(01-10-2018 03:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 03:20 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 03:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 03:06 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 03:04 PM)shere khan Wrote:  This

dem good ol' outdated laws that lawyers cling onto...

nothing surprises me anymore with these goons....

the evidence is on the floor in one room......

I take it you don't think a spousal privilege is a good thing. Interesting. What other privileges should we ixnay in your mind?

it seems to me it's pretty simple to argue why divorce was filed and why it's been rescinded....

I don't write the laws....nor do I argue in court (thank god to both)....

one would think there would be stipulation that would disallow....

but wtf do I know about skirting or arguing the law....

I think it a nice bright line of being married or not. Keeps lawyers like me from charging more hours, but I am a stupid lawyer who is in favor of clear, bright lines.....

I need more help....I don't understand "bright line of being married or not" when we're talking about "spousal privilege".....

and I know you're one of the brightest bulbs in the pack.....so argue the previous with the emphasis in bold being the antagonist....

I would argue marriage laws become irrelevant once the filing was initially filed......however, I have no clue to the bold and how they apply.....

you've piqued my curiosity.....

I easily always lobby for law changes as needed......I simply don't have the background that you do......

treat me as the jurist you don't ever want to see.....I can take a punch too...give me your best shot

Rule 504 of FROE has a workaround if the spouse wants to testify. The privilege is held by the witness-spouse, not the party-spouse, and normally does not prevent a spouse who wishes to testify from doing so.

Charge Wiener Boy as well and watch him flip like a snake on a hot rock when faced with federal time for illegally being in possession of classified information once he finishes his sexual predator time.

(01-10-2018 03:40 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Rule 504 of FROE has a workaround if the spouse wants to testify. The privilege is held by the witness-spouse, not the party-spouse, and normally does not prevent a spouse who wishes to testify from doing so.

Charge Wiener Boy as well and watch him flip like a snake on a hot rock when faced with federal time for illegally being in possession of classified information once he finishes his sexual predator time.

I knew there had to be a stipulation....

as always, thank you Rath....

(01-10-2018 03:10 PM)Claw Wrote:  Files being somewhere does not prove who put them there.

Who did it? Nobody huh? The Fairy F*ckin Godmother must've.

We all know it was the Russians.

(01-10-2018 03:47 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 03:10 PM)Claw Wrote:  Files being somewhere does not prove who put them there.

Who did it? Nobody huh? The Fairy F*ckin Godmother must've.

I was thinking the easter egg with a McKinley and Cleveland stuffed inside they never thought would be found......but yeah....

(01-10-2018 03:43 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 03:40 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Rule 504 of FROE has a workaround if the spouse wants to testify. The privilege is held by the witness-spouse, not the party-spouse, and normally does not prevent a spouse who wishes to testify from doing so.

Charge Wiener Boy as well and watch him flip like a snake on a hot rock when faced with federal time for illegally being in possession of classified information once he finishes his sexual predator time.

I knew there had to be a stipulation....

as always, thank you Rath....

The privileges that exist are:

spouse - subject;
attorney-client;
doctor-patient;
clergy-pentitent.

In all cases, except the spousal privilege, the privilege is held by the person on the right. So while a spousal privilege exists, is is not mandatory -- it is held at the discretion of the spouse.

The issue for me is that *when* the privilege attaches to a communication. To me the brightest line for the spousal privilege is whether or not they are married.

In my book assume Client A and his spouse are married on day 1, and the divorce is finalized on day 2. All communications between A and his spouse up until the finalization of the divorce decree are covered under the privilege; the spouse can be compelled to disclose the subject and contents of any discussions afterwards. Anything previous, the spouse *can* elect not to say anything.

You change that line, all you do is you blur a distinct line. Blurred lines are great for billing hours....

(01-10-2018 03:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 03:43 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 03:40 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Rule 504 of FROE has a workaround if the spouse wants to testify. The privilege is held by the witness-spouse, not the party-spouse, and normally does not prevent a spouse who wishes to testify from doing so.

Charge Wiener Boy as well and watch him flip like a snake on a hot rock when faced with federal time for illegally being in possession of classified information once he finishes his sexual predator time.

I knew there had to be a stipulation....

as always, thank you Rath....

The privileges that exist are:

spouse - subject;
attorney-client;
doctor-patient;
clergy-pentitent.

In all cases, except the spousal privilege, the privilege is held by the person on the right. So -- it is held at the discretion of the spouse.

The issue for me is that *when* the privilege attaches to a communication. To me the brightest line for the spousal privilege is whether or not they are married.

In my book assume Client A and his spouse are married on day 1, and the divorce is finalized on day 2. All communications between A and his spouse ; the spouse can be compelled to disclose the subject and contents of any discussions afterwards. Anything previous, the spouse *can* elect not to say anything.

you just proved my point....

"while a spousal privilege exists, is is not mandatory"

and to further back up my argument..... "up until the finalization of the divorce decree are covered under the privilege" makes no sense other than legalese bs.....I can say whatever I want to or not independent of having a relationship either in a simple relationship or in the context of law that defines marriage.....

so I go back to the premise of why it's outdated and should be revised and condensed to simpler formatting.....Rath came with the workaround.....that was good enough for me.....

don't kid yourself.....my mother begged me to be a lawyer.....I simply told her, "hell no" engineering and hands on manufacturing was much more enticing.....now it's **** with ze IRS as a small biz owner.....and DJT just lifted a heavy burden.....

I can set a trap for anyone.....I simply choose not to unless required.....

#henceDJT

(01-10-2018 03:47 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 03:10 PM)Claw Wrote:  Files being somewhere does not prove who put them there.

Who did it? Nobody huh? The Fairy F*ckin Godmother must've.

(01-10-2018 03:10 PM)Claw Wrote:  Files being somewhere does not prove who put them there.

But it does prove somebody put them there. And the way our laws governing classified material work--or at least how they worked before Comey and Hillary--that is enough to fry Huma. She had custody, the material ended up somewhere else, ball game.

Unnamed Sources?

I thought those didn't count?

(01-10-2018 04:13 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 03:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 03:43 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 03:40 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Rule 504 of FROE has a workaround if the spouse wants to testify. The privilege is held by the witness-spouse, not the party-spouse, and normally does not prevent a spouse who wishes to testify from doing so.

Charge Wiener Boy as well and watch him flip like a snake on a hot rock when faced with federal time for illegally being in possession of classified information once he finishes his sexual predator time.

I knew there had to be a stipulation....

as always, thank you Rath....

The privileges that exist are:

spouse - subject;
attorney-client;
doctor-patient;
clergy-pentitent.

In all cases, except the spousal privilege, the privilege is held by the person on the right. So -- it is held at the discretion of the spouse.

The issue for me is that *when* the privilege attaches to a communication. To me the brightest line for the spousal privilege is whether or not they are married.

In my book assume Client A and his spouse are married on day 1, and the divorce is finalized on day 2. All communications between A and his spouse ; the spouse can be compelled to disclose the subject and contents of any discussions afterwards. Anything previous, the spouse *can* elect not to say anything.

you just proved my point....

"while a spousal privilege exists, is is not mandatory"

and to further back up my argument..... "up until the finalization of the divorce decree are covered under the privilege" makes no sense other than legalese bs.....I can say whatever I want to or not independent of having a relationship either in a simple relationship or in the context of law that defines marriage.....

so I go back to the premise of why it's outdated and should be revised and condensed to simpler formatting.....Rath came with the workaround.....that was good enough for me.....

don't kid yourself.....my mother begged me to be a lawyer.....I simply told her, "hell no" engineering and hands on manufacturing was much more enticing.....now it's **** with ze IRS as a small biz owner.....and DJT just lifted a heavy burden.....

I can set a trap for anyone.....I simply choose not to unless required.....

#henceDJT

Stink: it is currently a simple rule. Your spouse may opt not to testify against you. They cannot be compelled to do so.

I dont see the advantage of changing "your spouse" into something that can be litigated to hell and a hand basket.

There are only two very distinct questions:

a) does the spouse wish to testify? If yes, that is all that there is.
b) did the conversation take place while the person was a spouse? If no, compel them.

And yes, I actually like the bright line of the 'spouse'. If you want to replace it with a more amorphous 'was the relationship one that rose to some (whatever the **** criteria you want to define it)' all you are doing is opening what was an easy question into one that will be endlessly litigated and relitigated ad nauseum.

(01-10-2018 03:10 PM)Claw Wrote:  Files being somewhere does not prove who put them there.

You libs are too funny. There is no proof of any kind Trump ever colluded in any way, shape or form with the Ruskies and yet you guys have no trouble coming up with reasons why the evidence shows he did. Yet, information a wife has winds up saved on her husbands laptop and you don't see any thing convincing about how she put it there. Seriously, thanks for the entertainment. You should charge for it. Oh yea, buckle up.

(01-10-2018 04:34 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 03:10 PM)Claw Wrote:  Files being somewhere does not prove who put them there.

You libs are too funny. There is no proof of any kind Trump ever colluded in any way, shape or form with the Ruskies and yet you guys have no trouble coming up with reasons why the evidence shows he did. Yet, information a wife has winds up saved on her husbands laptop and you don't see any thing convincing about how she put it there. Seriously, thanks for the entertainment. You should charge for it. Oh yea, buckle up.

First, I'm not a lib. Second, I am a computer professional.

Files get moved around all the time for all kinds of reasons.

That she should not have HAD the files is a given.

As for how they got on the other laptop, you would have to first identify the mechanism used to perform the data transfer. Then you would have to prove a particular individual did it. That's very difficult to do.

(01-10-2018 04:41 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 04:34 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 03:10 PM)Claw Wrote:  Files being somewhere does not prove who put them there.

You libs are too funny. There is no proof of any kind Trump ever colluded in any way, shape or form with the Ruskies and yet you guys have no trouble coming up with reasons why the evidence shows he did. Yet, information a wife has winds up saved on her husbands laptop and you don't see any thing convincing about how she put it there. Seriously, thanks for the entertainment. You should charge for it. Oh yea, buckle up.

First, I'm not a lib. Second, I am a computer professional.
Files get moved around all the time for all kinds of reasons.
That she should not have HAD the files is a given.
As for how they got on the other laptop, you would have to first identify the mechanism used to perform the data transfer. Then you would have to prove a particular individual did it. That's very difficult to do.

But here's the legal angle. You don't have to prove that Huma moved them to find her guilty. All you have to prove is that 1) she had custody and 2) they got moved. That means that she hazarded them, which is enough.

(01-10-2018 04:41 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 04:34 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 03:10 PM)Claw Wrote:  Files being somewhere does not prove who put them there.

You libs are too funny. There is no proof of any kind Trump ever colluded in any way, shape or form with the Ruskies and yet you guys have no trouble coming up with reasons why the evidence shows he did. Yet, information a wife has winds up saved on her husbands laptop and you don't see any thing convincing about how she put it there. Seriously, thanks for the entertainment. You should charge for it. Oh yea, buckle up.

First, I'm not a lib. Second, I am a computer professional.

Files get moved around all the time for all kinds of reasons.

That she should not have HAD the files is a given.

As for how they got on the other laptop, you would have to first identify the mechanism used to perform the data transfer. Then you would have to prove a particular individual did it. That's very difficult to do.

I guess the Russians hacked Carlos Danger's laptop put them there. Common sense says *that* has to be the case.

By the way, while your argument that you 'have to show a mechanism' and that a 'particular individual did it' sounds fine and dandy, but there are literally thousands of people serving state and Federal time for having pictures of underage kids on their devices without showing any of the two steps above.

By the way, the relevant statutes make one liable for just 'having' classified information in a wrong place. Further, 'just having' it puts Huma in the crosshairs of both 18 USC 1001 on counts of perjury, lying to Federal law enforcement, and obstruction of justice. No need to show 'how it got there' necessarily for that.

(01-10-2018 04:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 04:41 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 04:34 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 03:10 PM)Claw Wrote:  Files being somewhere does not prove who put them there.

You libs are too funny. There is no proof of any kind Trump ever colluded in any way, shape or form with the Ruskies and yet you guys have no trouble coming up with reasons why the evidence shows he did. Yet, information a wife has winds up saved on her husbands laptop and you don't see any thing convincing about how she put it there. Seriously, thanks for the entertainment. You should charge for it. Oh yea, buckle up.

First, I'm not a lib. Second, I am a computer professional.
Files get moved around all the time for all kinds of reasons.
That she should not have HAD the files is a given.
As for how they got on the other laptop, you would have to first identify the mechanism used to perform the data transfer. Then you would have to prove a particular individual did it. That's very difficult to do.

But here's the legal angle. You don't have to prove that Huma moved them to find her guilty. All you have to prove is that 1) she had custody and 2) they got moved. That means that she hazarded them, which is enough.

Maybe she didn't have them. Maybe Weiner had them and copied them to her laptop? You have to do the forensics to determine the where the files came from and how they got copied.

With that in hand, you still have to prove who did it. Maybe the someone hacked her machine over night and downloaded the files to her laptop to frame her? If you can show she accessed them, then you can show she knew they were there. But again, you have to prove it was indeed her.

(01-10-2018 04:50 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 04:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 04:41 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 04:34 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 03:10 PM)Claw Wrote:  Files being somewhere does not prove who put them there.

You libs are too funny. There is no proof of any kind Trump ever colluded in any way, shape or form with the Ruskies and yet you guys have no trouble coming up with reasons why the evidence shows he did. Yet, information a wife has winds up saved on her husbands laptop and you don't see any thing convincing about how she put it there. Seriously, thanks for the entertainment. You should charge for it. Oh yea, buckle up.

First, I'm not a lib. Second, I am a computer professional.
Files get moved around all the time for all kinds of reasons.
That she should not have HAD the files is a given.
As for how they got on the other laptop, you would have to first identify the mechanism used to perform the data transfer. Then you would have to prove a particular individual did it. That's very difficult to do.

But here's the legal angle. You don't have to prove that Huma moved them to find her guilty. All you have to prove is that 1) she had custody and 2) they got moved. That means that she hazarded them, which is enough.

Maybe she didn't have them. Maybe Weiner had them and copied them to her laptop? You have to do the forensics to determine the where the files came from and how they got copied.
With that in hand, you still have to prove who did it. Maybe the someone hacked her machine over night and downloaded the files to her laptop to frame her? If you can show she accessed them, then you can show she knew they were there. But again, you have to prove it was indeed her.

No, you don't have to prove who did it. Or at least you didn't before Comey did his song and dance about Hillary. And I still don't think he changed the law, just perception.

If Huma did it, she's guilty.
If Weiner did it, she's still guilty because she placed the material in a place where he had access.
If Adam's housecat did it, she's still guilty, for the same reason.
One thing for sure, it didn't move of its own volition.

If classified material in your possession ends up outside the system, you're guilty. That's all it takes.

(01-10-2018 04:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 04:13 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 03:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 03:43 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 03:40 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Rule 504 of FROE has a workaround if the spouse wants to testify. The privilege is held by the witness-spouse, not the party-spouse, and normally does not prevent a spouse who wishes to testify from doing so.

Charge Wiener Boy as well and watch him flip like a snake on a hot rock when faced with federal time for illegally being in possession of classified information once he finishes his sexual predator time.

I knew there had to be a stipulation....

as always, thank you Rath....

The privileges that exist are:

spouse - subject;
attorney-client;
doctor-patient;
clergy-pentitent.

In all cases, except the spousal privilege, the privilege is held by the person on the right. So -- it is held at the discretion of the spouse.

The issue for me is that *when* the privilege attaches to a communication. To me the brightest line for the spousal privilege is whether or not they are married.

In my book assume Client A and his spouse are married on day 1, and the divorce is finalized on day 2. All communications between A and his spouse ; the spouse can be compelled to disclose the subject and contents of any discussions afterwards. Anything previous, the spouse *can* elect not to say anything.

you just proved my point....

"while a spousal privilege exists, is is not mandatory"

and to further back up my argument..... "up until the finalization of the divorce decree are covered under the privilege" makes no sense other than legalese bs.....I can say whatever I want to or not independent of having a relationship either in a simple relationship or in the context of law that defines marriage.....

so I go back to the premise of why it's outdated and should be revised and condensed to simpler formatting.....Rath came with the workaround.....that was good enough for me.....

don't kid yourself.....my mother begged me to be a lawyer.....I simply told her, "hell no" engineering and hands on manufacturing was much more enticing.....now it's **** with ze IRS as a small biz owner.....and DJT just lifted a heavy burden.....

I can set a trap for anyone.....I simply choose not to unless required.....

#henceDJT

Stink: it is currently a simple rule. Your spouse may opt not to testify against you. They cannot be compelled to do so.

I dont see the advantage of changing "your spouse" into something that can be litigated to hell and a hand basket.

There are only two very distinct questions:

a) does the spouse wish to testify? If yes, that is all that there is.
b) did the conversation take place while the person was a spouse? If no, compel them.

And yes, I actually like the bright line of the 'spouse'. If you want to replace it with a more amorphous 'was the relationship one that rose to some (whatever the **** criteria you want to define it)' all you are doing is opening what was an easy question into one that will be endlessly litigated and relitigated ad nauseum.

I understand the logic....however, I disagree with your last argument....

the time stamp of filing then flip-flop based on circumstances between the time line makes the prosecution's case.....that's cut and dry....and was my original posit relative to change...

again, as a simple user as we currently reside within, I lobby for Rath's response....that at least makes sense moving forward as it currently exists...

there are bigger fish to fry....

I can only argue in context....I don't know what you know relative to legalese...I stated that right out of the gate...