Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Lynne Stewart jailed
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
bacasper



Joined: 26 Mar 2007

PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:36 am    Post subject: Lynne Stewart jailed Reply with quote

Not only was her appeal denied, but the panel directed the trial judge to consider increasing her sentence!

This sends a chilling message to trial attorneys about zealouisly representing their clients just at the time when Guantanamo inmates are about to begin trials inside the country.


EXCLUSIVE: Civil Rights Attorney Lynne Stewart Responds to Court Ruling Upholding Conviction and Ordering Her to Prison


Civil rights attorney Lynne Stewart has been ordered to prison to begin serving a two-and-a-half-year sentence after a federal appeals court upheld her conviction on Tuesday. Lynne Stewart was found guilty in 2005 of distributing press releases on behalf of her jailed client, Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, also known as the �Blind Sheikh,� who is serving a life sentence on terror-related charges. The panel also described Stewart�s twenty-eight-month sentence as �strikingly low� and sent the case back to the trial judge to determine whether she deserved a longer prison term. In a Democracy Now! national broadcast exclusive, Lynne Stewart joins us from New York.

Video of interview at link
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheUrbanMyth



Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

PostPosted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 5:02 pm    Post subject: Re: Lynne Stewart jailed Reply with quote

bacasper wrote:
Not only was her appeal denied, but the panel directed the trial judge to consider increasing her sentence!

This sends a chilling message to trial attorneys about zealouisly representing their clients just at the time when Guantanamo inmates are about to begin trials inside the country.


EXCLUSIVE: Civil Rights Attorney Lynne Stewart Responds to Court Ruling Upholding Conviction and Ordering Her to Prison


Civil rights attorney Lynne Stewart has been ordered to prison to begin serving a two-and-a-half-year sentence after a federal appeals court upheld her conviction on Tuesday. Lynne Stewart was found guilty in 2005 of distributing press releases on behalf of her jailed client, Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, also known as the �Blind Sheikh,� who is serving a life sentence on terror-related charges. The panel also described Stewart�s twenty-eight-month sentence as �strikingly low� and sent the case back to the trial judge to determine whether she deserved a longer prison term. In a Democracy Now! national broadcast exclusive, Lynne Stewart joins us from New York.

Video of interview at link



She was jailed for abetting a terrorist organization. According to the prosecution, these press releases included instructions to a terrorist cell.

This in spite of the fact she had already agreed with the government that she would not pass on such releases.

So I don't find it particularly chilling at all. When you break promises you make to the government and pass on messages that you know will be heard by terrorists, you should expect some punishment. As long as attorneys do not violate the law (which Stewart did) they have nothing to worry about, not matter how zealously they defend their client.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bacasper



Joined: 26 Mar 2007

PostPosted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 2:11 am    Post subject: Re: Lynne Stewart jailed Reply with quote

TheUrbanMyth wrote:
She was jailed for abetting a terrorist organization. According to the prosecution, these press releases included instructions to a terrorist cell.

This in spite of the fact she had already agreed with the government that she would not pass on such releases.

So I don't find it particularly chilling at all. When you break promises you make to the government and pass on messages that you know will be heard by terrorists, you should expect some punishment. As long as attorneys do not violate the law (which Stewart did) they have nothing to worry about, not matter how zealously they defend their client.

Well, that is really objective of you to look only at the government's side in the case. Rolling Eyes

On the same day Bush signed the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, Atty. Gen. John Asscrapt announced imposition of new Special Administration Measures (SAMs) to be applied to the Bureau of Prisons. Among them was that now conversations between attorneys and their clients would be subject to monitoring, in violation of the long-established judicial principle in the free world, that of attorney-client privilege, a principle that has been enshrined in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence since the Magna Carta! Exclamation

Regarding the new SAMs, Counerpunch says:
Quote:
The new regulation became effective immediately, without the usual opportunity for prior public comment, no doubt to foreclose what should have been outrage from lawyers and the public.

Prosecutors had charged that Ms. Stewart conspired with two others to break strict rules that barred Mr. Abdel Rahman, who is serving a life sentence for plotting to blow up New York City landmarks, from communicating with outsiders. Specifically, she was accused of discussing with Sheik Abdul Rahman keeping their basic legal discussions confidential.

It is a breach of the fundamental rights of defendants, the Bill of Rights, First Amendment, due process. Atty-client confidentiality is abrogated. The govt spies on defendants as they trump up charges.

It does not surprise me that you are in support of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act. The government, right or wrong, eh? And you are not even American!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheUrbanMyth



Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 11:30 pm    Post subject: Re: Lynne Stewart jailed Reply with quote

bacasper wrote:
TheUrbanMyth wrote:
She was jailed for abetting a terrorist organization. According to the prosecution, these press releases included instructions to a terrorist cell.

This in spite of the fact she had already agreed with the government that she would not pass on such releases.

So I don't find it particularly chilling at all. When you break promises you make to the government and pass on messages that you know will be heard by terrorists, you should expect some punishment. As long as attorneys do not violate the law (which Stewart did) they have nothing to worry about, not matter how zealously they defend their client.

Well, that is really objective of you to look only at the government's side in the case. Rolling Eyes



Well you were only looking at Lynn Stewart's side, so I merely provided the other side of the coin. Also where did I claim objectivity?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheUrbanMyth



Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 12:03 am    Post subject: Re: Lynne Stewart jailed Reply with quote

bacasper wrote:
TheUrbanMyth wrote:
She was jailed for abetting a terrorist organization. According to the prosecution, these press releases included instructions to a terrorist cell.

This in spite of the fact she had already agreed with the government that she would not pass on such releases.

So I don't find it particularly chilling at all. When you break promises you make to the government and pass on messages that you know will be heard by terrorists, you should expect some punishment. As long as attorneys do not violate the law (which Stewart did) they have nothing to worry about, not matter how zealously they defend their client.

Well, that is really objective of you to look only at the government's side in the case. Rolling Eyes

On the same day Bush signed the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, Atty. Gen. John Asscrapt announced imposition of new Special Administration Measures (SAMs) to be applied to the Bureau of Prisons. Among them was that now conversations between attorneys and their clients would be subject to monitoring, in violation of the long-established judicial principle in the free world, that of attorney-client privilege, a principle that has been enshrined in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence since the Magna Carta! Exclamation

Regarding the new SAMs, Counerpunch says:
Quote:
The new regulation became effective immediately, without the usual opportunity for prior public comment, no doubt to foreclose what should have been outrage from lawyers and the public.

Prosecutors had charged that Ms. Stewart conspired with two others to break strict rules that barred Mr. Abdel Rahman, who is serving a life sentence for plotting to blow up New York City landmarks, from communicating with outsiders. Specifically, she was accused of discussing with Sheik Abdul Rahman keeping their basic legal discussions confidential.

It is a breach of the fundamental rights of defendants, the Bill of Rights, First Amendment, due process. Atty-client confidentiality is abrogated. The govt spies on defendants as they trump up charges.

It does not surprise me that you are in support of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act. The government, right or wrong, eh? And you are not even American!


And BTW how does supporting the jailing of Stewart equate to wholesale support of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act?
And what does the fact that I am not American have any bearing on this issue?

If I had said this was a bad thing and the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act should be abolished I somehow doubt you'd be commenting on my lack of American citizenship. As for the government right or wrong comment...maybe you should check out my posts on the global warming thread.


Last edited by TheUrbanMyth on Mon Nov 30, 2009 12:05 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bacasper



Joined: 26 Mar 2007

PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 12:05 am    Post subject: Re: Lynne Stewart jailed Reply with quote

TheUrbanMyth wrote:
Well you were only looking at Lynn Stewart's side, so I merely provided the other side of the coin. Also where did I claim objectivity?

No, my post did not originate from Lynne Stewart's side, but from a credible news source which at least strives for objectivity (Democracy Now!).

But thank you for confirming your lack of objectivity. (I'm glad I got a snapshot of that one!)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheUrbanMyth



Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 8:25 pm    Post subject: Re: Lynne Stewart jailed Reply with quote

bacasper wrote:
TheUrbanMyth wrote:
Well you were only looking at Lynn Stewart's side, so I merely provided the other side of the coin. Also where did I claim objectivity?

No, my post did not originate from Lynne Stewart's side, but from a credible news source which at least strives for objectivity (Democracy Now!).

But thank you for confirming your lack of objectivity. (I'm glad I got a snapshot of that one!)



Democracy Now takes Lynne Stewart's side.

Also where did I confirm any lack of objectivity?

If you are going to quote me, I would appreciate it if you would not put words into my mouth.

Here, I'll help you out this once. I neither confirmed nor denied objectivity or the lack thereof. It's irrelevant as to the facts in the case.

She was told not to pass on "press releases" which might contain instructions to terrorist cells.

She agreed to this.

She later broke the agreement.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bacasper



Joined: 26 Mar 2007

PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:44 am    Post subject: Re: Lynne Stewart jailed Reply with quote

TheUrbanMyth wrote:
bacasper wrote:
TheUrbanMyth wrote:
Well you were only looking at Lynn Stewart's side, so I merely provided the other side of the coin. Also where did I claim objectivity?

No, my post did not originate from Lynne Stewart's side, but from a credible news source which at least strives for objectivity (Democracy Now!).

But thank you for confirming your lack of objectivity. (I'm glad I got a snapshot of that one!)



Democracy Now takes Lynne Stewart's side.

DN! is a legitimate, objective news source. Heard on over 800 stations, it is the largest community media collaboration in the U.S. Got anything to document your (false) claim?

Quote:
Also where did I confirm any lack of objectivity?

Here:
Quote:
where did I claim objectivity?


Quote:
I neither confirmed nor denied objectivity or the lack thereof.

You sound like a guilty defendant who has been cornered by a sharp prosecutor.

Has anyone ever heard more weasly weasel words?Laughing

Quote:
She was told not to pass on "press releases" which might contain instructions to terrorist cells.

Defense lawyers have long been the liaison between and defendant and the outside world via the press. Otherwise, how does one stop defendants from being railroaded? This has been a long-standing part of the attorney-client relationship.
Quote:

She agreed to this.

She later broke the agreement.

Only according to the government (and you).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheUrbanMyth



Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 4:54 pm    Post subject: Re: Lynne Stewart jailed Reply with quote

bacasper wrote:
TheUrbanMyth wrote:
bacasper wrote:
TheUrbanMyth wrote:
Well you were only looking at Lynn Stewart's side, so I merely provided the other side of the coin. Also where did I claim objectivity?

No, my post did not originate from Lynne Stewart's side, but from a credible news source which at least strives for objectivity (Democracy Now!).

But thank you for confirming your lack of objectivity. (I'm glad I got a snapshot of that one!)



Democracy Now takes Lynne Stewart's side.

DN! is a legitimate, objective news source. Heard on over 800 stations, it is the largest community media collaboration in the U.S. Got anything to document your (false) claim?

If as you admit the government says she broke the agreement, why is that not mentioned on DN? And why is the fact that she may have been (unknowingly or knowingly) passing on information to terrorists also ignored? That's not objective at all

Quote:
Also where did I confirm any lack of objectivity?

Here:
Quote:
where did I claim objectivity?


Asking someone to back up a claim is not the same as denying or admitting it. You made the claim that I was claiming objectivity, and I asked you where I said that. Now you are making the claim that I said I lacked objectivity...and I am asking you where did I say that?

Quote:
I neither confirmed nor denied objectivity or the lack thereof.

You sound like a guilty defendant who has been cornered by a sharp prosecutor.

Only this particular defendant has cornered the sharp prosecutor in this particular instance. Either point out where I specifically claimed to have objectivity or denied having objectivity. Anything else is speculation which (since we are talking about court) is inadmissible:)

Has anyone ever heard more weasly weasel words?Laughing

Quote:
She was told not to pass on "press releases" which might contain instructions to terrorist cells.

Defense lawyers have long been the liaison between and defendant and the outside world via the press. Otherwise, how does one stop defendants from being railroaded? This has been a long-standing part of the attorney-client relationship.


And still is. However passing on messages to terror groups has never been a legitimate part of any legitimate attorney-client relationship.


Quote:

She agreed to this.

She later broke the agreement

Quote:
Only according to the government (and you).


And according to Lynn Stewart as well since she agreed to this IN WRITING. Which you would have realized if you had done any real research.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bacasper



Joined: 26 Mar 2007

PostPosted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 3:30 am    Post subject: Re: Lynne Stewart jailed Reply with quote

TheUrbanMyth wrote:
bacasper wrote:
TheUrbanMyth wrote:
bacasper wrote:
TheUrbanMyth wrote:
Well you were only looking at Lynn Stewart's side, so I merely provided the other side of the coin. Also where did I claim objectivity?

No, my post did not originate from Lynne Stewart's side, but from a credible news source which at least strives for objectivity (Democracy Now!).

But thank you for confirming your lack of objectivity. (I'm glad I got a snapshot of that one!)



Democracy Now takes Lynne Stewart's side.

DN! is a legitimate, objective news source. Heard on over 800 stations, it is the largest community media collaboration in the U.S. Got anything to document your (false) claim?

If as you admit the government says she broke the agreement, why is that not mentioned on DN? And why is the fact that she may have been (unknowingly or knowingly) passing on information to terrorists also ignored? That's not objective at all

Quote:
Also where did I confirm any lack of objectivity?

Here:
Quote:
where did I claim objectivity?


Asking someone to back up a claim is not the same as denying or admitting it. You made the claim that I was claiming objectivity, and I asked you where I said that. Now you are making the claim that I said I lacked objectivity...and I am asking you where did I say that?

Quote:
I neither confirmed nor denied objectivity or the lack thereof.

You sound like a guilty defendant who has been cornered by a sharp prosecutor.

Only this particular defendant has cornered the sharp prosecutor in this particular instance. Either point out where I specifically claimed to have objectivity or denied having objectivity. Anything else is speculation which (since we are talking about court) is inadmissible:)

Has anyone ever heard more weasly weasel words?Laughing

Quote:
She was told not to pass on "press releases" which might contain instructions to terrorist cells.

Defense lawyers have long been the liaison between and defendant and the outside world via the press. Otherwise, how does one stop defendants from being railroaded? This has been a long-standing part of the attorney-client relationship.


And still is. However passing on messages to terror groups has never been a legitimate part of any legitimate attorney-client relationship.


Quote:

She agreed to this.

She later broke the agreement

Quote:
Only according to the government (and you).


And according to Lynn Stewart as well since she agreed to this IN WRITING. Which you would have realized if you had done any real research.


TheUrbanMyth wrote:
If as you admit the government says she broke the agreement, why is that not mentioned on DN?

I never admitted the government says she broke the law. Rolling Eyes But I'll help you out: I neither admitted nor denied that the government said so.

If you are going to quote me, I would appreciate it if you would not put words into my mouth. And stop putting your words in my quote box, too!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheUrbanMyth



Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

PostPosted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 6:34 pm    Post subject: Re: Lynne Stewart jailed Reply with quote

bacasper wrote:
[
She later broke the agreement

Quote:
Only according to the government (and you).


And according to Lynn Stewart as well since she agreed to this IN WRITING. Which you would have realized if you had done any real research.[/quote]

TheUrbanMyth wrote:
If as you admit the government says she broke the agreement, why is that not mentioned on DN?


Quote:
I never admitted the government says she broke the law. Rolling Eyes But I'll help you out: I neither admitted nor denied that the government said so.

If you are going to quote me, I would appreciate it if you would not put words into my mouth. And stop putting your words in my quote box, too!



(bolding mine)

I said she broke the agreement. YOU said "Only according to the government and you" Sounds like an admission to me.

And I said she broke the AGREEMENT, not the law. You said "I never admitted the government says she broke the law". But I never said "law" in that post so I did not put words in your mouth. But you've just done that to me AGAIN.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bacasper



Joined: 26 Mar 2007

PostPosted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fact check:

Stewart did what all attorneys should, but few, in fact, do - observe ABA�s Model Rules saying all lawyers are obligated to:

"devote professional time and resources and use civic influence to ensure equal access to our justice system for all who because of economic/social barriers cannot afford or secure adequate counsel;"

practice law ethically, morally and responsibly to assure everyone is afforded due process and judicial fairness. Sadly and disturbingly, Stewart was denied what she did for others unselfishly and proudly.

Betrayed by American Justice

For 30 years, Stewart worked heroically to defend America's poor, underprivileged, and unwanted, never afforded due process and judicial fairness without an advocate like her. Where others wouldn't go, she defended controversial figures like David Gilbert of Weather Underground, Sekou Odinga of Black Liberation Army, etc. She knew the risk, but did it fearlessly and courageously until bogusly indicted for:

-- "conspiring to defraud the US;

-- conspiring to provide and conceal material support to terrorist activity;

-- providing and concealing material support to terrorist activity; and

-- two counts of making false statements."

She was also accused of violating BoP�s SAMs that included a gag order on her client, Sheik Abdel Rahman. They prohibit discussion on topics DOJ rules outside of "legal representation," so lawyers can't discuss them, inhibiting defense.

At Ramsey Clark's request, she joined him as part of Rahman's defense team. In his 1995 show trial, he was convicted of the 1993 WTC attack despite evidence proving his innocence.

DOJ's case wasn't about alleged crimes. It reflected his affiliations and anti-western views. Rahman was connected to Al-Gamaa al-Islamiyya - a State Department-designated "foreign terrorist organization." In the 1980s, however, he helped the CIA recruit Mujahadeen fighters against the Soviets in Afghanistan. For his work, he got a US visa, green card, and State Department-CIA protection as long as he was valued. When no longer, he was targeted along with Stewart.

Her case was precedent-setting, chilling, and according to CCR�s Michael Ratner:

sent "a message to lawyers who represent alleged terrorists that it's dangerous to do so."

Attorney Tigar called it:

"an attack on a gallant, charismatic and effective fighter for justice (with) at least three fundamental faults:

-- (it) attack(ed) the First Amendment right of free speech, free press and petition;

-- right to effective assistance of counsel (by) chill(ing) the defense;

-- 'evidence' in this case was gathered by wholesale invasion of privacy, faxes, letters and e-mails; I have never seen such an abuse of government power."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bacasper



Joined: 26 Mar 2007

PostPosted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 7:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Unfortunately, Stewart's case is not isolated. A very troubling trend is emerging.

Eliot Spitzer, Lynne Stewart, and Paul Bergrin Victimized for Doing Their Jobs

On May 20, 2009, a Department of Justice (DOJ) press released headlined "Newark Lawyer Arrested, Charged with Racketeering Conspiracy, Including Murder of a Federal Witness (along with) Three Others Also Arrested and Charged."

The 14 count indictment accuses Bergrin of "using various legal entities, including (his law office) to conduct illegal activities, including murder, to protect criminal clients, perpetuate their activities and shield them from prosecution."

Specifically cited is his alleged role in the "murder of a confidential witness in an Essex County federal drug case, and his efforts to hire a hitman from Chicago to kill at least one witness in a Monmouth County drug case."

DOJ says the murder never happened. Likely none was planned, but a supposed "hitman" is a cooperating witness, perhaps for leniency on his charges, unrelated to Bergrin. It's a common DOJ tactic, often with paid informants, to let off lesser fish for bigger ones in unrelated cases.

part of the longer article Targeting Lawyers at link
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bacasper



Joined: 26 Mar 2007

PostPosted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 9:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Guantanamo lawyers have disregarded a court order to limit their representation of detainees, and they have not so much as received a letter of admonition. Court orders carry much more weight than the prison regulations, or �SAMs� that Lynne Stewart is doing time for by merely having issued a press release! This case has a chilling effect on lawyers about how vigorously they may defend their clients accused of terrorism.

Now the Appeals Court wants her sentence increased from 28 months to 30 years! Exclamation


Updating Lynne Stewart`s ``Love Struggle``

Posted: 2010/04/24
From: Mathaba

by Stephen Lendman


For millions worldwide, Lynne needs no introduction. For others: She worked selflessly, tirelessly, and heroically for 30 years as a human rights champion, defending America's poor, underprivileged, and unwanted - people never afforded due process and judicial fairness without an advocate like her. She knew the risks, yet took them until bogusly indicted on April 9, 2002 for:

-- "conspiring to defraud the United States;

-- conspiring to provide and conceal material support to terrorist activity;

-- providing and concealing material support to terrorist activity; and

-- two counts of making false statements."

The charges related to her alleged violation of Bureau of Prisons Special Administrative Measures (SAMS) that prohibit discussing topics the Justice Department rules outside "legal representation" - to inhibit a proper defense and obstruct justice for anyone DOJ wants to convict.

Her client was Sheik Abdel Rahman, a one-time CIA asset, convicted in 1995 and now serving a life sentence for "seditious conspiracy" for his alleged connection to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing despite convincing evidence of his innocence.

As an advocate for justice, Lynne was targeted, indicted, and after a seven month 2004 - 2005 show trial featuring the worst of McCarthy-like tactics, convicted on February 10, 2005 after 13 days of deliberation on all five counts. She was automatically disbarred, then sentenced on October 17, 2006 to 28 months imprisonment.

She remained free on bond until the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit revoked it on November 17, 2009, ordering her surrender on November 19 at 5PM to be imprisoned at:

MCC-NY
150 Park Row
New York, NY 10007
Prison number 53504-054

Though subject to change, she'll be resentenced on July 15, at which time her 28 month confinement may be sustained, reduced, or what friends and family fear, increased after the three-judge Appeals Court panel accused her of lying, called for a longer sentence, and remanded her case to District Court Judge John G. Koeltl for reconsideration.

continued at link
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bacasper



Joined: 26 Mar 2007

PostPosted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lynne, betrayed by progressives, re-sentenced to death

[Comment: A Death Sentence Delivered]

Where was the massive movement to set attorney Lynne Stewart free?

Time served? Why do we allow our enemies to set the tone, pace, debate, discourse and agenda? It keeps us off balance and off our A game. The 28-month sentence was ridiculous.

Lynne broke a law that was inherently unconstitutional. No one was hurt, maimed or killed by her actions but she has received a death sentence because ten years-- for a 70 year-old woman fighting cancer and poor prison medical care spells death.

In contrast George Bush�s and now President Barack Obama�s war policies that kill people every day. Our inability to secure the release of Stewart supports my assertion that the so-called �movement� has stopped and has functionally collapsed.

Despite all the issues that plague this case and many cases like this is the innate inability for individuals and groups to put aside small and petty differences for the prevailing issues.

Where�s my name on this flier? Whose speaking first and how much time will I get on the microphone or stage?
I�m not coming or supporting if this person or group is there. Lynne is not Black; Lynne is not Brown; she didn�t support me; Lynne is too radical...These are the petty issues that emasculate the movement.

more at link
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International