text:
Leave no financial information with your accountant...
Expand Messages
- Re: Leave no financial information with your accountant.
I totally agree with your warning. I provide my accountant no more than the
figures he needs to fill in the forms.
One way to secure an "accountant-client" privilege is to hire an attorney to
hire the accountant.
Moderator/Bear: Using attorney-client privilege to protect your papers is discussed with approval in the US Supreme Court case below starting at paragraph 29. At paragraph 32 is a discussion about the government respecting your right not to force you to give them "papers" that might incriminate you.
FISHER ET AL. v. UNITED STATES ET AL., 96 S. Ct. 1569, 425 U.S. 391 (U.S. 04/21/1976)
Fisher v. United States, 1976.SCT.41365 <http://www.versuslaw.com> ¶ ; 425 U.S. 391 (1976).
[2] No. 74-18
[3] 96 S. Ct. 1569, 425 U.S. 391, 48 L. Ed. 2d 39, 1976.SCT.41365 <http://www.versuslaw.com>
[4] *fn*: April 21, 1976.
[7] Richard L. Bazelon argued the cause for petitioners in No. 74-18. With him on the brief was Solomon Fisher. Deputy Solicitor General Wallace argued the cause for petitioners in No. 74-611 and respondents in No. 74-18. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Bork, Assistant Attorney General Crampton, Stuart A. Smith and Robert E. Lindsay. Robert E. Goodfriend argued the cause for respondents in No. 74-611. With him on the brief were Edward A. Copley and Cyril D. Kasmir.*fn**
[8] Burger, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist; Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
[9] Author: White
[ 425 U.S. Page 393]
[10] MR. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
[11] In these two cases we are called upon to decide whether a summons directing an attorney to produce documents delivered to him by his client in connection with the attorney-client relationship is enforceable over claims that the documents were constitutionally immune from summons in the hands of the client and retained that immunity in the hands of the attorney.
[13] In each case, an Internal Revenue agent visited the taxpayer or taxpayers*fn1 and interviewed them in connection
[ 425 U.S. Page 394]
with an investigation of possible civil or criminal liability under the federal income tax laws. Shortly after the interviews - one day later in No. 74-611 and a week or two later in No. 74-18 - the taxpayers obtained from their respective accountants certain documents relating to the preparation by the accountants of their tax returns. Shortly after obtaining the documents - later the same day in No. 74-611 and a few weeks later in No. 74-18 - the taxpayers transferred the documents to their lawyers - respondent Kasmir and petitioner Fisher, respectively - each of whom was retained to assist the taxpayer in connection with the investigation. Upon learning of the whereabouts of the documents, the Internal Revenue Service served summonses on the attorneys directing them to produce documents listed therein. In No. 74-611, the documents were described as "the following records of Tannebaum Bindler & Lewis [the accounting firm]. S
[14] " 1. Accountant's work papers pertaining to Dr. E. J. Mason's books and records of 1969, 1970 and 1971. [*fn2
[15] "2. Retained copies of E. J. Mason's income tax returns for 1969, 1970 and 1971.
[16] "3. Retained copies of reports and other correspondence between Tannebaum Bindler & Lewis and Dr. E. J. Mason during 1969, 1970 and 1971."I
[17] In No. 74-18, the documents demanded were analyses by the accountant of the taxpayers' income and expenses which had been copied by the accountant from the taxpayers' canceled checks and deposit receipts.*fn3 In No.
[ 425 U.S. Page 39574]
-611, a summons was also served on the accountant directing him to appear and testify concerning the documents to be produced by the lawyer. In each case, the lawyer declined to comply with the summons directing production of the documents, and enforcement actions were commenced by the Government under 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402 (b) and 7604 (a). In No. 74-611, the attorney raised in defense of the enforcement action the taxpayer's accountant-client privilege, his attorney-client privilege, and his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. In No. 74-18, the attorney claimed that enforcement would involve compulsory self-incrimination of the taxpayers in violation of their Fifth Amendment privilege, would involve a seizure of the papers without necessary compliance with the Fourth Amendment, and would violate the taxpayers' right to communicate in confidence with their attorney. In No. 74-18 the taxpayers intervened and made similar claims.
[18] In each case the summons was ordered enforced by the District Court and its order was stayed pending appeal. In No. 74-18, 500 F.2d 683 (CA3 1974), petitioners' appeal raised, in terms, only their Fifth Amendment claim, but they argued in connection with that claim that enforcement of the summons would involve a violation of the taxpayers' reasonable expectation of privacy and particularly so in light of the confidential relationship of attorney to client. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit after reargument en banc affirmed the enforcement order, holding that the taxpayers had never acquired a possessory interest in the documents and that the papers were not immune in the hands of the attorney. In No. 74-611, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the enforcement order,499 F.2d 444 (1974). The court reasoned that by virtue of the Fifth Amendment the documents would have been privileged
[ 425 U.S. Page 396]
from production pursuant to summons directed to the taxpayer had he retained possession and, in light of the confidential nature of the attorney-client relationship, the taxpayer retained, after the transfer to his attorney, "a legitimate expectation of privacy with regard to the materials he placed in his attorney's custody, that he retained constructive possession of the evidence, and thus... retained Fifth Amendment protection."*fn4 Id., at 453. We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict created. 420 U.S. 906 (1975). Because in our view the documents were not privileged either in the hands of the lawyers or of their clients, we affirm the judgment of the Third Circuit in No. 74-18 and reverse the judgment of the Fifth Circuit in No. 74-611.
[20] All of the parties in these cases and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit have concurred in the proposition that if the Fifth Amendment would have excused a taxpayer from turning over the accountant's papers had he possessed them, the attorney to whom they are delivered for the purpose of obtaining legal advice should also be immune from subpoena. Although we agree with this proposition for the reasons set forth in Part III, infra, we are convinced that, under our decision in Couch v. United States,409 U.S. 322 (1973), it is not the taxpayer's Fifth Amendment privilege that would excuse the attorney from production.
[21] The relevant part of that Amendment provides: S
[22] "No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." (Emphasis added.)I
[ 425 U.S. Page 397]
The taxpayer's privilege under this Amendment is not violated by enforcement of the summonses involved in these cases because enforcement against a taxpayer's lawyer would not "compel" the taxpayer to do anything - and certainly would not compel him to be a "witness" against himself. The Court has held repeatedly that the Fifth Amendment is limited to prohibiting the use of "physical or moral compulsion" exerted on the person asserting the privilege, Perlman v. United States,247 U.S. 7, 15 (1918); Johnson v. United States, 228 U.S. 457, 458 (1913); Couch v. United States, supra, at 328, 336. See also Holt v. United States, 218 U.S. 245, 252-253 (1910); United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 (1973); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 765 (1966); Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465, 476 (1921); California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, 416 U.S. 21, 55 (1974). In Couch v. United States, supra, we recently ruled that the Fifth Amendment rights of a taxpayer were not violated by the enforcement of a documentary summons directed to her accountant and requiring production of the taxpayer's own records in the possession of the accountant. We did so on the ground that in such a case "the ingredient of personal compulsion against an accused is lacking."409 U.S., at 329.
[23] Here, the taxpayers are compelled to do no more than was the taxpayer in Couch. The taxpayers' Fifth Amendment privilege is therefore not violated by enforcement of the summonses directed toward their attorneys. This is true whether or not the Amendment would have barred a subpoena directing the taxpayer to produce the documents while they were in his hands.
[24] The fact that the attorneys are agents of the taxpayers does not change this result. Couch held as much, since the accountant there was also the taxpayer's agent, and in this respect reflected a long standing view. In
[ 425 U.S. Page 398]
Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 69-70 (1906), the Court said that the privilege "was never intended to permit [a person] to plead the fact that some third person might be incriminated by his testimony, even though he were the agent of such person.... [T]he Amendment is limited to a person who shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." (Emphasis in original.) "It is extortion of information from the accused himself that offends our sense of justice." Couch v. United States, supra, at 328. Agent or no, the lawyer is not the taxpayer. The taxpayer is the "accused," and nothing is being extorted from him.
[25] Nor is this one of those situations, which Couch suggested might exist, where constructive possession is so clear or relinquishment of possession so temporary and insignificant as to leave the personal compulsion upon the taxpayer substantially intact.409 U.S., at 333. In this respect we see no difference between the delivery to the attorneys in these cases and delivery to the accountant in the Couch case. As was true in Couch, the documents sought were obtainable without personal compulsion on the accused.
[26] Respondents in No. 74-611 and petitioners in No. 74-18 argue, and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit apparently agreed, that if the summons was enforced, the taxpayers' Fifth Amendment privilege would be, but should not be, lost solely because they gave their documents to their lawyers in order to obtain legal advice. But this misconceives the nature of the constitutional privilege. The Amendment protects a person from being compelled to be a witness against himself. Here, the taxpayers retained any privilege they ever had not to be compelled to testify against themselves and not to be compelled themselves to produce private papers in their possession. This personal privilege was in no way decreased by the transfer. It is simply that by
[ 425 U.S. Page 399]
reason of the transfer of the documents to the attorneys, those papers may be subpoenaed without compulsion on the taxpayer. The protection of the Fifth Amendment is therefore not available. "A party is privileged from producing evidence but not from its production." Johnson v. United States, supra, at 458.
[27] The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit suggested that because legally and ethically the attorney was required to respect the confidences of his client, the latter had a reasonable expectation of privacy for the records in the hands of the attorney and therefore did not forfeit his Fifth Amendment privilege with respect to the records by transferring them in order to obtain legal advice. It is true that the Court has often stated that one of the several purposes served by the constitutional privilege against compelled testimonial self-incrimination is that of protecting personal privacy. See, e.g., Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n,378 U.S. 52, 55 (1964); Couch v. United States, supra, at 332, 335-336; Tehan v. United States ex rel. Shott, 382 U.S. 406, 416 (1966); Davis v. United States, 328 U.S. 582, 587 (1946). But the Court has never suggested that every invasion of privacy violates the privilege. Within the limits imposed by the language of the Fifth Amendment, which we necessarily observe, the privilege truly serves privacy interests; but the Court has never on any ground, personal privacy included, applied the Fifth Amendment to prevent the otherwise proper acquisition or use of evidence which, in the Court's view, did not involve compelled testimonial self-incrimination of some sort.*fn5
[ 425 U.S. Page 400]
The proposition that the Fifth Amendment protects private information obtained without compelling self-incriminating testimony is contrary to the clear statements of this Court that under appropriate safeguards private incriminating statements of an accused may be overheard and used in evidence, if they are not compelled at the time they were uttered, Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 354 (1967); OsBorn v. United States, 385 U.S. 323, 329-330 (1966); and Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41, 57 (1967); cf. Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293, 304 (1966); and that disclosure of private information may be compelled if immunity removes the risk of incrimination. Kastigar v. United States,406 U.S. 441 (1972). If the Fifth Amendment protected generally against the obtaining of private information from a man's mouth or pen or house, its protections would presumably not be lifted by probable cause and a warrant or by immunity. The privacy invasion is not mitigated by immunity; and the Fifth Amendment's strictures, unlike the Fourth's, are not removed by showing reasonableness. The Framers addressed the subject of personal privacy directly in the Fourth Amendment. They struck a balance so that when the State's reason to believe incriminating evidence will be found becomes sufficiently great, the invasion of privacy becomes justified and a warrant to search and seize will issue. They did not seek in still another Amendment - the Fifth - to achieve a general protection of privacy but to deal with the more specific issue of compelled self-incrimination.
[ 425 U.S. Page 401]
We cannot cut the Fifth Amendment completely loose from the moorings of its language, and make it serve as a general protector of privacy - a word not mentioned in its text and a concept directly addressed in the Fourth Amendment. We adhere to the view that the Fifth Amendment protects against "compelled self-incrimination, not [the disclosure of] private information." United States v. Nobles,422 U.S. 225, 233 n. 7 (1975).
[28] Insofar as private information not obtained through compelled self-incriminating testimony is legally protected, its protection stems from other sources*fn6 - the Fourth Amendment's protection against seizures without warrant or probable cause and against subpoenas which suffer from "too much indefiniteness or breadth in the things required to be 'particularly described,'" Oklahoma Press Pub. Co. v. Walling,327 U.S. 186, 208 (1946); In re Horowitz, 482 F.2d 72, 75-80 (CA2 1973) (Friendly, J.); the First Amendment, see NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 462 (1958); or evidentiary privileges such as the attorney-client privilege. *fn7
[ 425 U.S. Page 402]
[29] Our above holding is that compelled production of documents from an attorney does not implicate whatever Fifth Amendment privilege the taxpayer might have enjoyed from being compelled to produce them himself. The taxpayers in these cases, however, have from the outset consistently urged that they should not be forced to expose otherwise protected documents to summons simply because they have sought legal advice and turned the papers over to their attorneys. The Government appears to agree unqualifiedly. The difficulty is that the taxpayers have erroneously relied on the Fifth Amendment without urging the attorney-client privilege in so many words. They have nevertheless invoked the relevant body of law and policies that govern the attorney-client privilege. In this posture of the case, we feel obliged to inquire whether the attorney-client privilege applies to documents in the hands of an attorney which would have been privileged in the hands of the client by reason of the Fifth Amendment.*fn8
[ 425 U.S. Page 403]
Confidential disclosures by a client to an attorney made in order to obtain legal assistance are privileged. 8 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2292 (McNaughton rev. 1961) (hereinafter Wigmore); McCormick, § 87, p. 175, (hereinafter McCormick). The purpose of the privilege is to encourage clients to make full disclosure to their attorneys. 8 Wigmore § 2291, and § 2306, p. 590; McCormick § 87, p. 175, § 92, p. 192; Baird v. Koerner,279 F.2d 623 (CA9 1960); Modern Woodmen of America v. Watkins, 132 F.2d 352 (CA5 1942); Prichard v. United States, 181 F.2d 326 (CA6), aff'd per curiam, 339 U.S. 974 (1950); Schwimmer v. United States, 232 F.2d 855 (CA8 1956); United States v. Goldfarb, 328 F.2d 280 (CA6 1964). As a practical matter, if the client knows that damaging information could more readily be obtained from the attorney following disclosure than from himself in the absence of disclosure, the client would be reluctant to confide in his lawyer and it would be difficult to obtain fully informed legal advice. However, since the privilege has the effect of withholding relevant information from the factfinder, it applies only where necessary to achieve its purpose. Accordingly it protects only those disclosures - necessary to obtain informed legal advice - which might not have been made absent the privilege. In re Horowitz, supra, at 81 (Friendly, J.); United States v. Goldfarb, supra; 8 Wigmore § 2291, p. 554; McCormick § 89, p. 185. This Court and the lower courts have thus uniformly held that pre-existing documents which could have been obtained by court process from the client when he was in possession may also be obtained from the attorney by similar process following transfer by client in order
[ 425 U.S. Page 404]
to obtain more informed legal advice. Grant v. United States, 227 U.S. 74, 79-80 (1913); 8 Wigmore § 2307, and cases there cited; McCormick § 90, p. 185; Falsone v. United States, 205 F.2d 734 (CA5 1953); Sovereign Camp, W. O. W. v. Reed, 208 Ala. 457, 94 So. 910 (1922); Andrews v. Mississippi R. Co., 14 Ind. 169, 98 N.E. 49 (1860); Palatini v. Sarian, 15 N.J. Super. 34, 83 A. 2d 24 (1951); Pearson v. Yoder, 39 Okla. 105, 134 P. 421 (1913); State ex rel Sowers v. Olwell, 64 Wash. 2d 828, 394 P. 2d 681 (1964). The purpose of the privilege requires no broader rule. Pre-existing documents obtainable from the client are not appreciably easier to obtain from the attorney after transfer to him. Thus, even absent the attorney-client privilege, clients will not be discouraged from disclosing the documents to the attorney, and their ability to obtain informed legal advice will remain unfettered. It is otherwise if the documents are not obtainable by subpoena duces tecum or summons while in the exclusive possession of the client, for the client will then be reluctant to transfer possession to the lawyer unless the documents are also privileged in the latter's hands. Where the transfer is made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, the purposes of the attorney-client privilege would be defeated unless the privilege is applicable. "It follows, then, that when the client himself would be privileged from production of the document, either as a party at common law... or as exempt from self-incrimination, the attorney having possession of the document is not bound to produce." 8 Wigmore § 2307, p. 592. Lower courts have so held. Id., § 2307, p. 592 n. 1, and cases there cited; United States v. Judson,322 F.2d 460, 466 (CA9 1963); Colton v. United States, 306 F.2d 633, 639 (CA2 1962). This proposition was accepted by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit below, is asserted by petitioners
[ 425 U.S. Page 405]
in No. 74-18 and respondents in No. 74-611, and was conceded by the Government in its brief and at oral argument. Where the transfer to the attorney is for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, we agree with it.
[30] Since each taxpayer transferred possession of the documents in question from himself to his attorney, in order to obtain legal assistance in the tax investigations in question, the papers, if unobtainable by summons from the client, are unobtainable by summons directed to the attorney by reason of the attorney-client privilege. We accordingly proceed to the question whether the documents could have been obtained by summons addressed to the taxpayer while the documents were in his possession. The only bar to enforcement of such summons asserted by the parties or the courts below is the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination. On this question the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in No. 74-611 is at odds with the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in United States v. Beattie,522 F.2d 267 (1975), cert. pending, Nos. 75-407, 75-700.
[32] The proposition that the Fifth Amendment prevents compelled production of documents over objection that such production might incriminate stems from Boyd v. United States,116 U.S. 616 (1886). Boyd involved a civil forfeiture proceeding brought by the Government against two partners for fraudulently attempting to import 35 cases of glass without paying the prescribed duty. The partnership had contracted with the Government to furnish the glass needed in the construction of a Government building. The glass specified was foreign glass, it being understood that if part or all of the glass was furnished from the partnership's existing duty-paid inventory,
[ 425 U.S. Page 406]
it could be replaced by duty-free imports. Pursuant to this arrangement, 29 cases of glass were imported by the partnership duty free. The partners then represented that they were entitled to duty-free entry of an additional 35 cases which were soon to arrive. The forfeiture action concerned these 35 cases. The Government's position was that the partnership had replaced all of the glass used in construction of the Government building when it imported the 29 cases. At trial, the Government obtained a court order directing the partners to produce an invoice the partnership had received from the shipper covering the previous 29-case shipment. The invoice was disclosed, offered in evidence, and used, over the Fifth Amendment objection of the partners, to establish that the partners were fraudulently claiming a greater exemption from duty than they were entitled to under the contract. This Court held that the invoice was inadmissible and reversed the judgment in favor of the Government. The Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment applied to court orders in the nature of subpoenas duces tecum in the same manner in which it applies to search warrants, id., at 622; and that the Government may not, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, seize a person's documents or other property as evidence unless it can claim a proprietary interest in the property superior to that of the person from whom the property is obtained. Id., at 623-624. The invoice in question was thus held to have been obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Court went on to hold that the accused in a criminal case or the defendant in a forfeiture action could not be forced to produce evidentiary items without violating the Fifth Amendment as well as the Fourth. More specifically, the Court declared, "a compulsory production of the private books and papers of the owner of goods sought to be forfeited... is compelling him to be a witness against himself,
[ 425 U.S. Page 407]
within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution." Id., at 634-635. Admitting the partnership invoice into evidence had violated both the Fifth and Fourth Amendments.
[33] Among its several pronouncements, Boyd was understood to declare that the seizure, under warrant or otherwise, of any purely evidentiary materials violated the Fourth Amendment and that the Fifth Amendment rendered these seized materials inadmissible. Gouled v. United States,255 U.S. 298 (1921); Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20 (1925); United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U.S. 452 (1932). That rule applied to documents as well as to other evidentiary items - "[t]here is no special sanctity in papers, as distinguished from other forms of property, to render them immune from search and seizure, if only they fall within the scope of the principles of the cases in which other property may be seized...." Gouled v. United States, supra, at 309. Private papers taken from the taxpayer, like other "mere evidence," could not be used against the accused over his Fourth and Fifth Amendment objections.
[34] Several of Boyd's express or implicit declarations have not stood the test of time. The application of the Fourth Amendment to subpoenas was limited by Hale v. Henkel,201 U.S. 43 (1906), and more recent cases. See, e.g., Oklahoma Press Pub. Co. v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186 (1946). Purely evidentiary (but "non-testimonial") materials, as well as contraband and fruits and instrumentalities of crime, may now be searched for and seized under proper circumstances, Warden v. Hayden,387 U.S. 294 (1967). *fn9 Also, any notion that "testimonial" evidence may never be seized and used in evidence is
[ 425 U.S. Page 408]
inconsistent with Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967); Osborn v. United States, 385 U.S. 323 (1966); and Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967), approving the seizure under appropriate circumstances of conversations of a person suspected of crime. See also Marron v. United States,275 U.S. 192 (1927).
[35] It is also clear that the Fifth Amendment does not independently proscribe the compelled production of every sort of incriminating evidence but applies only when the accused is compelled to make a testimonial communication that is incriminating. We have, accordingly, declined to extend the protection of the privilege to the giving of blood samples, Schmerber v. California,384 U.S. 757, 763-764 (1966); *fn10 to the giving of handwriting exemplars, Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 265-267 (1967); voice exemplars, United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 222-223, (1967); or the donning of a blouse worn by the perpetrator, Holt v. United States, 218 U.S. 245 (1910). Furthermore, despite Boyd, neither a partnership nor the individual partners are shielded from compelled production of partnership records on self-incrimination grounds. Bellis v. United States,417 U.S. 85 (1974). It would appear that under that case the precise claim sustained in Boyd would now be rejected for reasons not there considered.
[36] The pronouncement in Boyd that a person may not be forced to produce his private papers has nonetheless often appeared as dictum in later opinions of this Court. See, e.g., Wilson v. United States,221 U.S. 361, 377 (1911); Wheeler v. United States, 226 U.S. 478, 489 (1913); United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694, 698-699 (1944);
[ 425 U.S. Page 409]
Davis v. United States, 328 U.S., at 587-588; Schmerber, supra, at 763-764; Couch v. United States, 409 U.S., at 330; Bellis v. United States, supra, at 87. To the extent, however, that the rule against compelling production of private papers rested on the proposition that seizures of or subpoenas for "mere evidence," including documents, violated the Fourth Amendment and therefore also transgressed the Fifth, Gouled v. United States, supra, the foundations for the rule have been washed away. In consequence, the prohibition against forcing the production of private papers has long been a rule searching for a rationale consistent with the proscriptions of the Fifth Amendment against compelling a person to give "testimony" that incriminates him. Accordingly, we turn to the question of what, if any, incriminating testimony within the Fifth Amendment's protection, is compelled by a documentary summons.
[37] A subpoena served on a taxpayer requiring him to produce an accountant's workpapers in his possession without doubt involves substantial compulsion. But it does not compel oral testimony; nor would it ordinarily compel the taxpayer to restate, repeat, or affirm the truth of the contents of the documents sought. Therefore, the Fifth Amendment would not be violated by the fact alone that the papers on their face might incriminate the taxpayer, for the privilege protects a person only against being incriminated by his own compelled testimonial communications. Schmerber v. California, supra; United States v. Wade, supra; and Gilbert v. California, supra. The accountant's workpapers are not the taxpayer's. They were not prepared by the taxpayer, and they contain no testimonial declarations by him. Furthermore, as far as this record demonstrates, the preparation of all of the papers sought in these cases was wholly voluntary, and they cannot be said to contain compelled
[ 425 U.S. Page 410]
testimonial evidence, either of the taxpayers or of anyone else.*fn11 The taxpayer cannot avoid compliance with the subpoena merely by asserting that the item of evidence which he is required to produce contains incriminating writing, whether his own or that of someone else.
[38] The act of producing evidence in response to a subpoena nevertheless has communicative aspects of its own, wholly aside from the contents of the papers produced. Compliance with the subpoena tacitly concedes the existence of the papers demanded and their possession or control by the taxpayer. It also would indicate the taxpayer's belief that the papers are those described in the subpoena. Curcio v. United States,354 U.S. 118, 125 (1957). The elements of compulsion are clearly present, but the more difficult issues are whether the tacit averments of the taxpayer are both "testimonial" and "incriminating" for purposes of applying the Fifth Amendment. These questions perhaps do not lend themselves to categorical answers; their resolution may instead depend on the facts and circumstances of particular cases or classes thereof. In light of the records now before us, we are confident that however incriminating the
[ 425 U.S. Page 411]
contents of the accountant's workpapers might be, the act of producing them - the only thing which the taxpayer is compelled to do - would not itself involve testimonial self-incrimination.
[39] It is doubtful that implicitly admitting the existence and possession of the papers rises to the level of testimony within the protection of the Fifth Amendment. The papers belong to the accountant, were prepared by him, and are the kind usually prepared by an accountant working on the tax returns of his client. Surely the Government is in no way relying on the "truthtelling" of the taxpayer to prove the existence of or his access to the documents. 8 Wigmore § 2264, p. 380. The existence and location of the papers are a foregone conclusion and the taxpayer adds little or nothing to the sum total of the Government's information by conceding that he in fact has the papers. Under these circumstances by enforcement of the summons "no constitutional rights are touched. The question is not of testimony but of surrender." In re Harris,221 U.S. 274, 279 (1911).
[40] When an accused is required to submit a handwriting exemplar he admits his ability to write and impliedly asserts that the exemplar is his writing. But in common experience, the first would be a near truism and the latter self-evident. In any event, although the exemplar may be incriminating to the accused and although he is compelled to furnish it, his Fifth Amendment privilege is not violated because nothing he has said or done is deemed to be sufficiently testimonial for purposes of the privilege. This Court has also time and again allowed subpoenas against the custodian of corporate documents or those belonging to other collective entities such as unions and partnerships and those of bankrupt businesses over claims that the documents will incriminate the custodian despite the fact that producing the documents tacitly admits their existence and their location in the
[ 425 U.S. Page 412]
hands of their possessor. E.g., Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 361 (1911); Dreier v. United States, 221 U.S. 394 (1911); United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694 (1944); Bellis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85 (1974); In re Harris, supra. The existence and possession or control of the subpoenaed documents being no more in issue here than in the above cases, the summons is equally enforceable.
[41] Moreover, assuming that these aspects of producing the accountant's papers have some minimal testimonial significance, surely it is not illegal to seek accounting help in connection with one's tax returns or for the accountant to prepare workpapers and deliver them to the taxpayer. At this juncture, we are quite unprepared to hold that either the fact of existence of the papers or of their possession by the taxpayer poses any realistic threat of incrimination to the taxpayer.
[42] As for the possibility that responding to the subpoena would authenticate*fn12 the workpapers, production would
[ 425 U.S. Page 413]
express nothing more than the taxpayer's belief that the papers are those described in the subpoena. The taxpayer would be no more competent to authenticate the accountant's workpapers or reports*fn13 by producing them than he would be to authenticate them if testifying orally. The taxpayer did not prepare the papers and could not vouch for their accuracy. The documents would not be admissible in evidence against the taxpayer without authenticating testimony. Without more, responding to the subpoena in the circumstances before us would not appear to represent a substantial threat of self-incrimination. Moreover, in Wilson v. United States, supra; Dreier v. United States, supra; United States v. White, supra; Bellis v. United States, supra; and In re Harris, supra, the custodian of corporate, union or partnership books or those of a bankrupt business was ordered to respond to a subpoena for the business' books even though doing so involved a "representation that the documents produced are those demanded by the subpoena," Curcio v. United States,354 U.S., at 125. *fn14
[ 425 U.S. Page 414]
Whether the Fifth Amendment would shield the taxpayer from producing his own tax records in his possession is a question not involved here; for the papers demanded here are not his "private papers," see Boyd v. United States,116 U.S., at 634-635. We do hold that compliance with a summons directing the taxpayer to produce the accountant's documents involved in these cases would involve no incriminating testimony within the protection of the Fifth Amendment.
[43] The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in No. 74-611 is reversed. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in No. 74-18 is affirmed.
[44] So ordered.
[45] MR. JUSTICE STEVENS took no part in the consideration or disposition of these cases.
[46] MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, concurring in the judgment.
[47] I concur in the judgment. Given the prior access by accountants retained by the taxpayers to the papers involved in these cases and the wholly business rather than personal nature of the papers, I agree that the privilege against compelled self-incrimination did not in either of these cases protect the papers from production in response to the summonses. See Couch v. United States,409 U.S. 322, 335-336 (1973); id., at 337 (BRENNAN, J., concurring). I do not join the Court's opinion, however, because of the portent of much of what is said of a serious crippling of the protection secured by the privilege against compelled production of one's private books and papers. Like today's decision in United States v. Miller, post, p. 435, it is but another step in the denigration of privacy principles settled nearly 100 years ago in Boyd v. United States,116 U.S. 616
[ 425 U.S. Page 415]
(1886). According to the Court, "[w]hether the Fifth Amendment would shield the taxpayer from producing his own tax records in his possession is a question not involved here; for the papers demanded here are not his 'private papers.'" Ante, at 414. This implication that the privilege might not protect against compelled production of tax records that are his "private papers" is so contrary to settled constitutional jurisprudence that this and other like implications throughout the opinion*fn1 prompt me to conjecture that once again the Court is laying the groundwork for future decisions that will tell us that the question here formally reserved was actually answered against the availability of the privilege. Semble, Hudgens v. NLRB,424 U.S. 507 (1976). It is therefore appropriate to recall that history and this Court have construed the constitutional privilege to safeguard against governmental intrusions of personal privacy to compel either self-incriminating oral statements or the production of self-incriminating evidence recorded in one's private books and papers. Although as phrased in the Fifth Amendment - "nor shall [any person] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" - the privilege makes no express reference, as does the Fourth Amendment, to "papers, and effects," private papers have long been held to have the protection of the privilege, designed as it is "to maintain inviolate large areas of personal privacy." Feldman v. United States,322 U.S. 487, 490 (1944).
[ 425 U.S. Page 416]
[48] Expressions are legion in opinions of this Court that the protection of personal privacy is a central purpose of the privilege against compelled self-incrimination. "[I]t is the invasion of [a person's] indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty and private property" "that constitutes the essence of the offence" that violates the privilege. Boyd v. United States, supra, at 630. The privilege reflects "our respect for the inviolability of the human personality and of the right of each individual 'to a private enclave where he may lead a private life.'" Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n,378 U.S. 52, 55 (1964). "It respects a private inner sanctum of individual feeling and thought and proscribes state intrusion to extract self-condemnation." Couch v. United States, supra, at 327. See also Tehan v. United States ex rel. Shott,382 U.S. 406, 416 (1966); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 460, (1966). "The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment." Griswold v. Connecticut,381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965). See also Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 n. 5 (1967).
[49] The Court pays lip service to this bedrock premise of privacy in the statement that "[w]ithin the limits imposed by the language of the Fifth Amendment, which we necessarily observe, the privilege truly serves privacy interests," ante, at 399. But this only makes explicit what elsewhere highlights the opinion, namely, the view that protection of personal privacy is merely a by product and not, as our precedents and history teach, a factor controlling in part the determination of the scope of the privilege. This cart-before-the-horse approach is fundamentally at odds with the settled principle that the scope of the privilege is not constrained by the limits of the
[ 425 U.S. Page 417]
wording of the Fifth Amendment but has the reach necessary to protect the cherished value of privacy which it safeguards. See Schmerber v. California,384 U.S. 757, 761-762, n. 6 (1966). The "Court has always construed provisions of the Constitution having regard to the principles upon which it was established. The direct operation or literal meaning of the words used do not measure the purpose or scope of its provisions...." United States v. Lefkowitz,285 U.S. 452, 467 (1932). "It has been repeatedly decided that [the Fifth Amendment] should receive a liberal construction, so as to prevent stealthy encroachment upon or 'gradual depreciation' of the rights secured by [it], by imperceptible practice of courts or by well-intentioned but mistakenly over-zealous executive officers." Gouled v. United States,255 U.S. 298, 304 (1921). See Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449, 461 (1975). History and principle, not the mechanical application of its wording, have been the life of the Amendment. *fn2
[50] That the privilege does not protect against the production of private information where there is no compulsion, or where immunity is granted, or where there is no threat of incrimination in nowise supports the Court's argument demeaning the privilege's protection of privacy. The unavailability of the privilege in those cases only evidences that, as is the case with the First and Fourth Amendments, the protection of privacy afforded by the privilege is not absolute. The critical question then is the definition of the scope of privacy that is sheltered by the privilege.
[ 425 U.S. Page 418]
History and principle teach that the privacy protected by the Fifth Amendment extends not just to the individual's immediate declarations, oral or written, but also to his testimonial materials in the form of books and papers.*fn3 "The right was originally a 'right of silence'... only in the sense that legal process could not force incriminating statements from the defendant's own lips. Beginning in the early eighteenth century the English courts widened that right to include protection against the necessity of producing books and documents that might tend to incriminate the accused.... Lord Mansfield summed up the law by declaring that the defendant, in a criminal case, could not be compelled to produce any incriminating documentary evidence 'though he should hold it in his hands in Court.'" L. Levy, Origins of the Fifth Amendment 390 (1968).*fn4 Thus, in recognizing
[ 425 U.S. Page 419]
the privilege's protection of private books and papers, Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S., at 633, 634-635, was faithful to this historical conception of the privilege. Boyd was reaffirmed in this respect in Ballmann v. Fagin,200 U.S. 186 (1906), which held that an individual could not be compelled to produce a personal cashbook containing incriminating evidence. Schmerber v. California,384 U.S., at 761, most recently expressly held "that the privilege protects an accused... from being compelled to testify against himself, or otherwise provide the State with evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature...." (Emphasis supplied.) Indeed, Boyd's holding has often been reiterated without question. E.g., Bellis v. United States,417 U.S. 85, 87 (1974); United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 346 (1974); Couch v. United States, 409 U.S. 322 (1973); United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 221 (1967); Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 266 (1967); Davis v. United States, 328 U.S. 582, 587-588 (1946); United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694, 698-699 (1944); Wheeler v. United States, 226 U.S. 478, 489 (1913); Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 361, 375 (1911); ICC v. Baird, 194 U.S. 25, 45 (1904). It may therefore be emphatically stated that until today, there was no room to doubt that it is the Fifth Amendment's "historic function [to protect an individual] from compulsory incrimination through his
[ 425 U.S. Page 420]
own testimony or personal records." United States v. White, supra, at 701 (emphasis supplied).
[51] The common-law and constitutional extension of the privilege to testimonial materials, such as books and papers, was inevitable. An individual's books and papers are generally little more than an extension of his person. They reveal no less than he could reveal upon being questioned directly. Many of the matters within an individual's knowledge may as easily be retained within his head as set down on a scrap of paper. I perceive no principle which does not permit compelling one to disclose the contents of one's mind but does permit compelling the disclosure of the contents of that scrap of paper by compelling its production. Under a contrary view, the constitutional protection would turn on fortuity, and persons would, at their peril, record their thoughts and the events of their lives. The ability to think private thoughts, facilitated as it is by pen and paper, and the ability to preserve intimate memories would be curtailed through fear that those thoughts or the events of those memories would become the subjects of criminal sanctions however invalidity imposed. Indeed, it was the very reality of those fears that helped provide the historical impetus for the privilege. See Boyd v. United States, supra, at 631-632; E. Griswold, The Fifth Amendment Today 8-9 (1955); 8 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2250, pp. 277-281 (McNaughton rev. 1961); id., § 2251, pp. 313-314; McKay, Self-Incrimination and the New Privacy, 1967 Supreme Court Review 193, 212.*fn5
[ 425 U.S. Page 421]
The Court's treatment of the privilege falls far short of giving it the scope required by history and our precedents.*fn6 It is, of course, true "that the Fifth Amendment
[ 425 U.S. Page 422]
protects against 'compelled self-incrimination, not [the disclosure of] private information,'" ante, at 401, but it is also true that governmental compulsion to produce private information that might incriminate violates the protection of the privilege. Similarly, although it is necessary that the papers "contain no testimonial declarations by [the taxpayer]" in order for the privilege not to operate as a bar to production, ante, at 409, it does not follow
[ 425 U.S. Page 423]
that papers are not "testimonial" and thus producible because they contain no declarations. And while it may be that the unavailability of the privilege depends on a showing that "the preparation of all of the papers sought in these cases was wholly voluntary," ibid., again it does not follow that the protection is necessarily unavailable if the papers were prepared voluntarily, for it is the compelled production of testimonial evidence, not just the compelled creation of such evidence, against which the privilege protects.
[52] Though recognizing that a subpoena served on a taxpayer involves substantial compulsion, the Court concludes that since the subpoena does not compel oral testimony or require the taxpayer to restate, repeat, or affirm the truth of the contents of the documents sought, compelled production of the documents by the taxpayer would not violate the privilege, even though the documents might incriminate the taxpayer. Ante, at 409. This analysis is patently incomplete: the threshold inquiry is whether the taxpayer is compelled to produce incriminating papers. That inquiry is not answered in favor of production merely because the subpoena requires neither oral testimony from nor affirmation of the papers' contents by the taxpayer. To be sure, the Court correctly observes that "[t]he taxpayer cannot avoid compliance with the subpoena merely by asserting that the item of evidence which he is required to produce contains incriminating writing, whether his own or that of someone else." Ante, at 410 (emphasis supplied). For it is not enough that the production of a writing, or books and papers, is compelled. Unless those materials are such as to come within the zone of privacy recognized by the Amendment, the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination does not protect against their production.
[ 425 U.S. Page 424]
We are not without guideposts for determining what books, papers, and writings come within the zone of privacy recognized by the Amendment. In Wilson v. United States,221 U.S. 361 (1911), for example, the Court held that the Fifth Amendment did not protect against the subpoena of corporate records in the possession and control of the president of a corporation, even though the records might have incriminated him. Though the evidence was testimonial, though its production was compelled, and though it would have incriminated the party producing it, the Fifth Amendment was no bar. The Court recognized that the Amendment "[u]ndoubtedly... protected [the president] against the compulsory production of his private books and papers," id., at 377, but with respect to corporate records, the Court held: S
[53] "[T]hey are of a character which subjects them to the scrutiny demanded.... This was clearly implied in the Boyd Case where the fact that the papers involved were the private papers of the claimant was constantly emphasized. Thus, in the case of public records and official documents, made or kept in the administration of public office, the fact of actual possession or of lawful custody would not justify the officer in resisting inspection, even though the record was made by himself and would supply the evidence of his criminal dereliction." Id., at 380 (emphasis in original).I
[54] Couch v. United States expressly held that the Fifth Amendment protected against the compelled production of testimonial evidence only if the individual resisting production had a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to the evidence.409 U.S., at 336. Couch relied on Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918),
[ 425 U.S. Page 425]
where the Court permitted the use against the defendant of documentary evidence belonging to him because "there was a voluntary exposition of the articles" rather than "an invasion of the defendant's privacy." Id., at 14. Under Couch, therefore, one criterion is whether or not the information sought to be produced has been disclosed to or was within the knowledge of a third party.409 U.S., at 332-333. That is to say, one relevant consideration is the degree to which the paper holder has sought to keep private the contents of the papers he desires not to produce.
[55] Most recently, Bellis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85 (1974), followed the approach taken in Wilson. Bellis held that the partner of a small law firm could not invoke the privilege against self-incrimination to justify his refusal to comply with a subpoena requiring production of the partnership's financial records. Bellis stated: "It has long been established... that the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination protects an individual from compelled production of his personal papers and effects as well as compelled oral testimony.... The privilege applies to the business records of the sole proprietor or sole practitioner as well as to personal documents containing more intimate information about the individual's private life."417 U.S., at 87-88. Bellis also recognized that the Court's "decisions holding the privilege inapplicable to the records of a collective entity also reflect... the protection of an individual's right to a 'private enclave where he may lead a private life.'... Protection of individual privacy was the major theme running through the Court's decision in Boyd... and it was on this basis that the Court in Wilson distinguished the corporate records involved in that case from the private papers at issue in Boyd." Id., at 91-92. "[C]orporate
[ 425 U.S. Page 426]
records do not contain the requisite element of privacy or confidentiality essential for the privilege to attach." Id., at 92. Bellis concluded that the same considerations which precluded reliance upon the privilege with respect to corporate records also precluded reliance upon it with respect to partnership records in the circumstances of that case.*fn7
[56] A precise cataloguing of private papers within the ambit of the privacy protected by the privilege is probably impossible. Some papers, however, do lend themselves to classification. See generally Comment, The Search and Seizure of Private Papers: Fourth and Fifth Amendment Considerations, 6 Loyola (LA) L. Rev. 274, 300-303 (1973). Production of documentary materials created or authenticated by a State or the Federal Government, such as automobile registrations or property deeds, would seem ordinarily to fall outside the protection of the privilege. They hardly reflect an extension of the person.
[57] Economic and business records may present difficulty in particular cases. The records of business entities generally fall without the scope of the privilege. But, as noted, the Court has recognized that the privilege extends to the business records of the sole proprietor or practitioner. Such records are at least an extension of an aspect of a person's activities, though concededly
[ 425 U.S. Page 427]
not the more intimate aspects of one's life. Where the privilege would have protected one's mental notes of his business affairs in a less complicated day and age, it would seem that that protection should not fall away because the complexities of another time compel one to keep business records. Cf. Olmstead v. United States,277 U.S. 438, 474 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). Nonbusiness economic records in the possession of an individual, such as canceled checks or tax records, would also seem to be protected. They may provide clear insights into a person's total lifestyle. They are, however, like business records and the papers involved in these cases, frequently, though not always, disclosed to other parties; and disclosure, in proper cases, may foreclose reliance upon the privilege. Personal letters constitute an integral aspect of a person's private enclave. And while letters, being necessarily interpersonal, are not wholly private, their peculiarly private nature and the generally narrow extent of their disclosure would seem to render them within the scope of the privilege. Papers in the nature of a personal diary are a fortiori protected under the privilege.
[58] The Court's treatment in the instant cases of the question whether the evidence involved here is within the protection of the privilege is, with all respect, most inadequate. The gaping hole is in the omission of any reference to the taxpayer's privacy interests and to whether the subpoenas impermissibly invade those interests. The observations that the "accountant's workpapers are not the taxpayer's" and "were not prepared by the taxpayer," ante, at 409, touch on matters relevant to the taxpayer's expectation of privacy, but do not of themselves determine the availability of the privilege. Wilson v. United States,221 U.S., at 378, stated: "[T]he mere fact that
[ 425 U.S. Page 428]
the appellant himself wrote, or signed, the [documents], neither conditioned nor enlarged his privilege. Where one's private documents would tend to incriminate him, the privilege exists although they were actually written by another person."*fn8 Thus, although "[t]he fact that the documents may have been written by the person asserting the privilege is insufficient to trigger the privilege," ante, at 410 n. 11, and "the fact that it was written by him is not controlling...," ibid., this is not to say that the privilege is available only as to documents written by him. For the reasons I have stated at the outset, however, I do not believe that the evidence involved in these cases falls within the scope of privacy protected by the Fifth Amendment.
[60] I also question the Court's treatment of the question whether the act of producing evidence is "testimonial." I agree that the act of production implicitly admits the existence of the evidence requested and possession or control of that evidence by the party producing it. It also implicitly authenticates the evidence as that identified in the order to compel. I disagree, however, that implicit admission of the existence and possession or control of the papers in this case is not "testimonial" merely because the Government could readily have otherwise proved existence and possession or control in these cases.
[ 425 U.S. Page 429]
I know of no Fifth Amendment principle which makes the testimonial nature of evidence and, therefore, one's protection against incriminating himself, turn on the strength of the Government's case against him.
[61] Nor do I consider the taxpayers' implicit authentication an insubstantial threat of self-incrimination. Actually, authentication of the papers as those described in the subpoenas establishes the papers as the taxpayers', thereby supplying an incriminatory link in the chain of evidence against them. It is not the less so because the taxpayers' accountants may also provide the link, since the protection against self-incrimination cannot, I repeat, turn on the strength of the Government's case.
[62] This Court's treatment of handwriting exemplars is not supportive of its position. See Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (1967). The Court has only recognized that "[a] mere handwriting exemplar..., like the voice or body itself, is an identifying physical characteristic outside its protection." Id., at 266-267. It is because handwriting exemplars are viewed as strictly non-testimonial, not because they are insufficiently testimonial, that the Fifth Amendment does not protect against their compelled production. Also not supportive of the Court's position is the principle that the custodian of documents of a collective entity is not protected from the act of producing those documents. Nothing in the language of those cases, either expressly or impliedly, indicates that the act of production with respect to the records of business entities is insufficiently testimonial for purposes of the Fifth Amendment. At most, those issues, though considered, were disposed of on the ground, not that production was insufficiently testimonial, but that one in control of the records of an artificial organization
[ 425 U.S. Page 430]
undertakes an obligation with respect to those records foreclosing any exercise of his privilege.*fn9
[63] MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL, concurring in the judgment.
[64] Today the Court adopts a wholly new approach for deciding when the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination can be asserted to bar production of documentary evidence.*fn1a This approach has, in various
[ 425 U.S. Page 431]
forms, been discussed by commentators for some time; nonetheless, as I noted a few years ago, the theory "has an odd sound to it." Couch v. United States,409 U.S. 322, 348 (1973) (dissenting). The Fifth Amendment basis for resisting production of a document pursuant to subpoena, the Court tells us today, lies not in the document's contents, as we previously have suggested, but in the tacit verification inherent in the act of production itself that the document exists, is in the possession of the producer, and is the one sought by the subpoena.
[65] This technical and somewhat esoteric focus on the testimonial elements of production rather than on the content of the evidence the investigator seeks is, as MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN demonstrates, contrary to the history and traditions of the privilege against self-incrimination both in this country and in England, where the privilege originated. A long line of precedents in this Court, whose rationales if not holdings are overturned by the Court today, support the notion that "any forcible and compulsory extortion of a man's... private papers to be used as evidence to convict him of crime" compels him to be a witness against himself within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Boyd v. United States,116 U.S. 616, 630 (1886). See also Bellis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85, 87 (1974); Couch v. United States, supra, at 330; Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 763-764 (1966); Davis v. United States, 328 U.S. 582, 587-588 (1946); United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694, 698-699 (1944); Wheeler v. United States, 226 U.S. 478, 489 (1913); Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 361, 377 (1911).
[66] However analytically imprecise these cases may be, they represent a deeply held belief on the part of the Members of this Court throughout its history that there
[ 425 U.S. Page 432]
are certain documents no person ought to be compelled to produce at the Government's request. While I welcome the Court's attempt to provide a rationale for this longstanding rule, it is incumbent upon the Court, I believe, to fashion its theory so as to protect those documents that have always stood at the core of the Court's concern. Thus, I would have preferred it had the Court found some room in its theory for recognition of the import of the contents of the documents themselves. See Couch v. United States, supra, at 350 (MARSHALL, J., dissenting).
[67] Nonetheless, I am hopeful that the Court's new theory, properly understood and applied, will provide substantially the same protection as our prior focus on the contents of the documents. The Court recognizes, as others have argued, that the act of production can verify the authenticity of the documents produced. See, e.g., United States v. Beattie,522 F.2d 267 (CA2 1975), cert. pending, Nos. 75-407, 75-700. But the promise of the Court's theory lies in its innovative discernment that production may also verify the documents' very existence and present possession by the producer. This expanded recognition of the kinds of testimony inherent in production not only rationalizes the cases, but seems to me to afford almost complete protection against compulsory production of our most private papers.
[68] Thus, the Court's rationale provides a persuasive basis for distinguishing between the corporate-document cases and those involving the papers of private citizens. Since the existence of corporate record books is seldom in doubt, the verification of their existence, inherent in their production, may fairly be termed not testimonial at all. On the other hand, there is little reason to assume the present existence and possession of most private papers, and certainly not those MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN places at the top of his list of documents that the privilege should protect. See ante, at 426-427 (concurring in judgment).
[ 425 U.S. Page 433]
Indeed, there would appear to be a precise inverse relationship between the private nature of the document and the permissibility of assuming its existence. Therefore, under the Court's theory, the admission through production that one's diary, letters, prior tax returns, personally maintained financial records, or canceled checks exist would ordinarily provide substantial testimony. The incriminating nature of such an admission is clear, for while it may not be criminal to keep a diary, or write letters or checks, the admission that one does and that those documents are still available may quickly - or simultaneously - lead to incriminating evidence. If there is a "real danger" of such a result, that is enough under our cases to make such testimony subject to the claim of privilege. See Rogers v. United States,340 U.S. 367 (1951); Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591 (1896); Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547 (1892). Thus, in practice, the Court's approach should still focus upon the private nature of the papers subpoenaed and protect those about which Boyd and its progeny were most concerned.
[69] The Court's theory will also limit the prosecution's ability to use documents secured through a grant of immunity. If authentication that the document produced is the document demanded were the only testimony inherent in production, immunity would be a useful tool for obtaining written evidence. So long as a document obtained under an immunity grant could be authenticated through other sources, as would often be possible, reliance on the immunized testimony - the authentication - and its fruits would not be necessary, and the document could be introduced. The Court's recognition that the act of production also involves testimony about the existence and possession of the subpoenaed documents mandates a different result. Under the Court's theory, if the document is to be obtained the
[ 425 U.S. Page 434]
immunity grant must extend to the testimony that the document is presently in existence. Such a grant will effectively shield the contents of the document, for the contents are a direct fruit of the immunized testimony - that the document exists - and cannot usually be obtained without reliance on that testimony.*fn2a Accordingly, the Court's theory offers substantially the same protection against procurement of documents under grant of immunity that our prior cases afford.
[70] In short, while the Court sacrifices our pragmatic, if somewhat ad hoc, content analysis for what might seem an unduly technical focus on the act of production itself, I am far less pessimistic than MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN that this new approach signals the end of Fifth Amendment protection for documents we have long held to be <br/><br/>(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.


text:
Pricing and Discounts
Procurement Practitioners
Three Day Conference (November 28-30)
- Get the inside secrets of leading industry practitioners
- Mix and mingle with the best and brightest in the industry
- Create further value for your procurement team
- Includes all meals and refreshments during conference
Solution Providers/Others
Three Day Conference (November 28-30)
- Access to executives looking to buy your solutions!
- Mix and mingle with the best and brightest in the industry
- Get the inside secrets of leading industry practitioners
- Includes all meals and refreshments during conference
Group Discounts for Qualified Procurement Practitioners*
- Groups of 3-4 | 15% off current discounted price
- Groups of 5 or more | Call 1-888-482-6012 for the best large group rates
Stuff you need to know:
- * To qualify for the Procurement Practitioners' rate, you must work in the corporate procurement function of your company. If you work for a company that provides a solution to procurement professionals or for an agency you do not qualify for this rate.
- Fee includes continental breakfast, lunch, cocktail receptions and conference documentation.
- All discounts are taken off the full conference price.
- Payment is due in full at the time of registration. Your registration will not be confirmed until payment is received and may be subject to cancellation.
- Connecticut Residents must add 6.35% Sales Tax to their registration fee.
- Cancellation Policy: Because we are in the live event experience business, please be aware that we have a strict cancellation policy. We unfortunately cannot provide refunds but will issue a 90% credit voucher for the price paid for registration if notification is sent via email at firstname.lastname@example.com at least eight days prior to the event. You can transfer the ticket to someone else in your group.
We do this because we are committed to providing a quality conference for all participants including attendees, speakers and sponsors. The minute you register for our event, we undertake the overhead costs of hosting you onsite. We look forward to having you join us at the event just as much (if not more!) as you look forward to being there!
- Questions? Give our customer service team a call at 646.200.7530 or email them at email@example.com. Hours of operation – Monday-Thursday, 9am-5:30pm; Friday, 9am-5pm.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Learn about the 50 states in the Union.
Thank you for downloading Quiz of the States from our download portal.
Current files are located on the following IPs: 188.8.131.52www.berkeleydesigning.com
Outer mirror site one (www.liberty-ca.org)
Outer mirror site two (www.berkeleydesigning.com)
Note: We prefer to use WinZip, WinRar, WinAce, 7zip to extract zip, rar, 7z, ace files. For data iso files we recommend you use freeware Daemon Toos lite.
Note: All files listed on this site are tested by the ESET Smart Security. If you like to test this file by another security software we recommend you select some in our antivirus section.
quiz, test, testing, learning, educational, games, maker, creater, designer, software, teaching, school, questions, answers, configurable, children, kids, states, capitals, united states, bird, flower, tree, entered, date, programmable, data, fields, text, spreadsheet, excel
You may include this program on any CD compilation


text:
Claim: A horse's legs are ground to stumps after the floor of the trailer it is being transported in rot away.
[Healey & Glanvill, 1995]
A friend of a friend was the lad at a Devonshire racing stables where a 12-year-old horse, not exactly the Red Rum of its yard, was briefly reprieved from the knacker's to race over the jumps at a course
sorry stallion's hard-nosed trainer had used up all his good horse-boxes for mounts with better prospects of victory and more time before they met the great pieman in the sky. So, the poor horse was lined up for an ancient box salvaged from a swampy field. It was awful inside. No windows, a decayed floor and the rancid smell of old wee – just like a student flat.
At first, the querulous quadruped wasn't keen to go, but eventually it was pushed in, reassured by the heartless trainer and locked in the dark. They lurched off down the lane, creaking and groaning.
If only the trainer had watched a little longer, an utterly awful equine tragedy may have been averted. For a few hundred yards down the road, the transporter hit a bump and the poor horse's hooves plunged through the rotten floor. Despite all the plaintive whinnying, the driver kept his foot to the floor. Gruesomely, by the time the horse-box pulled to a halt, the poor nag's legs had been worn down to stumps.
[Collected on the Internet, 1998]
A drunk left a bar not noticing that one of the horses', in his
Origins: This animal horror story has been around since at least the 1980s. My first encounter with it came in 1993 when I discovered it in
Humane Society file about animal cruelty. It was then presented as an old tale that had been kicking about for dogs' years, and no claims were made about its veracity.
In its most usual form, the legends deals with a couple hauling their dearly loved steed who fail to notice that something has gone horribly amiss and arrive at their destination completely unaware of the terrible fate that has befallen the creature. They are greeted by the grisly sight of a horse whose legs have been worn down to bloody stumps only at the end of their journey. Their cruelty is of the unintentional kind in that no one on the highway succeeded in alerting them to the situation as it developed, nor did they notice it themselves yet knowingly drive on.
Did something like the events described here ever take place with a real horse? We don't know. What moves this story into the category of urban legend is the number of times and number of ways it's been told: According to legend, this tragic fate has befallen one nag after another in Britain, the USA, and Canada (countries from which we've so far harvested tellings); in some versions it happened to a racehorse, in others to an old plug on its way to the glue factory, and in yet others to the beloved mount of a devoted horse lover.
Sometimes even if a basic story proves to be nothing but an apocryphal tale, significant elements of it later play out in real life. (Folklorists term this "ostension" when it happens naturally and "pseudo ostension" when someone deliberately helps things along.) In 1998, many of the key points of the legend came true on a highway near Barrie, Ontario. In July of that year, police stopped a pickup truck towing a small trailer on
Barbara "red bull" Mikkelson
Last updated: 3 August 2011
Conroy, Pat. "Man Charged in Grisly Road Death of Bull." The Toronto Star. 29 July 1998. Healey, Phil and Rick Glanvill. Gruesome Urban Myths. Bucks: Ginn and Company, 1995. ISBN 0-602-26200-3 (pp. 116-117).


text:
Father's Day Message
Below is a short message we shared on WHBY for Father's Day. Words from the PSA… In June we celebrate Father's Day and discuss manhood. Conversations about manhood should start by talking about "Man Box culture". If you've ever heard phrases like "act like a man", "man up", or "you're throwing like a girl", you […]Read More


text:
- 3 pack
- Includes: 1/4", 5/16" and 3/8" nut setters
- Designed for use in impact drivers and wrenches
- Allows user to easily remove metal shavings that cling to magnet
- Recessed corners that drives on flats which minimizes shavings
- Industrial strength magnet maximizes faster retention
*Items shipped from our warehouse to stores in Alaska and Hawaii will receive a 70% shipping discount.
30-Day Return Guarantee
We want you to be fully satisfied with every item that you purchase from www.acehardware.com. If you are not satisfied with an item that you have purchased (excluding Gift Cards and gas-powered outdoor equipment*), you may return the item up to thirty days after the original purchase date to receive a store credit (less shipping, handling and other charges). We recommend that you make returns of online purchases to an Ace retail store near you which will issue your store credit. If you do not have an Ace retail store near you, please contact a Customer Service Specialist by calling 1-866-290-5334 for complete return instructions. Please refer to our Return Instructions for more information about returning a purchase.
The item must be returned in good condition, in original boxes (whenever possible), and with all paperwork, parts and accessories to insure full credit. After 30 days, please contact the manufacturer directly.
*Gas-Powered Outdoor Equipment cannot be returned once gas or oil has been put in it, even if the Equipment has been drained of these materials.


text:
Solar Eclipse 2017: Best Episodes to Watch From TVD, Mad Men and More
On Monday, Aug. 21, 2017, the moon will pass between our planet* and the sun, creating a total solar eclipse — and if you think we can't find a way to relate that to television, you're obviously a new TVLine reader. (Welcome, by the way.) READ MORE & VIEW PHOTOS


text:
Criei um espaço para nós no Google. Junte-se a mim, https://goo.gl/spaces/SSHJQt1H5EJWbRRW8
#8 Most Visited Theme Parks in Japan
Best Ranked Amusent Parks in Japan
#1 In Chiba, Tokyo Disneyland
Find out what's happening at Tokyo Disney Resort for the most fun ever.
Make it a Dream. Visit! http://www.tokyodisneyresort.jp/en/
#2 Open a a new chapter of fun and enjoyment with every visit at Yokohama Hakkeijima Sea Paradise in Kanagawa
There are many attractions to experience!
#3 Don't miss the ongoing and upcoming events at Huis ten Bosch in Sasebo, Nagasaki
Have a look at http://english.huistenbosch.co.jp/
#4 The Suzuka Circuit Mie as a Nagashima Spa Land
Visit Nagashima Resort at http://www.sanco.co.jp/foreign/english/shuttle/nagashima/
#5Toshimaen in Tokyo
#6 Parque Espana in Shima, Mie
Visit all the attractions at http://www.parque-net.com/foreign/english/
#7 Takarazuka Family Land Hyogo
#8 At last but not the least the Space World Fukuoka


text:
Top 20 Colossal Order Games
Cities: Skylines
Cities: Skylines is a modern take on the classic city simulation. The game introduces new game play elements to realize the thrill and hardships of creating and maintaining a real city whilst expanding on some well-established tropes of the city building experience. From the makers of the Cities in Motion franchise, the game boasts a fully realized transport system. It also includes the ability to mod the game to suit your play style as a fine counter balance to the layered and challenging simulation. You're only limited by your imagination, so take control and reach for the sky!
81 / 1001324.05
Cities in Motion
Rendered in rich detail, four of the world's greatest cities - Vienna, Helsinki, Berlin, and Amsterdam - await the steady hand of a planner to manage their transportation needs in Cities in Motion. Overseeing the changing needs of people from 1920 to 2020, it's up to you to manage everything from buses, trams and subway trains to maximize profits while pleasing commuters.


text:
As a City Councilman, Mark focused on funding basic services first. As our State Representative, he will do the same and work for a prioritized budget with fiscal restraint.
Mark will make school funding a priority and not a budget bargaining chip. The Washington State Supreme Court clearly wrote in McCleary et al. v. State of Washington "Fundamental reforms are needed for Washington to meet its constitutional obligation to its students." This means;
*Fund education first in the budgeting process. Give education its own line item in the budget, just as we do for transportation and healthcare.
*Fund and expand Skills Centers across the state and focus on high demand job opportunities.
*Allow more flexibility with credits to make it easier to transfer from community colleges into other higher ed institutions.
Our current State government has been borrowing money for short term non-essential projects and reducing the amount of money left to pay for our essential services. This means there is less money for our schools, public safety and transportation.
We need to fund education first and prioritize our spending on public safety to protect those most vunerable in our communities.
Source: http://markharmsworth.com/issues/entry/prioritize-public-safety-and-schools


text:
latex: arr, pirates by NotFadeAwayWatch
©2006-2017 NotFadeAway
20 brushes (.abr for Photoshop 7.0+) and imagepack for use with most programs
So cute.
Will credit.
Will credit.
They look great. Will credit, thank you!
ooo! I can totally use these. especially the crossed swords 8D thanks for makin' em :3
I love it, thank you!
w00t! I finally found some pretty good brushes!
Absolutely awesome. (:
I will immediatly make some Pirates of the Caribbean Icons XD Thanks
Love it <3.
I love it! That's like for me
Great brushes!
Nice work. Taking.
These are just what I was looking for! Thanks for sharing. Will credit.
Really great I used them in one of my Boards... the look so great...
Awesome thanks.
Thank you for these! they are great XD
Amazing! Snagged 'em and will credit when use them! Thank ye kindly
Awasome work
I think that I use some ...
of course I put a credit
I think that I use some ...
of course I put a credit
Wonderful! I yoink.
Shiny! *yoinks*
Wow, this is awesome...might just use ^-^ if I do, I'll be sure an pay credit where credit is due.
absolutely lovely !!!!!!!
:3 great!
Taking, will credit!
Thank you!
Taking, will credit!
Thank you!
omg so nice!!! Thx! snagging it
Very nice, but erm, how do I download and use them? I will credit, of course.
God, this is wonderful! I'll be using !
glee...couldnt resist mate
Very Nice! Have downloaded - Will credit when used
snagging, will credit. ^_^
Excellent! Perfectly designed.
Thank you!!!I took it!!That is gorgeous!!XD
Very nice hun


text:
A Blackpool policeman convicted of drink-driving on duty has been sacked – by the same man who once handed him a bravery award.
Three years after honouring PC Iain Norton for fighting off a dangerous dog, Chief Constable Steve Finnegan said the 41-year-old's decision to climb behind the wheel of a police van earlier this year amounted to gross misconduct.
Norton, who pleaded guilty at Furness Magistrates' Court in Barrow in August, was fired with immediate effect following a recent hearing in Leyland.
In a statement, the force said: "The Chief Constable, Mr Finnigan, found the allegation against PC Norton proven and in breach of the standards of professional behaviour in the areas of fitness for duty and discreditable conduct.
"The allegation related to PC Norton driving a police vehicle whilst being over the legal alcohol limit, and being unfit to perform his duties.
"Mr Finnigan found the conduct amounted to gross misconduct and PC Iain Norton was dismissed from Lancashire Constabulary with immediate effect."
Norton, from Wesham, was awarded for his bravery in November 2013, after grabbing a bull terrier around the mouth as it attacked a woman.
Despite being repeatedly bitten, he fought the dog off and saved the woman from further injury.
But at the same time, Norton was struggling with personal problems which had led him to drink a bottle of vodka daily, it emerged in court.
In 2007, his mother tried to end her own life, and in 2010, he was in an abusive relation 'not at his hands', defence solicitor Chris Fallows said.
Norton's fall from grace came on March 20 this year, after he drove a suspected shoplifter the short distance from TK Maxx in Bank Hey Street to Bonny Street Police Station.
He was breathlysed after a colleague said he could smell alcohol on his breath, and found to be over the limit.
He was arrested and later suspended, telling colleagues: "I know it's not brilliant."
Norton was ordered to pay an £800 fine, £600 in court costs, and a victim surcharge of £80, and was also banned from driving.
He was seeking help for his problems, the court heard.


text:
Who does not want a beautiful, stunning and young looking skin?? Everyone, right!! But in spite you try a lot one or the other reason in our life itself becomes a reason for early aging. Though aging cannot be stopped once forever but if you follow below given five anti-aging skin care techniques you are sure to retard it or lessen it a lot. The five techniques are:-
Cleaning always keep a body fresh and flair. If you do not want to be a victim of anti aging give an extra care to your complete body when it comes to cleaning. Make sure that your skin remains free of dirt, germs or any such thing that increases the chance of anti aging. A routine cleaning of skin twice a day should be a regular habit. You can make use of cleanser but only those that suits your skin rather than resulting into any skin infection. Obviate the usage of those cleansers that comprise of alcohol content in eminent quantity instead go for organic cleansers as they are completely free of those chemicals that can provide harm to your delicate skin.
See more: Tips To Hide Your Age Gracefully
Our eating habits are directly co-related to our physical appearance. What you eat impacts your look and personality too!! So, it is very essential to follow healthy diet chart if you wish to look younger and live a healthy life. Prefer eating that food which is a complete healthy package thereby bestowing regeneration of new skin cells in your body. Foods like: broccoli, tomatoes, apple, and all types of green-leafed vegetables should be a part of regular diet. Such foods are said to be highly rich in proteins, vitamins, calcium and especially antioxidants. All these are the major requirements of our body that help us to stay strong and healthy.
You are advised to drink good amount of water daily if you are scared of ghost named anti aging, if not much then at least 8 to 10 glasses of water daily to keep your body and skin up to date. It helps in kicking toxins out of your body thereby giving rise to body's hydration. The more water you drink to more healthy you stay. Water is such a nature's gift that bestows your skin with natural beauty and saves it from getting dull, deadly and dry.
This is one of the major reasons behind anti-aging which cannot be ignored at all. Sun rays and UV rays both act as a strong enemy for a younger looking skin as they make skin tanned and wrinkled by damaging skin cells. Make sure you do not forget to wear sun-block, cloth made scarf anything that saves your skin from being directly affected from harmful sun rays. So, prevent staying in sun for long time and make use of organic sunscreen creams.
See more: Guide to glowing skin: Cleanse Tone Moisturise
It is a fact that today everyone's life has turned into a busy time table thereby leading into more of stress and less of sleep. Make sure to take an average sleep of 8 hours daily because if you take proper sleep those hormones are generated that build cells and reincarnate your skin. Either learn managing stress or avoid being a part of stressful life because it pre-invites aging and counteracts your immune system.
Source: pinterest.in


text:
Foods to Improve Thyroid Health
Are you feeling exhausted and stressed out? Having weight issues? Feeling depressed and losing hair? Is your heart beating faster and are you having problems with breathing? If your answer is yes then you need to see a doctor because you might be having a thyroid disease.
Read more on the next page.


text:
Good news for employers who did not shell out the bonus money: 62 percent of respondents said that a less-than-expected bonus would not lead them to look for another job.
"These results indicate that the recession and the lingering effects of Sept. 11 have not only been a factor in unemployment rates, but also now in the way employees are compensated," says Michael A. Caggiano, CEO of TrueCareers. What's not clear is whether this is a short-term or long-term compensation trend. The survey also finds that stock options are the least preferred form of bonus compensation (seven percent), with most respondents (70 percent) looking instead for bonuses in cash, either on a per-project or annual basis.
|More Roundups
The Roundup: A New Model For Enterprise Data Sharing
PDA Battle Reaches the Enterprise
IT Salaries Feel Recession's Pinch
Related Articles
An ARC survey finds that lowering energy costs and conserving energy are the top reasons for implementing BAS systems. For instance, ARC senior analyst David Clayton says more manufacturing companies looking to control energy costs are using Internet-enabled building automation and energy management software. These allow building operators to "access and control their energy-intensive building devices and systems in real-time via a standard Web browser." These networked systems let firms "extract critical energy data from existing systems and analyze that information to make intelligent procurement decisions" and can cut energy costs by 20 percent.
It also allows for remote monitoring and control of climate control and other building systems, yielding a hidden benefit. Increasing employee comfort is considered a major cost benefit and leads to added productivity. ARC estimates that in a 10,000-square-foot building, lost productivity due to occupant discomfort can exceed $50,000 per year.
Olympic Traffic Spikes on Disputes
Traffic to Olympic-related sites had its ups and down during the Winter Games, but one thing seems certain: nothing sends Olympic fans to the Web more than a good controversy.
NBC's sponsorship and Web tie-ins appeared to have paid off for the network televising the games in the United States. Its NBCOlympics.com site drew more than 500,000 visitors on Feb. 8 and Feb. 9, the first two days of the Games, according to comScore.
Both the sites of the United States Olympic Committee (usoc.org) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC, at Olympic.org) experienced poor performance and periods of unavailability on Feb. 21, following Apolo Ohno's disqualification from the 1500m short track skating finals. The IOC site had problems followed the figure skating scandal involving the Russians and Canadians on the evening of Feb. 11.
Data compiled by webHancer Corp. found that three of the top four Olympics sites peaked on Feb. 12, the day after the pairs skating finals that ended in controversy. SaltLake2002.com's volume increased by 37 percent, while NBCOlympics.com increased by 70 percent.
-- Editor"s note: This item by the staff of internet.com's CyberAtlas.


text:
< Previous
Next >
From the Book of Divine Worship - The Proper: First Part - The Great Vigil of Easter - Christian Initiation, or the Renewal of Baptismal Vows
The priest then blesses the baptismal water. With hands joined, he sings or says the following prayer:
Father, you give us grace through sacramental signs, which tell us of the wonders of your unseen power.
In baptism we use your gift of water, which you have made a rich symbol of the grace you give us in this sacrament. At the very dawn of creation your Spirit breathed on the waters, making them the wellspring of all holiness.
The waters of the great flood you made a sign of the waters of baptism, that make an end of sin and a new beginning of goodness.
Through the waters of the Red Sea you led Israel out of slavery, to be an image of God's holy people, set free from sin by baptism.
In the waters of the Jordan your Son was baptized by John and anointed with the Spirit.
Your Son willed that water and blood should flow from his side as he hung upon the cross.
After his resurrection he told his disciples: "Go out and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
Father, look now with love upon your Church and unseal for her the fountain of baptism. By the power of the Spirit give to the water of this font the grace of your Son.
You created man in your own likeness: Cleanse him from sin in a new birth of innocence by water and the Spirit.
The priest may lower the Easter candle into the water either once or three times, as he continues:
We ask you, Father, with your Son, to send the Holy Spirit upon the waters of this font.
He holds the candle in the water.
May all who are buried with Christ in the death of baptism rise also with him to newness of life. (We ask this) through Christ our Lord. Amen.
Then the candle is taken out of the water as the People sing the acclamation:
Springs of water, bless the Lord.
Give him glory and praise for ever.
Any other appropriate acclamation may be sung.


text:
Submitted by Communities In Schools of Lakewood
The Communities In Schools Champions for Youth Breakfast, will be held at Old Country Buffet in the Lakewood Towne Center on March 23, 7:00-8:30 am. To reserve a seat, simply call the CISL office at 589-7489 or email email@example.com.
The Champions Breakfast will be an inspirational experience featuring firsthand stories from students and Clover Park High School (CPHS) principals, Tim Stults and Rene McCord. CPHS alumni, Michael Tuncap, will MC the event. There is no charge at the door and a call for support will be made at the end of the event. All funds raised support our work at Clover Park High School, Lochburn Middle School, Tillicum Elementary School and Four Heroes Elementary School, which impacts more than 1,500 students. Since seating is limited, guests are asked to reserve seats at least 2-3 weeks before the event. Corporate sponsorships and tables are also available.


text:
Hibike! Wadaiko

An educational film about the Convention on the Rights of the Child in Japan. In the movie's example, a group of children are practicing taiko (drums) for a recital at the community center. Local adult residents force them to stop, saying that it's selfish for kids to disturb their peace. Their teacher tells them about the Convention on the Rights of the Child so they have the courage to stand up to the the adults to dispel the ideology of "kids don't know anything. They need to shut up and do what we tell them."

Recent EpisodesAll Episodes
No Episodes Found
Anime Relations
No Relations Found.


text:
2nd Circuit Affirms Cybersquatting Judgment, Damages For Donald Trump
(Summary order available. Document #24-160519-010R.)
Domain Name Speculator
Brooklyn, N.Y., resident J. Taikwok Yung is a self-described "domainer," also known as...
To view the full article, register now.
Try for FREE for fourteen days
Already a subscriber? Click here to login