22-07-2018, 12:09 AM
James Lateer Wrote:I don't know why the next of kin aren't entitled to access to the papers? Wouldn't the next of kin have more standing than the Bar Association? I've never heard of a Bar Association suing to prevent release of personal papers. Usually, if an attorney dies, his files are transferred to another attorney who buys out his practice. Or if he is in a firm, then the firm retains these files. That's why this type of thing (privileged papers) never comes up.
In the recent case of Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney (who was apparently a lot like Bloomfield, i.e. a fixer) when his papers were reviewed by the court, only a handful were considered privileged. And this was out of thousands or maybe millions.
If Bloomfield were really a practicing attorney, then any relevant files that relate to his legal work would have to be transfered to another lawyer or firm because they might be needed by a client in the future. For instance, if he had prepared Wills, and then when Bloomfield died, the heirs would be looking for the will in the files. This would also apply to land titles which can have questions going back years. Or paternity suits.
I would assume that if Bloomfield were practicing or part of a firm, then any attorney-client papers would have been thus transfered. Therefore, by default, any other papers not transfered to another lawyer would not be related to serving a client.
In my experience, legal practices are handled in an orderly way as described above. What about the surviving family (I think he was gay so he probably didn't leave any children)?
All of this seems to amount to a 100% proof that Bloomfield was involved either in the assassination or he was working for UK intelligence during WWII or after and these papers must contain information still considered sensitive. But why didn't UK intelligence confiscate any files related to them? So if UK intel didn't confiscate the papers, then he must have been doing something rogue.
Bloomfield represented Heinekins Brewing. The longtime CEO of Heinekins was Dirk Stikker who was NATO secretary-general in November, 1963. Stikker was also a very close personal friend of "Dr." Konrad Adenauer. And also General Lauris Norstad.
Maybe somebody knows of other intelligence people who have died and left papers. On further thought, if Bloomfield had been working for UK intelligence, then UK intelligence would have swooped in and seized the papers when he died. This happened to the papers of Mary Meyer, i.e. Angleton came and took them.
So it looks like Bloomfield went rogue and was working outside his role in the UK or the government of Canada. Back in the day, (WWII era) Canada had no intelligence agency but relied on the RCMP, at least during World War II. (I doubt if the RCMP had any organized system of swooping in on the files of a dead intel asset). Like the JFK papers still hidden by Trump and the National Archives, this is all a ripoff of the public and the public interest.
And this raises the question of whether the attorneys representing the Bar Association have seen what's in the papers? I don't see how they could prepare the case if they didn't know what they were protecting? Somebody up in Canada must know the precise answer. The "establishment" obviously has really tight lips and will go to extremes to cover the backs of each other, even after death.
Even the archives of the Soviet Union have been opened. And the Vatican archives relevant to Pope Pius XI. So what does that say about the US and Canada?
James Lateer
You make a good point about Bloomfield transferring his real legal papers to the firm that took over his clients, these papers he could not donate to the archives. What he did is, he donated his non-legal correspondence to the archives. He was also an eminent lawyer and I really doubt that he would have betrayed his client's trust by donating documents that he believed were subject to privilege to the archives.