Corrupt cheesehead criminals conceal complicit contract.
I donât know Wisconsin public records laws, but I find it hard to believe that the fee agreement would be excluded from them. Itâs not like the agreement said, âThe Law Firm agrees to defend the gerrymandered districts that the Clients drew,â right? Right?
Confusing headline. To âreleaseâ has a technical legal connotationâyou release someone from a contract and the obligations it imposes. Better here to use Wisconsin GOP wonât âdiscloseâ the contract.
Did this article really say the new Dem Atty Gen will DEFEND the maps??
Pummel the GOP bastards! Scottieâs call for transparency is BS!
They buried the lead.
Yes, you are right. We are suckers.
Vosâ spokesperson told the newspaper that the document was covered by attorney-client privilege.
UmmmâŚsince this is being paid for by the stateâŚwouldnât the âClientâ be the people of Wisconsin???
WTFâŚwhat is that about? Anybody know???
An engagement letter is typically not covered by privilege. It is discoverable, at least where it is relevant. The fact that the law firm was hired is public and not confidential, and so is the nature of the representation. So is the cost of the engagement. It is difficult to think of anything in the engagement that even conceivably might be attorney-client privileged information. And thatâs putting aside the WI public disclosure laws. Sounds like Vos is one of those who thinks that just because thereâs a communication with an attorney means that it is attorney-client privileged. Thatâs not how it works.
Fee agreements are not covered by attorney-client privilege. Total bullshit lie.
They are usually subject to the attorneyâs ethical duty not to disclose client confidences. That is not the same thing as privilege. A client can reveal confidential information without risking a claim of a general waiver of the privilege.
This is as big a pile of shit as the claim that non-governmental witnesses can invoke executive privilege.
Yes he did and Iâm rather pleased as he is doing his job no matter how distasteful. A REPUG on the other hand would refuse.
âHow can we cheat if you know what weâre doingâ
If the lower court found the maps unconstitutional and the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, doesnât that mean the lower courtâs decision stands? Too bad the legislature and/or legislators canât be sued or fired for malfeasance.
Perhaps thatâs why the GOP needs to bring in outside legal support? While itâs the AGâs job to defend the state, that doesnât mean heâs required to conceal evidence in the process or otherwise cheat and lie.
Apart from just fee agreements, the GOP canât have it both ways. Either the client is the State or itâs the RNC. If itâs the State, then itâs the peopleâs business. If itâs the RNC, then the RNC, not taxpayers, must foot the bill.
Also, too.
If theyâre using taxpayer money to activities that they themselves contend are not taxpayer business, would the crime/fraud exception apply automatically?
Pretty sure thatâs never automatic, but maybe the new AG can get a wiretap and find out whatâs going on there. Iâd settle for a wire tap
LibTARD criminaL overreach. LIke TRUMPâs lawyer whO HE hardly EVEN knows, theY WANT TO break into BARTLIT beck and get attorney CLIENT PRIVILEGED documents to spy.