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

Skip to comments.

Limbaugh and Black get the Goods on Brischer
The Rush Limbaugh Website ^ | 1-26-04 | Rush Limbaugh

Posted on 01/26/2004 9:17:19 PM PST by 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at rushlimbaugh.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: krischer; limbaugh; loveyourush; rush
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-256 next last
The Florida Bar submits a letter repudiating Barry Krischer's bogus claim that he asked for and received their clearance before releasing Roy Black's correspondence and the Palm Beach SAO's response.

Further, the letter tends to indicate that the Bar made clear that the SAO could not release this correspondence. This is a direct contradiction to what Krischer and mouthpiece Edmonson have claimed.

Rush publishes the actual letter on his website!

1 posted on 01/26/2004 9:17:20 PM PST by Angelica411
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Angelica411
Btt.
2 posted on 01/26/2004 9:19:44 PM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP (Careful! Your TAGS are the mirror of your SOUL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Angelica411
Trouble --- sounds like some one is going to be out of work and doing the "perp - walk," and it's not Rush!
3 posted on 01/26/2004 9:20:58 PM PST by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Angelica411
I see a $50 fine and 5-hours community service
4 posted on 01/26/2004 9:22:49 PM PST by GeronL (miss me?? I've been gone... you mean you didn't even notice?? wwaaaaaaaaaaa!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Really? I see a looming 42 USC 1983 suit against the prosecuting attorney's office, with a bucket of money at the end of it.
5 posted on 01/26/2004 9:26:46 PM PST by TheConservator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Angelica411
These SOB's should be sued until the cows refuse to come home due to lack of food. Maybe after the local population has to ante up a multi-million dollar settlement they will be less forgiving of the Leftist dirtbags they constantly elect to public office. The mantra ought to be: "Elect a radical tax-and-spend Dim, pay an extra $25,000. Hope that's OK with you."
6 posted on 01/26/2004 9:35:25 PM PST by Mad_Tom_Rackham (Any day you wake up is a good day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad_Tom_Rackham
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1065799/posts
7 posted on 01/26/2004 9:44:27 PM PST by holdonnow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Angelica411
T-H-E BARRY KRISCHER?
8 posted on 01/26/2004 9:51:58 PM PST by soozla (LIBERALS are the suckiest bunch of suckers that ever sucked!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheConservator
my thought too. Sue for a couple million and make the SA uncomfortable. If they try to pursue charges, ask for the trial to bo moved on the grounds that the SA office has a conflict of interest because of being named in the pending civil suit.
9 posted on 01/26/2004 10:01:32 PM PST by BOBWADE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow
Of course the Left will attack Rush with whatever they have available to destroy or discredit him. The Clintons are certainly pumping the bellows.

But, that aside, as someone who suffered unimaginable agony following a car acident years ago, I am convinced that a substantial "unintended consequence" of the "war on drugs" has been that pain is severely under-treated in the USA. This IMO has prompted Rush and I am sure many other otherwise responsible citizens to "other methods" of reducing their physical pain.

In my case I can vividly recall waiting for hours in agony between "pain shots" because the "prescribed dose period" had not yet expired. That experience left me with a gut-level distrust for doctors (as much as I otherwise admired them). It took me a while to understand that it was most likely the "system" and the "government" that was to blame.

Releif of pain is probably the strongest component of life force, after birth. The fact that the government has yet to manage this, and has been sidetracked by the moronic "war on drugs", is a black mark on society (IMO).

10 posted on 01/26/2004 10:02:00 PM PST by Mad_Tom_Rackham (Any day you wake up is a good day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RS
'unimaginable agony', where is all this going?
11 posted on 01/26/2004 10:20:11 PM PST by Sarah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Angelica411
Private medical records aside, I don't see how Rush can squirm out of these charges.

12 posted on 01/26/2004 10:30:24 PM PST by My Dog Likes Me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Angelica411; All
This is such great news! I bet Hillary is having another screeming fit.

In case you haven't been informed .. the Cline's (maid and hubby) attorney is THE SON OF A CLINTON APPOINTEE!!

THIS IS NOT A COINCIDENCE. This is why the Clintons appointed these people .. so they could use them. But .. this ties the Clintons to this case. Of course, I always knew they were anyway.
13 posted on 01/26/2004 10:33:33 PM PST by CyberAnt ("America is the GREATEST NATION on the face of the earth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Really .. I SEE DEFINITE ETHICS CHARGES, AND POSSIBLE DISBARMENT!!
14 posted on 01/26/2004 10:34:51 PM PST by CyberAnt ("America is the GREATEST NATION on the face of the earth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TheConservator
What does the 42 USC 1983 cover ..??
15 posted on 01/26/2004 10:35:47 PM PST by CyberAnt ("America is the GREATEST NATION on the face of the earth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: My Dog Likes Me
Uh, please correct me if I'm in error. As of this minute (pls note time of mssg), precisely NO ''charges'' have been filed against Mr. Limbaugh.

The County PA has been ''investigating'' (whatever that means) for some time.

Let's just keep the facts straight here, please.

16 posted on 01/26/2004 10:37:03 PM PST by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Angelica411
I have no idea what any of this means. What letter from Black and all that? Not everyone is following every little speck of this story.

Maybe someone can do a 1. 2. 3. step by step for us slow folks who have kids and can't follow the Palm Beach soaps.
17 posted on 01/26/2004 10:39:58 PM PST by TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig (I like it so shaddup./sarcasm Heaven's just a sin away, oh heaven's just a sin away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheConservator
Right indeed. But one would hope Mr. Limbaugh would show his entirely justified contempt for the rei priori, and simply sue for $1.00 in currency -- to be duly wiped across the PA's anus in his own good and convenient time.
18 posted on 01/26/2004 10:41:01 PM PST by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: My Dog Likes Me
Charges? What charges?

There has been a lot of posturing and innuendo, but no charges.
19 posted on 01/26/2004 10:44:44 PM PST by TheConservator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: My Dog Likes Me
I agree.
20 posted on 01/26/2004 10:47:21 PM PST by LisaMalia (Buckeye Fan since birth!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mad_Tom_Rackham
I remember hearing about a study done at a local hospital here in San Diego. They had a section of the hospital wired to allow patients to medicate themselves.

Astonishingly, the patients did a better job of maintaining a certain level of medication. As a rule, they did not over medicate .. and most of them under medicated. The common result was most were happier not to be over drugged and most were willing to put up with a little more pain. The most common response was: "If the pain started to get too bad, I could just press the button and get instant relief".
21 posted on 01/26/2004 10:49:04 PM PST by CyberAnt ("America is the GREATEST NATION on the face of the earth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: My Dog Likes Me
"these charges"

What charges ..?? Rush has not been charged with anything. The reason Rush hasn't been charged is because there is nothing to charge him with. The SA even admitted they wanted Rush's medical records because "they thought he had committed a crime". If they don't have other evidence than the medical records .. then they're fishing!
22 posted on 01/26/2004 10:55:37 PM PST by CyberAnt ("America is the GREATEST NATION on the face of the earth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TheConservator; SAJ; LisaMalia
So there are no charges? Thanks for clearing this up. Must have been me, but I thought I heard the word "charged" hundreds of times on the radio and TV. If he isn't charged, I guess Rush is only a person of interest. Maybe Marta did it.

If it was me or you, we would have already experienced life in an orange jumpsuit, been perp-walked, and released from county jail, pending a court date.

23 posted on 01/26/2004 10:56:19 PM PST by My Dog Likes Me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: big ern
See the link in post #7. At that link is a lot of other links which give a lot of info.

The "letter" is in reference to a letter from the FL AG's office indicating they did not approve the SA releasing the confidential memos between the SA and Rush's attorney. You see .. the SA claimed they had prior approval from the FL AG to release the documents .. and according to the FL AG - the SA WAS LYING THROUGH HIS TEETH.
24 posted on 01/26/2004 11:01:16 PM PST by CyberAnt ("America is the GREATEST NATION on the face of the earth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: My Dog Likes Me
Barbara Streisand
25 posted on 01/26/2004 11:03:15 PM PST by hobson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Angelica411
My opinion of the file, you linked, is different.
IMO, the key issue is wether the two documents
in question are 'public records'.
The ethics advice seemed to be ...that those two docs
are confidential, but IF they are 'public documents',
then public access laws trump confidentiality, but we don't give advice on those issues,
so you should consult a court.

26 posted on 01/26/2004 11:07:04 PM PST by greasepaint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My Dog Likes Me
So there are no charges? Thanks for clearing this up. Must have been me, but I thought I heard the word "charged" hundreds of times on the radio and TV.

It sounds as though your problem is that your education has all been from the TV. "Charged" is a technical legal term that means something. "Charged" isn't something that a reporter says, or comes from a leak. If you are "charged" with a crime, it means you go to court!

.If he isn't charged, I guess Rush is only a person of interest. Maybe Marta did it. .

You either watch too much TV or you are a troll.

If it was me or you, we would have already experienced life in an orange jumpsuit, been perp-walked, and released from county jail, pending a court date.

More horse cr*p. If it was you or me, nothing would happen except POSSIBLY court mandated drug rehab. And even that's a stretch.

27 posted on 01/26/2004 11:09:12 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: My Dog Likes Me
PS - It's a good thing your dog likes you...
28 posted on 01/26/2004 11:10:16 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: My Dog Likes Me
If he gets me on the jury I think he is inocent.
29 posted on 01/26/2004 11:11:28 PM PST by southland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt
They didn't disbar x42 for lying to us....
30 posted on 01/26/2004 11:13:43 PM PST by southland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: My Dog Likes Me
If it was me or you, we would have already experienced life in an orange jumpsuit

I believe that is wrong. Rush is the first case I'm aware of in the US where they're going after a former user of prescription drugs. The goal has always been to get the person treatment more than punish (for 1st time offenders at least), and I challenge you to find a case in the US where a prosecuter has gone after someone who just went through treatment. Not to mention all the privacy violations and fishing they're doing by seizing his medical records.

31 posted on 01/26/2004 11:14:31 PM PST by SirAllen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: southland
Yes they did! He didn't totally lose his license (which is what I wanted), but it was suspended for 5 years.
32 posted on 01/26/2004 11:17:16 PM PST by CyberAnt ("America is the GREATEST NATION on the face of the earth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: southland
I beleive Clinton WAS disbarred in Arkansas.
33 posted on 01/26/2004 11:17:39 PM PST by Sabretooth (I'm not SabERtooth, Im SabREtooth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
"I would like to thank the Academy..." :-)
34 posted on 01/26/2004 11:18:13 PM PST by My Dog Likes Me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: southland
My little dog loves me!

We won't talk about her missing heartworm pills...
35 posted on 01/26/2004 11:21:27 PM PST by My Dog Likes Me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Angelica411
The truth shall set you free.
36 posted on 01/26/2004 11:24:18 PM PST by i get it
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Actually, most likely a reprimand or suspension. However, the question is whether the impropriety is enough to remove him from office. He is not just a lawyer he is a public official the standards of compliance are much much higher.

Now if he has an addiction problem, he could participate in the FL Bar's in house drug diversion program sponsored by the bar. Lawyers who have such addictions can participate and upon completion of the program, are not disciplined.
37 posted on 01/26/2004 11:27:23 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SirAllen
I agree that digging through medical records, in this case, is excessive.

But think of the Elvis example for a moment. His doctor wrote him script after script of meds for years. That showed neglect and abuse of his medical license. But they were scripts.

In the case of Rush, it seems he went under the table and simply acquired the drugs in that magical way that only rich people demand. When he ran out of doctors, he turned to his house servant. You see, folks, there is a point where "prescription drugs" become "illegal narcotics." I think Rush crossed that point.

Put another way, if I am prescribed Valium or Xanax by my doctor and pick them up at the pharmacy, that's fine. BUT, if I buy a baggie full of same on a street corner, that's illegal. Orange jumpsuit time.







38 posted on 01/26/2004 11:36:12 PM PST by My Dog Likes Me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: My Dog Likes Me
Perscription drugs never become illegal. The only become "obtained illegally".

If the SA had proof there would have been charges by now.
39 posted on 01/26/2004 11:40:33 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
I guess you're right. My bad.

40 posted on 01/27/2004 12:03:00 AM PST by My Dog Likes Me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory; My Dog Likes Me
If the SA had proof there would have been charges by now.

Yep.
Even if the "proof" was flimsy.
Anything to get a conviction!
That is the modus operendi of the modern prosecutor.

41 posted on 01/27/2004 12:04:40 AM PST by ppaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt
But this nation has already decided that public officials can, without penalty, lie under oath to a court of law...
42 posted on 01/27/2004 12:06:20 AM PST by thoughtomator ("I will do whatever the Americans want because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid"-Qadafi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Angelica411
The case against Rush Limbaugh is a violation of the First Amendment, plain and simple. If the prosecutors went after all accused drug addicts with the same zeal, it would be perfectly legitimate (at least as far as the 1stA is concerned) to persecute Rush equally harshly.

But that is not the case. The prosecutors are singling Rush out because of his political views, and courts have in the past found this to be illegal.

Add to this that the prosecution is apparently breaking all sorts of rules, and Rush could nail them pretty hard if he so chose (but I don't think he wants to take the risk of launching a counter-attack, he wants this issue to disappear)

43 posted on 01/27/2004 12:10:00 AM PST by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My Dog Likes Me
Well, m'friend, I don't know how you think, but -- had some ''public official'' run this game on me -- I guarantee you on my life that he, she, or it would now be the respondent in EVERY civil action I and my attorney could concoct.

And, if said ''public official'' were also an elected official, said civil actions would be deliberately timed (with of course some PR assistance) to render him (or her, or it) utterly unelectable evermore.

Suum cuique, as they used to say in the Roman Republic.

-- Do not kill a corrupt and ambitious man, but do what is worse; learn his desires and deny him all at every turn. Let him live in his futility. Nemesis herself could not punish him so well. -- Publius Scaevola, Pontifex Maximus of Rome, 77 B.C.

44 posted on 01/27/2004 12:15:12 AM PST by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SAJ
Yes, I see your point.

But this isn't a perfect world, and as Rush dances on the roof of his SUV while his fans cheer, I, in a similar position, would be pleading on a nasty phone through plexiglass for my public defender not to leave me in the county lock-up for another month.
45 posted on 01/27/2004 12:35:13 AM PST by My Dog Likes Me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: SirAllen
I believe that is wrong. Rush is the first case I'm aware of in the US where they're going after a former user of prescription drugs. The goal has always been to get the person treatment more than punish (for 1st time offenders at least), and I challenge you to find a case in the US where a prosecuter has gone after someone who just went through treatment. Not to mention all the privacy violations and fishing they're doing by seizing his medical records.

And particularly a celebrity. Neither Darryl Strawberry nor Robert Downey Jr., to name two of the most egregious offenders, did any jail time until they had been caught several times; plus, they were on cocaine and heroin! And as for painkillers, Matthew Perry went through rehab twice for that, and never faced any charges.

46 posted on 01/27/2004 12:39:30 AM PST by NYCVirago
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: TheConservator
I see a looming 42 USC 1983 suit against the prosecuting attorney's office, with a bucket of money at the end of it.

Yep. Or....
Maybe I see a suddenly more compassionate and reasonable prosecutor who would love to "put this all behind us".

47 posted on 01/27/2004 12:40:14 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SAJ
Well, m'friend, I don't know how you think, but -- had some ''public official'' run this game on me -- I guarantee you on my life that he, she, or it would now be the respondent in EVERY civil action I and my attorney could concoct.

Your are a more civil man than I my friend. I'd beat the public official to within an inch of their life and leave them for dead in some backwood area.

But that's just me! lol

48 posted on 01/27/2004 12:40:42 AM PST by Fledermaus (Democrats are just not capable of defending our nation's security. It's that simple!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt
They had a section of the hospital wired to allow patients to medicate themselves.

That was my experience, when I had abdominal surgery in Mountain View, CA, in '96.

I was given morphine for the first four days, intraveinously. I self-medicated as little as I could stand, to try and keep my vision from blurring so much. I was told that I never came close to the maximum allowed dose in an 8-hour period.

49 posted on 01/27/2004 12:51:09 AM PST by jimtorr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: My Dog Likes Me
You, sir, are living in la-la land.

If this were you or me, the prosecutor would not be wasting any time trying to obtain medical records in the hope that they would contain evidence that might establish a crime had been committed. Even if the medical records flew out of the doctor's office and landed in the prosecutor's lap, the most you or I would get would be a quick agreement for treatment and pretrial diversion.

By the way, I hate dogs. :)
50 posted on 01/27/2004 12:51:53 AM PST by TheConservator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-256 next 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