AP: N.Y. prosecutors want lawyer punished (Lynne Stewart)

[Eugene]

Posted on Tue, Sep. 05, 2006

N.Y. prosecutors want lawyer punished
LARRY NEUMEISTER
Associated Press

NEW YORK - Prosecutors seeking a 30-year prison term for a lawyer convicted
of aiding terrorists have called her behavior "flagrant abuse of her profession"
ahead of next month's sentencing hearing.

Lynne Stewart was convicted in February 2005 of providing material support
to terrorists by releasing a statement by her client, Sheik Ahmed Abdel-Rahman,
who was imprisoned after being convicted in 1995 of plotting to blow up New York
City landmarks.

Stewart's "egregious, flagrant abuse of her profession, abuse that amounted
to material support to a terrorist group, deserves to be severely punished,"
prosecutors wrote in a document submitted Thursday to a judge.

Her lawyers have argued that Stewart should receive no prison time, arguing that a
harsh sentence would frighten other lawyers from representing notorious clients and
that Stewart's three decades of distinguished work for indigent clients should speak
louder than a single serious mistake.

-snip-

Full article: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/15441881.htm

Also: Terror lawyer could get life behind bars - NY Daily News

[acmavm]

1. Did she do what they claim she did? If so, what's her problem?

[The Stranger]

29. If those are the only questions you have, then we are truly fucked.

I'm sure they could find something on you as well. Better wise up to the difference between what "they claim" and what is actually constitutional law.

[acmavm]

45. Don't be a smart ass. If she did what they claim she did, and

it ought to be pretty damn easy to figure out, then she was stupid and if she did relay messages, which I do believe they had some pretty good evidence on, they she's more than stupid, she's guilty of aiding and abetting.

This woman had an agenda of her own. And as an attorney she knew she was walking a very fine live between advocacy and complicity.

And you need to wise up yourself. Don't feel too damn smug, you ain't all that bright either.

edit: Oh oh oh, and as for your 'if these are all the questions you've got' bullshit, no, they are not all the questions I have. But no one here can answer them. Unless you got a direct line to both the presecutor and the defendant.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. I think Lynne Stewart represents what lawyers OUGHT TO be.

First, I don't think the prosecutors have the evidence to convict her. Secondly, lawyers are bound by ethics to represent clients who are not "popular". Lawyers are diplomats of the court and have a duty to speak for unpopular causes and clients ideally, but this ideal is not routinely employed. Not all lawyers are Clarence Darrow who went from representing railroad trusts in the 19th century to the societal paraiahs like John Scopes in the "Monkey Trial" and Sacco & Venzetti.

Lynne Stewart risked her entire career and now her life on her principles. This is to be countered with her assuming the risk for the outcome now.

The New York federal prosecutors are a bunch that have followed the standard set by Rudolph Guiliani when he was a NY federal prosecutor. They're tough, they like the press, and they use their position as a springboard for future political office. And they go after high-profile "bad guys" to make it look like they're protected society.

[hlthe2b]

8. I believe she has already been convicted....

and this is the sentencing hearing... What am I missing? :shrug:

This case has always bothered me... But, if fellow attorneys are not rallying strongly around her, it gives me the impression that she did seriously cross the line...

[no_hypocrisy]

9. You're correct. She has beenconvicted. I used the wrong verb tense.

And I too don't understand the lack of solidarity except for the fact that lawyers tend to worry about their associations getting in the way of attracting more clients, keeping their jobs as associates, and/or being caught in the crosshairs of the federal government by supporting a controversial figure like Lynne Stewart.

[mhatrw]

24. Yes, she "crossed the line."

That doesn't mean that she deserves time in jail:

http://www.lynnestewart.org/ncblstatement.html

[geek tragedy]

15. Her behavior was unethical by any standard one applies to lawyers.

She was facilitating his ability to communicate with his terrorist network, not representing his legal interests in a legal proceeding.

Part of Rahman's rules of incarceration was that he was not to have contact with his terrorist network--for painfully obvious reasons. She swore an oath wherein she promised she wouldn't help him communicate with his terrorist network.

She then violated that oath and broke the rules of his incarceration in order to help him communicate with his terrorist network.

She is anything but ethical or innocent.

[mhatrw]

22. So she should go to prison for 30 years?

How many lawyers go to prison for years for breaking ethical rules?

Do you really think this sets a good precedent?

"Terrorist network" "Terrorist network" "Terrorist network" "Terrorist network"

It's amazing how you managed to work that in four times in less than 100 words. Are you shooting for a speech writing gig?

The Lynne Stewart Guilty Verdict: Stretching the Definition of "Terrorism" To Its Limits: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/cassel/20050214.html

[geek tragedy]

25. I disagree with the 30 year sentence, but not the

underlying criminal conviction.

I fully support her disbarment.

[mhatrw]

33. Fine, I'll agree to that.

But a 30 year sentence is ridiculous.

[geek tragedy]

36. I would agree that 30 years is heavy-handed, and not a good

use of prosecutorial discretion.

2-3 years and a disbarment would be much more appropriate.

[The Stranger]

30. I think that your problem is with whom she was representing.

Not with the legal profession. For some reason, there is this catastrophic exception being fucked into the law for "terrorists" and those who represent "terrorists" because, apparently, they are not to be represented.

And one way to effect that is by attacking those who represent them as being "unethical" -- regardless of whether there was any true question of ethics at all.

[geek tragedy]

37. Her behavior was unethical and dishonest, however.

That really can't be disputed. She promised to abide by Rahman's rules of detention--which specifically prohibited helping him communicate with his followers.

If she hadn't agreed to those rules, she wouldn't have been given access to him.

She then flagrantly disregarded her own promise. She cheated. She lied.

All in an effort to help a convicted head of a terrorist network communicate with his followers.

[The Stranger]

41. She is being demonized and singled out for representing "terrorists."

You are simply repeating the same thing over and over again, but by so doing, illustrating my point. If anything, you have it backwards, it is unethical to accept conditions that prevent open communication with one's client, and the government is the last thing that should come between an accused and his or her attorney.

You are attacking her all over these boards because of whom she represents. Far worse things are done on a daily basis, but not by lawyers representing those singled out as her clients have been.

[geek tragedy]

44. It's not because she represents a terrorist--it's because she

illegally aided a terrorist.

Being someone's lawyer does NOT give you the right to do anything you want on their behalf.

[niyad]

3. she released a statement? that's it?? what am I missing here?

[Eugene]

4. Her lawyer did in response to a sentencing recommendation

from prosecutors released over the weekend,
according the the N.Y. Daily News article.

[magellan]

5. Nothing. That's all she did.

[magellan]

6. Here's Lynne's website!

http://www.lynnestewart.org/

[robcon]

7. I think her lawyers are well-reprenting her,

but her "single serious mistake" deserves significant jail time. She participated in a terrorist plot to fund terrorists, and she violated a court order.

It has nothing to do with her legal representation. She participated in a criminal conspiracy.

[mhatrw]

23. A terrorist plot to fund terrorists?

Umm, that's news to me. How was she funding terrorists?

[Evergreen Emerald]

10. It sounds as if she passed messages from her client to terrorists

That is certainly not appropriate.

[plasticsundance]

11. As usual ... the DUers ready to imprison ...

offer nothing substantial in the way of evidence. Here's Lynne Stewart's side of the story:

MICHAEL TIGAR: He is a Staten Island postal worker. He had many, many conversations in Arabic with people in Egypt. In Mr. Sattar’s defense, it should be pointed out that we said, “Well what country was the kidnapping going to take place in?” The judge said that we don't have to tell them. “Well who was going to get murdered?” “You don't have to tell them.” So this is an unknown possible kidnapping in a possible foreign country done by weapons that were never produced in court. “There are weapons of destruction in Egypt,” said the Bush administration, but it never produced any. It’s getting to be a pattern. He was convicted of that. Then Sattar was convicted of his telephone solicitations with calls back and forth to Egypt and Afghanistan of crimes of violence. Lynne was convicted of conspiring to prepare to assist Sattar’s conspiracy and with actually preparing to assist Sattar's conspiracy. The judge rejected the idea that so-called multiple inchoate crimes does pose some danger to freedom of expression as well as being unheard of in American law. And once again Lynne's alleged participation in that consisted of this one and only one statement. I need to correct something. Terrorism is not an element of any of the offenses with which Lynne Stewart was charged. The terror label appears in the catch line of one of the statutes. It is not an element. And, yet, you can see how successful the Bush administration has been at pasting the terrorism label on these non-events so closely, so clearly that everybody kind of assumes it, and it becomes a part of discourse which is, of course, the difficulty in a trial like this. As Lynne said in one of your video clips, “If you mention Osama bin Laden's name, you don't have to present any evidence. You can tell the jury that he has nothing to do with the case, but there's been this discourse, this drumbeat that makes it very difficult for our voice to be heard.”

more ...

Sad fucking day for the United States pseudo-democracy.

[geek tragedy]

12. Well, there is that criminal conviction . . . eom

[plasticsundance]

13. So you go out of your way to prove my point ...

When you're ready to talk specifics and demonstrate you know what you're talking about ... clue me in.

On edit ... In fact ... I posted at 8:53AM, and you posted a reply at 8:54AM, so it is obvious you didn't even bother to read the link I posted. Aren't you embarrassed?

[geek tragedy]

14. A jury had a chance to hear all of those arguments

and rejected them.

Last time I checked, facilitating communications between the head of a terrorist organization and his followers wasn't part of a lawyer's ethical obligations. Especially when that lawyer agreed that she had an obligation to avoid doing so.

Or do you think that if we arrest Osama bin Laden, we should allow his lawyers to funnel messages to his terrorist network?

[plasticsundance]

16. What arguments?

List them. Then talk about the specifics. Many are in prison that have been unfairly judged by their peers. Is that your only defense of your stance? For the record, I have not made up my mind in this case, so I'm interested in hearing the debate. You offer no debate ... only an argument of insistance. Don't waste my time.

[geek tragedy]

17. Her lawyers had an ample opportunity to explain why her actions

shouldn't be criminal. The judge and the jury obviously disagreed.

Myself, I don't have any sympathy for someonen who behaves unethically to help terrorists achieve their objectives.

[plasticsundance]

18. Ho-hum

<yawn>

[geek tragedy]

19. Well, at least I didn't complain about people being willing to imprison

someone with a criminal conviction.

[mhatrw]

21. Just read what actually happened ...

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/021505A.shtml

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/cassel/20050214.html

How many lawyers do you know who have been imprisoned for breaking a Bureau of Prisons edict?

[geek tragedy]

26. How many did so to aid a terrorist mastermind? eom

[The Stranger]

34. You are concerned about this because of the "terrorism" aspect to it.

Regardless of the law, and that is bad for the law.

[geek tragedy]

38. This would be like a mob lawyer helping his client

conduct the affairs of a crime family.

[mhatrw]

39. More like a mob lawyer issuing a press release for her client even

though he/she was ordered by a judge not to do so.

She should be punished appropriately, not with an "American Taliban" sentence.

[geek tragedy]

40. Well, a press release can be really harmful, depending

on what it says, of course.

Agree that the prosecutors are going overboard.

[The Stranger]

42. And you know of a mob lawyer prosecuted the way this lawyer has been?

Give me the link.

[geek tragedy]

43. I don't know of a mob lawyer who got busted doing so. eom

[geek tragedy]

27. How many did so to aid a terrorist mastermind? eom

[mhatrw]

20. And OJ's innocent. Right?

Tell us in your own words, exactly what wrongs did this woman actually commit?

[geek tragedy]

28. Wrongfully helping a terrorist mastermind communicate

with his network and followers by willfully subverting the rules put in place to ensure that he couldn't do so.

It was akin to smuggling in drugs or weapons.

[mhatrw]

31. Or simply advocating for her client, admittedly too strongly.

She issued a press release. She didn't kill anyone.

She helped her guilty client communicate with the world outside his prison cell. Take out your "terror alert" rhetoric and that's what she's guilty of.

She should probably be disbarred. Going beyond that would put unpopular defendants' rights in more jeopardy than they already are.

[geek tragedy]

35. Except that Rahman IS the head of a terrorist organization.

And she was helping him communicate with and indirectly guide the affairs of that organization. It was that exact kind of thing that his rules of detention sought to prevent.

I'm all for lawyers doing everything they can legally and ethically do to help unpopular clients. But, when lawyers lie, cheat, and break the law to help people like Rahman, they deserve no protection whatsoever.

[The Stranger]

32. The conviction is bullshit though. So there is nothing.