23-11-2018, 07:44 PM
Mr. Kowalski--I would think at a minimum that the archives should have to list the items that they think are subject to lawyer-client privilege, and write at least one sentence as to the grounds they cite for that particular item to be suppressed.
Another really strong possibility is that you could subpoena any internal records and communications between people inside the archives which discuss the records. Maybe those internal communications could be examined by the judge privately in his chambers, without giving away anything privileged.
Finally, has the archives actually been more specific in the pleadings in stating their reasons for suppression other than merely stating a conclusion "i.e. these are lawyer-client papers."
I would move the Court to demand a statement in court that the items actually involve a client who had a lawyer-client relationship. If a letter mentioned the United Nations, for instance, was the United Nations a "client" of Bloomfield? What about personal letters to his family or friends?
It is my understanding that the mere disclosure that an attorney represented a particular client is not subject to the privilege. Only communications. I think this is a matter law. The mere fact of representation is not privileged. If that could be established by case law, then the judge could at least require the Archives to list the clients who triggered the suppression and represent that the communications involved actually involved one of those clients.
Then you could argue the legal issue as to how you define "client" in a case like that of Blooomfield. (Is a spy agency a "client"?).
Sometimes you can hire a lawyer just to show up and argue AT ONE HEARING ONLY and thus limit the cost of his services to just that hour or so at the hearing. That is done with traffic tickets, for instance. The fees for those (in my locale) are maybe $150 from what I have seen advertised.
A further thought is to ask the Judge to issue a "preservation of evidence" order so that the Archives can't just destroy these items. They could then be available for future research if the laws change or if other people have need of the items for other purposes such as using them in a criminal case or a lawsuit.
If these are really "lawyer-client" papers, then legally they have to be preserved indefinitely for possible future use by the client. If you argue they are client papers, then ipso facto you have to preserve them and not destroy them because the belong (for some purposes) to the client.
James Lateer
Another really strong possibility is that you could subpoena any internal records and communications between people inside the archives which discuss the records. Maybe those internal communications could be examined by the judge privately in his chambers, without giving away anything privileged.
Finally, has the archives actually been more specific in the pleadings in stating their reasons for suppression other than merely stating a conclusion "i.e. these are lawyer-client papers."
I would move the Court to demand a statement in court that the items actually involve a client who had a lawyer-client relationship. If a letter mentioned the United Nations, for instance, was the United Nations a "client" of Bloomfield? What about personal letters to his family or friends?
It is my understanding that the mere disclosure that an attorney represented a particular client is not subject to the privilege. Only communications. I think this is a matter law. The mere fact of representation is not privileged. If that could be established by case law, then the judge could at least require the Archives to list the clients who triggered the suppression and represent that the communications involved actually involved one of those clients.
Then you could argue the legal issue as to how you define "client" in a case like that of Blooomfield. (Is a spy agency a "client"?).
Sometimes you can hire a lawyer just to show up and argue AT ONE HEARING ONLY and thus limit the cost of his services to just that hour or so at the hearing. That is done with traffic tickets, for instance. The fees for those (in my locale) are maybe $150 from what I have seen advertised.
A further thought is to ask the Judge to issue a "preservation of evidence" order so that the Archives can't just destroy these items. They could then be available for future research if the laws change or if other people have need of the items for other purposes such as using them in a criminal case or a lawsuit.
If these are really "lawyer-client" papers, then legally they have to be preserved indefinitely for possible future use by the client. If you argue they are client papers, then ipso facto you have to preserve them and not destroy them because the belong (for some purposes) to the client.
James Lateer