The Legal system in trouble!

I recieved this in a news letter. I posted the whole thing hope that was okay.


THREATS TO LEGAL COUNSEL POSED BY LYNNE STEWART
CONVICTION courtesy of T.L. Mosier

A Call to Resist Illegitimate Authority
Legal Steps to Fascism

Threats to Legal Counsel Posed by Lynne Stewart Conviction

by Pat Levasseur

When attorney Lynne Stewart was convicted last year on charges of
aiding terrorism, the court acted out of fear, and the resulting
implications for both Lynne and the legal system in which she worked
so hard are indeed frightening. In charging Lynne, the government
stretched her conversations with a reporter into serious, felony
charges, even though not a single act of violence has ever resulted
from her actions and there is no evidence of intent to cause any.
Despite this, she now faces 30 years in prison. And her conviction as
well as the legal maneuvers and restrictions that made it possible
threaten to restrict legal protection within the courts.

Lynne’ crime was violating “special administrative measures” she had
signed by passing a press release from her client, Omar Abdel Rahman,
on to a reporter. According to the SAM regulation, many sanctions
could have been imposed on Lynne short of a criminal charge.
including losing the right to meet with a client, a fine, or
disbarment. Yet the government chose to put Lynne on trial for aiding
and abetting terrorism.

Part of the work of the Lynne Stewart Defense Committee since the
conviction is to show that Lynne Stewart is not a terrorist, does not
condone terrorism and was arrested for doing her job. Just as
important, the committee uses her case as a powerful demonstration of
the dangerous and continued erosion of fundamental civil liberties
for all Americans in a post-9/11 era dominated by fear and suspicion.


Attorney Client Confidentiality
The US system of justice is built around the idea that if both sides
in a courtroom tenaciously advocate for their position, then a judge
or jury can sift through the disparate versions of the facts
presented and make a fair decision about whose version is correct.
Defense attorneys must zealously represent their clients, and that
historically includes the right to private conversation. In Lynne’s
case, the government eavesdropped on her conversations and restricted
her access to her client.

Lynne’s conviction is one of the first steps towards dismantling this
system. Especially at risk are unpopular defendants and those
organizing against harmful government policies. If you were a
successful and skilled defense attorney would you put your career and
personal freedom on the line in order to zealously defend your
client? Knowing Lynne Stewart, your colleague, is in prison for her
zealous defense of a client in a similar situation might well impact
how vigorously and forcefully you felt you could defend your client
without possibly being prosecuted and jailed.

Since the Bush administration took power, we have seen an exponential
growth in government secrecy, as seen in measures like the Bureau of
Prisons (BOP) regulations, which permit attorney-client
communications to be monitored where “reasonable suspicion exists to
believe that a particular inmate may use communications with
attorneys or their agents to further or facilitate acts of
terrorism.” Former Attorney General John Ashcroft amended restrictive
Special Administrative Measures to allow for video and audio
surveillance of attorney’s communications with people in federal
custody. This amendment occurred secretly, without receiving a public
hearing. If we are not aware of policy changes, we cannot fight
them….

For more on this story go to
http://www.resistinc.org/newsletter/issues/2006/02/levasseur.html







_______________________________________________

for Lynne and ALL of us! I'm truly frightened by the powers that be.

We are not the ones living in fear and we don't want the government "protecting" us by using extreme measures and taking away our constitutional rights.

I predict that there will be many, many people in Washington brought up on charges unless of course they buy someone(s) off and bury their dirty underhanded tricks with another flag burning/New York Times bashing (et al), non issue, front page story containing all sorts of made up happenings.

Oh yeah they'll get away with it again as most of the congress has NO BALLS!x( :grr:

Just like they did, once upon a time.

at the bottom of the screen on NBC (during a report from Aruba, of course). It said that the judge in the Lynne Stewart case was reporting being intimidated into the guilty verdict in the case. I'm not a raging Stewart fan, although someone has to do the work she does, but the intimidation angle was intriguing (presumably the DOJ?).

(This was taken from an email I sent someone at the time, which is why I remember the arcane details).
I never saw anything resembling a report about it, only the crawl.

:hi: