Limbaugh May Have Avoided Speeding Tickets (Humor)

Sloth | November 19, 2003 | Sloth

[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.

[ovrtaxt]

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!

[Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh]

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.

[Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh]

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.

[Area51]

"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.

[Area51]

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.

[Area51]

your=you're

[Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh]

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.

[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.

[Area51]

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.

[chiller]

..talk about apples and oranges...you don't even know which is which. Speeding is illegal. Withdrawing money from your account is completely legal.

[Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh]

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...

[Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh]

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

[Longbowwolf]

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.

[LucyJo]

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

I'm already addicted! :-) Thanks for the friendly and welcoming comments. You just proved my point to Longbowwolf about FReepers!

[Longbowwolf]

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...

[LowCountryJoe]

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?

[RobFromGa]

Rush has put a link up to this thread on his website and credited Sloth!!!

Rush link here

[been_lurking]

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

Just what kind of lawyer are you???

[Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh]

it was just an example