As to lawyers knowing where the line is between legal and illegal-- sometimes they know it, but the reason we have juries is specifically so that lawyers are NOT the ones ultimately drawing the line.
Doug may want to free Martha, but I trust twelve non-lawyers to judge the facts and decide unanimously she did something wrong. Similarly, I'm happy to let juries examine the evidence and decide when lawyers step over the line from offering advice to engaging in active criminal activity as a partner in crime.
So to paraphrase, indict all the lawyers, and let the juries sort it out.
Nathan Newman
----- Original Message ----- From: "R" <rhisiart at charter.net>
i'm sure we can all rest easy now, nathan. those evil corporate lawyers are finally taken down, thanks to god, and there will be none to take their places. right?
being an attorney gives one the skill to know where the line between legal and illegal is drawn, and to know when and where it can be crossed, and exactly how to come as close to it as possible. how does one distinguish who's who among all that action?
R
----- Original Message ----- From: "Nathan Newman" <nathanne at nathannewman.org> To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 8:26 AM Subject: Lawyers Should be Indicted (Re: [lbo-talk] Doug Henwood profile
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
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk