[Ppnews] Lynne Stewart's Long Struggle for Justice

[Political Prisoner News]

http://www.counterpunch.org/lendman04032008.html

Apri1 3, 2008


Targeting Defense Lawyers


Lynne Stewart's Long Struggle for Justice

By STEPHEN LENDMAN

On April 9, 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft made a symbolic 
visit to "Ground Zero." While in New York, he held a well-publicized 
press conference at the US Attorney's Office and used the occasion 
for an indictment. Four individuals were named on charges of 
conspiracy and materially aiding a terrorist organization. One of 
them was long-time civil rights lawyer Lynne Stewart. On the same 
day, FBI agents arrested her at her home and illegally seized 
documents there and from her office that are protected by 
attorney-client privilege.

In July 2003, Federal District Court Judge John Koeltl (a 1994 
Clinton appointee) dismissed the original charges for being 
"unconstitutionally void for vagueness" and because they "revealed a 
lack of prosecutorial standards." Nonetheless, Stewart was 
symbolically reindicted on November 22, 2003 (the 40th year 
anniversary of John F. Kennedy's assassination) on five counts of 
aiding and abetting a terrorist organization under the 1996 
Antiterrorism Act. Specific charges included:

* "conspiring to defraud the United States;

* conspiring to provide and conceal material support to terrorist activity;

* providing and concealing material support to terrorist activity; and

* two counts of making false statements."

Stewart was also accused of violating US Bureau of Prisons-imposed 
Special Administrative Measures (SAMS) that included a gag order on 
her client, Sheik Abdel Rahman. These measures are imposed on some 
prisoners to forbid discussion (even with an attorney) of topics DOJ 
claims are outside the scope of their "legal representation." It's 
all very vague, does more to harass and obstruct justice than protect 
state secrets, yet Stewart was forced to accept them to gain access 
to her client.

In her case, police state-type attorney-client monitored 
conversations provided the basis for her indictment. However, 
engaging in this practice stretches the limit of the law, gives DOJ 
sole authority to decide how far and for what purpose, and in this 
instance egregiously overstepped it by charging defense counsel with 
aiding and abetting terrorism for representing her client as required.

At former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark's request, Stewart agreed 
to join him as a member of Rahman's court-appointed defense team. He 
was convicted in his 1995 show trial and is now serving a life 
sentence for "seditious conspiracy" in connection with the 1993 World 
Trade Center Center bombing despite evidence proving his innocence.

However, in what's now common practice, the government's case related 
more to his affiliations and anti-western views than specific 
evidence presented. Rahman was connected to the Egyptian-based 
Al-Gamaa al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group) - a 1997 State 
Department-designated "Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). 
Ironically in the 1980s, he was handled much differently as a 
"valuable (CIA) asset" for his influential role in recruiting 
Mujahadeen fighters against the Soviets in Afghanistan. It was no 
accident that he got a US visa, green card and State Department-CIA 
protection for as long as he was valued. When he wasn't, he became a 
target along with Lynne Stewart who represented him at trial.

Stewart's charges were trumped up, outrageous, and likely first time 
ever instance of a defense attorney in a terrorism case facing 
terrorism-related counts - for doing her job as the law requires and 
that renders attorney-client confidentiality sacrosanct under our 
criminal justice system. No matter, if convicted, she faced a 
possible 30 year sentence.

In America's "war on terrorism," her precedent-setting case is 
chilling, and president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, 
Michael Ratner, explained it: Its "purpose....was to send a message 
to lawyers who represent alleged terrorists that it's dangerous to do 
so." It's also an effort to exploit the current atmosphere, incite 
fear and suspicions, stifle dissent, and make it just as risky for 
anyone with openly critical views of government policies. In Police 
State America, we're all Lynne Stewarts.

At the time of her indictment, her attorney, Michael Tigar, explained 
what was at stake:

"This case (still ongoing) is an attack on a gallant, charismatic and 
effective fighter for justice (and has) at least three fundamental 
faults: (it) attack(s) the First Amendment right of free speech, free 
press and petition; (it) attack(s)....the right to effective 
assistance of counsel ....chills the defense....(and) the 'evidence' 
in this case was gathered by wholesale invasion of private 
conversations, private attorney-client meetings, faxes, letters and 
e-mails. I have never seen such an abuse of government power." In 
America's "war on terrorism," many other defense attorneys can cite 
similar instances of lawlessness and injustice today.

However, in targeting Stewart, DOJ may have gotten more than it 
bargained for. Whatever the outcome, her case shamed the government, 
gave her worldwide recognition, made her a powerful symbolic figure, 
and elevated her to iconic stature. For her honor, devotion to 
principles, and lifetime of service to society's most abused, she 
deserves it and more.

Throughout her 30 year career, she never shunned controversy or her 
choice of or duty to clients. She represented the poor, the 
underprivileged and society's underdogs and unwanted who never get 
due process unless they're lucky enough to have an advocate like her. 
She knew the risks and understood the state uses every underhanded 
trick possible to convict these type defendants and overwhelm, 
outspend and/or discredit their counsel doing it.

Nonetheless, she did what the American Bar Association's Model Rules 
state all lawyers are obligated to do: "devote professional time and 
resources and use civic influence to ensure equal access to our 
system of justice for all those who because of economic or social 
barriers cannot afford or secure adequate legal counsel."

Defending Sheik Rahman was especially risky, and Stewart knew it. His 
case was so high-profile, it made her a target, and she remains one 
today. It was the beginning of her long struggle (six years and 
running) that included a battle against breast cancer that's now in remission.

Her trial played out in the same Foley Square courtroom where Julius 
and Ethel Rosenberg were unjustly framed, convicted and sentenced to 
death in April 1951 on charges of conspiracy to violate the Espionage 
Act. It was an earlier time of hysteria when "communism" was the 
"threat," national security again the issue, and, in Stewart's case, 
she's the victim.

Her trial was a travesty and gross miscarriage of justice with echoes 
of the worst type McCarthyist tactics. Inflammatory terrorist images 
were displayed in court to prejudice the jurors, and prosecutors 
vilified Stewart as a traitor with "radical" political views. In 
fact, she always embraced the rule of law with equity and justice for 
everyone under it. Nonetheless, prosecutors falsely accused her of 
saying violence may be justified to overthrow oppressive governments 
and claimed she advocated regime change in Egypt under its president, 
ruling despot, and close US ally Hosni Mubarak.

In addition, just days before the verdict, the extremist pro-Israel 
Jewish Defense Organization put up flyers near the courthouse 
displaying Stewart's home address, threatened to "drive her out of 
her home and out of the state," and said she "needs to be put out of 
business legally and effectively." Prosecutors ignored it. It was all 
part of a government-orchestrated scheme inside and outside the 
courtroom to heighten fear, convict Stewart, and tell other defense 
attorneys to expect the same treatment if they represent "unpopular" clients.

It worked on the jury, and on February 10, 2005 (after a seven month 
trial and 13 days of deliberation) Stewart was convicted on all five 
counts. Key now would be sentencing for a decisive DOJ victory. If 
gotten it would seriously weaken First Amendment free expression 
rights and Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches 
and seizures. It would also destroy fundamental ones under Section 1 
of the Fourteenth Amendment that guarantees all US citizens won't be 
deprived of their right of "life, liberty, or property, without due 
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the 
equal protection of the laws."

In addition, it would challenge the landmark 1963 Supreme Court 
Gideon v. Wainwright decision that affirmed defendants' Sixth 
Amendment rights "in all criminal prosecutions (to) the right to a 
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury....to have compulsory 
process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the 
Assistance of Counsel for his defense."

October 17, 2006 was Stewart's sentencing date. Prosecutors asked for 
30 years and hoped getting it would set a precedent. Instead, the 
same Judge Koeltl, who dismissed Stewart's first indictment, again 
defied DOJ. He sentenced Stewart to 28 months, let her remain free on 
bail pending appeal, implied it might be overturned as a gross 
miscarriage of justice, effectively rebuked the government, and 
handed them a major defeat.

The trial ended with Stewart proud and vindicated. Next came her 
chance for a full exoneration before the US Court of Appeals for the 
Second Circuit three judge panel. Defense attorney Joshua Dratel 
represented her on January 29, 2008 in a packed courtroom of mostly 
Stewart supporters with many others denied admittance for lack of space.

Dratel's job was to convince the court that Stewart had First 
Amendment protected speech rights to release her client's statement 
to his followers and other interested parties. He also cited Judge 
Koeltl's unconstitutional use of US Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 
113B, 2339 (a) relating to "harboring or concealing terrorists" 
because he "failed to abide by his promise to impose a specific 
intent requirement" when he charged the jury.

In addition, Dratel argued that evidence against Stewart amounted to 
no more than three meetings with her client over a two year period. 
He further said that she was charged for "isolated and sporadic 
conduct" in an alleged plot where no "violent acts were planned or 
occurred," and, in fact, there was no plot.

In response to one judge's question about her allegedly saying Rahman 
withdrew his support for a cease fire, Dratel stated the "cease fire 
was not abrogated. It remained in effect." He insisted that Rahman 
merely said it was time to "reevaluate" the cease fire because of the 
Egyptian government's oppression and recalcitrance. Dratel stressed 
that with no intent to "incite imminent unlawful conduct or 
violence," the First Amendment protected Stewart's statements.

So does the Supreme Court's unanimous 1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio 
decision that overturned Ohio's Criminal Syndicalism statute. The 
Court ruled that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract 
advocacy of force or law violation and only can do so in instances of 
directly inciting "imminent lawless actions." Dratel referenced the 
"Brandenburg standard" that's the law of the land and under which 
Stewart was within her rights.

Assistant US attorney in the Southern District Anthony Barkow, who 
was part of the prosecutorial team, argued for the government before 
a potentially sympathetic court. It's at a time two-thirds of all 
federal judges are from or affiliated with the extremist Federalist 
Society. It advocates rolling back civil liberties; ending New Deal 
social policies; opposing reproductive choice, government 
regulations, labor rights and environment protections; and subverting 
justice in defense of privilege.

This is what Stewart is up against as she awaits the decision that 
can go either way in an age of police state justice. Under New York 
state law, she was automatically disbarred, and the state Supreme 
Court's Appellate Division denied her petition to resign voluntarily. 
Adding insult to her unjust conviction, it ruled that "federal 
convictions provide a proper predicate for automatic disbarment."

It was the fourth injustice against a woman who spent a lifetime 
advocating for society's most disadvantaged. It followed two 
falsified indictments, a kangaroo court proceeding, and an 
unjustifiable conviction on all counts. Combined they represent an 
outrageous miscarriage of justice.

An appeals verdict is due any time, and legions of Stewart supporters 
hope justice delayed won't be denied to her. She deserves full 
exoneration, readmittance to the state bar, and to be able again to 
represent society's most unwanted who need her advocacy and remain 
hopeful. So does everyone who respects the law at a time it's being desecrated.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at 
<mailto:lendmanstephen at sbcglobal.net>lendmanstephen at sbcglobal.net.




Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110

415 863-9977

www.Freedomarchives.org  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/ppnews_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20080403/7a3003a8/attachment.htm>