How can you be an addict, but not be legally guilty when the addict part requires possession and possession alone in this instance is a felony? He can call it whatever he wants, use his influence to save as much of his reputation as he wants, and cloud his responsibility in the matter to his listeners as much as he wants, but he's still an addict and in this case you can't be an addict without the pills. Having the pills is a felony.

You keep skirting the fact that he is indeed guilty, and when is this "later" time going to happen. This was three years ago, so does later mean never? If he's so innocent and misjudged why didn't he just come clean and lay it all bare to be examined?

Because it looks to me like he has to complete this agreement first which requires a period of re-hab and check-ups.

I'm assuming that once that period is over, and he is no longer bound by any agreements, he can speak out on the matter.

So you're making the assumption that part of his plea bargain(which again proves his guilt like I demonstrated earlier)requires him to keep his mouth shut on the entire issue, and that as soon as his rehab is complete he'll come clean. Call me a skeptic, but I don't buy it. He's not going to talk because he knows he fucked up and in the hypocritical destroyed reputation way.

No, not at all! It's not at all un-common for agreements like this to carry stipulations that neither side be able to speak about the case........quite often, as in civil cases, they can NEVER speak about them again.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco No, not at all! It's not at all un-common for agreements like this to carry stipulations that neither side be able to speak about the case........quite often, as in civil cases, they can NEVER speak about them again.

um, its pretty rare for confidentiality clauses to be included in a criminal matter...

___________________

Oh, so now this is a civil court case?

You don't really know much about the legal system, do you? Just admit it now and get that out in the open cause if you think you're doing a good job of hiding that you aren't. I'm willing to walk you through this, but you admitting ignorance(It's totally okay, not a whole lot of people know what really goes on. I'm not claiming any sort of expertise either.) first will make me be a little more civil.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN um, its pretty rare for confidentiality clauses to be included in a criminal matter...

You're Australian. How do you know American Law?

Perhaps there is still an on-going investigation in to others who may or may not be involved in this particular case (like his Doctors, etc.)...we have no idea now, do we?

Either way, even if it's not written in that he isn't supposed to talk about it by agreement, it's also not uncommon for the accused to be advised by Council to keep their yaps shut until the matter is resolved.

WM2; I don't know why you think he's never going to talk about it? He'd be an ass not to. He clearly has a lot to say about it, but he can't right now.

This isn't so hard to understand.

Problem #1. As far as Rush is concerned, the issue is resolved. He's already agreed to the plea bargain. He already admitted fault in doing so. He already agreed to and is carrying out whatever form of punishment the DA's office saw fit in turn for agreeing to plea instead of going to court. That's like the third time I've said that now.

Problem #2. His legal council is not going to advise him to keep his mouth shut about anything after he already admitted guilt. His legal council was probably the reason why he admitted to anything in the first place. He already admitted fault, agreed to accepting that fault outside of court, and is carrying out his sentence for this matter. Why should he stay quite now? If he were really interested in coming clean he would have already done so bringing me to.....

Problem #3. If he were going to come clean, he would have already done it. It's that simple. He first announced this on air in October of 2003. We're quickly apporaching three years. I have yet to hear about this again. Why? It's not because he's not allowed to talk. If it were that simple he would just say so, show the line in the absurd document that says this, and be done with it. Being required not to talk also implies that the DA's office has something to hide and Rush is seeking action against them which is entirely not true.

Instead, he's spend quite a considerable amount of effort claiming he's an addict, but innocent(which is an absurd notion devised to shift blame onto a pill instead of the person putting the pill in their mouth)of any wrong doing. Yet, three years later he still hasn't given a full disclosure on the events leading up to this. If he's not required by law to stay quiet(which I can assure you he isn't) about his peronsal involvement in this case, and he's admitted that he broke the law and is now facing the consequences, what reason is there to wait any longer to explain yourself? The shortest and most obvious answer to that being reputation and ratings. Making excuses for him only adds to the problem, and I doubt his listener base has enough collective brain to question him about the issue otherwise it would have already come to a head on his show.

Now, I ask you, why is that so hard to understand? Is your loyalty to an over blown political pundit you've never met and shouldn't look up to so deep that you would unquestioningly take his side of the story as truth and ignore anything else?

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco You're Australian. How do you know American Law?

christ donny, how dumb are you?

the LAWS between the US & australia might differ, but the LEGAL SYSTEMS are virtually identical, coming, as they do, from the british. there are obviously differences across all 3 countries, but the basic operations, design & implementation are the same.

so, how you like those apples?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Haha no you see Rush settled: In case the irony was missed by you, that's exactly what he described in his preaching

... are you trying to say *gasp* that Rush is a flip-flopper?!?!


that's crazy talk

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by WM2 Problem #1. As far as Rush is concerned, the issue is resolved. He's already agreed to the plea bargain. He already admitted fault in doing so. He already agreed to and is carrying out whatever form of punishment the DA's office saw fit in turn for agreeing to plea instead of going to court. That's like the third time I've said that now.

Rush's Attorney, as posted by OCC:~"...[T]he State Attorney's Office and Mr. Limbaugh have reached an agreement whereby a single count charge of doctor shopping filed today by the State Attorney will be dismissed in 18 months. As a primary condition of the dismissal, Mr. Limbaugh must continue to seek treatment from the doctor he has seen for the past two and one half years."

Like I said, for the THIRD TIME; The agreement isn't binding until he up-holds his end...which he can't do until he completes another 18 months of treatment. So until then, the matter is NOT resolved, and he can't talk about it! EOM!!

quote:

Originally posted by WM2 Problem #3.Being required not to talk also implies that the DA's office has something to hide and Rush is seeking action against them which is entirely not true.

I never said I thought Rush was seeking any legal action against the D.A. I don't know where you're getting that from? All I'm saying is that it could be any number of reasons as to why he can't talk about it, one of which would be a possible on-going investigation that the Police and the D.A. don't want Rush to screw up by talking about it. Police and D.A.'s are often very tight-lipped during on-going investigations, for good reason; To keep the integrity of the evidence they do have intact. This is all assuming that this is the reaosn...but like I said before, it's also entirely possible that his Attorney asked him not to say anything until the agreement becomes binding (legal) and that won't happen until 18 months from now.

And maybe you didn't hear anything more about this untill now because the statute of limitations to bring this charge is probably near running out. Often they wait on a charge if their evidence is weak in the hopes that they will get more before the limitations are up. Looks like they ran out of time, IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by WM2 Now, I ask you, why is that so hard to understand? Is your loyalty to an over blown political pundit you've never met and shouldn't look up to so deep that you would unquestioningly take his side of the story as truth and ignore anything else?

I actually almost never listen to Rush. I haven't heard a full show of his in years. I don't think I nearly qualify as a fan, let alone a casual listener. But let me ask you this; Are you willing to afford him the same consideration when it comes to drug abuse that you are to Kennedy who just crashed his car?

Last edited by donnybrasco on May-16-2006 at 05:00

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN christ donny, how dumb are you? the LAWS between the US & australia might differ, but the LEGAL SYSTEMS are virtually identical, coming, as they do, from the british. there are obviously differences across all 3 countries, but the basic operations, design & implementation are the same. so, how you like those apples?

Cool. So if you know our laws so well, you're one less person that I need bother explaining what I know of them too.