Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Lynne Stewart ... Who the Bejeezus is SHE?

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Lynne Stewart ... Who the Bejeezus is SHE?
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:41 am Post subject: Lynne Stewart ... Who the Bejeezus is SHE?

And should we care? Well maybe we should ... myself, I think she may have been prosecuted for being a pain the govt's ass and not much more - the implications and ramifications are far beyond the Wilson/Plame, case, though ...

First, general backgound from Wikipedia :

Quote:

Lynne Stewart (born October 8, 1939) is a New York ex-attorney, a self-described radical, known for her political views and consequent willingness to represent highly controversial clients, including those accused of terrorism, with the stated objective of defending their constitutional rights. She also has expressed some sympathy with what she sees as "armed struggles" in the middle east, but condemns the deliberate, though not incidental, killing of civilians. Stewart is a high profile member of the National Lawyers Guild, but faces disbarment and up to 30 years in prison, though probation is possible.

On 10 February 2005, Stewart was convicted of providing material support, through a press conference and allowing access by her translator, to a terrorist conspiracy to kill persons outside of the United States and conspiring to defraud the U.S. government when acting as counsel to Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind Egyptian cleric who was convicted in 1996 of plotting terrorist attacks against various sites in the New York City area.

Stewart was indicted for alleged criminal activity in April 2002, accused of providing material aid to a foreign terrorist organization, making false statements, and conspiracy to defraud the federal government. All the allegations stemmed from an apparent violation of Special Administrative Measures to which Abdel Rahman and his counsel were subject. These measures, which Stewart had accepted in writing in order to be allowed to meet with Abdel Rahman in prison, provided that she would not, "use [their] meetings, correspondence, or phone calls with Abdel Rahman to pass messages between third parties (including, but not limited to, the media) and Abdel Rahman." The material support charges were dismissed in the summer of 2003, but, in November 2003, Stewart was reindicted on charges of material support to a conspiracy to murder, of which she was ultimately convicted.

Sorry for the strange colors and bold face, but I want to point out clearly : she was indicted and convicted for holding a press conference. That's pretty much it. I think this bothers me most for the obvious reasons that pertain to free speech and the right of people to know things - it's even worse for the future of relationsips between lawyers and their accused clients.

Some other points worth noting :

1. There are definite questions being raised about the methodology of her trial.

From The New York Times, morrored from Lynne Stewart's website :

Quote:

In an account of that meeting, Ms. Shellow-Lavine wrote that Juror 39 acknowledged that she was one of two holdouts for acquittal. Juror 39 said that during the deliberations another juror had told her that "it would be her fault if anyone died in a terrorist attack" if she did not vote with the others to convict the defendants. Frightened and intimidated, Juror 39 believed "maybe she wasn't thinking clearly" when she finally voted to convict.

She said she was further frightened on the last day of deliberations when, as she was climbing out of the van that ferried the jurors to court, someone who was not directly involved in the trial pointed her out as "the holdout," Ms. Shellow-Lavine wrote. "She was very bitter about her experience as a juror in this case and deeply offended by the way she was treated by her fellow jurors," the lawyer wrote.

2. This is the stuff about attorney-client privelage, and I find it quite bothersome ... and some have the balls to tell me civil liberties in America have not eroded under Bush :

Quote:

The eavesdropping on attorney-client communications that led to this prosecution would have been unimaginable before September 11. I will argue that this eavesdropping has a serious cost in inhibiting defense attorney's ability to zealously represent their clients. This cost is of a constitutional dimension: The Sixth Amendment's right to counsel cannot be served while the government is a third party present at attorney-client meetings. (...)

On October 31, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft, secretly amended the SAM regulations - without notice to the public. As amended, the regulations allow the Bureau of Prisons to conduct videotape and audiotape surveillance with respect to attorneys' communications with people in federal custody.

There is no exception for attorney-client privileged communications; indeed, the regulations contemplate that these sacrosanct conversations will be the very ones surveilled. Moreover, the regulations apply not only to convicted persons, but also to defendants awaiting trial - and even detainees against whom no charges are even pending. Finally, the surveillance can be broad: It can done "to the extent determined to be reasonably necessary for the purpose of deterring future acts of violence or terrorism."

3. Was, or is, Lynne Stewart a threat to America? Well, turns out the client for whom she was convicted of helping has been in jail since several years before 9/11 ...

Quote:

Since September 11, those who question government policy have been, and will continue to be, branded "terrorist." Even though "terrorism" was not an element of any of the offenses with which Lynne Stewart was charged, and Osama bin Laden was not part of any of the charges, the prosecution was permitted to bring bin Laden's name into the trial.

4. What can expect for the future ?

Quote:

Among other things, such monitoring allows the government complete access to everything the defense knows and every strategy the defense plans. It raises the possibility that attorneys could be called to testify against their clients or that attorneys could be charged for withholding information on a crime from investigators. Attorneys' personal jeopardy creates an impossible conflict of interest with their professional duty to fully represent their clients. The government, at its leisure, can target lawyer, ones like Stewart, with a long history of representing unpopular clients, or like the lead attorney in Stewart's defense, Michael Tigar, famed for saving Oklahoma City bomber Terry Nichols from execution. And Ashcroft's regulation, if upheld, sets a precedent that state and local jurisdictions can rush to emulate.

Lynne Stewart is a guinea pig: a chance for the Bush administration to see how far it can push its evisceration of the Bill of Rights. The attack on attorney representation is only one of a staggering number of its post-9/11 assaults on the Constitution, but it's one of the most important.

Invariably, the least sympathetic among us the accused terrorists and the radical lawyers are the first to lose basic rights.

The rest of us follow.

I've read a few things Lynne Stewart has said, and there is not much of it that I agree with. She has been used as a stick by bloggers and others on the rightwing pro-war side to hit Cindy Sheehan over the head with - Cincy is someone else I don't entirely agree with. Ms Stewart has been mentioned enough times in a breathless voice of innuendo that I finally decided to do some research on her ... and I was VERY bothered by a lot of what I found.

Last edited by The Bobster on Tue Oct 11, 2005 3:53 am; edited 1 time in total

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:23 pm Post subject:

Quote:

The government countered that Stewart had agreed to the Special Administrative Measures in question and simply violated them rather than seeking judicial relief from them, if she considered them to be unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful. It also stated that attorney-client privilege does not include communications to plot illegal activity. Government attorneys stated that Stewart risked the security of the United States by relying solely upon her opinion and disobeying the measures that were deemed necessary to protect against a threat posed by Abdel Rahman, particularly because she had full knowledge of the dangerousness of the adherents to Abdel Rahman. Indeed, the evidence showed that, after Stewart issued the press release, she was told that Rifai Taha, a militant terrorist in Egypt who was associated with Osama bin Laden, viewed the press release as support of Taha's desire to return the Islamic Group to violence. Nonetheless, Stewart released another press release, reaffirming Abdel Rahman's withdrawal of support for the ceasefire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynne_Stewart

so Bob do you think she was justified in giving out that information after she was told that the group would use the info to return to violence?

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/uslstwrt111903sind.html

Quote:

The May 2000 Prison Visit

j. On or about May 19, 2000, during a prison visit to Abdel Rahman by STEWART and YOUSRY, YOUSRY told Abdel Rahman and. STEWART about the kidnappings by the Abu Sayyaf terrorist group in the Philippines and Abu Sayyaf��s demand to free Abdel Rahman, to which STEWART replied, ��Good for them.�� STEWART then told Abdel Rahman that she believed he could be released from prison if the government in Egypt were changed. STEWART also told Abdel Rahman that events like the Abu Sayyaf kidnappings in the Philippines are important, although they ��may be futile,�� because it is ��very, very crucial�� that Abdel Rahman not be forgotten as a hero of the ��Muiahadeen�� (Jihad warriors).

k. On or about May 19, 2000, during a prison visit to Abdel Rahman by STEWART and YOUSRY, YOUSRY read Abdel Rahman an inflammatory statement by Taha that had recently been published in an Egyptian newspaper.

l. On or about May 19, 2000, during a prison visit to Abdel Rahman by STEWART and YOUSRY, YOUSRY, at STEWART's urging, read Abdel Rahman a letter from SATTAR. Among other things,

Quote:

SATTAR��s letter informed Abdel Rahman that SATTAR��s communications with specified Islamic Group leaders had become ��semi-constant�� over.the past year, arid asked Abdel Rahman, ��If there is anything, please notify.�� In addition, SATTAR's letter asked Abdel Rahman to endorse ��the formation of a team that calls for cancellation of the peace initiative or makes threats escalates things.��

m. On or about May 19, 2000, during a prison visit to Abdel Rahman by STEWART and YOUSRY, while YOUSRY read Taha's statement and SATTAR's letter to Abdel Rahman, STEWART actively concealed that fact from the prison guards. At one point, STEWART and YOUSRY explicitly discussed the fact that the guards were patrolling close to the prison conference room and might notice that STEWART was not involved in the conversation between YOUSRY and Abdel Rahman. To conceal the fact that STEWART was not participating in the meeting, among other things, STEWART instructed YOUSRY to make it look as if STEWART were communicating with Abdel Rahman and YOUSRY were merely translating, by having YOUSRY look periodically at STEWART and Abdel Rahman in turn, even though YOUSRY was in fact reading. STEWART also pretended to be participating in the conversation with Abdel Rahman by making extraneous comments such as ��chocolate�� and ��heart attack.�� STEWART contemporaneously observed to YOUSRY that she could ��get an award for�� her acts of

Quote:

o. On or about May 20, 2000, during the second day of a prison visit to Abdel Rahman by STEWART and YOUSRY, Abdel Rahman dictated letters to YOUSRY indicating that he did not support the cease-fire and calling for the Islamic Group, to reevaluate the cease-fire, while STEWART again actively concealed the conversation between YOUSRY and Abdel Rahman from the prison guards. Among other things, STEWART periodically interrupted the dictation with extraneous comments, and stated explicitly that she would do so from time to time in order to keep the guards from realizing that she was not participating in the conversation.

Quote:

On or about October 4, 2000, SATTAR called Yassir A1-Sirri, a co-conspirator not named as a defendant herein, and read to him a fatwa to be issued under Abdel Rahman��s name entitled, ��Fatwah Mandating the Killing of Israelis Everywhere,�� which A1-Sirri agreed to revise and disseminate.

y. On or about October 5, 2000, the fatwa appeared on the web-site operated by A1-Sirri. The fatwah called on ��brother scholars everywhere in the Muslim world to do their part and issue a unanimous atwah that urges the Muslim nation to fight the Jews, and to kill them wherever they are.�� The fatwah further urged ��the Muslim nation�� to ��fight the Jews by all possible means of Jihad, either by killing them as individuals or by targeting their interests, and the interests of those who support them, as much as they can.��

z. On or about October 11, 2000, during a telephone conversation, YOUSRY told STEWART that Abdel Rahman did not want his attorneys to deny that he had issued the fatwah urging the killing of Jews around the world and the targeting of the interests of those who support them.

aa. On or about October 11, 2000, during a telephone conversation, STEWART told YOUSRY that she could not deny that she had issued the press release in June 2000, and that her position was that Abdel Rahman ��is going to get his message out no matter what.��

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 2:42 am Post subject: Re: Lynne Stewart ... Who the Bejeezus is SHE?

The Bobster wrote:

Quote:

Yes she was indicted and convicted for holding a press conference AFTER SHE HAD AGREED (IN WRITING) NOT TO. If you give your word to Justice officials and then break it, one must expect this kind of thing to happen.

As for "the obvious reasons that pertain to free speech and the right of people to know things..." have any other lawyers been recently indicted for these? If so then your complaint would have merit. If not, then all it means is that Steward lied to Justice officials and is now facing the tune. She had to know what would happen, especially after she agreed in writing.

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 5:50 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

so Bob do you think she was justified in giving out that information after she was told that the group would use the info to return to violence?

Your information is incorrect, or at least incomplete. Even though he's a bad actor, involved in assasinations and an attempt to blow up the WTC back in the 90s, he did not advocate that his followers return to violence - quite the opposite, he was telling them not to wait or listen to him any more.

As I looked further into it, the second press conference was intended to clarify the first, to make the message plain : The Blind Sheik was telling his followers to ignore his previous support for the cease-fire, and to make up their minds on their own. This was actually a logical thing for him to do - he's been in jail for a long time, not familiar with current conditions, and he knew that, so why ask people to listen to his opinions?

Moreover it's perfectly in keeping with the US govt's intent in keeping a terrorist leader incommunicado from his supporters : the govt says we want this guy to have no influence on the people outside who have guns, and bombs and such, and his message to his folowers is, yes - I don't have a voice in this any more, so don't pay any attention to me.

How is this different from what the govt was trying to do by preventing his communication with the outside world? None at all, from what I can see ... maybe you know more about it?

From an interview with Amy Goodman, dated Feb 11, Lynne Stewart speaking :

Quote:

When the news broke and it became ��Sheikh Urges Withdrawal From the Cease-fire,�� we issued a second press release, which we spoke to him on the phone and he gave us the authorization to do, which said basically, ��I am not withdrawing my support of the cease-fire, I am merely questioning it and I am urging you, who are on the ground there to discuss it and to include everyone in your discussions as we always have done.��

To answer your question above directly, two points :

1. There is no evidence that the group returned to violence, nor is there evidence that her press conference was intended by The Blind Sheik to create that return.

Rebuttal questions : Has any documented case been provided of an individual killed as a result of the communication Lynne Stewart made to the media? Did any bombs go off anywhere because of her? Why were the charges of "providing material support" for terrorsm later thrown out in court?

2. Justification for the press conference : lawyers hold press conferences in order to provide some benefit for their client, and the ultimate benefit being aimed at here was that her client wished to be returned to Egypt to live out his incarceration here, in a land where people understood him when he asked for something he needed and had a basic comprehension of the requirements of daily life that his religion asks of him.

From the same interview as above :

Quote:

it was understood that there were certain things legally that needed to be done and our entire goal at that point was to keep him alive on the world scene so that we could negotiate something, something that would be good for this country and also for him.

Truth is, you and I might agree that the dude ought to stay in an American jail, where there is less chance of an armed insurrection breaking him out - the other truth is that Lynne Stewart was required by American law and the standards of her legal profession to do everything in her power to help her client.

Lawyers hold press conferences for convicted criminals who have lost all course of appeal - it's a common tactic, keep the topic and the man in the puublic eye, and the authorities will need to take care of that prisoner and that client. To do less than one's best for a client is no service to the American Way of Life, but rather the opposite - it is, in fact criminal malfeasance on the part of the lawyer. (Lawyers, not unlike doctors, are often sued by clients when it is found later there was something they could have done of benefit, but chose not to do.)

Rebuttal question : Do you think Lynne Stewart would have been serving her client adequately well under the law and also obeying the ethics of her profession if she had NOT held a press conference on his behalf? Explain why or why not.

3. There is so much to say about the loss of civil liberties contained in this case - and Joo, YOU have told me time and again that the post 9/11 era has represented negligible or no loss of civil right to the American people.

Rebuttal question : Why do you say so little about that now? Are you comfortable that you might one day need to talk to a lawyer while (perhaps) mistakenly accused of some 9possibly political) crime, and that the conversation might be taped or recorded on video - and do you have enough imagination to ask how this might effect the quality of communication between you, and the amount of "best defense" you might hope to be afforded?

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 2:50 pm Post subject:

bob

Quote:

way to spin it. Why ought his followers ought to know his opinon?

Bob

Quote:

As I looked further into it, the second press conference was intended to clarify the first, to make the message plain : The Blind Sheik was telling his followers to ignore his previous support for the cease-fire, and to make up their minds on their own. This was actually a logical thing for him to do - he's been in jail for a long time, not familiar with current conditions, and he knew that, so why ask people to listen to his opinions?

Quote:

Moreover it's perfectly in keeping with the US govt's intent in keeping a terrorist leader incommunicado from his supporters : the govt says we want this guy to have no influence on the people outside who have guns, and bombs and such, and his message to his folowers is, yes - I don't have a voice in this any more, so don't pay any attention to me.

Quote:

How is this different from what the govt was trying to do by preventing his communication with the outside world? None at all, from what I can see ... maybe you know more about it?

Quote:

From an interview with Amy Goodman, dated Feb 11, Lynne Stewart speaking :

Quote:

Why ought to we take her word for it?

Quote:

Rebuttal questions : Has any documented case been provided of an individual killed as a result of the communication Lynne Stewart made to the media? Did any bombs go off anywhere because of her? Why were the charges of "providing material support" for terrorsm later thrown out in court?

Quote:

Indeed, the evidence showed that, after Stewart issued the press release, she was told that Rifai Taha, a militant terrorist in Egypt who was associated with Osama bin Laden, viewed the press release as support of Taha's desire to return the Islamic Group to violence. Nonetheless, Stewart released another press release, reaffirming Abdel Rahman's withdrawal of support for the ceasefire.

Quote:

2. Justification for the press conference : lawyers hold press conferences in order to provide some benefit for their client, and the ultimate benefit being aimed at here was that her client wished to be returned to Egypt to live out his incarceration here, in a land where people understood him when he asked for something he needed and had a basic comprehension of the requirements of daily life that his religion asks of him.

he ought to have no contact with his followers.

Egyptian jails?

Quote:

From the same interview as above :

Quote:

why ought we take her word for it?

Quote:

by letting his followers know his opinons?

Quote:

Lawyers hold press conferences for convicted criminals who have lost all course of appeal - it's a common tactic, keep the topic and the man in the puublic eye, and the authorities will need to take care of that prisoner and that client. To do less than one's best for a client is no service to the American Way of Life, but rather the opposite - it is, in fact criminal malfeasance on the part of the lawyer. (Lawyers, not unlike doctors, are often sued by clients when it is found later there was something they could have done of benefit, but chose not to do.)

Quote:

Rebuttal question : Do you think Lynne Stewart would have been serving her client adequately well under the law and also obeying the ethics of her profession if she had NOT held a press conference on his behalf? Explain why or why not.

I think she ought not to have allowed his opinon about the cease fire . and look at the evidence

Quote:

3. There is so much to say about the loss of civil liberties contained in this case - and Joo, YOU have told me time and again that the post 9/11 era has represented negligible or no loss of civil right to the American people

.

It hasnt'.

Quote:

Rebuttal question : Why do you say so little about that now? Are you comfortable that you might one day need to talk to a lawyer while (perhaps) mistakenly accused of some 9possibly political) crime, and that the conversation might be taped or recorded on video - and do you have enough imagination to ask how this might effect the quality of communication between you, and the amount of "best defense" you might hope to be afforded?

Yes,

The case of stwart was different it wasnt' just the press conference.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/uslstwrt111903sind.html

Quote:

. On or about May 20, 2000, during the second day of a prison visit to Abdel Rahman by STEWART and YOUSRY, Abdel Rahman dictated letters to YOUSRY indicating that he did not support the cease-fire and calling for the Islamic Group, to reevaluate the cease-fire, while STEWART again actively concealed the conversation between YOUSRY and Abdel Rahman from the prison guards. Among other things, STEWART periodically interrupted the dictation with extraneous comments, and stated explicitly that she would do so from time to time in order to keep the guards from realizing that she was not participating in the conversation.

Quote:

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 8:40 am Post subject:

[double post] Last edited by The Bobster on Wed Oct 12, 2005 8:46 am; edited 1 time in total

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 8:45 am Post subject:

Quote:

[quote="Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee"]bob

Quote:

way to spin it. Why ought his followers ought to know his opinon?

His opinion was a non-opinion - he told his followers to make up their own minds. He absented himself from the process, exactly the goal of our govts incarceration. Explain why this is "spin."

Explain also why it does not restrict the rights of free expression for people to say it and for others to hear it. In a free democracy, the rest of us here listening also ought to be able to hear what someone wants to say, and we can make up our own minds about it.

You ignored every one of my rebuttal questions, though I numbered and clearly labeled them as such. I'll give you another chance.

1. Has any documented case been provided of an individual killed as a result of the communication Lynne Stewart made to the media? Did any bombs go off anywhere because of her? Why were the charges of "providing material support" for terrorsm later thrown out in court?

That's 3 questions, I admit, but they are pertinent - if you continue to evade them it will say something important about you.

2. Do you think Lynne Stewart would have been serving her client adequately well under the law and also obeying the ethics of her profession if she had NOT held a press conference on his behalf? Explain why or why not. Also tell us how the legal system in America is a better place because lawyers are going to be afraid to give their clients the best defense they can.

3.There is so much to say about the loss of civil liberties contained in this case - and Joo, YOU have told me time and again that the post 9/11 era has represented negligible or no loss of civil right to the American people.

Rebuttal question : Why do you say so little about that now? Are you comfortable that you might one day need to talk to a lawyer while (perhaps) mistakenly accused of some 9possibly political) crime, and that the conversation might be taped or recorded on video - and do you have enough imagination to ask how this might effect the quality of communication between you, and the amount of "best defense" you might hope to be afforded?

Even the hopeless deserve a second chance. Answer these questions, and show us there is hope for you. (I suspect you will cointinue to evade them, though.)

Oh, and TUM, I'll reply to you later, but in the meantime, I suggest you read a little more about this case, and some of your questions might be answered before I get around to you. Thing is, Joo has been talkling about Lynne Stewart so often whenever he wants to attack Cindy Sheehan it's amusing to see how little of substance he has going o n here ... I just assumed he would have stuff saved up and ready to tell about how bad she is.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 2:49 pm Post subject:

Quote:

His opinion was a non-opinion - he told his followers to make up their own minds. He absented himself from the process, exactly the goal of our govts incarceration. Explain why this is "spin."

Quote:

he told his followers to make up their own minds.

No that is what Lynn Stewart said .

They ought not to know his opinion , They have no right to know it. He has no right to communcate with his followers.

Quote:

Explain also why it does not restrict the rights of free expression for people to say it and for others to hear it. In a free democracy, the rest of us here listening also ought to be able to hear what someone wants to say, and we can make up our own minds about it.

that is not a question of free speech it is a question of whether terrorists ought to be allowed to get messages out to their followers.

Notice the story above showed the steps that Stewart took in order to conceal that she was working with Rahman to get his info out.

Quote:

1. Has any documented case been provided of an individual killed as a result of the communication Lynne Stewart made to the media? Did any bombs go off anywhere because of her? Why were the charges of "providing material support" for terrorsm later thrown out in court?

That there were no acts doesn't mean that she wasn't involved in helping him get his message out.

The fact is that she was convicted of providing material support to a terrorist conspiracy.

Quote:

On 10 February 2005, Stewart was convicted of providing material support, through a press conference and allowing access by her translator, to a terrorist conspiracy to kill persons outside of the United States and conspiring to defraud the U.S. government when acting as counsel to Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind Egyptian cleric who was convicted in 1996 of plotting terrorist attacks against various sites in the New York City area.

Quote:

That's 3 questions, I admit, but they are pertinent - if you continue to evade them it will say something important about you.

bobster your opinon means very little. You are jsut the Bobster

Quote:

2. Do you think Lynne Stewart would have been serving her client adequately well under the law and also obeying the ethics of her profession if she had NOT held a press conference on his behalf? Explain why or why not. Also tell us how the legal system in America is a better place because lawyers are going to be afraid to give their clients the best defense they can.

yes giving info to Rahmans followers has nothing to do with his defense.

Quote:

3.There is so much to say about the loss of civil liberties contained in this case - and Joo, YOU have told me time and again that the post 9/11 era has represented negligible or no loss of civil right to the American people

.

that is still what I think.

Quote:

I answered above but I am not worried

Quote:

Even the hopeless deserve a second chance. Answer these questions, and show us there is hope for you. (I suspect you will cointinue to evade them, though.)

You are the Bobster your opinion doesn't mean much.

Quote:

Oh, and TUM, I'll reply to you later, but in the meantime, I suggest you read a little more about this case, and some of your questions might be answered before I get around to you. Thing is, Joo has been talkling about Lynne Stewart so often whenever he wants to attack Cindy Sheehan it's amusing to see how little of substance he has going o n here ... I just assumed he would have stuff saved up and ready to tell about how bad she is.[

This shows how bad Lynn Stewart is:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/uslstwrt111903sind.html

Quote:

o
. On or about May 20, 2000, during the second day of a prison visit to Abdel Rahman by STEWART and YOUSRY, Abdel Rahman dictated letters to YOUSRY indicating that he did not support the cease-fire and calling for the Islamic Group, to reevaluate the cease-fire, while STEWART again actively concealed the conversation between YOUSRY and Abdel Rahman from the prison guards. Among other things, STEWART periodically interrupted the dictation with extraneous comments, and stated explicitly that she would do so from time to time in order to keep the guards from realizing that she was not participating in the conversation.

Quote:

She was trying to help Rahman get his message out.

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 4:24 am Post subject: Re: Lynne Stewart ... Who the Bejeezus is SHE?

The Bobster wrote:

Quote:

Sorry for the strange colors and bold face, but I want to point out clearly : she was indicted and convicted for holding a press conference. .[/color]

Looks like to me she was indicted and convicted of "material support to a conspiracy to murder" as Wikipedia points out.
As for the violation of Special Adminstrative Measures Stewart had known about them for several years. These were not new. Despite that, and despite knowing the consequences she went ahead and violated them. There is a limit to free speech. You can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater for example. And you shouldn't be able to give potential information to terrorists. You question this saying "Has any documented case been provided of an individual killed as a result of the communication Lynne Stewart made to the media? Did any bombs go off anywhere because of her?"

Come on Mr. The Bobster, you are better than that. That's like saying 'Well the Patriot Act and Homeland Security is obviously working, because no one has flown any more planes into any more buildings'.

One does not necessarily translate into the other...in either case. There are simply too many unknowns and factors to take into account.

You also asked "Do you think Lynne Stewart would have been serving her client adequately well under the law and also obeying the ethics of her profession if she had not held a press conference on his behalf?"

I shall simply point out that getting yourself charged and convicted doesn't seem like "serving one's client adequately". As for the press conference, does that mean that EVERY lawyer who does NOT hold a press conference for her or his client is NOT obeying the ethics of their profession? I would hardly think it is obeying any ethics if it goes against agreements you signed of your own free will knowing the punishments if you violated them. She knew what she was doing.

Regardless when Stewart has someone like OBL supporting her that seems to suggest that she is doing something very very wrong.

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 7:05 pm Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

bob
[m. On or about May 19, 2000, during a prison visit to Abdel Rahman by STEWART and YOUSRY, while YOUSRY read Taha's statement and SATTAR's letter to Abdel Rahman, STEWART actively concealed that fact from the prison guards. At one point, STEWART and YOUSRY explicitly discussed the fact that the guards were patrolling close to the prison conference room and might notice that STEWART was not involved in the conversation between YOUSRY and Abdel Rahman. To conceal the fact that STEWART was not participating in the meeting, among other things, STEWART instructed YOUSRY to make it look as if STEWART were communicating with Abdel Rahman and YOUSRY were merely translating, by having YOUSRY look periodically at STEWART and Abdel Rahman in turn, even though YOUSRY was in fact reading. STEWART also pretended to be participating in the conversation with Abdel Rahman by making extraneous comments such as ��chocolate�� and ��heart attack.�� STEWART contemporaneously observed to YOUSRY that she could ��get an award for�� her acts of

o][/quote]

Yep. Sure sounds like a wonderful lawyer to me. Basically what you have is someone abusing her profession in order to push an agenda. She doesn't even bother acting like a lawyer in this episode.

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 12:26 am Post subject: Re: Lynne Stewart ... Who the Bejeezus is SHE?

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

As for "the obvious reasons that pertain to free speech and the right of people to know things..." have any other lawyers been recently indicted for these? If so then your complaint would have merit.

No, no other lawyers have been indicted, and it begs the question about why SHE was ... because, you see, she is not the only lawyer ever to have given a press conference about a client, and in fact Ramsey Clark has stated publicly that he has done exactly what Lynne Stewart did - so why was he not indicted as well? I have to suspect it was because of her political opinions and her willingness to do her job on behalf of unpopular clients, and while the same can be said of Clark, he is much more high-profile in the antiwar movement so trying to jail him would be a far more obvious case of persecution for unpopular politics.

I doubt any other lawyers will go through this, either. The gov wanted to send a message and that message was received - and in the future it is extremely unlikely that the best legal minds will devote their time to someone accused (rightly or wrongly) of terror-related crimes.

On the day of the verdict, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said in a statement, "The convictions handed down by a federal jury in New York today send a clear, unmistakable message that this department will pursue both those who carry out acts of terrorism and those who assist them ..." Washington Post, Feb 11, 2005 and Fox News, same day. Also, The NT Times.

Lynne Stewart is not a terrorist, however, and she assisted no terrorist groups in any way - in fact, the "material support" charges were thrown of court and she had to be tried again on a federal statute for the same acts. The group which owes allegience to Mr Rhaman did not ever end their cease fire. No violent acts opccurred anywhere in the world due to Lynne Stewart. And, in the end, this cannot be said of someone like Alberto Gonzales*.

She held a press conference. Osama bin Laden was used as a winess in her trial. She was indicted as an example to others in the legal profession. The Fox News article also includes this quote :

Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said the purpose of the prosecution of Stewart "was to send a message to lawyers who represent alleged terrorists that it's dangerous to do so."

Compare the statements of Mr Ratner to those of Mr Gonzales. They are very similar, are they not?

Indictment is not the usual route for infractions of Special Administrative Measures - no one has ever gone to jail for this before, you see - and what Stewart and her team were most concerned about was being cut offfrom access to their client. Now, it's something we all have to be concerned about ...

Quote:

Regardless when Stewart has someone like OBL supporting her that seems to suggest that she is doing something very very wrong.

Do you have a source for this?

_____

* By the way, here's an interesting (actually, rather dry) article in Slate that draws parallels between Lynne Stewart and the White House counsels (Gonzales, among them) who gave bad advice about torure.

Last edited by The Bobster on Sat Oct 15, 2005 10:04 am; edited 2 times in total

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 3:53 am Post subject: Re: Lynne Stewart ... Who the Bejeezus is SHE?

The Bobster wrote:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

As for "the obvious reasons that pertain to free speech and the right of people to know things..." have any other lawyers been recently indicted for these? If so then your complaint would have merit.

(1) No, no other lawyers have been indicted, and it begs the question about why SHE was ... because, you see, she is not the only lawyer ever to have given a press conference about a client, and in fact Ramsey Clark has stated publicly that he has done exactly what Lynne Stewart did - so why was he not indicted as well? I have to suspect it was because of her political opinions and her willingness to do her job on behalf of unpopular clients, and while the same can be said of Clark, he is much more high-profile in the antiwar movement so trying to jail him would be a far more obvious case of persecution for unpopular politics.

I doubt any other lawyers will go through this, either. The gov wanted to send a message and that message was received -and in the future it is extremely unlikely that the best legal minds will devote their time to someone accused (rightly or wrongly) of terror-related crimes.

On the day of the verdict, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said in a statement, "The convictions handed down by a federal jury in New York today send a clear, unmistakable message that this department will pursue both those who carry out acts of terrorism and those who assist them ..." Washington Post, Feb 11, 2005 and Fox News, same day. Also, The NT Times.

Lynne Stewart is not a terrorist, however, and she assisted no terrorist groups in any way - in fact the "material support" charges were thrown of court and she had to be tried again on a federal statute for the same acts. The group which owes allegience to Mr Rhaman did not ever end their cease fire. No violent acts opccurred anywhere in the world due to Lynne Stewart. And, in the end, this cannot be said of someone like Alberto Gonzales*.

She held a press conference. Osama bin Laden was used as a winess in her trial. She was indicted as an example to others in the legal profession. The Fox News article also includes this quote :

Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said the purpose of the prosecution of Stewart "was to send a message to lawyers who represent alleged terrorists that it's dangerous to do so."

Compare the statements of Mr Ratner to those of Mr Gonzales. They are very similar, are they not?

(2) Indictment is not the usual route for infractions of Special Administrative Measures - no one has ever gone to jail for this before, you see - and what Stewart and her team were most concerned about was being cut from access to their client. Now, it's something we all have to be concerned about ...

Quote:

Regardless when Stewart has someone like OBL supporting her that seems to suggest that she is doing something very very wrong.

(3) Do you have a source for this?

_____

* By the way, here's an interesting (actually, rather dry) article in Slate that draws parallels between Lynne Stewart and the White House counsels (Gonzales, among them) who gave bad advice about torure.

numbers are mine

(1) If no other lawyers have been indicted, then that's an indication that we don't have to worry about free speech. If lawyers were being thrown in jail right, left and center, then one could make a case for this. One lawyer who by her own admission broke the rules does not make a case for this.

(2) Stewart was indicted as well for supporting terrorists.

(3) http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6162

Scroll down to the last paragraph.

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 9:51 am Post subject: Re: Lynne Stewart ... Who the Bejeezus is SHE?

You'\ve made a reply that is not a response.

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

(1) If no other lawyers have been indicted, then that's an indication that we don't have to worry about free speech. If lawyers were being thrown in jail right, left and center, then one could make a case for this. One lawyer who by her own admission broke the rules does not make a case for this.

A lot of links have been provided, and I'm willing to be patient until you have read them and are able to talk intelligibly. Long story short, you don't need to indict or even convict a lot of lawyers - doing it to just one with flimsy evidence obtained by unconstitutional means is enough to send a message to the rest. Lawyers are cowards, at least they are these days ...

Quote:

(2) Stewart was indicted as well for supporting terrorists.

The charge was thrown out in at least one court - why do you think this happened? Do some reading and get back to me ... happy to talk then.

Quote:

Regardless when Stewart has someone like OBL supporting her that seems to suggest that she is doing something very very wrong.

(3) Do you have a source for this?

Quote:

(3) http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6162
Scroll down to the last paragraph.

The link provided here does not go to anything that show what you say, although I do see a mention of Martha Stewart ... you DO know that these are different people, right?

I'm interested, and I want to learn something about this, but you haven't shown me anything. Get back to me when you have a moment, I'll appreciate it.

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 6:15 pm Post subject: Re: Lynne Stewart ... Who the Bejeezus is SHE?

The Bobster wrote:

You'\ve made a reply that is not a response.

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

(A) A lot of links have been provided, and I'm willing to be patient until you have read them and are able to talk intelligibly. Long story short, you don't need to indict or even convict a lot of lawyers - doing it to just one with flimsy evidence obtained by unconstitutional means is enough to send a message to the rest. Lawyers are cowards, at least they are these days ...

Quote:

(2) Stewart was indicted as well for supporting terrorists.

(B) The charge was thrown out in at least one court - why do you think this happened? Do some reading and get back to me ... happy to talk then.

Quote:

Regardless when Stewart has someone like OBL supporting her that seems to suggest that she is doing something very very wrong.

(3) Do you have a source for this?

Quote:

(3) http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6162
Scroll down to the last paragraph.

(C) The link provided here does not go to anything that show what you say, although I do see a mention of Martha Stewart ... you DO know that these are different people, right?

I'm interested, and I want to learn something about this, but you haven't shown me anything. Get back to me when you have a moment, I'll appreciate it.

(Letters are mine)

(A) Flimsy evidence? They have numberous wiretaps of Stewart on tape. And she definitely breached the SAM. Nor was it unconstitutional. In fact it was perfectly legal. As your own link in the orginal post (threat to America) shows that the DOJ was granted these powers to wiretap.

As for lawyers being cowards, it doesn't sound like it scared Ramsey Clark (as you pointed out). Nor does it seem like it's scared the organization that Stewart is affliated with (more on said organization later. ) How is this not a response?
YOU said that this bothered you "..for the obvious reasons that pertain to free speech and the right of people to know things-..."
I pointed out that one lawyer does not make this case. Had you been able to point to several such instances, I (hard as this may be to believe) would have very likely agreed that this is a worriesome trend. But one lawyer does not make a trend or case for such a thing happening. That is all I was trying to say here.

(B) And the charge was upheld in the second court. It depends on the judge, prosecutor and jury. If the prosecutor can not make the case or convince the jury, it doesn't matter what evidence he has. Many a guilty party has gone free because of this. Because the charges were thrown out does NOT MEAN THAT STEWART WAS INNOCENT. For all we know they may have been thrown out on a techicality or some glitch in the proceedings.
But this does not prove Stewart's innocence. I fail to see that this is a point in Stewart's favour.

(C) The link works fine. Did you actually read it or are you just guessing? There is NOTHING ABOUT MARTHA STEWART. It talks about Stewart's organization(the National Lawyers Guild) and Stewart. The last paragraph is the one about Bin Laden. As for the NLG they still support Stewart as the last paragraph also shows.

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 10:21 am Post subject: Re: Lynne Stewart ... Who the Bejeezus is SHE?

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

Flimsy evidence?

Showing a picture of Ossama bin Laden during a trial that had nothing to do with him spoke of extreme desperation. Why do that if the evidence was sufficient to put her away? Fact is, Ashcroft had only been able to convict exactly one other human being on terroism charges, although this was his main job - so, yes, they were desperate.

Quote:

They have numberous wiretaps of Stewart on tape.

The reason for the indictment was the press conference, though.

Quote:

And she definitely breached the SAM. Nor was it unconstitutional. In fact it was perfectly legal. As your own link in the orginal post (threat to America) shows that the DOJ was granted these powers to wiretap.

Ashcroft claimed these powers but they have not been tested for their constitutionality. We're looking at a major dislodge in the previously-unassailed right of privacy between attorney and client. This is a massive change in the way justice is practiced in America, and those who say 9/11 has not resulted in any loss of civil liberties to Americans are shown how deeply and severely incorrect they are by this case.

Quote:

As for lawyers being cowards, it doesn't sound like it scared Ramsey Clark (as you pointed out). Nor does it seem like it's scared the organization that Stewart is affliated with (more on said organization later. ) How is this not a response?

Well, you're referring to very exceptional lawyers who make a habit of defending those whom no one else will defend, people who take Clarence Darrow as a role model far more than Clarence Thomas. Michael Tigar, the man who defended Lynne, also defended Timothy McVeigh, and his goal was not to set the madman free but just to save him from gas chamber.

Incidentally, Lynne's own goal with regard to Rahman was similar, not to make him a free man but to get the best situation possible, so she pled him guilty and cut a deal - which was also why she continued to represent him long after all his appeals were done, to keep trying to get himthe best deal possible : he wanted to be sent back to Egypt (ironic, actually, since this is one of the countries we send prisoners to for "rendition," knowing they will face torture) and a lawyer who serves her client keeps his name in the public eye as well as possible he will not be forgotten and therefore to keep his interests secured .

Quote:

YOU said that this bothered you "..for the obvious reasons that pertain to free speech and the right of people to know things-..."

Yes, I think I said that ... it bothers me to see people sent to jail for giving a press conference. Free speech means not only that people have a right to say something but that I have a right to hear it. I'm a selfish man and I resent people who take away my right to hear things, even things I don't especially want to know.

Quote:

I pointed out that one lawyer does not make this case. Had you been able to point to several such instances, I (hard as this may be to believe) would have very likely agreed that this is a worriesome trend. But one lawyer does not make a trend or case for such a thing happening. That is all I was trying to say here.

You seem to to be saying that it's okay for the govt to persecute exactly ONE person for their beliefs and their willingess to do a job on behalf of unpopular folk being accused ... how many do you need before you think it's worth noticing? Five? Ten? Twenty? A hundred?

There are more than a half a thousand human beings held in Guantanamo and the same kind of SAMs apply to them. Some of them have lawyers now - only because the Supreme Court (finally) said they ought to get them if they can - and those lawyers are working for free under difficult conditions. A lot of the prisoners have been on a hunger strike since around late August. One reason you don't know much about that is that the lawyers are not allowed to tell the world outside what their clients are going through.

You say this is unimportant because ONE lawyer has been convicted? Many more have to try to do their jobs under these restrictions.

One more thing : SAMs are not laws. They are rules, something a little like "no smoking in the boy's room" in high school. These rules were not concocted by Congress or any elected official, but rather handed down by administrative fiat from Ashcroft On High.

Lynne Stewart does not look dangerous to me, and the judge who let her free on bail must have fel the same way. No one died, was injured or even was at threat because of her press conference.

Quote:

The charge was thrown out in at least one court - why do you think this happened? Do some reading and get back to me ... happy to talk then

.And the charge was upheld in the second court. It depends on the judge, prosecutor and jury. If the prosecutor can not make the case or convince the jury, it doesn't matter what evidence he has.

You forgot to do the reading I suggested, didn't you?

In America, we have a thing called "Double Jeapardy," which means you cannot be charged twice for the same crime, The federal law she was later charged with was a different one, one that required proof of intent. Thing is, intent is hard to prove - it requires you go right inside the mind of the accused, read her mind and try to prove that her actions had a specific motive. How can anyone do that?

Well, that's why the pictures and tapes of bin Laden were shown at her trial. Osama supports the guy she defended, here and he is on tape saying it. And look, here's his picture, and there is Lynne Stewart ... now, go off and deliberate, and while you do, we'll leak the name of the holdout juror.

Quote:

Many a guilty party has gone free because of this. Because the charges were thrown out does NOT MEAN THAT STEWART WAS INNOCENT. For all we know they may have been thrown out on a techicality or some glitch in the proceedings.

You did not read the links provided to you. Looking forward to your return after you have done so. My prediction is that eventually the appeals process will toss this one out. The case allows for too many precedents that will be dangerous to the legal system in America in the future.

For the record, never said she is innocent - there's still a lot about it that is not in the public record, and it's not for me to say. What I did say is that it appears she was uhjustly prosecuted, and specifically targeted - and so far nothing you or anyone else I have read has changed that ntion.

Quote:

The link works fine. Did you actually read it or are you just guessing?

I read it, and like a lot of the links you provide, I found it quite disturbing for reasons I won't go into now, but which will be famililar to you from previous discussions. I'll pass on it again at the moment, mainly because it was disturbing enough that I don't want to look at it again so recently. (Clue : There is more than just a little thinly-discguised hate scattered around that website, TUM ... look at it again.)

Quote:

It talks about Stewart's organization(the National Lawyers Guild) and Stewart. The last paragraph is the one about Bin Laden. As for the NLG they still support Stewart as the last paragraph also shows.

They offer no evidence for what they say, and therefore neither have you. Lynne Stewart has been a Marxist for decades, so this is nothing new - it's what I'm talking about when I say she is being persecuted for her political beliefs. Being a Marxist is not against the law in America, or it wasn't until recently, not since Edaward Murrow took McCarthy down and did to him what he needed to have happen -and, yes, it's why we are better than China and Iran.

I don't care much for Marxism myself, but I get annoyed when the govt tries to keep me from hearing what poeple say who do not like that one bit.

I'm still looking for a place where Ossama bin Laden has been shown to be aware of Lynne Steart, let alone express support. Get back to me whn you can give me that.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe