Because it may be interesting to you and X, and is an interesting illustration imo of the way lawyers often tend to think, I'm pasting comments of a lawyer friend of mine with whom I had not only a heated argument over dinner, but an email exchange. He is part of Lynn Stewart's defense committee; I believe that she'll be convicted, and should be. I also believe that his rationalization of her collusion in the false statement about the sheik's insulin being withheld is, shall we say, unsatisfactory. His "words to the effect" is not an accurate quote, and for a reason, imo. His insertion of "policy" into the discussion of the lie she helped concoct about medical mistreatment is interesting, as is his irrelevant attribution of the lie to the prisoner and not to those who colluded to disseminate it knowing it was a lie. He's a clever lawyer, though the relevance of that disgustingness on her part will be in the perception of Stewart by a jury. BTW, the point of issuing that lie was evidently to inflame his followers. (I can't give a source for that attribution of motive, I forget where I read it, but if there's any motive at all, that one would appear to be credible.) His words "technically legal" are also interesting.
I am told that the tapping was technically legal as a foreign security tap authorized by a court. But the reasons why we hesitate to allow wiretapping generally are illustrated here - a general conversation tends to contain unwise statements. Suppose you are the lawyer. One of your client's buddies calls and says that the client is not taking his medicine, and they are going to claim that the prison authorities are not giving him proper medical care. You pause, knowing that you can't tell the world that your client may be making a phony plea for sympathy. You say words to the effect, "it's safe to say that because probably no one will know the facts." Stupid thing to say? Yes. Crime? No - and for what policy reason would you make it a crime for a prisoner to say he is not getting medical treatment when in fact he is?...
...I don't any defamation of any specific person. In general, nobody, prisoner or otherwise, has a right to defame another. But defamation is not a crime. Do you see any point in a civil suit? It certainly could be made the subject of discipline & I believe such things often are.
I'm off for the day. I'd be interested, though, in your answer to the questions in my previous post regarding your uninformative dismissal of the discussion of the case you introduced here as though you had a position on it. I provided other links besides the Packer one, and could provide many more containing the same information. |
