The Tender For Law

Volume 8

Dec 17, 2014 4:24 PM

Will Bed

So I asked many questions to the scholar board over the past few months, regarding the PERSON�s SURETY and the fact that they seemed to ignore or refuse to respect some of their LEGAL obligations.

They had their liars send a demand letter to the PERSON I have, basically trying to order ME to shut the F up and not ask one more question to their pretended client.

I slapped all of this back in an envelop, their original demand letter marked REFUSED / NO CONTRACT with a 5 page communication rebutting all their bullshit claims, and I copied the Bar association and Minister of Justice on this.

I made it clear I WISHED they return the SURETY BOND and Bills of exchanges with certain conditions, and told them that if they were indeed mandated by the scholar board - which didnt want to even touch the subjects about which I was questioning them - to reply to me, I required that they answer the questions their pretended client didnt want to answer, it seems they would know what I�m talking about�

I got a reply today. Their first letter seemed to use a pretty aggressive and authoritarian language, This one, VERY POLITE ACTUALLY.

They MARKED that COMMUNICATION with a red CONFIDENTIAL stamp. Seriously, I dont UNDERSTAND what�s so important in this that they marked it as CONFIDENTIAL. I might very well let them know that I really see no justification for that�

NOW, what is the LEGAL implications of this red CONFIDENTIAL stamp ? Does it mean ONLY THEY can AUTHORIZE the release of the content of this letter ? I mean you see CONFIDENTIAL all the time in the footer of emails, basically saying if you�re not intended to receive this communication, you are not AUTHORIZED to disclose the content�

If so, Could a Creative Commons license be used to AUTHORIZE the release the content ?

Read Comments

Will Bed

I know... But who OWNS that communication now ?

If I play by their rules : it seems they GAVE it to the PERSON I happen to Administrate...

If those fuckers start stamping everything they send as CONFIDENTIAL, S will HTF !

That would mean they could bullshit at will, and never have to ACCOUNT for their bullshit to either the Bar association or the Minister of Justice ??

Steph Boucher

Confidential Communication

A form of Privileged Communication passed from one individual to another, intended to be heard only by the individual addressed.

A confidential communication is ordinarily between two people who are affiliated in a confidential relation, such as an attorney and client, Husband and Wife, or Master and Servant.

If this type of communication is made in the presence of a third party, whose presence is not necessary for such communication, it is not considered privileged. In certain cases, the presence of a third party might be required, as where there is a language barrier such that one of the individuals engaged in the confidential communication needs an interpreter.

Will Bed

Yeah I read that. But I have no RELATION with these guys.

I'm thinking CONFIDENTIAL applies to information which one party doesn't want disclosed... Like I have info which I agree to send you but require you keep it CONFIDENTIAL.

But there really doesn't seem to be ANY INFORMATION in there that's justified being slapped as CONFIDENTIAL.

How can you even require that your OPINION be kept CONFIDENTIAL ? If you don't assume what you just said, why did you fuckin say it ??

A WRONG OPINION is a WRONG OPINION and it seems that trying to prevent ME from seeking CONFIRMATION that an OPINION is indeed WRONG or even FRAUDULENT would be a fuckin joke ?

And how could a DECISION even be kept CONFIDENTIAL if one PARTY doesnt AGREE with the decision of the other ?

Anibal Jose Baez

<<Confidential Communication

A form of Privileged Communication passed from one individual to another, intended to be heard only by the individual addressed. A confidential communication is ordinarily between two people who are affiliated in a confidential relation, such as an attorney and client, Husband and Wife, or MASTER and SERVANT.

If this type of communication is made in the presence of a THIRD PARTY, whose presence is not necessary for such communication, it is not considered privileged. In certain cases, the presence of a third party might be required, as where there is a language barrier such that one of the individuals engaged in the confidential communication needs an interpreter.>>

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/confidential+communication

Will Bed

Scott, I'd like to learn more about the details / mechanics of the "that's your right" part of it ?

I really wanna do it, matter of fact, I may HAVE to do it if/when I need to use this SIGNED AFFIRMATION they made as PROOF that they're all a bunch of fraudsters... But I also REALLY WANNA let them KNOW I did it, and mostly WHY I have NO INTENTION to let them get away with stamping whatever bullshit they may puke with a CONFIDENTIAL stamp just because they don't have the balls to stand behind their statements.

Am I wrong thinking that it would make sense that if I send information to another party and REQUIRE that the info be kept CONFIDENTIAL, I should notify the other party and make sure they agree, so that if they don't I can just not send the info ???

Will Bed

It's not that it's confusing, I just wanted to get my thinking straight in regards to what authority they really have to require any confidentiality I did not agree with.

"Don't pen it" is exactly what I was thinking....