Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Limbaugh May Have Avoided Speeding Tickets (Humor)
Sloth | November 19, 2003 | Sloth

Posted on 11/19/2003 3:04:37 PM PST by Sloth

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) — Authorities are investigating whether Rush Limbaugh, already reeling from drug problems and his expulsion from ESPN, may have driven his vehicle just below the posted speed limits on numerous occasions, a law enforcement source who spoke on condition of anonymity said Wednesday.

As long as four years ago, local law enforcement manning Florida DUI checkpoints and 'speed traps' repeatedly clocked the ultraconservative demagogue at anywhere from one to six miles per hour below the applicable speed limits. Unconfirmed reports indicate that Limbaugh was also seen proceeding through intersections while traffic lights were yellow. One officer who declined to be named told the AP that he had personally observed Limbaugh cruising at 43 in a 45 MPH zone. No charges were filed at that time.

Critics contend that Limbaugh drove very close to the speed limit on at least 30 or 40 occasions, most likely with the deliberate intent of getting to his destination while avoiding tickets for speeding.

Limbaugh's attorney, Roy Black, did not return a phone call for comment Wednesday.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Political Humor/Cartoons; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: eib; limbaugh; lovablefuzzball; maharushie; rush; rushlimbaugh; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-245 last
To: Sloth
Bump! Good one.
201 posted on 11/20/2003 7:15:52 PM PST by Rebelbase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Big Giant Head
Well, Braniac, you better post it then. Rush doesn't have to incriminate himself, and won't. He has not admitted to any illegalities that I've heard.
You must be smart or somthing. You must have inside information. You know stuff that even the media doesn't know.
YOU know he's guilty, therefore he's dropped a notch on your hero status scale.
Fill us in.


Well, here's the law. Basically, if someone makes a statement in front of you and you don't deny it, it can be considered an admission by silence...

CALJIC 2.71.5
California Jury Instructions, Criminal, 7th Ed.
2.71.5 ADOPTIVE ADMISSION -- SILENCE, FALSE OR EVASIVE REPLY TO ACCUSATION
If you should find from the evidence that there was an occasion when [a] [the] defendant (1) under conditions which reasonably afforded [him] [her] an opportunity to reply; (2) [failed to make a denial] [or] [made false, evasive or contradictory statements,] in the face of an accusation, expressed directly to [him] [her] or in [his] [her] presence, charging [him] [her] with the crime for which this defendant now is on trial or tending to connect [him] [her] with its commission; and (3) that [he] [she] heard the accusation and understood its nature, then the circumstance of [his] [her] [silence] [and] [conduct] on that occasion may be considered against [him] [her] as indicating an admission that the accusation thus made was true. Evidence of an accusatory statement is not received for the purpose of proving its truth, but only as it supplies meaning to the [silence] [and] [conduct] of the accused in the face of it. Unless you find that [a] [the] defendant's [silence] [and] [conduct] at the time indicated an admission that the accusatory statement was true, you must entirely disregard the statement.


So this is how you would fill in the blanks at trial.
If you should find from the evidence that there was an occasion when Rush (1) under conditions which reasonably afforded him an opportunity to reply; (2) failed to make a denial in the face of an accusation, expressed directly to him or in his presence, charging him with the crime for which this defendant now is on trial or tending to connect him with its commission; and (3) that he heard the accusation and understood its nature, then the circumstance of his silence on that occasion may be considered against him as indicating an admission that the accusation thus made was true. Evidence of an accusatory statement is not received for the purpose of proving its truth, but only as it supplies meaning to the silence of the accused in the face of it.

The civil version of the instruction is much less stringent. Bottom line - if someone is accused of something, and has the chance to deny it, and doesn't, then it can come in against them as evidence that they are guilty.

Rush was accused of illegaly buying and using prescription drugs. Rush never denied it. He had every chance to deny it. In a court of law, a jury can use that fact as proof he's guilty.
202 posted on 11/20/2003 7:16:43 PM PST by Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh; Big Giant Head
Matthew 27:12-14 "... and while He was being accused by the chief priests and elders, He answered nothing. Then Pilate said to Him, 'Do You not hear how many things they testify against You?' But He answered him not one word, so that the governor marveled greatly."

Jesus was guilty!

203 posted on 11/20/2003 7:21:28 PM PST by Sloth ("I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!" -- Jacobim Mugatu, 'Zoolander')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Longbowwolf
Hello, Longbowwolf, I'm also fairly new here, and became a member because of Rush too. It's a top notch site for many important, and informative reasons that you will discover almost immediately. It is a fun site. I've laughed out loud at the humor displayed here almost every time I visit. I've also found it to be a caring site where heartwrenching, heartwarming, sad, and uplifting stories are told, people are helpful, and prayers are freely prayed. So get ready to shed a tear or two as well. It's a good place with good people for the most part. Welcome, and glad to have you aboard.
204 posted on 11/20/2003 7:22:04 PM PST by LucyJo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Spunky
Heya Spunky - yeah that's basically the law I'm referring to. But, in that case, the Court (ie the finder of fact) which is just like a jury when its a non-jury trial, found that the silence was not an admission.

Admission by silence is not a 100% finding, it's something in the hands of the jury. Meaning, if YOU personally feel like there's a good reason for his silence you don't have to consider that silence as evidence of guilt.

That's why I love the jury system - it leaves the chance to do the right thing under the circumstance open.

But, when someone like Rush, or Martha Stewart, or etc etc stays silent for months and months and months - there's only one real reason. They have the million dollar lawyer/private-investigator/PR spin machine churning. I truly believe in my heart that its this simple....Rush is guilty of illegally buying and using prescription drugs. Rush is guilty of conspiracy to break the law by cooperating with his maid and her connections to buy and use illegal prescription drugs. And the only reason Rush doesn't come right out and deny it is because (a) he's waiting for his lawyers/investigators to find out all the info possible so his excuse matches the facts, and (b) he doesn't want to say something that gets used against him in his criminal trial.
205 posted on 11/20/2003 7:23:18 PM PST by Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
need to hump your leg. Anyone who makes the Limbaugh show gets humped by Laz.

Somebody needs to turn the hose on you.

LOL!

5.56mm

206 posted on 11/20/2003 7:38:17 PM PST by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
California Jury Instructions,

Dude, we're not dealing with a court of law here. These are allegations in a tabloid. He never denied meeting with aliens either, so I guess that's true also.

If he's in court, in California, then what you posted can be applied.

Bottom line is you WANT him to be guilty, you are pushing for it. You are trying to convict on heresay. He is NOT your hero, and you're a liar. Thanks for playing.

207 posted on 11/20/2003 7:39:06 PM PST by Big Giant Head ( </ duh? >)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh; Big Giant Head
CALJIC 2.71.5
California Jury Instructions, Criminal, 7th Ed. 2.71.5 ADOPTIVE ADMISSION -- SILENCE, FALSE OR EVASIVE REPLY TO ACCUSATION If you should find from the evidence that there was an occasion when [a] [the] defendant (1) under conditions which reasonably afforded [him] [her] an opportunity to reply; (2) [failed to make a denial] [or] [made false, evasive or contradictory statements,] in the face of an accusation, expressed directly to [him] [her] or in [his] [her] presence, charging [him] [her] with the crime for which this defendant now is on trial or tending to connect [him] [her] with its commission; and (3) that [he] [she] heard the accusation and understood its nature, then the circumstance of [his] [her] [silence] [and] [conduct] on that occasion may be considered against [him] [her] as indicating an admission that the accusation thus made was true. Evidence of an accusatory statement is not received for the purpose of proving its truth, but only as it supplies meaning to the [silence] [and] [conduct] of the accused in the face of it. Unless you find that [a] [the] defendant's [silence] [and] [conduct] at the time indicated an admission that the accusatory statement was true, you must entirely disregard the statement.

The way I read this it has to do with someone who has been charged of something and is a "defendent in a trial".

To my knowledge Rush has not been charged or gone to trial for anything.

208 posted on 11/20/2003 7:39:20 PM PST by Spunky (This little tag just keeps following me where ever I go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
California Law is going to be tough to use in Florida.....
Being California Law, I would be dubious of its' constitutionality anyway.
Also, these are just jury instructions. I am unsure as to whether this could be construed as law. Can a court charge a subject of California with violation of such a law? I think not. Not to hammer on all Californians, as I know alot of good folks from your state, but it seems that some juries in your state are picked out of the brain dead bastions of Hollywood. Considering the track record of California Jurors;.....well, Lets just say that a California DA could have pictures and DNA evidence and a Calipornia jury would likely find Michael Jackson innocent. We will soon find out.
209 posted on 11/20/2003 7:39:43 PM PST by Longbowwolf (It is a Wolf eat Liberals world....Got Milk?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Spunky
It's also very possible that Rush is cooperating with an ongoing investigation of the dealer of these "illegal" substances and cannot comment without blowing it.
210 posted on 11/20/2003 7:46:44 PM PST by Big Giant Head ( </ duh? >)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: Big Giant Head
Yes that is very possible.
211 posted on 11/20/2003 8:02:57 PM PST by Spunky (This little tag just keeps following me where ever I go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: M Kehoe
Somebody needs to turn the hose on you.

It won't help. It will just make for a wet humpy Laz.

212 posted on 11/20/2003 8:12:07 PM PST by Lazamataz (I like my women as I like my coffee: Cold and bitter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Longbowwolf
Welcome.

I must warn you, I am completely, merrily, insane.

However -- unless I get the proper ammunition -- I am relatively harmless.

213 posted on 11/20/2003 8:14:05 PM PST by Lazamataz (I like my women as I like my coffee: Cold and bitter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
I can relate. Being ballistically blessed is a wonderful thing. And it sounds like you have met the same women that I previously dumped.
214 posted on 11/20/2003 8:30:55 PM PST by Longbowwolf (It is a Wolf eat Liberals world....Got Milk?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: Longbowwolf
BTT
215 posted on 11/20/2003 10:16:48 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: LucyJo; Longbowwolf
LucyJo, you and Longbowwolf are why FR is so good! With every passing day, and every new FReeper who comes onboard, this place just gets better and better.

Nothing warms a FReeper's heart more than seeing "Newbies" who come into FR with all the passion you guys have. It is a total blast!

Tell your friends and then strap on your seatbelts, turn up the music, and have as much fun as possible with those of us who share your dreams, your sorrows and your hopes!

But WARNING: It IS addictive! ;-)
216 posted on 11/20/2003 10:36:20 PM PST by Humidston (Two Words: TERM LIMITS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
So whose direct questions has Rush failed to answer? Palm Beach County's DA? Law enforcement officers and investigators? Or is it that he hasn't revealed the facts to The National Inquirer? Or The New York Times? Or Crossfire? Or his audience? Or YOU? If you were to walk up to me on the street, as a complete stranger, and start asking questions about possible litigation against me and I tell you I won't discuss it with you, am I confessing through my silence?

Rush Limbaugh is in no way obligated to you, sir, or anyone else for that matter, not directly empowered to demand information from him. His silence on the subject in the public arena is not a tacit confession, and wouldn't be admitted as evidence of guilt in a single courtroom in this country. Silence in an interrogation room in the presence of detectives or prosecutors asking direct questions about a case - certainly. But reticence over a microphone that happens to be broadcasting your voice to twenty million private citizens and strangers? "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Mr. Limbaugh had ample opportunity to discuss the details of a pending case in which he was involved with millions of people he did not know and who had no legal right to demand such details from him, as well as with several nationally distributed tabloids that routinely display him shaking hands with bigfoot, but HE.... DID... NOT! His wife even testified that he suspiciously failed to answer the phone once after seeing Entertainment Weekly's number on the caller ID display. I ask... what does that say to YOU?"

Sounds ridiculous, because it IS. No judge would admit such "evidence," because it is NOT evidence. NO ONE need fear that reluctance or even REFUSAL to divulge details of an ongoing case to parties who do not have the authority to demand them can be used in a courtroom to prosecute them. They need not fear it because it is ABSOLUTELY inadmissible.

As an uninvolved party, you have NO IDEA why he's silent on the subject. You have no idea what's happening - you don't even know if he's the TARGET of the investigation, and not a material witness! You don't even know if investigators are THEMSELVES asking him not to divulge information to the public, so as not to disrupt their investigation! Remember the selective and controlled release of information during the sniper shootings? They did it that way for a REASON. Or how about the Ramsey case? Remember how the police kept complaining that information leaks were impeding the investigation?

Don't lay claim to information that, as a private citizen, isn't any of your business, and insist that Rush Limbaugh can be held responsible LEGALLY for failing to update YOU. Go apply for a badge in Palm Beach County, and then get assigned to the case. And if, after having done so, even your good cop/bad cop routine doesn't get him to spill the beans to you, THEN come back here and talk this talk. Because THEN you'd be CORRECT concerning the law - your interpretation of it would be legitimate. As it stands now, your argument is merely an inept attempt to reverse-engineer a concept to make it fit your lame argument. But it's a square peg, sir. As much as you desperately wish, it just won't fit through this round hole.

And by the way - people who use the "I should know, I'm an expert" line in their argumentation are always suspicious, and we'll supplement "suspicious" with SUPREMELY LAME as well, for good measure. "I should know, I'm a lawyer," is just such a line. "I'm right, because I'm an expert on this subject." Or, "How should you know what happened at Normandy? I was ALIVE in 1944. You weren't even BORN." If you are indeed a lawyer, you would of course have attended law school, where you would have learned in your first logic course that this is a logical fallacy known as an "appeal to authority." Or perhaps you wouldn't have learned this in law school - by then, I'm sure, your instructors would probably expect you to ALREADY know something so basic from your undergraduate studies. This line of argumentation is especially douche-esque when attempted online - in anonymous chatrooms or MESSAGEBOARDS, where YOU exist to OTHERS and THEY to YOU as nothing more than disembodied lines of TEXT.

"I'm a lawyer."

Well then, my good, long-time, trusted and intimate friend Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh, who I do not know and who I have never met - point, set, MATCH! I yield! You win the argument! You're right, because you're a LAWYER, and not, in fact, some pimple faced 14-year-old sitting in front of his computer wearing nothing but his Lord of the Rings T-Shirt and tube socks as he switches browser windows between this messageboard and bigblackbooties.com, typing his posts quietly so as not to be discovered by his mother, who will immediately revoke his XBox privileges for messing around with the parental controls on the family AOL account - AGAIN! And you know how I know this? Because we're SUCH GOOD FRIENDS.

Go lie somewhere else. Or - no, stay. Continue on with us here. It's entertaining.
217 posted on 11/20/2003 11:40:03 PM PST by dialectus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: Sloth
Wow! Yes he was and I don't think I've ever heard anyone frame it like that before. Post #203 was another example of an opportunity to draw a brilliant analogy - albeit in a different way than the first. You brain must work differently. I mean, this is like "Bono" brilliant!
218 posted on 11/21/2003 2:28:19 AM PST by LowCountryJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Spunky
But your argument really hinges on what you've defined as the words, "is" and "not". See, I may (and probably do) have a completely different concept of was the word "is" is. The word "Not"! Well, give me some time on that one ;)
219 posted on 11/21/2003 2:47:56 AM PST by LowCountryJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

Comment #220 Removed by Moderator

To: dialectus
Well then, my good, long-time, trusted and intimate friend Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh, who I do not know and who I have never met - point, set, MATCH! I yield! You win the argument! You're right, because you're a LAWYER, and not, in fact, some pimple faced 14-year-old sitting in front of his computer wearing nothing but his Lord of the Rings T-Shirt and tube socks as he switches browser windows between this messageboard and bigblackbooties.com, typing his posts quietly so as not to be discovered by his mother, who will immediately revoke his XBox privileges for messing around with the parental controls on the family AOL account - AGAIN! And you know how I know this? Because we're SUCH GOOD FRIENDS.

BOOM!!!!!!!

Still laughing!

221 posted on 11/21/2003 3:24:57 AM PST by ovrtaxt ( http://www.fairtax.org **** Forget ANWR. Drill Israel !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: dialectus
Rush Limbaugh claims to have a position of confidence and leadership. He has also sat in judgment over other public figures and the actions/thoughts of many others as well. He has a powerful microphone, and ample opportunity to answer the charges against his character.

Rush has made a partial denial, a generic vague statement or two about "some of the things you have heard" etc. He has admitted to everything accused against him that was NOT illegal. He admitted the use (but he stopped short of admitting to using in excess of his prescription). He admitted to the addiction (but he stopped short of admitting to any illegal behavior whatsoever in connection with the addiction).

His silence on the subject in the public arena is not a tacit confession, and wouldn't be admitted as evidence of guilt in a single courtroom in this country. Silence in an interrogation room in the presence of detectives or prosecutors asking direct questions about a case - certainly.

You're exactly backwards. His silence in an interrogation room in the presence of detectives or prosecutors is not admissible as evidence of guild, because he has a 5th amendment right against self-incrimination. However, his silence in the face of accusations of the maid and the media are different. And that silence and failure to answer the accusations IS admissible evidence. It's admission by silence.
222 posted on 11/21/2003 5:29:10 AM PST by Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt
First of all, he apparently can't talk about it fully at this time.

Come on. You aren't that naive are you? Rush "can't" talk about it because he doesn't want to. There is absolutely nothing prohibiting him from talking about it except for the decision made by himself and his lawyers. Just like Martha Stewart. Just like OJ Simpson. Just like Michael Jackson. Just like every other big money celebrity who is charged with illegal conduct, but scared of losing their audience if the truth comes out. Second of all, assuming he used the money for illegal purposes and he was on trial, your logic and legal premise seems to me to violate the Fifth Amendment. By not answering the charges, that's contrued as an admission of guilt? I thought it was up to the prosecutor to PROVE it beyond doubt.

I posted the jury instruction that's used on this issue. Please review it. Admission by silence can be used as evidence of consciousness of guilt.

And third, I wouldn't think twice about withdrawing $9,900 to avoid government attention.

Neither would I. Here we totally agree. Then again, I don't break the law, so I would not be withdrawing in a pattern of sub-$10,000 withdrawals as part of some scheme of behavior to avoid legal attention.

It's my money, not theirs! And I'll do what I damn well please with it.

Actually, no you won't. You use it to break the law, you go to jail. And your pattern of withdrawing right under $10,000 will come in as evidence against you.

If, as he says he did, that he was using it to remodel his house at the time, then it's not an issue to law enforcement. And from what I know, the withdrawal issue isn't even under investigation.

You seem to be missing the point. Rush could easily deal with all of this by one simple denial. He could say "I never illegally purchased or used drugs." But of course, he's not going to say that, because if he directly and purposefully lies to his audience, and gets caught, he will lose all credibility, and he will likely lose his career. The other problem (Which is not as much of a problem as it currently is for Martha Stewart) would be that such statements could be construed as trying to mislead investors, and thus taken as securities laws violations. To my knowledge, Rush is just trying to save his audience - it's not like Martha Stewart's OmniMedia where a whole company is built solely on the name of an individual.

Instead of name calling (which does not speak well of you as an intellectual), I propose you answer this question.

Which is more likely? Rush has not admitted to any illegal conduct whatsoever because he didn't commit any illegal conduct? Or, Rush has not admitted to any illegal conduct because he doesn't want to lose audience/money/credibility/freedom/etc?

It seems to be an issue only with ABC News and jackass lawyers who post ignorant rants on FR. (Your scarlet drawers are showing, BTW.)

Please resort to intellectual arguments, and not namecalling. As far as your "jump on the anti-lawyer bandwagon" mentality, I suggest you step back and consider the role that lawyers have played in the formation of this country, and in the issues of justice. I am the first college graduate in my entire family, the first graduate student, the first professional. I am extremely proud of my accomplishment, and I do my utmost to help people on a daily basis. When people in my family have serious problems, they come to me. I'm proud to be a lawyer.

And another thing. You should really strongly consider treating your info from ABC or any other 'mainstream' news outlet with LOTS of skepticism. They lie, you know.

Agreed. I treat almost all mainstream news with skepticism. However, when the mainstream news is accusing Rush of illegally buying and using drugs, and he admits everything but the illegal parts, and does not deny those, I shift the burden to him to explain why.
223 posted on 11/21/2003 5:43:28 AM PST by Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: dialectus
"I'm a lawyer."

Well then, my good, long-time, trusted and intimate friend Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh, who I do not know and who I have never met - point, set, MATCH! I yield! You win the argument! You're right, because you're a LAWYER, and not, in fact, some pimple faced 14-year-old sitting in front of his computer wearing nothing but his Lord of the Rings T-Shirt and tube socks as he switches browser windows between this messageboard and bigblackbooties.com, typing his posts quietly so as not to be discovered by his mother, who will immediately revoke his XBox privileges for messing around with the parental controls on the family AOL account - AGAIN! And you know how I know this? Because we're SUCH GOOD FRIENDS.

Go lie somewhere else. Or - no, stay. Continue on with us here. It's entertaining.


217 posted on 11/20/2003 11:40 PM PST by dialectus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]





Don't let the lipstick fool you. It is Chancellor Palpatine in drag.

He has changed his name and appearence in hopes that he doesn't get caught up in the Jacko mess.



224 posted on 11/21/2003 5:43:48 AM PST by Area51 (RINO hunter!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
However, his silence in the face of accusations of the maid and the media are different. And that silence and failure to answer the accusations IS admissible evidence. It's admission by silence.


222 posted on 11/21/2003 5:29 AM PST by Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]




YOur Busted RINO!

If your gonna change names atleast try using a different position so it isn't so obvious.

You should have had all your old Posts under CP pulled like you did when you ran and hid as OPHie.

Dude your a class A loser.
225 posted on 11/21/2003 5:47:53 AM PST by Area51 (RINO hunter!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: Area51
your=you're
226 posted on 11/21/2003 5:48:42 AM PST by Area51 (RINO hunter!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: Area51
YOur Busted RINO! If your gonna change names atleast try using a different position so it isn't so obvious. You should have had all your old Posts under CP pulled like you did when you ran and hid as OPHie. Dude your a class A loser

Huh? What is CP? You have no idea what you are talking about.

I have posted here before, as Bot-a-Bing. I lost that PW at one time, and re-registered, but if you look up my posting history here you will see that I acknowledged that voluntarily a long long time ago.

I have no idea what name you are referring to, but it's not me. Regardless, feel free to either address my points, agree or disagree and explain why. Otherwise, please quit wasting bandwidth.
227 posted on 11/21/2003 5:51:46 AM PST by Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: Area51

Look Marlin, Jim has bagged another! He was a sneaky one. Dressed in High heals, a Blue Dress from the Gap, and fishnet stockings. But Ole Jim has been hunting the allusive Two faced RINO for decades. He can smell one a mile away.

228 posted on 11/21/2003 5:53:43 AM PST by Area51 (RINO hunter!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
I have no idea what name you are referring to, but it's not me. Regardless, feel free to either address my points, agree or disagree and explain why. Otherwise, please quit wasting bandwidth.


227 posted on 11/21/2003 5:51 AM PST by Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]




Points? Yeah okay. The only point you have made is that you are jealous of Rush Limbaugh.

229 posted on 11/21/2003 5:55:51 AM PST by Area51 (RINO hunter!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
..talk about apples and oranges...you don't even know which is which. Speeding is illegal. Withdrawing money from your account is completely legal.
230 posted on 11/21/2003 6:06:59 AM PST by chiller (could be wrong, but doubt it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: chiller
Withdrawing money from your account is completely legal.

I was under the impression that repeatedly withdrawing just under the $10,000 reported amount, in an effort to have your cash withdrawal/use avoid legal attention, combined with using that cash for illegal purposes, was a violation of the RICO/WOD/MoneyLaundering laws...
231 posted on 11/21/2003 6:10:55 AM PST by Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: chiller
Withdrawing money from your account is completely legal.

Well...

Bank Secrecy Act regulations implemented in 1972 require a wide range of financial institutions to file a Currency Transaction Report, IRS Form 4789, to report "each deposit, withdrawal, exchange of currency or other payment or transfer, by, through, or to such financial institution which involves a transaction in currency of more than $10,000" (31 CFR 103.22(b)(1)). The CTR, as the form is known, provides FinCEN with information on the amount and type of the transaction, the person or persons who conducted the transaction, and the person or persons who benefited from the transaction. In 1999, banks, money services businesses, securities broker-dealers, and other financial institutions filed more than 12 million CTRs. Because CTRs provide law enforcement agencies with valuable information on the movement of large amounts of cash, money launderers will try to avoid the filing of a CTR by breaking down, or "structuring," transactions to less than the $10,000 CTR reporting threshold. The BSA prohibits "structuring" and imposes civil and criminal penalties for persons who cause or attempts to cause a financial institution to fail to file a CTR or to file a CTR "that contains a material omission or misstatement of fact."
http://www.moneylaundering.com/trainingarticle1.htm
232 posted on 11/21/2003 6:17:33 AM PST by Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Humidston
Nothing warms a FReeper's heart like the company of another FReeper!! lol!

Well, thanks for the warm welcome. While I am a newby here, I can relate to the "Posting Addiction", as I am an obsessive poster on the NUGE's website. Have been since 2000. I am sure there are a few Blood Brothers and Sisters snooping around in here.
Anyway, Thanks again.
233 posted on 11/21/2003 6:22:54 AM PST by Longbowwolf (It is a Wolf eat Liberals world....Got Milk?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: Humidston
WARNING: It IS addictive! ;-)
---

I'm already addicted! :-) Thanks for the friendly and welcoming comments. You just proved my point to Longbowwolf about FReepers!
234 posted on 11/21/2003 9:00:51 AM PST by LucyJo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: Area51
Hmmmm RINO? Okay, I will bite. So what is this about? What is a RINO? a closet democrat wearing an elephant costume? Where do I get a permit to bag one of these incredibly unstable creatures?
The only stupid question is the one that is never asked...
235 posted on 11/21/2003 10:55:00 AM PST by Longbowwolf (It is a Wolf eat Liberals world....Got Milk?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
You're really getting wrapped around the axel on this topic Bronco_Buster_Fedayeen, Aren't you? Oh, sorry that's name-calling isn't it? Laws or policies, such as this one that you are debating - ones where there are certain thresholds involved - just serve to provide a challenge to creative rule breakers and those individuals who are annoyed with the intrusive laws.

It's the same reason why people skirt around 'wash sale' rules when they claim capital losses on their schedule 'Ds' (i.e. selling a S&P 500 tracking security and immediately buying a Russell 3000 tracker which contains more than 70% of the prior).

It's the same reason why some people make sure that they make only up to a certain income threshold so as to stay qualified for social benefits.

It's the same reason why people go to the unemployment office and 'go through the motions' for 26 weeks before they suddenly and miraculously find a job.

And finally, it's the same reason why if Hillary Clinton ever runs for president of the United States, Bill Clinton would beg her to make him the VP candidate. Why you ask? Creative rule breaking in this particular case. See U.S. Constitution, Article XXV - "Succession to office" and Article XXII - "Term Limits". Notice where Article XXII only states, "ELECTED"?

How long do you think it would take for Hillary to have a fatal "accident" given the scenario?
236 posted on 11/21/2003 11:28:38 AM PST by LowCountryJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

Comment #237 Removed by Moderator

To: Sloth; Jim Robinson
Rush has put a link up to this thread on his website and credited Sloth!!!

Rush link here

238 posted on 11/21/2003 2:48:44 PM PST by RobFromGa (The Bush Recovery Is In Full Swing....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
You cite a California jury instruction as an example of law, applicable to a Florida criminal case?

Just what kind of lawyer are you???

239 posted on 11/22/2003 7:56:30 AM PST by been_lurking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: been_lurking
it was just an example
240 posted on 11/22/2003 8:04:01 AM PST by Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
However, withdrawing $9,900 so that you don't show up on the Fed's radar (and doing it 30-40 times) is a clear pattern of doing something with the intent of avoiding government attention.

I don't see the big deal with withdrawing cash in ANY ammount from a bank account. Sure depositing large volumes of cash could indicate money laundering, but withdrawing legally gotten gains in any ammount, over or under any certain amount, should not be an issue. I think this is a witchhunt at this point, and we need to start asking ourselves the motives of powers that be behind this. It is nothing but a poorly veiled attempt to further malign a man who has, far from doing anything wrong legally (outside of the drug thing--for which he has gotten help for), has been an advocate for obeying the law and taking responsibility for one's own actions. If the money is legally gained and deposited there, then there should be in no way any government attention to withdrawls in any amount. If it was legally gained--taxes were ALREADY paid on it, so its nobody's business what he got out that was his. they're grasping at straws.... like w/ Al Capone.

241 posted on 11/22/2003 8:12:27 AM PST by Schwaeky (Let Justice be done though the heavens fall)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Daveinyork
I think it was the bank that committed the crime by failing to report the multiple withdrawals

the closest thing to a crime might be "willful blindness," on the part of the bank. to a potential crime (which whether or not there is a crime actually being committed by the person getting $$, under federal banking law is a crime unto itself for the bank as an institution. But that's all..

242 posted on 11/22/2003 8:15:51 AM PST by Schwaeky (Let Justice be done though the heavens fall)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Sloth
Word has it Rush is transferring all his money to Paypal....film at 11!!!!!!!!
243 posted on 11/23/2003 7:10:09 AM PST by GregB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
Has anyone considered what kind of a bloody police state we live in where the Feds have to be informed of you withdrawing YOUR money from YOUR bank for ANY reason in ANY amount? No wonder i keep my money in my matress...
all $40.00 of it, yep.
244 posted on 11/23/2003 11:48:44 PM PST by finvarra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
Do you know why lawyers wear ties?

It keeps the foreskin from falling.

245 posted on 11/26/2003 9:49:18 AM PST by EricT.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-245 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson