***** New York Law Journal May 28, 2002, Tuesday SECTION: NEWS; Vol. 227; Pg. 1 LENGTH: 1353 words HEADLINE: Defense Bar Mobilizes Behind Stewart BYLINE: By Mark Hamblett
...Ms. Stewart had defended Sheik Abdel-Rahman at his 1995 trial for seditious conspiracy in connection with a plot to bomb several landmarks and major pieces of New York City's infrastructure.
Her indictment in April accused her of providing material support for terrorism, two counts of conspiracy and making false statements. Prosecutors for Mr. Comey charge that Ms. Stewart helped the sheik, the spiritual leader of the terror organization called Islamic Group, communicate with his followers from a federal facility in Rochester, Minn.
The indictment alleges that Ms. Stewart violated Special Administrative Measures (SAMS) imposed by the Bureau of Prisons, which included a gag order on the sheik.
Ms. Stewart was informed by terrorism prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, now U.S. Attorney in Chicago, that she was in violation of the SAMS. She promised not to do it again, but then broke that promise by acting as conduit between the sheik and the outside world, the government alleges.
Ms. Stewart also allegedly violated the SAMS by holding a press conference and falsely charging that prison officials were denying the sheik medication. And the indictment charges that Ms. Stewart allowed interpreter Mohammed Yousry and the sheik to pass messages in Arabic while she covered the exchange by chattering about inconsequential matters in English.
Among the messages Ms. Stewart is accused of helping the sheik pass to his followers in Islamic Group was that the organization should no longer observe a cease fire on terrorist acts.
Also charged along with Ms. Stewart and Mr. Yousry was Ahmed Abdel Sattar, who prosecutors say was a "vital link" between the sheik and the membership of the Egyptian-based Islamic Group, an organization that claimed responsibility for the 1997 massacre of more than 58 foreign tourists at an archeological site in Luxor, Egypt.
The fourth person charged in the case is Yassir Al-Sirri, now in custody in London. Mr. Al-Sirri and Mr. Sattar are also accused of inciting violence for circulating a message from the Sheik two years ago that called for the "bloodshed of Israelis everywhere."... *****
***** Copyright 2002 Burrelle's Information Services CBS News Transcripts SHOW: 60 Minutes (7:00 PM ET) - CBS May 5, 2002 Sunday TYPE: Profile LENGTH: 2342 words HEADLINE: The terrorist's lawyer; attorney Lynne Stewart discusses the indictment Attorney General John Ashcroft has brought against her for passing along information to Omar Abdel-Rahman's followers ANCHORS: MIKE WALLACE
...WALLACE: (Voiceover) Ashcroft said the government knew this happened because the Justice Department had gotten a court order to secretly tape all of the sheik's conversations with attorney Stewart to pick up whatever intelligence they could about terrorism. And apparently, they have all of this on tape. He was giving instructions, political instructions, maybe military instructions, whatever.
Ms. STEWART: Well, you know, we haven't heard the ta--we haven't seen anything yet, actually.
WALLACE: Right.
Ms. STEWART: I have to see these tapes and hear them.
(Footage of prison; security guard outside prison)
WALLACE: (Voiceover) The most important tapes would be from one weekend of meetings that Stewart had with the sheik in his Minnesota prison. She told us that she believed her interpreter was asking the sheik questions about his prison conditions from a list she'd prepared in advance.
Ms. STEWART: He would read to him, I would not understand one word that was going on, back and forth.
(Footage of Stewart with Wallace)
WALLACE: (Voiceover) But she admitted that at one point, she did realize the conversation had turned political.
Ms. STEWART: He said he had a press release. He gave me, generally, what should be in it.
WALLACE: The sheik wanted her to issue a press release telling his followers in Egypt that they had his permission to end their cease-fire with the Egyptian government, had his permission to resume their attacks. And Ashcroft's most serious charge is that Stewart gave the sheik's statement to the press, and that when she did, he says, she became a co-conspirator in terrorism.
Ms. STEWART: I'm accused of materially aiding a terrorist organization based upon a press release.
WALLACE: Press release that you...
Ms. STEWART: That I...
WALLACE: ...released.
Ms. STEWART: ...released.
WALLACE: And you shouldn't have done it, according to what--what you had signed for the US government.
Ms. STEWART: That is correct. That is absolutely correct.
(Footage of Stewart with Wallace)
WALLACE: (Voiceover) But Stewart told us the message was merely political advice, not a military order.
Ms. STEWART: And to me, it was not saying, 'Take out the guns and mow them down.' It was more like a--an advisory. 'This is what I'm thinking about politically,' more than it was a--a call to arms. He hasn't been in Egypt since '89. He's hardly got his finger on the pulse of military operations.
(Footage of Ashcroft; Stewart leaving building)
WALLACE: (Voiceover) Attorney General Ashcroft did not allege that the press release led to any violence in Egypt, and Stewart told us that if she'd thought it might have caused violence, she wouldn't have done it. She says she felt the sheik had a right to convey his thoughts to his people, but she knew that putting out his message would violate her agreement with the prison.
Ms. STEWART: I knew that there was a possibility that the government would cut me off from him for releasing this statement. But he had told me he wanted this statement to get out to his people.
WALLACE: So in effect, you made a mistake.
Ms. STEWART: It's a mistake, but is it an indictable offense? Is this materially aiding a terrorist organization?
WALLACE: Ashcroft, obviously, thinks that it is.
Ms. STEWART: Well, we'll see what a jury thinks.
WALLACE: Apparently, the Clinton administration did not think it was all that serious, for she did this two years ago. And back then, the Justice Department barely slapped her wrist. It simply had her sign another statement that said that she would abide by the rules, including, 'I shall not broadcast messages for Abdel-Rahman to the media.' And then they let her resume seeing the sheik.
Ms. STEWART: They apparently did not think it was so dangerous, or so important, that they stopped me from visiting.
(Footage of Stewart; Ron Kuby with Wallace)
WALLACE: (Voiceover) And back then, the government was right, according to Stewart's friend, another defense attorney, Ron Kuby.
Mr. RON KUBY: If this was such an act of--of aiding and abetting terrorism, why wasn't she arrested two years ago when she allegedly made the statements to the press?
(Footage from ground zero; John Ashcroft at ground zero; Kuby with Wallace)
WALLACE: (Voiceover) But two years ago was before 9/11, and before John Ashcroft became attorney general. And now that the government is going after terrorists' attorneys, Kuby says, Ashcroft has gone too far.
Mr. KUBY: This was designed, and certainly has the effect, of sending a chilling message throughout the defense community. You work hard as a defense lawyer. Your family hates you. The public hates you. You don't make any money, and in the end, if you do a really good job, you get indicted. A--after the indictment of Lynne Stewart, what kind of lawyer, in his or her right mind, is going to take one of these cases?...
...Mr. KUBY: And if Lynne Stewart had been charged with transmitting some coded message that Sheik Omar had said, 'Lynne Stewart, tell Abdel, the drunken monkey sings at midnight,' she had gone and clandestinely communicated that message to Abdel, and Abdel said, 'Thank you very much,' I--I'd have no quarrel. But it was nothing clandestine or furtive here. But to indict somebody for aiding and abetting a terrorist organization because she spoke to the press and conveyed her client's views to the news media? That's never happened before in the history of this country.... *****
***** New York Law Journal June 17, 2002, Monday SECTION: DOI SUMMARIES; Vol. 227; Pg. 17 LENGTH: 161 words HEADLINE: Court Appoints a Special Master to Review The Files of Indicted Attorney Lynne Stewart Criminal Practice CASE-INFO: United States v. Lynne Stewart, Judge Koeltl. Law Journal news story, June 13. BODY: ATTORNEY LYNNE Stewart was indicted for conspiring to provide material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations, providing such support and resources, conspiring to defraud the U.S. and making false statements to federal officers. The government argued that an insulated "privilege team" should be allowed to screen materials seized from the indicted attorney's office for material protected by the attorney-client privilege. The instant court rejected that argument and appointed a special master, noting that the appointment was prompted by the "extraordinary" circumstances posed in a search of defendant's law offices, including the fact that she shares a suite with other defense attorneys who may have clients facing prosecution in the Southern District. The court added that it was appointing a special master who would be able to obtain expedited security clearance in this sensitive case, which involves national security. LOAD-DATE: August 18, 2002 *****
***** New York Law Journal August 9, 2002, Friday SECTION: NEWS; Vol. 228; Pg. p. 1, col. 3 LENGTH: 656 words HEADLINE: Stewart Is Denied Request For Assurance on Monitoring BYLINE: By Mark Hamblett BODY: INDICTED attorney Lynne Stewart and her co-defendants get no assurances that conversations with their lawyers, or any other communications, are free of monitoring by the federal government, a Southern District judge ruled yesterday.
Judge John G. Koeltl rejected an argument made by Ms. Stewart that even the possibility of monitoring implicates her Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.
The ruling was a setback for Ms. Stewart as well as co-defendant Ahmed Abdel Sattar, two of four people charged with conspiring to provide material support for a terrorist organization by helping imprisoned Sheikh Abdel Rahman communicate with his followers in The Islamic Group. Mr. Sattar, who is also charged with soliciting crimes of violence, is being detained at the Metropolitan Correctional Center. Defense Attorney Kenneth Paul argued that since the indictments against Mr. Sattar were obtained in part because of court-authorized monitoring of the sheikh's prison conversations, it was impossible for him to communicate freely with Mr. Sattar without assurances that their conversations were not being taped.
Mr. Paul was concerned about three possible scenarios under which the attorney-client talks could be taped. The first scenario is pursuant to a conventional Title III warrant based on a showing of probable cause to a federal judge. The second scenario is pursuant to a court-approved warrant issued under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and the third is under new regulations announced by U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft last fall. The regulations allow monitoring, without a warrant, for prisoners placed under special administrative measures who meet certain criteria. Unlike Title III and FISA, the new regulations require notice to the party that their conversations are being monitored.
At a hearing before Judge Koeltl last month, Mr. Paul received assurances from the government that it would comply with notice provisions of the new regulations should the Justice Department decide to apply them to Mr. Sattar.
While Mr. Sattar expressed satisfaction with those assurances, Ms. Stewart and her lawyer, Michael Tigar, pressed ahead, saying that they would be unwilling to even meet with Mr. Paul and discuss a joint defense without a promise that there was no monitoring, either of Mr. Sattar behind bars or of Ms. Stewart's own communications.
But Ms. Stewart, Judge Koeltl said, cited "no authority for the proposition that a bare fear of surveillance, without more, is sufficient to establish a constitutional requirement that the government disclose whether it is engaging in any court-authorized surveillance of a criminal defendant under Title III or FISA."
The government "correctly noted," Judge Koeltl said, that Title III and FISA "allow for surveillance without prior notification precisely because such monitoring can often only be effective if the targets are unaware that they are being monitored."
Both acts, he said, have provisions to protect the confidentiality of attorney-client communications, and the "government has represented in this case that, if any privileged communications were intercepted, screening devices would be used to ensure that the interceptions were not used against the defendants and, thus that their Sixth Amendment rights would not be violated."
In another ruling, Judge Koeltl denied a motion by Mr. Tigar to conduct an evidentiary hearing into how an affidavit supporting the search warrant for Ms. Stewart's offices came to be left in a public file in the Southern District clerk's office, when all files in the case were supposed to be under seal.
Although Mr. Tigar had raised the spectre of government misconduct, Judge Koeltl rejected any claim that prosecutors intentionally leaked the affidavit to the press. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Joseph F. Bianco and Christopher J. Morvillo represented the government. *****
***** New Jersey Lawyer October 7, 2002 SECTION: Pg. 4 LENGTH: 1000 words HEADLINE: Indicted lawyer: It could happen to you; Terrorists' attorney paints a chilling picture BYLINE: By Maria Vogel-Short, Reporter Maria Vogel-Short can be reached at mvshort at njlnews.com.
...Her case is not expected to go to trial until next year. Her noted criminal defense attorney, Michael E. Tigar of Washington, D.C., she said, is awaiting mountains of discovery materials.
Stewart openly admitted in her speech that she issued a press statement from Abdel Rahman that called for an end to a ceasefire between his Islamic Group known as "Gama'a Islamiyya" and the Egyptian government.
She said she violated SAM because she believes the agreement is unconstitutional.
Contending defendants like the cleric need legal representation, she stated, "You don't walk away from people who are totally isolated. I continued to represent him after he was convicted.
"He was allowed one telephone call to his wife a month, and one call to his lawyer. He is blind. He had said he heard the ceasefire was not working. The jails are full in Egypt and everyone acknowledges that human rights there are a problem, with worse consequences for those jailed there. The man had a right to have a voice."
Stewart said she has no intention of backing off.
"I am here because the government has determined that they can abuse attorney-client privilege. I am challenging that abuse. The bedrock of our ability to represent our clients is that they be honest to us and that they are ensured privacy."
Government lawyers at the event debated privately whether Stewart's actions challenged constitutional rights or caused prohibitive actions. Prosecutors said the government would have to show Stewart's actions caused terrorist retribution or harm.
Many lawyers in the audience appeared supportive of Stewart while some felt she had crossed an ethical line between political activism and defending her client.
"I've been a lawyer for 30 years and I know what that line is," Stewart said -- even before anyone asked about it. "I didn't cross it."
Federal authorities, however, believe Stewart's actions did.
In a five-count, 19-page indictment, she is charged with providing material support to terrorists, conspiracy to defraud the United States and making false statements.
Violating the SAM agreement, she said, was a "bad act, but not a criminal one."
Stewart, who has been described as a left-wing "movement lawyer," states much of her defense touches on the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth amendments.
And as Attorney General John Ashcroft has taken shots against her, she responds in kind.
"I suppose I should be honored that Mr. Ashcroft made me the poster child of individual rights," said the Rutgers Law School-Newark graduate. "I believe in the Bill of Rights. The government represents that First Amendment rights are restricted in prisons."
She denied allegations she distracted prison guards so an Arabic interpreter, Mohammed Yousry, could intercept secret information.
"I may have distracted guards 40 years ago, but not now," said the gray-haired attorney as the audience laughed.
The government's indictment said Stewart spoke with Ahmed Abdel Sattar, a terrorist leader who coordinates and aids activities within the international group, and both cooked up a story that the prison deprived the cleric of his medicine.
She flatly denied that, too.
She said one of her biggest challenges is dealing with criminal charges at age 62.
"In the sunset of my career, I always thought I'd have one big case that would give me national prominence. I never expected myself to be the defendant," she said.
"I wake up at 3 in the morning and I can tell you I'm not happy to be where I am." ***** -- Yoshie
* Calendar of Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html> * Anti-War Activist Resources: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/>