Shakespeare had it right... On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 14:31, Andrew S. Baker <[email protected]> wrote:
> Depending on the case and jurisdiction, it may be sufficient to undermine > any argument that information that was inappropriately passed on was done so > unknowingly. > > In general, however, I agree that it's dumb. Yet, lawyers continue to get > paid at rates that typically exceed our own. So, take that. > > -ASB: http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker > > > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Kurt Buff <[email protected]> wrote: > >> *This written advice is not intended or written to be used, and can not >> be used, by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be >> imposed on the taxpayer.* >> >>> Norman, Jones, Enlow & Co. - CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION >>> >>> This e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic >>> Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521, is >>> confidential, and is intended solely for the use of the individuals or >>> entities to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient >>> or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended >>> recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that >>> any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail and >>> any file attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this >>> e-mail in error, please immediately notify us by telephone toll-free at >>> (866) >>> 841-6888 or by reply e-mail to the sender. You must destroy the original >>> transmission and its contents. You will be reimbursed for reasonable costs >>> incurred in notifying us. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Really? Can Not? How do you intend to enforce this? >> >> Sigh. >> >> I hate stupid email disclaimers - oh, wait. That's a redundancy.. >> >> Kurt >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
