I understood that the help was to supply material for a press conference. Sorry Doug, that might be No. 4.
On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 03:21:17PM -0400, Nathan Newman wrote:
> This is the indictment (November 19, 2003)
> http://www.lynnestewart.org/IndictmentSuperceding.pdf
>
> Along with various indictments for lying to federal offiicals and violating
> the terms of speaking with the defense, the big accusation is "Conspiracy
> to Provide and Conceal Material Support to Terrorist Activity" with the gist
> being that she helped him communicate with his supporters to continue his
> terrorist activity.
>
> As I said, the evidence is sketchy and the politics of it all may stink, but
> there is nothing wrong with the legal principle upon which she is
> indicted -- aside from the problem of surveillance violating needed privacy
> for attorney-client discussions -- only in the facts being alleged.
>
> Nathan
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Perelman" <michael at ecst.csuchico.edu>
>
> She is not accused of doing what you say. She made information public.
> If she had brought secret instructions on how to commit some crime, you
> might be on stronger ground.
>
> I appreciate your interest in attacking lawyers who facilitate crime,
> but her case is very different.
>
> On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 11:26:08AM -0400, Nathan Newman wrote:
> > Let's distinguish between two kinds of lawyers-- those who come in after a
> > crime is commited to defend a person, and those who actively advise
> clients
> > on how to effectively break the law and use the lawyer-client privilege to
> > hide incriminating actions and documents.
> >
> > Yes, there have been a number of indictments focusing on the latter set of
> > lawyers, but to merely call them "defense attorneys" is wrong. Many of
> them
> > have actively assisted fraud and financial robbery of investors and the
> > public at Enron, in Medicare scams, in tax avoidance schemes, and so on.
> >
> > I'm all for them being indicted if they actively participate in illegal
> > crimes. Being a lawyer shouldn't give you immunity when you participate
> in
> > criminal activity and, worse, the attorney-client privilege shouldn't be
> > used to hide illegal activity. Remember, decades of tobacco research that
> > showed deliberate attempts to addict children were hidden under "work
> > product" rules, until Florida litigation finally dragged it out into the
> > open.
> >
> > As for Lynne Stewart, she was not indicted for defending an accused
> > terorist, but was indicted under charges of facilitating ongoing terrorist
> > activity. The evidence may be sketchy and the eavesdropping used to
> collect
> > that evidence wrong, but if she actually did what it is claimed she did --
> > facilitate the delivery of a message directing terrorist attacks -- there
> is
> > no reason she shouldn't be indicted. But don't go from attacking bad
> > evidence to making a broader argument that lawyers should be immune from
> > prosecution if they facilitate illegal activity. Thank god the corporate
> > lawyers are finally be taken down-- they are some of the worst criminals
> out
> > there, since they are the masterminds of most criminal corporate activity.
> >
> > Nathan Newman
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com>
> >
> >
> > Michael Perelman wrote:
> >
> > >Lynne Stewart
> >
> > There's a good piece in the current ish of Reason (not on web) on the
> > Justice Dept's attempts to criminalize being a defense attorney. It's
> > not just Stewart they're after - it's an entire pattern. Of course
> > the Stewart prosecution is politically scarier. She's not being
> > charged under the PATRIOT Act, because her alleged offenses were
> > committed before that law was passed. Under the PATRIOT Act, the very
> > defense of an accused "terrorist" could itself be prosecuted as
> > terrorism.
> >
> > Doug
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
> --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu