Source: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50k/legal/related/4202.php
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 19:05:28+00:00

Document:
Argued and Submitted Nov. 6, 1986.
it will be allowed to examine records in connection with tax investigation.
gave general descriptions of exhibits' contents.
Attorney-client privilege is to be strictly construed.
someone not party to privilege waives privilege.
and is reviewed de novo on appeal.
communications to third party by voluntary delivery of documents.
legitimate tax determination objectives of investigation.
abuse of discretion. 26 U.S.C.A. ss 6103, 7421(a).
questions of law and fact, and are reviewable de novo.
privilege are reviewed for clear error.
interest and faces no immediate liability.
inconsistent with theory of waiver.
Frederick Bennett, Co. Counsel, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant/appellee.
Before BROWNING, Chief Judge, GOODWIN and FARRIS, Circuit Judges.
documents which had been ordered sealed by the Superior Court.
a "good faith" tax investigation.
failed to prove that the summons was not issued in "good faith."
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. s 1291.
On January 24, 1986, during the pendency of this appeal, L. Ron Hubbard died.
investigations is broadly construed. See Liberty Financial Services v.
demonstrate a "realistic expectation" of relevance, rather than an "idle hope"
inured to the benefit of L. Ron Hubbard.
impede the Internal Revenue Service in the administration of the tax laws.
willfully with intent to evade tax.
The record does not indicate the Government's sources for this information.
clear when records for other years are sought.
throw light" on the correctness of L. Ron Hubbard's return information.
conclusory to validly assert the privilege.
 The attorney-client privilege is to be strictly construed.
(9th Cir.1981). See 8 J. Wigmore, Evidence s 2291 at 554 (McNaughton rev.
the privilege to someone not a party to the privilege waives the privilege.
v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1199-1204 (9th Cir.1984) (en banc).
attorney-client and marital communications. More is required.
privilege was validly asserted by Hubbard's former attorney.
are reviewed for abuse of discretion).
than merely camouflage for an ulterior non-tax motive. The "good faith"
inquiry to the issue of whether the summons itself was issued in "good faith,"
F.2d at 1376; United States v. Zack, 521 F.2d 1366, 1368-69 (9th Cir.1975).
States v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 666 F.2d 364, 368 (9th Cir.1982).
improper attempt to enjoin the IRS from obeying a duly enacted federal law.
of a summons on the IRS' agreeing to abide by disclosure restrictions.
Institute, 755 F.2d 469, 481 (5th Cir.1985)).
argument for the reasons stated in Author Services, 804 F.2d at 1526.
the privilege are reviewed for clear error. Id. at 1200.
The Government is incorrect, however, in arguing that the "common interest"
present at the meeting were employees of the Church.
with a theory of waiver.
on the tapes were in furtherance of an intended or present illegality. Id.
the tapes. In support of this argument, they cite United States v.
Shewfelt 's independent evidence requirement has been strongly criticized.
inapplicability of the exception to the party resisting disclosure.
court has cited it as authority for the independent evidence requirement.
applicability of the "crime-fraud" exception. Id. at 1354.
Government's best evidence establishing the applicability of the "crime-fraud"
obstruction of justice." King, 536 F.Supp. at 262.
Cir.1986); Atonio v. Wards Cove Packing Co., Inc., 768 F.2d 1120, 1132 n.
without that control being traceable to him.

References: v.

v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.