For a conference called “Lawyering on the Edge”, hearing from someone who was convicted during the course of defending a client would seem useful to a roomful of law students who probably all want to avoid jail during their careers.
dedalus on October 1, 2007 at 12:56 AM

Avoiding jail isn’t that complicated: just don’t commit the crime.

Do you think people need a safecracker to come in to tell them how to not rob banks? If somebody needs a class to learn that lesson, he probably shouldn’t be in any school, let alone a law school.

The only reason people would flock to that seminar is if they all wanted to learn how to do the same thing, but NOT GET CAUGHT.

The toughest part of freedom of speech is allowing other points of view.

Personally, I think she should be in jail serving time for her conviction. THAT should be the issue, not trying to silence her.

The brochure . . . announces that “Hofstra Law School is an accredited NYS CLE [Continuing Legal Education] provider. Continuing Legal Education credits and scholarships are available.” Yet in the discussion at Legal Ethics Blog, commenter “V. May” points to the New York regulations governing continuing legal education, which declare in one provision, Part 1500.4b (5), that “Continuing legal education courses or programs to be accredited shall comply with the following guidelines”:

The course or program shall not be taught by a disbarred attorney, whether the disbarred attorney is the sole presenter or one of several instructors.

Hope nobody wanted (or expected) any CLE credit’s for paying to go to this… having a disbarred presenter just invalidated those. Which is also I suspect the reason a number of lawyers go to this (think continuing education classes).

But hey, sometimes you have to completely screw over your customers, offend the people paying to go to this, and muck up the rules completely in order to… wait, when is this a good idea?

Lets pretend we didn’t know the rules, and commit fraud against a bunch of lawyers (paying to go, not getting expected CLE’s). … Does anyone see a downside there?

Exactly.

This has nothing to do with free speech! Alan Colmes and Mark Lamont Hill are morons.
SoulGlo on September 28, 2007 at 7:11 PM

If morons didn’t have a right to free speech, there would be no such thing as television.

The problem is that liberals want the right to claim stupidity as a criminal defense. If we allowed that, there would be no such things as prisons.

And “a,” “and,” “the,” and “or,” among others.

The judgment of Temple is worse that of than Columbia. I, like many other people, are somewhat interested in the opinions of Ahmadinejad, since he is the president of country at which we may go to war. And anyways he already has a media platform. On the other hand, there is nothing really relevant to us about Lynn Stewart’s lawbreaking, and we should re-enforce the view that her actions are shameful her by not letting her have a platform.

Sorry but I could not get myself to watch the video. Colmes makes me sick. I used to mute my TV when he speaks, then I started to change channels. Now I just do not watch the proogram.
SIJ6141 on September 28, 2007 at 3:33 PM

This “Fair and Balanced” crap is for the birds. Don’t get me wrong, 30 years ago I would have thanked God for a TV news program that only wasted HALF my time, but Fox is still way behind the curve. It’s like they think there’s still some FAA regulation on the books that won’t let any conservative opinion be uttered if there is no Socialist apparatchik on hand to “correct” it lest the public’s thoughts be hopelessly corrupted.

Why the heck can’t we just have two normal (i.e., conservative) people having a rational discussion? I’d watch that every night. What’s the worst that could happen. Seriously, are there really that many people out there who’ll say, “What? No liberal jackass is interrupting the conversation every ten seconds; turn it and let’s see what’s on CBS.”

Mark Lamont Hill told a little lie, however.

He said he’d invite a Klan member to speak at a conference on “nationalism.” What he didn’t say, is that a revocation would be issued immediately because the far left academics would object to inviting racists to speak.

I know there are some legal eagles out there, so here’s something I’ve wondered. Why was Stewart not charged with / convicted of treason or sedition?
lan astaslem on September 28, 2007 at 10:38 AM

American courts have adopted the liberal definition of “treason” and “sedition.”

For all practical purposes, those crimes no longer exist.

Why the FBI and DOJ didn’t lock her up for good is a shame. Her assertions she wasnt part of the terror plot is total baloney. Did she think she was passing love letters?

If she says she did wrong, then Yes, its a good thing for these potential lawyers to hear…

If she is there to defend her actions? Different story…

so, based on a lack of knowledge about her intentions, I, as the Jury, is still out.

This is unconscionable to the nth degree! And their claim that they invited her because she was the defense attorney in a “very high profile case” is beyond absurd! With a little (and I mean very little) diligence, they could have found any number of sleezebag defense lawyers out there who did not breach the ethics code.

Stewart should be eating prison food, not polluting a college podium.