>
> It wouldn't matter, for the purposes of a conspiracy or aiding and abetting
> charge, if all the interpreter did was to interpret, as long as the
> interpreter knew that Stewart was doing the thing that was illegal, and
> agreed to do it with her or to help her. You might as well ask about the
> driver of a getaway vehicle, what was the driver doing taht any other
> driver wasn't doing? The answer would be: participating in a crime. Same
> here, if that's the charge, which I am sure it is. jks
>
Yeah, the charge is conspiracy. You can get the indictment off www.lynnestewart.org. I could look again about whether there is more than conpiracy to violate the Special Administrative Measures which clearly are a central issue.
Assuming one is going to live with the SAM's, as an interpreter I would be twitchy about being held accountable for complying with the SAM's if I hadn't signed them too. I would also be twitchy about trying to find counsel versed specifically in interpreter legal issues and I cannot even guess how interpreters would find support about their professional issues even among their peers.
If I were a lawyer I would be twitchy about being held accountable for other people's activities in a language I had no knowledge of and even if the SAM's were in the picture I would try to note this point!
DoreneC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20021124/c830c32a/attachment.htm>