House Select Committee “Eastman & Trump engaged in a criminal conspiracy” deep dive of the filing. Sorry about the CA Bar investigation (not) UPDATED -NOTICE of Objection & Eastman has COVID-19
Last night (3/3/22) the HSCJ6 filed a stunning and I mean absolutely stunning brief. Asking the Court to DENY Eastman’s Attorney Client & Work Product protection. HSCJ6 Argues Crime =NO PRIVILEGED
The March 4, 2022 -1:41PM (DC Local time) can be found at the end of this article and it is actually REALLY important…
Point of personal privilege - fair warming this is going to be a really long article. I make no apology for the lengthy article but I won’t judge you (much) if you opt for the TL-DR position beyond me telling you -fine you don’t want to read this well then you clearly do not want to fully understand how catastrophic and detailed the HSCJ6 motion is but I’m not the boss of you -you’re an adult and you can make your own decisions but I reserve the right to troll you …I’m kidding about the trolling but I’m super cereal (inside joke) about not reading this…
John Eastman -extensive background-
Before we dissect the House Select Committee on Jan6th (HSCJ6), March 2, 2022 filing —I think you might actually benefit from reading previously published articles. Specifically those addressing John Eastman. At a later date I’ll dive back into Jeffrey Clark because it is important to remember the HSCJ6 already sent a criminal referral to the DOJ regarding Clark (found here, here and here)
June 15, 2021 -House Oversight Committee Trump’s BIG LIE & the DOJ -RECEIPTS for DAYS- the emails are BAT SHIT CRAZY - as promised UPDATED
July 27, 2021 (important as this goes directly to Eastman’s attorney client absurd privilege) ) Deputy Attorney General Bradley Weinsheimer letter(s) waiving executive privilege re Jan 6th
July 31, 2021 - House Oversight releases handwritten notes…Trump & DOJ post Barr resignation -updated more files dropped -2nd Update Rep Scott Perry video
September 24, 2021 - Infrastructure Week is HERE -subpoena lalapalooza via House Select Committee -
September 21, 2021 John Eastman then provided CNN's Jeremy Herb with a longer, six-page memo, which was dated January 3. This is a far more robust and comprehensive memo than what was originally reported a few days ago. The six page memo details several potential electoral count scenarios.
October 2021 - You do NOT “plead the fifth” -you invoke it. Period. Full Stop. Updated with Meadows lawsuit against Speaker Pelosi
December 10, 2021 - This little orange piggy can cry “weee. weee. weee” all the way to 1 First St NE -SIGNIFICANT win for the Select Committee on Jan 6th
January 11, 2022 - Judge to Trump “you can’t walk that back.. two hour delay” what do the 3 lawsuits have in common? Whispers there’s a 4th lawsuit too.
January 20, 2022 - Princess this request is voluntary but if I were you, I’d agree to voluntarily cooperate with the Select Committee -updated- GA Special Grand Jury —pay close attention to Keith Kellogg mentioned in this article —at the time I told you that was important - IT IS (see pages 9 thru 15 of the HSCJ6 March 2, 2022 filing -also see Ex. G, Kellogg Tr. 87, 90-92 -via DDC-ECF or via scribd
Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and accurate copy of certain pages from the deposition of Keith Kellogg, Jr. by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol on December 14, 2021.
January 28, 2022 - John Eastman attempts to stonewall arguments, righteously annihilated by the Court. UPDATED with Jan28th Filings -2nd Update with JSR & it’s a doozy
..if you choose to only read only one of my previously published articles… TD:LR..
…then I beseech you to please read this one…because the amount of research and facts herein will help guide you through the HSCJ6 recent filing
January 28, 2022 - The House Select Committee on Jan6th issued additional subpoenas re Republican “fake electors”
January 30, 2022 - John Eastman & Cleta Mitchell - Meta data doesn’t lie. I have questions. Incidentally this is one article I’m kind of proud of because it reflects some of my better research.
Your obligatory daily saltwater therapy…
Ever mindful of just how much information I’m going to throw your way, I figured that some of my readers would actually appreciate a saltwater therapy intermission before we dive into the HSCJ6 March 2, 2022 filing…
What is Attorney Client and Work Product Privilege…
While this privilege is somewhat self explanatory, all too often individuals (who have little to zero understanding of both civil and criminal Federal Rules of Procedure) continually make gross assumptions and that unfortunately clouds the actual subtext and adds “fog” to what’s important…
Firstly, attorney client privilege is a bed rock of our Judicial System and more broadly the “attorney client relationship” — see the recent National Law Review article, which reads in part:
…. a client to refuse to disclose (and to prevent their attorney from disclosing) confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating legal services. The privilege typically extends to communications between a client and their attorney, between an attorney and the attorney’s representative (e.g., paralegal), or between two parties that share a common legal interest.[1] Four elements are required to establish the existence of the attorney-client privilege:
A communication
made between privileged persons
in confidence
for the purpose of seeking, obtaining, or providing legal assistance to the client.
Secondly setting aside your preconceived notions of what you “think” attorney client privilege is, I’d like to offer you what the American Bar Association’s (ABA) views on both the attorney/client privilege and work product doctrine. Also see the ABA August 9, 2005 Resolution and Report 111 Regarding Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Doctrine Which reads in part:
The attorney-client privilege is a bedrock legal principle of our free society that is important in both the civil and criminal contexts. The privilege enables both individual and organizational clients to communicate with their lawyers in confidence, which is essential to preserving all clients’ fundamental rights to effective counsel. The privilege also encourages clients to seek out and obtain guidance to conform their conduct to the law, facilitates self-investigation into past conduct to identify shortcomings and remedy problems, and enables lawyers to fulfill their ethical duties to their clients, all of which benefit society at large…
The work product doctrin
e, which protects materials prepared by or for an attorney in connection with litigation that is pending or reasonably anticipated, underpins our adversarial justice system and must be preserved. The work product doctrine allows attorneys to prepare for litigation or trial without fear that their work product, legal theories, and mental impressions will be revealed to adversaries, to the detriment of their clients. The protection accorded to work product is premised on the same basic policy rationale as that underlying the attorney-client privilege—that an attorney cannot provide full and adequate legal representation unless certain confidential client-related information is shielded from adversaries
I’ll bet Eastman will use → Upjohn vs. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981).
Generally speaking the Supreme Court has long held privilege anc work product is applicable to both individuals and corporations. More specifically in1981 the Supreme Court held;
In Upjohn the Supreme Court; noted that an effective legal representation requires that the privilege be clear (unambiguous) and must be consistently applied, as “an uncertain privilege...is little better than no privilege at all.” Upjohn at 393.
See Upjohn vs. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981). But (yes there’s always a “but”) and this is critically important so please pay attention (or you’re going to force me to reach through the intertubes and attempt to slap the deep stupid out of the Blue QANON-sense spouting their incorrect nonsense) if I am a betting person I think Eastman will glom onto this relevant subsection of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Upjohn, which reads in part:
…violate these fundamental legal protections established by the courts, undermine the confidential lawyer-client relationship and the right to counsel, and hinder the administration of justice.
The Crime Fraud Exemption(s)…
Many incorrectly assume that there is only one exemption as it relates to Attorney Client Privilege and the Work Product Doctrine. There are in fact five exemptions:
CRIME/FRAUD EXCEPTION
TESTAMENTARY EXCEPTION
BREACH OF DUTY
INTENTION OR COMPETENCE OF A CLIENT
COMMON INTEREST EXCEPTION
See the ABA Fact Sheet, see ABA Rule 1.18: Duties to Prospective Client, see ABA Attorney-Client Privilege Materials because it’s important for you to know the facts versus a “click bait” social media post…
Spicy SideBar - in February of 2020 Avenatti went to the MadDog site to give me an ear full “work product doctrine” — He literally screamed; “you’re a moron and you have no idea what you’re talking about” —Apparently Avenatti was super mad that I had stated his work product doctrine and privilege arguments were fatally flawed and that in concert with his multiple crimes —he no longer enjoyed such privilege… as it turns out we now know who was right and who was wrong —because facts matter, irrespective of how loudly that charlatan of a “lawyer’s lawyer” screamed. Given I’m not the loudmouth ahole who’s sitting in a LA County jail and who was later found guilty of extortion, embezzlement, identity theft and is facing a third trial for stealing millions from his own clients …see July 2021 article, see February 5, 2022 guilty verdict and February 8, 2022 article (that video is one of my finer works of art -snort) And apologies, for my momentary lapse of “whtcha talkin’ about Willis” —and nope I’m never, like ever… going to accept any of their belated apologies. Facts: you stole my research. You encouraged Avenatti and frankly your entire existence makes my stomach turn. Now back to the HSCJ6 filing & implications/arguments that John Eastman will likely use…
Privilege is not absolute…
In short yes attorney client privilege and the work product doctrine are in fact the bedrock of legal principles BUT these are NOT absolute. There is one primary exemption -the Crime-Fraud Exemption… translated in non-legalese as such: if you as an attorney are assisting a client in the furtherance of a crime and/or fraud or you and your client are attempting to conceal a crime -then the attorney client is in fact vitiated -but this governs “past conduct” —Generally speaking my industry does not encourage Attorneys (and/or support staff) to advise clients on acts of crime or fraud… In 1906 re: United States in Alexander v. U.S., 201 U.S. 117, 121 (1906).)— you can read a far more robust and detailed explanation via this ABA link
…when applicable, does not extend to all communications made in the course of the attorney-client relationship—rather it is limited to those communications and documents in furtherance of the contemplated or ongoing criminal or fraudulent conduct.” In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 419 F.3d 329 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing cases from the 10th, 2nd, 8th, and D.C. Circuits).
the crime-fraud exception also applies to the work-product doctrine. See In re Int’l Sys. & Controls Corp. Sec. Litig., 693 F.2d 1235, 1242 (5th Cir. 1982); In re Antitrust Grand Jury, 805 F.2d 155, 164 (6th Cir. 1986); In re Sealed Case, 676 F.2d 793, 812 (D.C. Cir. 1982); In re John Doe Corp., 675 F.2d 482, 492 (2nd Cir. 1982); In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 604 F.2d 798, 803 (3rd Cir. 1979).
Okay now that I believe you now have the prerequisite (albeit generalized) information concerning the Crime Fraud Exemption, let’s dissect the HSCJ6 March 2, 2022 filing -be warned this might become painfully granular but if you trust my observations and analysis then I trust my readers stamina… furthermore yes my highlights and underlines in a Court filing are my way of telling you “Hey this is important so you better pay attention” -the reality is most individuals do not read the full filings. So my highlights & underlines are your virtual cliff notes? For Example -I now refer you to pages 2 and 3 -which read in part:
“The select committee's brief refutes on numerous grounds the privilege claims Dr. Eastman has made to try to keep hidden records critical to our investigation…”
Plaintiff has already invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to 146 separate questions posed by the Select Committee…Now he is attempting to conceal a range of relevant documents behind claims of attorney-client privilege and work-product protection. Below, the Select Committee focuses on Plaintiff’s (and apparently Mr. Trump’s) claims for documents dated January 4-7, 2021, and respectfully urges the Court to reject every such claim…
Plaintiff chose to distribute these communications over an unprotected university server even after he was expressly admonished by the University President and reminded that he was not free to use University email and computers in support of a political candidate. Finally, Plaintiffadmitted that President Trump authorized him to discuss their communications in public, apparently in an effort to establish some form of defense for President Trump’s conduct. Any privilege over these subjects was, therefore, waived.
Again a few months ago I walked you through the problematic nature of John Eastman using a Champan University Laptop and that would be central to both Champan University and the HSCJ6 (read more here) —because the “ownership” wasn’t really in question. Eastman used a Chapman University computer issued to him. The University warned Eastman that the terms of his employment prohibited him from using that University Computer in the furtherance of assaulting a political candidate…
…and yes I understand how redundant I am being but that’s on purpose. I am attempting to underscore the importance of my previous assertions and now largely echoed by Champan University (see RESPONSE re EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Subpoena 2 filed by Defendant Chapman University via DDC-ECF or via Scribd) that Eastman isn’t the actual custodian of the 170+ documents he’s trying to shield from the HSCJ6
This particular footnote is incredibly important and gloriously ominous for Eastman, Trump et al —and that should bring you incandescent joy because when I read that footnote I found myself squealing with utter delight. For the record the exhibits are attached to the March 2, 2022 HSCJ6 filing (hence why that document is 221 pages long)
New/important: the CA BAR INVESTIGATING EASTMAN “sufficiently alleges misconduct…was “warranted for protection of the public.”
On March 1, 2022 the California State Bar issued the following press release, which reads in part (also to those who argued I was wrong about the CA Bar, go suck a rotten lemon because as it turns out, someone was right and a bunch of Blue QANON were wrong -yet again - snort):
A number of individuals and entities have brought to the State Bar’s attention press reports, court filings, and other public documents detailing Mr. Eastman’s conduct… We want to thank those who took the time to bring to our attention this information, which serves as the starting point for our investigation. We will be proceeding with a single State Bar investigation in which we will continue to gather and analyze relevant evidence and go wherever it leads us.”
A State Bar investigation seeks to determine whether there is a basis for filing a Notice of Disciplinary Charges. An attorney has a right to a fair hearing and must be presumed to be innocent of any misconduct warranting discipline until any charges have been proven in a proceeding before the State Bar Court.
The HSCJ6 goes on to argue that several federal Courts have already made numerous finding of facts that completely unbraided Trump et al’s big election lie. More specifically the HSCJ6 point to the following adjudications, findings etc which then lead to Rudy Giuliani Disbarment and Syndey/Lin et al court imposed sanctions, largely based on their egregious judicial misconduct..
President and his associates persisted in making “stolen election” claims even after the President’s own appointees at the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security, along with his own campaign staff, had informed the President that his claims were wrong. According to the President’s senior campaign advisor, soon after the election, a campaign data expert told the President “in pretty blunt terms” that he was going to lose .
On November 12, 2020, the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) issued a public statement 1noting “unfounded claims and opportunities for misinformation” about the election, and affirming that“[t]here is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes…
…Barr stated publicly that the “U.S. Justice Department ha[d] uncovered no evidence of widespread voter fraud that could change the outcome of the 2020 election,” a position he reiterated on December 21 when rejecting calls to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate election fraud…2
…I’ll keep repeating this until it finally sinks in…
what do I say about footnotes? Oh yes, always and I mean always read the footnotes because failure to do so, means you’re likely overlooking material facts - in my industry we put far more focus on footnotes than some of the disclosures in the brief. Yes that’s not conjecture, that actually SOP for those in the legal community… gasps even legal support staff… clutching my invisible pearls.. For example: “Ex. D, Jason Miller Deposition 90-91” ←(the deposition excerpt of Jason Miller can be found starting on page 148 thru 158 of the HSCJ6 filing)
Moreover, to those who continue with their uniformed criticism of the HSCJ6 —you ding dongs either can’t read or your just beyond the point of reasoning with an insane person. Here I made it easy for you -do you see what I actually redlined? I mean English is my second language so what the hell is your excuse? <snickers> my Spicy just can not be contained, at all and I pity the fool who thinks it can…
—Seriously sit the bleep down. The grown ups are talking and you’ve been proportionately relegated to the “kid’s table”. No be a good little boy/girl and eat your jello in silence or go up to your room and re-think about your life choices… Are we clear?
I’ve repeatedly stated that: I trust the HSCJ6 and so should you —because this Committee has done everything by the book —their investigation is wide ranging —with over 556 witnesses (so far) but apparently that’s just not enough to satiate the Blue-QANON’s insatiable thirst for “social media relevance” —Yes I’ve been holding that in for months -and the aforesaid paragraph was narrated in my best “mom voice”— I’m sick and tired of the various Blue QANON and their despair deza… I don’t need to personally call out certain blue QANON— most of you already know who I’m talking about —these grifting charlatans are no-nothing pieces of microwaved dog feces.
The Blue-QANON seriously needs to think before they beclown themselves. Yes that’s where I am and absolutely not, I make zero apologies for my assertions… and your obligatory twerking clown video intermission/break;
…(The Select Committee will address these issues in detail in hearings later this year.)…
The President nevertheless continued to insist falsely through January that he had “won the election in a landslide.” And despite being repeatedly told that his allegations of campaign fraud were false, the President continued to feature those same false allegations in ads seen by millions of American… (The Select Committee will address these issues in detail in hearings later this year.)
As the President and his associates propagated dangerous misinformation to the public, Plaintiff was a leader in a related effort to persuade state officials to alter their election results based on these same fraudulent claims… President Trump, Plaintiff, and several other associates of the President reached out directly to state officials to communicate unsubstantiated allegations of election fraud
Footnote 18 -there it is, in black and white —which should be viewed as entirely ominous for Eastman and Trump:
The Select Committee has interviewed a number of state officials, and their accounts are consistent with the press reports cited in the paragraph that accompanies this footnote. Plaintiff has claimed privilege over several communications with state legislators referring to potential legislative action
The HSCJ6 also reached back to their November 8, 2021 letter to Eastman…found here -reiterating that in November 2021 the Committee was in possession of “credible evidence”…
Following this advice from Plaintiff—advice that Plaintiff admitted no member of the Supreme Court would accept —President Trump repeatedly attempted to instruct, direct, or pressure the Vice President, in his capacity as President as of the Senate, to refuse to count the votes from six States. For example, on January 4, 2021, President Trump and Plaintiff met with Vice President Pence and his staff. In that meeting, according to one participant, Plaintiff tried to persuade the Vice President to take action on the electors…
Vice President Pence had repeatedly made clear that he would not unilaterally reject electors or return them to the states….Nevertheless, just before President Trump spoke, Plaintiff falsely alleged widespread manipulation and fraud with voting machines, purportedly altering the election outcome, and then delivered this message to the crowd:
The evidence….state of Trump’s mind…
Again just to reiterate the House Select Committee is not conducting a criminal investigation —but there are key phrases you should pay close attention to -largely because the HSCJ6 will likely make a criminal to the DOJ but the nuance here is the HSCJ6 has secured substantial evidence and some of that goes directly to Eastman and Trump’s state of mind and actions taken (mens rea is the state of mind, whereas actus reus -is the actual act)…but stunningly here is the HSCJ6 actual tick tock of the events leading up to the deadly Jan6th Domestic Terror attack…
The evidence obtained by the Select Committee indicates that President Trump was aware that the violent crowd had breached security and was assaulting the Capitol when Mr. Trump tweeted. The evidence will show that rioters reacted to this tweet, resulting in further violence at the Capitol. Indeed, rioters at the Capitol were shouting for the Vice President to be hanged.
A minute after President Trump’s tweet, Plaintiff sent an email to Vice President Pence’s lawyer stating: “The ‘siege’ is because YOU and your boss did not do what was necessary to allow this to be aired in a public way so the American people can see for themselves what happened.”…
…Plaintiff knew what he was proposing would violate the law, but he nonetheless urged the Vice President to take those actions…
To help you understand pages 15 thru 20 the HSCJ6 unequivocally has evidence of a direct nexus between Eastman (who was also at the Mayflower Hotel) and Donald Trump -the fact that we now know Witt unquestionable clarity that Eastman was with Steve Bannon at the Mayflower Hotel -that is now extraordinarily bad for Trump, Bannon and Eastman…
The Select Committee’s investigation is continuing to gather evidence on the planning for the violent assault, communications between those who participated, and communications by the Trump team from the Willard war room and elsewhere. …individuals planned for violence that day, including with the placement of pipe bombs, the accumulation of weaponry for potential use on January 6 across the river in Virginia, and the use of tactical gear and other weaponry
… Evidence also indicates that the violent rioters who attacked police, breached the Capitol, and obstructed and impeded the electoral vote were provoked by President Trump’s fraudulent campaign to persuade the American people that the election was in fact stole
No really you should read footnote 52 in its entirety - it’s incredibly satisfying how the HSCJ6 managed to dovetail numerous Oath Keepers and dozens of current Defendants and explained in detail the actual nexus/through line which unquestionably links Eastman, Trump, Bannon, the Mayflower and dozens of defendants…
HSJC6 to Eastman prove Trump was a “client”…
Spoiler Eastman not only can’t prove he was acting on behalf of his client “Trump for President” but then in recently filings Eastman contradicted himself and then re-contradicted himself. The HSCJ6 actually glommed on to Eastman’s infirmities and Eastman’s refusal to ameliorate said deficiencies and I LOVE IT —because procedurally speaking the HSCJ6 essentially called bullpuckey on Eastman ever changing arguments… See pages 20 thru 24 of the HSCJ6 filing
…signature page with lines for the client and attorney to sign—that letter is unsigned…
Plaintiff Has Not Met His Burden to Establish Application of the Common Law Attorney-Client Privilege…the Plaintiff Has Neither Met His Burden to Establish the Attorney-Client Relationship Nor Has He Sufficiently Established the Privileged Nature of the Communications…Plaintiff claims that “[t]he attorney-client relationship between Dr. Eastman and President Trump should be beyond dispute… and declares that he filed briefs on behalf of the Trump campaign in state litigation in December 2020. Pl.’s Ex. 1, Eastman Decl. ¶ 20. But Plaintiff does not even attempt in his declaration to claim attorney-client privilege over the relevant matters and the relevant time at issue here.
…Plaintiff finally revealed what he purports is an engagement letter. That letter identifies the client as “Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.” Ex. A to Ex. 1 at 1. But—despite a clearly delineated signature page with lines for the client and attorney to sign—that letter is unsigned…
The purported engagement letter -unsigned- LLOLs
Oh you think I’m just being extra Spicy? I can assure you that I was not. Since, I received an early parole and my work day concluded at 3PM today? Apparently my bosses informed me that right before I decide to issue a throat punch, apparently I clench my jaw and ball my right hand into a fist… I was not kidding when I posted in Instagram “I will not throat punch people today, because a felony is frowned upon” ™️©️ -Filey …the official office position: I think you’ve sufficiently conveyed the client’s displeasure and we think [lawmakers name redacted] is absolutely terrified by your death stare… take the rest of today off”
…so I was allowed an early release and this gave me a few hours of free time. And naturally what do I do in my copious free time -yes my extracurricular Substack activities shall not be impeded by work…
Plaintiff provided no declaration from his client regarding the scope of his representation.The lack of signatures is critical because the letter itself states that it becomes operative “[u]pon the proper signatures by all parties hereto.” Ex. A to Ex. 1 at 1. By the terms of the letter, therefore, the absence of signatures suggests the letter was notoperative. Plaintiff’s declaration, moreover, does not authenticate this unsigned letter, nor does Plaintiff include the cover email by which the engagement letter was “transmitted.” Ex. 1, Eastman Decl.
No really the HSCJ6 counter argument here is absolutely exquisite and dare I say freaking brutal… this is analogous to a teacher telling the student. Sure if your dog ate your homework then imma gonna need you to produce evidence that 1) you have a dog and 2) that it actually ate your homework…3) otherwise sit dow and finish your homework. For Example; I now refer you to page 24, which reads in part:
Plaintiff did not identify a single common interest agreement. Plaintiff’s self-serving assertion of a common interest “on information and belief” and conclusory claims about a general common interest—as opposed to an actual agreement—do not satisfy his burden to show that these third parties were brought within the ambit of the privilege such that inclusion of these third parties did not destroy any privilege.
And then the HSCJ6 offers a two punch argument that the Court should consider if Eastman has a viable attorney client privilege claim -the fact the HSCJ6 points to the following cases - it’s just some amazing litigation research by the HSCJ6; In re Lindsey, 148 F.3d 1100, 1106 (D.C. Cir. 1998) and Md. Restorative Just. Initiative v. Hogan,
…to the extent that the Court finds that Plaintiff was providing advice on political or campaign strategy rather than law, the communications are not privileged, because “advice on political, strategic, or policy issues . . . would not be shielded from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege.” In re Lindsey, 148 F.3d 1100, 1106 (D.C. Cir. 1998); Md. Restorative Just. Initiative v. Hogan, No. 16-01021, 2017 WL 4280779, at *3 (D. Md. Sept. 27, 2017) (“A claim of attorney-client privilege is only legitimate where the client has sought the giving of legal, not political, advice.”).
Meaning that Eastman’s attempt to assert privilege over Chapman University’s emails and their server —it’s not just laughable Eastman’s arguments are not grounded in any case law to support his absurd assertion…
When a party asserts confidentially and/or Privilege - the Courts (typically via Standard Review) examine the following four factors:
(1) does the corporation maintain a policy banning personal or other objectionable use,
(2) does the company monitor the use of the employee’s computer or e-mail,
(3) do third parties have a right ofaccess to the computer or e-mails, and
(4) did the corporation notify the employee, or was the employee aware, of the use and monitoring policies?”
These factors point to the conclusion that any intent Plaintiff may have had to communicate confidentially over the Chapman server was not objectively reasonable…Chapman’s Computer and Network Policy directly undermines any purported expectation of confidentiality. That policy is clear: “Users should not expect privacy in the contents of University-owned computers or e-mail messages.” Policies and Procedures: Computer and Network Acceptable Use Policy, Chapman University, https://perma.cc/7ZUA-ZALN
Again as previously noted to numerous published articles, months ago I explained that Eastman’s “privilege” was not his to invoke and more importantly that the rightful custodian of the e-mails and other communications in question by the HSCJ6 during the relevant time frame of Jan6th thru 7th, respectively —Eastman’s specious arguments were never founded in any case law or facts…
Plaintiff was notified of Chapman’s relatively stringent policy and can be presumed to be aware of the it. Plaintiff served on the Chapman faculty for over twenty years and was previously the Dean of Chapman’s law school. According to the University, whenever Plaintiff logged on to Chapman’s network during the relevant period he received a “splash screen” message stating: “Use of this computer system constitutes your consent that your activities on, or information you store in, any part of the system is subject to monitoring and recording by Chapman University or its agents, consistent with the Computer and Acceptable Use Policy without further notice….
I now refer you to page 28 of the HSCJ6 filing because this is the equivalent to the jurisprudence FAFO —
Chapman’s President publicly emphasized the university’s “clear policies in place regarding outside activity,” explaining that “
” Dawn Bonker, President Struppa’s Message on Supreme Court Case, Chapman University (Dec. 10, 2020), https://perma.cc/3CTG-4DBN.
Plaintiff had no reasonable expectation that his documents would remain protected. Not only was the University’s policy clear, but any expectation of confidentiality was manifestly unreasonable following the admonishment by Chapman’s President. See Bonker, supra.
Again assuming arguendo, that John Eastman’s privilege claims had any legs to stand on -the HSCJ6 repeatedly noted that Eastman was repeatedly reminded that his ongoing work for Trump was expressly prohibited —if he was using a Chapman University computer, which he was and why I decided to drill down on the meta data, you can read more here because I researched the ___ out of it. Primarily driven by Eastman’s unpersuasive arguments that somehow Eastman “owned” the communications he created/sent via the Chapman University laptop and email server…
And finally the complete upbraiding of Eastman’s preposterous argument that he could “reach back” in his failed attempt to retroactively “claw” back various waivers of confidentiality… that’s not how this works —once you’ve “pierced the veil” you can not claw it back. To suggest otherwise is completely uniformed and not even remotely grounded in well settled case law. But meh whadda I know… You don’t need to take my word for it - you should take the HSCJ6 word for it because they are absolutely correct…
…Neither former President Trump nor Plaintiff can use attorney-client privilege “both as a sword and a shield…”
Eastman’s work product-doctrine…
The Courts have largely held that work product doctrine must meet the following
(1) be prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial and
(2) be prepared by or for another party or by or for that other party’s representative.” Richey, 632 F.3d at 567
As the HSCJ6 correctly argues -Eastman has failed both prerequisite test regarding the work-product doctrine. I’d actually argue that Eastman didn’t just fail —he almost entirely abandoned his previous assertions because as noted he can not pass both test…
Congressional Defendants believe that many (if not the vast majority) of the communications at issue involved efforts to interfere with the counting of the electoral votes on January 6 in violation of the Electoral Count Act.
And the HSCJ6 repeatedly hammers home the fact that on March 1, 2022 the CA Bar publicly announced they had launched an investigation into John Eastman —I do not understand why so many in the mainstream media overlooked this salient fact —but I suppose it’s not that important— or IS IT? Whispers of course it’s important and that’s why I wanted my readers to have the factual information…
Again Eastman can not attempt to retroactively assert a “clawback”of previous disclosures - I now refer you to page 35 and the following paragraph, in its entirety:
Plaintiff has presented no evidence that he had an agent relationship with any of these people, despite this Court’s order instructing Plaintiff to “file with the Court and the Select Committee evidence of all attorney-client and agent relationships asserted in the privilege log.” … In his declaration (Ex. 1 Eastman Decl. ¶ 29), he claims to have communicated extensively with “statistical and other experts,” but makes no attempt to show that these people—or any of the others on his logs—had agent or attorney-client relationships..
Plaintiff cannot retrospectively designate communications with ideological or political confreres as deserving work-product protection …absent establishing that those people were representatives of his client.
I’m not even sure why Eastman thought he could persuade the Court to “shield” his communications with a journalist — it isn’t just laughable —it is offensive because Eastman’s attempt to contort well established law regarding the work-product doctrine is in fact “Legal Stuff 202” for dummies and I’m not an attorney yet even I know this. Come on John -I thought you were an esteemed guardian of the Rule of Law -bejesus you actually taught future attorneys —that’s just deliciously sad and hilarious. Do better John -do better because the HSCJ6 took your specious arguments to the woodshed and made pulp out of them. I found this particular section of the HSCJ6 filing absolutely sublime…
And there it is - the most persuasive argument by the HSCJ6 - this section of the HSCJ6 filing is incredibly important because the Court must weigh the parties arguments and here the HSCJ6 argument is incredibly persuasive… Especially the “undue burden” and how Eastman is now using the Judicial System to delay the HSCJ6 access to the “pivotal” documents he is in possession of…
…the HSCJ6 meets both the “substantial need” and a “compelling need”…He may also have played other important roles in the events under investigation…
Oh Dear -now that particular sentence is rather important because this isn’t the HSCJ6 engaging in subterfuge, no this is the HSCJ6 drawing a very deep line in the sand and boy does it absolutely thrill me - like “inject this directly into my veins after my Red Bull injection” …
Plaintiff was a central figure in the effort to encourage the former Vice President to reject the electors from several states and in the strategy to facilitate different slates of electors. He may also have played other important roles in the events under investigation. Plaintiff’s “strategy, mental impressions and opinion” concerning these efforts “are directly at issue” in the Select Committee’s investigation…
The pressing need to complete a full investigation into an unprecedented attack on American democracy by reviewing documents involving a key participant is both substantial and compelling
…as someone who spends the majority of most work days researching case law —I have to say the HSCJ6 March 2, 2022 Motion is one of the most well written and incredibly sourced and well argued brief I’ve read in a long time. The mere fact I’m stating that is my way of saying just how much I respect the HSCJ6 attorneys and legal support staff. And no I make zero apologies for the length of this article. Because the HSCJ6 March 2, 2022 filing is worth probably an additional 5,000 words (give or tad minus/plus 30 words for my spelling errors) also here’s a super fun fact (and I’m betting many of you are unaware of this) -and again why the footnotes should be mandatory reading. Also see Congressional Oversight Manual Updated March 31, 2021- which the HSCJ6 noted in footnote 74
Congress has consistently taken the view that its investigative committees are not bound by judicial common law privileges such as the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine…Congress’s investigative authority is rooted in the separation of powers inherent in the Constitution’s structure
And my closing thought the quote that has largely gone viral within the mainstream media -I wish they had actually given their readers/viewers the contextual backdrop of the following quote - because content and context are not mutually exclusive and this is very important:
Critically for this case, an in camera review of the documents is warranted when the party seeking production has provided “a factual basis adequate to support a good faith belief by a reasonable person that in camera review of the materials may reveal evidence to establish the claim that the crime-fraud exception applies.” United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 572 (1989)…
That standard has plainly been met here. As discussed in the Background section above, evidence and information available to the Committee establishes a good-faith belief that Mr. Trump and others may have engaged in criminal and/or fraudulent acts… and that Plaintiff’s legal assistance was used in furtherance of those activities. Accordingly, this Court should conduct an in camera review of the documents to determine whether the crime-fraud exception applies.
Again back on January 2, 2022 I specifically pointed your attention to remarks made by Rep Liz Cheney and yes of course the HSCJ6 emphasized (albeit sans attribution) 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) —
The evidence detailed above provides, at minimum, a good-faith basis for concluding that President Trump has violated section 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2). The elements of the offense under 1512(c)(2) are: (1) the defendant obstructed, influenced or impeded, or attempted to obstruct, influence or impede, (2) an official proceeding of the United States, and (3) that the defendant did so corruptly. Id. (emphasis added).
To date, six judges from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia have addressed the applicability of section 1512(c) to defendants criminally charged in connection with the January 6th attack on the Capitol…
I’m old enough to remember a certain PITA Twitter account that repeatedly created numerous threads about what Trump’s actual plan was - The sad reality is most Americans are way smarter than most people are willing to give them credit for. For Example my Twitter followers knew on November 10, 2020. see USAO-PA re Ballots being tossed. -See November 9, 2020 mini-thread - See unroll of November 2020 Thread —just because someone stated on November 9, 2020 what Donald Trump’s play was -that doesn’t mean that person was wrong —it merely means said person looked at the murder board and said “trust me on this, I really want to be wrong but I don’t think I am” —I mean it’s not like I have a tendency of making bonkers predictions or incongruent conspiracy theories —no my predictions have almost always been predicated on facts and supporting documents. Sucks that my payment was a Twitter suspension but the WayBack Machine is a gift from the Archive Gods…
The evidence supports an inference that President Trump and members of his campaign knew he had not won enough legitimate state electoral votes to be declared the winner of the 2020 Presidential election during the January 6 Joint Session of Congress, but the President nevertheless sought to use the Vice President to manipulate the results in his favor. By December 14, 2020, the Electoral College had voted to send 306 certified electoral votes for Biden and 232 certified electoral votes for Trump.
HSCJ6 will make a criminal referral of Eastman & Trump to the DOJ…
Okay I should say that’s speculation but I would like you to closely read page 44 and then ask yourself if you think my assertion is factually flawed. Whispers it’s not and let me tell you —that is exactly what will happen…
The evidence developed to date indicates that these actions were all part of a concerted effort to achieve a common goal: to prevent or delay the certification of the 2020 presidential election results.
A review of the documents at issue is likely to reveal that the President engaged Plaintiff’s counsel in furtherance of these conspiratorial ends.
There is also evidence to support a good-faith, reasonable belief that in camera review of the materials may reveal that the President and members of his Campaign engaged in common law fraud in connection with their efforts to overturn the 2020 election results….
The District of Columbia, where these events occurred, defines common law fraud as: (1) a false representation; (2) in reference to material fact; (3) made with knowledge of its falsity; (4) with the intent to deceive; and (5) action is taken in reliance upon the representation.
No really go read page 49 -any then pay close attention to what’s highlighted and underlined -this is why I am comfortable in asserting that the HSCJ6 will likely make a criminal referral to the DOJ for Eastman and Trump…
And lastly you can pull down a highlighted and annotated copy of the HSCJ6 March 2, 2022 filing from my Scribd Account or you can pull down a clean copy from the HSCJ6 link
NBC Evening News Lester Holt Interview with Barr:
In a stunning interview with NBC Nightly News Bill Barr explains to Anchor Lester Holt what happened leading up to Barr’s resignation, again keep in mind that Barr is out there peddling his new book -but I do think you should watch this interview because oddly much of what Barrr states -really rings true. As I have previously disclosed I have a few friends that worked at the White House and they told me about Steve Bannon’s using his physicality to prevent one of my long time friends from leaving a smaller conference room but Trump “banging his fist on his desk” I know that’s actually true —but my friends haven’t given me permission to share the videos and pictures —so far now you’ll have to take my word for it…
Summary and what’s next
The best thing we can all do is; wait to see how the Court rules on the HSCJ6 filing. My educated guess is the Court will order an in camera review of the 170+ documents Eastman is fighting to shield from them. As for potential criminal referrals, when you read the whole March 2, 2022 HSCJ6 filing there is little to zero doubt that a criminal referral of John Eastman and Donald Trump is a likely outcome…lest I remind you of Trump’s recent judicial FAFO from SCOTUS and from the CCOA-DC
February 22, 2022 SCOTUS Trump smack down
January 19, 2022 - BREAKING -SCOTUS to Trump: DENIED House Select Committee on Jan6th gets documents, also more subpoenas UPDATED with SCOTUS’ 4 page Kavanaugh statement
December 10, 2021 - This little orange piggy can cry “weee. weee. weee” all the way to 1 First St NE -SIGNIFICANT win for the Select Committee on Jan 6th because the USCA-DC December 9, 2021 ruling stands
And that my friends is the conclusion of your daily lesson on how to read Court Filings and what actually matters in said filings —sans the “click bait” nonsense. Again I don’t do this for any monetary gain or other (not awesome) compensation. I do this because I know I have a unique skill set and that my readers trust my analysis and assessments —especially when it comes to Federal Courts —I can’t actually recall any prediction I have made that hasn’t come to fruition.
I am paid handsomely for my knack of making accurate judicial outcomes and ability to explain complicate matters in terms that a layperson can understand …and nope my payment isn’t bonbons but it could be cases upon cases of Red Bull —I’m not kidding since our many offices have been closed one of (our many) Office Managers ping’d me and wanted to know if I needed more Red Bull delivered to my home office —I politely declined because ethics something something—although for a brief moment I did contemplate having a Red Bull Clause added to my contact but decided to demure… snort
And lastly I won’t be publishing tomorrow because I have been ordered back down to the State Capitol -apparently the LIS system showed a new filing and one of my bosses said “yea we are going to need you back down there to make heads roll” to wit I replied “mission accepted, Roger that but I want a raw steak” -snort at any rate I hope this long article at least helped some of you to understand the newly disclosed facts and what was important rather than what would get clicks…I only click my heals when I need to go home. I’m kidding normally ( just hop on my broom (snort) -if you have any questions please feel free to ask and I’ll do my level best to provide a factual answer —if I don’t know then I won’t BS you but I’ll figure out a factual answer and respond in kind.
Be Well
Filey -a very tired Filey that seriously contemplated handing out throat punches 😂…I’m kidding… sort of
March 4, 2022 Update -NEW Privilege Log filing….
Again keep in mind that this case is being adjudicated the Federal CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION - on the West Coast and I’m on the East Coast. Unfortunately I unplugged last night shortly before 9PM so I inadvertently missed the filing because I’m not a cyborg…
NOTICE Notice of privilege log objections 3filed by Defendants Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the US Capitol, Bennie Thompson -see ECF or via my Scribd Account
I’d like to draw your attention to page 2 -specifically paragraphs 5 and 6, respectively. Allow me to translate this for you: Eastman is playing fast and loose with his “privilege” claims and the HSCJ6 is having N-O-N-E of Eastman’s newest argument. Paragraph 6 reads as follows:
Plaintiff’s omission of the names of certain individuals in a private association—and even the names of the relevant association—violates this Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to identify the author and recipients for each privilege log entry….
Without such information, the Select Committee cannot evaluate the validity of the privilege claims. Plaintiff states that he has done so because the senders and recipients are “Members in a private association whose First Amendment right to association would be implicated if disclosed.” ….Plaintiff has no standing to assert the First Amendment rights of his email correspondence, and his attempt to do so is in defiance of this Court’s order.
In short what Eastman is doing here is an old school litigation tactic of death by a thousand papers courts, previous Court Order be damned. Eastman is inappropriately claiming “first amendment” privileges for a third party “association” and that’s why he violated the Court’s previous order. Whispers —when I say this is an old school tactic -it is.
Again Eastman lacks the prerequisite “standing” to invoke a “first amendment privilege” because it’s not his to claim. You might ask: why does this matter? My answer is multi-fold; 1) by once again claiming a privilege that he has no basis (and/or standing) — he does so in-contravention of the Court’s previous Order, 2) this kind of subterfuge is what Courts do not tolerate, 3) this will likely result in the Court issuing a “show cause”…but most importantly this is Eastman’s furtherance of eating time off the clock. And I applaud the HSCJ6 for calling it out and pointing to the Court’s previous order…
Apparently I spoke entirely too soon - just as I published the update (see ECF for document 171 or via my Scribd Account) - Eastman’s attorneys filed the following Motion to proceed with the March 8, 2022 Status Conference virtually -because Eastman contacted COVID-19
Finally, Dr. Eastman has recently contracted COVID. He is recovering but still experiencing symptoms and likely remains contagious. It would not be advisable for him to travel by plane or appear in court.
And simultaneously Eastman filed MOTION FOR EXCULPATORY INFORMATION AND CONTINUANCE OF THE MARCH 8 PRIVILEGE HEARING (see ECF or via my Scribd Account ) I can not emphasize how important Eastman’s March 4, 2022 Motion is because…well here you can read page 1 -in short Eastman wants the Court to Order the Defendants to produce exculpatory evidence —which is governed by Brady and its progeny (Jenks & Giglio) but the language in Eastman’s Motion (Doc 172) is simply galling —because that’s not what the HSCJ6 argued - there are countless conclusory statements from Eastman that it’s almost hard to delineate which statements have merit and which do not. For Example:
…plaintiff is effectively forced into the position of acting as a pseudo-defense attorney for the former President. If the former President had himself been charged with these alleged crimes, it could easily be years before an ultimate decision was reached by a judge or jury. Yet plaintiff is now faced with responding to these claims in time for a decision by this Court on March 8.
Although plaintiff is of course not privy to what particular exculpatory evidence may exist in the January 6th committee’s vast files, some items of evidence are apparent from the defendants’ response itself. The defendants have asked this Court to find that a good faith basis exists to conclude that 1) President Trump is guilty of the felony offense of Obstruction of an Official Proceeding, 2) the President and members of his campaign engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States, and 3) the President and members of his campaign engaged in common law fraud in violation of District of Columbia law
And while on principle I might agree with a few of Eastman’s arguments —but many of his statements in Doc 172 requires a significant assumption and would in fact create an undue burden on the HSCJ6 -in simpler terms Eastman wants all the evidence the HSCJ6 Committee has collected. The simple fact that less than five minutes before filing Doc 172 he had filed (see Doc 171) where he requested the March 8, 2022 Status Conference to be virtual because he has COVID-19 —yet minutes later Eastman then asked the Court to “continue” the March 8, 2022 hearing. It’s not just the sloppiness of Eastman’s papers it’s the temerity of witnessing an attorney attempting to use every single procedural arrow he has. Again it’s best to wait and see how the Court will rule in light of Eastman’s double filings which they somewhat contradict themselves… I also think the HSCJ6 may have intentionally set a trap for Eastman (and by proxy Trump) —in short Eastman’s double filing is tantamount to playing a high stakes game of “chicken” while simultaneously attempting to discredit the HSCJ6 March. 2, 2022 response…
At any rate I had a few minutes in between meetings and wanted to update my readers in a timely manner. As of now it is really best to wait and see how the Court will respond… but again my educated guess is the Court may issue a “show cause” or the Court might immediately rule in this “instant” notice.disclosure but to be clear I am not well versed in CDCA’s local rules. I hope that makes sense and my explanation helps you understand why the March 3, 2022 NOTICE is kind of important -Filey
See November 12, 2020, the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) issued a public statement concerning the security and integrity of the 2020 General Election: https://www.cisa.gov/news/2020/11/12/joint-statement-elections-infrastructure-government-coordinating-council-election -last accessed on March 2, 2022
See Disputing Trump, Barr says no widespread election fraud, ASSOCIATED PRESS (December 1, 2020); https://apnews.com/article/barr-no-widespread-election-fraud-b1f1488796c9a98c4b1a9061a6c7f49d -last accessed on March 2, 2022; also see AG Barr says he won't appoint a special counsel to investigate voter fraud, YAHOO NEWS (December 21, 2020).https://news.yahoo.com/ag-barr-says-wont-appoint-174321322.html -last accessed on March 2, 2022; also see Ex-Attorney General William Barr Urges GOP to Move On From Trump, WALL. ST.J. (Feb. 27, 2022), https://www.wsj.com/articles/ex-attorney-general-william-barr-urges-gop-to-move-on-from-trump-11645959600 -last accessed March 3, 2022
It occurred to me that some of my readers might not have read the; January 25, 2022 - ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 2 by Judge David O. Carter. See CDCA-ECF or via Scribd — that Court Order was embedded in this January 28, 2022 Article —which is now front and center of the HSCJ6 March 3, 2022 Notice of Objection -and now you have all the relevant court Documents as of March 4, 2022
Did you see Raskin’s comment about filing? He said it was the judge who first asked about Crime fraud exception (bc of no engagement ltr). So of corse, “we followed thru on the judges invitation.” Kinda like when your teacher offers extra credit exam question. always answer it, and not for the extra credit bonus points but because it’s about effort and expectations. The difference between an A and a B is one point.
Trump and his cohorts are in so much trouble. I want them all indicted, prosecuted and jailed