HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Journalistic impartiality... » Reply #35
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #34)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 09:22 AM

35. You seem pretty confused. Let me clear up a few things for you.

First..Unlike you, I am not quoting Mr. Greenwald. I am quoting the appellate opinion on his major fuck-up of rule 26(b)(3). I've now given you the cite multiple times. It would be sporting if you read the opinion you are opining on. The Center for Constitutional Rights smacked Greenwald's ass righteously...it's worth the read.

Second...Leagle.com is not Little Green Footballs.

Third...appellate opinions recite the findings of facts of the lower court. They do not find their own. Greenwald's ethical violations were not vacated by the appellate court...they remain on record. That the appellate court threw him a bone by noting that they judge not character, but conduct was nice of them...perhaps they thought him merely ignorant, as opposed to malicious. Which is an entirely possible conclusion, given his conduct....

Fourth...If you read the opinion you are opining on, you would realize that the 52-page transcript I am referring to is Greenwald's own work product. Not only was he stupid enough to wiretap a witness..he made a transcript of it.

Then, in a move I simply cannot explain....he brought that transcript to deposition, apparently hoping to impeach a witness. When CCR demanded all evidence of all the wiretaps, Greenwald claimed work product doctrine under 26(b)(3).

Well, because of the ethical violations, the court found that Greenwald couldn't claim the privilege. So his client lost that protection, and Greenwald had to hand over all the transcripts. The magistrate characterized one of those transcripts, the appellate court noted, in a manner that reflected very poorly on Greenwald.

With the privilege lost, Hale settled the case. The NY bar put out a clarifying opinion, referenced in my OP.

And this case is taught in law schools as how not to violate your client's privileges.

It would really help if you read the cases you opine on.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 55 replies Author Time Post
mimi85 Jun 2013 OP
OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #1
sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #7
magellan Jun 2013 #9
malaise Jun 2013 #10
Whisp Jun 2013 #11
OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #13
sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #14
OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #18
OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #19
OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #24
OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #25
grasswire Jun 2013 #27
OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #28
grasswire Jun 2013 #29
OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #30
JaneyVee Jun 2013 #31
sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #39
OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #44
OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #38
mimi85 Jun 2013 #2
Catherina Jun 2013 #3
randome Jun 2013 #4
sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #8
KoKo Jun 2013 #37
Monkie Jun 2013 #5
KoKo Jun 2013 #36
msanthrope Jun 2013 #6
sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #12
Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #15
sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #22
Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #26
msanthrope Jun 2013 #32
sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #16
Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #17
sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #23
msanthrope Jun 2013 #33
Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #34
LineLineLineLineLineReply You seem pretty confused. Let me clear up a few things for you.
msanthrope Jun 2013 #35
Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #42
msanthrope Jun 2013 #45
msanthrope Jun 2013 #40
Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #43
msanthrope Jun 2013 #46
Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #47
msanthrope Jun 2013 #48
Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #49
msanthrope Jun 2013 #50
Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #51
msanthrope Jun 2013 #52
Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #53
msanthrope Jun 2013 #54
Rex Jun 2013 #20
treestar Jun 2013 #21
Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #41
flamingdem Jul 2013 #55
Please login to view edit histories.