“A corrupt witness scorns judgment: and the mouth of the wicked devours iniquity.” Proverbs 19:28

Let’s stipulate that we cannot know when Pastor Doug Wilson of Christ Church, Moscow, told the truth to Rachel Shubin during their email exchange and when he did not. She caught the Presiding Minister of the Communion of Evangelical Churches (CREC) bearing false witness more than once, and readers know that we have documented a few falsehoods as well. I stipulate this fact up front because I believe that Mr. Wilson does tell the truth in the following email, though I do not believe he tells the truth throughout the entire email.

CONTEXT
One year ago Douglas Wilson sent an email to Natalie Greenfield, threatening to publish the private journal that she kept as a 13-year old unless she stopped speaking publicly about the sexual abuse she suffered in the Kirk. The Moscow Police Department seized copies of this journal when it executed a search warrant at Jamin Wight’s home.¹ Mr. Wilson believes that Natalie’s personal diary incriminates her as a consenting agent in the crimes committed against her and therefore he believes that she voluntarily participated in “sexual behavior” with the man who raped her. Thus Mr. Wilson maintains that these documents impeach Natalie’s credibility and he informed her of his intention to make them public, if she continued to expose the treatment she received from members & officers of Christ Church, Moscow. Please read this post for more context.

Now, it’s important to note that Doug Wilson stands alone in holding this legal opinion. That is, neither the State nor the Court agree with him. To be sure, the Court sealed these records to specifically protect Natalie from the very harm that Mr. Wilson threatened. And it’s important to note that Mr. Wilson has a well-documented written record on “age of consent” law, which he jettisoned in this one case for reasons he has not said. We have considered these facts ad nauseam, but today we shall see that Mr. Wilson added another wrinkle to this unhappy story.

ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
For those who don’t know, attorney-client privilege is a legal privilege that exists in the US justice system that protects all communication between a lawyer and his/her client from disclosure. An attorney has the legal & ethical duty to hold in confidence everything the client says to him/her.² This privilege never expires — that is, a lawyer must honor it to the grave. And this privilege is so sacred that counsel can be disbarred for violating it. See this, this, and this for more.

RACHEL’S QUESTION & WILSON’S ANSWER
These facts lay the foundation for Rachel Shubin’s question to Douglas Wilson and his answer. On page 162 of the Shubin Report, Rachel asked Douglas Wilson this question, “Have you read her journals? You’ve said that you have access to them.” Here is his reply:

From: douglas.dougwils@gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2016 3:25 PM
To: Rachel Shubin
Subject: Re: FW: Maybe You Can Help

Rachel,

It is possible that I saw some back in the day, but don’t recall distinctly. I said that I had access to them because Jamin’s attorney has copies, and I thought the review committee might ask to see them. After I said that I discovered that the court seal applies not only to the copies at the courthouse, but also to any copies that Jamin’s attorney has (I presume because they were part of the plea arrangement). If we had had copies from back in the day, I don’t think the court seal would apply, but I don’t believe we do.
(Shubin Report, page 162)

Notice this sentence:

“I said that I had access to them because Jamin’s attorney has copies, and I thought the review committee might ask to see them. . .”

Nine months ago Doug Wilson claimed he could contact Jamin Wight’s criminal defense attorney to obtain Natalie Greenfield’s private journals. He claimed this as though he enjoyed the same attorney-client privilege as Jamin Wight, which raises the obvious question, Why did Douglas Wilson believe that Jamin Wight’s lawyer would violate Mr. Wight’s attorney-client privilege by handing over protected records to him? It raises another question as well: Why did Mr. Wilson believe that the CREC Review Committee might want to see documents that the State ruled irrelevant & inadmissible? But I can’t shake the first question: What interest did Doug Wilson have in Jamin Wight’s criminal defense that compelled him to believe that Mr. Wight’s lawyer would waive attorney-client privilege for him?

¹ “I found six photocopies of the journal I was looking for in a dresser drawer. I had not specified the word ‘copies’ in my warrant, so I left the residence and returned to the courthouse to meet with the judge again to modify my original warrant to include the word ‘copies’ in it. This allowed me to collect the six photocopies of the journal I did locate. I left an inventory receipt for the journal copies. . .” (MPD Officer Casey Green, Supplemental Police Narrative, page 2)

² So the Supreme Court of the United States: “We readily acknowledge the importance of the attorney-client privilege, which ‘is one of the oldest recognized privileges for confidential communications.’ Swidler & Berlin v. United States, 524 U. S. 399, 403 (1998). By assuring confidentiality, the privilege encourages clients to make ‘full and frank’ disclosures to their attorneys, who are then better able to provide candid advice and effective representation. Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U. S. 383, 389 (1981). This, in turn, serves ‘broader public interests in the observance of law and administration of justice.’ Ibid.” (Mohawk Industries, Inc., Petitioner v. Norman Carpenter)