges, either can be impeached.

In 1998, the Senate admitted that the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and indisputable, yet still decided not to convict, roughly on the grounds that the behavior charged was "not bad enough" to consummate the impeachment and remove Clinton from office.

The question left open is what behavior, precisely, IS bad enough, if lying under oath in court isn't. Thus far, no behavior has yet been identified that is bad enough to remove an official from office.

To make a long story short, an impeachment, being no more than a charge/indictment, is no punishment whatsoever. It can only be construed even as figurative punishment if the person charged is shamed by it. In this particular case, the person charged clearly has at no time had any shame, so we lack even a figurative punishment. The end result of impeachment was nothing at all.

[TKDietz]

"I think you will be surprised at what you will learn and I think it's always good when people finally see how crazy our drug laws and enforcement of them can be in this country.

Legalize?
Seriously, could you give a quick list of suggestions?"

I do not advocate legalizing hard drugs. I certainly do not think it would be a good idea if drugs like Oxycontin and hydrocodone were sold over the counter. I think a good start would be to make it such that people won't get felony convictions for low level drug crimes like possessing a personal amount of any drug or doctor shopping for prescription opiates. These felony convictions really screw people's lives up and are uncalled for in most of these crimes. Many states have moved to do away with felony convictions for simple possession and so on and I would like to see that trend continue. You can punish people pretty harshly without leaving them with a felony conviction and the reality is that most of these people aren't going to get much more than a conviction out of these charges anyway, so the laws aren't that much of a deterrent to the young people we are most trying to protect from drugs. Most of them really don't get the significance of having a felony conviction on their record until they get one and it really starts to hurt them in life.

For me, that the main thing I'd like to see. I want us to move away from handing out so many felony convictions. I'd also like to see us expand efforts on things like drug court which appears to me to be a step in the right direction. I want an overall more humane approach. Personally I would opt for legalizing marijuana entirely or at least decriminalizing it. In my state it's still a felony the second time someone gets caught with a joint even if the first time was twenty years ago. To me, that's just insane given that much worse crimes are still just misdemeanors.

[TigersEye]

You are totally confusing legal and illegal drugs.

There's no confusion in his post. Legally prescribed drugs are monitored closely by the DEA because of the WoD's. Doctors and pharmacists are intimidated into underprescribing pain medication by the Federal Govt. because of the WoD's. The connection is clear.

[ScreamingFist]

"Since Rush hasn't been charged with anything what are you talking about?"

To my knowledge, Rush took the Enquirer allegations of doctor shopping serious enough to check into 6 weeks of rehab and hire a high power defense team. I don't think he would have taken these steps if there was nothing to the Enquirer article.
I'm speaking only of doctor shopping, all the rest of the crap the prosecutors are tossing around are probably bogus, in not illegal.

[TigersEye]

You didn't say allegation you said 'charges.' What was I supposed to think?

I don't think the Enquirer article had much to do with it. More likely the SAO investigation is what prompted him to hire a lawyer. Wouldn't you?

[ScreamingFist]

"I don't think the Enquirer article had much to do with it. More likely the SAO investigation is what prompted him to hire a lawyer. Wouldn't you?"

I'm trying to remember the time line (at the time, I was able to listen to Rush every day). I thought he checked into rehab after the article, but before the investigation really began in earnest (I remember talk of investigating, but no prosecuter appointed?).

[TKDietz]

The pendulum has swung too far on these domestic violence cases. So many are such bullsh*t cases. Often both parties are equally at fault and only the men are charged. Often there really was no battery to speak of but the women are being spiteful. When they calm down and change their minds they are not able to withdraw the charges because the laws are set up now such that it is extremely difficult for the prosecutors to drop these cases.

I don't know what you are talking about regarding probable cause hearings though. In our state we do not have grand juries nor are preliminary hearings required where the court determines if there is enough evidence to proceed. People can't even compel the court to have such a hearing unless they are incarcerated and I can't recall ever hearing a judge allow a defendant to speak in one of those. About the closest I can get to something like that is a bond reduction hearing where part of my argument for reducing the bond is that there is little likelihood that the state will get a conviction in the end. We get to see the prosecutors hand a little in those hearings but often the judge will shut us down before we get far and the only way the charges get dismissed in a hearing like this is if the prosecutor suddenly changes his mind. We can also do motions to dismiss but for the most part cases are only dismissed when they are improper as a matter of law. If there are factual issues to be determined those are for the jury (or judge in a bench trial) to decide so the judge doesn't want to hear them before the trial.

I would advise anyone who read connectthedots post to exercise care before following his example because in my state he probably would have ended up making the judge mad and he probably would have gone to jail.

[fire_eye]

SALNICK & KRISCHER

Looks like what I was speculating to myself yesterday was
probably going on, is in fact going on...

Be interesting to get the names of all the people who sent
the much-heralded "emails" to the DA's office demanding that "something" be "done" about Rush, too...

[PattonReincarnated]

Private medical records aside ... the SAO claims that Rush bought 1800 pills over a 210 day period. Does 8.5 pills a day sound excessive when you have a chronic pain problem? That won't fly with a jury, especially after they hear what chronic pain is all about - expert witnesses, etc. Plus throw on top of that what the SAO has done with this politically.

[TigersEye]

I don't know for sure what the timeline was. I thought there was talk of ongoing investigation before he went into re-hab. Someone else will have to clear up the timeline.

[connectthedots]

I don't know what you are talking about regarding probable cause hearings though. In our state we do not have grand juries nor are preliminary hearings required where the court determines if there is enough evidence to proceed. People can't even compel the court to have such a hearing unless they are incarcerated and I can't recall ever hearing a judge allow a defendant to speak in one of those.

I was arrested, unlawfully I might add. That will soon be the subject of a 1983 complaint in federal court. In the state of Washington, the court rules require a probably cause hearing within two days if someone is arrested on a citation or without a warrant of arrest. The rule does not state that the defendant is entitled to it only if he remains incarcerated. The law also requires a judicial determination of probable cause prior to the judge asking the defendant to enter a plea. In the state of Washington, the defendant can question witnesses in such a hearing.

I would advise anyone who read connectthedots post to exercise care before following his example because in my state he probably would have ended up making the judge mad and he probably would have gone to jail.

That is good advice in almost all cases. In my case, they wouldn't dare charge me with contempt because they know that is exactly what I would want them to do. Long story, but they do not want to risk me questioning judges and prosecutors under oath in front of a jury.

When you are standing in front of a judge in a full courtroom, cite the federal and state constitutions, and their own court rules; and a fairly good knowledge of the rules of construction, it isn't a pretty cite to see the judge and prosecutor exchanging 'what do we do now' looks at each other.

By the time I got finished with them, they couldn't get me out of the courtroom fast enough.

[Redbob]

"...I don't see how Rush can squirm out of these charges."

When he gets his day in court, perhaps you will.
Until then, and absent any information proving him conclusively guilty, he can be presumed to be innocent.

Or do you have that information?

[Backwoods Southern Lawyer]

Someone may have already answered this question, but I was too lazy to look down the entire list. Basically 42 USC 1983 gives individuals a cause of action in Federal Court against any person who while acting under color of law violates the constitutional rights of another person. For instance, if a police officer arrests me for burning an American Flag in protest, I have a law suit against him for my damages. Note that a police officer is acting under the authority of the government and the U.S. Supreme Court says that I have a constitutional right to burn an American Flag.

Here Mr. Limbaugh has a right to keep his plea negotiations private as part of his due process rights, but the DA blabbled them anyway, thus jeopardizing his right to a fair trial. If in fact the Florida State Bar told the DA that he could not do that and the DA did it anyway and then lied about what the State Bar had told him, then not only is he liable in a civil action, but he is liable to loose his license to practice law on two grounds: 1)Blabbing when he should have kept quiet; and, 2) Lying about what the State Bar had told him.

Either way the guy is scumm and I hope he is toast.

[Mama Shawna]

You are so right on. I would go to the street to find painkillers for my loved ones. Who gives a rats if they get addicted two week before they die? I would doctor shop, fake muscle strains, whatever. I watched my hubbys parents go through HELL before they died because of this crap. My mom has fibromyalgia, and she says sometimes the pain is so great she'd rather put a bullett to her head. Luckily she has a permanent prescription for codeine (finally got a Doctor to listen to her after almost 60 years of being told it was all in her head), and gets some relief with that, but not total. Pain management should not be controlled by the feds.

Mama

[fire_eye]

By the way, I hate dogs. :)

Why? Maybe the dog wasn't prepared correctly?

Try cutting it up and marinating it overnight, before the barbecue.

[CyberAnt]

Thanks for the info .. I thought that was correct that the USC would trump any state statute, but I wasn't sure.

[altura]

And not by The Doctor either if he lacks understanding or is intimidated by this overprescribing bs.

But, what's a person to do? I wonder how Rush is handling the pain now. I assume he still has the pain. Surely he needs some kind of pain medication.

I have a friend who is in 24-7 excruciating pain. Without medication, she would be dead or might as well be.