<HTML>In a message dated 11/23/02 8:53:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, andie_nachgeborenen@yahoo.com writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"> 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 </BLOCKQUOTE> 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</HTML>