Nothing in writing; do you know why it’s a policy many corporations and government departments encourage?

For example, here’s an extract from an email cited in the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry:

“Please ensure that this communication reaches everyone in your department who has access to, or who is in a position to create, documents relating to the issues arising in the claims (as set out more fully below). I have started a list of teams which we believe may hold relevant documents. The list is attached: I should be grateful if you would let me know of any other teams which might hold documents relevant to the claims.”

“Document creation”

“It is very important that we control the creation of documents which relate to any of the above issues and which might be potentially damaging to POL’s defence to the claims, as these may have to be disclosed if these claims proceed to litigation.

“Your staff should therefore think very carefully before committing to writing anything relating to the above issues which is critical of our own processes or systems, including emails, reports or briefing notes. We appreciate that this will not always be practicable, however.”

“Where it is necessary to create a document containing critical comment on these issues, it will in certain circumstances be possible to claim privilege over the document, so that POL will not have to disclose it in any proceedings.

“As litigation is now a distinct possibility, the document will be privileged if its dominant purpose is to give/receive legal advice about the litigation or to gather evidence for use in the litigation.

“This also applies to communications with third parties – ie with other organisations – provided they are confidential and their dominant purpose is as set out above.

Nothing in Writing

“All of the following steps should be taken in order to maximise the chances of privilege attaching to the document:

“If the dominant purpose of the communication is not to obtain legal advice, try to structure the document in such a way that its dominant purpose can be said to be evidence gathering for use in the litigation;

“Mark every such communication ‘legally privileged and confidential’;

“If you are sending the document to someone, state in the covering email/memo/letter that you are not waiving privilege by doing so;

“Request that the recipient of a communication confirm that the document will be kept confidential and that he/she will not forward it to anyone else;

“Think very carefully before ‘replying to all’ on an email – do all the recipients need to see the communication?

“Where possible and appropriate, copy a member of Legal Services in to the communication. And make clear that you are doing so to enable them to advise on the content.

“Please note that copying a member of Legal Services into the communication alone will not necessarily suffice.

“If in doubt, call Legal Services before committing anything to writing which relates to these issues and contains critical wording.”

In other words:

“Don’t put anything in writing that might cause us problems in the litigation”.

This, apparently, is what’s called a litigation hold letter, when litigation is anticipated.

Ironically, this is in writing, in black and white.

“‘If it’s produced it’s available for disclosure – if not minuted then technically it’s not’.”

“don’t put anything critical in writing. Because we might have to disclose it, and that might cause us problems in litigation”.

Avoiding Disclosable Evidence

Many people say that DWM’s technology makes no difference. Well, think about how many signed documents you receive from service corporations, government departments, banks etc.

The warning on care in communications is commonplace. If you’re in litigation, be aware that if you’re creating documents they may be disclosable. And there are some protections that provide privileges to those communications.

So, handle customer complaints by phone only. Use call centres, and give the operators carefully crafted scripts.

And don’t answer any written correspondence. Because “we might have to disclose it and that might cause us problems in litigation.” And of course we have nothing to hide, because we’re honest and transparent in our dealings…

As you read this page, consider the nefarious actions being stated by liar/lawyers, and then review documents you get from banksters and service corporations.

Now you know why you’re not getting any answers in writing. So much for a fair and level playing field, and equality in law.

What’s the solution?

As DWM discovers, they are all guilty way of fictitious conveyance of language. Your job is to learn how to prove it.