HA Exclusive: A conversation with Scott Fenstermaker

posted at 8:48 am on November 25, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Yesterday, I published a letter I received from a source within the DoD from the Office of the Chief Defense Counsel, in the Office of Military Commissions, that suspended Scott Fenstermaker as one of the civilian defense attorneys for the tribunals at Guantanamo Bay.  At the time, I tried contacting both the OMC and Fenstermaker in order to get statements about the authenticity of the memo and the circumstances surrounding the suspension.  In the evening, I did receive an initial response from Fenstermaker with a statement for publication, which I added to the original post in an update.

Afterwards, Fenstermaker contacted me again, offering to share more documents related to his suspension, as long as I agreed to publish them in full.  The documents give a broader context to the issue.  In our e-mail exchange, which I will publish in this post in full with Scott Fenstermaker’s permission, Fenstermaker says he was never told why he was suspended other than the vague allegations in the original August 29, 2008 memo of not being “forthright” and of “counterproductive” interactions.  He attempted to argue for his reinstatement, but never heard anything back from the OCDC.  In fact, Fenstermaker asks me to let him know if I get an answer from the DoD.

To set the stage, here’s his suspension letter, which I published yesterday:

Suspension letter

Three months later, Fenstermaker received a letter from the OMC/OCDC notifying him of what appears to be an automatic review of his suspension. The letter asked Fenstermaker to notify them if he wanted to pursue reinstatement:

Reply to Fenstermaker from Kryzminski

Less than three weeks later, Fenstermaker responded to both Col. David and Col. Kryzminski, challenging the basis of his suspension. He refused to reapply, considering it tantamount to an endorsement of the suspension, and asked again for the details of the allegations:

Fenstermaker letter to Kryzminski

Three months later, Fenstermaker got a reply from Col. Masciola, the new Chief Defense Counsel for the OMC, that rejected his argument about the suspension. Masciola ruled that certification was completely within the discretion of himself and his predecessor Col. David, and did not supply him with any explanation at all about the allegations against Fenstermaker. Masciola did, however, agree to lift the suspension against Fenstermaker for one client only — Ghailani, who had demanded Fenstermaker as his representative during a hearing:

Masciola letter

Meanwhile, Fenstermaker says that the DoD has apparently set up their Internet systems to block his website, something he only discovered when one of his former clients, Ammar al-Baluchi(Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s nephew and Ramzi Binalshibh’s cousin), informed him of it. According to this screen shot allegedly taken by al-Baluchi, Fenstermaker’s URL is now listed as a “malicious web site”:

Website notice

As I noted above, Fenstermaker and I had a lengthy e-mail conversation last night after he sent me the information. I’ll post it unedited, with Fenstermaker’s contributions in block quotes, for Hot Air readers to see in full. At the end, I’ll add my thoughts.

Ed,

The appropriate person to contact regarding my suspension is Colonel David. I wrote to an officer in the Office of the Chief Defense Counsel, of which Colonel David used to be in charge, seeking clarification of the issues you raise. They never responded.

Scott

Scott,

Thank you for your response. I have submitted that question to several people at the DoD, including the media contact for the military commissions. I’ll add this to my post in order to make sure that people understand that.

Ed,

I don’t know what your perspective is, but there was some follow-up correspondence to my suspension letter. If you would like the sum total of it, let me know and I will forward it immediately. I only ask that you print all four letters on your website/blog. I think your readers would find the government’s letters interesting.

Scott,

Thank you – I would be interested in seeing them. If I print anything — and it’s a good story, so I’d be inclined to do so — I would, as you request, print them all in full. In fact, since I printed the suspension letter, I think it would be rair [sic] to let people read the entire correspondence and judge the full exchange in context. If you shoot them over to me tonight, I’ll have them up in the morning.

Ed,

As you requested. Let me know if you have any questions. You should know that about 12 or 13 days after the 9/11 defendants learned of my suspension, they fired all of their attorneys and attempted to plead guilty.

Scott,

Thank you, much appreciated. Your reply to the OCDC was very interesting; I’m assuming you have not heard anything specific in response. I’m curious about the guilty pleas; do you think that is related to your suspension? If so, how so (or would you not care to speculate)?

Ed,

I never heard any response to my letter to the OCDC, other than Colonel Masciola’s March 16, 2009 letter. Not an e-mail, letter, phone call, tweet, blog, etc. I get asked all the time why I was suspended. My answer is usually “I don’t know.”

I believe the firing of the attorneys and the guilty pleas are related to my suspension, but in order to explain why, we would have to have a lengthy conversation about the events leading up to their early November firing of the attorneys and attempted guilty plea. The military defense attorneys, and the civilian attorneys they selected to assist them, have been heavily involved in violating these guys’ rights. Amazingly enough, the ACLU and the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys were involved in assisting in these violations, and went so far as to pay civilian attorneys to do legal work, with donated funds, to violate these guys’ rights. Little, if anything, is known about this by the public, but the detainees are intimately familiar with this problem, and have been victimized by it repeatedly. Hence, their contempt for the ACLU, which probably surprises many people, although not anyone familiar with what has gone on. The detainees have become understandably skeptical of assigned counsel, will almost certainly reject assigned counsel upon arrival in New York and, if the judge insists on assigning counsel, may put counsel in a position of physical danger (although I sincerely hope not).

Again, I don’t know your perspective, but I encourage you to be fair. The government is involved in egregious, and repeated, wrongdoing. That wrongdoing may not excuse the defendants’ misconduct, if any, but it has certainly fueled their anger against the United States government. By the way, are you aware that the United States Department of Defense has determined that my firm’s website is a “malicious website?” Mr. al-Baluchi informed me of this. See attached.

Scott,

I’m going to be as fair as I possibly can in presenting the material you have sent me, and I’d be happy to use the entire text of our correspondence as well in the post (mine and yours), but I want to double-check with you first; we didn’t discuss on- or off-the-record status after your initial e-mail to me. As far as the lengthier conversation, I wouldn’t mind at all hearing what you have to say. Of course, I reserve the right to have my own opinion on it, but I think you’ll find me a fair person for a conversation.

This question is off the record, and you can either answer it or not. The source who sent me the memo (who may have his own motives, of course) said that the rumor around the issues in the suspension letter was that you were a “9/11 Truther.” I didn’t print that, because there was no factual basis for the rumor; I can see arguing the Truther theory of 9/11 as a defense strategy, although I think it might be somewhat counterproductive in front of a NYC jury to try it, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you believe in it. Not sure if you want to address that at all, on or off the record. I’m just throwing it out there and won’t use it at all unless you want to address it specifically for the record. However, given your message below, I figure you may want to be aware of it.

Ed,

You can use anything and everything I sent to you, so long as you don’t make things up.

I don’t know what a “9/11 Truther” is. If you explain it to me, I’ll let you know if I’m one. My involvement in this defense has nothing to do with 9/11 at any level. My wife and my oldest daughter were within 200 yards of the South Tower when both planes went in that morning and I was scared as hell. I was crying watching it, and cried for months after reading those blubs the NY Times wrote about the victims. Having said that, I am a lawyer, in every sense of the word. I was born to defend people and love every minute of doing so. That’s what I do for a living and it is my calling. I’m also a graduate of the United States Air Force Academy (class of 1984) and the United States Air Force’s prisoner of war training (SERE), which has become somewhat famous because of the CIA’s use of it torture my clients, and others. I’m in this so that no other country or foreign people can ever say that no American stood in defense of these men. I will defend them with my last dying breath.

Any questions?

Scott

P.S. You can print this entire e-mail if you want.

Scott,

Well, if you have managed to avoid the Truthers, you’re better off. It’s a set of conspiracy theorists that claim that the US gov’t brought down the WTC buildings in a controlled demolition, that the planes were military planes and not commercial flights, and that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon, all to give Bush a pretext to grab Iraq’s oil fields.

Just for the record, I believe that the defendants should have proper and dedicated representation, regardless of what venue gets chosen (commissions or federal court). I adamantly believe that commissions are the proper venue, however. Just so you know where I’m coming from.

Ed,

I have no idea who attacked the WTC, and couldn’t care less. We have much bigger problems right now than rehashing yesterday’s news. The military commissions were a bad, and frightening idea. The military cannot be trusted with them (see my suspension letter). By the way, if you ever get an explanation of why I was suspended, please share it with me. I need the comic relief. I will not be part of their “proper and dedicated representation,” but will watch with interest as this plays out. I do have fears that they will hurt which ever attorneys are assigned to them, and I will personally ask the Justice Department to make sure the attorneys are protected.

Scott

Scott,

Thanks for the conversation this evening. I’ll be posting it tomorrow morning, along with all of the documents; would love to talk more about the issues surrounding the case in the future. Drop me a line any time. My best to your family. And if I do hear from the DoD with anything substantive, I will be sure to alert you immediately.

===========

So what to think? I have nothing against the notion that the detainees should get representation, and that their attorneys should work hard on their behalf — although I also strongly believe that should take place in a military tribunal for war criminals captured abroad. I should also note (as you can see by reading this) that Scott was very responsive to my questions. And if the memos are the complete record of the conversation between Scott and the DoD, I agree that they owe him a better explanation of the reasons for his suspension. It seems more than a little strange that they didn’t provide him with more details of the allegations while asking him to respond to them for a potential reinstatement.

Frankly, though, a couple of things here bother me. I can allow for the idea that some people have never heard of 9/11 Truthers, especially people who don’t marinate in politics or the law, but an attorney representing defendants in a 9/11 case? I find that very, very hard to believe, especially since it could be a defense strategy, although not a terribly good one. The ACLU as an enemy of the 9/11 defendants sounds like an interesting story, and perhaps I’ll find out more later, but it seems equally farfetched. I’m not saying either are impossible, but unlikely? You make the call.

Update: Just as I did yesterday, I erroneously wrote “Fensterman” instead of Fenstermaker a couple of times in the post. I have it corrected now; thanks to Roger B for pointing it out.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

SKYFOX on November 25, 2009 at 10:06 AM

Fenster is “window” in German.

Sekhmet on November 25, 2009 at 10:07 AM

Then wouldnt his best response be….I cant comment on that?

becki51758 on November 25, 2009 at 10:03 AM

Yes, definitely, but it’s a series of email exchanges and it’s kind of tangential to the “real” story. I mean, if he’d known that that was going to be all you guys were going to talk about here, he might have chosen his words differently. Or maybe not. Maybe he’s a nut, I don’t know.

Proud Rino on November 25, 2009 at 10:08 AM

This attention whore attorney sums it up when he says to you:

“I have no idea who attacked the WTC, and couldn’t care less.”

OMG! This guy is a tool and a sickening American out to promote his own self. You’re being used Ed. Drop this guy.

enoughalready on November 25, 2009 at 10:09 AM

And here, he establishes his liberal bona-fides by admitting to developing his dislike of the US Gov’t while serving at the Air Force academy.
JiangxiDad on November 25, 2009 at 9:57 AM

I don’t agree with all of your analysis, but this is a great link. Thanks!

Buy Danish on November 25, 2009 at 10:09 AM

“I have no idea who attacked the WTC, and couldn’t care less.”

That very statement, in and of itself, would be grounds for a conviction appeal, based on “incompetent representation”. And, rehashing yesterday’s news is exactly what a criminal trial is all about, is it not?

I call BS.

GoldenEagle4444 on November 25, 2009 at 10:12 AM

Ed, congratulations on a great piece of TRUE journalism. With that said here is just ONE of my thoughts on this entire episode, as I have far too many to get into here.

Mr. Fenstermaker not only stated he didn’t know what a “9/11 truther” is nor does he care who is responsible for the WTC bombings (ironic since he wishes to represent those involved), but he also mentioned his wife and daughter were just 200 yards from the South Tower when it was hit. He goes on to describe how he “cryed” over this. I wonder, just HOW would he be today if in fact his wife and daughter were killed on 9/11. Would he be so boldly and unabashedly be fighting for the rights of these accused war criminals doing what he so ‘loves to do’ in being such a legal beagle? IMO, I find this to be more than just a TAD disturbing, DoD withstanding.

lyfsatrip on November 25, 2009 at 10:12 AM

Ed, How about some back round info on this fella?

Goody2Shoes on November 25, 2009 at 10:13 AM

Seams very weasely. I think this coupled with the poor performance on The O’Reilly Factor caused the firing.

- The Cat

P.S. Weasely with the “I don’t know what a truther is” thing. As well as ‘it depends on your definition of is murder is’. Ok, I’m paraphrasing but still.

MirCat on November 25, 2009 at 10:15 AM

Good work, Ed. Another great example of how blogs can scoop the MSM. Stay on this story.

Enrique on November 25, 2009 at 10:19 AM

Instead of helping his career as a lawyer, Fenstermaker said he thinks his skepticism may have held him back.

“I may not be as objective as I could be. I really do not like the government at all,” he said

– By Sarah Mervosh

The Almanac

Goody2Shoes on November 25, 2009 at 10:19 AM

I get that it’s consistent with his position, but it sickens me to hear him going on about violation of constitutional rights of his enemy terrorist combatant clients.

Pretty good English on that handwritten note from the detainee, too. Flawless, in fact, with a quibble about “from” perhaps.

TexasDan on November 25, 2009 at 10:19 AM

I am a lawyer, in every sense of the word. I was born to defend people and love every minute of doing so. That’s what I do for a living and it is my calling. I’m in this so that no other country or foreign people can ever say that no American stood in defense of these men. I will defend them with my last dying breath. Any questions?

I have a question – Do you truly believe that your clients are innocent of terrorism and murder? That would be the only way to justify defending THEM. Your job, as a defense attorney, should be to defend the LAW of the US and make sure your clients get a FAIR TRIAL. In US Court, the defendant can be guilty of the most heinous acts, but still deserves a fair trial. It is not your duty to defend and justify your clients actions. Unless you really do believe they did not commit these acts or did it because the Great Satan made them.

That is why lawyers are hated, and rightly so.

I’m also a graduate of the United States Air Force Academy (class of 1984) and the United States Air Force’s prisoner of war training (SERE), which has become somewhat famous because of the CIA’s use of it torture my clients, and others.

Well there you go. Sure he won’t talk about trutherism, but he sure will accuse the US Military of torture. This guy knows his clients are guilty as sin and he has no problem trying to get them acquitted. Again, this is why lawyers are hated.

Spectreman on November 25, 2009 at 10:21 AM

This guy sounds a bit kooky. He hates the US Government and the DoD. He claims that he neither knows nor cares who was behind 9/11 but he is only representing his client because he feels the Government is out to get them for some unknown reason.

I think this guy will become quite (in)famous during this trial.

Mord on November 25, 2009 at 10:21 AM

This guy’s claim that he “couldn’t care less” about who attacked the WTC is typical leftist behavior-all normal Americans would want to know who was responsible for the deadliest civilian carnage on US soil in American history. No matter where the trail led, or no matter where the dots were connected.

But this guy, like many on the Left, seems to be afraid of what he might discover if he did too much digging to find who had a hand in the attacks. So instead of blaming al Qaeda, who actually did the attacks, they blame Saudi Arabia, simply because most of the perps were Saudis, or they blame Bush and Cheney.

But raise the possibility that someone else could have been involved, and suddenly they are not interested any more. Because they are afraid that “someone else” would smash their illusions.

Del Dolemonte on November 25, 2009 at 10:24 AM

Wonder who he feels about Pearl Harbor? 9/11 was worse in the fact that it was on mainline US (Hawaii was a territory in 1941). 12/7/41 was an attack on our military, not civilians. I watched the interview on O’Reilly 2 times. After listening to him, I would imagine he would have defended the Japanese.

Voter from WA State on November 25, 2009 at 10:20 AM

Yep, he definitely would have defended the Japanese.

FYI many folks don’t know it, but there were civilians killed in the Pearl Harbor attacks. 70 or so, as a matter of fact.

Del Dolemonte on November 25, 2009 at 10:27 AM

Since we are applying the US Constitution to these folks, how come these guys aren’t set free?

Not being Mirandized on the battle field should be an automatic get out jail card.

However, it appears, we aren’t really talking about applying the entire US Constitution and subsequent court decisions to them, we are just going to apply some.

TexasDude on November 25, 2009 at 10:28 AM

All this back and forth, procedure here, rebuttal there. It’s all a bunch of blah, blah, yadda, yadda, which cannot hide the fact that lawyers are all scum.

NavyMustang on November 25, 2009 at 9:27 AM

From a fellow sailor: “go to hell”

Squid Shark on November 25, 2009 at 10:29 AM

This guy is so full of $hite, I don’t know where to begin.
When your “source” mentioned yesterday that Fenstermaker was a 911 truther I thought he was bs-ing me. Obviously, not.

He knows why he was suspended:

One, working in conjunction with a 911 truther is counterproductive in defending these defendants. No one wants to work with a nut and someone who is “less than forthcoming.” Hell, look how he is trying to B.S. people here now.

Two, he was less than forthcoming in that he represented himself as counsel to several of these defendants when he had not been appointed and they were already represented by counsel. You can’t effin’ do that. Most of these guys didn’t even know who he was. They considered lifting the suspension when Ghailani asked for him. And when it got to court, they still couldn’t appoint him because he was not a member of that court which is more than bizarre because he practices federal law in that district.

His gripe is that they haven’t memorialized the reasons for it in writing to his satisfaction. Well, tough. This playing dumb crap only supports the reasons why they suspended him.

Blake on November 25, 2009 at 10:30 AM

Since the Geneva Conventions do not apply to enemy combatants like KSM and the others, a point which no one credibly disputes, we should have extracted from them all intel they possessed and, then, summarily executed them.

No military or civilian trials, period.

But because we’ve obviously morphed into a nation of candy asses, if the military wishes to extend due process to these vermin, do it in a military tribunal, as originally planned, and tell Obama and Holder to shove their show trial of the millineum where the sun doesn’t shine.

TXUS on November 25, 2009 at 10:30 AM

Ed, I have no idea who attacked the WTC, and couldn’t care less.

You, sir, are a dumb@ss.

nickj116 on November 25, 2009 at 10:32 AM

Here’s another thing that bothers me:

When intereviewed by Bill O, Mr Fenstermaker says that they’ll likely be putting on a justification defense. On other words, they’re not denying that they committed the attacks on 9/11 but they had a darn good reason.

In his e-mail to Ed, he claims that he doesn’t know who committed 9/11. Really? Then why try to justify the actions of 9/11? Shouldn’t you be arguing that they didn’t do it?

You. Are. A. Liar.

This guy is the embodiment of all the reasons that people tell lawyer jokes.

landshark on November 25, 2009 at 10:33 AM

That is why lawyers are hated, and rightly so.

Lawyers are hated because people only really care about justice when it referrs to them. If they are not the guy arrested and needing an attorney, everyone who gets picked up by the cops must be guilty and tha lawyer who has the AUDACITY to do his job is “hated”.

Squid Shark on November 25, 2009 at 10:33 AM

Background from the resume on his website:

Practice Areas: Criminal Litigation; Tax Litigation.

Admitted: 1993, New York; 1994, U.S. District Court, Southern and Eastern Districts of New York; 1996, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit; 2006, United States Supreme Court

Law School: Harvard Law School, J.D., cum laude, 1992; New York University Law School, LL.M. in Taxation, 1997

College: United States Air Force Academy, B.S., with distinction, 1984

Member: American Bar Association (past Chair, Subcommittee on Federal Sentencing, Tax Section); National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys; pool of Qualified Civilian Defense Counsel.

Biography: Former Assistant District Attorney, New York County. Member, Practitioner’s Advisory Group, Federal Sentencing Commission.

Born: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, May 1, 1962

Are lawyer resumes usally that vague?

TexasDan on November 25, 2009 at 10:35 AM

Don’t “interviews” like this help them in that effort?

Rational Thought on November 25, 2009 at 9:55 AM

In my opinion Ed’s work and this thread do nothing to aid the efforts of terrorists and their apologists. I don’t want to censor and conceal what these people are saying. I want to to read it so I can know who they are, what they believe, and then rebut it. Who in this thread is defending Scott’s statements or the actions of his former clients?

Loxodonta on November 25, 2009 at 10:35 AM

I am totally ashamed that this jerk had anything to do with my Air Force. Distance yourself from him Ed. Get too close and you’ll become part of his book.

PaCadle on November 25, 2009 at 10:35 AM

Are lawyer resumes usally that vague?

TexasDan on November 25, 2009 at 10:35 AM

Yes. It gives you all you need, areas of practice, education and awards.

Squid Shark on November 25, 2009 at 10:36 AM

Regarding his website:

1. Why does al-Baluchi have access to the internet?

2. Who has verified besides a terrorist that his website was labeled malicious?

3. What does malicious mean? I get plenty of those screens when a site has been infected.

Blake on November 25, 2009 at 10:36 AM

“I have no idea who attacked the WTC, and couldn’t care less.”

OMG! This guy is a tool and a sickening American out to promote his own self. You’re being used Ed. Drop this guy.
enoughalready on November 25, 2009 at 10:09 AM

Ed, I agree with enoughalready. This man is a liar at best. I read the docs above and none of that passes the smell test. Something is terribly wrong with this guy.

The DoD just doesn’t bounce people for no reason.

dogsoldier on November 25, 2009 at 10:38 AM

A lot of you have some very bizarre and erroneous notions about legal representations:

1. His clients have said repeatedly and publicly they are guilty. There would be no IAC in admitting it. It would be bad form, but not a winning appealable issue.

2. Arguing that admitting what a 911 truther is will not taint the trial. That’s just crazy. The only thing it will taint is his reputation. The truth hurts. Who the hell wants to hire a 911 truther? And he is a truther.

Blake on November 25, 2009 at 10:42 AM

Fenster-whore:

I have no idea who attacked the WTC, and couldn’t care less.

Breath taking.

Think this guy gets his marching orders from Satan? I do.

pabarge on November 25, 2009 at 10:43 AM

Or, on the other side, if he’s arguing that his clients couldn’t have done this for reasons X, Y and Z, and someone shows an email of him claiming support for the Truthers? Both would be devastating in a court of law.

Nethicus on November 25, 2009 at 9:00 AM

No. What attys say is not evidence. Juries are instructed repeatedly on this. And many attorneys proclaim their clients innocence out of court. Isn’t that what a truther is doing – claiming that the gov. is the guilty party and not these azzholes?

Blake on November 25, 2009 at 10:47 AM

Outstanding work, Ed.

This is what true journalism is supposed to be about. Present facts and information without bias. When you write your opinion, you state it as such.

To me, Fenstermaker is just doing his job being a defense attorney. He can’t deny the 9/11 Truther stuff, just as he cannot deny anything that could possibly help his clients’ case.

There are MANY slimy defense attorneys in the world, and he’s definitely one. But when you’re guilty and need a defense attorney, this is what you turn to.

There is a demand for this service, so there must be a supply for it in the good ole’ USA.

He is a necessary evil in the economic sense just as much as in the legal “bill of rights” sense.

connertown on November 25, 2009 at 10:49 AM

Wow – hard to say what to make of this lawyer…

jwehman on November 25, 2009 at 9:02 AM

How about compost?

Dubya Bee on November 25, 2009 at 10:49 AM

landshark on November 25, 2009 at 10:33 AM

Additionally, no atty who knows what the eff he is doing is going to claim he is going to argue justification as a defense to the charges. It is not a defense to the charges and the court will not allow it.

Blake on November 25, 2009 at 10:50 AM

When the other bloggers see this -especially the legal bloggers, they are going to rip this guy a new a-hole.

Blake on November 25, 2009 at 10:52 AM

There are MANY slimy defense attorneys in the world, and he’s definitely one. But when you’re guilty and need a defense attorney, this is what you turn to.

connertown on November 25, 2009 at 10:49 AM

No, this is not the type of atty you turn to.

Blake on November 25, 2009 at 10:54 AM

I did note a couple of things: 1) Though he references his graduation from the Air Force Academy and Sere training, he makes no reference to actual service in the Air Force – I would be curious about how, where and for how long he served.
holdfast on November 25, 2009 at 9:12 AM

I agree and mentioned this yesterday- his bio shows a five year gap between finishing undergrad and starting law school, but does not mention any stint in the service. Struck me as odd, since his practice includes military work. BTW- Great reporting, Ed. P.S. As a lawyer, I humbly submit that not every lawyer is scum.

LASue on November 25, 2009 at 10:55 AM

Fenstermaker can wrap himself in the flag and preach from the moral high ground all he wants. He’s still full of crap. If he doesn’t call the killing of over 2000 innocent civilians “murder”, I’d like to know what euphemism he does use.

GarandFan on November 25, 2009 at 10:57 AM

LASue on November 25, 2009 at 10:55 AM

In 1986, while he was still in the airforce and stationed in Seattle, he rec’d a masters in aeronatical engineering.

Blake on November 25, 2009 at 11:01 AM

In Fenstermaker, I smell a liberal playing the victim card something in which they are experts. Whine, Fenster, whine.

docdave on November 25, 2009 at 11:02 AM

No. What attys say is not evidence. Juries are instructed repeatedly on this. And many attorneys proclaim their clients innocence out of court. Isn’t that what a truther is doing – claiming that the gov. is the guilty party and not these azzholes?

Blake on November 25, 2009 at 10:47 AM

Not necessarily. It would be an instant appeal if a lawyer publicly said one thing while defending clients with another. You could easily argue that the lawyer was sabotaging his own case, and would therefore not be conducting a zealous defense, which would then disqualify his actions as council.

Nethicus on November 25, 2009 at 11:03 AM

This guy is an idiot and I think there is a lot more he’s leaving out. I’m sure he knows why he was suspeneded. I hope you get more info from the DOD Ed, because I’m sure that would give us a clearer insight to what’s going on. I’d believe the DOD over this POS.

Brat4life on November 25, 2009 at 11:04 AM

In my opinion Ed’s work and this thread do nothing to aid the efforts of terrorists and their apologists. I don’t want to censor and conceal what these people are saying. I want to to read it so I can know who they are, what they believe, and then rebut it. Who in this thread is defending Scott’s statements or the actions of his former clients?

Loxodonta on November 25, 2009 at 10:35 AM

+1

Nethicus on November 25, 2009 at 11:03 AM

Exactly.

Buy Danish on November 25, 2009 at 11:23 AM

I have no idea who attacked the WTC, and couldn’t care less.

Nothing more to say.

Connie on November 25, 2009 at 11:27 AM

I don’t know what a “9/11 Truther” is.

Oh for heaven’s sake, he needs to crawl back under that rock.

moonsbreath on November 25, 2009 at 11:28 AM

Are lawyer resumes usally that vague?

TexasDan on November 25, 2009 at 10:35 AM

Rightly or wrongly, pedigree and a career roadmap are very important.

Some may offer a list of significant representations, often sanitized for confidentiality, and, if applicable, a list of cases in which there were reported decisions.

BuckeyeSam on November 25, 2009 at 11:32 AM

I have no idea who attacked the WTC, and couldn’t care less.

Really Scott? Scott should be among the jurors then. Never heard of Muslims or Islam or anything related to his terrorist friends.

BL@KBIRD on November 25, 2009 at 11:32 AM

In 1986, while he was still in the airforce and stationed in Seattle, he rec’d a masters in aeronatical engineering. Blake on November 25, 2009 at 11:01 AM”

Thanks — I missed your post earlier. If he was in the AF while in Seattle, wouldn’t he be assigned a job? (I thought all service academies have a multi-year service requirement, but I could be wrong.) Something about this guy’s background still seems off to me.

LASue on November 25, 2009 at 11:33 AM

I have no idea who attacked the WTC, and couldn’t care less.

I agree, that’s the important quote. He appears to be a very troubled man and probably drove everybody nuts, from the ACLU to the government, with his antics.

PattyJ on November 25, 2009 at 11:38 AM

Not necessarily. It would be an instant appeal if a lawyer publicly said one thing while defending clients with another. You could easily argue that the lawyer was sabotaging his own case, and would therefore not be conducting a zealous defense, which would then disqualify his actions as council.

Nethicus on November 25, 2009 at 11:03 AM

Don’t waste my time. I was responding to what you originally wrote. Don’t change it and then argue I am wrong. Jeesh!

Blake on November 25, 2009 at 11:39 AM

Gee, a troll-free thread again-they must all be getting their Clown Cars ready for tomorrow’s Macy’s Parade.

Del Dolemonte on November 25, 2009 at 11:40 AM

(I thought all service academies have a multi-year service requirement, but I could be wrong.) Something about this guy’s background still seems off to me.

LASue on November 25, 2009 at 11:33 AM

It used to be four years unless you uhhh foul up. In which case they boot your butt out and you have to pay for the education calculated by a formula.

dogsoldier on November 25, 2009 at 11:43 AM

Thanks — I missed your post earlier. If he was in the AF while in Seattle, wouldn’t he be assigned a job? (I thought all service academies have a multi-year service requirement, but I could be wrong.) Something about this guy’s background still seems off to me.

LASue on November 25, 2009 at 11:33 AM

I would assume so. OTOH, I have met military taking classes/seeking degrees while serving before and I assume working. I don’t know what the commitment is when you attend a service academy. Obviously, it’s not as long as we both thought. His background doesn’t seem off to me except for pursuing these cases after his military experience. Other things about him seem really really off to me.

Blake on November 25, 2009 at 11:44 AM

Just for interests sake, who was the genius who thought up the idea of charging Islamic Mujaheddin, the warriors of the god Allah, as common criminals with the rights of American citizens? Who did that?

BL@KBIRD on November 25, 2009 at 11:44 AM

The guy is an absolute moron or a bad liar…I vote #2. His wife and oldest daughter were within 200 yards of the south tower, according to his account, during the 911 attack, he was scared to death, etc., BUT…he doesn’t know who committed the acts and could care less (a true American…hell, he’s not even human). And he has no idea what “Truthers” represent……..BS. Freakin’ typical lying loser. This guy’s e-mails aren’t even good enough for use as toilet paper in an emergency. Sure am glad we wasted all that money sending the puke to the Air Force Academy.

keldog on November 25, 2009 at 11:47 AM

It used to be four years unless you uhhh foul up. In which case they boot your butt out and you have to pay for the education calculated by a formula.

dogsoldier on November 25, 2009 at 11:43 AM

He graduated in 1984. Was still in in 1986. Was out by 1989 to enroll at Harvard. So, I guess he did his commitment.

Blake on November 25, 2009 at 11:47 AM

I really wasn’t going to chime in on this thread. What more could I say than I think Fenstermaker is a scumbag who is far too “active” in ensuring his client gets a fair trial to the point of supporting terrorism.

Yet, when I come across comments about not knowing who “attacked” the WTC or calling the deaths of 3,000 Americans yesterday’s news, I simply cannot ignore the fact. The WTC was destroyed by radical Muslims trained by the very people dirtbags like Fenstermaker wants to set loose once again. He gives all defense lawyers a bad name and that’s damned near impossible to do.

And BTW, I know that Ed initiated the exchange but what lawyer worth his/her salt has time for lengthy discussions on a blog?

highhopes on November 25, 2009 at 12:07 PM

Dear Marine/Army private –
When you find an armed non-uniformed combatant on the field of battle, save yourself a SH*%load of headaches and the country a pile of money, shoot him dead.

The Geneva convention says that armed non-uniformed combatants are NOT to be affored any rights and may be shot on site. Go ahead. Please.

And just as a note; I am not suggesting they shoot dead unarmed non-combatants.

barnone on November 25, 2009 at 12:13 PM

Is anyone actually prosecuting this case?

So far, all I see is, defense attorneys – including Eric Holder.

franksalterego on November 25, 2009 at 12:23 PM

I’m in this so that no other country or foreign people can ever say that no American stood in defense of these men.

The thing is, they’re not entitled to a defense. They’re literal outlaws — outside the protection of any law, anywhere — by the virtue of their own actions and associations.

As far as I’m concerned, that applies as well to every “lawyer” who rushed to their defense.

Crawford on November 25, 2009 at 12:29 PM

And BTW, I know that Ed initiated the exchange but what lawyer worth his/her salt has time for lengthy discussions on a blog?

highhopes on November 25, 2009 at 12:07 PM

Patterico, Allahpundit, and the list goes on and on….

Blake on November 25, 2009 at 12:32 PM

Is anyone actually prosecuting this case?

So far, all I see is, defense attorneys – including Eric Holder.

franksalterego on November 25, 2009 at 12:23 PM

Yes. And I am sure they are working hard preparing for the trials. But, as prosecutors, they aren’t allowed to shoot their mouths off. And why would they? The case isn’t going to be won outside the courtroom and that is the way it should be.

Blake on November 25, 2009 at 12:34 PM

..aside from the other opinions expressed here, he’s still a goddam USAFA ring-banger.

VoyskaPVO on November 25, 2009 at 12:35 PM

I’m in this so that no other country or foreign people can ever say that no American stood in defense of these men.

The thing is, they’re not entitled to a defense. They’re literal outlaws — outside the protection of any law, anywhere — by the virtue of their own actions and associations.

As far as I’m concerned, that applies as well to every “lawyer” who rushed to their defense.

Crawford on November 25, 2009 at 12:29 PM

The tribunals afforded them defense attorneys. His statement is a lie. Remember, people, there are lies of commission and omission.

Even the disgusting NAZIs had lawyers. It was and is unnecessary to bring these people here.

dogsoldier on November 25, 2009 at 1:00 PM

“I have no idea who attacked the WTC, and couldn’t care less.”

…says Mr. Fenstermaker aka Mr. Windowmaker aka Mr. Windowdresser.

Seems like he does know what a 9/11 truther is.

UnitDave on November 25, 2009 at 1:03 PM

Ok, a lawyer, and a liberal lawyer, who has had first hand contact, and knowledge of the dealings, legal or otherwise, for how long, has NEVER heard of a 9/11 truther? Baloney!!! He’s lying there.

This attention whore attorney sums it up when he says to you:

“I have no idea who attacked the WTC, and couldn’t care less.”

OMG! This guy is a tool and a sickening American out to promote his own self. You’re being used Ed. Drop this guy.

enoughalready on November 25, 2009 at 10:09 AM

That comment bothers me as well. Who the hell says something like that? I find it amazing that he’s never heard of 9/11 truthers, then proceeds to paint the military as if they’re corrupt. I think that’s proof enough, that he’s a possible truther, trying to pull the wool down over everyone’s eyes.

capejasmine on November 25, 2009 at 1:03 PM

Not to hijack, but make sure you let Best Buy know how you feel about its pro-Muslim, anti-Christian advertising campaigns:

http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/11/23/a-storm-is-brewing-at-best-buy/

voxpopuli on November 25, 2009 at 1:21 PM

I agree that they owe him a better explanation of the reasons for his suspension

If presence in that corps of lawyers is indeed “discretionary”, then I would disagree with you. There is no more need for explanation than when Clinton and Bush fired US attorneys. Unless otherwise stated, if discretionary, it could have been because Col David didn’t like Fenstermaker’s argyle socks. Not a good way to keep a good team, but nonetheless not prohibited.

Ed, I have no idea who attacked the WTC, and couldn’t care less.

Although he does know, the Defense Attorney in him can’t want to know. Some defense attorneys insist on not knowing if their cleints are guilty, since it might affect the vigorousness of their effort to damage the prosecution’s case.

That said, this guy is why our advesarial legal system has the possibility to create legal cancers that may well destroy the nation at some point (But I ain’t got no solution.)

eeyore on November 25, 2009 at 1:24 PM

These muslims want to DESTROY my country and this fuckjng asshoIe is defending them.

He should be airdropped in the Kabbah with a giant Star of David and Mohemmed’s mother sucking the gentils of a pig painted on him.

VinceP1974 on November 25, 2009 at 1:46 PM

No issues with having representation at a trial at all. As an AD Army JAG I’ve had to represent criminals to the fullest extent of the law and did so in the context of a fair trail. However, I can assure you, if Fenstermaker was removed from the defense pool by them, there is no question that he was engaging in activity outside the box of zealous representation of his clients. (Spare me the conspiracy theories.) I’ll refer everyone to a video I saw of Fenster being interviewed on the street around the same time he appeared on O’Reilly. Fire-breathing-hate-America-bile spewing from his pie hole non-stop. He is a communist and borderline seditious. Guaranteed, that is why he’s sent packing. They won’t tell him more because if they give him details, the ones who found out what he was doing and turned him in will be the target of non-stop harrassment, law suits, etc. That’s that facts folks.

warriorlawyer on November 25, 2009 at 1:50 PM

voxpopuli on November 25, 2009 at 1:21 PM

Heads up: concern troll provocation!

ya2daup on November 25, 2009 at 1:52 PM

Hopefully this case will be argued in front of a judge with the attitude that the only question before the court is “Did the defendants commit the crime they are accused of? The reason they did it is irrelevent.”

single stack on November 25, 2009 at 2:55 PM

I have absolutely no problems with defending the indefensible. Unfortunately, due to a few bad apples and people’s mistaken beliefs, it is not the job of the defense atty to do anything to get their clients off. Their job is to defend their clients zealously within the confines of the law and their professional responsibilities.

Blake on November 25, 2009 at 3:55 PM

I have no idea who attacked the WTC, and couldn’t care less.

Riiigghht.

Having said that, I am a lawyer, in every sense of the word. I was born to defend people and love every minute of doing so. That’s what I do for a living and it is my calling.

It is okay for a lawyer, out of conscience, to pass on a client. Right? I mean, you don’t have to take every murderous, terrorist, freak, thug, creep that kills a few thousand Americans for sport, as a client, do you?

Pig.

pugwriter on November 25, 2009 at 4:03 PM

(I thought all service academies have a multi-year service requirement, but I could be wrong.)

LASue on November 25, 2009 at 11:33 AM

According to wiki

Students at four Service academies (not including Merchant Marine Academy) incur a minimum five year active duty commitment and if in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps or Coast Guard have an additional three year reserve commitment.

Kings Point graduates also have an eight year total obligation, but, although voluntarily entered by some, active duty is not required. The United States Marine Corps, a service under the Department of the Navy, does not have an academy of its own but instead commissions officers from Annapolis and Kings Point.

If an Air Force cadet receives a pilot slot, they incur a 10 year commitment.

Midshipmen who go on to become Naval Aviators in the Navy and Marine Corps owe 8 years from the time of earning their wings (the end of flight training) and seven for those who become Naval Flight Officers. However, this commitment is independent of commissioning source; it also applies for NROTC graduates and OCS graduates who go on to become Naval Aviators or Naval Flight Officers.

Del Dolemonte on November 25, 2009 at 4:29 PM

All this back and forth, procedure here, rebuttal there. It’s all a bunch of blah, blah, yadda, yadda, which cannot hide the fact that lawyers are all scum.

NavyMustang on November 25, 2009 at 9:27 AM
From a fellow sailor: “go to hell”

Squid Shark on November 25, 2009 at 10:29 AM

Thanks!

NavyMustang on November 25, 2009 at 7:16 PM

ED;
I, for one, would love to see the application SF did not wish to resubmit.
I’m of the thinking that he was lawyer wrangled by better wranglers who may have set him up for perjury charges with this requirement.

OkieDoc on November 25, 2009 at 9:24 PM

There’s no way of denying this very simple fact. The election of Barak Hussein Obama did far more damage to America than the 9/11/01 atrocities. The latter inflicted damage on America from without while the former has essentially been an eleven month terror attack from within.

Let’s roll.

highhopes on November 25, 2009 at 11:46 PM

Military tribunals and nooses for those found guilty.

This lawyer is a frikkin’ liar.

He should be disbarred for pretending not to know about 9/11 trutherism.

That’s as preposterous as Billy Jeff’s “what the definition of is is” b.s.

KSM deserves just what war criminals, spies, saboteurs and terrorists have always gotten in the past: a military court and swift execution upon sentencing.

Ed, you wasted time on this slimy esquire prevaricator.

He deserves no more platform for his murky anti-American sludge than KSM and his maniacs.

profitsbeard on November 26, 2009 at 1:54 AM

Here are three more reasons not to believe what Scott Fenstermaker says:

1. Although he was on O’Reilly spouting trial stategy, he told O’Reilly that he was not an attorney of record for any of the NY defendants, but was advising the attorneys of record. None of them confirmed his claim.

2. A petition for writ of habeas corpus he filed in Federal court in New York was dismissed because he had never been in contact with any of the petitioners and never had their permission to file the petition.

3. In a civil case against the schools in Westchester County, his discovery requests were so outrageous that the other side did not have to answer and he had to pay their attorneys fees.

slp on November 26, 2009 at 2:19 AM

I have no idea who attacked the WTC, and couldn’t care less.

This is all we need to know about this man.

Potfry on November 26, 2009 at 7:33 AM

Yeah, what was it that Shakespeare said about lawyers …?

TexasDude on November 26, 2009 at 9:46 AM

Complete & Total BS.

“I have no idea who attacked the WTC, and couldn’t care less.”

Talk about an encapsulation of a lawyer’s personality and professionalism. Fewer words have seldom spoken louder.

Griz on November 26, 2009 at 10:01 AM

HighHopes: I was thinking the same thing not thirty minutes ago when I was outside for a cigarette. Obama makes the 19 hijackers look like boyscouts without a compass….

Great minds think alike :)

adamsmith on November 26, 2009 at 5:20 PM

I had a HUGE problem with this statement

I have no idea who attacked the WTC, and couldn’t care less. We have much bigger problems right now than rehashing yesterday’s news.

Is he implying the defense of his clients is more important that the defense of the United States, whose laws protect even those so vile as to attack their innocent citizens?

Bruno_Mitchell on November 27, 2009 at 9:11 AM

If this POS has a wife, pretty soon they’ll be referring to him as the late Scott Spinstermaker.

MaiDee on November 27, 2009 at 12:50 PM

Please pay attention.

He told O’Reilly that he was not an attorney of record for any of the NY defendants, but was advising the attorneys of record.

Some enterprising journalist should ask the attorneys of record what relationship, if any, he has with them.

The probable answer is “None.”

slp on November 27, 2009 at 4:19 PM

There’s no way of denying this very simple fact. The election of Barak Hussein Obama did far more damage to America than the 9/11/01 atrocities. The latter inflicted damage on America from without while the former has essentially been an eleven month terror attack from within.

Let’s roll.

highhopes on November 25, 2009 at 11:46 PM

Well said, Real American. Let’s Roll and Keep on Truckin!!

simplesimon on November 29, 2009 at 11:46 AM

Comment pages: 1 2