[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!"

[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

[RS]

The 2 statutes refer to it not being admissable as evidence, ( Cuba man's links ) and the marking of it as "confidential " means nothing to the Florida Sunshine law

http://myfloridalegal.com/sunshine

In fact in the FAQ it specifically says it dosen't mean anything.