#2

That's exactly what he's doing LOL

And will painstakingly shift the goal posts this time next week.

#10

The counter argument being the attorney-client privilege should be respected and upheld even in cases of potential future wrongdoing, as it serves to protect the confidential communication between attorney and client, which is essential for a fair and just legal system. This is supported by the American Bar Association's Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6, which states that a lawyer should not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent or the disclosure is permitted by the rule. Additionally, the crime-fraud exception should not be applied too broadly, as it could lead to an erosion of the attorney-client privilege and the rights of the accused. This is supported by the Supreme Court of the United States' decision in Upjohn Co. v. United States, which stated that the attorney-client privilege should be "liberally construed to protect the rights of the accused." (Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981)).

#11 was aimed at ET_AL, hoping he comes back.

Well, I reckon this "woke" business is mighty peculiar, ain't it? There's them folks who go around claiming to be woke, but then they turn around and support them shady corporations, spoutin' off language that'd make a sailor blush, and ignorin' the struggles of those who need help the most. They cherry-pick their causes like it's a dang buffet, leavin' the rest to wither and die.

But true wokeness, now that's somethin' else entirely. It ain't enough to just be aware of the problems that plague our world, you gotta put your money where your mouth is, so to speak. You gotta show some heart and responsibility, or else you might as well be snoozin' with your eyes open.

Let's not just talk the talk of the "woke", let's walk the walk, too. Let's make sure our actions match our words, and let's make a real difference in this ol' world of ours. 'Cause the only way we can truly claim to be woke is if we're out there makin' a real difference, and doin' our part to bring about some real change.

Hold up, hold up, hold up. You expect me to just take your word for it when it comes to this "woke" business? I don't think so, buddy.

See, that's the problem with folks these days. They're so quick to claim they're woke, but they can't back it up with any real action or evidence. They're like a bunch of parrots squawkin' the same old tired buzzwords, but when you ask 'em to prove it, they got nothin' but hot air.

So forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical of your claims, my friend. You gotta show me the receipts, so to speak. You gotta prove to me that you're actually woke, and not just spoutin' off some nonsense to make yourself look good.

Until then, I'm gonna reserve judgment, and keep on callin' it like I see it. 'Cause when it comes down to it, actions speak louder than words, and until you show me some real action, I ain't buyin' what you're sellin'.

The term "woke" has become nothing but a buzzword, a hollow vessel for people to fill with their own ego-driven fantasies of being socially aware. It's like they're all walking around in some sort of self-congratulatory haze, patting themselves on the back for being "woke" without ever actually doing anything of substance.

But hey, who am I to judge? Maybe that's just the world we live in now. A world where words are meaningless and actions are just a thing of the past. A world where everyone is "woke", but no one is actually awake.

So go ahead, keep on spoutin' off about how woke you are. But remember, at the end of the day, it's not about what you say, it's about what you do. And until you start taking real action to make a difference, your woke talk is just a bunch of empty words in a world that's already drowning in them.

"We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold." -- Hunter S. Thompson

And maybe, just maybe, that's where we are now. Somewhere on the edge of a desert, lost in a haze of meaningless words and empty promises, waiting for the drugs to wear off and for us to finally wake up to the reality of the world we live in.

#17 | POSTED BY ET_AL

Yes, there should be broad limitations to invading the attorney-client privilege. The American Bar Association's Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6 states that a lawyer should not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent or the disclosure is permitted by the rule. The Supreme Court of the United States' decision in Upjohn Co. v. United States also supports this, as it stated that the attorney-client privilege should be "liberally construed to protect the rights of the accused." (Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981)). In the case of Zolin, the Court rejected "independent evidence" evaluation of the exception and opted for an in camera review of the direct communications to evaluate whether the communications are potentially criminal. However, it remains to be seen whether this ruling will stand on the inevitable appeal.

Hoping to avoid redundancy, but the attorney-client privilege is an important part of the U.S. legal system, as it allows for open communication between attorneys and their clients. This is essential for the proper functioning of our adversary system of justice, as it ensures that clients can speak freely and openly with their attorneys without fear of their confidential information being revealed. However, it is also important to ensure that the privilege is not abused and that it is not used to facilitate criminal activity. The Supreme Court of the United States' decision in Upjohn Co. v. United States acknowledged this, as it stated that the attorney-client privilege should be "liberally construed to protect the rights of the accused" while also recognizing that "the desired advice refers not to prior wrongdoing, but to future wrongdoing" (Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981)). In the case of Zolin, the Court rejected "independent evidence" evaluation of the exception and opted for an in camera review of the direct communications to evaluate whether the communications are potentially criminal. This ruling is important, as it sets a precedent for the proper application of the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege and ensures that the privilege is not abused.

The attorney-client privilege is an important part of the U.S. legal system, as it allows for open communication between attorneys and their clients. This is essential for the proper functioning of our adversary system of justice, as it ensures that clients can speak freely and openly with their attorneys without fear of their confidential information being revealed. However, it is also important to ensure that the privilege is not abused and that it is not used to facilitate criminal activity. To this end, the Supreme Court of the United States' decision in Upjohn Co. v. United States acknowledged this, as it stated that the attorney-client privilege should be "liberally construed to protect the rights of the accused" while also recognizing that "the desired advice refers not to prior wrongdoing, but to future wrongdoing" (Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981)). In the case of Zolin, the Court rejected "independent evidence" evaluation of the exception and opted for an in camera review of the direct communications to evaluate whether the communications are potentially criminal. This ruling is important, as it sets a precedent for the proper application of the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege and ensures that the privilege is not abused. Additionally, it is important to consider the implications of the crime-fraud exception, as it could lead to an erosion of the attorney-client privilege and the rights of the accused if it is applied too broadly.

Whoops!

Sure your "woke" rants don't belong on another thread?
#18 | POSTED BY ET_AL

Come join the fun!