You are hereBlogs / Stephen Lendman's blog / Darkness in America: Lynne Stewart's Resentencing

Darkness in America: Lynne Stewart's Resentencing

By Stephen Lendman - Posted on 16 July 2010

Darkness in America: Lynne Stewart's Resentencing - by Stephen Lendman

Describing Lynne, one of this writer's previous articles said the following:

She worked selfishly, tirelessly, and heroically for 30 years as a human rights champion, defending America's poor, underprivileged, and unwanted - people never afforded due process and judicial fairness without an advocate like her. She knew the risks, yet took them courageously until bogusly indicted on April 9, 2002 for:

--"conspiring to defraud the United States;


-- providing and concealing material support to terrorist activity; and

-- two counts of making false statements."

Detailed information can be gotten from this writer's previous articles, accessed through the following links:

A brief timeline was as follows:

-- indicted on April 9, 2002;

-- on February 10, 2005, convicted on all counts;

-- on October, 17, 2006, sentenced to 28 months;

-- on November 17, 2009, a US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit three-judge panel upheld the conviction, shamelessly accusing Lynne of "knowingly and willfully making false statements," redirecting her case to District Court Judge John Koeltl for resentencing, instructing him to consider enhancements for terrorism, perjury, and abuse of her position as a lawyer - an outrageous mandate intimidating Koeltl to comply.


-- on July 15, 2010, Stewart resentenced to 10 years imprisonment for doing her job honorably, ethically, and admirably with distinction for 30 years.

New York Times writer John Eligon headlined the news, saying:

"Sentence Is Sharply Increased for Lawyer Convicted of Aiding Terror," adding:

After her sentence, a "collective gasp went up from (her) supporters, who packed the broad, high-ceilinged courtroom....followed by a few shrieks and sobs; some held their hands over their mouths."

Allowed to speak, Lynne said:

"I'm somewhat stunned, Judge, by the swift change in my outlook. We will continue to struggle on to take all available options to do what we need to do to change this. I feel like I let a lot of my good people down," after which supporters shouted, "We love you!"

Stewart added: "Over the last eight months, prison has diminished me. Daily, I confront the prospect of death."

So does her husband, Ralph Poynter, calling it "a death sentence," - a shocking miscarriage of justice, symbolizing America's descent to hell, its moral remnants lost, its democracy a convenient illusion, its despotic reality ruthless, corrupted, brutish and merciless, favoring power over populism under a Constitution political philosopher Sheldon Wolin describes as "conscripted to serve as (its) apprentice rather than its conscience."

On July 16, New York Law Journal's Mark Hamblett headlined, "Lynne Stewart Gets a New 10-Year Prison Sentence," saying:

Koeltl imposed a longer sentence, saying "comments by Stewart in 2006, including a statement in a television interview that she would do 'it' again and would not 'do anything differently' influenced his decision....indicat(ing) the original sentence 'was not sufficient' to reflect the goals of sentencing guidelines."

Forgotten were Koeltl's October 2006 comment, calling Lynne's character "extraordinary," saying she was "a credit to her profession," and that a long imprisonment would be "an unreasonable result," citing "the somewhat atypical nature of her case (and) lack of evidence that any victim was harmed...."

Calling terrorism enhancement "dramatically unreasonable (because it grossly) overstate(d) the seriousness of (her) conduct (and would equate her with) repeat felony offenders for the most serious offenses including murder and drug trafficking."

He did consider Stewart's age (70), her health (poor), her distinguished career representing society's disadvantaged and unwanted, and the unlikelihood she'd commit another "crime."

"But (he) clearly got the message from the 2nd Circuit," and complied, his own career perhaps on the line otherwise.

The American Bar Association's Model Code of Judicial Conduct

Updated in February 2007, its preamble calls for:

-- "An independent, fair and impartial judiciary," calling it "indispensable to our system of justice, (composed of) men and women of integrity;

-- Judges all times (ensure) the greatest possible public confidence in their independence, impartiality, integrity, and competence;

-- The Model Code....establishes standards (of) ethical conduct, (including) overarching principles of judicial ethics (and fairness), consistent with constitutional requirements, statutes, other court rules, and decisional law, and with due regard for all relevant circumstances;" above all, the truth, not a corrupted prosecutorial version of it, the kind sending innocent people to prison, including society's best, none better than Lynne.

Mark the date - July 15, 2010, a day of infamy, activist/writer Elaine Brower saying "The Veil is Lifted, The Gloves Are off," Stewart's lynching showing America's true face - cruel, unfair, lawless and debauched, a nation no longer fit to live in.

A Final Note

Jeff Mackler, West Coast Director of the Lynne Stewart Defense Committee, reports she'll "serve her sentence in Danbury, Connecticut's minimum security prison....a brilliant and dedicated fighter sacrificed on the alter of an intolerant class-biased system of repression and war."

A giant among us, she won't be forgotten, a Supreme Court appeal expected, despite little chance for compassion or judicial fairness, qualities absent in the Roberts court.


That evidently does pretty much sum up the reality quite accurately.

The country has always been on a path to hell and Stephen Lendman has basically described this in numerous enough of his articles; but it seems to have been getting increasingly worse, which it has been, in some ways anyway, and the pace (to hell) seems to have accelerated. I'm not sure if it's really accelerated or if it's only an impression that a person can have, but one thing is certain and it's that the pace hasn't slowed.

There's a book that I haven't read, because of not needing to in order to understand reality, but the title is something like, "Why Bad Things Happen to Good People".

We clearly don't need to ask why in the case of Lynne Stewart, for this case of bad and evil happening to a person of evidently great conscience and conduct, and sharp wit, clearly is due to an EVIL govt and its evil ruling elites.

But this latest judge was a bloody coward. He let fear due to his career being potentially or even certainly at risk if he didn't comply with evil interfere with justice, and by making the choice that he made, he has shamed himself quite permanently. No longer can he walk or be anywhere with [integrity]; and his conscience should get no rest.

Cowards like that need to all be removed from positions of importance, and just because he's not the only one is not a valid excuse for his cowardly compliance with evil. It's bad enough that the govt is highly populated with evil, rogue officials, no society needs additional cowards who obey the evil officials with power.

There is no glory in being cowards like this. It's better to die poor, humble, and with real integrity, than it is to die a traitor, coward, hypocrite, hegemon, and so on. The latter people can never die with honor. They can never attain any real glory. They delusionally believe the opposite, but they can't fool everyone and they are not harmful only to others, but also themselves.

One might think that when people attain positions like this judge is in that they'd have courage, but we'd evidently be making a mistake if we really believed that such people exist in significant numbers. Those who are of this integrity clearly are rare; very rare.

How many are there in the U.S., no more than a single hand is needed to count?

Judges should not be "career" people. They should be about JUSTICE, which has no fear; or if and when it does, then it's only the fear of not being able to stop evil. But it's without ever giving in to evil. Even if Justice can't usually win against evil, as is clearly the case in the US, Justice nevertheless maintains its principles and integrity. It will not comply with evil's demands; it would prefer to be oppressed and still fighter, rather than give in to evil.

This latest judge's cowardice has made him a traitor. How well does he understand this about what he's wrongly accepted to do? How well does he really understand what he's now done?

Perhaps his fear only blinded him and only temporarily, but maybe he'll remain a coward for the rest of his life. Hope for the former.


Support WarIsACrime


Tweet your Congress critters here.

Advertise on this site!

Facebook      Twitter

Our Store:

Enter the characters shown in the image.