This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Next Shoe Just Dropped: Court Denies Attorney-Client Privilege
Submitted by Simon Black via Sovereign Man blog,
In the Land of the Free, people grow up hearing a lot of things about their freedom.
You're told that you live in the freest country on the planet. You're told that other nations 'hate you' for your freedom.
And you're told that you have the most open and fair justice system in the world.
This justice system is supposedly founded on bedrock principles-- things like a defendant being presumed innocent until proven guilty. The right to due process and an impartial hearing. The right to counsel and attorney-client privilege.
Yet each of these core pillars has been systematically dismantled over the years:
1. So that it can operate with impunity outside of the law, the federal government has set up its own secret FISA courts to rubber stamp NSA surveillance.
According to data obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, of the nearly 34,000 surveillance requests made to FISA courts in the last 35-years, only ELEVEN have been rejected.
Unsurprising given that FISA courts only hear the case from the government's perspective. It is literally a one-sided argument in FISA courts. Hardly an impartial hearing, no?
2. The concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' may officially exist in courts, but administratively it was thrown out long ago.
These days there are hundreds of local, state, and federal agencies that can confiscate your assets, levy your bank account, and freeze you out of your life's savings. None of this requires a court order.
By the time a case goes to court, you have been deprived of the resources you need to defend yourself. You might technically be presumed innocent, but you have been treated and punished like a criminal from day one.
3. Attorney-Client privilege is a long-standing legal concept which ensures that communication between an attorney and his/her client is completely private.
In Upjohn vs. the United States, the Supreme Court itself upheld attorney-client privilege as necessary "to encourage full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law. . ."
It doesn't matter what you're accused of-- theft. treason. triple homicide. With very limited exceptions, an attorney cannot be compelled to testify against a client, nor can their communications be subpoenaed for evidence.
Yet in a United States Tax Court decision announced on Wednesday, the court dismissed attorney client privilege, stating that:
"When a person puts into issue his subjective intent in deciding how to comply with the law, he may forfeit the privilege afforded attorney-client communications."
In other words, if a person works with legal counsel within the confines of the tax code to legitimately minimize the amount of taxes owed, that communication is no longer protected by attorney-client privilege.
Furthermore, the ruling states that if the individuals do not submit attorney-client documentation as required, then the court would prohibit them from introducing any evidence to demonstrate their innocence.
Unbelievable.
While it's true that attorney-client privilege has long been assailed in numerous court cases (especially with regards to tax matters), this decision sets the most dangerous precedent yet.
With this ruling, government now has carte blanche to set aside long-standing legal protections and even deny a human being even the chance to defend himself.
Naturally, you won't hear a word about this in the mainstream media.
But it certainly begs the question, what's the point of even having a trial? Or a constitution?
When every right and protection you have can be disregarded in their sole discretion, one really has to wonder how anyone can call it a 'free country' any more.
»
- 81279 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Haha. You have me completely misread, as in fact I am a Canadian who is just sick of what I described above - nothing more.
I was not accusing you of anything, only asking you a question that was meant to make a point: namely that all NATO countries are more or less the same satanic systems based on conspiracy, manipulation and systemic abuse.
Like another poster above, I think that we need to stop letting ourselves be distracted by these professional politicians (whose whole purpose is to distract us from trying to change things ourselves) - something which is actually difficult for most people (although seemingly not you!). :)
Bush/Obama/Clinton/Carter/Reagan represented more war, more debt, more government and less liberty. To think any less would be a product of propaganda. Is it the fault of the President or is there really a Shadow Government? My speculation points to the latter.
I concur, loonyleft. It is futile to blame the puppet, rather than the puppeteer.
Blame the court.
Playing the party game (on either side) is enabling the criminals
Barry and his team blame Bush all the time. When he stops blaming others we will stop blaming him.
Oh by the way did you know Barrack Hussein Obama is the first African American President of the United States?
When he stops blaming others we will stop blaming him.
wow, that's some great logic there.
Poking fun at the current retard-in-chief, in no way indicates the belief (faith) that the next guy will be any better. Patterns suggest that it WILL get worse for the Former Untied States of Amerika.
Our so-called leaders speak
With words they try to jail you
The subjugate the meek
But it's the rhetoric of failure
They don´t hate you for your freedom. They more pity you. Only time they go negative on your ass is when you try to export your non-freedom. It´s really sad. Very sad. Actually ROW really like ordinary Americans and American life-style and see a people capable of great generosity.
One of my relatives fought at Gettysburg as a volunteer and wrote a letter home on the eve of the battle describing the confusion , the chaos but also stated that in his mind there was no doubt that the American nation has a big heart and strong arm that will strike a mighty blow for freedom when called upon.
I can only hope that the sleeping giant will awaken again.
The tax courts operate under maritime law which is not subject to constitutional protections and adheres to none.
Agreed, except for the money part. They could care less about your money, they can print as much of that as they want. It is our labor they want.
Never thought about that way, but you are right, the paper, they print it up, it's convincing you to labor for their profit that is the big lie we all buy.
Rising Sun, with whom would you replace "Barry?"
My JRT would be a good replacement.
He eats dog food and does not like to fly.
http://ethanmichaly.blogspot.com/2014/04/soft-landing.html
The government does not need our money. They create as much as they want and the more they create, the faster it accelerates the plan to destroy the country.
They just take the money out of spite. They seemingly want people to suffer ... and die.
Making good on the midnight New Year's Eve "party" signing of the NDAA on "December 31, 2011"...
A date which will live in infamy... that America forgot about and doesn't care!
Time to buy your own little Island set up your own nation...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDZOoC4EyCE
We are but frogs in a frying pan. Unfortunately we're now stuck to the pan and shortly will be "stick-a-fork-in-it" done for
.
Nothing wrong with a ilttle reminder now and then
lawlessness. remember this when reid or obama demand people like bundy "obey" the law while they and our government continue to violate and disobey any law they find inconvenient or interfering
Jack Nicholson has it right here.
"This town needs an enema!!"
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jKofnVkUwBA
IRS courts are admiralty courts and function outside the Constitution. You must require you be tried before a constitutional court, with a jury. By the way, they don't like this.
See, "The Rape of Justice" by Eustace Mullins.
http://www.barefootsworld.net/admiralty.html
this is a short and very interesting paper on admirality and just how and when we got totally fucked.....if ur not impressed ,ur money back..
...all you have to do is make sure you deposit your checks to any BIG cooperate bank,leave it there, and at the end of the year YOU can claim all the money the bank made, by lending out your money at 9X !!!,.DUE TO FRActional reserve lending. IT IS ALL LEGAL, just go to the bank and request the statement, THAT SHOWS HOW much the big bank paid in taxes w/ your money, SO YOU WILL GET BAcK THE TAX MONEY, not the big bank. My friend got over 28k all legal. FYI Remember, by law, only gold and silver is money, your income will always be $00.00 as long as you never earned any gold and silver as payment.
A little more info would be great here Rusty.
But I'm not done!! If you act today you can get the big bucks from the bank and a 1 gallon bucket of Oxiclean AND a pack of shamwows, ready for this, FREE!!!
From Wikiquotes on the above:
Jefferson is referring, specifically, to the Shays' Rebellion. If you look at the context of the quote, it appears that Jefferson actually believed the men who took arms were essentially wrong about the facts, but he still considered them patriotic for making their voices heard. Jefferson felt it was important that the government be kept in check, even if those keeping them in check were not necessarily in the right. It wasn't being in the "right" that kept the people free, but rather the fact that they had a voice and used it.
Excellent post. Americans are cowed with the exception of Bundy Ranch.
"Excellent post. Americans are cowed with the exception of Bundy Ranch."
If that were true, nobody other than the BLM would have shown up.
Here's a Shoshone indian's exception (3 years ago):
Nevada Tribal Leader, 81, sues BLM for $30M
RENO (AP) — The federal government seized Raymond Yowell’s cattle — all 132 head — and hauled them across the state and sold them at auction.
Then the U.S. Bureau of Land Management sent Yowell a bill for $180,000 for back grazing fees and penalties, and later garnished part of his Social Security benefits.
Now, nearly a decade later, the 81-year-old former chief of the Western Shoshone National Council is fighting back. He’s suing the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the Treasury Department and others for $30 million. Yowell claims the government violated his constitutional rights, broke an 1863 treaty and saddled him with a debt that he doesn’t owe.
http://dailysparkstribune.com/view/full_story/14905327/article-Nevada-tribal-leader--81--sues-BLM-for--30M
Read more: Sparks Tribune - Nevada tribal leader 81 sues BLM for 30M
The Bundy Ranch could be the lynch pin of positive change if there were always hundreds or thousands of legal American citizens camping at the Bundy Ranch.
The government will move on the Bundys in the middle of the night using stealth. Keep the Bundy Ranch occupied by Americans who care to preserve freedom from unbridled government fascist corruption. People go to Burning Man in Nevada every year for fun. Now people need to go to the Bundy Ranch to preserve American freedoms.
As Harry Reid has publically stated the Bundys are "domestic terrorists" Obama can implement his NDAA to indiscriminately kill the entire Bundy family anywhere any time. And Obama is power drunk enough to do it (in the middle of the night).
But .... it's not my problem unless they come after me, and since they surely won't, it's only the problem of those who refuse to obey.
Not that I am defending the current corrupt system of King rule, but it has been the law for a long time that if you rely on "a lawyer told me it was legal" in order to avoid a finding of subjective intent to break the law, the advice is no longer privileged. Otherwise, you could simply make it up. "I followed the advice of my lawyer, but I don't have to tell you what that advice was because it is privileged." It has also been the law for a long time that the client can decide to waive the attorney-client privilege if he wants to, e.g., to say "I thought I was complying with the law because my lawyer said x, y, z."
The only defense of confidentiality is silence.
You are spot on LTER.....if you reference your understanding of the law in court. The only time it is proper to cite what your attourney said to you is :
"On the advice of my lawyer, I refuse to answer based on my Rights under the 5th Admendment."
Could they use this maneuver to compel Lerner's attorney to testify?
agreed. attorney client priv gets waived all the time, in civil and criminal matters. no news here...
"agreed. attorney client priv gets waived all the time, in civil and criminal matters. no news here..."
Am I missing something, or do you not recognize a distinction between 'waiving a right' and 'not having a right (to begin with)'?
We might frequently waive our Miranda rights (what are left of them at least), but that does not mean we can therefore be compelled to tesify against ourselves (ipso facto for the State). Or would there be "no news" there either?
Voters regularly vote themsevles less freedom, more taxes and restrictions. They want more nanny gubmint. As Ron Paul once stated...
"I never thought the idea of personal freedom would be such a hard sell" - Close quote
It has alway been something I can not understand. Conculsion... voters are for the most part are morons!
Most voters are feeble minds purposefully misled by the many channels of propaganda. That's why we're here, right? Inform the uninformed.
It's called waiver. Not exactly a novel concept.
The IRS will be Amerika's Stasi. They are not being checked at a time they could still be reined in by our politicians, (D) and (R). I must logically conclude that it is intentional that the power and scope of the IRS is allowed to increase. Surely everyone is in violation of some tax law? "Give me a name and I will find a crime." You will soon be taken in for questioning under the tax code; never to be seen again.
When are Americans going to think of their wealth the way they think of their guns? Come and take it motherfucker!
Attorney-client privilege was long ago made moot by the NSA.
So my lawyer and I are going to have to keep two sets of books, just like my doctor now?
Ok, if thats the way they want it...lol.
As a doctor I definitely lol'd on that one.
The government only keeps the slightest semblance of loyalty among doctors by making sure they are paid well and dont have to strike out on their own and stray from the farm lol.
;-)
We all do what we have to do these days, which isn't always what the Stasi-State expects us to do...lol.
Hopefully the fullfillment of the ongoing nationwide "The people's"COMMON LAW GRAND JURY, elected into office by the people will have some affect on the Disaster we call a legal system. There are now cases sprouting up around the country as the County level Grand Jury takes a bigger and bigger role as the system spreads.
I have a colleage who has file suit, directing the Mesa Couty sherriff (Grand junction, Colorado) to arrest all 4 judges in that county for improper filings of Oath of Office amoung other charges. This was submitted to the sherriff a few days ago and we understand he is now in Denver in consulting with our Atty. General. (If he is no improvment over Holder, the sherriff is fooked). Violation of this provision is a Felony nad would cause immeadiate dismissal and disbarment if foung guilty. That is what was demanded from the sheriff.
There will be more and more of this kind of action around the nation as the effort is just finding its sea legs, but is spreading rapidly across the nation.
For your infomation: "In a stunning 6-3 decision Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for for the majority confirmed that the American Grand Jury is neither part of the judicial, executive nor legislative branches of government, but instead belongs to the People. It is in effect a fourth branch of government governed and administered to directly by and on behalf of the American people, and it's authority emenates from the Bill of Rights."
This decision was rendered sometime in the 1980's?? Milestones
Interesting news Milestones. I used to live in Junction. I will have to get online and read the Daily Senile and see what the official spin is. ;)
Milestones,
I researched Common Law Grand Jury a couple of months ago and found some intriguing ideas, but there were few sources. One of them was so religious that I could not take it seriously.
Do you have any links to better resources to learn about them?
It's all based on dicta from US v. Williams (1992).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-1972.ZO.html
"... the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It hasnot been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It [grand jury] 'is a constitutional fixture in its own right.'"
"Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm's length. Judges' direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See US v. Calandra (1974)..."
Did you read the blog carefully?
Now we are required to "demonstrate" our innocence in court?
The Opinion actually says that he cannot raise the defense of reliance on counsel unless he hands over the attorney letters upon which he bases the defense. This does not mean that he has the burden of proving his innocence. It's no different than claiming, for example, insanity as a defense. If you want to go there, you have the obligation as a criminal defendant to offer testimony from an expert that you were or are insane. So too if you claim attorney advice to obviate criminal intent, you have to show the fact-finder that you received advice that made you believe you were in compliance with the law.
Party pooper!
Here I am trying to stir the pot and all you do is get in the way with facts.
Ha! I just see so many examples of the erosion of our liberties, that I probably overreact when I see an article that focuses on what is really not an example of that. Don't get me started on selective enforcement of tax laws, not to mention who writes the laws in the first place for their own benefit.
The long slide continues. But nobody cares. Junk education, junk food, junk culture, junk politicians creates junk people. Have you ever tried to carry on an intelligent conversation with a relative or an average person you meet? Pretty sad shit comes out of their junk brains.
How is the brain of that person you use as your avitar? One of the exceptions I hope.
According to Google search she is Natalia Poklonskaya, Attorney General of Crimea.
She looks cute and smart.
I agree, its GIGO (garbage in, garbage out).
Americans have become pampered babies with no interests beyond shopping and stuffing their faces. But that is soon about to change...
I'm a pretty old American. The government has gotten worse on my watch, but the people who are not government dependent have gotten better. When I started my career 50 years ago I estimated 25% or my efforts served government and 25% of the people were dependent on government. When my career ended, both those ratios had exceeded 50% and continued to climb geometrically. But the 50% who aren't government dependent are becomming more diligent than I have ever seen them. The race is on. Will that ever smaller remainder be able to prevail and reverse the trend as we approach 100% government dependency and servatude?
Fifty years of continuous work is pretty good, in New America that means you can start thinking about retirement in another 25 years. I'm getting old too, I don't have much patience for most Americans. Take heart that this can't go on forever. I'm not sure what is to come, but I would even prefer anarchy as long as it's based on honesty.
Honest anarchy, that has a nice ring to it. Bumper sticker material.
I spent almost my entire career retired (i.e. self employed). I still am.
"Administratively, it was thrown out a long time ago"
This is one of the things that is killing your freedom. People do not know what administrative means. IT MEANS THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. Anyone who goes to the executive branch to find justice is an idiot. That branch and the legislature if FULL OF INCOMPETENT idiots! Your rights ARE NOT SUBJECT TO ADMINISTRATIVE RULES AND PROCESS!! You have the right to a judicial court. But if you allow it, then as long as you are fine with it, everyone else will be too. Learn some law people, your rights are a victim of your own ignorance.
I do not say this as an insult. Ignorance is simply a fact. Everyone is ignorant of many things, but it can be cured.
They are NOT "incompetent" These sociopathic treasonous criminals know exactly what they are doing.
Congress themselves are incompetent. Thier handlers are the sociopaths. If congress were competent, they would all quit.
Pumpkin
Power seeking is a sociopathic trait. People who aspire to high office (congress) probably are sociopaths, don't you think? It's not the handlers but those who use "handlers" to enhance their illusion of power? Congresspeople don't quit because they're sociopaths and bring elected to congress (which has become a more-or-less lifetime free-gimme-grab-bag of goodies) gives them power, which allows them to award themselves or impress others into giving them money, which confers more power. Example: The Clintons. The handlers do what they're told. Those above congress, however, who "pull their (congress') strings" also may be...oops, let me correct that...probably are sociopaths as well.
kchrisc----and are therefore culpable
The IRS does whatever it wants and the DOJ and the courts go along with it.
DOJ & IRS attempt to compel testimoney from citizens, court goes along with it. Read it, it'll make you sick.
http://www.losthorizons.com/lawsuit.htm
This article caused me to do a little looking around. I picked up the following excerpt that shows some thinking (or lack of it). I'm left wonderding, does this thinking also apply to the government when they claim "national security?".
The second citation talks of "long established" law and refers to 2007? Is 6+ years considered long for a 200+ year old set of established law?
First Citation:
In United States ex rel. Baklid-Kunz v. Halifax Hospital Medical Center, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158944 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 6, 2012), a federal magistrate judge in Florida applied that rule to hold that hundreds of documents and communications involving Halifax Hospital’s inside counsel were not privileged. In reaching his ruling, the judge focused on the intent and purpose of the communications and developed a number of bright-line rules. The judge refused to grant a presumption of privilege to documents or communications simply because the document was labeled “Confidential – Attorney Client Privilege.” With respect to emails, if the “To” line was addressed to both in-house counsel and a non-lawyer, the judge ruled that the email could not have a primary purpose of seeking legal advice, making it not privileged and therefore discoverable. The judge also ruled that numerous emails were not privileged because no attorney was included in the “To” or “From” lines, even if an attorney was included in the “cc:” line.
Second citation:
It has been long established that the mere fact that an attorney is involved in a communication does not make that communication privileged. Anaya v. CBS Broad., Inc., 251 F.R.D. 645 (D.N.M. 2007)
RE: "what's the point of even having a trial? Or a constitution?"
So they can pretend. And believe what they pretend is real.
The article left out double jeopardy, being tried in federal court after being acquitted in state court. Also, there are exceptions to attorney-client privilege if and when a state ethics board decides to investigate an attorney. As a former attorney, I learned that the law is largely made by judges who have several means of preventing citizens from appealing to a higher court. First, a judge can allow the other party to exhaust your resources. Second, a judge can find that you have no credibility on the stand. Third, a judge can drag out a case until nobody ever gets a ruling. I had several cases in which a judge knew my client did not have enough money to appeal and ignored the law to reach a decision. The system is now also completely corrupted with political bias.
As an AynRandFan, what's your beef with a wealthy party outspending the other side to their advantage? Should the Judge handle cases with less economically advantaged litigants differently because they may run out of money and thus lose the ability to continue litigating? It is quite common that cases drag on for years and years. In California, for example, it typically takes 3-5 years to reach a jury due to the clogged court system. One side always loses by definition if it goes to trial, so then there are appeals which can take years longer. It is thus an inherent advantage to have economic resources as a litigant, where you can simply outspend the other side. Isn't that a "tough shit" situation in Rand philosophy?
Damn you and your calm rational, persuasive arguments!
The system is clogged due to lawyers. Kill the fucking lawyers, who become judges, and so on and the sytem will reset.
Just a word in this regard. When an Attorney passes the BAR to become a so called accredited attorney, what he is passing isn't that little railing around a courtroom what he is passing is the BRITISH ACCREDITATION REGISTRY (BAR) and as such are considered as Citizens and Subjects of the city of LONDON.
Now we can undersatnd why the original 13th Amendment was introduced in 1809 and was ratified 1819 by Virginia to make it operational. That is an item that will be addressed later but it deals with this issue.
This is truly an interesting situation which I am sure will addressed in the 2016 Constitutional review as per the U.S. Constitution. 34 states have now called for one.
Milestonesl
LetThemEatRand: No, but I assume you already knew that. There is nothing in Rand's political philosophy that calls for a corrupt or unfair court system.
"There is nothing in Rand's political philosophy that calls for a corrupt or unfair court system."
Ignorance of the Law of Unintended Consequences is no excuse!
"Guillotine-client privelege"
Home of the formerly brave, land of the once free.
Fuck your admiralty law and musty documents. Have a Sam Adams on me.
Our forefathers, 'tis said, consented to be subject to the laws of Great Britain. I will not at the present time dispute it, nor mark out the limits and conditions of their submission; but will it be denied that they contracted to pay obedience and to be under the control of Great Britain because it appeared to them most beneficial in their then present circumstances and situations? We, my countrymen, have the same right to consult and provide for our happiness which they had to promote theirs. If they had a view to posterity in their contracts, it must have been to advance the felicity of their descendants. If they erred in their expectations and prospects, we can never be condemned for a conduct which they would have recommended had they foreseen our present condition.
Ye darkeners of counsel, who would make the property, lives, and religion of millions depend on the evasive interpretations of musty parchments; who would send us to antiquated charters of uncertain and contradictory meaning, to prove that the present generation are not bound to be victims to cruel and unforgiving despotism,--tell us whether our pious and generous ancestors bequeathed to us the miserable privilege of having the rewards of our honesty, industry, the fruits of those fields which they purchased and bled for, wrested from us at the will of men over whom we have no check. Did they contract for us that, with folded arms, we should expect that justice and mercy from brutal and inflamed invaders which have been denied to our supplications at the foot of the throne? Were we to hear our character as a people ridiculed with indifference? Did they promise for us that our meekness and patience should be insulted, our coasts harassed, our towns demolished and plundered, and our wives and offspring exposed to nakedness, hunger, and death, without our feeling the resentment of men, and exerting those powers of self-preservation which God has given us?
A man's natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime, whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether committed by one man, calling himself a robber, (or by any other name indicating his true character,) or by millions, calling themselves a government. -L. Spooner
Absolutely.
***QUOTE**
[The first time I met Berry was at a Super Bowl party] He knew who I was because I had a reputation as a writer. I knew he was [an employee of the CIA dynasty.] But he was nothing, he offered nothing, and he promised nothing.
He had no humor. He was insignificant in every way and consequently I didn't pay much attention to him [or his strange boyfriend]
But when [they] passed out in my tub, then I noticed him. I'd been in another room, talking to the bright people. I had to have him taken away.
We can assume from your posting that you are referring to Mr. B Lyndon, of the movie "Barry Lyndon." If not, then provide you sources or go away. We do not need your BS on this board.
In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall wrote in his decision of what the courts ought to be, "The Government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right." That was Marshall's expectation.
The reality is different. The present US courts issue many decisions which they decree cannot be used as precedents. This means the judge's decision neither follows case law (precedents), nor the law as written. Ours is not a nation of laws, but of corrupt judges, with whimsical or venal precedents and decisions.
The sheeple were trained in their government schools and in front of the tube to believe that our system is just, with laws, with Constitutional protections, with judges supervised and reviewed by higher courts and the Supreme Court. It was all lies. When you hire an expensive attorney, you buy a connection to the district judge or the appellate judges. Justice is for sale.
To make our Court system honest and fair, we must have an open market, where the favorable decision goes to the highest bidder, instead of the judge's crony.
Ironic that the above mentioned date of 1803 and in the Marshall court that Marbury v Madison ruling,and it succiently ruled: "Any law repugnant to the U.S. Constitution is VOID. This court and ALL other department of government are BOUND by that Instrument." That ruling has never been overruled.
Sounds like far too many people are being "Shucked and ived" and a bunch of crooks.
I believe this will be the first primary target that The People's" County Grand Jury which is being implemented across the nation. our (Ha-ha) Judicial system is a complete P.O.S.
I will be posting Informational links shortly. Those of you who want to participate in the removal of our criminal government now have a vehicle to direct your energies. Not involved? Why not now-be part of the solution, not a hand wringing but silent part of the problem.
Milestones
Is this stipulation only applicable to an individual's return? Wonder what Caterpillar is thinking about this....
Tyler, Tyler, Tyler.... You may be a genius at finance but law....not so much.
So few people know this. All tax law, ALL, is founded under the amendment for raising revenue. Though its called a tax court, it has the appearance of a court, has the powers of a court, it is NOT a court as founded under the provisions of the constituion that establishih courts.
Its not a court. As such the Supreme court has ruled over and over again that no persons rights apply under tax law. Their statements have been that the governments' right to raise immediate revenue overrides all constituional rights and protections.
Not only is the attorney client priveldge not valid under tax law, you truly dont even technically have a right to an attorney, under tax law. You truly are presumed guilty under tax law. That is not a toungue in check saying. Some time back, there was a movement in Congress to have you presumed innocent. That legislation was quickly quashed.
The bottom line is under tax law you have absolutely no rights. None. Dont believe me? ask any laywer you know.
Good comment, except isn't that expression supposed to be 'tongue in Czech'?
You have the right to appeal to the US Court of Appeals, if you did not select small case status in Tax court. The Court of Appeals "should" grant you all Constitutional rights. http://ustaxcourt.gov/taxpayer_info_after.htm
Of course, you have to trust that the US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit is not a joke.
Partially true. The US tax court is not an Article 3 court. And its been awhile since I read the case law, but I believe the USSC found (on a splintered decision) that the tax court was an article 1 court. Yes, the federal legislature can set up tribunals under its plenary taxing power to oversee the administration of its laws. As it is not an Art.3 court, it does not exercise the judicial power of the US and its decisions are reviewable.
As for attorney, client privilege. Cant say that I am suprised that an Article 1 court would make such a statement. Again, we are dealing with administrative law that exercises QUASI judicial powers within a non criminal setting. Moreover, and in regards to the excises imposed under the SS Act, those that volunteered into the system waived constitutional/judicial protections of contract and property in exchange for extra ordinary protections paid for with money from the public treasury. A ststutory right or PRIVILEGE that can be modified or taken away at the whim of the legislative body that created it. The key element here is WAIVERS.
,,,those that volunteered into the system waived constitutional/judicial protections of contract and property in exchange for extra ordinary protections paid for with money from the public treasury.
volunteered?
Yup, you had to make application and there is NO Statute that requires a person to get the number as a condition of working. Will the IRS lie and intimidate? YES. Will someone employ you without the number? Unlikely. Do the courts care? No. As a matter of fact, it appears the USSC does not even understand the system anymore.
As I recall when I was 12 my mom took me to the bank to open a savings account. Part of the process involved the necessity of having a SS number. No number no bank account. I don't remember getting the option of declining. Maybe I don't have to have one to work but as you point out it is hardly "voluntary".
volunteered?...
Of course one volunteers. If a person was coerced into signing a return of income then the document could never be used as evidence. The greatest trick the IRS has accomplished is in their holding out sums from ones pay throughout the year and holding out a carrot in the form of a possible "return" if one files a 1040.
As for a diminishing possibility of attorney / client privilege, I would expect GS would be leading the charge to overturn any such action. Isn't this the sole reason they and other "top" financial institutions recruit attorneys in the first place? I guess if one ever felt that threatened, there's always the avenue of "marriage". Spouses are exempt from testifying on each other. I've always thought that's the main reason for the same sex unions being advocated by so many. Follow the money.
jmo.
useful site http://www.libertylawsite.org/
Befriend "Dirty" Harry Reid and all your problems will be solved...I hope that worthless troglodyte falls out of an airplane and lands ass end first on a Saguaro Cactus.
EXCLUSIVE: FBI blocked in corruption probe involving Sens. Reid, Lee - Washington Times
"Corruption Probe"... LOL, that's a good one.
Rampant corruption throughout Washington and Banking, probe harder and faster boys the bad guys are winning them all.
"When a person puts into issue his subjective intent in deciding how to comply with the law, he may forfeit the privilege afforded attorney-client communications."
In other words, if a person works with legal counsel within the confines of the tax code to legitimately minimize the amount of taxes owed, that communication is no longer protected by attorney-client privilege.
Hmmm. I know you can't ask a lawyer how to break the law, and now you can't ask an attorney how to comply with the law?
Well, if the law was simple enough for the average citizen to understand, I would say, this might not be a bad thing (less work for lawyers - fewer lawyers). But with 70,000 pages of tax code, telling people that they can not confide in their own attorney to explain it to them is definitely not a good thing.
If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.
Hope you are being sarcastic because its easy for anyone to become a target my dear! then you will be found to have committed several crimes...
http://kottke.org/13/06/you-commit-three-felonies-a-day
I suppose my sarcasm wasn't quite clear enough.
RIP
The Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill of Rights
The Land of the Free and Home of the Brave
Murdered Under the Administrations
of
George W Bush
and
Barrack Obama
As it is Easter, may I remind all you 'Christians' that Jesus did not like pharisees, scribes and hypcrites much, you know the kind of people who are making the laws and telling you what to do.
Meanwhile in Belgium another banker, or actually 2 , his wife, AND their godfather child, all shot dead on entering their house.
http://www.gva.be/nieuws/binnenland/aid1571910/man-en-kind-doodgeschoten...
use chrome to trnslte
,
Assuming automatic mission creep therefore increasing harshness of government and its unbridled agencies we may expect this to morph into full-scale disappearance of attorney-client privilege. I doubt this will be changed by voting. Almost no restrictions of government are removed, from adminitstration to administration.
We have the ability to effect positive change. Thought creates things. As a collective we can change everything for the better and get rid of the evil ones in positions of power. We could make dolls of the evil ones and stick them with pins.
We have the ability to effect positive change. Thought creates things. As a collective we can change everything for the better and get rid of the evil ones in positions of power. We could make dolls of the evil ones and stick them with pins.
I hate to say it, but the Tax Court is correct. The attorney-client privilege does not apply in a number of situations, and this is one of them.
When you consult with your tax lawyer for advice about preparing your taxes, let's think about what's happening. You have NOT been accused of a crime. You are not preparing a defense for an action which has already been committed, and which may (or may not) be a crime.
Right?
What you are doing, in fact, is consulting your lawyer for advice about something *which you intend to do in the future,* namely, represent your tax burden to the federal government.
Suppose that your story about your income and taxes is in fact fraudulent? Then the following certainly applies:
""A client who consults an attorney for advice that will serve him in the commission of a fraud will have no help from the law. He must let the truth be told." --U. S. Supreme Court in Clark v. United States (1933)
You can not go to a lawyer and ask for advice about how to do something and get away with it, and then have that communication protected. That is NOT what the attorney-client privilege traditionally protects. The privilege is designed to protect people who are preparing their defense, when the alleged crime has already taken place. The crime, if there is one in this case, is the filing of the fraudulent tax return, which necessarily occurred *after* the consultations with the tax lawyer for preparation of said return.
Of course, no one will like this comment, because nobody wants to think the tax court could be right about anything. But in fact, they are.
Technically you may be correct, but what good is that when most people, myself included cannot understand most of the laws the way they are written_ The 70,000 pages of tax code is in and of itself a crime to attempt to enforce them on a peoples of a nation as the enforcers don-t know or understand them either.
You raise a good point. For the average person the tax law is incredibly complex and for all practical matters indecipherable but to break down this case to an even simpler level the problem is this: Can a person (in this case a partnership) employ a defense in which they affirm that they believed they were following the law and acting in good faith ACCORDING TO THE ADVICE OF THEIR ATTORNEYS AND BECAUSE OF THAT ADVICE and then refuse to divulge what that advice was? The problem is obvious and the solution of the tax court is fair. If you won't allow the court to see for itself what gave you the idea you were acting within the law then how can the court determine if your actions were justifiable? The attorney advice has been put "in controversy" by the defendant, not the court, and so the defendants themselves have to turn over the docs or relinquish a defense that speaks to their good or bad intentions since THEY WERE BASED on the attorney advice itself. Is the court supposed to take them at their word?
You presuppose the knowledge of the person--if infact the person requires the use of an attorney to prepare his taxes then he cannot be accused of knowing how to prepare his taxes or know what the advice was or even what it pertains to in the "code" -- My thoughts would be to say that I have no idea what my attorney said or how it affects me, only that I believed that he acted in my best interest. Then let the attorney devulge how he prepaired and what docs he used. If your attorney used the system (tax rules) to obtain a favorable outcome rather than scam the system you probably will leave with a good verdict. Using Tax law to pay no taxes is only a matter of finding the fine print in the code --the code was written (don't forget) for the avoidance of taxes by those in the know.
Are you retarded or have you recently suffered a blow to the head?
no, but I hit my knee pretty hard climbing up into my backhoe---does that count?
You seem to imply you're above the average person (who can't understand the "code") and so will "simplify" it for us. Magnanimous to say the least. You must be a legal eagle being all up on the tax laws ---a lawyer by chance? I've been earning a living for a long time and never do my own taxes. I hire a straight up tax firm to do them for me and I never second guess them. I "pay" my fair share according to the tax code as presented to me by the tax firm --I don't fill out shit--I just sign and pay. So in my case I would just let my tax lawyer defend me in court-- retarded?? you or I??
"What gave you the idea" infers that you think he had an "idea" Is that presupposing he knew something?? Gee--he thougth he knew and tried to do it his way?? You are verbose-- I "simplified" it for you ---do you charge by the word?? Two ways to do this --follow your tax lawyers advice or don't. If you don't then expect a poor outcome and don't use "I don't recall" and "I didn't know" and "I followed advice" cause you can't prove any of it.
everyone knows if you bring it up in court then "they" can use it. If you say "my lawyer told me" then they get to say "show me where he told you ".
You wrote:
"If you say "my lawyer told me" then they get to say "show me where he told you ". "
That's close enough. But it's more analogous to "You can't unknow something you know" i.e. you can't unfry an egg. There are plenty of lawyers on this board who have correctly and succinctly pointed out that this is not some new idea or revolution in the law. This exception (state of mind) to attorney client confidentiality has always existed and is obviously needed. I'm just trying to explain why it is not even remotely unjust in this case, which is the real concern of most people following this post. You're clearly not retarded, more of an idiot savant.
Land of the fee and home of the slave.
Got rope?
They won't be happy until it's just the individual against the massive power of the state.
They don't want us free, they want us Afraid.
The oligarchs have neglected to note that in between free and afraid, lies frustration, disgust, and anger.........Too bad for them.
Starve the Beast!
Well it seems like the only way to win the game is to not play now.
Just ignore court decisions/papers, since the courts are no longer legitimate, their word, orders and such are no longer valid I guess, how can the orders of a defunct court hold any weight? thats like Elmo issuing orders, it makes no sense.
Please learn the difference between begging the question and raising the question kthx
For example "Why are we here?" is begging the question. The desired answer is within the question itself.
Indeed marketing companies, polling companies looking for a specific result, politicians setting referendums all practice begging the question as much as they can.
My opinion is that if you talk with an attorney you are an idiot.
Attorneys are scum.
Foo tunny, I read somewhere once that the legal profession as a whole is a net liability to society. I'm inclined to belive that. They do some good, but they to some not so good. Lawyers, DAs, AsG, Judges, Bailiffs, the whole lot of 'em, SCUM!!!
Correction- most prosecutors are scum. The prosecutors office is the minor leagues for political office, where the art of lying and covering stuff up is polished.
A few prosecutors and a fair number of defense and civil attorneys are not exactly scum, but the system they work in is without a doubt, utterly corrupt.
Well, there is law and then there is tax law.
IAAL, and I have to tell you that I find the court to have done the correct thing. Perhaps an example will help.
Say Congress passes a law that levies a $10 tax on all cows that are in any part white. Now further assume that Mr. Taxpayer has a black cow (Bessie) with a small white spot. Taxpayer goes to his attorney and says, "This tax code is complicated. Tell me, Mr. Attorney, do I need to declare Bessie to the government? Such a tiny bit of white does not count, does it?" The attorney researches the matter and writes a letter to Taxpayer stating, "Sorry to tell you that the legislative history of the bill seems to suggest that even a small white spot is enough to force you to pay the tax." Taxpayer does not like the answer and throws the letter away. Taxpayer then fills out his income tax return and puts a zero in the box which says "How many cows do you have that are in any part white?".
The IRS then audits taxpayer who refuses to pay, and the matter winds up in tax court on two issues: (1) Does Taxpayer owe the $10? and (2) Should he be fined a penalty for taking a frivilous position?
The tax court easily disposes of the first issue and hits Taxpayer with a $10 tax bill plus interest. The focus nows shifts to the penalty phase.
During the penalty phase litigation, Taxpayer says "But I really thought a tiny white spot wouldn't count. I mean, I had no way of knowing the intricacies of the law!" The IRS attorney then says, "Hmmm - that's an interesting argument. But tell me, did you ask a tax professional about this? What did he say?" Taxpayer objects that to answer the question would reveal the contents of a confidential attorney-client communication between himself and his attorney.
In such circumstances, the judge should overule the objection and direct Taxpayer to answer because Taxpayer has waived the attorney-client privilege by putting his state of mind in issue. If Taxpayer wants to claim that he had no idea his position was frivolous, then fine. But he has to "open the kimono" and reveal all discussions with anyone on the topic to allow a full exploration of that assertion; othewise, he needs to stop saying "But I thought it was ok!"
Can of black spray paint. Problem solved!
Is the black cow on grass stamps? After a few generations there are fewer whitey cows, then lawyers need a new cash cow. Cowabunga!
If that's how the law's to work then we're all better off not following it. No one else is, just the suckerz.
And for that matter "I had no idea" sits right at the edge of perjury and refusing to prove it, by respecting attorney client privilege, goes back to the normal IRS & court operations:
ignorance of the law is no excuse.
If Foodstamp the Great had any balls, I would say to hang that fucker from them. Instead, that weasel's spineless neck will have to do instead.
"When a person puts into issue his subjective intent in deciding how to comply with the law, he may forfeit the privilege afforded attorney-client communications."
It says,"MAY".
I would expect so if the attorney is a co-conspirator.
An angry avalanche of noncompliance from firearm laws to ObamaCare mandates would shake this rotten edifice to its core. And I think we are close. In fact it is happening as I type. A mind crosses over to the side of Liberty in the United States about every minute I would guess. The atmosphere is becoming revolutionary, and no amount of repression will dampen it. It will only increase it. We are scaring them. Expect big things in the near future.
This article is extremely misleading. As an attorney, I can attest to the fact that when someone puts their state of mind into issue, a waiver of the privilege may be effected in some cases... Nothing new here and this article is just stirring the pot...
Fairly disappointed. Usually ZH is better than this tripe...
Agreed. This site has really hit the skids lately. Almost nobody in their right mind disputes that we all have to pay taxes, the question is how much does everyone pay and for what? This is just a sleazy move by a company that hired some very expensive lawyers to write several opinions on a shady tax shelter they set up thinking that would somehow protect them if they were caught. Is that really the sort of activity Zehodege is editorially aligned with? WTF? It's because of scumbags like this we all have to pay more in taxes and pay tax preparers to sort through the constantly revised IRS gibberish (opinions) brought out in response to law firms like this finding ways to bend the law for their wealthy clients. It's real simple what happened here. Scumbag partnership sets up shady tax shelter knowing it probably won't pass muster. Asks law firm to review it hoping for a miracle, they do, and find it is "highly unlikely" the tax shelter would be found lawful under current rules and regs. This is laid out in the several letters alluded to in the lawsuit. Partnership goes ahead anyway because they think they won't get caught, but they are caught, and the shelter IS illegal, so they claim they "didn't know better" but now won't show their attorney's opinion letters which probably show that they damn well knew better and went ahead in spite of attorney's advice. Now they're squirming, BUT WON'T SHOW court the docs that could let them off the hook ... oh yeah, they're fucking innocent. Completely. How stupid do you have to be to fall for this bullshit? The court isn't going to fall for it, obviously, and we should be happy they're actually sticking it to a genuine tax cheat for once instead of some schmuck who made a data entry error on turbotax.
I get your point...but it doesn't matter if it was illegal or not. No, we don't like shady tax shelters and understand that it probably does more harm to our pocketbooks than not. That's not the point. The point is attorney-client privelage is there for a reason, just as psychologist-client privelage and counselor-client privelage and any other professional-client privelage you can think of. It is a matter of trust. If that trust is broken it undermines the relationship and people will not dispell the truth to any of these professionals, which can only have negative consequences in the long run. It relates to fear of retribution. So you two attorneys can go fuck yourselves. Mkay? A defense attorney is supposed to get the perp off the hook, it's their job. Did you two really think, in your aspirations to become defense attorneys that everyone you defended would be innocent? Be honest now. No, you didn't. You became an attorney to make a good buck on the backs of idiots. Do your fucking job, pull some reasonable doubt out of your ass and shut up. Everyone knows that OJ was guilty too, but he got off because the glove didn't fit. Attorneys get paid for a reason. They become attorneys for a reason, and it isn't for the well-being of mankind, otherwise they'd be doctors.
Tax court or not, the issue is the undermining of trust. When there is no trust, well...you're fucked. And the tax court is fucked up if there is no trust, no rights.
For hells sake, can we have constitutional convention already. Wait.....
Dude, you still don't understand. Let me be more clear. The DEFENDANT claimed an affirmative defense (an affirmative defense is like claiming self defense to a murder charge. If you can prove self defense in a homicide then you win) based on their state of mind, i.e. that they were acting in good faith and made a mistake. BUT there is no way to PROVE state of mind, it has to be inferred from other evidence. With me so far? THE DEFENDANTS paid some very expensive attorneys a lot of $ to research and opine on the legality or not of the sleazy tax shelter the DEFENDANTS created. These opinions are found in six letters. After the Defendants were caught by the gubment they claimed that they did not rely on the letters their attorneys wrote regarding the legality of their sleazy tax shelter. FULL STOP.
So, you're the court now. A fair minded jurist. The defendant before you who has already been found to be in violation of the law. No doubt about that. The question is was it willful and intentional or an honest mistake. Still with me? YOU as a judge know that the defendant paid some very expensive and knowledgable tax attorneys to analyze their sleazy tax shelter BEFORE they set it up and the defendant is claiming that a) it was an honest mistake and b) the six expensive legal opinions the defendant paid for HAD NO BEARING on their decision to set up the tax shelter. C'mon? Really?
Do you believe the defendant? Do you believe that they just tossed those six, count'em six letters they paid a guy making $800 an hour to type up INTO THE TRASH UNREAD or discounted entirely? The point is that even if the Defendants thought that they were acting within the law when they created their sleazy tax shelter those six letter probably contain an altogether different, probably entirely OPPOSITE opinion and THAT GOES TO THEIR STATE OF MIND. Do you see? That is a defense THE DEFENDANTS ARE CLAIMING, not one the court is FORCING THEM TO PROVE. If those letter show (and they probably do) that the defendats were warned by professional tax attorney's they themselves paid to advise them that the sleazy tax shelter was illegal and they went ahead and did it anyway then they can hardly be said to have made an innocent mistake. More likely they decided to gamble and lost. And since state of mind has to be INFERRED and can never be proven directly those letters are the key piece of evidence that would make or break the Defendant's defense. But they refuse to disclose it.... so what do you INFER from that my friend?
Finally, the COURT DID NOT FORCE THEM TO DISCLOSE THOSE LETTERS! The court simply and fairly stated that if the defendant will not provide the letters from their attorney which would no doubt show whether or not they were warned beforehand that their tax shelt was fraudulent (and therefore goes to their state of mind) then they cannot claim they acted in good faith i.e. they cannot use THAT affirmative defense. They can use other defenses if they please and they can keep their letters secret until the end of time.
dupe
Thanks for explaining. I tried to read the linked opinion and got kinda lost in it.
And I'm the schmuck who FUCKS himself annually with turbotax.
Excuse me? In my right mind I see testimony under oath from an IRS director stating in no uncertain terms that taxes are VOLUNTARY.
http://youtu.be/XNICz9CZOgw
@blake721: You obviously didn't take your training wheels off yet.
what's the point of even having a trial? Or a constitution?
None and are just tools to pretend you live in a free society ... you do not.
If they had not brought these tools into existence chances are you would have ousted then long ago so was part of the bribie on which governments keep shouting them knowing fuill well they no longer exist.
Just a matter of time until enough people realise.
This is Seek_Truth's complete lack of surprise.
obama and holder belong in PRISON
these two flaunt the law and are agressively trying to circumvent the CONSTITUTION...
hopefully both will be impeached and share a cell.... with BUBBA
Sure.
Only thing is apply the ruling now for later:
All those forming part of the Obama adminstration will be ruled as guilty, guilty by association and by failure to disassociate themselves when carrying out wrongly assigned duties and by failure to blow the whistle when it happened.
Christ revealed that in the judgment different generations would meet up. The inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah would say to the generation of Christ's day, if the works done in you had been done in us we would have repented in dust and ashes. I've often thought what it will be like when the Founding Fathers stand face to face with the leaders of our generation. I can just hear them, "We gave you an excellent blue print, building a new civilization upon the broad foundation of civil and religious freedom - the colonies quickly ascended to a place among the most powerful nations of the earth and became the most happy and properous country in the history of the world, but you came along thinking you were wiser and had better ideas than we did - in your arrogance and pride you threw it all away! Fools!"
yeah, right, and they'd be wondering where all the slaves went, too.
"In other words, if a person works with legal counsel within the confines of the tax code to legitimately minimize the amount of taxes owed, that communication is no longer protected by attorney-client privilege." No. Wrong. Read the opinion. And it's not a new result.