Letter from Beth Dumez to Lynne's friends January 7, '05 Dear friends and family: Most of you know of my interest in the federal court case in New York City in which my college classmate and friend, Lynne Stewart, is on trial on a number of counts relating to alleged conspiracy to aid terrorism. Lynne has been a respected criminal defense attorney for decades. One ethical consideration in the ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility deals with representing unpopular clients, a practice that has characterized Lynne's career. (You know how I revere a professional's faithful adherence to ethical principles!) The current chain of events began in 1995, when the FBI charged Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman and others with conspiring to bomb several New York landmarks. Abdel-Rahman, an Islamic fundamentalist leader known as the "blind cleric," was connected to a group in Egypt that was on the U.S. Secretary of State's list of terrorist organizations. A judge appointed Lynne Stewart to be the indigent sheik's attorney. Her legal team included translator Mohammed Yousry and paralegal Ahmed Sattar, who are both now codefendants in the case. The sheik was convicted and is in prison for life. I have just returned from several days in the courtroom during which the government (Dept. of Justice) and defense attorneys presented their summary arguments. Being present for a portion of a trial of such significant political and legal implications was a privilege and a profoundly affecting experience. I can't resist imparting some of my observations. The experience was a reminder of how isolated most of us are from our judicial system and of the degree to which legal maneuvers and decisions affect our community life in the good ol' USA! The reason that the three members of the Sheik's legal team are on trial together is that the charges of "conspiracy" can best be determined with that configuration, i.e., their interaction would be essential to proving "conspiracy." How the dynamics of the prosecution and defense of each case interact is an important question--perhaps to be analyzed one day by legal scholars. The New York Law Journal explains the charges against Lynne as follows: Stewart is accused of intentionally violating a muzzle placed on the sheik by the former Southern District lead terrorism prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, when she issued, in the sheik's name, a press release on the cease-fire (in Egypt) in June 2000. Her announcement and several other actions she took during visits to the sheik at a Rochester, Minn., prison in 2000 and 2001 allegedly violated attorney affirmations she signed promising to abide by the prison restrictions known as special administrative measures (SAMs). Lynne continued to represent her elderly client while he was imprisoned in Rochester, MN and in declining health. The sheik was permitted to have communication only with his wife in Egypt (once a month phone contact) and his lawyer (Lynne). One of Michael Tigar's statements: Regardless of his personal feelings, a lawyer should not decline representation because a client or a cause is unpopular or community reaction is adverse. Lynne was arrested at her home in April 2002. Attorney General, John Ashcroft, held a televised press conference that evening to publicize the government's post 9/11 actions. Evidence in the case consists primarily of communications by each of the defendants over several years. There were 88,000 phone tap tapes of Mr. Sattar's conversations, for instance. In one, which was played in the summation arguments, he conversed at length with a fellow Staten Island postal employee who phoned him 3 days after 9/11 to reach out as a friend, sensitive to his Muslim identity and concerned that he would suddenly be spurned or targeted. His spontaneous and genuine grief about the events was a powerful expression of his state of mind and general predisposition. There is no evidence that he promoted violence. Lynne's visits with the sheik in prison were videotaped. Her primary mission in faithfully continuing to represent him (an absolute obligation of a lawyer, she contends) and making periodic visits was to determine what the state of his mental and physical health was and whether he was receiving adequate medical care. Another goal--permanently sidetracked by the events of 9/11-- was to work toward his repatriation to Egypt for the duration of his life. Through her translator (Yousry), Lynne would bring news of the outside world and query him about his health and treatment (issues for ALL imprisoned people, incidentally). The physician who was assigned to him typically called the sheik "Mr. Rahman," actually a startlingly inappropriate term for a Muslim man as, translated, it meant Mr.God (his name means "servant of God"). Observations about the context The federal district court is situated among several stately old official buildings--other courts, city hall and the like--at the foot of Manhattan at the Brooklyn Bridge end of the subway lines. The neighborhood includes some lovely open spaces and a huge presence of barricades, police cars, and security measures. Fortunately it was possible for me to take cookies through security yesterday. Typically the "regulars" among the trial watchers would have lunch at the court cafeteria on the 5th floor. When not privately conferring with their lawyers (two each for the defendants), Mohammed and Lynne and their family members would join the group. So the cookies could be shared there. Ahmed has been in jail for three years and is guarded by a marshal in the courtroom. After seven months duration, the trial attendees are a sort of micro community. Decorum prevails in the courtroom. It is a lovely, modestly ornate, high-ceilinged room of natural wood and marble with benches for everyone and leather chairs for the jury, the defendants, and the attorneys. The government seems to have 5 attorneys bringing their case (your tax dollars at work). The jurors (12, of course) and alternates (4) file in and out in dignified fashion as we rise in respect. Throughout the deliberations that I witnessed, the jurors were alert to each presentation, neutral in expression, consistently respectful. There's a nice diversity of race and age (can't tell about religion); I don't know anything of their personal backgrounds but, of course, that was revealed at the time of jury selection. Only one juror has had to be replaced (because of illness, I believe). Two sides of the house of observers represent the press on the right and family, friends, the curious, the ideologues, and the "barflies" (so to speak) on the left (double entendre intended). Folks come and go. I quickly learned who Julia Preston is--she's been covering the trial for the Times. An article has appeared in the Metro section of the newspaper each day that I've been there (including in October) in case you want to have a source of some descriptive detail... The onlookers are a fascinating array of folk: the Quaker contingent (he who had to gain special permission to keep his broad-brimmed hat on throughout the trial--a nice topper for his mid-chest-length braid); the Muslim contingents--one guy with a sort of fez, others with classic beards and veiled women in what I would describe as African attire; a french-speaking Egyptian-born woman and her tottering brother, Valentine, who met Lynne for the first time at a fund-raiser and who have been present every day of the trial; the aspiring biographer and other independent writers; the cronies (myself included--plus childhood, high school, and lawschool friends of long standing); a blind woman described as "a progressive;" Dolphy, a glib, street-smart sculptor and drum maker; and, of course, Lynne's family--husband (guardian of her sanity and well-being, bouncer, lifter of spirits, storyteller), local son and daughter--both in Lynne's law practice (which, incidentally, had to move to cheaper quarters since Lynne hasn't been able to work for these years), siblings from Long Island and Portland, OR. Her Florida daughter was not there this week because the county medical clinic where she is medical director was overflowing with needy patients. Lynne loves to talk to her supporters during the breaks and to chat with press people as well. She has an uncanny way of tuning in to each of our interests, e.g., she reported to me on the recent death of a Hope College classmate (whom she had tutored in Meteorology). I reminded her that she tutored someone or another in every class she took, as I recall. Lynne was and is a prodigiously brilliant person with a great capacity for caring and laughter! Conversation over lunch tended to turn to everyday subjects, such as the discussion she had with a bunch of guys about jazz saxophonists (she able to name more than most of them could). Observations of the proceedings The tenacity of the DOJ in preparing a prosecution is awesome to me. For instance, the DOJ taped all of Ahmed's phone conversations for six years. He had a great deal of communication with a group that has worked for years in opposition to the current Egyptian government. He was essentially a go-between, connecting people with other people who shared information and ideas with each other. I believe there is no indication that any of it pertained to acts of violence (and that's a huge body of data!). Mohammed is a scholarly person who translated faithfully (this is obvious from the transcripts that have been translated, where what is said in English and what is translated from Arabic are consistently identical). His doctoral dissertation from years earlier, a biography of the sheik (then a religious leader associated with a NY mosque) as I recall, was entered as an exhibit. None of Lynne's conversations contain any references to violence or knowledge of Ahmed's communications with people in Egypt or elsewhere. Somehow the prosecution managed to project a tape of Osama bin Laden in their presentation of "evidence." It has nothing to do with the charges in the trial. The prosecution seems to use as often as possible incendiary terminology such as the words "terrorism" and "terrorist." News coverage picks up those themes as well. The judge seems permissive in what he allows to be presented and argued. Perhaps that is a good thing (?). He consistently reminds the jurors of their duty to not discuss among themselves or with others nor have any access to details of the trial. He regularly admonishes the court onlookers not to have any audible reactions to testimony or argument. When there is an objection or a conflict between lawyers, he ponders at length his response. Lynne's defense attorney, Michael Tigar, (an advocate of the protection of Constitutional rights such as William Kunstler and Ramsey Clark were) reminds one of Henry Fonda in his role as a defense attorney in some classic movie I can't remember ("Twelve Angry Men"??). He is genuine, of the people, folksy--at least in that NYC setting--and professorial. He integrates astutely relevant references to history and literature. Much of his monologue appears to be extemporaneous, and I think it may be. He answers the exact questions that are on one's mind. He organizes his material in the way that a good prof would. And thus, he commands attention and enhances his effect and our recollection. He had not concluded his summation as of yesterday; it will resume on Monday, followed by the prosecutors' rebuttal, followed by the Judge's lengthy instructions on the law. You can get into all this in more depth on Lynne's website if you're interested: www.lynnestewart.org My life has changed in a way, having been present to watch a free society's judicial system in action. It is scary what (apparently) can be undertaken in an attempt (whether conceived in good faith or not) to bring charges against people. It is awe-inspiring to observe skilled lawyers craft a case and mount a powerful defense. For me, a certain level of confidence in my government's intentions and activities is forever undermined (naiveté dashed). Yet the ponderous machinations of justice are a wonder to behold and a treasure of immeasurable value. Stay tuned. The verdict will have prominent national news coverage, “beyond a reasonable doubt."