Is there an attorney in the house?

[DoggyDaddy]

And being a fed agency I would have had zero recourse if that contractor was selling private info and the military was unaware.

is every person that wears the uniform a stand up person without a seedy background? I have less of a secure feeling about a contractor.

Well that's on you, but it sounds like you're in the wrong business. Maybe you'd be best suited to running a road side produce stand.

I'm a civilian employee of the DoD and I just spent nearly 3 hours completing the paperwork for a recurring background check. People that complain about their DL being scanned to buy alcohol at Kroger and whatnot make me laugh. You wouldn't believe the amount of personal info I had to divulge for this.

 

[wcd]

Well that's on you, but it sounds like you're in the wrong business. Maybe you'd be best suited to running a road side produce stand.

I'm a civilian employee of the DoD and I just spent nearly 3 hours completing the paperwork for a recurring background check. People that complain about their DL being scanned to buy alcohol at Kroger and whatnot make me laugh. You wouldn't believe the amount of personal info I had to divulge for this.

Agreed getting security clearances is no laughing matter. And you are correct Things get very intrusive, but often a necessary evil.

send some of the Kroger Crybabies over to Oak Ridge and see what it takes to get in lol.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

And being a fed agency I would have had zero recourse if that contractor was selling private info and the military was unaware.

Not true. The contractor would be guilty of violating federal law just like a .gov employee would.

is every person that wears the uniform a stand up person without a seedy background? I have less of a secure feeling about a contractor.

Is every person that doesn't wear the uniform a stand up person without a seedy background? Got an email address? Got a credit card? Got a bank account? People know these things. I'd trust a .gov-cleared contractor over Joe Public with my personal info.

 

[Shadow01]

Not true. The contractor would be guilty of violating federal law just like a .gov employee would.

Is every person that doesn't wear the uniform a stand up person without a seedy background? Got an email address? Got a credit card? Got a bank account? People know these things. I'd trust a .gov-cleared contractor over Joe Public with my personal info.

And that is your choice, just like it is my choice to refuse. I had no obligation to give that info to maintain my employment.

 

[Shadow01]

Well that's on you, but it sounds like you're in the wrong business. Maybe you'd be best suited to running a road side produce stand.

I'm a civilian employee of the DoD and I just spent nearly 3 hours completing the paperwork for a recurring background check. People that complain about their DL being scanned to buy alcohol at Kroger and whatnot make me laugh. You wouldn't believe the amount of personal info I had to divulge for this.

I am not employed by that location. Again I had zero obligation to meet their demands. My DL has never been scanned By a store. My gray hair preempts most cashiers asking for id. I keep a tight grip on my documents. Could be called obsessive by some. I’m fine with that.

 

[JettaKnight]

 

[tackdriver]

In criminal law....a competent attorney would likely tell his client not to talk at all. It comes pretty close to malpractice and ineffective assistance to counsel otherwise without a very specific and unusual situation being present (like a deal having already been worked out).

BTW- I've been practicing law for almost 25 years, often in contract law. In the drafting and formation of contracts, I want clarity which means limiting what can be used to interpret the contract to the contract itself. No extra-contractual communications which could cause confusion.

In fact, most of my contracts include a clause like this:

"Integration. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between “X” and “Y” with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior proposals, negotiations, communications, and agreements between “X” and “Y” with respect to the subject matter hereof, whether oral or written. This Agreement shall not be amended or modified except by a subsequent written agreement between duly authorized representatives of “X” and “Y”."

Now, if there already is a contract, any ambiguity that is present, I will try to exploit for my client's benefit...and so will the other guy. Therefore, if I am drafting the contract, I will eliminate all of the ambiguity possible. You don't build ambiguity in hoping to exploit it later. You make everything crystal clear without the presence of conflicts so that everyone knows exactly what their responsibilities under the contract are.

I agree with you - if the contract is created by a good attorney, and care and almost anal-retentive care is taken by the signing parties to insure that it does correctly and completely cover what was intended. The document stands on its own. The more skilled the writer, the more successfully it does this.

I apologize that I edited down my post, and the main point in my head is not what got left in (also battling COVID part III). That point was: that language, particularly when reduced to purely written form, is imprecise regardless of how hard we try to make it so.

The more money, ego, or emotion involved, the harder some very crafty people will work to create/amplify ambiguity, even where none seemed to exist. Ultimately, the court may be left to define, or redefine, or create sub-definitions for, words that the writer and multiple reviewers thought were crystal clear when written.

I'm not sure how any audio/visual aids would help in the strict situation of a contract, but I can understand the OP considering it. I also won't be at all surprised if, 20 years from now, it's somehow standard practice, and attorneys cringe when they have to represent a client that only has a paper copy of a written contract.

 

[henry0reilly]

Thanks to everyone who replied here. I started this and kinda forgot about it.

 

[Ingomike]

I thought that was the point of a notary?

A notary verifies signatures, nothing to do with any contract or intent…