| Author |
Message |
    
lumpyhead
Citizen
Username: Lumpyhead
Post Number: 1114
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 1:22 pm: | 
|
Any thoughts on this case especially from some of our MOL legal eagles? |
sbenois
Citizen
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 13201
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 1:29 pm: |
|
Throw away the key. |
Sgt. Pepper
Citizen
Username: Jjkatz
Post Number: 697
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 2:08 pm: |
|
Better yet, crush the key into a tiny lump that can't possibly be restored to a usable key, and then throw away the lump. |
Dave
Moderator
Username: Dave
Post Number: 5313
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 2:20 pm: |
|
Too risky. Best to jetison the key and the person who made the key into the coronal mass of the sun. |
Mark Fuhrman
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 1324
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 2:22 pm: |
|
Look, I am no expert in this at all, but from what I can see, she was a monumentally BAD lawyer for her clients (let alone for herself). Maybe it would be best for national security to let her act as a jailhouse attorney for more terrorists. Could almost guarantee them being locked up forever. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 725
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 2:26 pm: |
|
Interesting piece on her...
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4265 |
Bobkat
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 7650
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 2:42 pm: |
|
I ain't got no sympathy for Lawyer Stewart. However, I find it really scary that law enforcement is now able to record lawyer/client meetings.
I think the same thing is going on with Junior Gotti and his lawyer, basically for the same reasons. The state is claiming his former lawyer served as an information conduit to his Capos. |
Maplefan
Citizen
Username: Maplefan
Post Number: 14
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 2:48 pm: |
|
What's interesting about this piece? Rocco has great hubris to think he can "paraphrase" Ms. Stewart and then speak about her emotional well-being as the source for her work. But then again hubris seems to be made for order on this Web site. |
Mark Fuhrman
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 1325
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 3:55 pm: |
|
Since when did Sheik el-Rahman become a radical leftist? I think he would be surprised at that one. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 726
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 3:59 pm: |
|
What's interesting? Perhaps seeing someone else's viewpoint? Forget about whether what he writes is true or not. It doesn't really matter. He believes it. And so do a lot of other people. Or would you rather be like Bush, and believe that it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks about anything? |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 727
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 4:03 pm: |
|
I think what he's getting at is that she has, historically, represented relatively radical left wing folks. And those folks may have had visions of doing harm to the US Government or various capitalist institutions. And Sheik el-Rahman has those same goals. I agree that you can't call Islamic radicals "radical left wingers." He probably should have left it at "radicals."
BTW, I don't want anyone to think I agree with what this guy wrote. But it's interesting to me to see what others think. I thought that was the reason we all read these boards. That, or we like to argue. |
lumpyhead
Citizen
Username: Lumpyhead
Post Number: 1115
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 6:27 pm: |
|
She is the perfect illustration of not judging a book by it's cover. I am sure she is highly educated and intelligent albeit bad judgement but if you saw her coming out of a trailor park you wouldn't think twice. Warts and all. |
Local_1_crew
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 414
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 9:12 pm: |
|
the destruction of the lawyer client privilege is a dangerous moment in the history of our civil liberties. |
sbenois
Citizen
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 13204
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 9:17 pm: |
|
No sympathy is due to this traitor. |
Reflective
Citizen
Username: Reflective
Post Number: 739
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 9:28 pm: |
|
lumpy!!! now, now.
 |
Local_1_crew
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 415
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 12:31 pm: |
|
absolutely no evidence that she was a traitor. if that is what you think the charges were or what this case was all about then you need to stop getting your information from the ny post. this case was not about treason in the least. |
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 1428
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 3:29 pm: |
|
Public trials and respect for the defendant's right to counsel are essential for maintaining public confidence in the judicial system, i.e. a verdict of guilty means that the defendant actually committed a crime, as opposed to merely being an inconvenience to the government of the day. Yes, some lawyers enjoy the notoriety of unpopular defendants and others might be acting out their personal issues in a public way - but these traits can be found in other professions and we should be glad that the legal system can draw on these motives for the public good. The American legal system, for all its flaws, is a unique accomplishment of American democracy.
The real traitors here are in the Bush Administration's Justice Department. |
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 1668
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 3:35 pm: |
|
Guess none of you read Andrew Napolitano's OP-ED in the Times on Thursday? Wish I knew how to link it. He is a former Judge of the New Jersey Superior Court and an "analyst for Fox News". He says the case is about John Ashcroft's granting to himself the power to re-write criminal laws and the erosion of the right to counsel ad Freedom of Speech. I'll quote the concluding paragraphs:
In truth, the federal government prosecuted Lynne Stewart because it wants to intimidate defense lawyers into either refusing to represent accused terrorists or into providing less than zealous representation. After she was convicted, Ms. Stewart said, "you can't lock up the lawyers, you can't tell the lawyers how to do their jobs."
No doubt the outcome of this case will have a chilling effect on lawyers who might represent unpopular clients. Since 9/11 the federal government's message has been clear: If you defend someone we say is a terrorist, we may declare you to be one of them, and you will lose everything.
The Stewart conviction is a travesty. She faces up to 30 years in prison for speaking gibberish to her client and the truth to the press. It is devastating for lawyers and for any American who may ever need a lawyer. Shouldn't the Justice Department be defending our constitutional freedoms rather than assaulting them? |
sbenois
Citizen
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 13216
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 6:57 pm: |
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/17/opinion/17napolitano.html
She signed an agreement. She then broke the rules and the agreement. If she had a problem with the rules she shouldn't have signed and she should have filed a suit claiming that the rules were/are unconstitutional.
It is too easy to blame this on Ashcroft. 9/11 changed the world. Deal with it.
She aided a man largely responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing. She passed instructions that may have materially affected how our enemy carries out their business. She gets no sympathy from me. She gets a cell with a lost key.
And yes, despite the fact that she wasn't charged with treason, she is a traitor in my book. |
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 1429
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 7:49 pm: |
|
One terrorist attack and you're willing to give away your birthright to due process? |
sbenois
Citizen
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 13217
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 9:24 pm: |
|
Show me where she was denied due process. |
Bobkat
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 7662
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 6:30 am: |
|
As I stated before the same methods are being used against an attorney for"Junior" Gotti. I don't think this is a national security issue. Through good police work and prosecution the Gotti's have been reduced to something resembling Jimm Breslin's "The Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight". All they need is an old, tootless lion in the basement.
I have watched Judge Napolitano on Fox enough to know that he isn't some bleeding heart liberal. I take his opinion seriously. While information picked up against the Shiek, or Junior for that matter, can not be directly used in court, it sure tells the prosecutors what rocks to start turning over.
I have no sympathy for Stewart, but I think this is a bad way to handle criminal trials and it will definetely make it harder for unpopular defendants to get decent representation.
|
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 1430
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 5:13 pm: |
|
Her client was denied due process.
Let me add that I have nothing good to say about her client, but if he's genuinely guilty of a crime, then he should be tried, found guilty and punished on the basis of publicly demonstrated evidence, not because the prosecutor intimidated the defense attorney.
|
mwoodwalk
Citizen
Username: Mwoodwalk
Post Number: 315
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 11:09 pm: |
|
There is no attorney-client privilege that protects criminal behavior. Period. Stewart is likely an attorney that has crossed that line a number of times in her career, considering who she represented. This time she got caught.
|
Albatross
Citizen
Username: Albatross
Post Number: 519
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 3:17 pm: |
|
I am not familiar with the particulars of this case.
I do know, however, that to record attorney-client conversations, there has to be a warrant. Was there one? |
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 1604
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 4:11 pm: |
|
Best overview on the case...
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200502230740.asp
Personally I wish she could be executed for what she did, but 25 years in jail will be good enough. |
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 1436
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 9:20 pm: |
|
Wow. It's like something out of a bad movie. You vill obey ze Leader or ve will haff you shot!! |
Albatross
Citizen
Username: Albatross
Post Number: 528
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 11:48 pm: |
|
quote:But wait a minute, Napolitano insists. "[T]he Sixth Amendment...grants all persons the right to consult with a lawyer in confidence." Well, maybe someplace, but here in America the Sixth Amendment applies only to "criminal prosecutions," and guarantees the assistance of counsel to an "accused." Abdel Rahman's criminal prosecution ended with his conviction in 1995. It's been nearly a decade since he's been an "accused" (the judgment of conviction was entered when he was sentenced in January 1996, and his appeals were rejected in 1999). He did not have a right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment at all when he was conspiring — not consulting — with Stewart in 1999 and 2000. It is probable that, consistent with the Constitution, he could have been entirely barred from meeting with attorneys. As it is, however, the Justice Department determined to allow him that privilege and was well within its authority to impose reasonable restrictions on it.
Moreover, even when the Sixth Amendment does actually apply and where the attorney-client privilege is at issue, the attorney must be acting as an attorney to enjoy the benefits of confidentiality. Federal law, like the law of most states, has long recognized what is known as the "crime/fraud" exception to the privilege. Attorney-client communications lose their protection if they are in furtherance of an ongoing crime, as Stewart's clearly were.
The first paragraph is very interesting. I don't claim to be a legal scholar, but it looks to me like conversations after court proceedings have ceased would not be protected. This would be a fun topic for a debate team.
I have a problem with the second part. Yes, she waives privilege when she is not acting as an attorney, but since the only way to find out would be to violate the privilege in the first place, it's kinda moot without a warrant. |
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 1606
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 12:38 pm: |
|
No Alb,
She signed the SAMs and agreed to the monitoring. PLUS, she gave up any "privelege" when she held a press conference talking about what the Sheik told her in their meetings (also in violation of the agreements she willingly signed).
Plus, privelege is owned by the client, not the attorney, and Rahman is not being charged with anything because of the tapes.
It might be a different story if the AG was prosecuting the sheik based on information he gave stewart during one of their meetings, but they are not, they are prosecuting Stewart for delivering messages from the sheik, messages not related to any former or pending case, once again, in violation of agreements she signed in order to have these meetings in the first place.
|
sk8mom
Citizen
Username: Sk8mom
Post Number: 103
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 12:07 am: |
|
The themes in this post are obviously touching on deeply held beliefs and I respect your respective rights to hold and espouse them. I would just like to add a few things:
First, during the period of Stewart's alleged offense, Sheik Rahman had already been tried and convicted and his appeal had been denied. His due process rights were not affected by the interception of his communications with his attorney.
Second, it is misleading to say that the government is now allowed to eavesdrop on attorney-client communications. Recording of such communications can occur without a court order when one of the statutory exceptions applies. The exceptions include (i) one of the parties to the conversation consents to the interception; and (ii) notice ("your call may be monitored for quality assurance purposes" -- sound familiar?). When an attorney-client communcation is court-ordered or falls under one of these exceptions, the interceptions are first reviewed for privilege by a separate team who are walled off from the people who actually prosecute the case.
Prisoners have a reduced expectation of privacy and increased restrictions on their liberty. They are given notice that telephone calls will be recorded. In the ordinary case, they may make lawyer calls on a phone where they will not be recorded. There are a number of federal appellate decisions finding this constitutional.
The circumstances where attorney-client communcations in prison are recorded are sharply limited. In the Sheik's case, Special Administrative Measures were imposed because of the risk the sheik would incite his followers to violence. These included a prohibition on communicating with anyone except for his wife and his lawyer. The Sheik and Stewart were repeatedly put on notice and agreed to abide by the measures.
As I understand it, the government's allegations in the criminal case against Stewart were, among other things, that she deliberately created diversions to distract the guards from the fact that, during the attorney-client visit, the Sheik was communicating with (either her paralegal or the translator, I can't remember) for the purpose of sending messages to his followers. On one occasion, she announced the sheik's message to his followers (concerning the withdrawal of his support for a cease fire) in a press conference.
As I understand it, Stewart's defense was that her acts were tantamount to legal representation because she believed the sheik's messages to his followers would result in pressure being put on the government to relieve some of the harsher conditions of the sheik's confinement. A day or so after the verdict, the NYT ran an artcile where they asked veteran criminal defense attorneys whether the Stewart prosecution would have a chilling effect on the attorney-client relationship. As I recall, the attorneys who identified themselves as representing politically radical clients (for want of a better term) -- Stanley Cohen & Ron Kuby -- said they felt it would potentially chill attorneys who undertake such representaitons. The other group of veteran criminal defense attorneys felt that Stewart had crossed the line and the case would not affect their work.
Whatever you think about the Stewart case, the SAMs, the interception of the Sheik's attorney visits, the interception of attorney-client communications under the circumstances outlined above have all been going on for decades and are not new to the "Ashcroft" Justice Dept. The interceptions of the Sheik and Stewart occurred prior to 9/11 and have little to do with Ashcroft or the post-9/11 world.
Last, the people who worked on the Stewart case were career Justice Dept. people, not political appointees. |
sk8mom
Citizen
Username: Sk8mom
Post Number: 105
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 1, 2005 - 9:44 pm: |
|
In case anyone wants to read something about the Stewart case which was written by someone who in my view is fully informed about the facts, I found an article online by former federal prosecutor, Andrew McCarthy, who was the lead prosecutor in the 1995 terrorism prosecution of Sheik Rahman and 11 others. He takes on Napolitano in a big way.
Here is the url of the piece:
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200502230740.asp |
sk8mom
Citizen
Username: Sk8mom
Post Number: 106
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 1, 2005 - 9:50 pm: |
|
PS: Not that I am in agreement with the National Review on any matters of policy. |
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 1448
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 1, 2005 - 10:30 pm: |
|
The problem here is that legality and justice seem to have diverged. The Special Administrative Measures are legal in the same way as extraordinary rendition or the denial of habeus corpus to Guantanamo prisoners are legal.
They may be procedurally correct, superficially plausible and difficult to challenge Constitutionally. However, in the longer run these measures will damage the reputation and ultimately the effectiveness of the American justice system. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page