Library and Archives Canada Lawsuit

[John Kowalski]

In an earlier post, I mentioned that I have brought a lawsuit against Library and Archives Canada because they denied access to me to certain files in the Louis M. Bloomfield collection. I'm not the first person to do so, Maurice Phillips sued them in 2006 and again in 2008. At the end of the 2008 case, the court ruled that the archives could impose a restriction on some files in the collection, and what they did was to impose a 50 year restriction on those files that they believed to be subject to solicitor-client privilege. When I began my research of the Bloomfield collection years ago, I would check an online document on the archives website that would indicate which files were now 50 years old. I would then order those files and review them. In 2018 the archives informed me that those files that had the 50 year restriction i.e. those files that they deemed to be subject to solicitor-client privilege could no longer be viewed by the public. Because of this action by the archives, I brought a lawsuit against them in the Federal Court of Canada. Since bringing my court action, a new problem has arose. La Barreau du Quebec aka The Law Society of Quebec, which is one of the of the largest law societies in Canada, has intervened in my case at the request of the archives. They are intervening in my case because they want to defend solicitor-client privilege, which protects communications between a lawyer and his client from being divulged. I have informed them that the files Bloomfield donated to the archives are not protected by solicitor-client privilege because the files he donated are not related to his legal work with clients, but they still have not withdrawn their intervention. A local media outlet has written a story about my lawsuit. The story also has a comment from Harry Bloomfield, who is Louis M. Bloomfield's nephew.

[URL="https://www.blacklocks.ca/lawyers-in-jfk-archive-case/"]
Tuesday, July 10, 2018[/URL]


[URL="https://www.blacklocks.ca/lawyers-in-jfk-archive-case/"]

Lawyers In JFK Archive Case[/URL]

One of Canada's largest law societies is intervening in a court case over archival records linked by conspiracy theorists to the 1963 Kennedy assassination. The Québec bar association said the challenge raises important questions affecting all solicitors and clients. "We are intervening on the principle of solicitor-client confidentiality," said Jean-Francois Del Torchio, director of communications for the Barreau du Québec. "That confidentiality doesn't belong to the lawyer; it always belongs to the client. We have the mandate from our board of directors to protect solicitor-client confidentiality." Library & Archives Canada in 1979 accepted a donation of 31 boxes of personal records from Louis Bloomfield, a Montréal attorney. Bloomfield from 1967 was named in unsubstantiated press reports as an agent for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency with knowledge of the JFK assassination. Bloomfield had asked that his records be released 20 years after his death; he died in 1984. However, archivists last February 21 told researchers the files would remain sealed forever since they contained confidential information. "On the advice of Department of Justice lawyers, Library & Archives Canada has closed in perpetuity records subject to client-solicitor privilege," said the agency. John Kowalski, an Ottawa researcher, is suing for release of the Bloomfield papers in Federal Court. In an interview, Kowalski disputed claims the papers must be kept confidential in perpetuity. "To be protected by privilege, you have to be giving legal advice to a client," said Kowalski. "The lawyer must be acting in their capacity as a lawyer. I've examined so many of these letters, and none of them involve legal advice not one iota. These are general letters to many different people about business matters." Researchers in 2006 won a Federal Court ruling Philipps v. Librarian & Archivist of Canada that there was no justification to withhold the files. Justice Simon Noël noted Bloomfield received tax credits for his donation under the Cultural Property Export And Import Act. "Once the term of 20 years is complete, the power of controlling access ends," wrote the Court. Harry Bloomfield of Montréal, nephew of the archives donor, said in an interview his family remains baffled by claims their uncle had any connection to the CIA or Kennedy shooting. "He tried to fathom why this was happening," said Bloomfield. "I see no reason why his files shouldn't be completely open," said Bloomfield. "I would like to get this whole conspiracy business cleared up, from the point of view of my late uncle. To say he would be involved in something like the Kennedy assassination is just grotesque, and if he were alive today I'm sure he would sue for defamation." Bloomfield described his uncle as an esteemed lawyer and WWII veteran who left his papers with the national archives because "he thought his career might be interesting" for researchers. By Jason Unrau

[Peter Lemkin]

In an earlier post, I mentioned that I have brought a lawsuit against Library and Archives Canada because they denied access to me to certain files in the Louis M. Bloomfield collection. I'm not the first person to do so, Maurice Phillips sued them in 2006 and again in 2008. At the end of the 2008 case, the court ruled that the archives could impose a restriction on some files in the collection, and what they did was to impose a 50 year restriction on those files that they believed to be subject to solicitor-client privilege. When I began my research of the Bloomfield collection years ago, I would check an online document on the archives website that would indicate which files were now 50 years old. I would then order those files and review them. In 2018 the archives informed me that those files that had the 50 year restriction i.e. those files that they deemed to be subject to solicitor-client privilege could no longer be viewed by the public. Because of this action by the archives, I brought a lawsuit against them in the Federal Court of Canada. Since bringing my court action, a new problem has arose. La Barreau du Quebec aka The Law Society of Quebec, which is one of the of the largest law societies in Canada, has intervened in my case at the request of the archives. They are intervening in my case because they want to defend solicitor-client privilege, which protects communications between a lawyer and his client from being divulged. I have informed them that the files Bloomfield donated to the archives are not protected by solicitor-client privilege because the files he donated are not related to his legal work with clients, but they still have not withdrawn their intervention. A local media outlet has written a story about my lawsuit. The story also has a comment from Harry Bloomfield, who is Louis M. Bloomfield's nephew.

[URL="https://www.blacklocks.ca/lawyers-in-jfk-archive-case/"]
Tuesday, July 10, 2018[/URL]


[URL="https://www.blacklocks.ca/lawyers-in-jfk-archive-case/"]

Lawyers In JFK Archive Case[/URL]

One of Canada's largest law societies is intervening in a court case over archival records linked by conspiracy theorists to the 1963 Kennedy assassination. The Québec bar association said the challenge raises important questions affecting all solicitors and clients. "We are intervening on the principle of solicitor-client confidentiality," said Jean-Francois Del Torchio, director of communications for the Barreau du Québec. "That confidentiality doesn't belong to the lawyer; it always belongs to the client. We have the mandate from our board of directors to protect solicitor-client confidentiality." Library & Archives Canada in 1979 accepted a donation of 31 boxes of personal records from Louis Bloomfield, a Montréal attorney. Bloomfield from 1967 was named in unsubstantiated press reports as an agent for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency with knowledge of the JFK assassination. Bloomfield had asked that his records be released 20 years after his death; he died in 1984. However, archivists last February 21 told researchers the files would remain sealed forever since they contained confidential information. "On the advice of Department of Justice lawyers, Library & Archives Canada has closed in perpetuity records subject to client-solicitor privilege," said the agency. John Kowalski, an Ottawa researcher, is suing for release of the Bloomfield papers in Federal Court. In an interview, Kowalski disputed claims the papers must be kept confidential in perpetuity. "To be protected by privilege, you have to be giving legal advice to a client," said Kowalski. "The lawyer must be acting in their capacity as a lawyer. I've examined so many of these letters, and none of them involve legal advice not one iota. These are general letters to many different people about business matters." Researchers in 2006 won a Federal Court ruling Philipps v. Librarian & Archivist of Canada that there was no justification to withhold the files. Justice Simon Noël noted Bloomfield received tax credits for his donation under the Cultural Property Export And Import Act. "Once the term of 20 years is complete, the power of controlling access ends," wrote the Court. Harry Bloomfield of Montréal, nephew of the archives donor, said in an interview his family remains baffled by claims their uncle had any connection to the CIA or Kennedy shooting. "He tried to fathom why this was happening," said Bloomfield. "I see no reason why his files shouldn't be completely open," said Bloomfield. "I would like to get this whole conspiracy business cleared up, from the point of view of my late uncle. To say he would be involved in something like the Kennedy assassination is just grotesque, and if he were alive today I'm sure he would sue for defamation." Bloomfield described his uncle as an esteemed lawyer and WWII veteran who left his papers with the national archives because "he thought his career might be interesting" for researchers. By Jason Unrau

Good going and sorry about the setbacks. Can you force them to appoint a special and INDEPENDENT master to look at the items in question to see if they are lawyer-client materials or spook-client materials/other? Can you get help from some progressive lawyers group there? Bloomfield was intelligence related [putting it mildly...] and while he was a lawyer, I'd doubt much of what you are interested in are the normal client-solicitor type of things...perhaps some few are. Most will be spook to operative and spook to control agent type things, IMHO....and this is the real reason they don't want anyone to see it....some big covert operations and assassinations have bits and pieces in there somewhere...... Good luck!

[James Lateer]

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

[John Kowalski]

In an earlier post, I mentioned that I have brought a lawsuit against Library and Archives Canada because they denied access to me to certain files in the Louis M. Bloomfield collection. I'm not the first person to do so, Maurice Phillips sued them in 2006 and again in 2008. At the end of the 2008 case, the court ruled that the archives could impose a restriction on some files in the collection, and what they did was to impose a 50 year restriction on those files that they believed to be subject to solicitor-client privilege. When I began my research of the Bloomfield collection years ago, I would check an online document on the archives website that would indicate which files were now 50 years old. I would then order those files and review them. In 2018 the archives informed me that those files that had the 50 year restriction i.e. those files that they deemed to be subject to solicitor-client privilege could no longer be viewed by the public. Because of this action by the archives, I brought a lawsuit against them in the Federal Court of Canada. Since bringing my court action, a new problem has arose. La Barreau du Quebec aka The Law Society of Quebec, which is one of the of the largest law societies in Canada, has intervened in my case at the request of the archives. They are intervening in my case because they want to defend solicitor-client privilege, which protects communications between a lawyer and his client from being divulged. I have informed them that the files Bloomfield donated to the archives are not protected by solicitor-client privilege because the files he donated are not related to his legal work with clients, but they still have not withdrawn their intervention. A local media outlet has written a story about my lawsuit. The story also has a comment from Harry Bloomfield, who is Louis M. Bloomfield's nephew.

[URL="https://www.blacklocks.ca/lawyers-in-jfk-archive-case/"]
Tuesday, July 10, 2018[/URL]


[URL="https://www.blacklocks.ca/lawyers-in-jfk-archive-case/"]

Lawyers In JFK Archive Case[/URL]

One of Canada's largest law societies is intervening in a court case over archival records linked by conspiracy theorists to the 1963 Kennedy assassination. The Québec bar association said the challenge raises important questions affecting all solicitors and clients. "We are intervening on the principle of solicitor-client confidentiality," said Jean-Francois Del Torchio, director of communications for the Barreau du Québec. "That confidentiality doesn't belong to the lawyer; it always belongs to the client. We have the mandate from our board of directors to protect solicitor-client confidentiality." Library & Archives Canada in 1979 accepted a donation of 31 boxes of personal records from Louis Bloomfield, a Montréal attorney. Bloomfield from 1967 was named in unsubstantiated press reports as an agent for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency with knowledge of the JFK assassination. Bloomfield had asked that his records be released 20 years after his death; he died in 1984. However, archivists last February 21 told researchers the files would remain sealed forever since they contained confidential information. "On the advice of Department of Justice lawyers, Library & Archives Canada has closed in perpetuity records subject to client-solicitor privilege," said the agency. John Kowalski, an Ottawa researcher, is suing for release of the Bloomfield papers in Federal Court. In an interview, Kowalski disputed claims the papers must be kept confidential in perpetuity. "To be protected by privilege, you have to be giving legal advice to a client," said Kowalski. "The lawyer must be acting in their capacity as a lawyer. I've examined so many of these letters, and none of them involve legal advice not one iota. These are general letters to many different people about business matters." Researchers in 2006 won a Federal Court ruling Philipps v. Librarian & Archivist of Canada that there was no justification to withhold the files. Justice Simon Noël noted Bloomfield received tax credits for his donation under the Cultural Property Export And Import Act. "Once the term of 20 years is complete, the power of controlling access ends," wrote the Court. Harry Bloomfield of Montréal, nephew of the archives donor, said in an interview his family remains baffled by claims their uncle had any connection to the CIA or Kennedy shooting. "He tried to fathom why this was happening," said Bloomfield. "I see no reason why his files shouldn't be completely open," said Bloomfield. "I would like to get this whole conspiracy business cleared up, from the point of view of my late uncle. To say he would be involved in something like the Kennedy assassination is just grotesque, and if he were alive today I'm sure he would sue for defamation." Bloomfield described his uncle as an esteemed lawyer and WWII veteran who left his papers with the national archives because "he thought his career might be interesting" for researchers. By Jason Unrau

Good going and sorry about the setbacks. Can you force them to appoint a special and INDEPENDENT master to look at the items in question to see if they are lawyer-client materials or spook-client materials/other? Can you get help from some progressive lawyers group there? Bloomfield was intelligence related [putting it mildly...] and while he was a lawyer, I'd doubt much of what you are interested in are the normal client-solicitor type of things...perhaps some few are. Most will be spook to operative and spook to control agent type things, IMHO....and this is the real reason they don't want anyone to see it....some big covert operations and assassinations have bits and pieces in there somewhere...... Good luck!

Unfortunately, pro bono lawyers do not provide help with judicial reviews, so I have taught myself how to litigate my case. Have spent a lot of time reading case law that pertains to my case and have submitted my legal arguments to the court. Not sure if I can get someone appointed to look at the documents, that issue will be decided by the judge who has been assigned to my case. Will be having a conference with the judge and the archive's lawyer, and I will raise this issue with them.

[John Kowalski]

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.

[James Lateer]

John: Apparently this is governed by the Law Society of Ontario for dealing with client papers. In Wisconsin, a trustee could be appointed to review them, but I'm not sure about Canada.

You should be able to rely on the labeling of the files as personal or client papers as was probably done by Bloomfield. There doesn't seem to be any time limit for keeping cleint papers. Apparently it theoretically has to be in perpetuity, if they are client papers.

There is a specific exception (which seems to be true in other jurisdictions) for evidence of criminal conduct. If the court suspects that there is evidence of criminal conduct in the files, then that is specifically excluded from either lawyer-client privilege or client confidentiality laws regulating the practice of law.

Keep us informed.

James Lateer

[James Lateer]

Just more ideas about Bloomfield. If Bloomfield's Last Will and Testament left his personal papers to an Archives, then if the papers were declared not to be personal papers, then the default or reversionary interest would be in the heirs at law because they would not fit in the category of personal papers set forth in the Will.

It would seem like the title to the legal papers which were not within the definition of "client papers" (which the client would own), might be (or might not be) considered "personal papers." Maybe they would be considered to be "business papers" and not "personal papers". I don't know the answer for that question (but it could be googled).

As far as I can see on the internet, the Bar Association would not have any authority to destroy any legal papers or client papers (or personal papers for that matter). I could be wrong about that, but that's just my basic assumption. The papers, if destroyed, would have to be destroyed by an attorney who had custody of them. But if they were client papers, then the client would still own them if the client were still alive or in the case of a corporation, still in existence. Since Bloomfield represented Schenley Beverage and Heinekins Breweries, these are still around.

Hence the Bar Association would almost have to appoint an attorney to inspect the papers. Actually, the heirs would more likely have the right to decide which attorney would have custody of the papers to process them and/or dispose of them.

In the typical situation, if an attorney in solo practice dies unexpectedly, the family or the heirs would probably almost always arrange for an attorney to succeed the deceased attorney. When an attorney leaves his practice, he will often sell the practice which means he essentially sells the files to the successor. If the attorney has just died, presumably the heirs would be able to sell the practice. But maybe not, since they are seldom attorneys themselves.

Traditionally, non-attorneys have been prohibited from owning or participating in a legal partnership. In more recent times, it seems like this tradition has been bent a little due to franchising of legal practice.

To reiterate, if there is any evidence of a crime in the papers, the client confidentiality does not apply, especially if there were crimes like murder, conspiracy to commit murder, espionage, or any other capital crimes which have no statute of limitiations.

In the JFK case, it is a cold case and there are undoubtedly people still alive today who were "conspirators" in the legal definition, especially in the cover-up of the murder. This would make them accessories-after-the-fact.

To settle the issue of the Bloomfield papers, it seems like these questions would have to be answered and there is very, very likely an answer in some case or statute since this is a common fact situation. From googling, it looks like courts in Canada will reference US cases if necessary if no Canadian cases have decided about an issue.

It does look, however, like the Canadian Bar Association involved is not just dealing with this situation for purposes of a cover-up. If this case gets publicity and if client papers are found to have been delivered to strangers, then it could make the legal profession in Ontario (or Quebec or wherever) look bad. I can understand their concern.

James Lateer

[John Kowalski]

[quote=James Lateer]Just more ideas about Bloomfield. If Bloomfield's Last Will and Testament left his personal papers to an Archives, then if the papers were declared not to be personal papers, then the default or reversionary interest would be in the heirs at law because they would not fit in the category of personal papers set forth in the Will.

It would seem like the title to the legal papers which were not within the definition of "client papers" (which the client would own), might be (or might not be) considered "personal papers." Maybe they would be considered to be "business papers" and not "personal papers". I don't know the answer for that question (but it could be googled).

As far as I can see on the internet, the Bar Association would not have any authority to destroy any legal papers or client papers (or personal papers for that matter). I could be wrong about that, but that's just my basic assumption. The papers, if destroyed, would have to be destroyed by an attorney who had custody of them. But if they were client papers, then the client would still own them if the client were still alive or in the case of a corporation, still in existence. Since Bloomfield represented Schenley Beverage and Heinekins Breweries, these are still around.

Hence the Bar Association would almost have to appoint an attorney to inspect the papers. Actually, the heirs would more likely have the right to decide which attorney would have custody of the papers to process them and/or dispose of them.

In the typical situation, if an attorney in solo practice dies unexpectedly, the family or the heirs would probably almost always arrange for an attorney to succeed the deceased attorney. When an attorney leaves his practice, he will often sell the practice which means he essentially sells the files to the successor. If the attorney has just died, presumably the heirs would be able to sell the practice. But maybe not, since they are seldom attorneys themselves.

Traditionally, non-attorneys have been prohibited from owning or participating in a legal partnership. In more recent times, it seems like this tradition has been bent a little due to franchising of legal practice.

To reiterate, if there is any evidence of a crime in the papers, the client confidentiality does not apply, especially if there were crimes like murder, conspiracy to commit murder, espionage, or any other capital crimes which have no statute of limitiations.

In the JFK case, it is a cold case and there are undoubtedly people still alive today who were "conspirators" in the legal definition, especially in the cover-up of the murder. This would make them accessories-after-the-fact.

To settle the issue of the Bloomfield papers, it seems like these questions would have to be answered and there is very, very likely an answer in some case or statute since this is a common fact situation. From googling, it looks like courts in Canada will reference US cases if necessary if no Canadian cases have decided about an issue.

It does look, however, like the Canadian Bar Association involved is not just dealing with this situation for purposes of a cover-up. If this case gets publicity and if client papers are found to have been delivered to strangers, then it could make the legal profession in Ontario (or Quebec or wherever) look bad. I can understand their concern.

James Lateer[/QUOTE

You make an interesting point about evidence of criminal behavior as an exception to solicitor-client privilege but the papers have no evidence of wrong-doing. The archive's case rests on the sanctity of solicitor-client privilege. My task will be to convince the court to examine the documents. I am confident that a review of them will prove that they do not meet the legal test for privilege. The legal test for privilege is not found in a statute but in Canadian case law.

A judge has been appointed to hear my case and there will be a meeting to discuss outstanding issues this month.

[James Lateer]

Mr. Kowalski--Please keep us informed about this. When you say that the papers have no evidence of wrongdoing, how do you know that? Have you reviewed the papers or have any representatives of the heirs reviewed the papers? Just curious.

If the court appoints a person to review the papers, will the court instruct the appointee as to the standards to use to decide what is subject to the privilege? As the plaintiff, will you be asked by the court to provide standards or agree on the definition of privilege?

Since Mr. Bloomfield did so much work for International Organizations regarding matters of international law (such as the UN) would the U.N. be considered a client? Or would any of the organizations with which he worked be considered clients? I am thinking about such groups as the Sonneborn group of which he was a member? Is the Archive opposing the release or is the archive favoring the release? If the archive wants a cover-up, then it's not much of an archive!

If these papers are released, there is undoubtedly a lot we will learn. Thanks for this effort.

James Lateer

[James Lateer]

Mr. Kowalski, your analysis of the issues in re the papers of Louis Bloomfield kind of puzzles me. I found a citation on the internet which I will copy below. There may well be a confusion here between "attorney-client privilege" and "client confidentiality".

It seems from the citation below which is based on a US Supreme Court Case of Upjohn Co. vs. United States, that the attorney-client privilege can only be asserted by the client, his trustee or his executor or similar parties. Even if the Canadian Archives were considered a Trustee of the Bloomfield papers, it would still only be a trustee for Bloomfield, but not for the clients, whomever they might be. The archives has no privity with the would-be clients of Bloomfield. The archives only had privity with Bloomfield or his heirs or his estate.

Since you mention that the case will be decided based on case law, this seems almost impossible. In my experience of reviewing personal papers (I looked through 17 boxes of the papers of Civil Right leader James Dombrowski), there a myriad of documents of various types including newspaper clippings, letters, transcripts, FBI files, etc etc.

You would simply never be able find a case governing each type of document. Probably, the cases you could find would only cover such things as a letter to a client, a report prepared for a client which would be "attorney work-product" or a legal brief, etc.

On the other hand, as I have mentioned, if the papers are treated as CLIENT CONFIDENTIALITY MATTERS, the the confidentiality could be asserted by a Bar Association (or possibly a court) who was not a client or successor to a client.

NEITHER THE "ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE" NOR THE "CLIENT CONFIDENTIALITY" ISSUES CAN BE ASSERTED BY JUST ANY ODD PERSON ON THE STREET OR IN THE PHONE BOOK. NEITHER WOULD INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASSERT THIS PRIVILEGE.

I'm pretty sure that to be asserting something in any court at least in the US or Canada, you have to have some relation to the case which would give you standing to be in court.

I don't see how any archives would have standing to assert either of the above issues regarding privilege. The archives would be a successor trustee for Bloomfield, but not for any clients of his.

It does seem, however, that if there is any attorney-client privilege (as distinct from "client confidentiality"), then that privilege literally applies forever, even after 100 years or more. For "client confidentiality", however, the statute of limitations is "a reasonable period", i.e. the same vague standard that applies to all business records such as tax returns, books of account, etc. etc.

Sometimes this period is set (in the business world) at seven years, but actually on the internet, I have seen that a period of more like 15 year is mentioned. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO ACTUAL, SPECIFIC time limit on records involving "client confidentiality". It does not last forever as does "attorney-client privilege."

If your issue is "client confidentiality" and not "attorney-client privilege", the "client confidentiality" is in the province of the bar associations, so the rules governing law practice as published by the respective Bar Association would apply. It is assumed, of course, that such rules are written in conformity with case law. It is impossible to see how anyone can successfully argue that the Bar Association Rules about confidential documents are at variance with case law. If they are, then they would have to be immediately re-written. You see how this variance between bar association rules, rules of evidence and case law would be exceedingly rare if not impossible.

Since the Bar association rules define each and every type of document, they would be much more useful than trying to find a legal case opinion ruling on each miniscule type document (baseball tickets, photos, etc. etc etc). To me, this case could not turn on finding cases for every type of item in personal papers. If it does, IMHO you are being scammed.

http://www.djcl.org/wp-content/uploads/2...77-PDF.pdf

25See JOHN W. GERGACZ, ATTORNEY-CORPORATE CLIENT PRIVILEGE 3D § 3:7 (2015). 26Subsections (b) and © of Delaware Rule of Evidence 502 provide a brief definition of this privilege and who has standing to assert it: (b) General rule of privilege. A client has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services to the client (1) between the client or the client's representative and the client's lawyer or the lawyer's representative, (2) between the lawyer and the lawyer's representative, (3) by the client or the client's representative or the client's lawyer or a representative of the lawyer to a lawyer or a representative of a lawyer representing another in a matter of common interest, (4) between representatives of the client or between the client and a representative of the client, or (5) among lawyers and their representatives representing the same client. © Who may claim the privilege. The privilege under this rule may be claimed by the client, the client's guardian or conservator, the personal representative of a deceased client or the successor, trustee or similar representative of a corporation, association or other organization, whether or not in existence. A person who was the lawyer or the lawyer's representative at the time of the communication is presumed to have authority to claim the privilege but only on behalf of the client. DEL. R. EVID. 502(b)-©. 27See Moyer v. Moyer, 602 A.2d 68, 72 (Del. 1992).

8"A 'client' is a person, public officer or corporation, association or other organization or entity, either public or private, who is rendered professional legal services by a lawyer, or who consults a lawyer with a view to obtaining professional legal services from the lawyer." DEL. R. EVID. 502(a)(1). 29"A 'lawyer' is a person authorized, or reasonably believed by the client to be authorized, to engage in the practice of law in any state or nation." DEL. R. EVID. 502(a)(3). 30"A communication is 'confidential' if not intended to be disclosed to third persons other than those to whom disclosure is made in furtherance of the rendition of professional legal services to the client or those reasonably necessary for the transmission of the communication." DEL. R. EVID. 502(a)(2). 31Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981). 32See Stephen A. Saltzburg, Corporate and Related Attorney-Client Privilege Claims:


James Lateer