« Justice Scalia is coming to town... | Main | The special criminal justice and sentencing challenges of domestic violence »

November 17, 2009

Second Circuit issues huge opinion (with sentencing stuff) in Lynne Stewart case

In the words of one of my co-panelists at today's OSU Scalia symposium, "Holy Buckeyes, Batman!":  while I was thinking had about originalism and the jury, the Second Circuit handed down a massive opinion in the high-profile Lynne Stewart case.  That opinion, which runs almost 200 pages including the separate opinions, can be accessed at this link.

I likely will not have time to consume this massive effort (which seems to have lots of sentencing parts) until probably late tomorrow.  But, in the meantime, perhaps Supremecy Clause and other commentors of note will have something interesting to say about a lawyer told to go directly to jail.

November 17, 2009 at 05:58 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e20120a6ac443d970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Second Circuit issues huge opinion (with sentencing stuff) in Lynne Stewart case:

Comments

I read through parts of it and it seems to me a open and shut case. They caught her red handed. Seriously, if she had ethical issues with the case she should have never signed the paper. Then, when they wouldn't let her see him, sue. But she lied and then tried to cover it up. Silly girl.

Posted by: Daniel | Nov 17, 2009 11:20:21 PM

Wow. This case may raise more fascinating sentencing issues than any other. As in, any other ever.

Posted by: Fascinating | Nov 18, 2009 12:47:14 AM

I have no desire to see lawyers arrested. They provide an essential utility product, the rule of law. It is like electricity or water. Civilization is impossible without these products. Turn off the rule of law, and you have Fallujah, where security and survival are full time pursuits for everyone, and nothing else can get done.

I would like to see the likes of the judges who wrote the decision arrested. This case was a major factor in 9/11. This lawyer perfidy was covered up by the lawyer heavy 9/11 Commission. The government is a wholly owned subsidiary of the CCE, and these judges are in its hierarchy. They are responsible for the failures of government. The mismanagement of this case shows the lawyer profession is utterly incapable of handling terrorism.

The 1993 attack on the WTC was an act of war, not a crime like a robbery. They generated $millions in lawyer salaries. And, they sent a message, attack America. You will end up in a prison with a standard of living far higher than that of your village. You will then have total immunity if you choose to jam a pencil into the eye of a guard trying to help you.

The judges should have intervened before the trial. They should have said, the court has no subject matter jurisdiction. The military and the CIA must handle this attack, and do so on foreign soil. These enemies should have been tortured then killed in the Middle East. Their families, and all associates should have been hunted down, tortured, and killed, their bodies fed to pigs.

That the appellate court allowed the trial to proceed is treason. The appellate judges should be arrested, tried and executed for rent seeking during war, which is treason for profit. The rent of the CCE comes before all other values, beliefs, and loyalties.

As to Stewart, her acts were not zealous representation. They were spy work. She should have been tried for treason, found guilty, and executed. The forbearance of the DOJ lawyer for spying by other lawyers is itself treasonous.

All accounts with the lawyer traitor gets settled when a nuclear device is set off in an American city. The entire hierarchy must be swept away. There should be zero tolerance for treason. The problem is that 1776, that rare flower of Athens, may also get swept away. That is the most unforgivable crime of the cult criminal, the threat to 1776.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Nov 18, 2009 12:54:05 AM

The lawyer is going to do it again. Same mistake, but much worse.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,575355,00.html

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Nov 18, 2009 7:21:01 AM

Lynne Stewart is a traitor and a disgrace to the legal profession. It is unfortunate that she is not being executed for her crimes.

Posted by: federalist | Nov 18, 2009 10:49:56 AM

federalist --

I haven't read the Second Circuit's opinion yet, so I don't know that I agree with your outcome. But I know enought about the background of the case to be quite sure that I agree with your sentiment.

I believe I read somewhere that, after her conviction, a law school (maybe Rutgers, but I can't really remember) gave Ms. Stewart a faculty position, teaching, of all things, legal ethics. I swear I'm not making this up. This just shows you the appalling state of what passes for legal "education" in some places.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 18, 2009 11:37:28 AM

federalist --

Correction. Ms. Stewart received her law degree at Rutgers, but was on the "conference faculty" of Hofstra Law School for a seminar on legal ethics, I believe in October 2007.

Having a disbarred lawyer and convicted felon -- not to mention a traitor -- teach "legal ethics" is simply mind boogling. One can only wonder what the reaction would be in the academy if, say, Alberto Gonzales were to be suggested as a speaker on legal ethics.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 18, 2009 7:07:03 PM

Looks like our many liberal commenters are staying away from Lynne Stewart like the plague. But why? She has much the same view of the system, and of the United States, that many of them do.

Discretion remains, I guess, the better part of valor. Or the better part of something.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 19, 2009 9:07:52 PM

I am a criminal defense lawyer.
Lynne was wrongly convicted of perjury because perjury requires a material statement on a current state of affairs; conviction for future acts will not lie.
The court relies on distinguishing a case that found that checks did not amount to perjury because there is no statement of fact in a check – a check is merely an order to the bank to pay. However, there is simply no support for the government’s position that a defendant can be convicted of perjury for statements regarding an act that hasn’t been committed yet, even considering the possibility that “Stewart's affirmations that she would abide by the SAMs amounted to factual assertions regarding her then-present intent to abide by the SAMs.” (emphasis added)
This a wrongful conviction and we can only hope that the Supremes will grant cert and reverse.

Posted by: Xenophwn | Dec 24, 2009 9:34:13 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB