Background --------------------------------

The righteous care about justice for the poor,
but the wicked have no such concern.
        Proverbs 29:7

Lynne Stewart built her career defending unpopular clients with the stated goal of assuring that they received fair legal representation. Some of her more high-profile cases in her 30-year career have included members of the Black Liberation Army (a group of 60's-style radicals), Larry Davis (a Bronx drug dealer who shot several policemen), Richard Williams (a anti-capitalist bomber), Sammy "The Bull" Gravano, and Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the mastermind of the 1993 WTC bombing). It was her association with Rahman during and after the trial that led to her conviction.

Rahman was convicted in 1996 and sentenced to life plus 65 years. Realizing the danger to society posed by Rahman, in 1997 the Bureau of Prisons imposed special administrative measures (SAMs) that made it virtually impossible for Rahman to communicate with the world outside his Minnesota prison. Stewart continued to represent Rahman while he was in prison and as, a condition of access to her client, was required to sign an agreement to be bound by the SAMs.

In June 2000, met with Rahman and, through a translator, discussed a cease-fire then in place between Rahman's organization (the Egyptian terror group Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya) and the Egyptian government. Following the meeting, she called Reuters to say that the Sheik had withdrawn his support for the cease-fire. Two days later she issued a clarification that the Sheik had not canceled the cease-fire but "left the matter to my brothers to examine it and study it because they are the ones who live there and they know the circumstances better than I." (reference)

Ostensibly because of the release of that information, Stewart was indicted two years later in June 2002 along with Ahmed Abdel Sattar, Yassir, Al-Sirri and Mohammed Yousry for Consipiricy to Provide Material Support and Providing Material Support to Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya. She was convicted on February 10, 2005 and sentencing is scheduled for September 23, 2005.

 
 
Stewart's Side of the Story --------------------------------

In her presentation and response to questions on April 3, Stewart defended her actions.

"Within My Duties as a Lawyer": Lawyer's conduct is self-regulating and based on broad, "suggestive" rules rather than rigid guidelines that may not fit the multitude of unique situations. The duties of a lawyer have often been commonly accepted to extend beyond the courtroom. Lawyers are often seen on television speaking on behalf of their clients to rebut statements to the media by prosecutors. The lawyer's job as publicist is sanctioned by a 2nd Circuit Opinion. Stewart provided the commonly accepted definition of the "line" she was accused of "crossing" as "You may help your client but you may not further his criminal enterprise." Stewart felt she had functioned within those parameters - the government and a jury did not.

"The government likes to change the rules after the game begins.": Aside from effectively redefining the duties of a lawyer, the indictment was based not on violation of law, but on a premeditated intention to violate promulgated rules (the SAMs), something that rarely involves federal prosecution. Former U.S. Attorney General Clark (who also represented Rahman) has not been indicted, despite also conveying Rahman's sentiments about Egyptian politics to the press. (TO)

"There Were No Secret Messages": Contrary to assertions in the right-wing blogosphere and in some press accounts, Stewart insists that there were no "Secret Messages." Stewarts comments to the press were completely public and even included a clarification that moderated the implications of the initial release. The indictment and conviction were based on those public statements.

Prisoners Need Legal Counsel Too: Responding to concerns about what Stewart was doing talking to a convicted terrorist after all appeals were exhausted, Stewart stated that, "Everyone locked-up needs a lawyer." The state can sometimes be unreasonable and clients with health problems need someone to make sure they are getting the medicine and care they need.

Prosecutor's Motivation: A careful reading of the court documents reveals a case that is not as legally unambiguous as appearances and the press accounts might indicate. Stewart noted that her actions were "finessed into a federal indictment" and went on to say, "Ashcroft needed a case to justify the horror show. He had nothing to show for the Patriot Act" and needed something to mask "The corruption and stupidity with which they operate." She speculated that that the conviction might also be payback for a career of defending unpopular clients, specifically the Larry Davis case where she successfully defended a Bronx drug dealer who wounded six police officers in a shootout as a black outlaw defending himself from corrupt white cops. (WaPo) Stewart also pointed out "The irony of a conviction for lying by a government that regularly lies."

Numerous Problems with the Trial: Stewart was indicted and tried along with three other defendents whose alleged crimes were only related to Stewart's in their association with Rahman. Judge Koetl repeatedly refused requests by the defense to disaggregate Stewart from the other defendents. The prosecution was relentless in portraying this as a case against terrorism and made repeated emotional references to 9/11 that had no direct relation to the accusations against Stewart. Stewart's lawyer (who also spoke at the April 3 gathering) was adament about plans for appeal and stated, "We have so many issues I don't know where to begin."

 
 
What This Means For Us --------------------------------

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
        Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part II

The Right to Defense: At the 2002 National Lawyers Guild Convention, Stewart opined, "This is about protecting the right to defend. Once the attorney-client privilege is lost, there is no right to defend as we know it." Attorney/Client prison conversations can now be monitored without notice and translators are usually provided by the prison - thus stifiling the openness needed for a "Free and spirited defense." In America, we have been considered innocent until proven guilty, but in the absense of competent defense council, it is very easy for the innocent to be proved guilty. In it's zeal for pursuing terrorism and/or consolidating power, the Bush Administration has demonstrated contempt for judicial procedures and a legal system that have been a cornerstone of a free society. The Jose Padilla case is just one notable example.

Privacy: Stewart noted that she is a "clipper" and, like many of us, keeps files of newspaper clippings on subjects that interest her. In the exhaustive 12-hour search of her office, investigators "found lots of clippings (that were) used as evidence of state of mind." She said this should be a "warning if you're a clipper." During the search, investigators also siezed the hard drives of her computer, which contained sensitive information about clients that was unrelated to Rahman. Although her lawyer interceded and got a special master to restrict what information from the hard drives could be seen by prosecutors, there is no assurance that siezed information cannot be used for investigation of unrelated matters.

 
 
What You Can Do --------------------------------

As this case continues to make its way through the judicial system, this becomes an issue both as an attack against an important legal figure in New York and a symbolic and literal defense against attempts to restrict our civil rights. As such, it is a call to action:

Write Letters: Although Stewart plans to appeal, she must still go through sentencing for the initial conviction. Letters to the judge emphasizing Stewart's value to the community (and, thus, a reason not to imprison her) may pursuade Judge Koetl's not to sentence Stewart to prison. Since she has been convicted, letters decrying the court's decision will not be helpful and may be harmful in antagonizing the Judge. Stewart's lawyer has asked that letters be sent to her office so they can be organized and presented to the Judge in the most effective manner. A template and guidelines for letter writing are available at LynneStewart.org

Attend the Sentencing: Stewart's sentencing is tentatively scheduled for September 23, 2005. Attendence by a large and sympathetic audience might sway Judge Koetl's decision.

Contribute to the Legal Defense Fund: Because this case could go on for years, substantial expenses will be incurred. Information on contribution to Stewart's legal defense fund is availble at LynneStewart.org

Book Lynne Stewart: Stewart indicated that she is "happy to talk to anyone" and open to speaking engagements. As a "Poster child for the kind of thing that is happening", she is extremely articulate and engaging as well as strongly opinionated, making her an excellent choice to spice up any Progressive political gathering. Since she is, for the time being, a convicted felon, she can no longer practice law, but she still feels she, "has a few good years left in me" and is eager to still be of service to her community and country.

 
 
Conclusions --------------------------------

At the conclusion of the April 3 gathering, I asked Stewart if, from the perspective of her illustrious 30-year career, she saw these events as part of a long-term trend or whether the election of Kerry might have restored some sanity. Stewart's response was that, "The justice system reflects society at large," and that Kerry's election probably would not have made much of a difference. "The deal is already done. I think we need a new party...a populist party."

LynneStewart.org