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]

--There's nothing ambiguous about it." Except that she did not use the words lying, unethical, or even misleading. Nothing ambiguous when you put words in that are not there....---

Okay RS then why exactly is she "personally and professionally disappointed in him"?

(hint because he lied, and even the OJ jury could see that)

Just like a liberal the more the facts come out the more your arguments lose logic and become emotion.

[RS]

OK - I'll spoon feed it for you - (emphasis mine )

"This request seeks ALL public records in the custody of the State Attorney's Office ("SAO") for the County of Palm Beach, or in the custody of any individual working for said office, which name or IN ANY WAY REFERENCE Rush Limbaugh, and which cover the period of January 1, 2000 to present."

Please, I provide links where I can unlike others here, read them first, then I welcome your impressions.

Now there seems to be some debate over what is public information - Landmark even threatened to sue 2 days later if they did not like the SAO's definition, but you can't say that Black did not know that everything that was public information was coming out - he even specifically wanted to see it.

There are plenty of threads already on just what "public information" is or should be if you need to get up to speed on it.

[Cubs Fan]

The 2 statutes refer to it not being admissable as evidence,

So you say. I hope you've researched the case law thoroughly before you came to that conclusion, rather than just read them and state what your unbiased (yeah right) opinion is of what they mean.

(And Just another question) why do you think that ongoing plea negotiations have never been publicly revealed before under the sunshine law?

(hint because doing so taints the prospective jury pool)

[floriduh voter]

Rush as the underdog. I like it.

[RS]

"Okay RS then why exactly is she "personally and professionally disappointed in him"?"

Do you seriosly want my speculation ?

You seem to be touting yours as if you could read her mind - do lawyers normally write letters requiring people to "guess" what they mean ? Is there a secret Clinton codebook that lawyers use so they can call people lying, unethical or misleading without actually saying that ?

Next thing we will be getting a definition of what is "is"

[RS]

You could have asked me for the links, or you could look them up yourself, or you could check other threads where they are posted numerous times, but ( damn, I'm just too nice ) here they are again ...

http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=CH0090/Sec408.HTM

90.408 Compromise and offers to compromise.--Evidence of an offer to compromise a claim which was disputed as to validity or amount, as well as any relevant conduct or statements made in negotiations concerning a compromise, is inadmissible to prove liability or absence of liability for the claim or its value.

http://www.jcrobbins.com/FlaRCrimP/FlaRCrimP-3.172.htm

(h) Evidence. Except as otherwise provided in this rube, evidence of an offer or a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, later withdrawn, or of statements made in connection therewith, is not admissible in any civil or criminal proceeding against the person who made the plea or offer.

Both of these address admissiblity, not confidentiality.


" why do you think that ongoing plea negotiations have never been publicly revealed before under the sunshine law? "

Unless you KNOW, don't guess - Since you can't even find these simple statutes on your own, your research capability is suspect.

I've asked for any hotshot FLA lawyer lurking here if they know of any comparable request that was ever turned down. If a request is turned down, they would get an explanation of why - then we would have something to go on.

[Cubs Fan]

Do you seriosly want my speculation ?

No its not worth much, I just want it on the record for everyone to see how you will call- up, down, black, white --how you will twist anything just to trash Limbaugh (or in this case to excuse others who do).

You seem to be touting yours as if you could read her mind - do lawyers normally write letters requiring people to "guess" what they mean ?

No need to guess. she stated perfectly clear that he omitted much of what she said and in her opinion did so deliberately.

He also stated that she agreed with him, she clearly did not. That is also a, dare I say it? yes, a lie (duh!!!).

Is there a secret Clinton codebook that lawyers use so they can call people lying, unethical or misleading without actually saying that ?

In case you don't understand professional conduct, she is not going to send him a letter saying "you are a dirty motherf&#ing liar." (even though, of course, he is)

[Cubs Fan]

--Both of these address admissiblity, not confidentiality.--

As I said before your baised interpretations aren't worth squat. Cite case law.


" why do you think that ongoing plea negotiations have never been publicly revealed before under the sunshine law? "

---Unless you KNOW, don't guess

I know, because doing so would tend to taint jury pools and endanger the plea process. If your so good at looking things up go find where longtermmemmory pointed that out to you.

[RS]

"He also stated that she agreed with him, she clearly did not."

-While WE BOTH AGREED that we were unaware of any applicable statutory exemption,-

That's what he called her about.... an applicable statutory exemption...Thats what she is the expert on, thats why he called her, EVERYTHING else she said is simply suggestions.

[RS]

"I know, because doing so would tend to taint jury pools and endanger the plea process."

How do you taint a jury pool with Rush's offer of NOTHING, and the SAO's counter with what they would probably be charging him with anyway ?

[RS]

"As I said before your baised interpretations aren't worth squat. Cite case law. "

Huh ? Maybe because both of them SAY addmisability and neither of them say confidentiality ? Cite your own case law...


"I know, because doing so would tend to taint jury pools and endanger the plea process."

How do you taint a jury pool with Rush's offer of NOTHING, and the SAO's counter with what they would probably be charging him with anyway ?

[TASMANIANRED]

Rush needs to sue the prosecutors, slander, libel and Hippa violations. Needs to start a disbarment proceedure against them.

[RS]

"Rush needs to sue the prosecutors, slander, libel and Hippa violations. Needs to start a disbarment proceedure against them."

I Agee ! ... and throw in lawsuits against the Clines and the Enquirer while they are at it !

( I love a parade.... )

[Landru]

"Timelines, damned timelines!"

Private thoughts.

...of FL prosecutor. :o)

[Cubs Fan]

---That's what he called her about.... an applicable statutory exemption...Thats what she is the expert on, thats why he called her, EVERYTHING else she said is simply suggestions.--- (my you and this democrat SA sure have a lot in comon , you both hate Rush enough to justify an means to get him, you both omit things deliberately in attempts to deceive, I wonder what else you have in common?)

Here's what she said, ALL of it not the half you deliberately omitted

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.

Now tell my why is she "disappointed in him personally and professionally"????????

because he... [hint: it rhymes with died, and starts with an L]

[RS]

"...we also discussed the possibility that a court might refuse to authorize release based on constitutional concerns."

Is she also the resident expert on what a court MIGHT do ?

If she SUSPECTS that something MIGHT happen is he obligated by any law or ethics to agree with or act upon it ?

She says they discussed it... but she dosen't say that they came to any sort of conclusion, or even if, besides simply considering it, in her opinion he SHOULD ask a court to decide.

Is he supposed to include all of her speculations in his report, or simply as she says, that they BOTH AGREED on what he asked her about, and what she is the expert on ?

"Now tell my why is she "disappointed in him personally and professionally"???????? "

You want me to speculate again ?

[PAR35]

read them first,

I do read them, but in context. The "any records" in the paragraph you quoted is limited and qualified by the earlier paragraph I quoted above, limiting it to "any records of his staff's communications with the media."

So far, you have been unable to support your allegation that the State's Attorney notified the Defendant't attorney of the request by the media.

I am not debating with you what is public information under Florida law - the information disclosed may or may not be covered. I have no opinion on that, and I have no need to "get up to speed on it". I am only questioning one factual allegation made by you.

[Cubs Fan]

--How do you taint a jury pool with Rush's offer of NOTHING,--

Sorry Igor, get your facts straight, he offered to enter drug treatment.

Some would believe that proves he did something illegal.

[Cubs Fan]

"Now tell my why is she "disappointed in him personally and professionally"???????? "

--You want me to speculate again ?---

You can answer any time now (I hope you'll do better than she's part of a vast right wing conspiracy to mess up your liberal states attorney friend)

[Cubs Fan]

--Is she also the resident expert on what a court MIGHT do ? yada yada---

The AG is clearly saying that just because she knows of no specific exemptions for releasing plea bargain documents in the sunshine law THAT THAT DOES NOT MEAN ITS OKAY TO JUST GO AHEAD AND RELEASE THEM.

Like the AG said the SA deliberately omitted part of her opinion in order to make it look as if she backed up his decision entirely. She of course did not, and was angry at him for trying to make it look like she did (again DUH!!!!!).

FACT:He's a liar and you're his OJ juror apologist, tell me is it fun doing the liberals dirty work for them?