BOB CONAWAY's PRESS RELEASE - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE -- RAMOS's NEEDS TO QUIT RUNNING TO THE AG's OFFICE FOR HELP ON WHAT HE SHOULD KNOW HIS OPTIONS ARE IN THE COLONIES CASE & GET THE RECORDS
(1) Evidence Code §956 takes the privilege away where the attorney's services were sought "to enable or aide anyone"(client or third person) in the commission of a crime OR fraud" People v Clark(1990) 50 C3d583,621--remarkably one case even says the "client's mere attempt to defraud or perpetrate a crime by seeking to enlist counsel's services is enough to defeat the attorney client privilege" BP Alaska Exploration, Inc v Superior Court(1988( 199 CA3d 1240,1262-1263; (2) wasn't Jim Brulte a part of the negotiation team at mediation? He certainly was not a party to the settlement process and he did not represent anyone as a lawyer--if he was there, the privilege was waived to the extent of communications he heard and or participated in; (3) there is no mediation privilege--only a law stating the parties can agree to mediation confidentiality. California Evidence Code Section 1119 protects two kinds of evidence from discovery and admissibility. First, anything that was said or any admission that was made for the purpose of, in the course of, or pursuant to a mediation or a “mediation consultation” is protected. Second, any “writing” (as defined in Section 250) “that is prepared for the purpose of, in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation or a mediation consultation” is also protected. Evidence such as photographs, written statements, and consultants’ reports can be very persuasive in mediation, and Section 250 defines the term “writings” in such a way as to include all of those things. (See Rojas v. Superior Court (2004) 33 Cal. 4th 407.). Offering a bribe or a performance (or discussing such a bribe or performance--e.g. contributing money to campaigns) is outside the matters before the mediator.
