For archive purposes, this article is being stored on website.
The purpose is to advance understandings of environmental, political,
human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues.

Lynne Stewart released January 1, 2014.

Pete Seeger to Lynne Stewart.

Lynn Stewart should be out of jail.

April 23, 2013
As the campaign builds, Lynne Stewart’s condition has taken a concerning turn for the worse.
Her white blood cell count has dropped sharply.
Lynne is in isolation currently and will be sent to a Fort Worth hospital for tests.
This news has lent a dramatic urgency to The International Petition Campaign to Save the Life of Lynne Stewart, even as it has crossed a new threshold: Over 10,000 people have signed the petition as signatories pour in daily from across the world.
Noted associate of President Kwame Nkrumah, Ambassador Kojo Amoo-Gottfried, Ghana’s former ambassador to China, Vietnam, Cuba and Nicaragua, has called upon all who fought for self-determination and freedom to raise their voices now for “our dear sister in struggle, Lynne Stewart, even as she has fought for us over a lifetime.”
The Socialist Forum of Ghana has launched a national campaign to save the life of Lynne Stewart.
We must intensify our efforts in this battle for her freedom and her life.
Ed Asner, Richard Falk, Daniel Ellsberg, Cornel West, David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, Ward Churchill, Natsu Saito, Cindy Sheehan, Bonnie Kerness, Zachary Sklar, Alice Walker, Katha Pollitt, Michael Ratner, Sara Kuntsler, Heidi Boghosian, Wallace Shawn, San Francisco Supervisor John Avelos, Peter Kinoy, Peter Dale Scott, Wilhemina Levy, Cynthia McKinney, Pam Africa, and Louis Wolf are among current signers.
We urge all to contact five people and ask each of them to contact five more, allowing each of us, thereby, in five stages to reach five thousand people.
The petition is at:
Website for Lynne Stewart:

Lynne Stewart's Struggle for Justice Continues
by Stephen Lendman
24 January 2013
She's an internationally recognized human rights lawyer.
She tirelessly worked for justice.
She devoted her life and work to upholding principles too important to reject.
She knew the risks and took them.
She did so because it matters.
For 30 years, she defended America's poor, underprivileged, unwanted, and forgotten.
Without advocates like her, they never have a chance for due process and judicial fairness.
She was targeted for representing clients prosecutors want convicted.
One case made her especially vulnerable.
At former US Attorney General Ramzy Clark's request, she joined his Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman's defense team.
In 1995, he was wrongfully convicted of seditious conspiracy, solicitation of murder, solicitation of an attack on American military installations, conspiracy to commit murder, and conspiracy to bomb in connection with the 1993 World Trade Center attack.
He was bogusly accused.
He was innocent of all charges.
It didn't matter.
He never had a chance.
Prosecutorial injustice framed him.
It's standard Justice Department practice.
Defending Rahman got Lynne spuriously charged with:
"Conspiring to defraud the United States."
"Conspiring to provide and conceal material support to terrorist activity."
"Providing and concealing material support to terrorist activity."
"Two counts of making false statements."
Gag order prohibits discussing topics Justice Department rules against
Prosecutors claimed she violated US Bureau of Prisons Special Administrative Measures (SAMs).
A gag order on Rahman was included.
Doing so prohibits discussing topics the Justice Department (DOJ) rules outside 'legal representation.'
It also inhibits legal defenses.
Ramsey Clark issued press releases like Lynne. She alone was targeted.
At issue was silencing a powerful legal advocate.
Tactics included disbarring and imprisoning her unjustly.
Doing so warned other lawyers not to defend clients Washington wants convicted.
Orchestrated to convict
Her trial mocked justice.
It was orchestrated to convict.
It reflected the worst of McCarthy-like tactics.
Inflammatory terrorist images were displayed in court.
Jurors were manipulated and intimidated.
Lynne was called a traitor with radical political views.
Heated rhetoric substituted for truth and full disclosure.
On February 10, 2005, she was convicted on all counts.
She was automatically disbarred.
On October 17, 2006, she was sentenced to 28 months in prison.
At the time, she remained free on bond pending appeal before the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
In November 2009, she was ordered to surrender forthwith and report to prison.
28 months too lenient
She appealed and lost.
Second Circuit justices upheld her conviction.
They claimed 28 months was too lenient.
They remanded her case back to district court Judge John Koeltl.
Pressure got him to increase Lynne's sentence to 10 years.
She hopes Supreme Court justices will afford her what lower courts denied.
On December 30, she sent a New Year's message.
She addressed her legion of supporters.
She approached 2013 with "fear and trepidation."
Dread tentacles of corporatism that strangle us
She maintains 'indefatigable hope.'
She continues struggling against 'those dread tentacles of corporatism that try to strangle us.'
It's no easy task fighting back.
Lynne's imprisoned for trying.
She discussed her 'personal challenges.'
She's a breast cancer survivor.
It reemerged.
It's spreading.
It's treatable.
She remains focused.
She's determined not to allow 'any such problem deter her from someday getting released' and being free.
She reflected on her 'strong will.'
She calls it the 'focus that you all infuse me with!!'
She commented on her formidable challenge in getting her:
"Case before the Supreme Court.
Will they deign to hear us,' she asked?
Will we advance the sunlight or only increase the shadows on our constitutional rights?
We can only strive to present our issues in the best possible way and 'fight like hell'
No predicting results, but in prison, HOPE is the only currency."
On October 8, Lynne added another year.
Write her
She's 73.
She's "counting down (her) 74th year," she said.
Her husband and lifelong human rights partner Ralph is 79.
Often her final comment is vintage Lynne.
She urges everyone to join the struggle for justice.
"Organize — Agitate, Agitate, Agitate!"
"Love Struggle!"
Write her and others in America's gulag.   She can be reached as follows:
Lynne Stewart #53504-054
Federal Medical Center, Carswell
PO Box 27137
Ft. Worth, TX 76127
Lynne's health compounds her problems.
On January 23, Press TV headlined 'Jailed US lawyer of blind Egyptian cleric denied cancer treatment,' saying:
It reemerged. It "spread to her lungs and upper back."
"She "requires immediate expert treatment."
She requested transfer to a New York hospital.
She's been successfully treated there before.
She was denied.
She's confined to prison-style treatment.
It's mediocre at best.
Authorities want her silenced.
They don't care if she lives or dies.
Increase government spending on inmates
Incarceration harms human health.
Prison conditions aren't compatible with healthy living.
Serious illnesses aren't adequately diagnosed or treated.
Some are entirely ignored.
Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) discussed 'The Health and Health Care of US Prisoners.'
Few inmates with 'active medical problems; are monitored.
Mental health problems are 'ubiquitous.'
Treatment is deplorable.
"Almost a million inmates report having 1 more chronic medical problems, and their access to medical care appears to be poor.
Providing inmates with health care is politically unpopular.
Former Surgeon General Richard Carmona said Bush administration officials blocked release of his report titled, 'Call to Action on Corrections in Community Health.'
They did so fearing it:
"Would increase government spending on inmates."
PNHP stressed that:
"Constitutional, public health, and human rights imperatives of improving health care in prisons and jails are clear."
In January 2009, PNHP headlined 'US prisoners sicker than believed and have poor access to care.'
An American Journal of Public Health article discussed a first-ever nationwide study.
It said about 40% of America's prison population (over 800,000 inmates) have chronic medical conditions.
They include diabetes, heart and kidney problems, asthma, and cancer. Researchers found "sick prisoners have poor access to care."
Many in need aren't treated.
Others get deplorable care.
Compared with comparably aged Americans, the incidence of inmates' illness is much higher.
Treatment is sub-standard.
"Inmates with medical problems like diabetes, which requires drug treatment (daily), often had their vital medications stopped after their incarceration."
Lead study author, Dr. Andrew Wilper said:
"A substantial percentage of inmates have serious medical needs.
Yet many of them don't get even minimal medical care.
These prisoners are denied their constitutionally guaranteed right to care."
Wealth Power Privilege Dominance
Lynne is affected like others.
Her struggle for good health accompanies her appeal to be set free.
Her treatment reflects police state justice.
It symbolizes what's wrong with America.
It spurns rule of law principles.
It imprisons its best and brightest.
It's contemptuous of fundamental civil and human rights.
Wealth, power, privilege and dominance alone matter.
Ordinary people are largely denied.
Prison inmates lose all rights.
Constitutionally guaranteed ones don't matter.
Ill inmates needing vital care get sub-standard treatment or none.
Change more than ever is needed.
Great struggles are won in small steps.
Supporting right over wrong matters.
Mass public outrage is needed.
Activism gets results.
There's no other way.
February 11, 2005
Another Bedrock Right Obliterated
Lynne Stewart's Conviction Hurts Us All
I n a shocking jury verdict yesterday, a tireless watchdog for liberty was convicted of violating special administrative prison rules and of providing material support to terrorists.
Only a few weeks ago, Assistant U.S. Attorney Anthony Barkow told the jury in his closing statement that Lynne Stewart "thought she could blow off the rules that apply to everyone else because she's a lawyer, and she's above the law.   She said, 'I think my client is more important than the law.   My cause is more important that the risk to lives of innocent people.'"
This is a complete distortion of the woman I have come to know.
The woman who, when her husband became angry at a heckler during her speech at a small rally, told him the man was only exercising his rights to free speech — he had a right to disagree with her.
The woman who is as courteous to the man next to her at the podium, who is declaring that the ACLU — which, remember, stands for the American CIVIL LIBERTIES Union — is a communist organization, as to those who thank her for coming.
A woman who put herself endlessly and courageously on the front lines to defend the rights of those who were under-represented, unrepresented, disenfranchised, or disregarded: those whose voices are suppressed or silenced.
Lynne Stewart never ever thought she could blow off the rules that apply to everyone else.
She never thought she was above the law.
She never supported or endorsed terrorism.
Nor did she ever intend to provide material support to terrorists.
The words she spoke to her client were meant for her client alone and the one who has violated rights here is the Department of Justice.
They violated something so sacred that it can hardly be spoken without somehow losing the value of it: they violated the attorney/client privilege.
The DOJ violated this privilege by listening in on her conversations with her client, which they then took out of context and tried to make into a monstrous thing.
But is anyone prosecuting them for this violation?
The DOJ has violated something more, as well.
Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel
They have violated the right of an accused to have zealous counsel represent them.
This right is so fundamental that our Framers put it in the Bill of Rights: the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
The DOJ has violated the last vestige of democracy: the judiciary, by using this system to destroy one of the watchdogs of liberty, our criminal defense lawyers.
Without criminal defense lawyers, who will protect us from government incursions of our rights?
Now, the idea of a convicted terrorist having any sort of privilege is perhaps unfathomable to a jury.
But that privilege is considered sacrosanct and we all have it, we all may call upon the attorney/client privilege because without it, we have no defense attorneys, we have no defense, and we have no witnesses to government abuse of our rights.
Lynne continued to believe in her client's innocence, and to declare that evidence against him was fabricated by our government in order to secure his conviction.
Has this fact come out anywhere?
Has any newspaper revealed that the client Stewart represented was convicted on fabricated evidence?
Have any of them investigated the charge?
Has the Department of Justice investigated it?
Why not?
Well, as far as I know, Lynne never brought this charge out to the press during her trial.
But it was certainly known to the DOJ.
And if it is true that her client was convicted on fabricated evidence, what does it mean that she is now convicted because of her representation of him?
The New York Times writes today about Stewart's conviction:
"The government never showed that any violence ever resulted from Mr. Sattar's calls or from any action by Ms. Stewart or Mr. Yousry; there were no victims in the case.
The Islamic Group never cancelled the cease-fire, which remains in effect to this day.
The defendants were never accused of plotting any terrorism in the United States.
The evidence showed that Ms. Stewart had had nothing to do with writing or issuing the fatwa."
"Ultimately the jury appeared to have been persuaded by the fact that Ms. Stewart, a lawyer, had clearly violated the legal letter of the prison rules."
Violated the legal letter of prison rules?
A violation of an administrative measure is not a crime.
Do you sentence an attorney to twenty years in jail for not following a regulation?
Surely we all know how magic tricks work.
It is sleight-of-hand.
This day, while I do not want to believe that the prosecutors themselves maliciously prosecuted Stewart, the best I can believe is that they have blinded themselves with their own zeal.
But I have seen prosecutors and government officials declare what they should have known were untruths about the law, what I knew were untruths and if they didn't know they were untruths, they could only have been ignorant of the law.
This day the Justice Department has done a great injustice, not just to Lynne Stewart, but to our entire system of justice, to our country, and to our democracy.
I fear the upshot of this event and can only hope the members of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals are able to maintain their clear-headedness in the face of the deep-seated fears of terrorism we all share and the huge barrage of innocuous and irrelevant evidence they will have to review.
Lynne Stewart's conviction does not only hurt the bar; it hurts us all.
Jennifer Van Bergen, J.D., is the author of The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for America (Common Courage Press, 2004).   She has written and spoken extensively on civil liberties, human rights, and international law.   She is currently organizing a major Forum on Dissent Since 9/11 in Miami from March 11-13.
Lynne Stewart is a civil rights lawyer who has received a sentence of 10 years in prison for representing a controversial Muslim client.
In 2002 her indictment was personally announced by former-Attornet General John Ashcroft.
She was convicted of lying to the government and conspiring to aid terrorists in February 2005.
Lynne Stewart is one of the few lawyers who represent political dissidents, and her case is a clear warning to attorneys who change the U.S. government.
Lynne Stewart was charged for violating a gag order on her client, Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, and issuing a press release on his behalf.
For the past 9 years Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman has been serving a life-sentence to bomb New York landmarks.
Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman is one of the many political cases Stewart has defended since 1975 including the Black Panthers, the Black Liberation Army and the Weather Underground.
The main evidence against Stewart was based on attorney-client meetings that were secretly monitored and wiretaps of private conversations among Stewart's staff.
Stewart's paralegal, Ahmed Sattar, and her arabic translator, Mohammed Yousry, were convicted along with Stewart.
Prosecutors also prejudiced the jury by introducing a tape of Osama Bin Laden as evidence although Stewart and her co-defendants were not charged with any 9/11 connection.
After 30 years of law practice, Stewart has been diabarred, and since 2009 has been imprisoned.
August 18, 2005
Courthouse Jackboots
Corrupted Justice
W onder of wonders!   A Louisiana prosecutor has been disciplined by the Louisiana Supreme Court for withholding exculpatory evidence in order to get a death sentence for a 16-year old.
The witness who obligingly picked the suspect out of a lineup had told the police that she was not wearing her glasses or contact lens at the time of the shooting, but her admission did not reach the defense attorney.
According to Susan Finch, reporter for the New Orleans Times-Picayune, this is the first time in Louisiana history that an erring prosecutor has been punished.
It is not much of a punishment — a three-month suspension to be waived unless he commits another ethics violation within the next year.
But the prosecutor, Roger Jordan, is upset that the high court has blemished his reputation and is asking the court to reconsider.
State of prosecutorial ethics
Jordan claims that he did not knowingly violate the rule that requires prosecutors to turn over exculpatory evidence.
He says the rule is 'vague' and that in applying the rule to him the court legislated from the bench.
Jordan's claims tell us a lot about the state of prosecutorial ethics.
The legal prohibition against withholding exculpatory evidence is ancient.
But prosecutors today are judged by conviction rates, not by ethical behavior.
Conviction rates are believed to be a sign that prosecutors are protecting society from criminals, serving justice and being budget effective.
To get high conviction rates, prosecutors engage in a wide variety of behavior that would have shocked earlier times.
They suborn perjury, reward false testimony, withhold exculpatory evidence, and force defendants to incriminate themselves with plea bargains by piling on charges until the defendant or his lawyer gives up.
Jordan's whining about vague rules and blemished reputation is hypocritical in view of the treatment prosecutors hand out to their victims.
Last February prosecutors convicted New York defense attorney Lynne Stewart of violating a letter from the Department of Justice (sic) telling her the conditions on which she could represent her client!
There is no statute or regulation behind the letter.
How was Stewart to know that it was a felony to disobey a prosecutor's letter?
Not content with this absurdity, prosecutors convicted the translator that Stewart used in order to communicate with her client.
The prosecutor claims that the translator knew that Stewart was disobeying the letter telling her how to represent her client.
But if a defense attorney did not know that the Justice (sic) Department could legislate criminal law by writing an attorney a letter, how would a translator know, assuming he even saw the letter.
Regulators and prosecutors create crimes by how they interpret regulations.
Defendants don't know they have committed a crime until a prosecutor springs his interpretation on them.
You can't get laws more vague than this.
Martha Stewart was sent to prison for allegedly lying to a prosecutor about a non-crime, and she wasn't even under oath.
She was a victim of the prosecutor's desire to gain name recognition with a high profile case in order to run for political office.
Prosecutors are in the process of criminalizing the protections that were put in our legal system to protect the innocent, such as the attorney-client privilege.
We have reached the point where an attorney who does too good of a job defending his client can be indicted for aiding and abetting a criminal.
Prosecutors have destroyed the rule of law and put rule by prosecutors in its place.
Decades ago attorney generals such as Robert Jackson told prosecutors that they had a twofold duty: to the law and to the defendant.
Their job, he told them, was to serve justice through a fair trial, not to gain a conviction at all cost.
Prosecutors no longer hear such instructions.
Defendants, whether innocent or guilty, quickly learn that they are not going to get a fair trial and that a jury will not be presented with a fair case.
Defendants incriminate themselves with a plea bargain, because the penalties from going to trial are much heavier.
In 95 out of 100 cases, the evidence against the defendant is never tested in court.
This has corrupted police work.
It is easier to round up the usual suspects than to solve a case.
High recidivism rates may simply reflect the practice of rounding up those with records.
A good indicator of the corruption of the criminal justice system is the departure of compassion.
I can remember when prosecutors would investigate the defendant's side of the story and when police were helpful and used judgment in exercising their authority.
Now they go out of their way to ruin people.
In the news recently, police arrested two little boys, seven and eight years old, for fighting.
They handcuffed and booked the children.
Police traumatized a twelve year old girl by handcuffing and booking her for eating a french fry in a Washington DC metro station.
Recently a father was arrested for child abuse because he had his two year old with him when his truck broke down at 3 AM.
The father was put in jail and the kid was put in custody.
Whatever stress the father was under was certainly worsened by the poor judgment of the police.
The days are long gone when the police would have called a tow truck and given the father and baby a ride home.
Paul Craig Roberts served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration.   His graduate economics education was at the University of Virginia, the University of California at Berkeley, and Oxford University.
The War on Terrorism and the Death Penalty:
An Interview with Robert Meeropol
by Marco Rossi     April 2002
Robert Meeropol is the youngest son of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg.  In 1953 the United States government executed his parents for "conspiring to steal the secret of the atomic bomb" when Robert was only six years old.  Since that time, the Rosenberg case has proved a shame and scandal for the United States government.
The death of his parents inspired Robert to involve himself in progressive causes and social change.  In the 1970's Robert and his brother Michael sued the FBI and CIA to force release of 300,000 previously-secret documents about their parents.  In 1990 Robert founded the Rosenberg Fund for Children and now serves as its Executive Director.  The organization provides support for both targeted activist youth and children in the United States whose parents have suffered because of their political activism.
Recently, Robert agreed to give a brief interview on the current "War on Terrorism" and the new forms of domestic repression experienced by United States citizens. . .
Marco Rossi: Several political prisoners in the United States received harsh treatment and were put in lock down immediately after the terrorist attacks on September 11th.  Can you please tell us about the situation of political prisoners within the United States today, and how has post-September 11th climate changed their circumstance?
Robert Meeropol: Political prisoners like all prisoners are subject to increasingly harsh and arbitrary conditions in prison.  9/11 has just given those in charge a new weapon with which to isolate political prisoners.  I believe that those in charge of the prison system realize that 2,000,000 prisoners are a potential mass audience for political prisoners to communicate with.  They seek to prevent this.  The other change in their circumstances is that sentence commutations and early releases have become next to impossible.
MR: There are still 1,200 immigrants who are being detained in the United States.  What is the situation like for these people, and how long do you think the government plans to keep these people detained?
RM: The problem here is lack of information.  I don't know what their situation is.  I have no idea how long the government will keep these people detained.  I think, absurd as it may sound, that people are being detained because they don't have anything to charge them with.  The government is hoping to force "cooperation" with these detentions.
MR: Delegates from Amnesty International have recently been allowed to tour two detention centres in New Jersey that are housing immigrants who were detained after September 11th.  Do you think that this is a sign that the Bush Administration is lightening up its pressure toward immigrants and its clamp-down on civil liberties?
RM: No.  It is full speed ahead with the clamp-down.  However, they aren't above using PR to claim that this is not the case.
MR: Guantanamo Bay has created a very conflicting situation for the United States.  It has called the conflict in Afghanistan a War on Terrorism, but it refuses to acknowledge captured Taliban members as prisoners of war and treat them as such.  The United States has classified the prisoners as 'unlawful combats.'  The contradiction has provoked outcry from even some of the United States most devoted allies.  How do you see the situation in Guantanamo Bay resolving itself? Do you believe that the USA will alter its present stance and respect the human rights of the prisoners incarcerated there, or will it continue with its present policy?
RM: As of now - Taliban fighters are being held in accordance with the Geneva Conventions on POWs, but the government refuses to classify them as POWs.  Al Qaeda members are being held in legal limbo.  Essentially we are saying we can do what we want with these people.  The government is attempting to keep its options open.  The bigger the domestic and international outcry against the government's actions, the more likely it is that they will abide by international law.
MR: The death penalty has become an embarrassment for the United States over the years.  The USA's use of the death penalty has raised criticism even from its European allies.  How has Europe's views on the death penalty changed, if at all, after September 11th?
RM: As far as I can tell 9/11 has not changed Europe's attitude toward the death penalty.  To them it remains a barbarous practice.
MR: The Bush administration has made some minor changes in how tribunals will be conducted.  One change was that the death penalty could only be used if the decision to use it is unanimously voted upon.  Do you think that this change will have any significant effect on how military tribunals will be run?
RM: No, but I must add that it is far from certain that there will be any military tribunals.
MR: Should anti-death penalty activitists consider this a win?
RM: No.  The biggest current challenge of the US anti-capital-punishment movement is Zacharias Moussadi's case.  The government has until 3/29 to decide whether to ask for the death penalty.  I predict they will and then the battle will be joined.
MR: Do you think that the new PATRIOT-ACT has the potential to totally change legal and civil institutions in the United States?
RM: Yes, it seriously undermines all our rights.
MR: To what extent do you see rights such as free speech, peaceful assembly, and privacy being restricted?
RM: The potential is enormous.  The test will come when opposition grows.  As long as we are a relatively few voices crying in the wilderness they can let us say what we will.  Question is will they use the new laws to squash us if we start to gather a mass constituency? This one could go either way - it is too soon to tell.
MR: On Mumia Abu-Jamal's recording "All Things Censored," you made a statement about the need of the United States government to "flex its muscle" every generation and show that it will not be persuaded by political dissent.  What type of "flex" do you think the next generation of activist can expect?
RM: Right now the new flex will be a wave of "capital conspiracy" cases.  That is, the government asking for the death penalty for people charged with conspiracy as they did in my parents' case.  Another flex will be to try to equate those who dissent with terrorists.  This has already begun.
MR: Do you think it will be more difficult to speak out against the government than it has been in the past?
RM: Yes, but it depends upon what time in the past.  Dissent has usually been stamped out during wars.  What Bush is trying to do is get us in a state of never-ending low-level war (a la "1984") and use that as an excuse to stamp out all opposition to his policies.

another world is possible . . .
United States Legal Death
For 51 years, a family in upstate New York has closely guarded one of the most explosive, and unusual, secrets any family could have: Its late patriarch, Dow B. Hover, was New York State's executioner.
Skill involved in making sure electrocuting just long enough to kill
Instead of receiving the care they desperately need, hundreds of severely mentally ill offenders in the United States are mired within a health care system that is too slow to help and a justice system that is too quick to push them into the death chamber.
Mentally ill to be executed
Letters between her father and Warden Denno
Ended one more life: his own
Lynne Stewart talks about her life as an activist lawyer, her trial, the appeal, at a fundraiser for WBAI-FM (Pacifica Foundation NYC).
Great background without the bias of the corporate media.
YouTube Video Click here
For archive purposes, this article is being stored on website.
The purpose is to advance understandings of environmental, political,
human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues.