Also look at when he “retired” from his job at Chapman…one short week after the insurrection.
“After discussions over the course of the last week, Dr. John Eastman and Chapman University have reached an agreement pursuant to which he will retire from Chapman, effective immediately. Dr. Eastman’s departure closes this challenging chapter for Chapman and provides the most immediate and certain path forward for both the Chapman community and Dr. Eastman. Chapman and Dr. Eastman have agreed not to engage in legal actions of any kind, including any claim of defamation that may currently exist, as both parties move forward.”
I have seen many people comparing the attorneys associated with Donald Trump to mob lawyers. The main problem with a comparison like that is the Mafia would never, ever hire lawyers this fucking stupid.
Ummmm…IANAL but it seems to me if Eastman was stupid enough to use this account for criminal conspiracy, he was also using it for communicating with his students, law clients and others (university HR, etc.).
Could be that the “privileged” stuff that they are sorting out are the emails that are about things other than this case. IIRC, one article mentions something about 19,000 emails. This sounds to me like way too many to cover the past year or so, unless all Eastman was write to co-conspirators.
So someone is going through to weed out the non-pertinent stuff. But not necessarily that the “privileged” emails are part of this case.
Or am I missing something?
ETA: yes, I missed something. The 19,000 emails are apparently already sorted out and are related to “Eastman’s representation of Trump”.
So, Eastman (a lawyer??) sent emails pertaining to his work outside of Chapman U. on Chapman U.'s servers and expects that those emails won’t be released??? It really would be quite amusing if it weren’t; so critically dangerous to the Republic.
Could the university just hurry up and deliver the emails before being served withan injuction to hold them? Sorry, Justice Brewski, we were just complying with a lawful subpoena.
I’m not going to look up the precise legal standard, but the crime/fraud exception to attorney-client communications applies when the communication is itself in furtherance of the crime or fraud. You can definitely have privileged communications with a client about possible future crimes, in no small part because advising clients not to do crimes and how to avoid doing criminal things is good and valuable to society.
OT: I’d like to think this is Biden slapping at Manchin, but I doubt that’s the case. Still a good thing. Manchin’s daughter is CEO of this despicable company.
Thank you. I confess, I feel entirely safe guessing that Mr. Eastman was NOT advising Mr. Trump to avoid criming. Moreover, as I mention in another post, under California Law, privilege is [likely] waived, anyway, because the emails were written on an email system owned by his then current employer, and where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Sad!
(By “sad” I mean, of course, too fscking funny for words.)
What is the rule if a client informs you he’s kinda sorta maybe thinking about committing a crime, in the future? He has a plan, and maybe will do it. Or not. Not sure. Don’t go saying anything to anyone, I’m just kidding. Or maybe I’m not. I’ll let you know for sure. Later.
