Posted on 04/28/2006 3:11:12 PM PDT by kristinn
Edited on 04/28/2006 3:20:03 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Rush Limbaugh's attorney has issued a statement announcing a settlement of the Florida prosecutor's investigation into alleged doctor shopping by Rush Limbaugh.
Details have been read by Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. Basically, the charge of doctor shopping is dismissed, with some conditions.
In response to media and other inquiries, Roy Black, Rush Limbaugh's attorney, released the following statement today concerning a settlement agreement with the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office to end the investigation of Mr. Limbaugh:
"I am pleased to announce that the State Attorney's Office and Mr. Limbaugh have reached an agreement whereby a single count charge of doctor shopping filed today by the State Attorney will be dismissed in 18 months. As a primary condition of the dismissal, Mr. Limbaugh must continue to seek treatment from the doctor he has seen for the past two and one half years. This is the same doctor under whose care Mr. Limbaugh has remained free of his addiction without relapse.
"Mr. Limbaugh and I have maintained from the start that there was no doctor shopping, and we continue to hold this position. Accordingly, we filed today with the Court a plea of 'Not Guilty' to the charge filed by the State.
"As part of this agreement, Mr. Limbaugh also has agreed to make a $30,000 payment to the State of Florida to defray the public cost of the investigation. The agreement also provides that he must refrain from violating the law during this 18 months, must pay $30 per month for the cost of "supervision" and comply with other similar provisions of the agreement.
"Mr. Limbaugh had intended to remain in treatment. Thus, we believe the outcome for him personally will be much as if he had fought the charge and won."
The actions taken today are as follows:
-- The State Attorney has filed a single charge of doctor shopping with the Court. The charge is being held in abeyance under the terms of an agreement between the State and Mr. Limbaugh.
-- Mr. Limbaugh has filed a plea of "Not Guilty" with the Court.
The formal agreement between Mr. Limbaugh and the State Attorney will be filed with the Court on Monday. The terms of the agreement are substantively as follows:
-- Mr. Limbaugh will continue in treatment with the doctor he has seen for the past two and one half years.
-- After Mr. Limbaugh completes an additional 18 months of treatment, the State Attorney has agreed to drop the charge.
-- Mr. Limbaugh has agreed to make a $30,000 payment to the State of Florida to defray the public cost of the investigation.
;-)
thanks onyx.
Oh, so you were a listener up until.....when exactly?
I'll give you props for admitting it openly on the board.
Anyone else?
And I never heard of something being called "an agreement" if he enters a plea of not guilty.
No contest or guilty, then it's a plea bargain. But not "not guilty".
Signed, a doctor's son.
Ya, he did. The deal as I said was "favorable," very favorable. And it was a deal. He needs to stay clean for 18 months or whatever, and be monitored. When you cut a deal, where you agree to certain constraints, it is a "cop." But there is no need to sink into semantics here. If you want to call it something else, given the same facts, well, OK.
"
As one who has chronic pain I'd like to propose a better solution. Find a primary care physician you're comfortable with who can handle all of your regular stuff. I don't know if you've done the neurologist/MRI/etc. stuff but if not, you'll probably need to for documentation of what's causing the back pain. Ask your primary care physician to refer you to a pain specialist. The pain specialist will be in charge of prescribing all meds for pain."
Been there done all that. I have x-rays which undeniably show the problem of a couple vertebrae in my spine and still I'm FORCED to "Dr shop".
How did he plea?
I consider myself a "Rush minion". Been one since July of 1989. I think it's pretty low rent to trash other posters on FR over some disagreement. It's pretty disgusting the kind of childish behavior or mentality and threats you have to put up with daily around here just because you happen have a different opinion.
Because DR's are scared of being charged with a crime for prescribing pain meds.
He pled not guilty. I stipulated to that. It is fact. You did read my posts didn't you?
Just proving my point, counsellor.
Thanks for playing.
Yeah, it's not a fine, it's more of a favor to the Florida taxpayers.
You're welcome. Anytime. Cheers.
Sounds like the arrest itself was part of the deal. No matter how you slice or dice it, this is a plea bargain. And he will pay restitution (it's called a fine, folks) and his 18 months is probation.
I did, and it is evidently a guilty plea by a defendant who claims innocence.
A plea of nolo contendere does not expressly admit guilt but nevertheless authorizes a court to treat the defendant as if he or she were guilty. North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 35, 27 L.Ed. 2d 162, 91 S. Ct.. 160 (1970). The United States Supreme Courtcould not “perceive any material difference” in practicalconsequences between pleading guilty while protesting one’sinnocence, as was the case in Alford, and pleading nolo contendere. Id. at 37. A criminal defendant in Nevada has only four possiblepleas: not guilty, guilty, guilty but mentally ill, or nolo contendere. NRS 174.035(1). No provision is made for a fifth type of plea under Alford, nor would it make any sense to so provide. Weexpressly hold that whenever a defendant maintains his or her innocence but pleads guilty pursuant to Alford, the plea constitutes one of nolo contendere
Your right, not guilty means not guilty if the court says so, not because Rush says so.
Of course I am right, since a plea remains that until a jury decides otherwise. None will.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
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.