Attorney Client Privilege

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Of the 32 people and three organizations against whom criminal proceedings have been started, who do you think is innocent?

point missed!

Originally posted by @whodey
BS.

They raided his office and then later learned about those tapes.

Yes, and the Special Master appointed by the Judge kept them from the DOJ attorneys until Trump's lawyers waived the privilege.

Originally posted by @kingdavid403
I see you made it threw the third grade. Pretty good for a trumptard. Congrats.

no, that would be you my friend.

Originally posted by @eladar
Lol you are such a stooge. If it was Obama involved you would be calling for attorney client privilege.

#1 posted this:

"Trump's lawyers waived any claim of attorney-client privilege regarding these tapes.

The Cohen investigation is not being handled by Mueller but by DOJ attorneys from the Southern District of New York"

What part of that do you not understand?

The sad part is this whole Jail Hillary thing during the election campaign was run 100% by the Russians and you can't even process that.

The Russians WON you idiots and you don't even realize it.

Originally posted by @no1marauder
Yes, and the Special Master appointed by the Judge kept them from the DOJ attorneys until Trump's lawyers waived the privilege.

Cuz all lawyers are partisan hack Dims without any ounce of morality

Originally posted by @leunammi
point missed!

Can you clarify then what you mean by "witch hunt"?

Originally posted by @leunammi
no, that would be you my friend.

LOL, I know you are but what am I? LOL Typical Trumptarded idiot.

Originally posted by @leunammi
So the major news networks, talk shows and others are rushing to 'air' or 'play' secretly recorded tapes of Donald Trump and his attorney Michael Cohen about who knows what. Tell me, has the notion of [b]Attorney Client Privilege entered anyone's mind. Are we so quick to want to destroy someone that we would let this very important protection ...[text shortened]... not exonerated or granted some kind of immunity by a 'special counsel' that is on a witch hunt.[/b]

Was on my phone and couldn't provide a link, but the story is all over the web. They all sound something like this:

"First, a lawyer taping a client is not illegal," said the source, adding that New York law only requires one party to consent for a recording.

"Taping a conversation is the functional equivalent of retaining notes," the source added. "Second, the tape, as well as a lawyer's notes, are privileged and non-public. It is the client who owns the privilege and not the lawyer. In this specific instance, it was Trump who waived the privilege after Special Master Jones ruled the tape was privileged. Team Trump actually contacted the Judge and waived the privilege, thus, permitting Rudy (Giuliani) the ability to release his version of the tape's content. It is ironic that Trump would complain about a privileged tape that would not have been released and then chooses to make it public himself. Very foolish strategy by team Trump."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-cohen-secret-recording-trump-legal-team-waived-attorney-client-privilege/

Originally posted by @leunammi
So the major news networks, talk shows and others are rushing to 'air' or 'play' secretly recorded tapes of Donald Trump and his attorney Michael Cohen about who knows what. Tell me, has the notion of [b]Attorney Client Privilege entered anyone's mind. Are we so quick to want to destroy someone that we would let this very important protection ...[text shortened]... not exonerated or granted some kind of immunity by a 'special counsel' that is on a witch hunt.[/b]

If someone privately goes to a priest or minister and confesses to murder or child abuse, it is a felony crime if that priest or minister do not go to the police and report that crime; and, they have to testify against them in court. I believe This actually goes for lawyers also; ask No1 about that forsure. So tell us, why would treason be any different? It is illegal to hide information from the public to sway an election. Might even be considered as treason. So why would Treason be covered by client privilege and not murder or child abuse?

Originally posted by @kingdavid403
If someone privately goes to a priest or minister and confesses to murder or child abuse, it is a felony crime if that priest or minister do not go to the police and report that crime; and, they have to testify against them in court. I believe This actually goes for lawyers also; ask No1 about that forsure. So tell us, why would treason be any differ ...[text shortened]... as treason. So why would Treason be covered by client privilege and not murder or child abuse?

You are wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priest%E2%80%93penitent_privilege

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%E2%80%93client_privilege

A confession of a past crime is within the privilege in both cases.

Originally posted by @no1marauder
You are wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priest%E2%80%93penitent_privilege

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%E2%80%93client_privilege

A confession of a past crime is within the privilege in both cases.

Interesting. I know I was told and taught different about a Minister. Seems that Priests have to stick to the confidentiality no mater what. Seems to be different for Protestant minsters. I'm going to research this more. I did see where Priests are bound to the confidentiality, so yes, I was wrong there. Thanks for the info. I'm going to look into Ministers and what they are bound too.

Originally posted by @no1marauder
You are wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priest%E2%80%93penitent_privilege

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%E2%80%93client_privilege

A confession of a past crime is within the privilege in both cases.

http://www.gspalaw.com/the-clergy-penitent-privilege-an-overview/
The Modern Privilege

Today, every one of the fifty U.S. states, as well as the District of Columbia, has some version of a clergy-penitent privilege. These statutes may vary in terms and applicability, but the premise is generally the same. Specifically, jurisdictions sometimes differ on their definition of clergy and/or confidential communications, as well as who holds the privilege. However, the majority of states have substantially similar clergy-penitent privilege statutes.

It is also necessary to be familiar with your jurisdiction’s child abuse reporting law, which can alter the effect of the clergy-penitent privilege or, in some cases, abrogate the privilege in its entirety. Similar to the clergy-penitent privilege, these reporting laws, while similar, vary from state-to-state.

Despite these similarities, as a practitioner you must be aware of the differences, as subtle as they may be, in the clergy-penitent privilege and child reporting laws of your jurisdiction. Also, there is usually case law for each jurisdiction dealing with such issues as the presence of third parties, who holds the privilege, and if the privilege can be waived.

Practitioners should advise their clergy clients of the law in their jurisdiction. The clergy need to be aware of when they must disclose information regarding child abuse, when they may disclose such information, when they may not, and the legal ramifications for failing to comply with whatever their duty may be. To aid in this endeavor, this article will address the different approaches to the clergy-penitent privilege and mandatory reporting laws, and includes a national survey of the clergy-penitent privilege and child abuse reporting laws. Please refer to Appendix A for reference to a particular jurisdiction’s statutory scheme.

Definition of “clergy”
The first step in analyzing the application of the clergy-penitent privilege is to determine who qualifies as “clergy” in the jurisdiction. The definition of “clergy” can vary from state-to-state and completely alter the effect of the privilege.

Uniform Rule of Evidence 505 defines clergy as “a minister, priest, rabbi, accredited Christian Science Practitioner, or other similar functionary of a religious organization, or an individual reasonably believed to be so by the person consulting him.”[11] As you can see, the Uniform Rule provides a broad definition; in fact, the privilege would even apply to an individual who is not “clergy,” as long as the parishioner reasonably believed he was. While many jurisdictions have used the Uniform Rule as a guideline, most have altered the definition in one way or another.
For example, Michigan defines clergy broadly, to include a “minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination whatsoever, or duly accredited Christian Science practitioner.”[12] Conversely, Georgia adopted a much more narrow definition, and does not appear to extend the privilege to any religions other than Christianity and Judaism.[13]

Originally posted by @no1marauder
You are wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priest%E2%80%93penitent_privilege

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%E2%80%93client_privilege

A confession of a past crime is within the privilege in both cases.

I was not entirely wrong. Depends on where you live or the jurisdiction.

Who is a “Mandatory Reporter,” and is the Privilege Abrogated?

Now that you know what is covered under the privilege, the next step is to analyze your jurisdiction’s mandatory reporting statute with regard to cases of child abuse. These mandatory reporting laws can alter, or eliminate, your jurisdiction’s clergy-penitent privilege, so knowledge of the interplay between the two is essential.
All 50 states and the District of Columbia have mandatory reporting laws for suspected child abuse or neglect. Most states provide a list of specific professionals who are “mandatory reporters,” while some states provide that “any person” who has reason to believe a child is being abused or neglected has a duty to report.



Twenty-six states specifically provide that members of clergy are “mandatory reporters.”[19] In these states, and those that make “any person” a mandatory reporter,[20] a clergy member may have an obligation to disclose privileged communications he would not otherwise be obligated (or permitted) to disclose under the tenets of his or her religion, or the law of the jurisdiction. Thus, the next question is whether the information must be disclosed even if learned in a privileged and confidential manner?

Luckily, most jurisdictions took steps to clarify a clergy member’s duty in these situations, one way or another. The majority of jurisdictions expressly maintain the privilege or maintain the privilege conditionally upon meeting certain factors, such as the clergy member being bound to maintain the confidentiality under the tenets of his or her religion. Only six jurisdictions have expressly abrogated the privilege with regard to mandatory reporting laws.[21] The remaining jurisdictions do not specify whether the privilege continues to apply in these situations, leaving clergy members in limbo as to their duties under the law in such situations.
Regardless of your opinion as to whether the privilege should survive in mandatory reporting situations, it should be abundantly clear that a jurisdiction’s statutory scheme should expressly provide whether or not the privilege remains intact so members of the clergy can be certain of whether or not such disclosure is mandated by the law. While most jurisdictions have amended their statutes to address this issue, many statutes are still ambiguous, placing members of clergy in an untenable situation.

Originally posted by @whodey
Say, shouldn't the IRS audit you? When is the last time you were audited?

The last time I was audited was by Obama's weaponized IRS, around 3 months after I went to whitehouse.gov (I had to give my email address) and signed a petition supporting a Texas secession from the USA. Immediately after I received notice that I was being audited, I also got continually spammed with invitations to Democrat fundraisers and other events, via emails signed by Joe Biden. I'm sure it was all just a coincidence though.

Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
The last time I was audited was by Obama's weaponized IRS, around 3 months after I went to whitehouse.gov (I had to give my email address) and signed a petition supporting a Texas secession from the USA. Immediately after I received notice that I was being audited, I also got continually spammed with invitations to Democrat fundraisers and other events, via emails signed by Joe Biden. I'm sure it was all just a coincidence though.

LOL, Serves you right treasonous Tom.