April
18, 2014
Sovereign Valley Farm, Chile
In the Land of the Free, people grow up hearing a lot of things about
their freedom.
You're told that you live in the freest country on the planet. You're
told that other nations 'hate you' for your freedom.
And you're told that you have the most open and fair justice system in
the world.
This justice system is supposedly founded on bedrock principles--
things like a defendant being presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The right to due process and an impartial hearing. The right to counsel
and attorney-client privilege.
Yet each of these core pillars has been systematically dismantled over
the years:
1. So that it can operate with impunity outside of the law, the federal
government has set up its own secret FISA courts to rubber stamp NSA
surveillance.
According to data obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information
Center, of the nearly 34,000 surveillance
requests made to FISA courts in the last 35-years, only ELEVEN have been rejected.
Unsurprising given that FISA courts only hear the case from the
government's perspective. It is literally a one-sided argument in FISA
courts. Hardly an impartial hearing, no?
2. The concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' may officially exist
in courts, but administratively it was thrown out long ago.
These days there are hundreds of local, state, and federal agencies
that can confiscate your assets, levy your bank account, and freeze you
out of your life's savings. None of this requires a court order.
By the time a case goes to court, you have been deprived of the
resources you need to defend yourself. You might technically be
presumed innocent, but you have been treated and punished like a criminal
from day one.
3. Attorney-Client privilege is a long-standing legal concept which
ensures that communication between an attorney and his/her client is
completely private.
In Upjohn vs. the United States, the Supreme Court itself upheld
attorney-client privilege as necessary "to encourage full and
frank communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby
promote broader public interests in the observance of law. . ."
It doesn't matter what you're accused of-- theft. treason. triple
homicide. With very limited
exceptions, an attorney cannot be compelled to testify against a
client, nor can their communications be subpoenaed for evidence.
Yet in a United States Tax Court
decision announced on Wednesday, the
court dismissed attorney client privilege, stating that:
"When a person puts into issue his subjective intent in deciding
how to comply with the law, he may forfeit the privilege afforded
attorney-client communications."
In other words, if a person works with legal counsel within the
confines of the tax code to legitimately minimize the amount of taxes
owed, that communication is no longer protected by attorney-client
privilege.
Furthermore, the ruling states that if the individuals do not submit
attorney-client documentation as required, then the court would
prohibit them from introducing any evidence to demonstrate their
innocence.
Unbelievable.
While it's true that attorney-client privilege has long been assailed
in numerous court cases (especially with regards to tax matters), this
decision sets the most dangerous precedent yet.
With this ruling, government now has carte blanche to set aside
long-standing legal protections and even deny a human being even the
chance to defend himself.
Naturally, you won't hear a word about this in the mainstream media.
But it certainly begs the question, what's the point of even having a
trial? Or a constitution?
When every right and protection you have can be disregarded in their
sole discretion, one really has to wonder how anyone can call it a
'free country' any more.
Until next week,
Simon Black
|
|
|
|
1 comment:
This could work both ways.
What if legal counsel misrepresented me and I am being held responsible. Counsel could no longer invoke attorney client privilege which would show I was misled by the attorney; possibly leading to charges being dismissed and charges brought against the attorney.
Although what I have seen it does not matter if the attorney or accountant misrepresented you, you are held responsible. Attorneys and accountants have a hold harmless agreement. Which in my opinion says: we are doing this work for you but you are responsible for fully understanding the law or tax code. If I did fully understand and could determine I would not need them.
Post a Comment