Editorial: Don't let Lynne Stewart be isolated

Lynne Stewart. Do you know the name?

Lynne Stewart was born October 8, 1939 which means she'll be celebrating her sixty-seventh birthday this fall. Where? That's really up to you.

This grandmother, who is recovering from breast cancer, could be celebrating the day with friends or family or she could be celebrating it behind bars. Stewart, an activist and attorney who has dedicated her life to public service, is accused of what?

Here she is, in her own words, discussing the February 10, 2005 conviction with Laura Flanders on The Laura Flanders Show (February 12, 2005; later to become RadioNation with Laura Flanders):

Lynne Stewart: In May of 2000, I visited my client, the government listened in on this entire visit. . . . however, they never moved to prevent anything. I took out a press release . . .
Laura Flanders: . . . you took one from your client and brought it to the press?
Lynne Stewart: Exactly. . . . he asked me to make a press release. It was a call placed to
Reuters -- hardly clandestine, hardly secret, hardly secret taking it out since they were videotaping and listening to the entire thing. And this indicated that his personal opinion had changed from being in favor of a cease fire to withdrawing his support. But he also went on to say that he was not asking for a stop to it, he was not calling for an end to it.


What law did Lynne Stewart break? None. There's no law. Congress passed no law. Lynne Stewart's looking at prison for failure to comply with a (vague) guideline (one the courts should seriously examine for legality and vagueness).

Lynne Stewart is a felony convict for . . . breaking a guideline. One forced on her if she wanted to continue representing her client. What was her greater duty? To her client or to a guideline and, again, the legality of that guideline needs to be examined.

There are other aspects to the case as well. In a February 18th, 2005 op-ed, Andrew P. Napolitano ("No Defense") noted:

But if the federal government had followed the law, Ms. Stewart would never have been required to agree to these rules to begin with. Just after 9/11, Attorney General John Ashcroft gave himself the power to bypass the lawyer-client privilege, which every court in the United States has upheld, and eavesdrop on conversations between prisoners and their lawyers if he had reason to believe they were being used to "further facilitate acts of violence or terrorism." The regulation became effective immediately.
In the good old days, only Congress could write federal criminal laws. After 9/11, however, the attorney general was allowed to do so. Where in the Constitution does it allow that?

Janeane Garofalo (The Majority Report, February 16, 2005) and Gerald Lefcour discussed the implications:

Janeane Garofalo: I would say that the Lynne Stewart case is largely symbolic, in that the government would prefer that you are frightened, as an attorney, from defending unpopular clients.
Gerald Lefcour: No question about it. And, not withstanding the fact that I would be the first on the soap box to urge my brothers and sisters to continue representing unpopular clients, I know in my heart of hearts that anybody who has a family and something to protect . . . You know freedom is nothing left to lose, but if you have something to lose, you're a little nervous about being aggressive and zealous in representing unpopular clients and that is the message. You're absolutely right, Janeane.
[. . . ]
It is a scary time and I, as an attorney, am worried about people getting the representation that they need if they oppose government activity. It's a . . . You're either on their side by saying things that they like, or you're an enemy and it's just, as you both know, I haven't said anything that we haven't witnessed depending upon who's speaking.

Among other issues involved in the conviction are the facts that (August 2005) a juror witheld information during the selection process and a second juror publicly spoke out about pressure she felt from other jurors to vote "guilty" and that she was identified, during the trial, as someone who was not yet on board with the guilty verdict.

Elaine Cassel addressed issues with the jury pool prior in Ocober, 2002:

Without warning, Stewart was taken out of her home and arrested. Attorney General Ashcroft then staged a press conference within hours of her arrest. The same night, he appeared on David Letterman's show, to assure viewers (and potential jurors, it seems) that the "terrorist" lawyer was guilty as charged.
The basis for the prosecution? Communications Stewart made with and about her client, a convicted terrorist for whom she was court-appointed counsel for his trial and whom she continued to represent in post-conviction matters.


Law and Disorder (which airs Mondays on WBAI at ten a.m. EST, as well on other stations) hasn't 'covered' Lynne Stewart's case. 'Covered' is too weak a word. They have discussed developments and they have weaved this case into discussions whenever similar issues arose while discussing other topics. (One example of many would be the March 13, 2006 discussion with Paul Craig Roberts.) Most recently they featured a two part interview with Lynne Stewart (airing originally July 24th and July 31st). As Michael Smith noted, it was a show trial. One in which, as Heidi Boghosian observed, Osama bin Laden's photo was displayed. (Lynne Stewart:
". . .on a screen that was probably twenty feet high and then saying but that doesn't apply to Ms. Stewart"). This was a show trial where the government, while insisting no connection existed between Lynne Stewart and Osama bin Laden, repeatedly inserted bin Laden. Does it remind you of the 'suggestions' they used to sell the war on Iraq? It should.

They played their fear card. The only card in their deck. You can be scared. You can be scared and silent. But there are times when something happens and it's never forgotten. Ethel and Julius Rosenberg's convictions aren't forgetton (nor their executions). A miscarriage of justice, one that gets attention (even if that attention is fawning) in real time, doesn't go away.
This case of Lynne Stewart matters today and it will matter in ten years and in twenty and in
. . . You'll be asked about this. Maybe by your children, maybe by young people who didn't live through it. You'll be asked, "What did you think? What did you do?"

Save yourself the embarrassment of having to respond, "I didn't know what to think. So I did nothing." Form an opinion. Stopping sitting on the fence. This case has implications beyond Lynne Stewart, implications for our justice system, implications for the legal profession. It will not be going away. Several very vile things took place: legal conversations between lawyer and client were listened in on by the government, a guideline (Special Administrative Measures or "SAM") was created by the executive branch (which can't pass laws) that attempted to interfere with and interpret a lawyer's duty (a duty, defined by them, at odds with the ABA's own definition), Lynne Stewart was convicted of breaking a guideline . . . by sending a press release to Reuters.

Reading that right now, you may laugh because it's so absurd. That's why the government couldn't try the case in a traditional sense. They couldn't say, "Lynne Stewart did this and as a result these actions followed." They certainly couldn't accuse her of acts of terrorism. So instead, they tried to tie in 9-11 and Osama with visual aids and statements while, as an aside, always noting that Lynne Stewart's case had nothing to do with either.

Apparently Lynne Stewart needed to be convicted because we couldn't "afford to wait for a mushroom cloud"? There's about as much reality in the case against her as there was in the case for war on Iraq. The government's case against Lynne Stewart was/is a joke on almost every level. But the conviction and the fact that the government's advocating a possible sentence of thirty-years (for this sixty-six-year-old woman) should be very sobering.

Judge John G Koeltl has discretion. He can sentence thirty years (as the government wants), he can sentence probation, house arrest, probation with community service. We don't think Lynne Stewart needs to spend one day behind bars. We think the conviction is a travesty. The judge has the power to mitigate the tragedy. He has that power. He should use that power because if he doesn't, he's just a rubber stamp for the executive branch, he's not a member of a co-equal branch of the government, he's just one more lackey. He knows the case. He knows the many questionable aspects of prosecution's presentation, he grasps the difference between a law and a guideline. He's an intelligent man who can step up and earn his place in history or he can take the path of infamy and be a rubber stamp. We wouldn't be at all surprised if there were outside pressures being brought to bear on him by the government, it happened in the Rosenbergs' case. But he has discretion and he has power. He should use them.

You have power too. On the July 31st broadcast of Law and Disorder, they addressed the need to show that Lynne Stewart was not isolated. She has support. You can demonstrate that. You can sit around in silence, or you can demonstrate your beliefs and use your power. You can send the message that you support and stand with Lynne Stewart.

You can do this in any number of ways. You can write Judge Koeltl. Never written a judge? You can find an example (PDF format) online. You can then send the letter to:


The Lynne Stewart Defense Committee
350 Broadway
Suite 700
New York, NY 10013

When Lynne Stewart stands before him for sentencing, they'll present the letters.

Stand before him for sentencing? At the United States Courthouse on Pearl Street in New York, New York on September 25th at 10:00 a.m. If you're able to be there, you can send another message that she's not alone, that she has support.

The day before the sentencing (Sunday, September 24th), you can go to a rally for Lynne Stewart held at the Riverside Church (490 Riverside DriveNew York, New York -- times and events not yet announced).

The executive branch is pushing for a thirty-year sentence. If there's silence, it wouldn't be at all surprising if the executive branch gets what it wants. That certainly happened with the shoving through of the Patriot Act. Will Bully Boy notch up another 'victory'? That's up to you at this point.

From the July 31st broadcast of Law and Disorder:

Dalia Hashad: There's no sense of fairness here, it's about who you can get most easily to send out a strong "watch what you say watch what you do, you better be on our side or we're going to squish you."
Lynne Stewart: This administration that wants to know everything about all of us and yet has put up such a wall for us knowing anything about what they're doing or what's going on.

That's pretty clear and has been for sometime. Lynne Stewart is someone the Bully Boy needs to step on to demonstrate that he is all powerful and that allegations (not evidence) is all that matters in his non-reality based world. You can stand against the travesty and the tyrany now or you can wonder, many years on down the line, why you didn't do something?

It's your power and you shouldn't abdicate it. In the words of Dalia Hashad (linking the Stewart case to the illegal, warrantless NSA spying on American citizens and much more):

The question I keep asking is when is it going to be enough? What do they need to do next? Does George Bush need to start knocking down our doors and start telling people individually they will then be next? I mean what needs to happen for us to wake up?

The wake up call is sounding. You can hit the snooze button, roll over and go back to sleep or you can use your power. Once more citing Andrew P. Napolitano "No Defense:"

Ms. Stewart's constitutional right to speak to the news media about a matter of public interest is absolute and should prevent the government from prosecuting her. And since when does announcing someone else's opinion about a cease-fire -- as Ms. Stewart did, saying the sheik no longer supported one that had been observed in Egypt -- amount to advocating an act of terrorism?
In truth, the federal government prosecuted Lynne Stewart because it wants to intimidate defense lawyers into either refusing to represent accused terrorists or into providing less than zealous representation. After she was convicted, Ms. Stewart said, "You can't lock up the lawyers, you can't tell the lawyers how to do their jobs."

[This editorial was written by the following: The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim; Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man; C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review; Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ils);Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix; Mike of Mikey Likes It!; Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz; Wally of The Daily Jot and Ruth of Ruth's Report. We also would like to note that WBAI's Wakeup Call regularly features Lynne Stewart as a guest -- a weekly guest.]