 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
05-15-2009, 06:32 PM
|
||||
|
||||
an analogy
I write something to my lawyer, in confidence. The lawyer breaches the privilege and forwards it to a third party. The third party, knowing the original communication was intended to remain confidential, nevertheless publishes it without my permission. I have no right to be POd at the third party, as well as my lawyer?
|
|
#2
05-15-2009, 06:38 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Double Post
Last edited by Abravefan11; 05-15-2009 at 06:41 PM.
|
|
#3
05-15-2009, 06:39 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I'm certainly not trying to argue with a lawyer, but....
 I feel that the rule about posting private emails is much like laws we have on our books protecting citizens privacy. In 99% of cases the law (or rule in this case) is for the protection of the good people. 1% of the time the law protects the bad people. But for the betterment of the majority we can't pick and choose when we use the rule.
|
|
#4
05-15-2009, 06:49 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Except that it Kevin's email was not a privileged communication between an attorney and a client and thus does not deserve the protection you describe.
A better analogy would be the issue of the disclosure of psychiatric records of a victim/witness in a criminal case. They are obviously protected from disclosure to a defense lawyer -- unless the records bear on the witness's state of mind or credibility -- and then they are fair game, the point being that the defendant's right to cross-examine trumps any privacy rights of the witness. Similarly, as Leon argued here and most would agree, the revelation of Kevin's stated claim of defrauding Net 54 members by releasing altered cards into the hobby trumps any pseudo-privacy right he might have.
__________________
http://www.flickr.com/photos/calvindog/sets
|
|
#5
05-15-2009, 07:00 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I prefer a set of rules to a set of rules that can be broken when someone decides it is appropriate to break them.
Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 05-15-2009 at 07:03 PM. Reason: grammar
|
|
#6
05-15-2009, 07:04 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Like the rules of evidence and all the hearsay exceptions? Or the Federal Sentencing Guidelines? Or any zillions of laws which contain loopholes for public policy reasons, i.e. for the greater good of the community?
__________________
http://www.flickr.com/photos/calvindog/sets
|
|
#7
05-15-2009, 07:06 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
In those cases the rule itself sets forth the loophole. Not so here.
|
|
#8
05-15-2009, 07:09 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
We could have a new forum rule. No posting private emails except when it is for the greater good. That would work.
|
|
#9
05-15-2009, 07:13 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Well, but this is a vintage baseball card chatboard in which the community at large sets the rules. And consideirng we're all in agreement that fraud in our hobby is bad and exposing it is good, the consenus was that it was important that the email be released and Kevin exposed.
Also, this forum is not actually a democracy; Leon runs it and runs it according to how he sees fit. Edited to add: Perfect, Peter. Now let's apply that rule retroactively.
__________________
http://www.flickr.com/photos/calvindog/sets Last edited by calvindog; 05-15-2009 at 07:14 PM.
|
|
#10
05-15-2009, 07:14 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I started by saying I expected I would be in the minority on this, but I doubt I am the only one and that it is otherwise a consensus.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
