On Fri, 10 Oct 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: > ehird did, in fact, illegally reveal it to me. (E was simultaneously > 1) required to reveal it to the AFO > 2) prohibited from revealing it to the AFO > 3) prohibited from revealing it to me > so any criminal prosecution on #2, and possibly #3 as well, would > lead to a judgement of EXCUSED.)
I don't understand #2, where did that prohibition come from? -Goethe
