The Next Shoe Just Dropped: Court Denies Attorney-Client Privelege

LOL. (Funny for now...)

Obamacare got rid of doctor patient and HIPPA. What’s so special about attorney client.

Is this your blog? Why the excerpt? Are you blog pimping here?

” The concept of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ may officially exist in courts”

PRESUMED innocent.....You are either innocent or guilty regardless of what the courts say

It’s a fine line. If a client tells his/her lawyer of intent to commit a crime in the future it is not protected. So for example, if a person comes into my office, establishes an attorney/client relationship and then tells me he is going to go rob a liquor store or rape my secretary, I am obligated to report his statement. So I don’t know the facts here but I assume that if I were a tax lawyer and a client told me that he was going to hide assets to avoid paying taxes, I guess that communication would not be privileged.

The mere fact that every taxpayer has to submit a tax form SIGNED UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY negates our 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.

A century ago, the bastard early progressive activists may have passed the outrageous 16th Amendment allowing the feds to tax our income one hundred years ago.

But that abomination did NOT repeal the 5th Amendment.

The IRS has been violating our Constitutional rights pretty much since its inception.

No, no!' said the Queen. 'Sentence first - verdict afterwards.'

'Stuff and nonsense!' said Alice loudly. 'The idea of having the sentence first!'

'Hold your tongue!' said the Queen, turning purple.

'I won't!' said Alice.

'Off with her head!' the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.

1. Sentence the perp

That is in effect what is already happening with all of the publicity and subjective comment many crimes get in the media before there's a trial.

"This ruling only applies to people who elect to be treated as corporations, and thereby trade their rights for privileges."

Now THAT is interesting!

Do you have any further reading on the topic, or links?

You might expect this in the Tax Court system which has torn up the Constitution on individual rights for years.

Now THAT is interesting! Do you have any further reading on the topic, or links?

But of course...

One Stone, Two Powers: How Chief Justice Roberts Saved America

Wow. Thanks.

I had seen that at the time, but stopped reading when the explanation became tortured enough so as to seem contrived.

So I missed the two govt part.

Have you run across any other articles on this subject unrelated to Obamacare?

Wow. Thanks. I had seen that at the time, but stopped reading when the explanation became tortured enough so as to seem contrived. So I missed the two govt part. Have you run across any other articles on this subject unrelated to Obamacare?

The explanation became tortured because it traces the tortured government contrivance of the laws, and their wrongful imposition of people they don't apply to. Think about it - if you want to convict someone of laws that don't apply, and you have to publish those laws, then you have to present them in such a way that they cannot be easily found, and that seem to say something other than what they mean when they are read.

So when someone explains the reality of the law, explains what it really means, they have to follow the twists and turns of the misrepresentations, and show the actual meanings one step at a time. There is no other way - and that's what legal construction is all about.

And after all, isn't that exactly what has happened? We have an entire country of 300 million people being subject to laws that don't apply to them, and they can't understand that simple fact even when they read the law. We have people going to school for three years just to learn how to read the law, and then being sworn to silence, and making their livings by making sure their clients do not understand the law. So why should it be surprising that an explanation of this tortuous process of disinformation, created over decades, that fools hundreds of millions of people, shouldn't take a little bit of effort to understand when it is traced out?

I'm not criticizing, I'm explaining. And I commend you for sticking with it. And I understand why you would suspect it as being contrived. Because the most insidious thing about hiding the truth in the way it is hiden in the law, is that when a normal person discovers it, it seems so insane that the actual meaning is hidden in such a tortuous fashion, that it must not be true.

But it is.

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

Thanks. I get it. ;-)

But I am wondering about the concept of presuming an individual is a corporation in order to apply a different set of laws. I haven't seen the concept anywhere else, and my web searches only turn up the opposite - the idea of corporations claiming to have the rights of individuals.

Have you seen the idea anywhere but in the context of Obamacare? (Thanks for sharing your knowledge. BTW, I'm sipping your account name this moment, no ice, one drop of water.)

I am wondering about the concept of presuming an individual is a corporation in order to apply a different set of laws. I haven't seen the concept anywhere else, and my web searches only turn up the opposite - the idea of corporations claiming to have the rights of individuals. Have you seen the idea anywhere but in the context of Obamacare?

In a sense it is everywhere and nowhere, depending on your ability to recognize what is in front of your eyes. And of course, much of the law is designed by very intelligent people, working together for decades, to present information in such a way as to block your ability to recognize what is in front of your eyes. So don't feel bad about any of this - it dodn't drop out of the sky as an intelligence test. It was created specifically so that everyone but the "elect" would misunderstand it.

Take your example, what you call "the opposite" - "the idea of corporations claiming to have the rights of individuals." Corporate law. also called administrative or statory or regulatory or admiralty law, is "positive" law. That means it only has power over what it says it has power over. That seems obvious, but it is contrasted with "negative" law, the law of rights, where rights control everything - said or unsaid - except the little bit that is allowed the government. That is the form of the original American Constitution. Positive law entered this country through the 14th Amendment, which made statements that conradicted the original Constitution. Under legal construction rules, therefore, the 14th Amendment would have had to have been thrown out for being contradictory - unless an alternative aplication was found for it. Well, one was "found" for it (which was always it's intent) - that of corporate law. Which is positive law, which operates like mathematics.

So what does your "example" show mathematically, in positive law? "Corporations claiming to have the rights of individuals" is a declaration of equivalence. Except corporations cannot have the same rights as people, because people have their rights from God, and corporations are empowered by the State. That's why you have to use the word "individual," to indicate a human being acting in a corporate capacity. Once that is made clear, other "terms of art" are made clear - such as using the word "rights." In a corporate capacity, when the only thing being discussed is corporate entities, the word "rights" is allowed as a stand-in for the actual functional concept of limited privileges.

So actually, your example isn't really an example - it's merely a self-defining statement that corporations of any kind have the same limited privileges accorded to human beings acting in a corporate capacity. And you are correct in phrasing it the way you did - because that's exactly what the SCOTUS did.

So you see, the examples are everywhere - and they are very strictly adhered to. The trick, and the problem, and the field of study, is finding out what the terms and rules of construction are. And the problem is that the Court has allowed these corporate terms and constructions to be "presumed" against non-corporate human beings. So when people protects and say, "why should I have to learn all of this corporate crap that doesn't apply to me," the answer is, "because it's being presumed against you, and word games are being played by the courts to get you to accept the presumption without you understanding what you are agreeing to." And to those who say, "you can't force someone to agree to a contract without them understanding it," I say, "you can't take away the freedom to contract, you can't take away the freedom to vote in restrictions on presumption levels, and you can't take away your right to agree or disagree to what is presented to you, without losing your freedoms altogether."

In other words, as Franklin famously said, "a Republic, madam, if you can keep it." Americans MUST learn the way the law actually works, in order to defend themselves against its misuse. And really, it's not all that hard (insert lawyer joke here). But you have to want to learn it. Not like it - want it. The difference is the difference between liking boating, and learning how to pilot a boat away from the rocks. Some thing things simply must be done as a duty if we want to remain free, and they aren't fun.

I’ve read this several times, and will probably read it a few more times before I’m done. ;-)

Let me play this back.

First, for clarity, let’s use the words “subtractive and additive” instead of “positive and negative.”

Then, one could add or subtract either privileges or restrictions. Thus we have a 2d matrix:

Additive/Subtractive on one axis.

Privileges/Restrictions on the other axis.

The US Constitution falls in the quadrant subtractive/privilege because we start with complete individual freedom (total privilege) and explicitly remove privileges that are given to the government. (I suppose we could also say the US constitution falls in the additive/restriction quadrant because it starts with no individual restrictions and adds restrictions that are turned over to the government, but that seems counter-intuitive.)

If I understand you correctly, corporate law falls in the quadrant additive/privilege because you start with zero privileges and explicitly add privileges.

That makes the “confusion” of the two systems very interesting and important, because a statement (defined a privilege or restriction) has very different meanings based on the context.

Finally, you say the complexity is intentional obfuscation? I believe it, but what is the basis for this thought? Or is that hopelessly naïve question?

Much obliged for the fun!

First, for clarity, let’s use the words “subtractive and additive” instead of “positive and negative.” Then, one could add or subtract either privileges or restrictions. Thus we have a 2d matrix: Additive/Subtractive on one axis. Privileges/Restrictions on the other axis.
The US Constitution falls in the quadrant subtractive/privilege because we start with complete individual freedom (total privilege) and explicitly remove privileges that are given to the government. (I suppose we could also say the US constitution falls in the additive/restriction quadrant because it starts with no individual restrictions and adds restrictions that are turned over to the government, but that seems counter-intuitive.)
If I understand you correctly, corporate law falls in the quadrant additive/privilege because you start with zero privileges and explicitly add privileges.

That makes the “confusion” of the two systems very interesting and important, because a statement (defined a privilege or restriction) has very different meanings based on the context.

YEP.

Finally, you say the complexity is intentional obfuscation? I believe it, but what is the basis for this thought? Or is that hopelessly naïve question?

Given that you just clearly demonstrated your understanding of the issue, I wouldn't call it a naïve question.

I would call it a rationally fearful question.

And I share it.

Because we both know the answer to it.