Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The FBI leaked private correspondence between an independent journalist and his attorney to the media for it to be distributed to the public.
Obtaining such communication is wrong in the first place. Whether it shows or even tends to show a conspiracy is debatable at most. And even if that’s what it shows, that would make it evidence in a possible criminal case which isn’t supposed to be leaked either. To the extent the emails were between a lawyer and a client, regardless of the nature of the communication, it is privileged. Period.Actually your complaint should be the FBI leaked evidence in a criminal investigation. The correspondence between veritas and it's lawyers, proves a criminal conspiracy which voids attorney client privilege.
So they leaked evidence, not privileged communications.
Clearly you know little of legal precedence. Judges have already clarified the hearsay exception, so applying their rulings happen every day in criminal prosecutions.And no alleged hearsay exception applies unless and until a judge says so in the proper forum at the appropriate time.
I probably forgot more law than you have ever learned. Applying a hearsay exception is something done IN court. BY a judge.Clearly you know little of legal precedence. Judges have already clarified the hearsay exception, so applying their rulings happen every day in criminal prosecutions.
When the police break into someone house and perform a search without a search warrant, you don't have to wait for the case to go to court, and a judge to rule the search was illegal, before declaring it an illegal search.
If the police enter a house and conduct a search without a warrant, they risk having the evidence suppressed. But it isn’t a certainty. There ARE exceptions. I don’t expect you to know them. You don’t seem to know that they even exist.I probably forgot more law than you have ever learned. Applying a hearsay exception is something done IN court. BY a judge.
now search warrants aren’t hearsay for the most part. The applications sometimes rely a bit on hearsay, but that’s a different matter. YOUR declaration that a search is illegal doesn’t decide the matter.
As I said, attorney client communication has a criminal conspiracy exception. When a lawyer gives advice to further the commission of a crime, is a crime. He has changed his role from attorney, to criminal conspirator, and communication between criminal conspirators is never privileged. Such as when a priest and a bishop discuss how to cover up the priests pedophile crimes.And even if that’s what it shows, that would make it evidence in a possible criminal case which isn’t supposed to be leaked either. To the extent the emails were between a lawyer and a client, regardless of the nature of the communication, it is privileged. Period.
Attorney-client privilege can indeed be voided if and when the conversation happens to be to further some criminal conspiracy. You generally can’t know the topic of that conversation though before seeking to remove the privilege. This is why the suspect communications get reviewed by other lawyers and special masters. The FBI can’t make unilateral decisions along such lines much less then unilaterally release the emails.As I said, attorney client communication has a criminal conspiracy exception. When a lawyer gives advice to further the commission of a crime, is a crime. He has changed his role from attorney, to criminal conspirator, and communication between criminal conspirators is never privileged. Such as when a priest and a bishop discuss how to cover up the priests pedophile crimes.
Clearly a warrantless search is illegal. Claiming it can't be handled as such, without a judge declaring it so is insane. A DA would never proceed with evidence obtained from such a search, saying since a judge hasn't declared it to be illegal, he can produce it to the court.now search warrants aren’t hearsay for the most part. The applications sometimes rely a bit on hearsay, but that’s a different matter. YOUR declaration that a search is illegal doesn’t decide the matter.
How do you know the emails hadn't already gone through the filter team, and they determined they were not subject to the privilege, and given to the FBI agents to use in their investigation.Attorney-client privilege can indeed be voided if and when the conversation happens to be to further some criminal conspiracy. You generally can’t know the topic of that conversation though before seeking to remove the privilege. This is why the suspect communications get reviewed by other lawyers and special masters. The FBI can’t make unilateral decisions along such lines much less then unilaterally release the emails.
How do I know? Come on. Smarten up. The filter team isn’t allowed to make that call. Judges make the call. “Judge we have info (including mere hearsay) that suspect and his lawyer had criminal conspiracy conversations. We seized the emails. Before we review, we need approval regarding any possible attorney client privilege.”How do you know the emails hadn't already gone through the filter team, and they determined they were not subject to the privilege, and given to the FBI agents to use in their investigation.
If you claim a leak came from the FBI you should at least know whether it came from a DOJ filter team, or the FBI.
The Justice Department typically employs a so-called "filter team" or "taint team" of prosecutors and agents who are not involved in the underlying investigation to screen seized materials for privilege and then produce the non-privileged records to the government's investigative team.
Even the DOJ recognizes the problem:How do I know? Come on. Smarten up. The filter team isn’t allowed to make that call. Judges make the call. “Judge we have info (including mere hearsay) that suspect and his lawyer had criminal conspiracy conversations. We seized the emails. Before we review, we need approval regarding any possible attorney client privilege.”
Otherwise? You could have the FBI unilaterally violating attorney-client conversations which were privileged.
Your ignorance is astounding. Literally almost every day, cases come in To prosecutors offices where searches may very well have been “illegal” — INCLUDING an occasional case of a warrantless entry into a suspect’s home and a warrantless search thereof. Prosecutors then make decisions: and if the cases proceed, usually the courts are eventually asked to conduct hearings to see WHETHER the evidence needs to be suppressed. Do you really require an example of such an exception to the usual warrant requirement where suppression might not be required?Clearly a warrantless search is illegal. Claiming it can't be handled as such, without a judge declaring it so is insane. A DA would never proceed with evidence obtained from such a search, saying since a judge hasn't declared it to be illegal, he can produce it to the court.
The code of legal ethics clearly requires the DA to do due diligence in determining whether the evidence he submits to the court is legal.
This is what got Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, and others in trouble, and facing legal sanctions.
Clearly you don't even know what a filter team does.How do I know? Come on. Smarten up. The filter team isn’t allowed to make that call. Judges make the call.
Actually it depends what the answer is. If they act as a lawyer for their client they would give them "legal" advice. Such as to turn the stolen items over to the authorities, either directly or through him. But if he instead advises his client to destroy evidence, hide evidence, or dispose of the evidence, he becomes a co-conspirator after the fact.One more thing. If a hypothetical client admits to his lawyer that he has obtained (in whatever way) a stolen item, and the client asks the attorney for any legal advice about that property, having the conversation with the client is NOT one involving a “criminal conspiracy” which potentially negates attorney client privilege. Lawyers can’t intentionally assist clients to commit a crime; but they can sure respond to questions about prior (criminal?) behavior of a client asking for legal advice.
Since I already tried to educate you on this it is clearer than before that you are merely education resistant.Clearly you don't even know what a filter team does.
They make the call, based on current case law. That which they deem not to be privileged is then subject to discovery, where the client can raise the privilege question by filing a motion to exclude. But the decision is made by the filter team.
Your ignorance is astounding.
Literally almost every day, cases come in To prosecutors offices where searches may very well have been “illegal” — INCLUDING an occasional case of a warrantless entry into a suspect’s home and a warrantless search thereof. Prosecutors then make decisions: and if the cases proceed, usually the courts are eventually asked to conduct hearings to see WHETHER the evidence needs to be suppressed. Do you really require an example of such an exception to the usual warrant requirement where suppression might not be required?
You posted where the DOJ is questionable of filter teams, not that they aren't the deciders of what is privileged.Since I already tried to educate you on this it is clearer than before that you are merely education resistant.
You remain plodding. Of course if the attorney offers legal advice to a client that furthers a corrupt and illegal objective, the lawyer has crossed the line into being a kind of house counsel. Obviously, that would take the analysis back to a potential negation of attorney client privilege. But you can’t know what advice he gave ordinarily without eavesdropping or reading the emails. And that’s the exact reason the DOJ has its lawyer seek a properly supervised team. Judicially supervised. Because otherwise, in order to find out IF the conversation is privileged they must violate the confidentiality. You truly don’t get this basic stuff, do you?Actually it depends what the answer is. If they act as a lawyer for their client they would give them "legal" advice. Such as to turn the stolen items over to the authorities, either directly or through him. But if he instead advises his client to destroy evidence, hide evidence, or dispose of the evidence, he becomes a co-conspirator after the fact.
