Close
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20
  1. #11
    Varmiteer
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Eastern Wyoming
    Posts
    574

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Milt View Post
    If you are supposed to be doing the people's business, there should be total transparency while so engaged. Only in your private affairs should you have an expectation of privacy. So, yes, I am, "arguing that attorney-client privilege should be secure everywhere for everyone, except for those in public office, or in government." No one forces people into public office; the opposite seems to be the case - they seek it eagerly. Perhaps a bit more transparency would discourage those with anti-Liberty agendas.

    The people should have access to all the gory details of the process by which they are governed; anything less is tyranny.
    he wants to know, because he is a cop. between lawyers and unions, they arent like us.

  2. #12
    Paper Hunter
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Ft. Collins
    Posts
    165

    Default

    I have long suspected that those who desire coercive power over others, as opposed to those who are content to rely upon free value-for-value exchange and/or non-coercive persuasion to get what they want, have some sort of mental illness. In this category I include the great majority of politicians, bureaucrats and, unfortunately, policemen. The American ideal of the 'Peace Officer' has been largely discarded in favor of authoritarian 'law enforcement', to the detriment of Liberty.

    I am not 'cop bashing' here, I am merely pointing out that those who are certified by the state as 'Peace Officers' should act as such instead of as petty tyrants. Our cops and sheriffs' deputies should be the first line of ordered Liberty's defense, not its enemies.

  3. #13
    Grand Master Know It All OneGuy67's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    2,508

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HBARleatherneck View Post
    he wants to know, because he is a cop. between lawyers and unions, they arent like us.
    At least in your eyes, apparently. Not a union guy; don't really like them. I am part of the FOP, primarily for the litigation coverage, not for anything else.

    Any communication between an attorney and another can be considered privileged; if I go speak to the local DA about a case I'm working on, that communication stays between him/her and I and is not for the public knowledge. While the case may go forward for prosecution and at which time, the reports are released for public consumption, the fact I had a private conversation with the DA isn't necessarily part of the case file.
    “Every good citizen makes his country's honor his own, and cherishes it not only as precious but as sacred. He is willing to risk his life in its defense and is conscious that he gains protection while he gives it.” Andrew Jackson

    A veteran is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to 'The United States of America ' for an amount of 'up to and including my life.'

    That is Honor, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it.

  4. #14
    Varmiteer hammer03's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    512

    Default

    Are the attorneys (in the case of the bill drafting) working for that politician or for the people?

    Who is paying their bill?

    Then who is the "client" in the situation, that is extended the confidentiality?

  5. #15
    Guest
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Cheyenne, WY
    Posts
    2,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Milt View Post
    I have long suspected that those who desire coercive power over others, as opposed to those who are content to rely upon free value-for-value exchange and/or non-coercive persuasion to get what they want, have some sort of mental illness. In this category I include the great majority of politicians, bureaucrats and, unfortunately, policemen. The American ideal of the 'Peace Officer' has been largely discarded in favor of authoritarian 'law enforcement', to the detriment of Liberty.

    I am not 'cop bashing' here, I am merely pointing out that those who are certified by the state as 'Peace Officers' should act as such instead of as petty tyrants. Our cops and sheriffs' deputies should be the first line of ordered Liberty's defense, not its enemies.

    Yup. +1

  6. #16
    Paper Hunter Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    COLORADO SPRINGS, CO/ Idaho
    Posts
    109

    Default

    Most law Enforcement are good people doing an hard job. Most people never bother or get the opportunity to get to know them. Libs like to claim law enforcement love gun control. Its a sham. Agency heads that are appointed get their jobs threatened by mayors to support gun control excetera while the rank and file don't support gun control.

    Quote Originally Posted by Milt View Post
    I have long suspected that those who desire coercive power over others, as opposed to those who are content to rely upon free value-for-value exchange and/or non-coercive persuasion to get what they want, have some sort of mental illness. In this category I include the great majority of politicians, bureaucrats and, unfortunately, policemen. The American ideal of the 'Peace Officer' has been largely discarded in favor of authoritarian 'law enforcement', to the detriment of Liberty.

    I am not 'cop bashing' here, I am merely pointing out that those who are certified by the state as 'Peace Officers' should act as such instead of as petty tyrants. Our cops and sheriffs' deputies should be the first line of ordered Liberty's defense, not its enemies.

  7. #17
    Machine Gunner Kraven251's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Parker
    Posts
    1,732

    Default

    I think the point being made, is how is there client-attorney privilege when the proposed law should be public domain. It feels like they are trying to limit access to the content so that they can drop a 200 page document on the table that no one will read and yet vote on, without a dissection of the potential legislation by the constituents.
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

    Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem. --TJ

  8. #18
    Guest
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Westminster, CO
    Posts
    2,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraven251 View Post
    I think the point being made, is how is there client-attorney privilege when the proposed law should be public domain. It feels like they are trying to limit access to the content so that they can drop a 200 page document on the table that no one will read and yet vote on, without a dissection of the potential legislation by the constituents.
    Gotta pass it to see what is in it?

  9. #19
    Sig Fantastic Ronin13's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Arvada, CO
    Posts
    10,268

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraven251 View Post
    I think the point being made, is how is there client-attorney privilege when the proposed law should be public domain. It feels like they are trying to limit access to the content so that they can drop a 200 page document on the table that no one will read and yet vote on, without a dissection of the potential legislation by the constituents.
    That's where it needs to change... I read somewhere that the 250 page bill that "averted the fiscal cliff" was dropped with 3 min to go on the clock... No way in hell anyone could read 250 pages in 3 min, thus we got screwed. We need to have a law, or rule, or whatever (not sure how to enforce this) to where a proposed bill has to be released to the public after approval to be seen, and must have ample time for review by legislators and their staff prior to going up for vote.
    "There is no news in the truth, and no truth in the news."
    "The revolution will not be televised... Instead it will be filmed from multiple angles via cell phone cameras, promptly uploaded to YouTube, Tweeted about, and then shared on Facebook, pending a Wi-Fi connection."

  10. #20
    Grand Master Know It All OneGuy67's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    2,508

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraven251 View Post
    I think the point being made, is how is there client-attorney privilege when the proposed law should be public domain. It feels like they are trying to limit access to the content so that they can drop a 200 page document on the table that no one will read and yet vote on, without a dissection of the potential legislation by the constituents.
    It doesn't work that way in state politics. I would explain it in detail, but it would be easier for anyone interested in knowing more to do their own research, starting at the state website and reviewing last years legislative process and follow a bill through its evolution.
    “Every good citizen makes his country's honor his own, and cherishes it not only as precious but as sacred. He is willing to risk his life in its defense and is conscious that he gains protection while he gives it.” Andrew Jackson

    A veteran is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to 'The United States of America ' for an amount of 'up to and including my life.'

    That is Honor, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •