Ruth Larson: Arguments by Silber, Sylvia would not pass muster in court

To The Daily Sun,

In their continuing efforts to bamboozle fellow delegation members and the public, Reps. Norm Silber and Mike Sylvia make phony legal arguments that would not pass muster in a court of law. They claim that attorney-client privilege protects their emails from the prying eyes of ... their fellow delegation members. The client in the Gunstock litigation was the delegation, and that case was dismissed.

Silber and Sylvia claim the attorney client privilege for themselves, as the self-anointed “control group”, despite never having been authorized by the delegation to act in that capacity. Additionally, the term “control group” is inapplicable in the current situation involving a public entity that requires a quorum to take action, and whose members all have an equal vote. Silber and Sylvia have no legal right to hide the emails from the rest of the delegation. The Totherow case cited by Silber involved an opposing lawyer trying to interview employees of the client on the other side, and is thus totally irrelevant.

Rep. Sylvia also hints that he and/or Rep. Silber may be in personal legal jeopardy from the contents of the emails. Why does Sylvia fear lawsuits from unnamed people “of substantial means”? Libel actions, maybe, but by whom? The mystery deepens. Sylvia also threw in a bizarre twist, suggesting that if he and Silber get sued, the New Hampshire Attorney General would have to defend them, at substantial expense to the taxpayers. To correct this absurd notion, the Attorney General does not bill by the hour, so even if that office defended these two culprits, the cost would be zero. The only thing that would be lost in that litigation would be the reputations of Reps. Sylvia and Silber. What reputations, you might ask?

Ruth Larson

Alton