Do The "Legal Geniuses" Of The Detroit Land Bank Authority Have An Attorney Client Privilege Issue Like Trump & Stormy?

Has anyone ever considered that there may be a substantial "attorney-client privilege" issue going on over there at the corporate shape shifters at the Detroit Land Bank Authority, et al with the "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending)?

It is time to address those pesky "attorney-client privileges" and "non-disclosure agreements" in public disclosure law for the historic record.

It is time to seriously revisit the entire doctrine of stare decisis.

Seriously, how is it SCOTUS, or any court for that matter, can sit there and say, "Well, that's what they said back then."

Seriously, how can you go back and even base a court decision on anything that came out of pre-Peculiar Institution Era, or the Civil Rights Act timeframe, or, in this situation, neofuedalism (a.k.a. Privatization) dealing with Public Private Partnerships?

Pay attention, this is one of those neofuedalism "Rehnquist Court" decisions.

The attorney-client privilege, in these situations, are based upon a private attorney, not one who is appointed to represent the United States, meaning an elected official, without advice and consent of the Congress?

Do these attorneys take an oath of office to uphold the constitution or to their profession of being a paying member of a private corporation which controls access to justice, called the American Bar Association?

Do these attorney client privileges prevent an attorney in presenting evidence from its other clients' cases, even if subpoenaed in front of Congress about congressional stuff when they are defending the same clients about congressional fraud stuff?

Just asking.

Something tells me this is already worked out.

Stay tuned and get your popcorn.

What Do Trump & Conyers Have In Common?

Me eating my popcorn.

I will give you a hint:

Perkins Coie Sucks.

Oh, lookie!

A pro se and Ken Starr!

Can you say "Monica Lewinsky?"

Can you say "Whitewater"?

Can you say "Detroit Land Bank Authority"?

Can you say "John Conyers"?

 Can you say "Perkins Coie Sucks?" 

I can.

#perkinscoiesucks

524 U.S. 399 (1998)

SWIDLER & BERLIN et al.v.UNITED STATES

No. 97-1192. United States Supreme Court. Argued June 8, 1998. Decided June 25, 1998. <===== Clinton Administration   CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 400*400 401*401 Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Connor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia and Thomas, JJ., joined, post, p. 411.
James Hamilton, pro se, argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs was Robert V. Zener.
Brett M. Kavanaugh argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Kenneth W. Starr and Craig S. Lerner.^[*]

Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.

The attorney-client privilege is one of the oldest recognized privileges for confidential communications. Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U. S. 383, 389 (1981); Hunt v. Blackburn, 128 U. S. 464, 470 (1888). The privilege is intended to encourage "full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law and the administration of justice." Upjohn, supra, at 389. The issue presented here is the scope of that privilege; more particularly, the extent to which the privilege survives the death of the client. Our interpretation of the privilege's scope is guided by "the principles of the common law . . . as interpreted by the courts. . . in the light of reason and experience." Fed. Rule Evid. 501; Funk v. United States, 290 U. S. 371 (1933).

The Independent Counsel argues that the attorney-client privilege should not prevent disclosure of confidential communications where the client has died and the information is relevant to a criminal proceeding. There is some authority for this position. One state appellate court, Cohen v. Jenkintown Cab Co., 238 Pa. Super. 456, 357 A. 2d 689 (1976), 404*404 and the Court of Appeals below have held the privilege may be subject to posthumous exceptions in certain circumstances. In Cohen, a civil case, the court recognized that the privilege generally survives death, but concluded that it could make an exception where the interest of justice was compelling and the interest of the client in preserving the confidence was insignificant. Id., at 462-464, 357 A. 2d, at 692-693.

But other than these two decisions, cases addressing the existence of the privilege after death—most involving the testamentary exception—uniformly presume the privilege survives, even if they do not so hold. See, e. g., Mayberry v. Indiana, 670 N. E. 2d 1262 (Ind. 1996); Morris v. Cain, 39 La. Ann. 712, 1 So. 797 (1887); People v. Modzelewski, 611 N. Y. S. 2d 22, 203 A. 2d 594 (App. Div. 1994).

Several State Supreme Court decisions expressly hold that the attorney client privilege extends beyond the death of the client, even in the criminal context. See In re John Doe Grand Jury Investigation, 408 Mass. 480, 481-483, 562 N. E. 2d 69, 70 (1990); State v. Doster, 276 S. C. 647, 650-651, 284 S. E. 2d 218, 219 (1981); State v. Macumber, 112 Ariz. 569, 571, 544 P. 2d 1084, 1086 (1976). In John Doe Grand Jury Investigation, for example, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court concluded that survival of the privilege was "the clear implication" of its early pronouncements that communications subject to the privilege could not be disclosed at any time. 408 Mass., at 483, 562 N. E. 2d, at 70. The court further noted that survival of the privilege was "necessarily implied" by cases allowing waiver of the privilege in testamentary disputes. Ibid.

The Independent Counsel (Kavanaugh) argues that the attorney-client privilege should not prevent disclosure of confidential communications where the client has died and the information is relevant to a criminal proceeding. There is some authority for this position. One state appellate court, Cohen v. Jenkintown Cab Co., 238 Pa. Super. 456, 357 A. 2d 689 (1976), 404*404 and the Court of Appeals below have held the privilege may be subject to posthumous exceptions in certain circumstances. In Cohen, a civil case, the court recognized that the privilege generally survives death, but concluded that it could make an exception where the interest of justice was compelling and the interest of the client in preserving the confidence was insignificant. Id., at 462-464, 357 A. 2d, at 692-693.

 #perkinscoiesucks

Mr. Cohen, an attorney, received a monthly retainer, not from the campaign and having nothing to do with the campaign, from which he entered into, through reimbursement, a private contract between two parties, known as a non-disclosure agreement, or NDA. These agreements are.....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 3, 2018

...very common among celebrities and people of wealth. In this case it is in full force and effect and will be used in Arbitration for damages against Ms. Clifford (Daniels). The agreement was used to stop the false and extortionist accusations made by her about an affair,......

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 3, 2018

...despite already having signed a detailed letter admitting that there was no affair. Prior to its violation by Ms. Clifford and her attorney, this was a private agreement. Money from the campaign, or campaign contributions, played no roll in this transaction.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 3, 2018

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Why DNC Is Calling For Conyers To Resign

The Republicans will commence their battle cries shortly.

AWAN CASE: DNC Lawyer Scrambling To Block Evidence From Hidden Laptop Tied To Wasserman Schultz

Debbie Wasserman Schultz & Imran Awan

A lawyer for former DNC IT staffer Imran Awan is scrambling to block evidence found on a hidden laptop which may contain proof of a massive spy ring operating at the highest levels of Congress, in what may be the largest breach of National Security in U.S. history.

Awan, a Pakistani national, worked for dozens of Democratic members of Congress along with his wife, two brothers and a friend. Following the publication of DNC emails by WikiLeaks in the lead-up to the 2016 election, Congressional investigators discovered that the Awans had a secret server being housed by the House Democratic Caucus backed up to an offsite Dropboex account.

“For members to say their data was not compromised is simply inaccurate. They had access to all the data including all emails. Imran Awan is the walking example of an insider threat, a criminal actor who had access to everything,” –Daily Caller

According to a briefing, “all five of the shared employees system administrators collectively logged onto the [House Democratic] Caucus system 5,735 times, or an average of 27 times per day,” despite only one of them being authorized to do so.

The Awans were banned from the House IT network on February 2, 2017 after being named in a criminal investigation – however they continued to work in the building for Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz until Imran Awan’s arrest at Dulles Airport trying to flee the country in late July. Awan and his wife, Hina Alvi, were charged with conspiracy and bank fraud in relation to a real estate transaction.

The laptop in question was tucked away in a tiny room formerly used as a phone booth on the second floor of the Rayburn House Office Building late one night in March, only to be found by Capitol Police just after midnight on April 6, 2017 along with notebooks marked ‘attorney client privilege,’ letters addressed to the US Attorney of DC regarding Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and several forms of identification. Based on the contents of the backpack, some believe Awan wanted the laptop to be found.

Attorney-Client Privilege

Luke Rosiak of the Daily Caller, who has been Tuesday.

Via the Daily Caller:

“Chris Gowen, Awan’s attorney, said at the last hearing: “We do expect there being an attorney-client privilege issue in this case… What occurred is a backpack from my client was found, he was trying to get a better signal, there was a note that said attorney client privilege and a hard drive. We feel very strongly about this.”

A Capitol Police report reveals the following items were found in the backpack:

#1 a Pakistani ID card with the name Mohommed Ashraf Awan
#2 a copy – not original – of a driver’s license with name Imran Awan
#3 a copy (front and back) of his congressional ID
#4 an Apple laptop with the homescreen initials ‘RepDWS’
#5 composition notebooks with notes handwritten saying ‘attorney client privilege’ and possibly discussing case details below
#6 loose letters addressed to US Attorney of DC discussing the apparent owner of the bag being investigated.

As Rosiak points out, it is unclear how the handwritten note saying “attorney client privilege” could be construed to cover a hard drive, rather than the pages of [the] notebook it was contained on.

Andrew McCarthy, a former chief assistant U.S. attorney who has followed the case, said “The A/C (attorney-client) privilege only applies to communications between the client and lawyer that are for the purpose of seeking legal advice and that are intended by both parties to be kept confidential… Moreover, asserting that something is A/C protected does not make it so. You still have to show that the material in question constitutes communications strictly between the lawyer and client that were for the purpose of seeking legal advice.

“If I give my lawyer my bank records and ask him if they show evidence of a crime, the bank records do not become A/C-privileged — only his advice to me would be A/C-privileged. And if I stuck a sign on my bank records that said ‘A/C-privileged documents,’ that would not make them A/C-privileged documents,” he told The Daily Caller News Foundation Wednesday.” –Daily Caller

Debbie Downer

In May of 2016, Debbie Wasserman Schulz – an employer and personal friend of Awan – spent several minutes browbeating the Chief of DC Capitol Police at a budget meeting, claiming the laptop should be given back since it was hers and threatening ‘consequences’ if it wasn’t returned.

Of Note

shared employees,” hired by multiple Democrats for IT work whenever it was needed – so they floated all over the place doing all sorts of work on House members computers. Democrats Juaquin Castro, Cedric Richmond, Andre Carson, Jackie Speier, Tammy Duckworth, and Louis Frankel all employed the Awans.

Information Brokers? 

Judge Andrew Napolitano appeared on Fox Business Network in late July where he dropped a bombshell: not only did the Awans had access to the emails of every member of Congress, Imran Awan reportedly sold information to still unknown parties, which the FBI is currently investigating.

Napolitano: He was arrested for some financial crime – that’s the tip of the iceberg. The real allegation against him is that he had access to the emails of every member of congress and he sold what he found in there. What did he sell, and to whom did he sell it? That’s what the FBI wants to know. This may be a very, very serious national security situation.

Varney: Wait a second, he was the IT worker along with his two Pakistani brothers, for DWS, and other Democrats in the House – and the theory is that he got access to all of their secrets or whatever, and sold some?

Napolitano:

 Yes, and this was at the time that Congresswoman Schultz was also the chair of the Democratic National Committee. So at this point I don’t believe they know what he sold, and to whom he sold it – but they do know what he had access to, which is virtually everything in the House of representatives, which would include classified material in the House intelligence committee.

Lt. Colonel Tony Shaffer went even further – claiming that the Awan brothers were linked to the Muslim Brotherhood while working for Democrat Congressman Andre Carson, a report reinforced by Frontpage Magazine:

As Frontpage reported in February:

The office of Andre Carson, the second Muslim in Congress, had employed Imran Awan. As did the offices of Jackie Speier and Debbie Wasserman Schultz; to whom the letter had been addressed.

Carson is the second Muslim in Congress and the first Muslim on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and, more critically, is the ranking member on its Emerging Threats Subcommittee. He is also a member of the Department of Defense Intelligence and Overhead Architecture Subcommittee.

The Emerging Threats Subcommittee, of which Carson is a ranking member, is responsible for much of counterterrorism oversight. It is the worst possible place for a man with Carson’s credentials.

Carson had inherited his grandmother’s seat and exploited it to promote a radical Islamist agenda. He has interfaced with a laundry list of Islamist groups from CAIR to ISNA to ICNA to MPAC. Islamists have funded Carson’s career to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars. The Center for Security Policy has put together a dossier of Carson’s connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood is the parent organization of many key Islamic terror groups posing a threat to our national security including Al Qaeda and Hamas.

Andre Carson shared the stage at a CAIR banquet with Sirraj Wahaj: an unindicted co-conspirator in the World Trade Center bombing who had once declared,” You don’t get involved in politics because it’s the American thing to do. You get involved in politics because politics are a weapon to use in the cause of Islam.” CAIR itself had been named an unindicted co-conspirator in terror finance.

Immunity for Hina?

In September, it was reported that Hina Alvi – Imran Awan’s wife, had struck a deal with federal prosecutors to return to the U.S. from Pakistan to face conspiracy and bank fraud charges.

Alvi and her children fled to the safety of Pakistan in early 2017, so her voluntary return – which was structured with an arrest to be made “not in front of her children” is significant. Upon her return to the United States, Hina was arraigned on four felony counts of bank fraud and handed over her U.S. passport to prosecutors.

Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ) says that Alvi’s return may be part of a broader immunity deal with prosecutors in return for a “significant” and “pretty disturbing” story about Debbie Wasserman Schultz:

“I don’t want to talk out of school here but I think you’re going to see some revelations that are going to be pretty profound.  The fact that this wife is coming back from Pakistan and is willing to face charges, as it were, I think there is a good chance she is going to reach some type of immunity to tell a larger story here that is going to be pretty disturbing to the American people.”

“I would just predict that this is going to be a very significant story and people should fasten their seat belts on this one.”

Despite the volumes of evidence stacking up against the former DNC IT staffers, Debbie Wasserman Schultz claims the entire investigation of the Awans is nothing more than Islamophobia.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

MSU Bob Young Pulls The Old Attorney Client Privilege Privatization Subpoena Quash

I knew Bob was going to pull the ole "attorney-client privilege" card that was sticking out his back pocket.

Bill & Bob Battle Michigan Child Protection Attorney Client Privilege Law In MSU Investigation

Learn more: BEVERLY TRAN: Bill & Bob Battle Michigan Child Protection Attorney Client Privilege Law In MSU Investigation http://beverlytran.blogspot.com/2018/06/bill-bob-battle-michigan-child.html#ixzz5JxVsnUnX
Stop Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare 

What we have here, is a situation of a former Michigan Supreme Court Justice, Bob Young, now in the private capacity of representing a former Michigan Governor, John Engler, who is in a private position representing a public university, MSU, in the public matter of a criminal investigation in the trafficking of tiny humans and child rape, which was funded through public Title IX funds, through an publicly appointed special counsel, Bill Forsyth, by a Michigan Attorney General, Bill Schuette, crying "attorney-client privilege" regarding publicly funded email communications of a public university dealing with questionable activities federal fraud.

Show me what ya got, Bill...Forsyth, that is.

MSU fights search warrant in Nassar inquiry

Michigan State University has filed a motion to quash a search warrant served against it by the Michigan Attorney General's Office as part of an investigation into the school's handling of sexual abuse allegations against disgraced sports doctor Larry Nassar.

The search warrant was served this week after special prosecutor William Forsyth had threatened to obtain it for documents he said the university is "wrongfully withholding"that relate to the investigation.

But MSU said the documents the attorney general wants are privileged, and filed its motion to quash the warrant Thursday in Ingham County's 54-B District Court.

The university is willing to share all of the material with the judge and allow him to determine, case by case, if the materials are protected by privilege, said MSU spokeswoman Emily Guerrant.  

“We stand behind our previous position on this issue, that the attorney general is not entitled to examine our lawyer’s communication and legal advice to the university,” said Robert Young, general counsel for MSU.

“We have been cooperating with the attorney general’s investigation, and will continue to do so,"

Young said. "We are willing to share the documents in question with the judge if he wishes to individually review our privileged communications and make an independent opinion on the issue. This continues our cooperation in the investigation and also does not waive our attorney-client privilege.”

Officials from the AG's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

DOJ: More Children's Trust Fund Real Estate Mortgage Fraud Schemes By Attorneys

“The fiduciary duty that a lawyer owes to a client is paramount to the practice of law,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Zuckerman. “The Justice Department will prosecute and seek just punishment against any attorney who victimizes their clients for their own personal gain.”

This applies to children in foster care, also.

Have you ever asked yourself about what happens to the assets, inheritances and legacies of children who have been placed under the aegis of a state through foster care and adoption?

Have you ever wondered if a state has life insurance policies on children in foster care?

Have you ever wondered about the States Children's Trust Funds?

Perhaps, we should as the State Attorneys General.

Hey, Bill Schuette...

Smooches!

New York Attorney Pleads Guilty to Tax Fraud Related to Multimillion-Dollar Embezzlement From Deceased Client’s Estate

A New York-licensed attorney and former partner at a New York law firm pleaded guilty today to conspiracy to defraud the United States and tax evasion arising from a scheme to embezzle millions of dollars from a deceased client’s estate, announced Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard E. Zuckerman of the Justice Department’s Tax Division and U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman for the Southern District of New York.

“The fiduciary duty that a lawyer owes to a client is paramount to the practice of law,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Zuckerman. “The Justice Department will prosecute and seek just punishment against any attorney who victimizes their clients for their own personal gain.”

“As he admitted in court today, Steven Etkind violated the law, the canons of his profession, and the trust of his client by stealing more than $3.5 million from the client’s estate,” said U.S. Attorney Berman. “Etkind now awaits sentencing for his crimes.”

According to court documents and statements made in court, Steven M. Etkind was a partner at a New York law firm’s tax, trusts and estates group and a Certified Public Accountant.  Etkind performed legal work for a successful entrepreneur client, who passed away in 2008, naming Etkind as the co-executor of his $35 million estate.

The client’s will directed the creation of two charitable trust private foundations, funded with assets from the client’s estate, for the sole purpose of donating to 501(c)(3) charitable organizations, including those aimed at assisting Jewish-sponsored organizations.  Etkind was named co-trustee of these trusts. 

Beginning in 2009, Etkind and his co-conspirator set up a phony charitable organization, the United Jewish Education Foundation (UJEF), and used it to steal more than $3.5 million from these charitable trusts.  As part of the conspiracy, Etkind directed that donations from the trusts be first made to legitimate Jewish charitable organizations in order to give the disbursements the appearance of legitimate donations.  Etkind and his co-conspirator then redirected the funds to accounts of UJEF, the phony charity that his co-conspirator controlled. 

Etkind subsequently directed his co-conspirator to write checks, totaling $327,500, to a bank account in the name of JE Capital Holding Corp., a nominee corporate entity that Etkind controlled exclusively.  Etkind further directed more than $3 million to be used in 2010 to purchase a 6,300 square-foot home with a swimming pool in Southampton, New York.  The Southampton property was purchased for the use and enjoyment of Etkind and his family.  Etkind later transferred title of the property to JE Trust, a nominee trust he controlled. 

To conceal his embezzlement, Etkind filed, and caused to be filed, fraudulent personal, corporate, and charitable trust returns with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).  During the course of a subsequent audit of UJEF by the IRS Tax Exempt & Government Entities Division, Etkind and his co-conspirator made several false and misleading statements, including about the true ownership of the Southampton Property.         

United States District Judge John G. Koelt scheduled Etkind's sentencing for January 18, 2019.  Etkind faces a statutory maximum sentence of five years in prison on the conspiracy charge and five years in prison for tax evasion.  He also faces a period of supervised release, restitution, and monetary penalties. 

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Zuckerman and U.S. Attorney Berman praised the outstanding efforts by special agents of IRS Criminal Investigation, who conducted the investigation, and Trial Attorneys Jorge Almonte and Jack A. Morgan of the Tax Division, who are prosecuting the case, as well as the IRS’s Tax Exempt & Government Entities Division for their assistance in the investigation.

Additional information about the Tax Division and its enforcement efforts may be found on the division’s website.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Bill & Bob Battle Michigan Child Protection Attorney Client Privilege Law In MSU Investigation

Bill & Bob battle in the arena of Michigan Child Protection Law.

See, it is like this.

In Child Welfare, anything dealing with the "best interests of the child", whether that be financial, physical or in this instance, all of the above, MSU, being a public university, does not have to turn over anything the Michigan Special Prosecutor requests.

Oh, you dare to challenge me on this position?

Well, riddle me this:  How does a parent access her children's educational and medical records from the State of Michigan, to enroll them in school, after the children were Legally Kidnapped, drugged, raped & tortured in foster care for years?

Last time I checked, Bill....Schuette, that is, said that since foster care is privatized, the parent must hire a private attorney because it is a civil matter.

Last time I checked, poverty was one of the criteria to put kids in foster care, meaning, No money, no justice as "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth) have no civil rights.

Alas, Bill....Schuette, that is....is running a gubernatorial campaign and still has friends in D.C., and Bill...Forsyth, that is.... knows stuff, so I am putting my money on him.  Smooches!

Engler is scared, and rightfully so, because I am on a mission...

In the spirit of fuchsia...

MSU obstructing probe, prosecutor says

A special prosecutor has threatened to seek a search warrant against Michigan State University for documents investigators believe are “critical” in determining how school officials handled allegations surrounding disgraced sports doctor Larry Nassar.

Go Bill. Go Bill...Forsyth, that is.

The attorney general's office said MSU is "wrongfully withholding information" as well as constructing its communications in a way that obscures them for review. But the university countered that it is cooperating, while asserting attorney-client privilege in withholding some documents and redacting parts of others.

Oh Bob...you asserted attorney-client privilege.  You should really follow my work more closely.

More: Deal was to pay MSU lawyer $1.3M even if fired

More: Nassar victims: Engler has 'failed miserably' and must leave MSU

More: MSU trustees gather privately ahead of crucial meeting

The accusations are made in a series of letters exchanged beginning in April between William Forsyth, who was appointed in January by Attorney General Bill Schuette to oversee the independent Nassar investigation at MSU, and Robert Young, a former state Supreme Court chief justice who now serves as general counsel for the university.

Notice how the word "accusations" is plural.

Schuette named Forsyth in response to a request from the MSU trustees for an independent investigation of the school's actions regarding Nassar, a former MSU physician who is serving a de facto life term after pleading guilty to sexual assault and child pornography charges.

For a few plausible reasons why Schuette named Forsyth you can peruse over here.

The Detroit News obtained the letters through a Freedom of Information request to the Attorney General's Office.

NOTE TO THE DETROIT NEWS: Nice job on adopting the process of embedding docs!

Andrea Bitely, a spokeswoman for the Attorney General’s office, said she could not comment on whether Forsyth had obtained the search warrant he threatened in the June 15 letter. Forsyth said he has not received the documents he needs to do his review, alleging that the university's initial response was to provide scores of "irrelevant" documents, such as the school's bedbug control policy.

Bedbug policy is a much more serious issue than the welfare of children.  My goodness, you have John Engler at the helm, damn it!  You should know he does not care about tiny humans of "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth) unless there is a substantial opportunity to "maximize revenues" through privatization, as Engler is the King of Privatization, you know.

Reached Wednesday night, Emily Guerrant, an MSU spokeswoman, defended the school's response to the investigation but declined to discuss Forsyth's statements.

"Oh, Engler, are you covering up your
personal, corporate inurement from your
public office, again?"

"Without knowing more specifics on what exactly MSU is accused of withholding, it's hard for me to comment," she said. "We have handed over more than 75,000 documents to the AG's office, and have been thoroughly cooperating with their investigation."

MSU is a public university, which means that even I should be able to get those requested docs through a FOIA...or did Engler privatize MSU when no one was looking? That Engler is so crafty!

The dispute between the special prosecutor and Young, Interim President John Engler's hand-picked legal counsel, comes amid growing calls for Engler's ouster. At least two trustees and multiple political leaders have called on Engler to resign for insensitivity toward Nassar's victims, and one trustee has implied he would try to convince colleagues to fire the former governor at Friday's meeting of the Board of Trustees.

Joel Ferguson, vice chairman of the board, declined to comment on the letters Wednesday night. The other members of the board did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Though Forsyth said he met with Young in late March, in an April 11 letter to Young, he accused the university of continuing to block his investigation by behaving in a manner that "impedes this office's ability to fully evaluate the propriety of the university's assertions of privilege."

At the heart of the issue is the university's privilege log, which list the documents MSU claims it can legally withhold. According to Forsyth, the log totaled nearly 200 pages as of June 15 and covers more than 1,500 emails. Forsyth questions whether all of those documents qualify for protection.

Bill...Forsyth, that is... how many times do I have to tell you that child welfare was privatized in Michigan by Engler, which means that he is not "obstructing justice" as you may think, he is invoking privacy in Child Protection Law.

Michigan Child Protection Law Public Act 238 of 1975 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

In a May 24 letter to the MSU Board of Trustees, Forsyth asked the university to reconsider its assertion of privilege, saying the Nassar case is "unparalleled in our time" and the university "stands at the very center of those events."

"You must decide whether it best serves the interest of the people of the State of Michigan — to whom you owe a fiduciary duty — to withhold information in response to an inquiry by the State's Attorney General," Forsyth wrote "If you decline to waive the University's privilege, it will be virtually impossible to determine MSU's role in the the events surrounding the Nassar matter."

In a June 8 letter, Young responded that Forsyth is overstepping his authority.

"It is shameful for the Attorney General to demand access to the university's legal advice because we both understand that you are not entitled to that advice and no court in the country would ever compel the university to give you access," the MSU lawyer wrote.

Young added that the university is working closely with the state, and only a small fraction of documents have been held back as privileged.

"The fact is we are and have been cooperating," Young wrote. "To date, MSU has produced 46,245 documents to your office. Of these, only 256 documents have been fully withheld as privileged and another 176 have been produced partially redacted for privileged communications: fewer than one percent."

Forsyth wrote back June 15, saying his concern that the university was trying to circumvent the investigation had been heightened because of a communication between trustees chairman Brian Breslin and other board members.

"Our concern that MSU might be improperly withholding information was heightened by an email produced by the university from Chairperson Breslin to his fellow trustees discussing non-privileged information but directing them to copy legal counsel on their response in order to 'protect client privilege.'"

Young’s reluctance to release the communications runs counter to the university’s promise to cooperate with law enforcement, said John Manly, a lawyer who represents the majority of women and girls who sued MSU, USAG Gymnastics and other institutions for failing to protect them from Nassar's sexual abuse.

Hang in there Bill....Forsyth, that is.... I believe FinCen has this "attorney-client privilege" issue covered.

Manly added that Breslin's advice to trustees to copy attorneys on their communication to avoid its disclosure is evidence of further “obfuscation and stonewalling.”

“If you wonder how Larry Nassar happened under this board, well, that’s your answer,” Manly said.

The special prosecutor asked in April for a judge to review of documents for which MSU claims attorney-client privilege to determine whether they should be revealed or protected.

"These concerns are of critical import because the Privilege Log reflects that numerous emails involving key individuals in our investigation (for example, members of the Board of Trustees, former President Simon, Vice President Bill Beekman, Provost June Youatt, and Associate Provost Terry Curry) have been withheld," Forsyth wrote Young on April 11.

One document involving former MSU gymnastics coach Kathie Klages is specifically called into question.

"For example, the Privilege Log states that Document MSU-AG-0132987 has been withheld based on the 'attorney-client privilege,' Forsyth writes. "The document is described as an 'email chain requesting information to assist in rendering legal advice regarding Nassar litigation.'

"The email chain is between Kathy Klagas (sic) and Tracy Leahy (dated December 13, 2016). While no job title has been provided for Ms. Leahy, her LinkedIn profile indicates that she has been the Senior Institutional Equity Investigator and Deputy ADA Coordinator for Grievances at Michigan State University since 2015. Based on her job title, it's unclear how Ms. Leahy could have rendered legal advice to Ms. Klagas in 2016."

In his June 8 letter, Young said Forsyth had improperly sought privileged information from MSU and "coupled that demand with the implicit and tawdry threat that the Attorney General will publicly and politically embarrass the Board if it fails to give into your demand."

"On so many levels, this latest demand brings shame on you, the Attorney General and our legal profession that is expected to model and show respect for the Rule of Law," Young wrote. "It is hard to think of a more sacred American legal principle than that a party is entitled to the honest advice of its lawyers and the inviolate assurance that that advice will be confidential and protected.

"That privilege is, as the United State Supreme Court has said, 'the oldest of the privileges for confidential communications known to the common law ...," Young wrote.

The decision to waive attorney-client privilege is not an easy one, said Peter Henning, a Wayne State University constitutional law expert. Once that privilege is waived for one group, it's waived for any other lawyer, journalist or citizen who requests the same information, he said.

“The problem isn’t so much Forsyth as everyone else who might sue MSU,” Henning said.

Attorney-client privilege covers anyone who works for the organization, even communications between two employees, as long as the subject matter encompasses legal advice, Henning said.

On the other hand, he said, “just putting an attorney on the cc list does not make it privileged.”

Henning said a search warrant like the one proposed by Forsyth — in which a judge sorts through the contested information to exclude the privileged pieces — is a way to speed up the process while still maintaining MSU’s privilege.

Read the embedded document for Child Protection Law.  Remember, privacy is always in the best interests of the child.

The letters were released on the heels of a meeting Friday at which the MSU Board of Trustees will consider appointing Young as permanent general counsel.

Engler appointed Young, a longtime political ally, in February as the lead counsel assigned to coordinate the numerous investigations involving MSU’s handling of the allegations against Nassar and Title IX lawsuits that have been filed against the school.

Bill...Schuette, that is, appointed  Bill...Forsyth, that is, as his long time political ally.  Like I have previously stated, you always want your crew in your corner.  This is a life or death battle of political legacies and I have my money on the Bills...Schuette & Forsyth.

Critics questioned Young's rulings on sexual assault cases while a high court justice after he was appointed.

He went on to serve as the university's chief negotiator of a $500 million settlement between the university and Nassar's accusers.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Cocktails & Popcorn: The Attorney-Client Privilege Seems To Always Cover Up Dirt & Drama

The Attorney-Client Privilege seems to be this weed that vibrantly grows in the garden of justice, obfuscating the root systems of due process, for the purposes of either:

A.  Personal inurement of public office; or,

B.  Covering up how the personal inurement of public office was executed and who was thrown under the bus.

I have all intentions of illuminating the salacious  dirt & drama, pulling up the arcane legal weeds choking due process by harvesting the bounty from the garden of justice, which has been neglected for so many generations.

In summation...Welcome to Detroit!

Remember, we have all the tools to address those pesky, deep rooted attorney-client privileges.

Avenatti Hits Back Against WSJ Claims Of Stonewalling Feds In Cohen Case

Michael Avenatti & Stormy Daniels

Update: Avenatti responded to the WSJ report, suggesting that the story was "completely bogus and designed to undercut us."

"Any media report citing 'unnamed sources' (and not a single document) suggesting we are delaying the investigation into Mr. Cohen and DJT is completely false and without basis," he tweeted Tuesday morning. "We have already waived the privilege as to a host of docs and communications to ensure justice is done."

Any media report citing “unnamed sources” (and not a single document) suggesting we are delaying the investigation into Mr. Cohen and DJT is completely false and without basis. We have already waived the privilege as to a host of docs and communications to ensure justice is done.

— Michael Avenatti (@MichaelAvenatti) May 29, 2018

See below. 1) the WSJ had the story in the closing days of the campaign but sat on it and 2) Mr. Davidson lied to them and conspired with Mr. Cohen in 2016. This is why we have demanded to see all of Davidson's docs for mos and will sue if need be. #Bastahttps://t.co/iCUrQg3VoT

— Michael Avenatti (@MichaelAvenatti) May 29, 2018

Michael Avenatti has been frustrating federal prosecutors in their attempts to obtain information related to a $130,000 October 2016 payment made by President Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen to adult-film star Stephanie Clifford, also known as Stormy Daniels, who Avenatti represents.

Mr. Avenatti hasn’t yet acted on multiple requests from federal prosecutors in Manhattan for Ms. Clifford to waive the attorney-client privilege that prevents her former lawyer from discussing their communications about the nondisclosure deal, the people familiar with the matter said. In April, Mr. Avenatti, acting in his capacity as Ms. Clifford’s current lawyer, sent a cease-and-desist letter to her former lawyer, Keith Davidson, ordering him not to disclose any communications related to her, one of those people said.

Mr. Avenatti made similar demands of Ms. Clifford’s former manager, Gina Rodriguez, who helped engineer the hush-money deal. Mr. Avenatti tried to block Ms. Rodriguez from providing her communications with Ms. Clifford to federal prosecutors until he had reviewed them, other people familiar with the matter said. -WSJ

Avenatti said in an emailed statement to the Journal that Rodriguez's communications with Clifford are covered by attorney-client privilege because she was acting as a go-between for Clifford and Davidson. He also said that he had a right to review the documents and would sue Rodriguez if she would not provide them for review.

“We never told her not to provide documents to the government nor did we tell her not to cooperate,” Mr. Avenatti said.

Law professor Steven Lubet of Northwestern Pritzker School of Law told the Journal that Rodriguez's communications with Clifford would only be protected if they were to convey legal advice from, or giving direction to, Davidson.

Avenatti also denies threatening Rodriguez to enforce at 2016 nondisclosure agreement between the manager and Clifford which prevents the former manager from speaking publicly about her work with the former porn star. “That never happened. Period,” he said.

Given his history of threatening journalists over unfavorable coverage, and his wife's court testimony that he's "emotionally abusive," one has to wonder what Avenatti will say next.


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Cocktails & Popcorn: Gabe Leland's Detroit Witch Hunt & Steve Fishman's Attorney Client Privilege Future

"Me thinks I see, in front of me, more reasons
to stop by the dollar store to pick up more paper towel for the
buttery Detroit popcorn."  ~ The Detroit Baird

Me thinks I see the foreshadowing of an historic legal case addressing an historic component in the law of chattels when it comes to that darned "Attorney-Client Privilege" marriage thingy, here, in Detroit with Steve Fishman.

Steve Fishman knows stuff.

I am just going to leave this here for now.

Do The "Legal Geniuses" Of The Detroit Land Bank Authority Have An Attorney Client Privilege Issue Like Trump & Stormy?

Learn more: BEVERLY TRAN: Do The "Legal Geniuses" Of The Detroit Land Bank Authority Have An Attorney Client Privilege Issue Like Trump & Stormy? http://beverlytran.blogspot.com/2018/05/do-legal-geniuses-of-detroit-land-bank.html#ixzz5LYGR2BvD
Stop Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare 

Stay tuned.

2 separate lawsuits say Detroit Councilman Gabe Leland sought bribes

DETROIT (WJBK) - A Detroit businessman claims Detroit City Councilman Gabe Leland demanded free drinks, free food and free admission to his club in return for a promise to get city officials off his back.

Scott Bridgewater, an owner of the now-shuttered Centre Park Bar in downtown Detroit’s Harmonie Park, says Leland and one of his associates received more than $5,000 in booze, food and perks. Bridgewater sued Leland Monday, accusing the District 7 councilman of extortion.

Bridgewater’s extortion claim marks the second time in four months that a Detroit businessman has accused Leland of demanding cash or goods in return for Leland’s help in a dispute with city officials.

Bob Carmack, who owns an auto repair shop on West Michigan Avenue, sued Leland in March.
Bridgewater says he has witnesses who can confirm that Leland demanded free food and booze.
Carmack says he wore a wire for the FBI and caught Leland on hidden camera demanding $15,000 cash to help with his re-election campaign.
Leland, through attorney Steve Fishman, denies any wrongdoing. No criminal charges have been brought against Leland.
Bridgewater and Carmack’s claims differ in that Bridgewater says Leland demanded goods, rather than cash. But both men say Leland also sought services – free admission to Bridgewater’s club and free repairs at Carmack’s garage. They each also said Leland either did not try or did not succeed in helping them in their battles with city officials.
A city spokesman dismissed both Bridgewater and Carmack’s claims against city officials as baseless.
The lawsuits against Leland, filed in U.S. District Court, are just the latest matters raising questions about Leland’s ethics.

I revealed last year that Leland voted to approve contracts with companies owned or managed by his then-girlfriend that were worth more than $2 million. Detroit Police Chief James Craig also says he contacted the feds last year after he had what he described as an uncomfortable conversation with Leland in which Leland seemed to be fishing for information about a law enforcement investigation into towing contractors.

MORE GABE LELAND COVERAGE:

Detroit Councilman Leland uses 5th Amendment in lawsuit deposition
Questions swirl around meeting Detroit councilman had with police chief
Detroit councilman votes for contracts worth $2M to his girlfriend's company
Leland had been dating Jennifer Fiore, the daughter of towing mogul Gasper Fiore, who has since pleaded guilty to public corruption charges.
To hear more of Bridgewater’s claims – as well as the denial of the Leland associate Bridgewater accuses of also accepting free goods and services – check out my latest Problem Solvers investigation in the video player above.
Contact M.L. Elrick at ml.elrick@foxtv.com or 248-552-5261. Follow him on Facebook at “ML Elrick,”on Twitter @elrick or on Instagram at “ml_elrick.” 

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Cocktails & Popcorn: Brett Kavanaugh, Medicaid Fraud In Child Welfare & Russia

George Bush, indeed, chose the right obsequious sycophant for the job.

Oh, you though Trump picked him?

Nah, Trump was "advised" to pick Kavanaugh.

I will go out there and even say that all Kavanaugh's rulings were "from his private advisors", too!

I only say this because he seems not to be the most eloquent human I have encountered in the legal profession.

Seriously, count how many words he used that contained more than three syllables.

Kavanaugh pitched some 17th century theistic rhetoric which, of course, was devoid of any modern understanding of antenatal biomedical science and technology, like one would take to referring to one's genitals as "pee-pees".

Dare I even raise the issues surrounding personhood, which only deals with asset forfeiture to a private, parent corporation, when it comes to the abortion arguments, no one wants to mention, but me, when it comes to issues on chattel law, which is the premise to privatization by stripping civil rights, in the name of the tax exempt god.

Orin Hatch slammed Kavanaugh on being on the 9th Circuit email chains.

Kavanaugh came back with a "#Me2" response, which had absolutely nothing to do with passing around nasty ass emails using federal, secured email systems, because he had lots of women he supported as clerks.

Yup.  Lots of female clerks, and community moms from his church -  nice PR move.

Good thing he did not promote women for judicial appointments, or promote a woman's right to gestate, or a mother's right to stop the trafficking of their children who have been Legally Kidnapped by Catholic Charities, raped, beaten, tortured in foster care, then sold through adoption, (only if the kid lived through foster care this long), but we can probably find out in the rest of his emails, if they are ever released to the public.

Then, Kavanaugh start spewing words on regulation like how congress passes policy.

Congress passes law, not policy, which is done in the Executive Branch.  Duh.

Someone does not understand the Chevron doctrine because it was nothing but a tool to format the powers of privatization for those Public Private Partnerships to run their own, privatized administrations of federal funding, intentionally stripping the civil rights of due process.

Then, Leahy smashed him on using his very own stolen, classified emails, by https://amp.slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/judge-brett-kavanaugh-should-be-impeached-for-lying-during-his-confirmation-hearings.html?__twitter_impression=true, passed on to the Bush White House Administration, when Kavanaugh was running the ship, for judicial nomination decisions .

This is when there was a very uncomfortable, eerie silence with Kavanaugh, oh, and lots of water sipping, his strong point.

Then, Leahy continues by asking about meeting with outside individuals, sharing more classified intelligence with Miranda, snatched out of Judiciary Committee.

Lindsey Graham was in rare form, on point, hitting Kavanaugh on his relationship with Catholic Charities.

Kavanaugh defended practices of Catholic Charities, expressing in detail, how he "helps out people and children who need help". (a.k.a. Foster care and Adoption, or rather "Trafficking Tiny Humans").

He probably had his talking points from the American Enterprise Institute, the privatization policy home of the Madame Maura Corrigan (said in a high British accent).

Well, I guess he will be recusing himself on just about all the cases coming before SCOTUS.

How does Kavanaugh wish to be remembered as a Justice of SCOTUS?

Well, he said as a "good dad, a good husband..." and absolutely nothing about civil rights, due process, the rule of law, equal treatment under the law, justice, and nothing about the people, but alot about himself.

I could go on about the Florida "chads" or other situations of his White House career, but, instead, I am just going to put it out there that it looks like he will be recusing himself on just about all the SCOTUS docket that will be coming up for 2019 based on his own stare decisis on that god-awful "attorney-client privilege", particularly when it comes to Whitewater.

See, he argued on behalf of the United States to strip attorney-client during Whitewater.

The Independent Counsel (Kavanaugh) argues that the attorney-client privilege should not prevent disclosure of confidential communications where the client has died and the information is relevant to a criminal proceeding. 

Learn more: BEVERLY TRAN: Do The "Legal Geniuses" Of The Detroit Land Bank Authority Have An Attorney Client Privilege Issue Like Trump & Stormy? http://beverlytran.blogspot.com/2018/05/do-legal-geniuses-of-detroit-land-bank.html#ixzz5QFz6ukHF
Stop Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare 

Whitewater is back on the table, which means he would have to redo all his own, wonder, opinions in his court.

That is going to be awkward, yet, oddly entertaining watching the "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending) squirm their way out of responding to the Catch-22 of using their own lower court decisions against themselves.

I have yet to even mention that there is a possibility that he will be called to testify about his time in the Bush Administration and its launch of privatization through Faith Based Funding slush funds.

Anyway, for the following reasons, besides the fact that the Senate already had a lockdown on the nomination before the hearings, I support his nomination so we can put him on the stand on his cover up and profiting in the industry of Trafficking Tiny Humans.

Kavanaugh sat on the appeals panel for the False Claims Act case, dealing with Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare, reversing so the lower court could issue opinion on the tolling of the statute provision of the Act, because the court sided with MAXIMUS covering up Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare on behalf of the private contractor.

The kids got screwed, or rather the privatized agencies covered up the Trafficking of Tiny Humans with the assistance of Kavanaugh.

I wish someone Lindsey would ask him about that.

Did I emphasize that MAXIMUS was engaging in Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare?

Oh, I did?

Well, did I tell you about MAXIMUS GOODLATTECUS and how MAXIMUS funds political campaigns with all that Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare? 

Ok, fine.

Did I tell you about MAXIMUS, being all Russian Corporate Shape Shifting, with all its children's trust funds?

No?

Well, click here to learn about MAXIMUS.

(Can you tell I have an issue with MAXIMUS?)

No. 11-7039 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EX REL. MICHAEL L. DAVIS, APPELLANT v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, APPELLEE... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Cocktails & Popcorn: Cenk Uyger Is Back And Successfully Failed To Mention That Perkins Coie Sucks

Cenk Uyger & John Conyers, Jr. waiting for something
other than cocktails & popcorn.

Cenk Uyger of The Young Turks is back and failed to mention that Perkins Coie Sucks.

Now, why would Cenk neglect to identify the funding keyman, Perkins Coie, having dropped all those big attorney names, to increase his youtube hits, who are clients?

Hmmmmm......

How come Cenk does not talk about Bob Bauer and Marc Elias, "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending)?

Hmmmm......

Hmmmm.......

How come Cenk did not mention Jeffrey Katzenberg or even Bob Bauer, two primary individuals behind their decision to "organize" with TYT?

Maybe because no one has figured out if the "organizing" was with Perkins Coie, or one of its clients like the DNC, DCCC, Hillary for America, or a number of other Super PACs, or even clients like Dreamworks.

Perhaps, Cenk forgot about the upcoming Senate Judiciary Hearings on why Perkins Coie Sucks?

Did TYT social media staff ignore the #perkinscoiesucks or any other form of the hash tag for Perkins Coie, intentionally, and if so, why?

Did TYT engage in any "financial" transactions on behalf of any political campaign activities of the DNC, DCCC, or Hillary for America, (sssshhhhh....it is all the same Corporate Shape Shifter.)?

I am going to ask Cenk if this is one of those "Attorney-Client Privilege" issues.

Former White House Counsel Bob Bauer Exits Perkins Coie

Bauer will devote more time to teaching at New York University School of Law. He will split his time between New York City and Washington, D.C.

By Ryan Lovelace |
May 17, 2018 at 01:11 PM

Bob Bauer, The Original "Legal Genius" (trademark pending)

Robert Bauer, the Democratic Party legal stalwart who served as White House counsel to President Barack Obama, is leaving Perkins Coie after nearly four decades at the firm.

The firm said Bauer will continue to represent several of his existing clients on an individual basis and will serve as co-counsel with Perkins Coie on some of those matters. Bauer will also devote more time to teaching at New York University School of Law.

Bauer was not immediately available to comment, but in a statement he expressed gratitude for his time at Perkins Coie and said he was eager to continue working with colleagues at the firm as a former partner.

“When I came out of law school in 1976, the country was just beginning to regulate the political process in a way that hadn’t been true before,” Bauer said. “At Perkins Coie, we built a practice and defined the field in a way that you just do not find at other law firms. I’m proud of the work we have accomplished, the team we have built and the clients we continue to serve.”

Bauer started at Perkins Coie in 1980, founding the firm’s political law practice. In the ensuing 38 years, he stepped away only twice—to serve as counsel to the Senate minority leader during former President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial of 1999, and when working as Obama’s White House counsel from 2010 through July 2011.

After leaving the firm, Perkins Coie said, Bauer will continue to write and split his time between New York City and Washington, D.C. He will also remain as personal counsel to Obama and continue working with The Obama Foundation and The Biden Foundation as clients.

Though Perkins Coie is headquartered in Seattle, it has an outsize presence in D.C. thanks to its leading political law practice. The group, known for its longtime work for the Democratic National Committee and other Democratic groups and politicians, has been chaired since 2009 by Marc Elias, who was counsel of record for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.

Perkins Coie has also attracted attention in recent months based on reports that the firm played a role in funding research by Fusion GPS that led to the “Steele dossier” proffering ties between Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and the Kremlin.

Bauer has not been shy about commenting on controversies surrounding the Trump administration, including writing in support of former FBI director James Comey and arguing that Congress should enact legislation requiring special counsel Robert Mueller to issue a report to legislators if Mueller is fired by the president.

The following is from Wikileaks showing concerns with that "Attorney-Client Privilege".

Attorney Client Communication -- Superpac follow up

From:MElias@perkinscoie.com To: robbymook2015@gmail.com, d.cheng@me.com, john.podesta@gmail.com, Charlie.Baker@deweysquare.com, jesse@jesseferguson.com  CC: JBerkon@perkinscoie.com  Date: 2015-04-07 23:48 Subject: Attorney Client Communication -- Superpac follow up

Team – Per our conversation on Sunday, we have attached two draft policies dealing with the agency issue. The first would be the campaign’s. It sets forth HFA’s policy not to confer fundraising authority on any paid employee or consultant of a Super PAC that makes substantial expenditures in the presidential race. This would cover Priorities, Bridge, and WOMEN VOTE!, but would exclude Super PACs that occasionally dabble in the presidential race and social welfare orgs. The draft policy also spells out when an agent’s grant of agency terminates, in an effort to reduce the total number of fundraising agents floating out there at any given time. Finally, it codifies Charlie’s idea that the finance committee (as Dennis has currently explained it) is more of a recognition of work than a grant of additional authority. We’re still safer if we can avoid giving campaign fundraising titles to folks who are raising soft money for a Super PAC. But if that’s not possible with everyone, staking out this position now will be helpful. The second would be the Super PAC’s policy. Because the campaign cannot sanction the soliciting of soft money, the PAC needs to be the one spelling out the rules for individuals wearing “two hats” who want to raise soft money. However, we would condition any support we offer superpac on them adopting this policy. The goal is to create a uniform set of guidelines that, if followed, would help demonstrate to a regulator that the individual was raising soft money in a capacity other than the campaign’s agent. As we discussed, we may decide that some of our fundraising agents are too risky – either because we don’t trust them to follow these guidelines or because we do not think it is credible that they are raising in a capacity other than as a campaign agent – and tell Priorities that they cannot use them to raise. But this would be the uniform set of guidelines that we would insist everyone wearing “two hats” would follow. Lastly, we are still working on proposals to address the question of the role we can play re additional supporter/leadership for superpacs. We will be back shortly on that. -- Marc E. Elias Perkins Coie LLP 700 13th St, NW Washington, DC 20005 202-434-1609 (ph) 202-654-9126 (fax) melias@perkinscoie.com<mailto:melias@perkinscoie.com> ________________________________ NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.

The following is the policy brief attached to the email.

HILLARY FOR AMERICA POLICY ON FUNDRAISING AGENTS

Federal campaign law defines an “agent” as an individual who has been conferred actual authority by a candidate or campaign committee to solicit funds on its behalf (hereinafter, “fundraising authority”).  Hillary for America (“HFA”) may choose to confer such authority on certain individuals who are not employees.  The list of campaign fundraising agents could include individuals who agree to host sanctioned fundraising events on HFA’s behalf; individuals who offer to raise funds on HFA’s behalf and whose offer is accepted by HFA; and individuals whom HFA asks to raise funds on its behalf and who accept HFA’s offer.  Individuals who raise funds for HFA without the approval of HFA staff or individuals who raise funds for HFA in contravention of an instruction not to do so will not be considered agents of HFA, notwithstanding their representations to prospective donors or how those representations are understood.
The following rules will govern the campaign’s fundraising agents.  These are in addition to any policies conveyed by HFA to its agents in other documents or materials.
1.     HFA will not confer fundraising authority on any individual who is compensated (whether as an employee or a consultant) by a Super PAC that makes substantial expenditures to influence the presidential election.  Such individuals are not authorized to raise funds on HFA’s behalf.
2.     An individual’s fundraising authority expires on the earlier of the following: (1) when the fundraising agent informs HFA that s/he is terminating her/his fundraising agency; (2) when HFA informs the individual that it is terminating the individual’s fundraising agency; or (3) when the individual’s contemplated fundraising activity for HFA ends.  For example, when an individual has been conferred fundraising authority for a specific event, that authority terminates immediately after the event.  As another example, when an individual has been conferred authority to raise a specific amount of funds, that authority terminates immediately as soon as those funds are raised.
3.     HFA will have employees who are fundraisers.  At this time, HFA does not intend to retain consultants to raise funds nor does it intend to have volunteer fundraising positions (e.g. “National Finance Chair” or “Regional Finance Chair”). 
4.     HFA will recognize individuals who raise a certain amount of funds by placing them in honorary groups (e.g. “Finance Committee”).  Placement in these honorary groups does not suggest that the individual has any additional fundraising authority.  Moreover, there may be some individuals that remain in these honorary groups notwithstanding the fact that their fundraising agency has been terminated.

SUPER PAC POLICY ON FUNDRAISING AGENTS

Super PAC recognizes that it may designate an individual as a fundraising agent who is currently serving as a fundraising agent for a federal officeholder or candidate.  Federal law provides that an individual serving as a fundraising agent for a federal officeholder or candidate may legally raise funds outside of federal source restrictions and contribution limits, as long as the fundraising is not undertaken in that individual’s capacity as an agent for the federal officeholder or candidate.
The guidelines below govern fundraising activity by such individuals.  It does not apply to anyone other than these individuals.  It does not apply to individuals who were fundraising agents for a federal officeholder or candidate in the past, but have terminated that agency.  Such individuals would not be considered fundraising agents for a federal candidate or officeholder under federal law.  Super PAC encourages, though does not require, individuals who have ceased their fundraising activities for a federal officeholder or candidate to formally terminate their agency relationship with the officeholder or candidate prior to raising funds for the Super PAC.
1.     The individual may not use campaign resources (e.g. staff, facilities, donor lists, or campaign materials) while raising funds for the Super PAC. 
2.     The individual should not identify herself as being associated with the campaign while raising funds for the Super PAC.  For instance, if the individual has a fundraising title with the campaign or serves on an honorary committee, that should not be referenced while raising funds for the Super PAC. 
3.     The individual may not tell the prospective donor that s/he is soliciting funds on behalf of or at the request, suggestion, or direction of the candidate, a campaign staffer, or any campaign agent.  Nor should the individual suggest this through phrases such as, “It would mean a lot to Candidate for you to give to the Super PAC” or “I know that Candidate would appreciate it if you gave to the Super PAC.”
4.     When soliciting funds for the Super PAC, the individual must be clear that he or she is doing so on behalf of the Super PAC and not the campaign.  If the Super PAC has bestowed a fundraising title on the individual, he or she must use that title when soliciting for the Super PAC.  Likewise, if letters are sent to prospective Super PAC donors, they must be on Super PAC letterhead (or the donor’s personal letterhead); if emails are sent to prospective Super PAC donors, they must be from a Super PAC e-mail address (or a personal email address). 
5.     The individual may not solicit funds for the campaign and the Super PAC at the same time (e.g. in the same letter, phone call, e-mail, meeting, or event).
 The individual may not explicitly earmark funds specifically for use in the candidate’s race, though it is permissible for the individual to discuss the PAC’s support for the candidate as part of

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©