On New Year's Eve 2013 Lynne Stewart, suffering from advanced breast cancer, was released from federal prison by Federal Judge John Koelti. As you may remember, Ms. Stewart represented the so-called blind cleric, Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, who was charged with committing acts of terrorism.
Ms. Stewart ran afoul of the government when she passed on messages from her incarcerated client to the media. The government alleged that she acted as a courier for a terrorist group.A jury convicted her and a judge sentenced her to 28 months in federal prison. Ms. Stewart appealed the conviction.
After the conviction was upheld, the appellate court sent the case back down for resentencing in light of the court's belief that Ms. Stewart committed perjury during the original trial. The court, not being too fond of Ms. Stewart's comment that she could do 28 months in federal prison standing on her head, upped her sentence to ten years in July 2010.
Between her conviction and re-sentencing Ms. Stewart was diagnosed with breast cancer.
Her health condition worsened while in prison and she was transferred to Carswell Federal Medical Center in Forth Worth, Texas
Her supporters immediately began petitioning for compassionate release so that Ms. Stewart wouldn't have to spend her final days behind bars. In June of last year her request was denied by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Her husband never gave up and this past December federal prosecutors notified Judge Koelti that Ms. Stewart had only 18 months to live. They recommended that the judge grant Ms. Stewart compassionate release.
On New Year's Eve, Judge Koelti did the right thing and signed an order granting Ms. Stewart her release.
Ms. Stewart should never have been sentenced to ten years in prison. It is shameful that it took her imminent death to undo the wrong. Ms. Stewart did her time because she had the nerve to thumb her nose at the government. She had the guts to do what she thought was right for her client. Her client's right to effective counsel was curtailed by the government. Her First Amendment rights were violated by the government. Still she fought.
We deal with the mighty power of the state on a daily basis. We have to stand in front of the court and announce that we are going to do whatever we can do to gum up the works of the government's plea mill. Luckily most of us will never have to face prison for representing our clients.
See also:
"Dying lawyer Lynne Stewart's jubilant return home after winning compassionate release," Democracy Now! (1/2/2014)
These are the musings, ramblings, rantings and observations of Houston DWI Attorney Paul B. Kennedy on DWI defense, general criminal defense, philosophy and whatever else tickles his fancy.
Showing posts with label First Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label First Amendment. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Friday, October 19, 2012
Mesquite police retaliate against local woman
Undercover police officers lie. That's their job. They create a persona and use it to gain entree into a world of lawlessness.
But where does the lying stop? Does it stop after the bust? After the offense report? After taking an oath to tell the truth on the stand? Or after the trial is over?
Melissa Walthall of Mesquite, Texas, had a friend who was upset at the testimony of an undercover narcotics officer. And, when Ms. Walthall came across a picture of the officer on a flyer, she posted it on Facebook with the caption "Anyone know this b****?"
Mesquite Police weren't amused. Investigators decided that Ms. Walthall's message posed a "viable threat to the officer's safety" so they charged her with felony retaliation.
But what exactly did Ms. Walthall do wrong? She didn't harm the officer. She didn't threaten to harm the officer. She didn't ask anyone else to harm the officer. She just posted a picture she saw on a flyer and called the officer a bad name.
Yes, she busted the officer's cover. But so freaking what? He works undercover - that's one of the hazards of his job.
In order to convict Ms. Walthall, the government must first prove that she meant to harm or threaten to harm the officer. The government must then prove that she meant to harm or cause harm through an unlawful act.
I don't think the government can even prove the mens rea of the crime. She posted a picture with a derogatory caption. There was no threat in the caption. Moreover, there was no unlawful act. It's not against the law to post the picture of an undercover officer. Nor should it be against the law.
Ms. Walthall has a right under the First Amendment to speak freely. Her posting of the picture with the caption is clearly an act of speech. That act of speech is protected under the Bill of Rights. The actions of the Mesquite Police Department were clearly retaliatory.
The police are using their badges and guns to quell speech with which they don't agree. She was arrested for constitutionally protected activity by officers acting under color of law. That sounds like official oppression to me.
or lien that he knows is unlawful; (2) intentionally denies or impedes another in
the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing
his conduct is unlawful; or (3) intentionally subjects another to sexual
harassment.
But what's the likelihood that anyone up there is going to have the guts to do the right thing and charge the officers with the crime?
The investigators are aware that we all enjoy the right to speech free from government restriction under the First Amendment. The act of arresting Ms. Walthall impeded her ability to enjoy her right to free speech. What could be clearer? The action could also set the department up for a civil rights lawsuit under Chapter 1983.
The actions of the police in Mesquite were illegal and thuggish and were designed to discourage people from exercising their right to free speech. Thuggery is always the last resort for those who know they can't make a logical argument in defense of their actions.
But where does the lying stop? Does it stop after the bust? After the offense report? After taking an oath to tell the truth on the stand? Or after the trial is over?
Melissa Walthall of Mesquite, Texas, had a friend who was upset at the testimony of an undercover narcotics officer. And, when Ms. Walthall came across a picture of the officer on a flyer, she posted it on Facebook with the caption "Anyone know this b****?"
Mesquite Police weren't amused. Investigators decided that Ms. Walthall's message posed a "viable threat to the officer's safety" so they charged her with felony retaliation.
Sec. 36.06. OBSTRUCTION OR RETALIATION. (a) [amended 9/1/97] A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly harms or threatens to harm another by an unlawful act:
(1) in retaliation for or on account of the service or status of another as a:
(A) public servant, witness, prospective witness, or informant; or
(B) person who has reported or who the actor knows intends to report the occurrence of a crime; or
(2) to prevent or delay the service of another as a:
(A) public servant, witness, prospective witness, or informant; or
(B) person who has reported or who the actor knows intends to report the occurrence of a crime.
(b) For purposes of this section, "informant" means a person who has communicated information to the government in connection with any governmental function.
(c) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree.
But what exactly did Ms. Walthall do wrong? She didn't harm the officer. She didn't threaten to harm the officer. She didn't ask anyone else to harm the officer. She just posted a picture she saw on a flyer and called the officer a bad name.
Yes, she busted the officer's cover. But so freaking what? He works undercover - that's one of the hazards of his job.
In order to convict Ms. Walthall, the government must first prove that she meant to harm or threaten to harm the officer. The government must then prove that she meant to harm or cause harm through an unlawful act.
I don't think the government can even prove the mens rea of the crime. She posted a picture with a derogatory caption. There was no threat in the caption. Moreover, there was no unlawful act. It's not against the law to post the picture of an undercover officer. Nor should it be against the law.
Ms. Walthall has a right under the First Amendment to speak freely. Her posting of the picture with the caption is clearly an act of speech. That act of speech is protected under the Bill of Rights. The actions of the Mesquite Police Department were clearly retaliatory.
The police are using their badges and guns to quell speech with which they don't agree. She was arrested for constitutionally protected activity by officers acting under color of law. That sounds like official oppression to me.
§ 39.03. OFFICIAL OPPRESSION. (a) A public servant acting under color of his office
or employment commits an offense if he: (1) intentionally subjects another tomistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment,
or lien that he knows is unlawful; (2) intentionally denies or impedes another in
the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing
his conduct is unlawful; or (3) intentionally subjects another to sexual
harassment.
But what's the likelihood that anyone up there is going to have the guts to do the right thing and charge the officers with the crime?
The investigators are aware that we all enjoy the right to speech free from government restriction under the First Amendment. The act of arresting Ms. Walthall impeded her ability to enjoy her right to free speech. What could be clearer? The action could also set the department up for a civil rights lawsuit under Chapter 1983.
The actions of the police in Mesquite were illegal and thuggish and were designed to discourage people from exercising their right to free speech. Thuggery is always the last resort for those who know they can't make a logical argument in defense of their actions.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Chicago mayor seeks to quell dissenting voices
Up in the Windy City, Mayor Rahm Emanuel is preparing to host both a NATO summit and the G8 summit. And, since we're living in a dangerous world, new security measures are a must.
Mr. Emanuel wants to spend money on the summits without first getting approval from the City Council. He wants local police to be empowered to deputize out-of-state law enforcement officers and he wants to be able to restrict the times and locations of protests.
He claimed the requested measures would be temporary - to shut down protesters while the world's eyes were on Chicago. But, like most "temporary" government measures, the changes would have been permanent. The police want more power to deal with any possible scenario - no matter how far-fetched it might be.
Here's an idea, Mr. Emanuel, why not allow Chicago to be a shining beacon of just what the First Amendment means. You chose to have these summits come to your city; in other words, you invited the problems you foresee. Let the world see just how much the right to assemble and voice your grievances means to Americans.
The greatest threat to democracy, Mr. Mayor, is intolerance of differing opinions. Sure, free speech can be ugly. It can be rude. It can be inconvenient. But the people's dissent serves as a check on government. Instead of being afraid of what protesters might say and do while the world is watching, embrace this celebration of the Bill of Rights.
People have died in the streets of Cairo, Damascus and other cities throughout the Arab world over the last year because the authoritarian regimes would not tolerate dissent. In this country we have witnessed the orderly handing over of power for more than two centuries because dissenting opinions are not only tolerated, but encouraged.
Petty tyrants must be in control of everything. Differing opinions must not be tolerated. A true democrat embraces the cacophony of voices and celebrates the people's right to be heard.
Mr. Emanuel wants to spend money on the summits without first getting approval from the City Council. He wants local police to be empowered to deputize out-of-state law enforcement officers and he wants to be able to restrict the times and locations of protests.
He claimed the requested measures would be temporary - to shut down protesters while the world's eyes were on Chicago. But, like most "temporary" government measures, the changes would have been permanent. The police want more power to deal with any possible scenario - no matter how far-fetched it might be.
Here's an idea, Mr. Emanuel, why not allow Chicago to be a shining beacon of just what the First Amendment means. You chose to have these summits come to your city; in other words, you invited the problems you foresee. Let the world see just how much the right to assemble and voice your grievances means to Americans.
The greatest threat to democracy, Mr. Mayor, is intolerance of differing opinions. Sure, free speech can be ugly. It can be rude. It can be inconvenient. But the people's dissent serves as a check on government. Instead of being afraid of what protesters might say and do while the world is watching, embrace this celebration of the Bill of Rights.
People have died in the streets of Cairo, Damascus and other cities throughout the Arab world over the last year because the authoritarian regimes would not tolerate dissent. In this country we have witnessed the orderly handing over of power for more than two centuries because dissenting opinions are not only tolerated, but encouraged.
Petty tyrants must be in control of everything. Differing opinions must not be tolerated. A true democrat embraces the cacophony of voices and celebrates the people's right to be heard.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Celebrate freedom, read a banned book
The 27th annual Banned Books Week kicks off on Saturday. Sponsored by the American Library Association, Banned Books Week celebrates freedom of expression and democracy.
Intellectual freedom can exist only where two essential conditions are met: first, that all individuals have the right to hold any belief on any subject and to convey their ideas in any form they deem appropriate; and second, that society makes an equal commitment to the right of unrestricted access to information and ideas regardless of the communication medium used, the content of the work, and the viewpoints of both the author and receiver of information. Freedom to express oneself through a chosen mode of communication, including the Internet, becomes virtually meaningless if access to that information is not protected. Intellectual freedom implies a circle, and that circle is broken if either freedom of expression or access to ideas is stifled. - American Library Association "Intellectual Freedom Manual"
Most of the featured books were the targets of attempted bannings, but still remain on the shelves.
Several of the top 100 novels of the 20th century have been the target of the book banners, including:
- The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald
- The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
- The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
- To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
- The Color Purple by Alice Walker
- Ulysses by James Joyce
- Beloved by Toni Morrison
- The Lord of the Flies by William Golding
- 1984 by George Orwell
- Lolita by Vladmir Nabokov
- Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
- Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
- Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
- The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway
- As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
- A Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway
- Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad
- Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston
- Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison
- Song of Solomon by Toni Morrison
- Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
- Native Son by Richard Wright
- One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
- Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut
- For Whom the Bell Tolls by Ernest Hemingway
- The Call of the Wild by Jack London
- Go Tell it on the Mountain by James Baldwin
- All the King's Men by Robert Penn Warren
- The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien
- The Jungle by Upton Sinclair
- Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
- A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
- In Cold Blood by Truman Capote
- Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie
- Sons and Lovers by D.H. Lawrence
- Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut
- A Separate Peace by John Knowles
- Naked Lunch by William Burroughs
- Women in Love by D.H. Lawrence
- The Naked and the Dead by Norman Mailer
- Tropic of Cancer by Henry Miller
- An American Tragedy by Theodore Dreiser
- Rabbit, Run by John Updike
Celebrate the First Amendment and freedom of thought by reading one of these classics during Banned Books Week.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Update on the RNC
While the republicans were talking of the dawning of a new day in America, here's the reality of their vision.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
So much for the First Amendment
Cheap Trick sang about them two decades ago -- the Dream Police have invaded the Twin Cities. This past weekend, while everyone else was focused on Gustav and his assault on Nawlins, the Minneapolis police cracked down on anyone who had the gall to challenge the Bush/McCain illusion of America. Is this a glimpse into the crystal ball of how McCain intends to prevent 9/11 from happening again?

Media with Conscience reports that the FBI-led Minneapolis Joint Task Force on Terrorism recruited informants to report on the activities of leftist groups in the area. The Minneapolis police and the FBI-led task force conducted pre-emptive assaults on groups exercising their right of free speech.
The Michigan Messenger reports that Ramsey county sheriff's officers conducted an armed raid at a St. Paul convergence space and handcuffed hundreds as they watched movies and ate a pot-luck dinner. Officers defended their actions by claiming they had search warrants -- though no one was al
lowed to see the warrants.
Despite the authoritarian tactics employed by the local police and the FBI, protesters turned out en masse on the opening day of the RNC.

The strength of this nation comes, not from our similarities, but from our wildly divergent origins, paths, views and philosophies. The United State's isn't a melting pot where disparate elements are melded together -- we are a pot of jambalaya, a rich stew made all the better by the mulitude of tastes.

Media with Conscience reports that the FBI-led Minneapolis Joint Task Force on Terrorism recruited informants to report on the activities of leftist groups in the area. The Minneapolis police and the FBI-led task force conducted pre-emptive assaults on groups exercising their right of free speech.

The Michigan Messenger reports that Ramsey county sheriff's officers conducted an armed raid at a St. Paul convergence space and handcuffed hundreds as they watched movies and ate a pot-luck dinner. Officers defended their actions by claiming they had search warrants -- though no one was al
lowed to see the warrants.Despite the authoritarian tactics employed by the local police and the FBI, protesters turned out en masse on the opening day of the RNC.

The strength of this nation comes, not from our similarities, but from our wildly divergent origins, paths, views and philosophies. The United State's isn't a melting pot where disparate elements are melded together -- we are a pot of jambalaya, a rich stew made all the better by the mulitude of tastes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)