<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Reply to Chris Bray	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://lettersblogatory.com/2012/01/25/reply-to-chris-bray/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2012/01/25/reply-to-chris-bray/</link>
	<description>The Blog of International Judicial Assistance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 Dec 2024 01:34:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Case of the Day: Commonwealth v. Karen Read &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2012/01/25/reply-to-chris-bray/#comment-23706</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Case of the Day: Commonwealth v. Karen Read &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Dec 2024 01:34:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=4232#comment-23706</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] wrote about the evidentiary issue in posts such as my reply to American historian Chris Bray, where I explained the policy of the common law rule against such a privilege and explained why I [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] wrote about the evidentiary issue in posts such as my reply to American historian Chris Bray, where I explained the policy of the common law rule against such a privilege and explained why I [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Belfast Project: UK Supreme Court to Hear McIntyre&#8217;s Appeal &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2012/01/25/reply-to-chris-bray/#comment-440</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Belfast Project: UK Supreme Court to Hear McIntyre&#8217;s Appeal &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Jun 2019 10:02:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=4232#comment-440</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] it has been a while, I&#8217;ll refer you back to a post from more than seven years ago that gives my basic view: at least in a criminal case, there is no [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] it has been a while, I&#8217;ll refer you back to a post from more than seven years ago that gives my basic view: at least in a criminal case, there is no [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Lago Agrio: The Heller Subpoena &#8211; Letters Blogatory &#124; Letters Blogatory &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2012/01/25/reply-to-chris-bray/#comment-439</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lago Agrio: The Heller Subpoena &#8211; Letters Blogatory &#124; Letters Blogatory &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2018 02:34:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=4232#comment-439</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] I have written at length about the Belfast Project case, which also involves an arguably unwise subpoena with First [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] I have written at length about the Belfast Project case, which also involves an arguably unwise subpoena with First [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: The First Circuit&#8217;s Belfast Project Decision: Analysis &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2012/01/25/reply-to-chris-bray/#comment-438</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[The First Circuit&#8217;s Belfast Project Decision: Analysis &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Jul 2012 20:38:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=4232#comment-438</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[...] quite hostile to the idea of a privilege in the face of a grand jury subpoena, and as I noted in my response to Chris Bray&#8217;s thoughtful post, the policy of the common law is hostile to such a privilege: For more than three centuries it has [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] quite hostile to the idea of a privilege in the face of a grand jury subpoena, and as I noted in my response to Chris Bray&#8217;s thoughtful post, the policy of the common law is hostile to such a privilege: For more than three centuries it has [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: BREAKING: First Circuit Rejects Moloney &#38; McIntyre&#8217;s Challenges in the Belfast Project Case &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2012/01/25/reply-to-chris-bray/#comment-437</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[BREAKING: First Circuit Rejects Moloney &#38; McIntyre&#8217;s Challenges in the Belfast Project Case &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Jul 2012 11:00:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=4232#comment-437</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[...] court quoted Wigmore in support of the basic outcome: &#8220;the mere fact that a communication was made in expres [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] court quoted Wigmore in support of the basic outcome: &#8220;the mere fact that a communication was made in expres [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: ACLU Files Amicus Brief in the Belfast Project Case &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2012/01/25/reply-to-chris-bray/#comment-436</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ACLU Files Amicus Brief in the Belfast Project Case &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Feb 2012 04:47:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=4232#comment-436</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[...] I have previously called a toss-up. I am not sure it is ultimately persuasive, for reasons I have given before. But the First Circuit, if it reaches the main issue, could indeed rule against the government.    [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] I have previously called a toss-up. I am not sure it is ultimately persuasive, for reasons I have given before. But the First Circuit, if it reaches the main issue, could indeed rule against the government.    [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Breaking: BC Appeals In The Belfast Project Case &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2012/01/25/reply-to-chris-bray/#comment-435</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Breaking: BC Appeals In The Belfast Project Case &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2012 23:35:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=4232#comment-435</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[...] can be asserted in response to a subpoena&#8212;could come out either way. (On the other hand, I am personally skeptical whether such a privilege is good policy, but then, I&#8217;m not a judge!) Until today, it seemed [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] can be asserted in response to a subpoena&mdash;could come out either way. (On the other hand, I am personally skeptical whether such a privilege is good policy, but then, I&#8217;m not a judge!) Until today, it seemed [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
