Limbaugh, prosecutors accuse each other of misleading court

Sun Sentinel ^ | 6/3/04 | JILL BARTON

[wagglebee]

WEST PALM BEACH -- The battle between Rush Limbaugh and the prosecutors investigating him for alleged prescription drug abuse took another nasty turn on Thursday when the conservative commentator accused them of breaking court rules and misleading the judges hearing the case.

The latest disagreement arose earlier this week when Assistant State Attorney James Martz told an appeals court that Limbaugh's attorney provided wrong information in the case.

Both sides appeared before the 4th District Court of Appeal in April to debate whether Limbaugh's medical records, which were seized for the ongoing criminal investigation, should remain private.

During the court hearing, Limbaugh attorney Roy Black told judges that the Florida Legislature had at one time revised state law so that medical records could not be taken by search warrant.

On Tuesday, Martz provided the court with information that Black's comments were incorrect.

But two days later, Black fired back, arguing that prosecutors were missing five years' worth of audiotapes of lawmakers' discussions when they made their assertions.

``The prosecutor is wrong and his research recklessly incomplete,'' Black charged in a response filed Thursday in court. ``Prosecutors may have many powers, but they do not have the power to skip five years of legislation and rewrite history.'' Black asked the court to fine Martz for his false accusations.

Mike Edmondson, spokesman for the Martz' office, declined to comment further on the case on Thursday.

The criminal investigation is at a standstill until the appeals court decides the fate of Limbaugh's medical records.

Limbaugh, joined by the American Civil Liberties Union, has argued that seizing the records violated his privacy.

[wagglebee]

What is being done to Rush is the clearest evidence in history of the left's hatred for conservativism and their willingness to do anything to destroy it.

[gcruse]

*yawn*

Another vast conspiracy to boost foil sales.

[Oystir]

"five years' worth of audiotapes of lawmakers' discussions" now equals "revised state law so that medical records could not be taken by search warrant" instead of what is actually written in the statute?
Does what a legislator says at a fundraiser count as law too?

[Scenic Sounds]

Another vast conspiracy to boost foil sales.

LOL. Lawyers have as many conspiracies as you can afford. But, only that many!

How've you been, Gary?

[gcruse]

Hey, where ya been, SS? Long time, no C.

[Scenic Sounds]

Hey, where ya been, SS? Long time, no C.

As you can see, I do stop by, Gary. It's just that everything's getting so political this year that I just get all shook up. LOL.

And, I'll pass on the message. ;-)

[gcruse]

You're a sharp cookie. Thanks.

[Wally_Kalbacken]

What they seem to be getting at is the Legislative History of the statutes. Relying on that that is a questionable approach. As Justice Scalia has pointed out - in the early years of the country the legislative history was literally a record of the debate preceding a vote on new legislation. The courts could look to that record to understand what was the intent of a particular piece of legislation. Where the words were ambiguous or contradictory - in theory, a Supreme Court could look to the records to help understand what was intended by the legislators.

Scalia's position is that modern "legislative history" is littered with so much debris that was not even a part of the debate preceding the passage of legislation - that to look to it is worse than worthless. 

We've all seen some blowhole like Ted Kennedy ask for permission to "revise and extend my remarks". Practically speaking this means that Ted can ramble, stammer, drool and make no sense as he speaks on the floor. But his staff can edit and revise the stenographer's transcript of what he said so the something coherent (and even substantively different) appears in the Congressional Record. In hearings - advocacy groups send a representative to speak for 15 minutes of face time - and then supplement the record with thousands of pages that no Senator or Representative actually reads before voting. To look back, say 70 years from now to find the record on the partial birth abortion legislative debate and see tons of reports from advocacy groups - and then consider that to be part of what influenced the vote - would be a terrible mistake. The Congressional record is larded with tons of material which is either irrelevant or contradicts the intent of the congress as expressed in the actual vote.

[greasepaint]

WTF?
Florida state law, is not written?
What if the cassette get broke, or is lost?

[greasepaint]

Also, could someone please post a transcript of the hearing.

[dix]

Thanks for the info. I will read it tomorrow, because I'm off work.

[Oystir]

Thanks, I agree and understand. My point is an oral record of 5+ years is not going to show legislative intent in my opinion and certainly not in this case where it is asserted that the legislation was to forbid the use of search warrants for medical records, which could easily and clearly written into law (search warrant vs a subpoena). Looking at legislative intent via a 5 year tape is probably very far down on an appeals court list of interpretation tools and somewhat like reading tea leaves.

Addionally, the lawyer goes further and asks for $ sanctions...an upsurd demand. For a lawyer to study a 5 year legislative history via tape is expending a huge amount of a client's resources. Good thing the client is rich and willing to pay.

[goldstategop]

James Martz wants to win the Palm Beach County Democratic primary. There is no downside for him in going after Rush in a heavily Democratic county.

[Mrs Zip]

ping

[greasepaint]

Has the Fla. state legislature been in legislative
session since the Rush scandal broke?
If yes, has there been a bill introduced to
clarify the situation? (such as CLEARLY requiring
subpoena for medical records)
If the answer to my second q. is no, I have to assume by their silence that they meant what exactly what they did, or did not, write into law.

[Ken H]

Here's the relevant statute under Florida law:

(4) Patient records are confidential and must not be disclosed without the consent of the person to whom they pertain, but appropriate disclosure may be made without such consent to:

(d) In any civil or criminal action, unless otherwise prohibited by law, upon the issuance of a subpoena from a court of competent jurisdiction and proper notice by the party seeking such records to the patient or his or her legal representative.

The issue before the appeals court is whether the State acted improperly by using a search warrant instead of a subpoena and not giving proper notice.

Any thoughts on how the court will or should rule?

[greasepaint]

The word 'disclosed' is interesting.
To me, that implies a voluntary action, of the person holding some documents.
That is not a prohibition of the state attorney
taking something with a search warrant.

[RS]

Think this might help-

http://www.royblack.com/notable_cases/rush_transcripts.html

[RS]

"On Tuesday, Martz provided the court with information that Black's comments were incorrect. "

If anyone finds a copy of this, please ping me -

[wagglebee]

Its all on Rush's website.