dorbie 0 #1 February 10, 2005 http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/10/terror.trial.ap/index.html Unfortunately the CNN story is light on facts and substance but instead waffles on hopelessly about irrelevant bullshit, like supporters in the courtroom and lawyers opinions that this was a 'message' from the government. What about hard facts and circumstances? That's too much for a news organization these days. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #2 February 11, 2005 Let the treasonous b_ _ _ _ rot in prison.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #3 February 11, 2005 Some defense lawyers saw the case as a government warning to attorneys to tread carefully in terrorism cases. And those who defend poor and unpopular people. To argue the right is for the Bill of Rts is ridiculous. The 6th is being cautioned here. Just because you don't like the reference to the classism that is present here, don't discard it as your best argument. I would also like to hear more of this case, especially in regard to priv communication, which ut appears this case teeters on. But she also testified that she believed violence was sometimes necessary to achieve justice: "To rid ourselves of the entrenched, voracious type of capitalism that is in this country that perpetuates sexism and racism, I don't think that can come nonviolently." She martyred herself withthis statement, which I'm sure added to her conviction. Videotape of prison conversations between Stewart and the sheik also were played for jurors -- recordings the defense denounced as an intrusion into attorney-client privilege. This is what I'm talking about. Shit on the Const in the name of fear of terrorism - what a waste. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 16 #4 February 11, 2005 She fought the law, and the law won. I hope she enjoys prison. I love to hear people decry our "horrible capitalist system" while enjoying every luxury that it produces. Sounds like her method to combat capitalist "violence" was to promote terrorist violence. I certainly have no sympathy for her, though I'm sure Jane Fonda would. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #5 February 11, 2005 QuoteShe fought the law, and the law won. Man, now I'm never going to get to sleep with that song in my head... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChileRelleno 0 #6 February 11, 2005 She broke the law and got caught..... Now ! ChileRelleno-Rodriguez Bro#414 Hellfish#511,MuffBro#3532,AnvilBro#9, D24868 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #7 February 11, 2005 QuoteShe broke the law and got caught..... Now ! Were both - a representative Democracy. All Democracy is is a form of government that allows the people to vote. In the case of America we've bastardized it down to a representative democracy where we vote crooks into making those decisions for us. A, "True Democracy" is where the people vote for all important substantive issues, not just the liars that do them for us. A True Democracy is more utopian than real, but it's a high standard that would be more realized in a Socialist country than Communist or Capitalist. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #8 February 11, 2005 QuoteQuoteShe broke the law and got caught..... Now ! Were both - a representative Democracy. All Democracy is is a form of government that allows the people to vote. In the case of America we've bastardized it down to a representative democracy where we vote crooks into making those decisions for us. A, "True Democracy" is where the people vote for all important substantive issues, not just the liars that do them for us. A True Democracy is more utopian than real, but it's a high standard that would be more realized in a Socialist country than Communist or Capitalist. Actually, it's a Representative Republic...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #9 February 11, 2005 More on this story, and a pile of related links on the Beeb site here.. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4255885.stm Gives us 'honest lefties' a bad name, lock her up.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #10 February 11, 2005 I hope this sends a message to the lawyers - you can be locked up! At the point (and to the extent) that she stepped outwith the proper Lawyer/Client relationship she rightly lost the privelege of Lawyer/Client privacy! IM(nv)HO she has rightly been found guilty of accession to terrorism. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #11 February 11, 2005 QuoteQuoteSome defense lawyers saw the case as a government warning to attorneys to tread carefully in terrorism cases. And those who defend poor and unpopular people. To argue the right is for the Bill of Rts is ridiculous. The 6th is being cautioned here. Just because you don't like the reference to the classism that is present here, don't discard it as your best argument. I would also like to hear more of this case, especially in regard to priv communication, which ut appears this case teeters on. QuoteVideotape of prison conversations between Stewart and the sheik also were played for jurors -- recordings the defense denounced as an intrusion into attorney-client privilege. This is what I'm talking about. Shit on the Const in the name of fear of terrorism - what a waste. Quote In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. What part of that was violated? Attorney client priviledge is not covered by the sixth amendment. Also, A/C priv is restricted by a number of things, just like the first, second, fourth, and all the others. One of the things that limits or precludes A/C priv is when the attorney participates in the criminal enterprise. That predates even the RICO statutes.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckbrown 0 #12 February 11, 2005 QuoteSome defense lawyers saw the case as a government warning to attorneys to tread carefully in terrorism cases. And those who defend poor and unpopular people. To argue the right is for the Bill of Rts is ridiculous. The 6th is being cautioned here. Just because you don't like the reference to the classism that is present here, don't discard it as your best argument. I would also like to hear more of this case, especially in regard to priv communication, which ut appears this case teeters on. But she also testified that she believed violence was sometimes necessary to achieve justice: "To rid ourselves of the entrenched, voracious type of capitalism that is in this country that perpetuates sexism and racism, I don't think that can come nonviolently." She martyred herself withthis statement, which I'm sure added to her conviction. Videotape of prison conversations between Stewart and the sheik also were played for jurors -- recordings the defense denounced as an intrusion into attorney-client privilege. This is what I'm talking about. Shit on the Const in the name of fear of terrorism - what a waste. She was convicted of passing communications between her client & the terrorists; these weren't communications between her & the client which would be covered by attorney-client priviledge. Also, attorney-client priviledge only extends to communications undertaken in furtherance of the lawyer-client relationship, i.e., legal representation. She was not acting as a lawyer when she deliberately disregarded a judicial order that her client not communicate with his followers. Furthermore, had she been discussing her legal representation of her client in the videotapes they wouldn't have been shown to the jury. As is was, she was discussing matters outside of her legal representation, which are fair game. Think of it this way, if you tell your lawyer you're going to commit a crime, your lawyer has the right to report that statement to whomever he or she wishes. It's not covered by the privilege. This case is no different from cases involving the Mafia and their lawyers. This lawyer played with fire and got burned. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #13 February 11, 2005 Caught her statement this morning. She was crying about how lawyers should be left alone. Here's a woman who thought her profession and her political agenda put her above the law. Now it comes crashing in around her and all she can do is cry, "No Fair!" From the gist of her statements, she knew what she did was unacceptable, but didn't think it was wrong and went above the law. I think a lot of criminals think that way, right up until they get locked up. She's done, lock her up until she rots.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites