Latest Breaking News

rug

(82,333 posts)

6. A lawyer who spent her entire career reprsenting the indigent and pushing back.

Thu Jan 2, 2014, 12:01 AM

Jan 2014

It's all on the website.

May 30th, 2010

Who is Lynne Stewart?

Lynne Stewart is a radical human rights attorney who has devoted her life to the oppressed – a constant advocate for the countless many deprived in the United States of their freedom and their rights. Lynne has been falsely accused of helping terrorists in an obvious attempt by the U.S. government to silence dissent, curtail vigorous defense lawyers, and install fear in those who would fight against the U.S. government’s racism, seek to help Arabs and Muslims being prosecuted for free speech and defend the rights of all oppressed people. She was arrested in April 2002 and arraigned before Manhattan federal Judge John Koeltl, who also presided over her trial in 2004. She was convicted, and received a 28-month sentence in October 2006. However she was free on bail until 2009, when the government appealed the sentence. In late 2009 Lynne was re-sentenced to 10 years in federal prison. She is now in a federal medical facility for women in Texas, thousands of miles away from her home, family and community.

http://lynnestewart.org/about-lynne/

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

158 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Lynne Stewart has been released from prison. [View all] roody Jan 2014 OP

this is from a listserve I am on: Kali Jan 2014 #1

I mistakenly rely on DU for my news. roody Jan 2014 #4

yeah, I get almost all news here too Kali Jan 2014 #7

! rug Jan 2014 #2

Who is donco Jan 2014 #3

She was the defense attorney for Sheik roody Jan 2014 #5

A lawyer who spent her entire career reprsenting the indigent and pushing back. rug Jan 2014 #6

Thank you! Octafish Jan 2014 #142

Criminal defense attorney who was convicted of violating the SAMs her client was under. msanthrope Jan 2014 #10

A Fatwa is a legal opinion. It is not binding to those outside the issuers sphere alfredo Jan 2014 #16

And under his SAMs, he isn't allowed to issue a damn thing. nt msanthrope Jan 2014 #20

True. He knew it was forbidden and that it would compromise his lawyer if alfredo Jan 2014 #25

He chose to use her. Terrorists do that sort of thing. She, however, made her choices. nt msanthrope Jan 2014 #51

true. He exploited her weakness. alfredo Jan 2014 #95

Her hubris. nt msanthrope Jan 2014 #107

Precisely. alfredo Jan 2014 #120

Meh. IMO the government should be more than just barely on the right side of the law... Recursion Jan 2014 #147

An opinion on Islamic law issued by a scholar of Islamic law. merrily Jan 2014 #39

"The message that Islamic Group should reconsider a cease-fire in attacks against the Egyptian merrily Jan 2014 #37

Long live the PATRIOT ACT! soundsgreat Jan 2014 #44

Did the Patriot Act have a time machine? She was convicted of acts prior to its passage. nt msanthrope Jan 2014 #46

??? She was convicted after the Patriot Act soundsgreat Jan 2014 #55

Does no one teach civics anymore? Lynne Stewart was convicted of acts that took place before msanthrope Jan 2014 #61

you don't have to repeat yourself *sigh* soundsgreat Jan 2014 #109

Look...when you help your client release a fatwa about killing "the Jews," you can hardly msanthrope Jan 2014 #111

You're siding with Ashcroft - do you feel comfortable with that? nt soundsgreat Jan 2014 #112

I'm siding with the NY grand jury who issued the indictment. msanthrope Jan 2014 #113

The reaching is becoming acrobatic, no? 1000words Jan 2014 #114

Ignoring the "Kill the Jews" fatwa is predictable. But nothing erases that indictment. nt msanthrope Jan 2014 #115

Right on - support your pal! He can need it nt soundsgreat Jan 2014 #118

You're certainly not siding with Janet Reno soundsgreat Jan 2014 #117

Why wouldn't communications between her and her client be subject to attorney-client privilege? The Stranger Jan 2014 #75

Privilege can be limited - she agreed to the limits then violated them. Nt hack89 Jan 2014 #80

Privilege can be "limited"? That could only mean waiver. The attorney cannot waive privilege on The Stranger Jan 2014 #82

SAMs are specific restrictions on an attorney hack89 Jan 2014 #85

What the fuck is a "SAM"? The Stranger Jan 2014 #87

Special Administrative Measures. Ranchemp. Jan 2014 #89

Special administrative measures hack89 Jan 2014 #90

Not only can the attorney NOT waive the privilege without the client's consent, these "special The Stranger Jan 2014 #122

They are common for terrorism and organized crime prosecutions hack89 Jan 2014 #123

This message was self-deleted by its author The Stranger Jan 2014 #139

If it's an unconstitutional law, then her "breaking the law" is voided. The Stranger Jan 2014 #140

What court ruled it unconstitutional? hack89 Jan 2014 #141

That it is unconstitutional does not require it be ruled so. The Stranger Jan 2014 #156

So the government should void her conviction just because she thinks it unconstitutional? hack89 Jan 2014 #157

They were developed for mafia trials Recursion Jan 2014 #150

Communication regarding his legal issues is...communication outside those matters is not. msanthrope Jan 2014 #83

It is. The government can't ask her what he told her. Recursion Jan 2014 #146

The Special Administrative Measures are bullshit, as are the CMUs. rug Jan 2014 #77

Tell me...what specific SAMs was the sheik under that you think were unjustifiable? nt msanthrope Jan 2014 #84

All of them. rug Jan 2014 #91

Don'tcha know dem terrists speak in code? Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2014 #97

Shockingly, one does not have a constitutional right to continue criminal activity msanthrope Jan 2014 #101

Shockingly, some people are just peachy with SAMs. rug Jan 2014 #104

Rug...some people need SAMs because they refuse to stop their criminal behavior. Mob bosses, gang msanthrope Jan 2014 #108

Both Ms. Stewart and her client agreed to the terms 1000words Jan 2014 #86

The SAMs were imposed. Acquiescence to coercion is not agreement. rug Jan 2014 #92

And you, as if she had a gun to her head 1000words Jan 2014 #94

Given that this guy was blind and buried deep in maximum security pretrial, rug Jan 2014 #105

Amen. mahannah Jan 2014 #8

From what I've read customerserviceguy Jan 2014 #9

She did..the 2nd circuit's opinion is devastating. But, she's near death apparently. msanthrope Jan 2014 #11

Jose Padilla was repeatedly tortured and his mind forever messed up for less 1000words Jan 2014 #13

Jose Padilla wasn't her client. nt msanthrope Jan 2014 #15

Of course not, Padilla was not allowed counsel. 1000words Jan 2014 #19

No one said he was? merrily Jan 2014 #34

An opinion, even a judge's opinion, is not hard evidence. merrily Jan 2014 #38

Sure...if I were a Stewart supporter I'd dismiss that opinion's inconvenient recitation of facts, msanthrope Jan 2014 #52

Yeah, it's not like she had bad counsel. n/t customerserviceguy Jan 2014 #53

I am pleased. There is no reason she roody Jan 2014 #12

Hopefully customerserviceguy Jan 2014 #14

Most intel has a short shelf life. alfredo Jan 2014 #17

Oh, please. merrily Jan 2014 #40

Please yourself customerserviceguy Jan 2014 #54

I'm more worried about being struck by lightning. truebluegreen Jan 2014 #78

Lighting doesn't care customerserviceguy Jan 2014 #132

Pretty poor aim, if you ask me. truebluegreen Jan 2014 #134

Crazy terrorist wants to kill Americans and Jews, film at 11. Hassin Bin Sober Jan 2014 #158

According to the government, OnyxCollie Jan 2014 #18

According to a jury, Stewart did, too. nt msanthrope Jan 2014 #22

Is that really the issue that the jury was asked to decide? merrily Jan 2014 #35

Yes. nt msanthrope Jan 2014 #50

Does helping them include representing them? The Stranger Jan 2014 #76

It was the defense the representation that got her sent to jail. HERVEPA Jan 2014 #126

Your post doesn't make any fucking sense. The Stranger Jan 2014 #137

That's not what she was convicted for customerserviceguy Jan 2014 #133

She wasn't? The Stranger Jan 2014 #138

Let's all keep in mind who was the defense council for the Redcoats of the Boston Massacre.... Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2014 #21

It wasn't her legal defense of Abdel-Rahman that landed her in prison. 1000words Jan 2014 #23

Exactly what did land her in prison? Do you know exactly what the notes that she passed on said? merrily Jan 2014 #41

I haven't the slightest idea what was on those notes 1000words Jan 2014 #43

Maybe. merrily Jan 2014 #45

The overt act was her quoting him in a media interview Recursion Jan 2014 #148

Of course. But the attorney who colludes with a client in breaking the law is despicable. msanthrope Jan 2014 #24

Considering this is something that happened during the Bush Era it makes you wonder. Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2014 #26

Not at all...she's on tape, laughing about the USS Cole bombing. The 2nd circuit opinion msanthrope Jan 2014 #27

The Bush bastards regularly fabricated stuff. We all know that. Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2014 #29

But not a time machine. The Clinton DOJ had her, on videotape.....you should read the msanthrope Jan 2014 #30

Did you catch all of the restrictions they put on her when meeting with her own client? Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2014 #32

Yes..and she could have challenged those restrictions. Instead she chose to perjure msanthrope Jan 2014 #47

Or someone who didn't take it seriously because she knew it was a show trial. Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2014 #60

If she didn't take it seriously, then she shouldn't be practicing law. What msanthrope Jan 2014 #62

We have a "lock em up and throw away the key" mentality in the United States..... Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2014 #63

She deserved a stiffer sentence, because she knew better. As an attorney, I will tell you msanthrope Jan 2014 #64

She was a political prisoner. Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2014 #65

No she wasn't. Ranchemp. Jan 2014 #66

Come on. If we started locking up unethical lawyers there would be no room for prisoners. Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2014 #67

There's a difference between unethical and criminal. Ranchemp. Jan 2014 #68

They would have given her LIFE though. Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2014 #69

But she didn't get life and now she's free Ranchemp. Jan 2014 #71

Did you see the report on "Democracy Now!"? Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2014 #72

Yes, I've read it. And???? Ranchemp. Jan 2014 #74

When I see Issa locked up than MAYBE you'll have a case. Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2014 #79

It wasn't me that had a case, Ranchemp. Jan 2014 #81

LOL!!! Okay,...I'm sure they'll get right on that shit. Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2014 #93

LOL!!! Don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen, Ranchemp. Jan 2014 #96

They sure make time for a lifelong civil rights attorney. Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2014 #99

To be fair, Ranchemp. Jan 2014 #100

Or pushed to have the case reviewed. Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2014 #102

There's that too. Ranchemp. Jan 2014 #103

Had she been, I think more reputable lawyer's associations would have mounted a defense msanthrope Jan 2014 #70

I'll just let that last post hang out there for all to see. Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2014 #73

Even assuming that the context supports the statement, laughing about the USS Cole is not a crime. merrily Jan 2014 #36

No...but facilitating your client's violation of SAMs while laughing about the Cole is. nt msanthrope Jan 2014 #49

Can you post a link to the tape, on which she is "laughing about the USS Cole bombing"? ronnie624 Jan 2014 #151

the links to the Second Circuit opinion and the superseding indictment msanthrope Jan 2014 #152

I didn't have an argument. ronnie624 Jan 2014 #153

Dude...you've already been given the links in the thread. I can't msanthrope Jan 2014 #154

Lol. n/t ronnie624 Jan 2014 #155

When she took the oath, she intended to violate it? merrily Jan 2014 #42

Yes...that is what she did. Your defense of her seems to be scattershot and ill-reasoned. msanthrope Jan 2014 #48

People aren't free to break laws and rules they view as unconstitutional. Personal opinions geek tragedy Jan 2014 #59

Good! burrowowl Jan 2014 #28

I love Amy Goodman and Democracy Now! mc51tc Jan 2014 #31

Wish whatever time she has left is peaceful. hrmjustin Jan 2014 #33

Don't give a shit if it's peaceful HERVEPA Jan 2014 #127

Like Michael Vick, she committed a crime but has served her time (nt) Nye Bevan Jan 2014 #56

Unlike him, she would never hurt a dog. roody Jan 2014 #57

just help disseminate a fatwa related to killing people. No harm there I guess. HERVEPA Jan 2014 #128

Well, I'm glad to hear she's out. struggle4progress Jan 2014 #58

This is the first I'd heard of her. JoeyT Jan 2014 #88

quite right reddread Jan 2014 #135

She should not have been in prison Jack Rabbit Jan 2014 #98

Well, when you knowingly violate the law, Ranchemp. Jan 2014 #106

Would she have been prosecuted by a Gore administration? Jack Rabbit Jan 2014 #110

I'm pretty sure the "Kill the Jews" fatwa would have been dealt with in the same way. nt msanthrope Jan 2014 #116

Objection. Ireelevant and immaterial. Jack Rabbit Jan 2014 #119

In the interests of fairness and consistency: 1000words Jan 2014 #121

Not at all Jack Rabbit Jan 2014 #125

Forgive me if I misunderstood, but your post implied ... 1000words Jan 2014 #129

You understood correctly, but . . . Jack Rabbit Jan 2014 #130

Essentially, we are in agreement. 1000words Jan 2014 #131

Overruled. nt msanthrope Jan 2014 #136

This message was self-deleted by its author Jack Rabbit Jan 2014 #124

Releasing her is a mistake. She should stay in prison for helping terrorists. Pterodactyl Jan 2014 #143

Releasing her is the right thing to do. Ranchemp. Jan 2014 #144

She wasn't currently being held for helping terrorists NobodyHere Jan 2014 #145

Yes. Her appeal reduced the "aiding" charge but added a perjury charge. Recursion Jan 2014 #149