Prosecuted like anyone else, or unfairly targeted?

From the Palm Beach Post

a records search by the Clerk of Courts Office revealed only one case in the past five years in which Palm Beach County prosecutors charged a defendant with illegally acquiring overlapping prescriptions.
the judge who presides over the county's drug court say doctor-shopping charges are rare...

"I don't see that as a charge. I see the end product of the doctor shopping," Nelson said. "I don't see anybody out there trying to prosecute those types of cases. We can't even get the state legislature to pass a statute to monitor multiple pharmacies in order to catch people who doctor shop."

Looks like a double standard to me...

Answer this:

Is or is not doctor shopping against the law?

Just because they rarely prosecute doctor shopping doesnt mean that it should be ignored when evidence manifests itself.

Hypothetically, if he gets convicted will you continue to support him... a then known criminal?

Answer this:

Is or is not doctor shopping against the law?

Just because they rarely prosecute doctor shopping doesnt mean that it should be ignored when evidence manifests itself.

Kind of like sodomy laws?

Zing!

Kind of like sodomy laws?

Yes. Are you trying to insinuate another bombshell about Limbaugh?

Yes. Are you trying to insinuate another bombshell about Limbaugh?

Boy does that lead to a ""bomb"" image if here ever was one...

Seriously, Fang - if I told you that there was a drug law that had been on the book for a decade, and could have been applied to a large number of cases but wasn''t; and then told you that in the cases where it could have been applied, the defendants were all white, wouldn''t you think there was a double standard if it suddenly was applied to the very first black person who came along?

Look in the interest of our kinder gentler discussions, I will try to put this in as non confrontational words as possible.

A lot of conservative thinkers believe that the core of americas poor problem revolves from the poor playing the victim. Is that not exactly what he is doing now? Is that not exactly what Rush''s followers are buying into? Are they not perpetuating his own victimization?

I think he is playing this all wrong. If he really disdains victimization, whether justified or not, he would take the attitude that he feels he is being unjustly accused, he will fight to prove his inocence (sp?), but admit he is not completely without fault and he will accept whatever punishment he is given should the cards not fall in his favor.

And because you hate it when people dont answer your questions, yes it would raise some serious concerns but I wouldnt imediately jump to the conclusion there is a double standard. That would not be unlike Jesse Jackson protests about the 2000 election.

How would we know? The case has not hit the courts, so we
have no idea why it was brought. On the face of it...well, the
supposed perp says he''s innocent, and did one-fifth of the
average treatment time to ""prove"" that he is. The newspapers
say he''s being investigated for all sorts of perfidy, but no one
has seized his assets, which they would in a serious case,
and his maid seems to have taken a lot of money from everyone and blabbed about it for even more money.

So...take your pick. We won''t know until it rolls through court,
and we may not know then, to anyone''s satisfaction. The fact
that the guy is well-known for being very anti-crime, well, that
feeds the media fire, but doesn''t matter for the actual case.

Until we see charges, it''s all speculation, and that sells papers.
Gee, wonder why we are seeing it?

Robear

Here''s my problem with the situation, the government has no evidence that Limbaugh was doctor shopping, they want to use that obscure law to go sifting through his records to see what they can find.

If there is some articulable evidence that a person has committed a crime, I believe they should be charged. Without any proof, leave the person alone.

I feel the same about random IRS audits. We have no proof you are cheating on your taxes, we just assume you are so give us all your records.

I hope Rush Limbaugh keeps up the fight to protect his due process.

I feel the same about using the Patriot Act to peek into people''s computers for non terrorist related activities. I can''t find a link but a federal prosecutor said the Patriot Act was used to obtain access to Tommy Chong''s computer records.

Temper your desire to punish Limbaugh for being on the wrong side of the issues with the reality that the government is intruding on our privacy.

Remember this, if the government invades your privacy unlawfully and obtains information illegally and you are a criminal, you have the benefit of having the evidence excluded. If you are innocent, there is no compensation for the wrong you have suffered.

Here''s my problem with the situation, the government has no evidence that Limbaugh was doctor shopping, they want to use that obscure law to go sifting through his records to see what they can find.

So... the government is out to get Rush? The government run by a conservative administration has it in for him?

I always thought that it was the liberal media pointing fingers. Even the local Florida government is run by the brother of said conservative administration.

Hmmm... I wonder if he''ll see fit to step in on this one.

Rush tends to be highly critical of the Judicial branch so they probably don''t like him much. I could also see Palm Beach County prosecutors looking for the ""feather in their cap"" of nailing Rush.

The government has no evidence that Rush doctor shopped. So what grounds do they have for asking for his medical records?

If you want my opinion, none. I wrote my post in response to Fang''s post:

So... the government is out to get Rush? The government run by a conservative administration has it in for him?

I just meant that the Judicial branch isn''t the same as the ""conservative"" Bush administration.

Do you really think the Judicial Branch is that focused on one man? The Judicial branch is forgoing all of its other responsibilities to get Rush?

If they were that out of line, dont you think the checks and balances would kick in?

If there is this gross miscarraige of justice, why hasnt the Govenor come to Rush''s aid?

Where is the ACLU?

Do you really think the Judicial Branch is that focused on one man? The Judicial branch is forgoing all of its other responsibilities to get Rush?

It isn''t uncommon for a local DA to prioritize a high profile or celebrity case. So as far as Palm Beach County goes my answer here is ""Sure, why not?"".

If they were that out of line, dont you think the checks and balances would kick in?

What checks and balances? In the 2 or 3 months I''ve been posting here the only check anyone has mentioned on the courts (in their current activist form) is that Congress and state legislatures can make the same ""unconstitutional"" laws over and over with slight rewording, before the courts strike them down weeks or months later. That isn''t much of a check.

If there is this gross miscarraige of justice, why hasnt the Govenor come to Rush''s aid?

With what? A pardon? Rush hasn''t been charged with a crime. Also the charges that haven''t been filed are Federal so I doubt a Governor could pardon them.

Where is the ACLU?

Busy making America safe for terrorists.

Lawyeron? Ral? What evidence do you have that the
government has no evidence that Rush doctor shopped?

Come on, that kind of statement is just as crazy as the
""drug dealer Rush"" scenario.

There are no charges yet, it''s all speculation. You *can''t*
have any info yet. It''s impossible.

Robear

They are fishing. They have already leaked all kinds of things they have investigated... no charges filed.

What evidence do you have that the
government has no evidence that Rush doctor shopped?

Florida detectives went to pharmacies in the area where Rush lives and found that he had filled prescriptions from multiple doctors. As far as I can discover, the state provisions used by detectives to look at these records, as well as by prosecutors to obtain search warrants for Rush''s medical records have never been used before outside of DUI or DUI manslaughter cases.

Sounds like a fishing expedition to me, and a stretch of the way that the law was intended to be used.

That''s not evidence, it''s supposition.

As a simple point, one could seek *corroboration* of secret
testimony in doctor''s records. That would not be a fishing
expedition, but a useful source of information. For some
odd reason, I''ve not seen Rush''s lawyer mention that...
Actually, it''s not odd, it makes perfect sense, since if the
records corroborate witness testimony, Rush is in deep
kimchee. And if they don''t, then he''s got a good case, I
would speculate without knowing.

""sounds like"", ""as far as I can discover""...Clearly we need
more facts, as opposed to information.

Robear

If Rush committed a crime, then he should be punished for it. Ral''s analogy is correct though. If he gets charged with a crime that is never prosecuted then the DA needs to be fired.

I''ve said before: there is a difference in intent between getting hooked on painkillers your doctor prescribes and trying heroin. What Rush did might technically be illegal, but it is not criminal.

I might start a new thread about the over-criminalization of our legal system. Might make for a good change of pace debate, as it is apolitical.

"Robear" wrote:

That''s not evidence, it''s supposition.

As a simple point, one could seek *corroboration* of secret testimony in doctor''s records. That would not be a fishing expedition, but a useful source of information. For some odd reason, I''ve not seen Rush''s lawyer mention that... Actually, it''s not odd, it makes perfect sense, since if the records corroborate witness testimony, Rush is in deep kimchee.

Now who''s engaging in supposition? There is no secret witness. In court, during hearings on the validity of obtaining these records, the state''s attorneys stated explicitly that they suspected doctor shopping after obtaining prescriptions from Rush''s pharmacies, which they investigated not because a witness suggested there was a crime, but rather in the words of the prosecutor:

This was detectives who said, ""I''m going to look in the area where the man lives and see if I find any of those records under the State provisions that allow for inspection of records."" Good old fashioned gumshoe police work found those records.

In the absence of a witness or other physical or circumstantial evidence that Rush doctor shopped, this is nothing more than fishing. And the fact that they are seeking these records under laws used only in DUI cases is prejudicial. Add in the fact that only one other person has been prosecuted under this law since it was passed - even though the act of doctor shopping is apparently fairly common, accoding to the drug court judge in the area - and Rush''s claim that he is being treated differently seems to be true.

Even testimony from known witnesses before trial is usually held back
from the press, and hence secret. I was under the impression that they
were checking this out based on someone''s testimony, and they were.

Why did they check the pharmacies? Because they had evidence of
drug abuse, it''s reasonable to check the legitimate suppliers (and I
dunno, I use one pharmacy, not two or three...). At that point, you
then either stop the investigation in that area for lack of evidence, or
you look at the sources of the prescriptions to see if, for example,
several doctors were solicited for the same problem over several
days.

Do you agree that would be an abuse of the system? Or should this
law just go away for everyone?

There is a reasonable train of evidence that''s been made public,
as you showed. So what''s the big deal? If he has nothing to hide
from the state, he''s fine. He can get those records held private in a
New York minute, as a public figure. The fear of a leak is legitimate,
and can be dealt with legitimately, as is done many times in the
courts.

So you''ve moved me from speculation to reasonable certainty that it''s
not a fishing expedition, but an attempt to confirm findings. It''s always
good to get new info.

Robear

I was under the impression that they
were checking this out based on someone''s testimony, and they were.

What are you talking about? Who''s testimony?

Why did they check the pharmacies? Because they had evidence of drug abuse, it''s reasonable to check the legitimate suppliers

Actually they had evidence contradicting idea that he was doctor shopping - since they knew that he was having to obtain these pills from a dealer. Evidence of a drug problem doesn''t give the state the right to obtain your medical records, especially when they have direct evidence that you aren''t committing the crime they are looking for.

So you''ve moved me from speculation to reasonable certainty that it''s not a fishing expedition, but an attempt to confirm findings.

How do you figure? The state had no evidence that Rush was doctor shopping, and in fact had evidence he was not - but went looking for some anyway. They call it ""Good old fashioned gumshoe police work"", but in the absence of probable cause, it''s nothing more than abuse of power.

I''m assuming they have talked to the maid, and are
investigating allegations based on that. You read the
transcript, is she not mentioned? Now I''m confused... Is she
talking or not?

Sorry for the dual posts, I did a bit of looking. Apparently, the
whole maid thing is not what they are working from.

However, from CNN...

And concerning Mr. Limbaugh''s claim of a right to privacy, the judge says that a right to privacy is not absolute, and will yield to governmental interest. In the end, this means that there''s a very clear order involved. The state and only the state will be able to review Rush Limbaugh''s records as part of their investigation. Other than that, the medical records will remain sealed and will not be available for public review. Now, in part, the judge said, in opening up these records to the investigators, quote, ""The state has clearly demonstrated the relevance or nexus between seizing Mr. Limbaugh''s medical records and this ongoing criminal investigation.""

So, um, if the legal teams are the only ones that will see the
records, how is Mr. Limbaugh''s privacy violated?

Clearly I should read more before I post, but I raise the
question anyway.

Oh, and should infrequent enforcement prevent prosecution?
I guess you were against Clinton''s impeachment, since it''s
only been used on a few presidents? How do you draw the
line of uniformly not enforcing a law on the books? What''s the
legal precedent for escaping prosecution by arguing that the
law is dusty and not often used?

Robear

So, um, if the legal teams are the only ones that will see the
records, how is Mr. Limbaugh''s privacy violated?

If anyone except Rush and his doctors see those records, his privacy is violated. His privacy rights do not contain exceptions for judges and prosecutors.

Oh, and should infrequent enforcement prevent prosecution?
I guess you were against Clinton''s impeachment, since it''s
only been used on a few presidents?

Now that''s a stretch of an analogy. If you told me that every president committed felonies but only a couple were impeached, that would be closer to what is happening here.

How do you draw the
line of uniformly not enforcing a law on the books?

I''m not arguing that Rush shouldn''t be prosecuted, I''m opposed to them investigating without any evidence other than ""gee, I wonder..."". They said that they had cause because Rush admitted to drug use, but this would be like someone admitting they are gay, and the state using that statement to obtain warrants to bug their house to find out if they are violating sodomy laws.

From the court transcript I read, there is no indication that there was a witness or any other evidence that Rush doctor shopped. They decided to go fishing based on pure supposition. Now this may make sense logically, but it ain''t probable cause.

*Farscry throws one in that he found off the foul line in far right field*

His privacy rights do not contain exceptions for judges and prosecutors.

I believe that the US Patriot Act, which you have challenged us in the past to see what harm it does us, has a clause that establishes the right to execute search warrants without due notice.

SEC. 213. AUTHORITY FOR DELAYING NOTICE OF THE EXECUTION OF A WARRANT.
Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by inserting `(a) IN GENERAL- '' before `In addition''; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(b) DELAY- With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if--

`(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);

`(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and

`(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.''.

So basically, the government can ""search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States"" if ""the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result.""

Unlike much of the new privacy violation provisions of the Patriot Act, which focus primarily on ""national security"" and terrorism, section 213 is not limited to those concerns, and instead provides for much more far-reaching consequences as we may be seeing here.

Granted, this is merely speculation on my part, but as you can see, according to law now, the reasons and notifications for searching (or ""fishing"" as you say) need not be given if notifying the suspect (Mr. Limbaugh) may ""have an adverse result.""

If Rush committed a crime, then he should be punished for it. Ral''s analogy is correct though. If he gets charged with a crime that is never prosecuted then the DA needs to be fired.

Not equating Rush to Capone, but any number on how many times people were prosecuted for income tax evasion before him?

"fangblackbone" wrote:

Do you really think the Judicial Branch is that focused on one man? The Judicial branch is forgoing all of its other responsibilities to get Rush?

If they were that out of line, dont you think the checks and balances would kick in?

If there is this gross miscarraige of justice, why hasnt the Govenor come to Rush''s aid?

Where is the ACLU?

ACLU help Rush? You''ve got to be kidding...

Whether you like him or hate him, you can''t deny that the left has a target painted on his forehead. And in the age of Activist judges, if their leftist, they''d be chomping at the bit to nail Rush, laws be damned.

Rush is too much of a hot potato for the Conservative crowd to get involved very much in his defense, much less the governing body of Florida.

By the by, the ACLU *is*helping Rush Limbaugh.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/13/im...

note the paragraph:

""The ACLU joined the case Monday in support of the claim that Limbaugh''s constitutional right to privacy has been violated. ""

We have now officially come full circle, and are nearing the ""Bizarro World.""

We have now officially come full circle, and are nearing the ""Bizarro World.""

Why? The ACLU could give a rat''s ass who they defend if it involves violation of civil rights.

To me, this lends more credibility to Limbaughs complaints.