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."
I am a 72 year old, retired, progressive small businessman concerned about all the major national and world issues, committed to speak out and write about them.
we are guilty because they say we are. we are also guilty because they wish us to be. we are guilty because they rule that we are.
but why are we not free because we say we are, and wish us to be, and rule that we are.
take to the streets and lanes. take our burdens and chains. take the chance to unburden our tired brains. make the earth tilt with the magnetism of hope and love. tell america i love what you were but not what you have become. i am here to change the tidal wave. it will take much strength. it will take a horde of beings.
it will be done. it will be won. it will be until we still the seas and trample the earth with our love. we will take our country back by overturning the arbitrary powers. by overturning the unrighteous. by overturning our beliefs in a ruling class. we will rule , the people, and not the plutocrats.
for peace shall come only with our wresting away the sham of representatives who bow to the cfr and northrop and evangelical crazies.
our flag will be an empty pole with rope holding only air. our song of our nation will be imagine by john lennon. our nation will not be subsumed by mexico nor canada nor the european union. we will no longer be divisive and think of ourselves of american jew, afro-american, irish american, nor wasp, nor muslim. we are one.
wolfie the pragmatist
by
Wolfie (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 1068 comments)
on Thursday, April 3, 2008 at 12:07:36 PM
We are all hoping for the best out of this travesty and that she is finally exonerated. The way the DOJ operates you can almost automatically believe that justice has been thwarted when they are involved.
by
Archie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 967 comments)
on Thursday, April 3, 2008 at 2:07:03 PM
It also lends creedence to the argument that the real threat to freedom doesn't come from attorney advocates who defend alleged terrorists, but from Federalist Society stooges who undermine the the very laws that make all of us free.
I have been very aware of their role in the US Supreme Court, something we will have to live with for perhaps decades and long after the Bush/Cheney Cabal is gone. But I hadn't been aware that so many federalist society judges had been planted in the entire legal justice system and dominate it so. If this isn't a threat to democracy then nothing is. The fact they hide behind James Madison is laughable. He must be rolling in his grave! And talk about conspiracy! Theirs seem obvious. To undermine the Constitution of the United States. My prayers go out to Lynne. Also glad to see that a Clinton appointed judge did the right thing.
by
Michael Shaw (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 310 comments)
on Friday, April 4, 2008 at 11:19:00 AM
