quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN well actually, id like to hear more about criminal trials & confidentiality. as my understanding is that if the criminal proceedings are open (as opposed to closed to the public) then everything and anything is also open, and so-called non-disclosure arrangements do not exist. i would be very interested to hear how & why it might be otherwise. so please enlighten me

That's my understanding too. But this matter is technically still not closed until Rush completes his 18 months. So until then, would it really be that much of a stretch to believe that he may be bound by law or by legal council to STFU about any possible on-going related investigations, so as not to further implicate himself or to interfer with an official investigation? I think not.






Either way, something is keeping him bound to silence until the 18 months is up. I think either of the two scenarios are the most likely reasons. So wait 18 months. What's the big edal? We've waited this long for this settlement to be announced, and it's not even over yet still, so how can you demand that he talk during an un-resolved case?

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco I'm not reading between any lines. I'm telling you that it doesn't look to me like they have enough evidence to even bring charges (un-like OJ and Michael Jackson, or even Robert Blake)...that's a loooooong way from these other more severe cases you're comparing him to where charges were at least brought.

Allow me to simplify this if possible. The argument on hand is whether Rush is being a hypocrite with respect to his ideology. So that being said, let me pose a few yes/no questions to you ... please respond with either yes or no and explain your reasoning:

Irrespective of whether the DA chooses to prosecute rush, and irrespective of whatever agreement both parties came to, did Rush procure his drugs in a legitimate and legal manner ... would it be acceptable for everyone in society to do exactly what he did?

Did Rush take these drugs without a proper prescription ... would it be acceptable for everyone in society to do exactly what he did?

Is Rush a drug abuser?

Did Rush not call for harsher punishments against drug abusers?

quote:

As for his hard-line stance on durg-users, I don't happen to agree with it, but I think there's a difference between getting hooked on pain medication because you are in physical pain versus getting high because you like to smoke crack.

I don't agree with his stance either. But we're not comparing Rush to your or my beliefs, we're comparing him to his beliefs. The fact that he believes in such a hard-line stance against drug users makes him the hypocrite when you take into account his drug abuse.

___________________
Retro ...

OCC:

I don't see anywhere in this agreement where's he's guilty of anything, so we have to assume that he was getting his meds legally, under perscription, and using them as perscribed.

He got hooked on pain killers. But that doesn't mean he did anything illegal in the eyes of the law, he just got hooked!

I don't know why they're making him pay for the investigation, but the re-hab stint doesn't mean guilt, it just means he was addicted to a drug which apparently, he was getting legally.

So you can't really compare him to an illegal drug user who uses drugs recreationally, versus a man who gets his meds legally for back pain and gets hooked.

I know you all want to see a big smoking gun here, but did you ever consider the opposite is true, and that he in fact was NOT getting this preferential treatment that you all speak so knowingly of, and that if anything, they tried to make an example out of him and it back-fired because the evidence wasn't there?

If the evidence was there, charges would have been brought. It's really quite simple.

Hehe he acquired 2000 pills legally? Rush is getting the same deal that every other first time drug offender gets ... a slap on the wrist and dismissed charges in exchange for a conditional plea agreement. But you think it's ok for everyone in society to do exactly as he did?

quote:

Limbaugh, prosecutors sign deal to end prescription fraud case By BRIAN SKOLOFF Associated Press Writer WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — Rush Limbaugh declared victory Monday in his long-running fight to clear his name after signing a deal with prosecutors that will dismiss a prescription fraud charge against him in 18 months if he complies with the terms. Under the deal filed Monday, Limbaugh cannot own a gun, must submit to random drug tests and has to continue treatment for his acknowledged addiction to painkillers. But he didn't have to admit guilt and he continued to proclaim his innocence on his radio show. "From my point of view, the end result will be as if I had gone to court and won, but the matter is concluded much sooner," Limbaugh told his listeners. "I have spent thousands of hours and millions of dollars with lawyers over the past 27 months fighting this at every stage." He pleaded not guilty Friday to a charge that he sought a prescription from a physician in 2003 without revealing that he had received medications from another practitioner within 30 days. "Do you think if there was any real evidence, we would have reached a settlement?" Limbaugh said on his show. "This is a common sense resolution and the appropriate way the state should treat people who have admitted an addiction to prescription pain medication and voluntarily sought treatment," Limbaugh's attorney, Roy Black, said in a statement Monday to The Associated Press. The deal also requires that Limbaugh be available to a court officer for any questioning throughout the 18-month period. The Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office may revoke or modify the deal if he violates the terms. If he complies, he will have no criminal record at the end of 18 months. Black said Limbaugh has seen a doctor and has been drug free for 2 1/2 years. "Folks, I haven't even craved a pain pill since I got out of rehab," Limbaugh told his listeners. Black said Limbaugh has been undergoing both scheduled and random drug tests "as part of the treatment program that he entered into voluntarily, and he has passed them all, so this is nothing new for him." Prosecutors launched their investigation in 2003 after Limbaugh's housekeeper alleged he abused OxyContin and other painkillers. He entered a five-week rehabilitation program that year and publicly blamed his addiction on severe back pain. The 55-year-old commentator surrendered Friday at the Palm Beach County jail on a warrant on the charge commonly known as doctor shopping, a felony that could carry a sentence of up to 5 years in prison. Limbaugh was booked, photographed and fingerprinted before being released on $3,000 bail. The deal ends a three-year investigation that Limbaugh blasted as a "fishing" expedition. Prosecutors accused Limbaugh of illegally deceiving multiple doctors to receive overlapping prescriptions. After seizing his medical records, authorities learned Limbaugh received up to 2,000 painkillers, prescribed by four doctors in six months. The single charge only represents Limbaugh allegedly illegally obtaining about 40 pills, said Mike Edmondson, a state attorney's spokesman. "The information in the charging document in this particular instance was only evidence sufficient to support that sole count and that did not reflect the totality of the evidence we had in the overall investigation," Edmondson said. He would not elaborate or explain why prosecutors scaled back the case. Kendall Coffey, a former U.S. attorney and prominent Miami defense lawyer, said the agreement is a standard deal for first-time, nonviolent drug offenders. "The essence of a pretrial diversion is that you do not acknowledge guilt," Coffey said. "It doesn't either vindicate the defendant's innocence nor does it truly vindicate the prosecution's assertion of guilt. In that sense, it's a draw." http://www.palmbeachpost.com/state/...ainkillers.html

Legally he hasn't been convicted of a crime, but then again as I said before, neither are OJ Simpson or Michael Jackson. But this argument doesn't even require a conviction ... he's an self admitting drug abuser which is hypocrticial to his ideology about drug abusers.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider ... he's an self admitting drug abuser which is hypocrticial to his ideology about drug abusers.

Maybe it's not his fault. After-all, he was probably high when he made those proclamations.

who the fuck cares. someone just call already, bunch of little kids jesus

___________________
this is it.

^^^That's what I'm screamin!

Ack! The whole time I've been following this thead: ACK!

And I realized I just don't want argue with idiots like donny and tiesto14... it goes no where. They offer nothing new. Just the same re-hashed spew, and indirect answers to questions! Come on people didn't you ever take debate in high school!

I'm sure they'd be fine to hang out with, and while I don't want to attack either of you personally (well not too much anyway :winnnnnk: ), since I don't know you at all in real life. I definately wouldn't get along with you in PDD! LOL!

Anyway. Seems like this topic is dead.

Shall we leave it as such?

___________________
Soundcloud

This topic isn't dead. It's only suffered from a bad case of diversionary tactics, which Liberals are naturally quite good at...speaking of; It's interesting how you lump the conservatives together as "offering nothing new" and being bad debaters, LOL!

I'm willing to bet this is hands down the most embarassing moment in Liberal's History on PDD...........I think only rabbits may run faster than you guys did from this simple and PROFITABLE challenge.

Who said I was talking about conservatives asshat.

I'm lumping *most* of you from both sides together. Liberals are going just about as far as you are.

Congrats.

*edit: who the fuck ever said i was liberal anyway?

___________________
Soundcloud

Eesshh....another poster who runs to profanity.

Well, you mentioned me and Tiesto only, the two biggest conservatives in this thread.

So who ever said your opinion counted more than anyone else's anyway?