Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jhild who wrote (9711)	3/4/1998 5:59:00 PM
From: Surething	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Public Letter to Silicon Investor Subject: Welcome to Silicon Investor! \| Previous \| ------ \| Edit your message \| You have 482 unread messages To: Brad Dryer (643 ) From: Surething Wednesday, Mar 4 1998 5:55PM EST Reply # of 666 Dear Brad, I really like your new private messaging system. Just one question though? What is Silicon Investor's policy regarding the public posting of messages sent privately. Example: Say I engage in a private message conversation with a certain individual. Nothing rude or crude just private thoughts. Private messages are sent and received and replied to amicably by both parties. Say one of those parties the next day gets annoyed and threatens to publish one of these private messages. Let's take this a step further. Say this individual actually does go ahead and publishes this private message. What is your policy? Surething

To: jhild who wrote (9711)	3/4/1998 6:22:00 PM
From: Triluminary	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

After reading through that reference you came up with, a very good one I might add, at least for me, I see that conversations relative to the rendition of legal service were protected under strict construction of the privilege. (Or at least that's my reading.) This seems to me an important right as discussed there by virtue of the possible chilling effect that laying these kinds of conversations open to scrutiny would have on the progress of our judicial process. As I've said already. It isn't clear cut. For instance, if Starr is seeking how Lewinsky's first lawyer was to be paid and how much, the ABA article clearly states that fee information does not fall under attorney-client privilege. Hence, it would most likely have to be disclosed. But other things might be protected. What and how much is protected will probably have to be decided by the courts. Aren't you a little concerned that grand jury investigations can seem to go on unlimited fishing expeditions? The Independent Council law has been shaped to a large degree by the Clintons. So now when it comes back to bite them on the ass they cry foul. Nope. Doesn't bother me a bit. They made the rules now they WILL play by them.