Proof That Limbaugh Prosecutor Lied about Having Permission to Release Confidential Plea Agreements

Rush Limbaugh Website ^

[Cubs Fan]

What the Florida States Attorney's Office (Prosecutor) Said Happened

MEMO TO THE FILE
January 22, 2004
From Ken Selvig

RE: Release of letters from attorney for Rush Limbaugh in response to a public records request

We have a received a public records request from Peter Franceschina of the Sun Sentinel for, among other things any correspondence to or from Roy Black and his law firm.  Mr. Black currently represents Mr. Limbaugh in connection with an ongoing investigation.

Yesterday by telephone I spoke with Pat Gleason, the AG's most knowledgeable person on the Public Records Law.  I did not tell her the particular case I was calling about.  The question posed was whether there is an exception to the Public Record's Law that would allow us to refuse to disclose a letter from an attorney offering to plead guilty in a case that is under investigation but not yet filed.  It is my opinion that there is no exception to the law that will allow us to withhold the letter.  Ms. Gleason agreed with my position.  She recommended and I agreed, that we should consult the Florida Bar for an opinion on whether the release of the attorneys letter would possibly raise an issue under the Rules of Professional Responsibility (RPC).

This morning, Barry spoke with Barbara Moore of the Florida Bar about the issue.  Ms. Moore's opinion is that the Florida Public records Law takes precedence over any possible issues raised by the RPC.  She said that there is an ethical obligation to follow the requirements of the law and that it would be unethical not to disclose the letter unless there is an applicable exception.  I agree.   

Therefore , we will comply with the request to disclose letters received from or sent to Mr. Black and his law firm.

What Really Happened  According to the Attorney General

Dear Mr. Selvig (Assistant State Attorney):

Thank you for your January 26, 2004 e-mail regarding our earlier conversation concerning the authority of the State Attorney to release a letter concerning plea offers in a pending criminal investigation. Your attempt to clarify that the decision to release the letters in question was made by your office is acknowledged. However, I am concerned that your memorandum to the file and the subsequent e-mail summarize only a portion of our conversation and omit critical parts of our discussion.

Specifically, I note that your records of this matter do not reflect that when you telephoned me you Indicated it seemed difficult to believe that plea negotiation letters could be releasable prior to trial. While we both agreed that we were unaware of any applicable statutory exemption, we also discussed the possibility that a court might refuse to authorize release based on constitutional concerns. For this reason, I recommended that in addition to making counsel from the Florida Bar as to any ethical concerns about releasing such materials, it was appropriate to notify defense counsel of the public records request and consider whether a Judicial resolution was advisable.

Both your file memorandum and e-mail emphasize that you did not tell me who the defendant was in this situation. However, that should not and cannot matter. Over the years, I have had many conversations with assistant state attorneys about pressing public records issues These conversations have been candid and in my view have helped the state to resolve public records issues and focus on the upcoming trial, In this case. however, it seems to me that the purpose in contacting me about this issue may not have been to obtain impartial advice on an open government issue, but rather to use a part of our conversation to justify your office's decision that the documents should be released. This is disappointing to me personally and professionally.

Sincerely,
Patricia R. Gleason
General Counsel

What Really Happened  According to the Florida Bar

To Barbara B. Moore From Barry Cusher

INQUIRY

Facts: 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 that there are 2 letters which include plea negotiations which are not normally to be revealed so may or may not be public record. AG said to call ethics dept.

Question: guidance

Answer: Can't provide legal advice or interpret public record statute. All info in file is confidential as to his client, the state, under 4-1.6. Once legally compelled to provide info, it becomes a question of law, whether a/c privilege or public records. If client, state, only agrees to reveal what they are required to under public records law, caller must determine what is legally required and what is not. If unsure, may need to ask court to determine it for them. See 92-5 generally on confidentiality vs. privilege. How legal issues of public record statutes factor in is beyond an ethics opinion.

[Cubs Fan]

The pictures of the original documents can be seen at Rushlimbaugh.com. There is also an e-mail link so you can tell the Palm Beach States Attorney what you think (please keep it civil)

[RoseofTexas]

HMMMM...I see a SERIES backlash in the near future! Go Rush GO!!

[Cubs Fan]

Thanks for all the pings, just wanted to return the favor.

[Pubbie]

Roy Black is in the ZONE!

[RS]

1."I recommended that in addition to making counsel from the Florida Bar as to any ethical concerns about releasing such materials,"
Check -done that

2. "it was appropriate to notify defense counsel of the public records request"
Check - He already knows about the requests

3. "and consider whether a Judicial resolution was advisable."
HHmm... considering...considering... (ding) Nope
Check - out the door they go !

[Common Tator]

There is an old adage no elected official should ever forget

Never get in a fight with a man who buys ink by the barrel or radio waves by the megawatt.

[aynrandfreak]

It almost makes me want to do something wrong just so I can hire him to help me get out of it (after I've made a lot of money first)

[Pubbie]

This is great - and the Prosecutor probably hasn't decided whether to file charges yet - but he's already gettin whipped by Black LOL

[jaz.357]

Don't know about you all, but I LOVE it when ever Rush mentions Free Republic! Three times today in the first hour! Woo-Hoo!

JUST SMOKE 'EM RUSTY!

[swampfox98]

I would so love to see these liberal slimes in Florida go up the creek without a paddle, for trying to railroad Rush. I also demand an apology from that idiot sports show where Rush's fair weather friends think they are being funny by stomping on Rush.

Don't mess with Texas, huh? Don't mess with Rush!

[lilylangtree]

OK Rush get Roy Black on this right away. This is illegal!

[Lucky2]

I think the clintons and the rest of the lib slime are behind this smear campaign against Rush. The truth will prevail.

[Hot Tabasco]

Come on fan, who cares about facts! Rush deserves to be persecuted! </sarcasm)

[Cubs Fan]

No sorry RS the parsing won't work

"I am disappointed in you personally and professionaly"
the Attorney General's Office clearly admonishes the States Attorney's Office for lying about what they advised.

There's nothing ambiguous about it.

[NonValueAdded]

I can't find a quick link to the actual letter in question but I believe Rush's attorney noted on the letter that it was confidential pursuant to a Florida Statute or a procedural reference. That brings up two questions in my mind. First, in neither of these two memos recalling the phone conversations is there mention of a question like "do you think 123.45 FS applies?" My second question assumes the statute reference is valid but conflicts with the open records law. In that case, I assume that the narrower point of law of the reference prevails over a broader blanket provision like the open records law. No?

Anyway, it is good to see the evidence of pretty obvious "presence of malice" in the Palm Beach SAO.

As Dear Abby would say, "Confidential to all Florida Public Officials: better be in CYA mode when you deal with the Palm Beach SAO, especially with respect to the Limbaugh matter!"

[4everontheRight]

"This is disappointing to me personally and professionally.".......how tragic! I feel terrible.
How am I supposed to enjoy my "Rush mentioned FR on air today" celebratory rum and coke???

[PAR35]

2. "it was appropriate to notify defense counsel of the public records request"
Check - He already knows about the requests

Since it isn't contained in these materials, do you have a link that shows when and how the defense attorney was notified of the media request?

[Cubs Fan]

Here's two links to Blacks letters

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/rushletters1.gif
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/rushletters2.gif

[Cubs Fan]

Here's the statutes and case law black mentions and source links

Here's FRCP 3.172
http://www.flcourts.org/sct/clerk/briefs/2003/601-800/03-735_Amd%20Init.pdf

Here's FS. 90.408
http://myfwc.com/codebook/90.pdf

[dr_who_2]

Reminds me of those charges that were brought against Kay Baily Hutchinson's campaign when she succeeded Lloyd Bentzen. Democrats are like Arab terrorists in that there's a few power hungry people pulling the strings and a big bunch of idiots willing to sacrifice themselves and others for "the cause".