Lisa,
First things first! By what twist of skulduggery did you purloin post #5000? I can promise you, you will have the devil to pay for this post-napping! <vbg>
Now to your questions/inferences: First, freedom from self-incrimination is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
When I used the term "at least," I was alluding to the fact that attorneys, physicians, priests, and clergypersons can be forced to disclose so-called privileged information, which obviously speaks to the fact that these relationships are not completely sacrosanct and inviolate, at all. Somewhere back on this thread today I posted re the new rules in California with respect to discovery proceedings. Again, a secretary/employer relationship, by virtue of its inherent sharing of sensitive personal information, should be AT LEAST as sacrosanct as those above-mentioned accepted relationships.
In the case as presented so far, I think at best it is dirty pool to subpoena Betty Currie's testimony and smacks of a blatantly blind fishing expedition.
Whether or not I would be comfortable in concealing an employer's actual crimes as defined by the various Codes, is beside the point. I believe we all are discussing these issues hypothetically, or at least I am. That said, I am aware of the punishable crimes of misprision of felony, accessory before, during, and after the fact, and others which I am sure I could learn of on the most cursory review of the California Penal and other Codes. To answer your question specifically, my answer is that I value my freedom.
Holly |
