Strap youselves in folks, I'm about to defend Rush Limbaugh,,,

LOL..A little take from forum fav, Will Pitt... Seriously... This is the line that bugs me in the NYN story...

<snip>
She said she wore a wire during her last two deliveries to the conservative commentator and gave the tapes to authorities.

It seems to me that this person wired herself and gave the tapes to the Police later ... Why didn't she go to the cops first and let them wire her... It makes me go Hmmmmmmm

AND...What's the law in Florida regarding taping someone without their knowledge?

Extortion anyone?

I would like to see something a little more official being said about it before I get my hopes up too high.

There are holes in this story which the next few days will adress I hope

If true we will find out. Maybe the cops didn't want to believe it or they told her what to do. The cops could have wired her at the station and sent her on her way. Don't defend Rush yet we don't know what the facts are. If this lady is lying Rush and his army of attorneys will destroy her anyway.

why do you have to look a gift horse in the mouth. :evilgrin:

Rush and his merry band of ringwing hateful bigots are ruining our country. I for one don't care how they go down and long as they go.

;)

Rush, but it hasn't even been confirmed yet if he is under investigation. I also believe a person is innocent until proven guilty. It wouldn't surpise me though if it all turned out to be true.

Let the rule of law judge Rush. If he is guilty
he will be found guilty by a jury of his peers.

And until that happens he is innocent.

Remember folks this is the US, and even though they have
played judge and jury more than once (as in almost every
week) we have to be better than them and wait for the process
to play itself.

Anyhow this could be huge, if this is true.

Are there 12 freepers out there that are THAT quality assholes?

Nevermind. No need to answer.

but, WHO CARES? He deserves it. He spews his hateful RW rhetoric on a daily basis and we've had to deal with this bigoted, drug addicted hypoctitical a@@hole for waaaaay too many years. Extort.. extort.. extort. He deserves everything he's going to get and MORE! JMCPO

But I'm sure the Repig rags and Limbaugh will be screaming it from the rooftops if this was done to Pigboy.


David

isn't this part of the Patriot Act? Wire Taps to protect us from those terrorists? Rush has been supporting terrorism with his drug addiction. Patriot Act in action! :bounce:

supports terrorists.

we need to drive home the fact to people that terrorists have the best recruiting tool ever in g bush

If I remember correctly, didn't Goldberg convince Lewinsky to tape her phone conversations with Clinton? I don't like this kind of stuff, however, I have no problem with Rush getting a taste of what was done to Clinton. I do acknowledge the stuff he was on is HIGHLY addictive, and it's a good thing for him he was caught.

My what short memories we have. What goes around does come around.
Lardbutt would be having a field day if this had happened to any Dem during the Clinton administration. He would no doubt claim that drug use by any Clinton supporter was Clinton's fault because of his low morals. I guess then that we can claim that Rush used drugs because his hero President had been a coke head!

If the wiretap shows that Rush broke the law, the legality of the tap doesnt do a DAMN THING to change the fact that he BROKE THE LAW.

The 4th Amend. ony applies to government actions. If she wasn't acting on gov't authority, Rush couldn't invoke the 4th Amend prohibition against unreasonable searches.

Of course, this women could be sanctioned, if she broke some law against covertly taping people. However, I bet FL doesn't have a law against taping people in public without their knowledge.

Illegally made tapes are not admissable as evidence in the State of Florida. Even a prosecutor could face penalties for playing it in a courtroom if he/she knew it was illegally made.

...if Wilma made them legally, because she wasn't acting on government instruction (which was the presumption above--I don't know if it's true), they can't be suppressed for being secured without a warrant or whatever.

If there's a law against making the tapes, the law would also have to say that they can't be used as evidence. But I find it very hard to believe that FL would have a law that allowed that to happen. Do you have a cite?

"Of course, this women could be sanctioned, if she broke some law against covertly taping people. However, I bet FL doesn't have a law against taping people in public without their knowledge."

The cites are in court cases. Probably the one that is most on point would be: State v. Inciarrano -- 1985. Then you would weave that holding with the pertinent references in Florida Statutes in Chapter 934. In a nutshell, if the public place is considered open to the public, even if it's a place of business, the tape will probably be admissable in court.

The key to legally made tapes in Florida is WHERE the tape was made. If it was an area open to the public -- even if it's on private property, but not inside a personal residence -- then it's probably legal.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, just a creative loafer.

I can tape record my own conversations in my own state. Why on earth couldn't I do so in Florida?


such a law would make undercover work illegal, you know

:-)

Undercover work would probably include warrants. We're talking about making tapes, a la Linda Tripp, in Florida.

.

when it can be done without warrants. We go back to court cases which establish opinions on reasonable suspicion & probable cause. The police still have to justify the undercover work.

However, now you're getting off topic, since the question at heart is what happens when a common citizen makes a tape? Is it legal or illegal? As I've mentioned before, for a common citizen to make a legal tape IN Florida depends entirely on WHERE the tape was made.

This only changes if she is working with the police and gets a warrant to be wired. Then she can tape where the warrant allows her to tape.

Even if the tape is inadmissable as evidence, the charge can be investigated based upon reasonable suspicion. If evidence is obtained, the tape isn't needed anyway.

The tape IS enough to provide reasonable cause to investigate. That's one reason why the Tripp-Lewinsky tapes were considered ok. They weren't used as evidence, only as the reasonable cause lever.
The Professor

If she taped him in an open area of the business, it's probably not illegal.

they wouldn't even need the tapes to prove anything. They'll have Wilma's oral evidence at trial. She doesn't need the tapes. She could refresh her memory with the tapes, but the tapes wouldn't need to be entered as evidence.

Also, it's not clear who will be the defendant(s) yet.

They have Wilma's testimony. They don't need the tapes -- but I suspect she probably wouldn't have been so brave without them to back her up.

then anyone, anywhere, can.

I suspect that the police/authorities were involved in the wiring process.

:shrug:

them? Why was he taking the pills.

He couldn't have a legal prescription....and no pharmacy would give that amount of pills to anyone.

There are laws! It's hard today to get any pain medication in a hospital after surgery because the Docs are so afraid of causing an addiction. You can't renew prescriptions for any medication here in NC less than a week before your renewal because they have a law against "patient hoarding" of pills. Which means if you have a business trip you have to get your Doc to call the pharmacist and give you only a extra week supply.

Only a person of Great Wealth and no moral scruples could have access to such a huge amount of pills and have the connnections to get his supply.

I have no sympathy for him. He's not somebody's friend or relative....who got addicted......he's a man who has access to the best Rehab Centers in the world.

It was his choice.......and he would say that if it was Bill Clinton who was addicted to pain killers.

It was his choice. And, it's very different from other folks because of the standards he set on his talk show and how he treated others.

He's guilty of "Psychological Crimes Against Humanity." I said that on another post.....I feel that way about him ..........and he's gotten a Free Pass. It's no wonder he had to take pain pills. It was to kill off his conscience........He knew what he was doing.......and the evil of it had to be causing huge pain. Even the lowest human being......has some inner sense of right and wrong.
The thousands of pills he's alleged to have needed certainly show the pain was there.

Pointing out the fact that she is dishonest does nothing that could be portrayed as defending Limpballs. He's still an ass, even if she is too.

what is the Bushstag getting away with?

But in a place of business which is open to the public, there is lots of wiggle room.

Actually, in your own home, you could face up to five years in prison for taping your guest without their knowledge. This is Florida law, though I still can't understand how it's okay to tape the nanny. Generally these tapes are excluded as evidence because they break the law.

Nope, in a face-to-face encounter, neither person is prohibited from making a tape of the conversation. Where the law gets involved is in taping telephone conversations. In Oregon, a phone conversation can be taped if one party agrees to the taping. That is, if I call you, I can tape the call or you can tape the call. A third party (law enforcement wire tap) has to get a judge's permission, which is granted only after a showing that a crime may be in the offing from the telephone conversation.

In Maryland, the law is different, which is what got Linda Tripp in trouble. She taped her phone calls with Monica Lewinsky, and though Lewinsky was in a state with a law similar to Oregon's, Maryland law says that a party taping a telephone conversation has to inform the other party that he or she is doing so.

According to the story I saw (link from Buzzflash), apparently Rush knew that there was a possibility that his housekeeper might be wearing a wire, as he patted her on more than one occasion to make sure she wasn't recording their conversations. He just didn't check her every time.

Since what I think about this whole sordid situation doesn't make any difference whatsoever in its outcome, I will simply await its unfolding with barely disguised glee.

If so, there are more prongs to satisfy than just a face-to-face conversation. But, this is state law. Federal law may be different.

And this brings me to the next question: Are the drugs involved serious enough to warrant federal prosecution? Then this entire discussion is pointless because you're really looking at federal jurisidiction and will have to apply federal laws.

I don't know where the taping took place, and it may be that Florida law prohibits undisclosed taping in a private home, as you mentioned in your previous post. Most of the laws follow the idea that anywhere (such as a private home) where a person has "a reasonable expectation of privacy" taping is illegal. But if you're meeting someone in the food court at the mall, you could be taped (and you almost certainly are on camera) without your knowledge.

Like I said, we'll see how this plays out. But I'm going to enjoy Mr. Limbaugh's discomfiture and inevitable bleating about how unfair all the media attention is.

I am sure before some of stuff broke I could probably point out some people that thought that Rush was a Semi-god and would of help nix such a sting if they ever got wind of it.

You have to remember the much of the mind set of law enforcement relies on suspicion and is very susceptible to people like Limbaugh who use innuendo and scapegoat as a model on how to run an operation. There is whole system in place that supports this.

Keep in mind, it would not be illegal for her to repeat as gossip what Rush told her. It would not be illegal for her to make notes to herself, in a log, to protect herself. A "wire" is just a technological way of keeping a log of what was actually said.

If Rush did not want her to have this information, he should not have asked her to sell drugs. If I were in her shoes, and I needed this job, and I was being asked to break the law by a celebrity, I would DAMN WELL protect myself by documenting this abuse.

What IS illegal is to tape a conversation between two other people, who do not know you are present, because you are hidden, or because your device is hidden. But there is NO expectation of me not hearing something when Rush tells me something right to my face, grok?

Don't defend the indefensible. This woman could have gone to prison herself. In fact, she may well do so. She was put in an incredibly unfair position of having a rich, powerful person demand that she supply him with drugs. There are many ways that celebrities abuse their employees, but this is one of the cruelest and the trashiest.


how would you like to sign up to clean toilets and end up being asked to hand over your husband's pain medicine?

Think about this. She obtains LARGE QUANTITIES of Schedule II
substances. Insurers (including Medicaid and Medicare) do track
the meds that their subscribers are getting. Furthermore, she
had to get them through RXs (wasn't there something about these
meds belonging to her husband or something)? Perhaps some doctor
or pharmacist got suspicious and turned her in. If the police then
got to her, she would have had no choice other than to "out" the
person she was supplying (in order to lessen the charges that she
was facing).