The Orange Man's letter to SDNY Judge Wood asking to enjoin government from using "taint teams"

[Starman]

https://www.scribd.com/document/376452375/Letter-from-Trump-s-Attorney-RE-COHEN-RAID

He's asking the Court to prevent the government from using a "taint team" to conduct a privilege review. He's asking the government to provide copies of seized materials to both Cohen and Trump so *they* can make the privilege determination, among other things. Someone should tell him that's now how it works.

Let me distill this down for you: The Orange POS wants to know if they have the pee pee tape.

I hope they will stream that someday.

 

[This_person]

https://www.scribd.com/document/376452375/Letter-from-Trump-s-Attorney-RE-COHEN-RAID

He's asking the Court to prevent the government from using a "taint team" to conduct a privilege review. He's asking the government to provide copies of seized materials to both Cohen and Trump so *they* can make the privilege determination, among other things. Someone should tell him that's now how it works.

Let me distill this down for you: The Orange POS wants to know if they have the pee pee tape.

I hope they will stream that someday.

What happened to you? You had many posts that were reasoned and informed, a worthwhile person to discuss items. Now you spout as bad or worse than Trans and Sap. What happened to you?

 

[awpitt]

What happened to you? You had many posts that were reasoned and informed, a worthwhile person to discuss items. Now you spout as bad or worse than Trans and Sap. What happened to you?

What part of the PDF is incorrect?

 

[This_person]

What part of the PDF is incorrect?

I wasn't challenging the PDF or the information therein at all. I was challenging the poster of "the Orange POS", "the pee pee tape", and the type of person who would want to see that streamed (wonder if he meant the pun?).

 

[Starman]

I wasn't challenging the PDF or the information therein at all. I was challenging the poster of "the Orange POS", "the pee pee tape", and the type of person who would want to see that streamed (wonder if he meant the pun?).

Nothing gets past you, eh boss?

 

[SamSpade]

Ok, I have a question for all.

If the FBI raids a lawyer's office, I assume they do this by a warrant, right?

Doesn't the warrant pretty much say what they can and can't get, and what kind of information or material is relevant to the search?

As in, they go in looking for a specific data and happen upon a used crack pipe - so even if it's in plain sight, it can't be used as evidence
because it would be illegally obtained?

I'm asking because they're on fairly thin ground legally for violating lawyer client privilege, which as I understand it,
means they can ONLY look at material relevant to the possibility of criminal cooperation between a lawyer and a SPECIFIC client.
That if they find something regarding a DIFFERENT client and with respect to something unrelated to the purpose of the raid -
they may not use it.

Am I right?

Because if they're free to just look through ANY client files, that totally blows lawyer client privilege, doesn't it?

 

[GURPS]

Doesn't the warrant pretty much say what they can and can't get, and what kind of information or material is relevant to the search?

AFAIK the warrant has to be specific

Drugs [maybe type]
Guns ....
Stolen Property .... [cars, stereos, TVs]

the problem with is the FBI was looking for Communications - Paper, Computer Files [email, word docs that may be letters], cell phones that might have text messages
since some correspondence could be miss filed or stored in a non related case file I'm guessing the FBI went through or grabbed EVERYTHING .... not just folders named Trump

I'm asking because they're on fairly thin ground legally for violating lawyer client privilege, which as I understand it,
means they can ONLY look at material relevant to the possibility of criminal cooperation between a lawyer and a SPECIFIC client.

the way I understand it ... the FBI grabbed Everything, a separate team will comb the files, handover to case agents relevant info

 

[Starman]

O

Am I right?

Not exactly.

First off, the Plain View Doctrine is fairly well-established in caselaw and in our legal framework. In your crack pipe example, as long as an officer (a/k/a government official) is legally present in, say a residence, if he sees a crack pipe then it can be seized as evidence, even if the warrant for the search doesn't include the crack pipe.

But the Plain View Doctrine doesn't apply here.

The rules generally hold that the government may not purposely seize communications protected by A/C privilege. The general procedure is that a team should be setup (dubbed the "taint team" in this incident) to review communications/documents for privileged information. Often times, the task will be to identify and protect privileged information. And sometimes, they will take that information and make a case to a judge for a specific ruling as to whether or not the information is or is not privileged.

Furthermore, there is a crime/fraud exception to A/C privilege. So for example, if some document or communication included evidence of an actual crime, then it cannot be considered privileged.

Here's the DOJ manual/guidelines for the nuances arising from searching an attorney's office:

https://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-13000-obtaining-evidence

 

[SamSpade]

Furthermore, there is a crime/fraud exception to A/C privilege. So for example, if some document or communication included evidence of an actual crime, then it cannot be considered privileged.

But - it IS true that it must refer to one client on the warrant, right? They can't sift through data for other clients that have nothing to do with the warrant.
If they obtain a warrant because they believe there's grounds the two were both involved in a crime, they can't look at OTHER clients -
otherwise A/C privilege is pointless.

And I don't see how they should be able to seize everything and just keep what they think is relevant.

 

[Midnightrider]

But - it IS true that it must refer to one client on the warrant, right? They can't sift through data for other clients that have nothing to do with the warrant.
If they obtain a warrant because they believe there's grounds the two were both involved in a crime, they can't look at OTHER clients -
otherwise A/C privilege is pointless.

And I don't see how they should be able to seize everything and just keep what they think is relevant.

not if the person of interest in the warrant is the lawyer. For instance. if he is accused of running a money laundering operation for numerous clients all of that info would be fair game.

 

[Starman]

But - it IS true that it must refer to one client on the warrant, right? They can't sift through data for other clients that have nothing to do with the warrant.
If they obtain a warrant because they believe there's grounds the two were both involved in a crime, they can't look at OTHER clients -
otherwise A/C privilege is pointless.

And I don't see how they should be able to seize everything and just keep what they think is relevant.

Personally, I don't think they should be able to either, but I'm just stating what the rules are as they stand. A search of an attorney's office of this nature doesn't happen that often. That DOJ manual I linked to earlier suggests that these types of warrants should be issued only if/when all other means of obtaining the info have been exhausted.

I'd like to see the warrant and affidavit which preceded the search, but as far as I can tell, not even Cohen or his attorney(s) have seen it yet so I'm not sure we ever will.

 

[GURPS]

I'd like to see the warrant and affidavit which preceded the search, but as far as I can tell, not even Cohen or his attorney(s) have seen it yet so I'm not sure we ever will.

wouldn't that be part of the case :shrug:

 

[SamSpade]

not if the person of interest in the warrant is the lawyer. For instance. if he is accused of running a money laundering operation for numerous clients all of that info would be fair game.

Does seem to be a VERY flimsy reason for breaking A/C privilege with ALL of his clients.
And again - I kind of thought that a warrant that broke with it would be specific for the clients involved, since they'd also be subject to the same scrutiny.
I thought you couldn't use a raid for a fishing expedition.

 

[Midnightrider]

Does seem to be a VERY flimsy reason for breaking A/C privilege with ALL of his clients.
And again - I kind of thought that a warrant that broke with it would be specific for the clients involved, since they'd also be subject to the same scrutiny.
I thought you couldn't use a raid for a fishing expedition.

they obviously had evidence the lawyer was actvely involved in an illegal enterprize. If it was evident that he was using his office as a shelter for that activity the prosecutors would have no choice but to review all of his records.

 

[Sapidus]

I wasn't challenging the PDF or the information therein at all. I was challenging the poster of "the Orange POS", "the pee pee tape", and the type of person who would want to see that streamed (wonder if he meant the pun?).

Trump ha proven himself to be a nasty individual worthy of this criticism and much worse based on the language he uses and his behavior. Why does Starman's criticism bother you but the same and wore behavior by a PRESIDENT doesnt?

Thats the real question

 

[This_person]

Trump ha proven himself to be a nasty individual worthy of this criticism and much worse based on the language he uses and his behavior. Why does Starman's criticism bother you but the same and wore behavior by a PRESIDENT doesnt?

Thats the real question

I've never seen the president call someone a POS, talk about pee pee tapes, or behave like the type of person who would like to see streaming video of women paid to pee on one another.

But, if I had, I would ask the same of him in a forum in which we were both speaking.

If those things bother you that you believe Trump has done, does Starman's use of these phrases and derogatory statements toward the elected president of the United States bother you, too? Or, is it ok if Starman does it against the president, but NOT ok if the president does it against people he does not like? Are you consistent, or a hypocrite?

 

[Sapidus]

I've never seen the president call someone a POS, talk about pee pee tapes, or behave like the type of person who would like to see streaming video of women paid to pee on one another.

But, if I had, I would ask the same of him in a forum in which we were both speaking.

If those things bother you that you believe Trump has done, does Starman's use of these phrases and derogatory statements toward the elected president of the United States bother you, too? Or, is it ok if Starman does it against the president, but NOT ok if the president does it against people he does not like? Are you consistent, or a hypocrite?

The president allegedly engaged in those behaviors. He also had unprotected sex with a porn star and spanked her with a magazine with him on the cover. ( and now we all have to be subjected to these details daily) He also made fun of a disabled reporter, mocking his speech and hand gestures.. He also used the word Puss* referring to the female anatomy and admitted to grabbing and touching women without their consent and to going in dressing rooms to ogle naked women without their consent.


He has so far debased the public discourse that it is laughable that you would call out someone on a forum for even mentioning the very behavior Trump engages in,



Allegedly.

 

[Grumpy]

The president allegedly engaged in those behaviors. He also had unprotected sex with a porn star and spanked her with a magazine with him on the cover. ( and now we all have to be subjected to these details daily) He also made fun of a disabled reporter, mocking his speech and hand gestures.. He also used the word Puss* referring to the female anatomy and admitted to grabbing and touching women without their consent and to going in dressing rooms to ogle naked women without their consent.


He has so far debased the public discourse that it is laughable that you would call out someone on a forum for even mentioning the very behavior Trump engages in,



Allegedly.

You really, really need help, Cupcake

 

[Sapidus]

You really, really need help, Cupcake

No. You need to get your head out of your butt and stop worrying about how people are talking about Trump and start worrying about the very real possibility he has committed crimes including collusion and at the very least allowed his employees and hangers on to do so on his behalf.


If you think Cohen isn't dirty and that he isn't going to flip on Trump to save his own skin you are delusional.

 

[This_person]

The president allegedly engaged in those behaviors. He also allegedly had unprotected sex with a porn star and allegedly spanked her with a magazine with him on the cover. ( and now we all have to be subjected to these details daily)

None of which is the same as calling someone an orange POS, or talking about pee pee tapes, or wanting to see those streaming in video.

He also made fun of a disabled reporter, mocking his speech and hand gestures.

Nope. He used the exact same mocking gestures for normally-abled people. It is completely fabricated to suggest he was doing so in order to mock the reporter's disabilities.

He also used the word Puss* referring to the female anatomy and admitted to grabbing and touching women without their consent

In a private conversation, he used the word pussy and said they would LET HIM do it, implying consent (not without consent). Again, you are lying.

and to going in dressing rooms to ogle naked women without their consent.

I am honestly unaware of this claim. Pretty sophomoric if he did it - pretty stupid.

He has so far debased the public discourse that it is laughable that you would call out someone on a forum for even mentioning the very behavior Trump engages in,



Allegedly.

So, even if all of the above were true and not mostly lies or allegations without proof, does Starman's use of these phrases and derogatory statements toward the elected president of the United States bother you, too? Or, is it ok if Starman does it against the president, but NOT ok if the president does it against people he does not like? Are you consistent, or a hypocrite? (You seemed to miss the actual question)