12136 51BMSAT1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 2 -------------------------------------x 2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 3 3 v. S1 02 Cr. 395 (JGK) 4 4 AHMED ABDEL SATTAR, a/k/a "Abu Omar," 5 a/k/a "Dr. Ahmed," LYNNE STEWART, 5 and MOHAMMED YOUSRY, 6 6 Defendants. 7 -------------------------------------x 7 8 January 11, 2005 8 9:35 a.m. 9 9 10 10 Before: 11 HON. JOHN G. KOELTL 11 12 District Judge 12 13 13 APPEARANCES 14 14 DAVID N. KELLEY 15 United States Attorney for the 15 Southern District of New York 16 ROBIN BAKER 16 CHRISTOPHER MORVILLO 17 ANTHONY BARKOW 17 ANDREW DEMBER 18 Assistant United States Attorneys 18 19 KENNETH A. PAUL 19 BARRY M. FALLICK 20 Attorneys for Defendant Sattar 20 21 MICHAEL TIGAR 21 JILL R. SHELLOW-LAVINE 22 Attorneys for Defendant Stewart 22 23 DAVID STERN 23 DAVID A. RUHNKE 24 Attorneys for Defendant Yousry 25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12137 51BMSAT1 1 (Trial resumed) 2 (In open court; jury not present) 3 THE COURT: By the way, while we are waiting for the 4 jury, I asked Mr. Fletcher to schedule the lunch late today to 5 give maximum flexibility in case I can charge before lunch. Or 6 if it goes too long that the lunch could be cancelled and I 7 could send the jury home for the day. 8 On another matter, while we are waiting, the 9 government should have a copy of the superseding indictment to 10 go to the jury and show it to all of the defendants to make 11 sure that the copy of the indictment with all of the redactions 12 is agreed to, so everyone knows what's going to the jury. 13 MS. BAKER: Your Honor, we had previously circulated 14 such a revised copy of the indictment, and I did not receive 15 any comment from the defense, so I would ask that if they do 16 have any comment, let me know. 17 MR. RUHNKE: Does your Honor intend to send exhibit 18 lists to the jury? 19 THE COURT: No. 20 (Jury present) 21 THE COURT: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It is 22 good to see you all. 23 Ladies and gentlemen, we are continuing with the final 24 rebuttal summation. Please remember all of my continuing 25 instructions with respect to summations and continue to apply SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12138 51BMSAT1 1 them. Remember that nothing the lawyers say is evidence. They 2 are submitting to you what they submit the evidence shows or 3 does not show. Remember that I will instruct you on the law 4 and that if any lawyer says any principle of law different from 5 what I tell you the law is, of course it is my instructions on 6 the law that you must follow. 7 With that, Mr. Barkow. 8 MR. BARKOW: Thank you, your Honor. 9 I started my argument yesterday about Lynne Stewart 10 with -- by playing and reading a quote by Lynne Stewart, if we 11 could put it on the screen. Lynne Stewart said this on October 12 10 -- October 11 of 2000, after she was told by Mohammed Yousry 13 about Ahmed Sattar's fatwah that was written in Abdel Rahman's 14 name. October 11 of 2000 and that's Government Exhibit 1193X. 15 And I want to repeat to you what I said when I was talking 16 about Mohammed Yousry and what Mr. Dember said to you in his 17 summation. And that is that Lynne Stewart is not accused of 18 smuggling this fatwah in violation of the SAMs. She is not 19 accused of that. Ahmed Sattar wrote this fatwah, as I argued 20 yesterday, and not Abdel Rahman even. Ahmed Sattar. And Lynne 21 Stewart didn't play any role in its dissemination. I made that 22 clear yesterday and Mr. Dember made that clear as well. The 23 message that Lynne Stewart smuggled was the withdrawal of 24 support for the ceasefire in May and June of 2000. That's what 25 I'm talking about with her. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12139 51BMSAT1 Rebuttal 1 But the reason that I started as I did and the point 2 that I was making and the point that I am going to continue to 3 make by reference to this quote is about Lynne Stewart's intent 4 and her state of mind. Because this quote, I submit to you, 5 speaks volumes about her state of mind and her intent. Because 6 when Lynne Stewart heard about this fatwah, she didn't know 7 whether Abdel Rahman had actually said it or not. In fact, at 8 page 3 of 1193X she said that she thought it was possibly a 9 friendly guard who might have gotten it out. That was one of 10 the possibilities. And she said, upon hearing about the 11 fatwah, he is going to get his message out, no matter what. 12 And I submit to you that what she said on October 11 13 of 2000 proves her intent throughout the entire case, including 14 when she relayed Taha's message into Abdel Rahman, and when she 15 brought back out Abdel Rahman's withdrawal of support and 16 announced it to Esmat Salaheddin. I submit to you that she 17 thought Abdel Rahman was going to get his message out, no 18 matter what, and she was going to do what she needed to do to 19 make that happen. 20 I also need to refine slightly what I said yesterday 21 because I might have spoken a little too broadly. I said that 22 Lynne Stewart and Mohammed Yousry are charged with smuggling 23 out the fatwah as part of the conspiracy to defraud. That 24 fatwah is relevant conduct as to the conspiracy to defraud and 25 to violate the SAMs because Ahmed Sattar, having drafted it, SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12140 51BMSAT1 Rebuttal 1 caused Mohammed Yousry to bring it to Abdel Rahman's attention. 2 So Sattar could try to get Abdel Rahman to adopt it after the 3 fact, and Abdel Rahman in fact did endorse it. That's at 4 Government Exhibit 1733T, page 20. And Abdel Rahman said, when 5 he was told about the fatwah, "It was a good thing, what was 6 said. It is true that I did not say it, but it is good. What 7 was said is good." 8 Now, before I go too much further I want to make a 9 point. This case is not about lawyers or lawyering. This is a 10 case against someone and involving a person who happens to be a 11 lawyer. And this isn't an attack on lawyering or a referendum 12 about whether defense counsel is a good thing or serves a good 13 function. Defense counsel is a good thing and serves a vital 14 function. This trial, this court, the United States would not 15 function without defense lawyers and what they do, and we 16 should all commend the lawyers who represent these defendants. 17 It is a hard job and they did a fine job here. 18 And Lynne Stewart herself deserves credit for taking 19 on the challenge of representing Omar Abdel Rahman at trial, as 20 does Ramsey Clark and Abdeen Jabara, and the lawyers for Abdel 21 Rahman's codefendants. It is a difficult job. And it is a 22 good thing when a lawyer establishes a relationship with a 23 client and it is a good thing when a lawyer pays attention to a 24 client. 25 So Mr. Tigar is just plain wrong when he says "that SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12141 51BMSAT1 Rebuttal 1 complaining about lawyers paying attention to a sick old man 2 represents the government point of view about how to practice 3 law." Because if Lynne Stewart had just visited Abdel Rahman 4 or called him up and talked to him and kept him company and 5 paid attention to him, it would have been a close call and 6 debateable whether that was legal business, but it wouldn't 7 have been a big deal. 8 The government salutes lawyering, but Lynne Stewart 9 crossed the line that separates lawyering from crime. No. 10 Lynne Stewart obliterated that line. 11 What defense lawyers do every day in courtrooms is one 12 of the things that makes this country great. But another thing 13 that makes this country great is the rule of law. And you 14 can't have individuals running around and deciding which rules 15 apply to them and which rules don't apply to them, what's safe 16 or not safe enough, which laws they disagree with and will 17 follow, and which ones they don't and won't, what risk of death 18 to others is worth taking, and which ones aren't. 19 Lawyers are not above the law, just like painters, 20 plumbers, and presidents, because of imaginary bubbles or 21 spaces that they make up only after they get caught. You've 22 seen lawyering in this courtroom. All three defendants have 23 lawyers. They have asked questions of witnesses, they have 24 made arguments to you. That's lawyering. That's what they did 25 and that's what Lynne Stewart did in the Abdel Rahman trial. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12142 51BMSAT1 Rebuttal 1 What this case is about is that Lynne Stewart lied. 2 Lynne Stewart issued the blessing of a return to violence from 3 a terrorist leader. That's what this case is about and that is 4 not lawyering. That has nothing to do with lawyering. 5 And it doesn't matter that Lynne Stewart was a lawyer 6 other than to give her a cover to commit her crimes and to help 7 her mislead and defraud the United States. Did she engage in 8 lawyering at some point after the trial? Certainly in the 9 appeal and maybe more afterwards. And no one is saying and no 10 one from the government has ever said to you or asked you to 11 conclude, and you don't have to conclude, that every action 12 that Lynne Stewart took was illegal. 13 Let me give you an analogy or an example here. Let's 14 imagine a man walks down the street every day and he walks by a 15 bank as he goes to work. And sometimes he stops at the bank 16 and he makes a deposit, and another day he stops and he pulls 17 out some money. And he does that day in, day out over the 18 course of weeks. Walks by the bank, goes into the bank, takes 19 some money out, puts some money in. When he does that, he is a 20 customer. But come one day if goes into that bank and he robs 21 it, he is a bank robber, and he should be charged and convicted 22 of it. It doesn't matter that he just walked by the bank on 23 all those other days and went in and put money in and took 24 money out. 25 In fact, Judge Koeltl will instruct you that a single SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12143 51BMSAT1 Rebuttal 1 fact can be enough to make someone guilty of participating in a 2 conspiracy. Lynne Stewart is an attorney. She acted as an 3 attorney for Abdel Rahman in his trial and she may have done 4 some semblance of lawyering after the appeal as well. But it 5 doesn't matter. It does not matter. Because if you break the 6 law you only have to do it once to commit a crime. When you 7 break the law you don't get out of it by saying, well, last 8 year I didn't break the law or, as Mr. Tigar said, 99 percent 9 of my life I didn't break the law. Just 1 percent. Or I'm a 10 lawyer. Because no one is above the law. 11 Let's get straight to the heart of how Lynne Stewart 12 wasn't acting as a lawyer but how Lynne Stewart obliterated the 13 line between lawyering and crime by issuing the withdrawal of 14 support for the ceasefire. Mr. Tigar claims to you that this 15 is -- was not a pro violence statement. At this trial all the 16 lawyers for the defenses called it a peace initiative. But you 17 don't take the violence out of something by changing its label 18 and that's not what Lynne Stewart called it when she spoke to 19 Esmat Salaheddin. She called it a ceasefire. 20 Let's look at the plain words of what she said, the 21 kind of thing that she likes to interpret through bubbles and 22 spaces. Let's look at what she actually said. Omar Abdel 23 Rahman withdraws his support for the ceasefire. These were her 24 words. And ceasefire means don't fire. This is a terrorist 25 group that has killed people. Ceasefire. And withdrawal of SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12144 51BMSAT1 Rebuttal 1 support for it has only one meaning. It means that you don't 2 support the idea of not firing. They are trying to make it 3 complicated, but it is not. It is simple. Lynne Stewart calls 4 it a ceasefire when she talks about it, not an initiative. And 5 so she knew it was a choice between firing and not firing, 6 between violence and between peace. 7 You know, even if you call it a peace initiative, 8 which Lynne Stewart did not, even Ahmed Sattar told you that 9 they are just two different names for the same thing because 10 the bottom line here is, these three defendants together 11 relayed Omar Abdel Rahman's withdrawal of support for peace to 12 the world. And what is the withdrawal of support for peace? 13 It is support for war. It is support for violence. 14 Now, Lynne Stewart claimed to you on the stand that 15 she thought that the ceasefire wasn't a call for violence and 16 it was just about dialogue and talking. And Mr. Tigar said to 17 you, let's pretend that the ceasefire is like the Hatfields and 18 the McCoys, but then he said, no, not the Hatfields and McCoys, 19 because that wasn't a very good analogy because they actually 20 killed each other. So then he said, "let's pretend" -- he 21 said: Let's pretend it is "two community groups have agreed 22 not to disparage each other anymore because they had just been 23 feuding and fussing and fighting." 24 Now, Mr. Tigar can pretend all he wants, but this was 25 a ceasefire by a terrorist group that has killed innocent SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12145 51BMSAT1 Rebuttal 1 people, including the tourists in Luxor. And Abdel Rahman 2 isn't just some regular guy in this debate. He is the 3 spiritual leader of that group. That is why Sattar and Taha 4 worked so hard for so long to get his support for their cause, 5 a return to a campaign of violence, not just to start a 6 conversation. 7 And if it wasn't such a big deal, as Mr. Tigar tries 8 to suggest to you, why was it on the -- why was it front page 9 news in all the Arabic daily newspapers in the Middle East? 10 The argument that they are making to you is absurd. But even 11 if you give some credence to the idea that Lynne Stewart 12 thought that part of the ceasefire was about dialogue and not 13 just violence, Lynne Stewart admits to you on the stand that 14 she knew that an aspect of it was violence. This is the 15 transcript, page 7647 and 7648: 16 "Q. And what was your understanding at the time? I'm talking 17 '97, '98 about the peace initiative. What did you understand 18 that to be? 19 "A. Well, it was the cessation of resistance, armed resistance 20 in many cases by the Islamic Group." 21 So Lynne Stewart understood that the withdrawal of 22 support for the ceasefire meant pro violence and pro armed 23 resistance. And if she thought it just meant to talk, she 24 would have and she could have said, Abdel Rahman wants you to 25 debate. But she didn't. She said he withdraws his support for SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12146 51BMSAT1 Rebuttal 1 the ceasefire. And their argument to you to the contrary is 2 absurd and an insult to your intelligence. 3 Now, what else do you know from the evidence that 4 shows you that Lynne Stewart cannot be believed when she claims 5 to you that she thought that the ceasefire was not pro 6 violence? What did she try to tell you about Abdel Rahman? 7 She referred to Abdel Rahman -- this is the transcript, page 8 7934 and "the Sheikh who was never convicted per se of 9 violence." Did she think that you forgot the evidence? 10 Because you know that it is true, as Judge Koeltl told you, 11 because he took judicial notice of it that Abdel Rahman was 12 convicted of "seditious conspiracy, solicitation of crimes of 13 violence, conspiracy to murder and bombing conspiracy" and "was 14 sentenced to a term of life imprisonment." 15 And you know that she knew that the conviction was 16 based on allegations of conspiracy to wage a war of urban 17 terrorism by blowing up tunnels, bridges, landmarks, and 18 soliciting the murder of Hosni Mubarek. Not convicted of 19 violence? That's absurd. And it lets you know that you have 20 to reject her claim to you now that she thought the withdrawal 21 of support was not pro violence. 22 Let me put it to you this way. Let's put it on a 23 common-sense spectrum of some of the voices that you heard in 24 this case from the pro violence side over here to the not pro 25 violence, to the pro ceasefire, pro peace side over here. Who SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12147 51BMSAT1 Rebuttal 1 spoke in favor of or in favor of violence in this case or 2 refused to allow the speaking in favor of violence? Well, over 3 here, against violence, on this side we have got Ramsey Clark 4 and Abdeen Jabara, who wouldn't let the message through. And 5 also over here on this side, but closer in, we have got Salah 6 Hashim and Mustafa Hamza, two leaders of the Islamic Group. 7 That tells you a little bit about the spectrum because Salah 8 Hashim and Mustafa Hamza are leaders of the terrorist group, a 9 part of it that's trying to reform. On the right over here, we 10 have got Omar Abdel Rahman, Mohammed Abdel Rahman, Taha, the 11 fatwah. Where does the withdrawal of support for the ceasefire 12 fit that these three defendants obtained from Abdel Rahman? 13 Where is Lynne Stewart on this? Over here. 14 Now, Lynne Stewart issued this directive and blessing 15 of a return to violence knowing what it meant, that when Omar 16 Abdel Rahman withdraws his personal support for a ceasefire, it 17 is powerful. This is not what I am going to say now based on 18 newspapers found in her office, but based on her testimony on 19 the witness stand to you. Lynne Stewart knew that Abdel Rahman 20 and his words inspired violence, that he was convicted for what 21 he said, not for going out and actually physically harming 22 people himself because he has always been blind since he was a 23 child. So his weapons were his words. 24 And she knew, transcript page 7471, when she first 25 took his case that he "advocated violence." "That was part of SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12148 51BMSAT1 Rebuttal 1 his background and program." "I don't think there was much 2 question about that." 3 And then transcript page 7472, when she first took the 4 case she knew that Abdel Rahman was referred to as your 5 Eminence, and she described him as "a prince of the church" and 6 knew that that was the fundamentalist church and he was a 7 fundamentalist leader in Egypt starting in the late 1970s. 8 She knew in 1996 it had been reported that Abdel 9 Rahman had issued a fatwah about the United States that went 10 like this: "Sever the ties of their nation. Tear them apart. 11 Ruin their economy. Instigate against their corporations, 12 destroy their embassies, attack their interests, sink their 13 ships, and shoot down their airplanes, kill them on land, at 14 sea and in the air, kill them wherever you find them." That's 15 at the transcript, page 7636. 16 She also told you that she relied on Nasser Ahmed, 17 7648, to get information about the political situation in Egypt 18 as it affected Abdel Rahman. You know from Government Exhibit 19 2666, which was found in her office in which she relied upon, 20 she told you that Nasser Ahmed testified in his immigration 21 hearing -- and she was his lawyer, so she was there -- that he 22 believed that the Islamic Group was a violent group and that 23 Nasser Ahmed wanted nothing to do with it. So she heard that 24 from her client, a guy she relied upon to get information about 25 Egypt. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12149 51BMSAT1 Rebuttal 1 She also knew, transcript page 8359, that the Luxor 2 massacre was carried out in Abdel Rahman's name and that it was 3 reported that leaflets were left on the scene saying that it 4 was inspired by Abdel Rahman, not done by him, but done for 5 him, to get him out. She also said to you that she knew that 6 Abdel Rahman was "a person of great respect, a person who was 7 noticeable, a person who could not be ignored," transcript 8 7699. A very public figure for a long time, transcript 7772. 9 A world figure. People have a right to hear his points of 10 view. 11 And she said that she knew that his followers wrote to 12 him to get "his interpretation of Islamic law," transcript 13 7721. And you know that's what Sattar and Taha were doing, 14 getting an Islamic law justification for violence. She knew 15 that Abdel Rahman was tried and convicted of serious crimes of 16 terrorism, and she is not bound by this. That's right. Judge 17 Koeltl instructed you that. 18 But what do her actions after the conviction tell you 19 about her knowledge, intent, and state of mind? It tells you 20 what her view is of the outputs of the rule of law and the 21 legal system when it clashes with her personal view. She 22 ignores it or rejects it. She also knew, transcript page 8129 23 and 30, that Abdel Rahman was influential with the Islamic 24 Group and his input was "very important" to the group, even 25 after he was sentenced and cut off from any direct contact. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12150 51BMSAT1 Rebuttal 1 She knew all these things, his pro violence views, his 2 influence, and his power, how the Islamic Group and its members 3 and fundamentalists in Egypt listen to him. But nonetheless 4 she issued his withdrawal of support for the ceasefire and 5 blessing of a return to violence not just once, but twice, to 6 Esmat Salaheddin on June 13, and then again in the 7 reaffirmation on June 20 or 21. 8 Now, before I continue on further I want to make a few 9 quicker points. Mr. Tigar mentioned the burden of proof a lot 10 in his summation. And the government has the right and the 11 privilege to go last because there is no place else that the 12 burden of proof lies other than our table, to prove the charges 13 beyond a reasonable doubt. And we welcome that burden and we 14 have met it on each and every charge. 15 But there is an interesting thing about the burden of 16 proof and the defendants have none. I guess when you have no 17 burden you figure you can engage in all kinds of speculation. 18 But the fact that the government has the burden of proof and 19 the defendants don't have to prove anything is not a license to 20 say that you proved something when all you've done is given the 21 jury speculation and not evidence. 22 Let me give you an example of something that Mr. Tigar 23 talked about twice in his summation, once last week and once 24 yesterday. Last week he said: "Now we get to it. What 25 happened? What did the Sheikh say, number one? What did the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12151 51BMSAT1 Rebuttal 1 Sheikh say? What didn't he say? Omar Abdel Rahman is saying 2 it is the people inside Egypt. He uses that terminology, those 3 inside, those who know. He is by his locution excluding Taha. 4 Abdel Rahman doesn't want this guy, meaning Taha, involved in 5 the leadership of whatever is left in the Islamic Group." 6 What does the evidence really show about what Abdel 7 Rahman really thought about what Taha's role should be in the 8 Islamic Group? Government Exhibit 1710X, page 49. This is 9 Abdel Rahman speaking. Also, tell them that they should give 10 Abu Yasir his natural right as the head of the group. If they 11 don't want to do so, the least is to have the person in charge 12 consult with him. Huh? 1710X, page 49. I'm not sure what 13 Abdel Rahman's locution was, but when Abdel Rahman says, give 14 Taha his natural right as the head of the group, it sure sounds 15 like Mr. Tigar is wrong when he is saying that Abdel Rahman 16 says, I don't want Taha to have anything to do in the 17 leadership of the group. When Mr. Tigar tells you something, 18 check it against the evidence. 19 By the way, in the course of making this incorrect 20 argument, Mr. Tigar read to you a line regarding whether Abdel 21 Rahman should say that the Islamic Group should take Taha back 22 in the shura council, the kind of board of directors of the 23 group. And there was one line in what he read that stuck out 24 to me and I want to read it to you again. No, no, no -- this 25 is Abdel Rahman -- I cannot. They are free to do what they SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12152 51BMSAT1 Rebuttal 1 want. I can't. It is their business. And if I come out and 2 say that, they will be forced to take him back, and I don't 3 want it this way. Abdel Rahman says, if I say so, the Islamic 4 Group will be forced to do what I say because I say so. How 5 did that line help Lynne Stewart? It doesn't. It kind of 6 blows a hole in the defendant's theory that Abdel Rahman did 7 not have the power to make things happen in Egypt. 8 Now, I am not going to go through Mr. Tigar's 9 summation line by line and try to pick little pieces of it 10 apart. Mr. Tigar isn't on trial here, just like Mr. Dember 11 isn't on trial here and the government isn't on trial. Lynne 12 Stewart is on trial. So I am going to focus on the evidence on 13 Lynne Stewart. 14 But I want to say one more thing about the burden of 15 proof. The fact that the government has the burden of proof 16 and the defendants have no burden to do anything is not a 17 license to ramble on about things that have nothing to do with 18 the case in an effort to confuse. And then to tell the jury 19 that you have actually done something when you haven't and all 20 you have done is given the jury theories that aren't based on 21 the evidence, think about it. Were there times when Mr. Tigar 22 was talking to you when you had to ask yourself why is he 23 talking about this? What charge or what evidence does this 24 relate to? How does this relate to the question of what we are 25 here to answer, whether Lynne Stewart is guilty or not guilty? SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12153 51BMSAT1 Rebuttal 1 Is he talking about the allegations and the charges in the 2 case? 3 MR. TIGAR: I object to attributing motives to 4 counsel. 5 THE COURT: Sustained. 6 Ladies and gentlemen, another instruction that I will 7 give you is the case is about the evidence. It is not about 8 the lawyers. And it is your function to assess the evidence or 9 lack of evidence under my instructions on the law. 10 MR. BARKOW: I am not asking you to think about what 11 Mr. Tigar's motivations were. All I'm asking you to do is to 12 focus on the evidence and to base your decision on the evidence 13 in this case because the evidence proves that Lynne Stewart is 14 guilty as charged. And no matter what, any of the lawyers say, 15 the government has the burden to prove to you by evidence that 16 actually proves things, a burden that we have met with the 17 evidence in this trial. Mr. Tigar argues to you and says to 18 you that the only evidence you can really trust is what you see 19 in the courtroom so you can see a witness and a lawyer could 20 cross-examine. Only a lawyer could say that because you don't 21 need to be a lawyer to know that the best way to know how 22 something really happened or didn't happen and how something 23 was really said or wasn't said is to see it or hear it 24 happening yourself. And that is what happens when you tape 25 something, you see it happen yourself and you hear it happen SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12154 51BMSAT1 Rebuttal 1 yourself as it is happening, when it happened. 2 Now, which do you think is more reliable, the tapes of 3 statements made in the setting when things actually happened, 4 when people don't know that they are being monitored or taped, 5 or statements that you know are made in a certain way to avoid 6 getting convicted here in court? 7 Recordings and the recordings that we presented are 8 the best possible evidence of what happened when it happened. 9 They cannot lie; unlike people, who can and your experience and 10 your common sense tells you do. Or a defendant who has every 11 reason to lie. And Mr. Tigar can say that he doesn't like 12 recorded evidence or he prefers testimony because he is from 13 the old school. But why doesn't Lynne Stewart want you to 14 focus on recorded evidence? Because the recorded evidence 15 can't lie. And because the recorded evidence shows that Lynne 16 Stewart was caught redhanded and that Lynne Stewart is guilty 17 as charged. 18 Now, Mr. Tigar argues to you that Lynne Stewart's 19 false statements were not material because Ramsey Clark signed 20 fewer affirmations than Lynne Stewart. And first, materiality 21 is an element of Count 6 and 7, the false statements charges. 22 First I want to point out that this argument can only even 23 apply, the argument that Mr. Tigar made, to Count 6. Because 24 both Ramsey Clark and Lynne Stewart signed exactly the same 25 affirmation that forms the basis for Count 7 against Lynne SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12155 51BMSAT1 Rebuttal 1 Stewart. This argument is only limited to Count 6 in the first 2 place. 3 More importantly, this argument is a distraction from 4 the actual evidence. Because the issue of materiality relates 5 to Lynne Stewart's affirmation, not to Ramsey Clark, and the 6 question is whether Lynne Stewart's false affirmation was 7 material. Judge Koeltl will instruct you that a statement is 8 material if it could have influenced the government's 9 activities; indeed, that the government doesn't even have to 10 prove that the government was actually misled. So it doesn't 11 matter whether the government was actually misled, just whether 12 the government could have been misled. 13 And Lynne Stewart's promise to abide by the SAMs, 14 which she broke in her affirmations, under that definition was 15 material because Lynne Stewart, you know, couldn't see Abdel 16 Rahman without making that promise. She couldn't see Abdel 17 Rahman without it. She could only see him with it. So it was 18 obviously material because it could have influenced the 19 government's decision whether to let Lynne Stewart see Abdel 20 Rahman or not. It actually did influence the government's 21 decision. She couldn't do it unless she signed. 22 And it just isn't true that Ramsey Clark was allowed 23 to see Abdel Rahman without signing an affirmation. Ramsey 24 Clark never visited Abdel Rahman after the imposition of the 25 SAMs without previously having signed an affirmation, never. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12156 51BMSAT1 Rebuttal 1 Ramsey Clark signed an affirmation in April of 1997, when the 2 SAMs were first imposed on Abdel Rahman. So it is clearly 3 impossible for Ramsey Clark to be on a call after the SAMs or 4 to do a visit after the SAMs if he signed an affirmation when 5 the SAMs were first imposed on Abdel Rahman. 6 And the first Ramsey Clark visit of which there is 7 evidence in this case is September 1999, which is after Ramsey 8 Clark signed the affirmation in 1997. So after the SAMs were 9 imposed Ramsey Clark never spoke to Abdel Rahman or visited 10 Abdel Rahman without having previously signed an affirmation. 11 Also, when Ramsey Clark, Abdeen Jabara, and Lynne Stewart would 12 not sign the new affirmation in the fall of 2000, after Lynne 13 Stewart had issued Abdel Rahman's withdrawal of support for the 14 ceasefire, Ramsey Clark couldn't visit Abdel Rahman for a few 15 weeks later because the affirmations are material and a failure 16 to sign them could have influenced the government's decision. 17 It actually did. Because the purpose of the affirmations was 18 to protect public safety and lives, and that is important and 19 material. 20 Now, a moment about technical issues about the 21 recordings. Come on. Enough already. The recording system 22 worked. Each defendant testified -- they didn't have to 23 testify, but they did. And each defendant said on the stand 24 that the parts of the calls that were recorded were recorded 25 accurately. And no defendant told you about any particular SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12157 51BMSAT1 Rebuttal 1 call that they had remembered or that wasn't recorded, not one. 2 And each defendant put in their own recordings from the same 3 system so they obviously believed that those recordings were 4 accurate. And the prison visits, which are absolutely 5 devastating evidence against Lynne Stewart, those were recorded 6 on a different technology, a technology that Mr. Tigar concedes 7 is one that he approves of. 8 And by the way, Mr. Paul complained about some missing 9 calls in late September 2000 and early October 2000. 10 Mr. Sattar sat on the witness stand, he didn't have to get 11 there, but he sat up there for two weeks and he gave all the 12 context that he wanted. He talked about Arial Sharon and what 13 was happening in the Middle East. And if there were any calls 14 that Mr. Sattar thought were important he would have said so. 15 Just like Lynne Stewart told you about a call that she had in 16 her office which was not intercepted because there was never 17 any monitoring on Lynne Stewart's phones, but a call that she 18 had in her office with Pat Fitzgerald that she remembered. So 19 she told you about it because she remembered it. If the 20 defendants knew of any call that wasn't captured by this 21 system, they would have told you. So come on. Let's not waste 22 any more of your time on this. Lynne Stewart issued a 23 withdrawal of support for the ceasefire by Abdel Rahman. She 24 lied in her affirmations. She broke her promises and now she 25 is lying to get out of it. Let's talk about that. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12158 51BMSAT1 Rebuttal 1 Let's talk now about the make believe, unwritten, I 2 can do what I want no matter what the rules say, bubble, the 3 one that Lynne Stewart made up just for you for this trial. 4 What is this bubble? It rears its imaginary head under a 5 variety of names. Sometimes Lynne Stewart or Mr. Tigar called 6 it the bubble. That's what Lynne Stewart called it on the 7 stand. And sometimes they call it a space. That's what 8 Mr. Tigar started calling it for the first time in his 9 summation. Sometimes it is called zealous representation. 10 Lynne Stewart linked those two concepts on the stand. 11 Sometimes it is called her ethical obligations or the ethical 12 considerations. Sometimes it is called the Constitution. 13 Sometimes it is called the commentary to the SAMs which were 14 found in Government Exhibit 2635, Lynne Stewart Exhibit 204, 15 and Lynne Stewart Exhibit 205. Sometimes it is just referred 16 to as I thought it was okay under the SAMs to do what I did. 17 Sometimes the bubble is called Ramsey Clark and sometimes it is 18 called Abdeen Jabara. Sometimes it is called good faith. 19 Sometimes it is called, I didn't violate any legal duty that I 20 think I had. All of that falls under the bubble. And so when 21 I use the term bubble, just like Lynne Stewart and Mr. Tigar, 22 I'm referring to all those things. 23 What is this bubble or space or whatever you want to 24 call it? What does it really boil down to? The bubble is 25 Lynne Stewart's claim to you now that she thought there was SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12159 51BMSAT1 Rebuttal 1 some mythical idea outside the plain and clear language of the 2 SAMs and the affirmations that allowed her to blow off clear 3 rules and clear language. The bubble is another way for Lynne 4 Stewart to say that she disagreed with the law. And she 5 thought she could ignore it. And by the way, in his summation 6 Mr. Tigar incorrectly said to you that "good-faith disagreement 7 with the law is not a basis for a conviction." That is just 8 flat wrong. And I ask you to listen to Judge Koeltl's 9 instructions because he will tell you that disagreement with 10 the law does not constitute good faith. 11 The bubble is just a way for Lynne Stewart to say that 12 she thinks she is above the law, so she thought she could 13 ignore the law. And it is a lie that Lynne Stewart concocted 14 just for you. Because Lynne Stewart knew when she did what she 15 did, it was wrong. She knew what she was doing was unlawful 16 and that is all that needs to be proven and that you need to 17 find. She knew she was committing a crime, but she did it 18 anyway because she thought she was above the law, not because 19 she was acting in good faith. Now she is lying to get out of 20 it. 21 The language of the SAMs is absolutely crystal clear, 22 the plain text of the SAMs, that Lynne Stewart violated and 23 committed crimes by circumventing them and defrauding the 24 United States and lying in her affirmation. Therefore, Lynne 25 Stewart is guilty of Counts 1, 6, and 7. And so she needs to SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12160 51BMSAT1 Rebuttal 1 lied to you to make something up to try to get out of trouble. 2 She will try anything. The bubble, the space, ethical 3 considerations, good faith, the commentary to the SAMs. And 4 these lawyers did not like it or said that we shouldn't have 5 said that the SAMs were crystal clear and the affirmations were 6 not crystal clear. But there is no other word to describe the 7 relevant paragraphs here. 8 The December 10, 1999 SAMs said that there is no 9 communication allowed with the media through attorneys and no 10 communications allowed with others that could result in 11 communicating terrorist information. Paragraph 9: "The inmate 12 shall not be permitted to communicate with any member or 13 representative of the news media through his attorneys or 14 otherwise: Giving a press release to Esmat Salaheddin that 15 relays Abdel Rahman's withdrawal of support for the ceasefire 16 clearly violates this." 17 Paragraph 3: "The inmate is limited from having 18 contact with others that could reasonably foreseeably result in 19 the inmate communicating information that could circumvent the 20 SAM's intent of significantly limiting the inmate's ability to 21 communicate terrorist information." 22 Communicating information back and forth between two 23 people designated by the U.S. Government as terrorists and that 24 you know are so designated, Taha and Abdel Rahman, on whether 25 the Islamic Group should abide by a ceasefire or return to SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12161 51BMSAT1 Rebuttal 1 violence? Obviously violates that. 2 And the May 2000 affirmation, that's crystal clear, 3 too. Lynne Stewart said she would abide by the SAMs and she 4 would use her visits only for legal matters. And she won't 5 forward messages to the media. Paragraph 1 says: "I have read 6 the SAMs" -- it says that she has read the SAMs and it says: 7 "I agree to abide by its terms." Paragraph 2 says: "I also 8 understand that during any visits to inmate Abdel Rahman at any 9 prison facilities I shall only be accompanied by translators 10 for the purpose of communicating with Abdel Rahman concerning 11 legal matters. 12 Communicating with Abdel Rahman about whether the 13 Islamic Group should abide by a ceasefire or not is not a legal 14 matter. And Mr. Dember must have stood up here and argued for 15 30 minutes about how the withdrawal of support for the 16 ceasefire had absolutely nothing to do with legal 17 representation. He went through all of the different sorts of 18 legal representation it could have had to do with that he went 19 over with Ms. Stewart on the stand, conditions lawsuit, 20 clemency from the president, finding of new evidence, an 21 international prisoner transfer, or exchange that Ramsey Clark 22 was working on. He went through all of them. 23 He asked her, what other things could you do? What 24 other kinds of legal things could you do in general? And 25 Mr. Dember argued to you that none of them were accomplished or SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12162 51BMSAT1 Rebuttal 1 furthered by the withdrawal of support for the ceasefire. And 2 Mr. Tigar did not say one word to disagree with that or 3 challenge it over three days. Because the withdrawal of 4 support for the ceasefire has nothing to do with any legal 5 matter and there is no answer to what Mr. Dember said. The 6 withdrawal of support for the ceasefire violates the SAMs and 7 the affirmations. 8 Paragraph 3 of the affirmation: I further understand 9 that neither I nor any member of my office shall forward any 10 mail received from inmate Abdel Rahman to a third person, nor 11 shall I use my meetings, correspondence or phone calls with 12 Abdel Rahman to pass messages to third parties, including but 13 not limited to the media and Abdel Rahman. Relaying Abdel 14 Rahman's withdrawal of support to Esmat Salaheddin obviously 15 violates that. And Mr. Tigar did not challenge Mr. Dember's 16 argument on that either over the course of his summation. 17 Because there is no challenge that could be mounted because the 18 withdrawal of support for the ceasefire violates paragraph 3 of 19 the affirmation. 20 So because it is clear that Lynne Stewart violated the 21 law by circumventing the SAMs and defrauding the United States, 22 she needs to fabricate something, the bubble, the ethical 23 considerations, the commentary to the SAMs, the space, what 24 have you, to try to get out of it. But it all boils down to 25 this. She knew what she did was unlawful at the time. She SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12163 51BMSAT1 Rebuttal 1 thought she was above the law and she didn't act in good faith. 2 And she thought she would get away with it. She disagreed with 3 the law and she decided to blow it off and she is lying to you 4 now. 5 How do you know that this bubble is made up just for 6 you? This bubble makes no sense and it cannot possibly be true 7 that Lynne Stewart believed in it at the time she did what she 8 did and that she believed she could lawfully do what she did, 9 because to believe in it makes the SAMs and the affirmations 10 absolutely pointless. What do I mean by this? The SAMs only 11 allow Abdel Rahman to talk in the whole world to his lawyers 12 and his wife. 13 So if the lawyers are free to release statements by 14 Abdel Rahman to the media that they deem necessary under the 15 guise of a lawyering bubble, that withdrawal of support for a 16 ceasefire, the SAMs accomplished nothing. What do the SAMs 17 accomplish if she is right? What do they stop? They sure 18 don't accomplish the purpose of "to protect persons from the 19 risk of death or serious bodily injury" and "when there is a 20 risk that a prisoner's communications or contacts with persons 21 could result in death or serious bodily injury." They sure 22 don't accomplish that if they allow the withdrawal of support 23 for the ceasefire through. 24 That purpose of the SAMs is expressed in the 25 regulation that Lynne Stewart said she knows about and she SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12164 51BMSAT1 Rebuttal 1 claims now to be relying upon, Government Exhibit 2635 and 2 Lynne Stewart Exhibit 204. And Mr. Tigar agreed in his 3 summation that that's a valid purpose, to protect human life. 4 Lynne Stewart, transcript page 7831, isn't quite as sure that 5 that's a valid purpose, even though she agreed in the end. 6 This is on direct examination, questioning by Mr. Tigar, not on 7 cross-examination: 8 "Q. And did you agree that it would be a valid purpose to 9 prevent threats that could lead to a loss of life? 10 "A. You mean generally speaking? 11 "Q. Yes, generally speaking. 12 "A. Yes, I guess that is so, yes." 13 Transcript page 7831. Her bubble, if she were truly 14 telling the truth about it, would have meant business as usual, 15 no different than any other client she had ever had. And she 16 wants you to think that she thought it was business as usual 17 and that it was business as usual. 18 And Mr. Tigar argued to you yesterday that it was 19 business as usual, or the day before. He asked you to look at 20 the ethical considerations that he put up on the screen, look 21 at them outside the context of representing terrorists, outside 22 the context of representing Abdel Rahman. But you can't do 23 that because that's who she was representing and she knew that. 24 She wants you to believe that this was no different than any 25 other case or any other client and that anything goes. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12165 51BMSAT1 Rebuttal 1 But it wasn't business as usual and she knew it 2 because she had been a lawyer since 1971. And she had never, 3 ever had another defendant under SAMs. She said that, 4 transcript 8035 to 41. And she had never had another defendant 5 for whom she had to sign an affirmation saying she would abide 6 by rules imposed on that defendant, never, same pages. She 7 didn't even know of virtually any other defendant subject to 8 SAMs. She could only name two of them. One of them was Ramzi 9 Yousef and she also said some gang leaders. She knew that 10 Abdel Rahman was subject to the SAMs. She knew about Abdel 11 Rahman and his crimes. And she knew and she said on the stand 12 that the only defendants subject to these types of SAMs -- and 13 she only had this one -- committed very serious crimes. 14 So for her to say now that she thought that she could 15 act like she did with any other defendant, any nonSAM'd, 16 nonaffirmation'd defendant is just not true because she knew 17 that this was different. So different that this inmate had 18 special rules imposed on him for the first time in her long 19 career, so different that she had to promise for the first time 20 in her long career to abide by those special rules, a promise 21 that she made and a promise that she broke. 22 Lynne Stewart never mentioned the concept of the 23 bubble under any name or that it was okay under the SAMs to 24 talk to the media, to anyone back in the evidence that we 25 showed you, and I am going to go through that. And in fact she SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12166 51BMSAT1 Rebuttal 1 said the opposite. Transcript page 8224, she didn't write 2 anything about it in her affirmations, the promise that she 3 made but that she broke, and you saw that Abdeen Jabara, Ramsey 4 Clark, and Lawrence Schilling wrote additional things in 5 theirs. The Ramsey Clark affirmation is Government Exhibit 6 906. It is at the bottom. The Abdeen Jabara affirmation, 7 Government Exhibit 608, it is at the bottom. The Larry 8 Schilling affirmation, Mohammed Yousry Exhibit 604, it is at 9 the bottom. 10 Mind you, what they wrote doesn't have anything to do 11 with the bubble or talking to the media or relaying Abdel 12 Rahman's statements of any kind to the media. But they wrote 13 it in there, what they wanted to put in there. What a 14 revolutionary idea, to write something in an agreement that you 15 believe in that isn't in there? 16 Lynne Stewart acknowledged to you that law students 17 learned this concept in their very first year of law school in 18 a class called contracts. They learned that you need to put 19 important terms in your contract, in your agreements, and 20 nonlawyers know this, too. Lynne Stewart says that she 21 believed, transcript, page 7717, that she thought Pat 22 Fitzgerald was too good of a lawyer not to know that the bubble 23 existed. She said on that page, 7717. 24 (Continued on next page) 25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12167 51B5SAT2 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 MR. BARKOW: If she really believed that she could 2 issue press releases despite the SAMs and the affirmations as 3 part of her representation of Abdel Rahman, don't you think she 4 would have written it in there if she truly thought that Pat 5 Fitzgerald was too good a lawyer not to know that this bubble 6 existed? 7 If she believed he agreed with her why wouldn't she 8 ask him to put it in there? He agreed with her, she says. He 9 knew it was there too. She didn't ask him. Why didn't she put 10 it in there? Because the concept didn't exist until a few 11 months ago. This bubble concept is so new that Mr. Tigar 12 didn't even mention the word in his opening statement. He 13 didn't have to give an opening statement, Lynne Stewart didn't 14 have to testify, but he did give an opening statement and in it 15 he promised she would testify. But Mr. Tigar never mentioned 16 the words bubble. 17 In fact, the first time the word bubble was mentioned 18 in this courtroom was on October 27th of 2000 on the second day 19 that Lynne Stewart was on the witness stand. Why? Because the 20 concept did not exist until she hit that witness stand because 21 she didn't think about it -- 22 MR. TIGAR: Your Honor, object to describing 23 motivations of counsel in opening statement. 24 MR. BARKOW: I'm speaking about Ms. Stewart's 25 motivation. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12168 51B5SAT2 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 THE COURT: To the extent it referred to any 2 motivation of counsel, the objection is sustained. 3 I have already explained to you, ladies and gentlemen, 4 that the case is not about any of counsel in the case but the 5 evidence or lack of evidence with respect to each of the 6 defendants and my instructions on the law. Okay? 7 Go ahead. 8 MR. BARKOW: As I was saying, why didn't Lynne Stewart 9 mention the bubble and why wasn't it mentioned until then? 10 Because it didn't exist until she had hit the stand. 11 How do you know that the bubble and the concept that 12 it is okay under the SAMs to do what she did was made up just 13 for you? She never mentioned it, she never mentioned the 14 bubble or the concept that it was okay to do under the SAMs 15 what she did to a Court or a Judge. She never filed a lawsuit 16 trying to vindicate this idea that she could issue statements 17 by Abdel Rahman about violence or peace. She never tried to 18 get a judge to agree to it. Why not? Because the concept was 19 made up just for you and because no judge would have bought it. 20 How else do you know that the concept of the bubble, 21 that it was okay under the SAMs, was made up just for you? She 22 never mentioned it or that, the bubble, that it was okay under 23 the SAMs to do what she had done to Pat Fitzgerald when she was 24 called and confronted by him, transcript 8221 and 8222 -- I'm 25 sorry, she thought that Pat Fitzgerald was in charge of SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12169 51B5SAT2 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 administering the SAMs, that's at 8221 and 8222, and she never 2 told him. 3 She never asked him whether it was okay to release 4 these kinds of statements to the media. She didn't tell him 5 when he called her and confronted her with what she had done in 6 June of 2000 and accused her of violating those SAMs in a five 7 minute phone call, she told you that; transcript 8457. She 8 never said it in five minutes. How long is five minutes? 9 Let's try five seconds. 10 You give Lynne Stewart five minutes, do you think she 11 would get that idea out? You saw her testify, she's not shy 12 about getting things out that she wants to say but she never 13 mentioned it in those five minutes. 14 Lynne Stewart never mentioned the bubble or that it 15 was okay to do under the SAMs to anyone in the U.S. government. 16 She never called Pat Fitzgerald's boss, Mary Jo White, the U.S. 17 Attorney at the time. She never called anyone at the U.S. 18 Attorney's office at all to say that. She never tried to talk 19 to Janet Reno or get through to Janet Reno or anyone at the 20 Department of Justice or anybody in the U.S. government. 21 Transcript, 2282. 22 And her words to you, transcript 8097 was, quote, 23 picking up a telephone is not really that onerous. It's not 24 but she never picked it up and she never said it to anybody 25 because she made it up just for you. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12170 51B5SAT2 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 She never mentioned that it was okay under the SAMs to 2 do what she did and smuggle these letters, this letter from 3 Taha back and forth into the jail to the guards when she 4 brought it in. Instead, she hid the letter in her note pad. 5 She didn't say, oh, guards, I've got this letter in my note 6 pad, it's got a message from Taha, somebody might want to look 7 at it. 8 No, she brought it in and whipped it out when it was 9 time to read it. 10 Unlike Abdeen Jabara who, when he was sending in the 11 book, the Taha book, mailed it through the appropriate 12 procedures under the SAMs and it got rejected. 13 Lynne Stewart never mentioned through Stanley Cohen, 14 she never told Stanley Cohen to say she was allowed to do what 15 she did and he was representing her after she had been busted. 16 He was negotiating what to do and talking about what to do 17 after she had been accused and she never mentioned it, told him 18 to mention it. 19 And immediately after the withdrawal of support for 20 the cease-fire, immediately afterwards on June 15th of 2000, 21 Government Exhibit 1115X, she never mentioned it to Lisa 22 Sattar. 23 She was talking to a person she trusted, a friend, a 24 confidant, she had no idea she was being recorded. It was 25 immediately after she committed a crime. She was being candid SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12171 51B5SAT2 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 about the repercussions that she faced and she had no reason to 2 lie versus now when she has every reason to lie, and that's how 3 you know her real state of mind and her real intent -- from 4 what she said then, not from her canned testimony years later 5 to save her skin. 6 What does she say to Lisa Sattar? Quote, I don't 7 think I can hide this from Pat Fitzgerald. 8 And then she laughs. She laughs at how she defrauded 9 the United States and lied in her affirmation. And if Lynne 10 Stewart thinks that Pat Fitzgerald is too smart and too good of 11 a lawyer to know that the bubble doesn't exist, 7717 of the 12 transcript, like she says now, why does she need to keep it 13 away from him? If there is nothing wrong with it why does she 14 need to hide it from him. She doesn't say, oh, Lisa, don't 15 worry about it, I've got it covered. I was allowed to do what 16 I did under the SAMs, it was okay under the SAMs. I practice 17 law in a bubble. I practice law in a space. The ethical rules 18 or the ethical considerations, they let me do what I did. 19 The commentary to the SAMs, take a look at that, the 20 SAMs themselves say that I could do it. Pat Fitzgerald, he's 21 too good of a lawyer to know that this bubble doesn't exist. 22 I'm okay, don't worry about it. 23 She never said any of that because she made it all up 24 for you. And Mr. Tigar tries to spin it for you as not as I 25 tried to hide this from Pat Fitzgerald, which is what Lynne SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12172 51B5SAT2 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 Stewart actually said, but as I did this in the open so she 2 must have thought it was okay. 3 Right. She did it in the open. 4 Like a bank robber who robs a bank in the daylight and 5 gets caught on camera, Lynne Stewart released Abdel Rahman's 6 statement in the open to the media. She couldn't hide it and 7 she got busted and now she's sitting here before you. 8 And then Lisa Sattar asks Lynne Stewart, she says, 9 well, I asked Ahmed if anything is going to happen to you and 10 Lynne Stewart says, quote, probably. We'll deal with that too. 11 Maybe it's the right thing. Then we can fight the Sheikh's 12 fight on that ground too, you know? 13 She doesn't say, Ahmed, ask Ahmed if anything is 14 happening don't worry about it, I've got it covered, it's okay. 15 I was allowed to do it. It was okay under the SAM. It's not a 16 problem. It was in a bubble, I practice law in a space, the 17 ethical rules, the constitution, the ethical considerations, 18 they let me do what I did. The commentary to the SAMs, look at 19 those, they say I can do what I did. Pat Fitzgerald is too 20 good a lawyer to know that the bubble doesn't exist and it was 21 okay to do what I did. She doesn't say any of that because she 22 made it all up for you. 23 And then Lisa Sattar says to her, I'm worried for you. 24 And Lynne Stewart says, quote, I can't, you know, I 25 mean, I do things. And when you do things like from principle SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12173 51B5SAT2 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 because you know they're the right thing to do, then you've got 2 to put it behind you and say, okay, I did it. And that's the 3 reason I did it and I'm going to live with the repercussions 4 whatever they may be because I know it was the right thing to 5 do. And you know, it works for me to do things like that, you 6 know? 7 What is she saying? I know I broke the law because I 8 disagree with the law. 9 And Judge Koeltl will instruct you that disagreement 10 with the law is not good faith. 11 What is she saying? I think what I did was right and 12 if what I think is right conflicts with the law, I'll face the 13 repercussions, whatever they are, but that works for me. 14 His message is going to get out no matter what and I'm 15 prepared to live with the repercussions. I put my principles, 16 his message is going to get out no matter what, above the law, 17 because I disagree with the law. 18 She said to Lisa Sattar she is ready to live with the 19 repercussions, ready to live with the consequences. She 20 expected to be sitting here in this courtroom. She wasn't 21 naive about what was going on. She made a choice and she knew 22 exactly what would happen to her but now she hides behind the 23 bubble and the space. 24 You should be prepared to tell her what the 25 consequences are. And it's essential to have consequences SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12174 51B5SAT2 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 because that's why the law applies to everyone equally so 2 people, like Lynne Stewart who put her personal principles 3 above the law, no matter how dangerous or risky the 4 consequences, can't make decisions that place the risks and 5 consequences on everybody else. 6 It's essential to have consequences and that's why the 7 law applies to everyone equally because the law takes into 8 account and balances the interests of everyone -- everyone in 9 society including even Lynne Stewart. Everyone's interest and 10 everyone's safety. 11 But when Lynne Stewart puts her personal principles 12 above the law -- his message will get out no matter what the 13 law says and no matter what the risk to everyone else -- that's 14 not what you law says. 15 Lynne Stewart doesn't say to Lisa Sattar, I won't face 16 any repercussions because what I did was legal, I won't face 17 any repercussions because what I did was protected by ethical 18 considerations, I won't face any repercussions because what I 19 did was okay under the SAMs. She says, I'll face the 20 repercussions. My principles are above the law. I will live 21 with the repercussions. 22 Does she live with the repercussions? No. She makes 23 up the myth of the bubble. 24 Your Honor, may we take a break? 25 THE COURT: All right. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12175 51B5SAT2 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 Ladies and gentlemen, we will take 10 minutes. 2 Please, please, remember my continuing instructions. Please, 3 don't talk about this case at all and remember to keep an open 4 mind until I have finally instructed you on the law and you 5 have gone to the jury room to begin your deliberations. 6 All right. All rise, please. 7 (Continued on next page) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12176 51B5SAT2 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 (Jury not present) 2 MR. TIGAR: If your Honor please, I have two 3 objections to Mr. Barkow's summation in the latter part. 4 First, he said that Lynne Stewart was busted, he 5 referred colloquially to the Fitzgerald letter and Lynne 6 Stewart being busted, and then he went through repeatedly this 7 argument that her alleged silence in the face of the 8 accusations was powerful evidence that her testimony here and 9 her position is fabricated. 10 While it is true that the Court has admitted evidence 11 of silence as in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision, 12 the government's overvaluing of the evidence of silence in the 13 face of a governmental accusation, I respectfully submit, 14 requires an instruction to the jury that a person may be silent 15 in the face of an accusation for many reasons and it is up to 16 the jury to determine what those reasons are. And that I ask 17 for because there is a constitutional underpinning to decisions 18 about silence and the government's deliberate overvaluing of 19 that evidence is prejudicial. 20 Second, I ask for an instruction that the jury should 21 disregard the statement, "people like Lynne Stewart," which is 22 a clear call to the application of propensity evidence. It is 23 not simply overvaluing of the evidence but the laws; or people 24 like Lynne Stewart, people who are engaged in wrongdoing and so 25 on. He said the words "people like Lynne Stewart." It is a SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12177 51B5SAT2 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 call to use propensity evidence and I object. 2 THE COURT: Government? 3 MS. BAKER: Your Honor, nothing that Mr. Barkow argued 4 or that Mr. Tigar just argued as an objection requires any sort 5 of instruction to the jury. 6 Mr. Barkow's argument about how Lynne Stewart 7 responded to being caught and being notified by Mr. Fitzgerald 8 that she had been caught, the point of the argument in which 9 Mr. Barkow used the phrase "busted" was entirely consistent 10 with the applicable law on silence in the face of accusations. 11 The evidence in this case is that Ms. Stewart did not 12 choose to remain silent. She retained Stanley Cohen as a 13 lawyer and a dialogue with Mr. Fitzgerald ensued and it was 14 entirely appropriate for Mr. Barkow to argue that in light of 15 the fact that there was a dialogue, that certain, very 16 significant claims or arguments were omitted from that dialogue 17 so there is simply no basis for any type of an instruction 18 about that portion of Mr. Barkow's argument. 19 And then, as to Mr. Barkow's reference to people like 20 Lynne Stewart when he was making a point that the law applies 21 equally to everyone, Mr. Tigar's request there simply removes a 22 phrase from the context in which it was used. Mr. Barkow was 23 arguing, as I just said, that the law applies equally to 24 everyone, even to people who disagree with it, and that was the 25 context in which he used a phrase like "people like Lynne SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12178 51B5SAT2 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 Stewart," and it simply has nothing to do with propensity. 2 THE COURT: All right. Taking the issues in reverse 3 order, first, there was nothing about the phrase and the 4 context that suggested, in any way, propensity evidence, and no 5 reasonable person could view it that way and it is not even -- 6 it requires no instruction at all. 7 The first issue is there was -- there was nothing 8 improper about the reference or the argument and as defense 9 counsel appreciates, the Supreme Court has ruled on the 10 admissibility of that type of evidence. 11 It is also true that the -- that the weight of the 12 evidence of violence in the face of an accusation is for the 13 jury under all of the circumstances. And, in fact, that is 14 what the defense counsel already argued there in his summation 15 and asked the jury to infer, what a person in the defendant's 16 position would have done in that conversation given what 17 defense counsel argued at that time was various considerations 18 that the defendant would have taken into account. 19 But I will give an instruction which is, I believe, 20 the correct instruction on the law which could, could be given 21 in the final instructions but both sides have argued it and the 22 correct instruction would be: It is up to the jury to 23 determine the weight of any evidence of silence in the face of 24 an accusation under all of the circumstances. 25 MS. BAKER: Your Honor, the government has no SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12179 51B5SAT2 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 objection to the Court giving such an instruction as part of 2 the set of overall instructions to be given to the jury at the 3 end of the case. 4 We would ask that it not be given now because the 5 Court has already ruled that Mr. Barkow's argument was 6 appropriate and was an appropriate response to Mr. Tigar's 7 argument. And to give that instruction now, not having given a 8 similar instruction when Mr. Tigar made the other side of the 9 argument, would suggest to the jury that Mr. Barkow's argument 10 was somehow inappropriate. 11 And so, given that both counsel have argued 12 appropriate sides of this issue, we would submit to the Court 13 that the appropriate time to give such an instruction, if at 14 all, is as part of the Court's final jury instructions. 15 MR. TIGAR: We will discuss it with the other counsel 16 and with the client, your Honor, if that's all right with the 17 Court. 18 THE COURT: Sure. Take five minutes. 19 MR. BARKOW: Your Honor, just so the Court is aware of 20 time, I'm estimating, I haven't been that good at it yet, but 21 I'm about 40 percent through and so -- I am doing it by page 22 number on my outline. So, I just wanted to update the Court on 23 that. 24 So, I don't need that long of a break is basically why 25 I was saying that. I would like to finish before lunch, so. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12180 51B5SAT2 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 THE COURT: What does that mean in terms of time? 2 MR. BARKOW: Well, I don't know when I started, I 3 think I have only been going for an hour and five minutes. 4 MR. PAUL: Quarter to 10 you started. 5 MR. BARKOW: I think I spoke for about an hour so I 6 would say I have an hour and a little bit more. So I don't 7 need that long of a break is basically what I was telling the 8 Court since the jury has had their break. 9 THE COURT: But you are telling me that it is likely 10 that you are not going to be finished before 12:30. 11 MR. BARKOW: Before 12:30, I don't think so. I don't 12 know. It will be close, actually. Actually, what I am saying 13 is it is going to be close and I don't need that long of a 14 break so I just wanted to tell the Court that. I'm sure 15 everyone else may. 16 MR. RUHNKE: Thank you. 17 THE COURT: Five minutes. 18 MR. BARKOW: Okay. 19 (Recess) 20 MR. TIGAR: We do not request an instruction, your 21 Honor. 22 THE COURT: All right. 23 MR. TIGAR: Thank you. 24 THE COURT: If I could instruct the jury today of 25 course I would prefer to instruct the jury today. If I can't, SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12181 51B5SAT2 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 I can't. 2 My own estimate is that it would take about three 3 hours and I just bring that to your attention. I really don't 4 have a feel for when the final summation is going to end. 5 I also just want to bring to your attention that it 6 does take some time to provide transportation for the jurors 7 and so I would have to let various people know. But I will 8 simply, frankly, await developments. 9 MR. BARKOW: Your Honor, all I can say, it's hard, but 10 my prediction actually, given what the Court has said about how 11 long it will take, is that we would not make it to the charge 12 today if the Court is going to do it in one block. I don't 13 think that when I end -- 14 THE COURT: By one block I mean one day. 15 MR. BARKOW: Right. 16 THE COURT: The jury could go to lunch and I would 17 give them appropriate instructions and we could limit it to a 18 half an hour or so. 19 MR. BARKOW: But given lunch and I think we are 20 breaking at 4:00, I don't think that there will be enough time. 21 But that's just my prediction given what I have left. 22 THE COURT: My suggestion is that you find a 23 convenient time to call for another recess in the summation 24 within 45 minutes to an hour when we will know if it is not 25 over by then. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12182 51B5SAT2 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 Okay, let's bring in the jury. 2 (Pause) 3 THE COURT: The jury is about ready to come in. I 4 ordered heartier snacks for the break this morning with the 5 possibility that they might have had to have sat longer through 6 the lunch hour. 7 (Continued on next page) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12183 51B5SAT2 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 (Jury present) 2 THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, remember my 3 continuing instructions: Nothing the lawyers say is evidence 4 and I will instruct you on the law. 5 All right, Mr. Barkow, you may proceed. 6 MR. BARKOW: Thank you, your Honor. 7 How else do you know that the bubble and the concept 8 of the bubble and the idea that it was okay to do under the 9 SAMs what Lynne Stewart did was made up for you? 10 You know that because after she issued the withdrawal 11 of support for the cease-fire she didn't mention anything about 12 it to Mohammed Yousry. She didn't say anything to Mohammed 13 Yousry that it was okay under the SAMs to do what she did. 14 Instead she said she was risking her whole career. 15 Lynne Stewart Exhibit 701T, a call on June 16th of 16 2000, you heard this call, it was played for you and you heard 17 the glee in Lynne Stewart's voice when she was talking to 18 Mohammed Yousry about what she had done. And she says on page 19 5 to Mohammed Yousry, I'm risking my whole career to bring this 20 out. 21 She doesn't say to Mohammed Yousry, not a big deal, 22 I've got it covered, I was okay to do it under the SAMs. I 23 practice law in a bubble, or a space, or the ethical 24 considerations let me do it, or the constitution or the 25 commentary to the SAMs. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12184 51B5SAT2 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 She doesn't say any of that because she made it up for 2 you. She says I was risking my whole career to bring this out. 3 She was being frank and honest then to her friend. She had no 4 idea she was being recorded as opposed to now when she needs to 5 say something to get off. 6 Why did Lynne Stewart think she was risking her whole 7 career? You know. Ahmed Sattar told you and Taha at the same 8 time on a tape, Government Exhibit 1119X, June 18th of 2000, 9 two days after the call that I just talked about when Lynne 10 Stewart tells Mohammed Yousry that she was risking her whole 11 career, page 3, Sattar says: The lawyers, before the lawyer... 12 em... before he gets the permission for the visit he signs 13 papers saying that is he not allowed to say anything or pass 14 anything, that is why I told you that this woman risked her 15 whole future. They have to sign papers. They have to sign 16 papers saying they're not allowed to pass anything. That is 17 why this woman risked her whole future. 18 How did Sattar know that Lynne Stewart thought she was 19 risking her whole future? Why did Sattar use that phrase? 20 Lynne Stewart must have told him that when she and he were 21 together just a few days earlier and she was telling Esmat 22 Salaheddin that Abdel Rahman had withdrawn his support for the 23 cease-fire. And Sattar knows the reason why Lynne Stewart was 24 risking her career too, because it was illegal, because it 25 circumvented papers, the SAMs and the affirmations, because it SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12185 51B5SAT2 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 violated papers, the affirmations -- the affirmation that she 2 signed. 3 And Lynne Stewart knew she was risking her whole 4 career because, as a lawyer with 30 years of experience and 5 seeing defendants charged with crimes, she knew exactly where 6 she'd end up if she got busted -- right here being judged by 7 you. 8 And Mr. Tigar and Lynne Stewart argue to you that it 9 helps her that she claims now that she thought then that the 10 worst possible consequence for her, the risk was that she would 11 be cut off from Abdel Rahman and other prisoners. She made 12 that up for you too but I'm going to suspend disbelief here for 13 a minute and I'm going to talk about it because even under what 14 they said, it shows you that Lynne Stewart knew that she did 15 something wrong. 16 And as I told you, Judge Koeltl will instruct you that 17 a defendant doesn't have to know that they're breaking any 18 particular law so long as they're aware of the generally 19 unlawful nature of their conduct. 20 So, if you think you're going to get cut off because 21 something you are doing with Omar Abdel Rahman it's because you 22 think you're violating the SAMs and the affirmation. And if 23 you think you're doing something that is violating the SAMs and 24 the affirmation, then you are defrauding the United States and 25 violating your affirmations and making a false statement and SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12186 51B5SAT2 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 committing a crime. It is just that simple. 2 And it's not an answer to say that it's not a crime to 3 antagonize an AUSA, an assistant U.S. Attorney; that it's not a 4 crime, it's a duty to do that. This is not about the adversary 5 system. Lynne Stewart wasn't in court with Pat Fitzgerald, she 6 was committing a crime. She wasn't there to object to 7 questions or arguments being made by another lawyer, she was 8 relaying messages from terrorists to terrorists to recommence 9 violence. It's just not the same and you know it's not the 10 same. 11 This is not about Lynne Stewart versus Pat Fitzgerald, 12 it's about Lynne Stewart thinking that she is above the law 13 which takes everyone's interests and safety in mind and 14 following her principles of: His message is going to get out 15 no matter what the law says. 16 She knew it was wrong and she new it violated the SAMs 17 and she knew it was a crime and she knew she would lose if she 18 challenged it in Court so she blew off the rules because she 19 disagreed with them. She knew it was unlawful and that she 20 would risk her whole career but she was going to get his 21 message out no matter what. 22 There is no evidence that Lynne Stewart ever mentioned 23 the bubble under any name to any of these people in any of 24 these contexts that I have just talked about. She never said 25 to any of them it was okay to do what I did, it was okay under SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12187 51B5SAT2 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 the ethical considerations, it was okay. 2 Because it wasn't and she knew it. And she knew it at 3 the time and she knew it at the time she signed her 4 affirmation. She knew she wasn't going to abide by that 5 affirmation but she did it because she was going to get the 6 message out no matter what she said in her affirmation and no 7 matter what the law said. 8 She had disagreed with the law, she knew she was 9 breaking the law, she thought she was above the law. She 10 didn't act in good faith. 11 How else do you know that Lynne Stewart is making this 12 up just for you? Mr. Stern and Mr. Tigar accused the 13 government at various points of trying to have things both 14 ways. 15 You know, there is no bubble or concept of a bubble 16 because Lynne Stewart tries to have it both ways herself 17 because she doesn't even believe in her lie enough now to stick 18 by it. What do I mean by that? Well, she conceded when she 19 was on the stand that what she did was in violation of the 20 plain text of the SAMs but this was in a bubble. But then she 21 also tried to sell you a story that it really didn't violate 22 the plain text because what she did wasn't a message because it 23 wasn't secret. 24 Talking to the media is never secret so that makes no 25 sense. It bans communications with the media. It's never a SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12188 51B5SAT2 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 secret so that is just absurd. So, what does this tell that 2 you she tries to have this both ways? She will tell you 3 anything to try to get off. 4 She reads the SAMs and the affirmations however it 5 suits her at any given point. Sometimes what matters is the 6 letter and sometimes what matters is the bubble. 7 How else do you know that there is no bubble and she 8 didn't think it was okay to do under the SAMs what she did? 9 "I'm just doing covering noises." This the last page of 10 Government Exhibit 2634. Lynne Stewart didn't have to testify 11 but she did, and when she was sitting up on the stand she 12 didn't say a single word about this page because there is 13 nothing that can be said. 14 I talked about the covering noises that Lynne Stewart 15 made at length yesterday with respect to Mohammed Yousry. And 16 I'm not going to repeat them now but I just want you to 17 remember them for the better, "I'm just doing covering noises." 18 That's what she said in July of 2001. I can win an academy 19 award. That's what she said that May of 2000 because she has 20 to make something up because she was caught unknowingly and 21 unsuspectingly on tape. 22 Protecting legal strategies, trying to avoid 23 interruption? No. She only did the covering noises, as I 24 proved to you yesterday was true, only when they talked about 25 terrorism, terrorists and violence. And she got caught and she SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12189 51B5SAT2 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 is trying to lie her way out of it. 2 Let me talk about the part of the bubble called Ramsey 3 Clark and Ramsey Clark's refusal to issue Abdel Rahman's 4 withdrawal of support for the cease-fire in September 1999. 5 Lynne Stewart wants you to believe that she was guided 6 by and worked with Ramsey Clark and that made her think somehow 7 that it was okay to do under the SAMs what she did. It was 8 okay to commit her crimes. Well, she is making this up too. 9 She says now it's all about Ramsey, but that's a lie. 10 Remember? She got a letter from Pat Fitzgerald saying that she 11 violated the SAMs and she broke the law and that she risked 12 death. Well, what did she say then about Ramsey Clark to her 13 friend Mohammed Yousry with no incentive to lie like she has 14 now? 15 (Recording played) 16 MR. BARKOW: Government Exhibit 1275X, August 28th of 17 2000. Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no. Ramsey I'm not interested 18 in at all. I don't care what Ramsey has to say. 19 Mohammed Yousry asks her, page 3, I think you should 20 keep it between you and Ramsey until we decide what to do about 21 getting this accusatory letter from Pat Fitzgerald. No, no, 22 no. I don't care what Ramsey has to say. 23 And then after that, page 3 she says, my basic 24 position is I want to meet with you and Sattar. 25 I don't care what Ramsey has to say, I want to meet SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12190 51B5SAT2 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 with my co-defendants and co-conspirators. 2 Well, here they are, together again. And it doesn't 3 matter what Lynne Stewart says to you now about her supposed 4 good faith reliance on Ramsey Clark because back then she 5 didn't care what Ramsey has to say and to say differently now 6 is a lie. 7 What else about Ramsey Clark? Before I go any further 8 about Ramsey Clark let me ask you to listen for one of Judge 9 Koeltl's instructions because it will tell you what you are not 10 supposed to think about with respect to Ramsey Clark or anyone 11 else not on trial for that matter. 12 Judge Koeltl will instruct you that you can't draw any 13 inference from the fact that certain people were not named as 14 defendants. You are not supposed to speculate why someone is 15 or isn't on trial and you can't consider whether someone should 16 or shouldn't have been charged in any way as you reach your 17 verdict. Please listen for that instruction. 18 But let's talk about what the evidence shows about 19 Ramsey Clark and what he did and what he didn't do and what he 20 refused to do. 21 You know that Ramsey Clark operated in 1997 when he 22 issued Abdel Rahman's blessing of the cease-fire under 23 different SAMs that Lynne Stewart operated under when she 24 issued Abdel Rahman's blessing of violence. 25 You know that Lynne Stewart or that Ramsey Clark was SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12191 51B5SAT2 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 subject to SAMs that didn't bar press releases, Government 2 Exhibit 375. They just don't. 3 And whatever Pat Fitzgerald might have said about it 4 on the stand without having the document in front of him as 5 Mr. Tigar was referring to, he's mistaken. Look at them 6 yourself. They don't bar press releases. 7 And Lynne Stewart knew, most importantly, that Ramsey 8 Clark was subject to different SAMs in 1997 than she was in May 9 and June of 2000, so she can't say now that she relied in good 10 faith on Ramsey Clark's conduct back in 1997 because she knew 11 the SAMs were different. 12 She testified, transcript page 8144, that she knew 13 that the bar on relaying statements from Abdel Rahman to the 14 media was inserted in the SAMs after Ramsey Clark made his 15 statement in 1997. So she knew the SAMs were changed to 16 prohibit statements to the media; transcript 8144. So, Lynne 17 Stewart knew that that rule wasn't in place when Ramsey Clark 18 did what he did. 19 What else do you know about Ramsey Clark? What did he 20 actually say when he was subject to these different SAMs? He 21 said, quote, I give my blessing for the initiative to stop the 22 violence and I ask others to support it. That's what he said 23 Abdel Rahman had said. 24 Well, the purpose of the SAMs is to stop violence. It 25 says that in the regulation, Government Exhibit 2635, that SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12192 51B5SAT2 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 Lynne Stewart claims to rely upon now. 2 Ramsey Clark's statement in favor of the cease-fire is 3 just not the same as Lynne Stewart's statement withdrawing 4 Abdel Rahman's support for the cease-fire, so Lynne Stewart 5 could not possibly have relied in good faith on what Ramsey 6 Clark did under different SAMs that she knew had been changed 7 after what he had done when he made a statement that was 8 pro-peace and she made a statement that was pro-violence. 9 That's not possible. 10 What else do you know about Ramsey Clark? You know 11 that Ramsey Clark refused to issue Abdel Rahman's withdrawal of 12 support for the cease-fire in September of 1999. You know that 13 when he was presented with the option and opportunity to do it 14 himself, he said no. He said no because it was illegal. 15 Now, Mr. Tigar spent a long time trying to tell you 16 that Mohammed Yousry's notebooks somehow proved something about 17 Ramsey Clark's refusal to relay Abdel Rahman's withdrawal of 18 support in September 1999. Remember the whole argument he made 19 about absolved versus disappointed? This was a day or two ago, 20 it may have been Thursday. 21 But the fact is and the evidence shows that Abdel 22 Rahman's statement that Ramsey Clark refused to relay, unlike 23 Lynne Stewart said, that the Islamic Group was absolved and 24 released from the cease-fire. Abdel Rahman said the Islamic 25 Group did not have to follow the cease-fire anymore. He said SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12193 51B5SAT2 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 it in September 1999 and Ramsey Clark refused to relay that 2 statement. 3 And, Mr. Tigar tried to create the impression for you 4 that all Abdel Rahman said back then was that -- all Ramsey 5 Clark -- I'm sorry, all that Abdel Rahman said back then was 6 that he was disappointed with the cease-fire. That's what 7 Mr. Tigar argued to you is all Abdel Rahman said, he was just 8 disappointed. 9 But the evidence is clear that Abdel Rahman said the 10 Islamic Group was absolved and released from the cease-fire and 11 that Ramsey Clark refused to issue this blessing of violence 12 unlike Lynne Stewart who willingly unleashed it into the world. 13 Now, how do you know what Abdel Rahman really said and 14 what Ramsey Clark refused to relay? Well, Mr. Tigar said at 15 one point that he doesn't show transcripts on the screen 16 because he will just argue to you the old fashioned way. But, 17 if you actually look at all the evidence on this issue as 18 opposed to just talking about it, it is clear that Mr. Tigar is 19 wrong and that Abdel Rahman said that the Islamic Group is 20 absolved and released from the cease-fire and Ramsey Clark 21 wouldn't issue it. 22 You just have to roll up your sleeves for a minute and 23 look at it so I'm going to go through it with you. I'm going 24 to walk through and give you some of the exhibits numbers and 25 you can recreate it later if you want because it shows what SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12194 51B5SAT2 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 Mr. Tigar argued to you is flat out wrong. 2 September 18, 1999, Mohammed Yousry and Ramsey Clark 3 go visit Abdel Rahman. Then, on September 19th of 1999, 2:00 4 p.m., Government Exhibit 1028X, page 3, Mohammed Yousry calls 5 Sattar after Yousry arrives home from the prison visit and 6 Sattar says to him, I was worried that Ramsey Clark wasn't 7 going to be able to discuss everything with Abdel Rahman. And 8 Yousry says, quote, no, no, no. Ramsey discussed everything 9 with him. 10 They're talking about the cease-fire. And then the 11 next morning on September 20th of '99 at 7:00 in the morning, 12 Government Exhibit 1029X, Taha calls Sattar, pages 2 to 3. 13 Sattar tells Taha that Abdel Rahman made a statement and that 14 Clark is going to issue it today and the statement Sattar tells 15 Taha is about, quote, his feeling about the general situation 16 as a whole and about his feelings of strong disappointment 17 about the situation and the necessity to review the situation 18 in its entirety and that we, I mean the Islamic Group, is 19 absolved of anything. 20 And then at page 4, Taha tells Sattar to write down 21 what Abdel Rahman said and send it to Taha. 22 And Sattar tells Taha that he is going to meet with 23 Clark later that day. That's page 4. 24 Pages 6 and 7, this is what Abdel Rahman said and what 25 Sattar read to Taha on the phone. Now it's kind of long so I'm SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12195 51B5SAT2 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 going to read you parts. If you want to look at the whole 2 thing later it is on pages 6 and 7. 3 Permission is given to fight because they are wronged. 4 I therefore demand that my brothers, the sons of the Islamic 5 Group, do a comprehensive review of the initiative and its 6 results. I also demand that they consider themselves absolved 7 from it. 8 So, then Sattar gets off the phone, he goes to his 9 computer, and by 12:55 p.m. he's finished typing Abdel Rahman's 10 statement which he got from Mohammed Yousry, who was at the 11 prison visit, which he got from him in handwriting and which he 12 just read to Taha. 13 The statement, Government Exhibit 2204, was found on 14 Sattar's computer. And you know the time that Sattar finished 15 typing it, 12:55 p.m., because the last modified date on the 16 computer is on Government Exhibit 2204-AL. 17 Now, Government Exhibit 2204-AT is the translation of 18 the statement that Sattar typed. And that document, 2204-AT 19 matches what Sattar told Taha on the phone in Exhibit 1029X 20 virtually line by line. 21 Government Exhibit 2204-AT, this is what Abdel Rahman 22 said and Sattar typed: Permission to take up arms is hereby 23 given to those who are attacked because they have been wronged. 24 And then he goes on: Therefore, and from the 25 perspective of being an Islamic scholar my duty obligates me to SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12196 51B5SAT2 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 confer advice on my children and brothers in the Islamic Group, 2 that they conduct an inclusive evaluation and complete 3 assessment of this initiative and its result. Also, I advise 4 them that they should consider themselves released from it. 5 It matches what I just read to you from 1029X. 6 And then, that afternoon, Sattar meets with Clark and 7 he reads Ramsey Clark this statement, Government Exhibit 2204, 8 because later that night, September 20th, 1999, at 10:15 p.m., 9 Government Exhibit 1030X, Sattar calls Yousry and on page 1 he 10 tells Yousry that he met with Ramsey Clark and that Ramsey 11 Clark won't issue the statement because, he says, he probably 12 figured it out from its legal angle. And Yousry tells Sattar, 13 but Abdel Rahman wanted the statement released. 14 And so, on page 3 Yousry says that he'll talk to Abdel 15 Rahman about it next week and, quote, solve the problem by 16 telling Ramsey Clark to ask the Sheikh, and Abdel Rahman will 17 tell Ramsey Clark that Abdel Rahman wants to issue the 18 statement. 19 Then, the next day, September 21st, '99, Sattar writes 20 a letter to Taha. It's to Taha, not to Muntasir Al-Zayat, as 21 Mr. Tigar argued to you, and this is Government Exhibit 22 2312-40T. 2312-40T. And that letter is dated September 21st 23 of 1999, it's on the very bottom of the letter. 24 In the letter Sattar tells Taha what happened. In the 25 letter he tells Taha that he had met with Ramsey Clark. I met SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12197 51B5SAT2 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 with the male lawyer today. 2 And you know it's a letter to Taha and not to 3 Al-Zayat, as Mr. Tigar argued, because in it Sattar refers back 4 to a conversation he had in the morning that morning with Taha 5 during which he told Taha that Sattar thought that Ramsey Clark 6 was going to issue the statement that the Islamic Group is 7 absolved and released from the cease-fire. 8 But, Sattar tells Taha in the letter that Ramsey Clark 9 isn't going to issue the statement, he won't issue the 10 statement because of the, quote, negative legal consequences -- 11 I'm sorry, because of the negative legal consequences. It can 12 cause a negative reaction, particularly from the legal side 13 here. 14 But, after the meeting and in light of the discussion 15 of the issue from all sides calculating the pros and cons here 16 at least, we elected not to issue the statement. It can cause 17 a negative reaction, particularly from the legal side here, so 18 we decided not to do it. 19 Ramsey Clark decided not to issue the statement 20 because of negative legal consequences. 21 So, the evidence proves that what happened here was 22 that Sattar read Government Exhibit 2204, Abdel Rahman's 23 statement calling for the end of the cease-fire which he just 24 typed before meeting Clark that afternoon and finished at 12:55 25 p.m. He read it to Clark and Sattar and Clark discussed it and SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12198 51B5SAT2 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 Ramsey Clark refused to issue it. 2 And then Sattar gives his letter to Taha, Exhibit 3 2312-40T, to Mohammed Yousry; and you know that because 4 2312-40T is found in Mohammed Yousry's office in a search -- in 5 the search. 6 And Mohammed Yousry then asked Ramsey Clark to approve 7 reading this statement to Abdel Rahman. And you know that 8 because Ramsey Clark approves 2312-40, the translation 40T, to 9 be read to Abdel Rahman because at the top it says that it was 10 approved by Ramsey Clark. And again, this is found in Mohammed 11 Yousry's office. 12 Why would Ramsey Clark approve it if it didn't 13 accurately say what happened? He wouldn't. So you know that 14 Ramsey Clark approved it because it accurately says what 15 happened and what Ramsey Clark himself did. 16 And what does it say happened and that Ramsey Clark 17 did? 2312-40T says that what happened is that Abdel Rahman 18 said that the Islamic Group is absolved from the cease-fire and 19 that Ramsey Clark refused to issue Abdel Rahman's statement 20 because it would have negative legal repercussions. 21 Ramsey Clark refused to issue Abdel Rahman's 22 withdrawal of support for the cease-fire in September 1999 23 because of the negative legal repercussions because it violated 24 the SAMs. 25 And, since 2312-40T was read to Abdel Rahman, Abdel SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12199 51B5SAT2 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 Rahman knows that Ramsey Clark wouldn't issue his withdrawal of 2 support for the cease-fire. 3 (Continued on next page) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12200 51BMSAT3 Rebuttal 1 MR. BARKOW: Why wouldn't Ramsey Clark do it? Why 2 wouldn't he issue Abdel Rahman's withdrawal of support for the 3 ceasefire, Exhibit 2204, that Sattar showed to Ramsey Clark? 4 Because it was, as the title states, permission to take up arms 5 from the spiritual leader of the Islamic Group. And that is 6 why Ramsey Clark didn't issue it. 7 And because Ramsey Clark refused to issue Abdel 8 Rahman's withdrawal of support for the ceasefire, on February 9 18 of 2000, the first day of the very next prison visit, Abdel 10 Rahman wants Abdeen Jabara to issue a press release. He wants 11 him to issue the withdrawal of support for the ceasefire. But 12 Mohammed Yousry told you that on that day of the prison visit, 13 Abdeen Jabara said no, no press release. 14 On February 19, the next day of the visit, Abdel 15 Rahman wants to dictate a letter to al-Gama'a al-Islamiya and I 16 showed you that before when I was arguing about Mohammed 17 Yousry, Abdeen Jabara says no. Abdel Rahman wants to do this 18 because Ramsey Clark wouldn't do it back in September 1999. 19 Abdel Rahman wants his withdrawal of the ceasefire out there. 20 He wants it out. He wants it to get out to the world. Ramsey 21 Clark wouldn't do it and, as you know now, Abdeen Jabara 22 wouldn't do it either. So Abdel Rahman has to wait until Lynne 23 Stewart shows up in May of 2000. 24 What does all this show you? It shows you several 25 things. It shows you that Mr. Tigar is wrong when he says that SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12201 51BMSAT3 Rebuttal 1 Abdel Rahman only said that he was disappointed in the 2 ceasefire because Abdel Rahman said, absolved and released, the 3 Islamic Group is absolved and released from the ceasefire. 4 Abdel Rahman had withdrawn his support for the ceasefire in 5 September of 1999. He couldn't get his message out to the 6 world. It shows you that Abdel Rahman had joined the 7 conspiracy to kill, at least has the state of mind to do it in 8 September of 1999. And it reminds you that Sattar is a member 9 of the conspiracy to kill in September of 1999. And it proves 10 to you what Ramsey Clark refused to issue Abdel Rahman's pro 11 violence statement, a withdrawal of support, an absolution from 12 the ceasefire. And it proves to you why Ramsey Clark refused 13 to issue it, because of the negative legal reaction, because 14 Ramsey Clark knew that it violated the law. And it reminds you 15 that Abdeen Jabara wouldn't do it either in February 2000, when 16 Abdel Rahman asked him to. Abdel Rahman had to wait until 17 Lynne Stewart, his sure thing, arrived in May of 2000 to do 18 what neither of her two cocounsel, Ramsey Clark or Abdeen 19 Jabara, would do. 20 I want to make a quick point about Mohammed Yousry's 21 notebooks. Mr. Tigar was keen to relying on Mohammed Yousry's 22 notebook to say that because Mohammed Yousry's notebooks don't 23 include the words absolved he must be right about this 24 argument. Since when were Mohammed Yousry's notebooks the 25 verbatim measure of everything that was said and everything SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12202 51BMSAT3 Rebuttal 1 that happened? You know that the May 2000 prison visit lasted 2 two full days. It took a week to read it and play it to you in 3 this courtroom. And the complete total of handwritten pages in 4 Mohammed Yousry's notebook about that May 2000 visit, one page. 5 You know he was there. You know that it lasted two days. You 6 know that a lot more than one page was said. It just doesn't 7 capture everything that was said. 8 And you also know that in May of 2000, Abdel Rahman's 9 response to Sattar's and Taha's request for Abdel Rahman to 10 withdraw his support for the ceasefire, you know about that. 11 You know that Abdel Rahman responded and you know that he 12 answered that request in a letter because you saw it and you 13 heard it on the transcript, and we read it to you in the 14 transcript. 15 Is that anywhere in Mohammed Yousry's notebooks? No. 16 One of the single most powerful pieces of evidence in the whole 17 case and Mohammed Yousry didn't write in his notebooks. He 18 told you he put it on a separate piece of paper. But you know 19 it happened because he told you it happened and because you saw 20 it and you heard it. 21 What about the March 1999 responses to Sattar's letter 22 regarding the ceasefire? Those aren't in Mohammed Yousry's 23 notebooks here. It is no surprise that the word absolved does 24 not appear in Mohammed Yousry's notebooks either. None of 25 Abdel Rahman's statements withdrawing support and supporting SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12203 51BMSAT3 Rebuttal 1 violence with respect to the ceasefire appear in Mohammed 2 Yousry's notebooks because Mohammed Yousry is too smart to 3 write something that incriminating in his permanent record. 4 And the fact that absolved, that word doesn't appear means 5 nothing. Mohammed Yousry has more than just a pen and 6 notebook. He has his ears and he has his brain and he and 7 Lynne Stewart bring out the bad stuff with the withdrawal of 8 the support of the ceasefire in their heads, not in his 9 notebook. 10 So in his third or fourth alternative theory on this 11 devastating evidence Mr. Tigar asks, why didn't the government 12 ask Ramsey Clark why he didn't release the withdrawal of 13 support for the ceasefire? Now, do you think maybe it is 14 because the evidence the government had introduced and I just 15 went through, those calls, those documents, all recorded and 16 written at the time make it abundantly clear that Ramsey Clark 17 did not relay that message because it was a call to arms, 18 permission to take up arms is hereby given and, therefore, it 19 was illegal? 20 Do you think maybe because Mr. Tigar's argument or 21 theory just wouldn't occur to anyone who is actually looking at 22 the evidence in the case because his theory is flatly 23 contradicted by the evidence in the case? You know, it is 24 Mr. Tigar's hypothesis and theory and speculation and its 25 evidence doesn't support it. And he didn't have to ask Ramsey SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12204 51BMSAT3 Rebuttal 1 Clark a single question. He didn't have to ask anyone a single 2 question. He didn't have to speak throughout the entire trial. 3 But he did ask Ramsey Clark questions. Why didn't he ask it? 4 You know why. Because the answer would have been, because it 5 was a withdrawal of support for the ceasefire, it was pro 6 violence, and it violated the SAMs. 7 MR. TIGAR: I object to that, your Honor. 8 MR. BARKOW: It is fair argument, your Honor. 9 THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, the motives of 10 counsel are, of course, not at issue, as I have repeatedly 11 said, and the evidence and the inferences from the evidence are 12 for you, the jury, to determine. 13 Go ahead. 14 MR. BARKOW: The evidence, as I have just gone 15 through, showed you what the answer is to that question. 16 Because it was a pro violent withdrawal of support for the 17 ceasefire and it violated the SAMs. That's what the evidence 18 shows and I just spent the last 15 minutes going through. 19 You know, let's suspend this belief for a moment and 20 assume, just for the sake of argument, that Mr. Tigar is right, 21 which he is not -- because I just went through the evidence and 22 showed you that he is not -- that he is right, that Abdel 23 Rahman said that he was disappointed in the ceasefire and not 24 absolved and released. The evidence does not support that at 25 all. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12205 51BMSAT3 Rebuttal 1 But let's assume it and suspend this belief. It just 2 doesn't matter because that's actually worse for Lynne Stewart 3 because the simple fact is, Ramsey Clark refused to issue that 4 message from Abdel Rahman to the media in September of 1999. 5 And if Mr. Tigar is right and Ramsey Clark didn't relay the 6 message when it just said disappointed, what does that say 7 about what Ramsey Clark would think about Lynne Stewart's relay 8 of a far, far worse pro violence message than disappointed, 9 that Abdel Rahman withdrew his support for the ceasefire? It 10 tells you that Ramsey Clark wouldn't have relayed -- if he 11 wouldn't have relayed disappointed, he certainly would not have 12 relayed the withdrawal of support for the ceasefire either 13 because Ramsey Clark is a man of peace. 14 But Lynne Stewart did relay the withdrawal of support 15 for the ceasefire because Lynne Stewart ignores the law and 16 rules that she disagrees with and thinks she is above the law 17 and has a hard time figuring out what's wrong if people are 18 killed in a nightclub in Israel or the stock market in London 19 by people who have been left with no other choice. 20 Mr. Tigar also kept saying, Pat Fitzgerald was wrong 21 about Ramsey Clark, and I touched on this before, but that is a 22 smokescreen. He was wrong about whether Ramsey Clark violated 23 the SAMs or not. Pat Fitzgerald was asked about the 1997 SAMs 24 that Ramsey Clark operated under. Lynne Stewart operated under 25 different SAMs. Lynne Stewart's SAMs and affirmations are SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12206 51BMSAT3 Rebuttal 1 clear and they bar messages to the media. There is no argument 2 against that. So Pat Fitzgerald's comments about some other 3 SAMs in 1997 have nothing to do with whether Lynne Stewart 4 acted in good faith about her different crystal-clear SAMs. 5 There is no good-faith interpretation of Lynne Stewart's SAMs 6 and affirmations that she ignored that allow her to do what she 7 did. 8 Let's look briefly at the part of the bubble called 9 Abdeen Jabara because Abdeen Jabara is such a great witness 10 against Lynne Stewart he didn't even have to come to court. 11 Abdeen Jabara says no to a press conference on February 18 of 12 2000. And you know what that press conference would have been 13 about because I just went through that evidence. Abdel Rahman 14 wanted to withdraw his support for the ceasefire and Abdeen 15 Jabara said no. He wanted to get around Ramsey Clark's refusal 16 to do it in September '99, and Abdeen Jabara said no. 17 Abdeen Jabara says the next day, February 19, when 18 Abdel Rahman asks him to dictate a message to al-Gama'a 19 al-Islamiya, 1701X at page 34, Yousry says: Mr. Abdeen, when 20 you went to ask them about the coffee -- he told me he wants to 21 dictate a letter to al-Gama'a al-Islamiya. And Jabara says: 22 No. 23 What else do you know about Abdeen Jabara? Well, 24 Abdeen Jabara during that prison visit made Abdel Rahman feel 25 uncomfortable and that he couldn't relay a message -- Abdel SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12207 51BMSAT3 Rebuttal 1 Rahman felt uncomfortable because Abdeen Jabara was there and 2 Abdeen Jabara said during that visit that he couldn't relay a 3 message because he had signed papers. 1062X is a phone call 4 after that visit, February 28, 2000, page 4. Sattar is telling 5 Mustafa Hamza about what just happened at the visit. He said 6 the other guy said no. I signed papers and so on. 7 How does Sattar know what happened there? He wasn't 8 there. Mohammed Yousry told him. Abdeen Jabara said: I won't 9 do it because I signed papers. What papers? The affirmation. 10 Because that says it is a crime to relay those messages. 11 What else do you know about Abdeen Jabara that shows 12 that there is no bubble called Abdeen Jabara? There was 13 absolutely no covering noise in February 2000 during the prison 14 visit that involved Abdeen Jabara, not one, and I argued that 15 to you yesterday. 16 What else do you know about Abdeen Jabara? Well, 17 Abdeen Jabara, when he finds out about the fatwah that Sattar 18 and Taha wrote to kill Jewish people everywhere, Abdeen Jabara 19 says to Abdel Rahman that he is going to deny that the lawyers 20 issued the fatwah if he is asked about it. That's at 1733T, an 21 October 20 call, page 23. And Lynne Stewart knew that Abdeen 22 Jabara did in fact deny that Abdel Rahman issued that fatwah. 23 She had a copy of the article about it in her office, 24 Government Exhibit 2619. It is a New York Times article from 25 October 22 in which Jabara says that. But Lynne Stewart, as SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12208 51BMSAT3 Rebuttal 1 I'll talk about in a bit, would deny that fatwah only if it 2 were antiviolence; for example, if it said stop throwing rocks. 3 Otherwise, she didn't think it should be denied. 4 How else do you know that Lynne Stewart is making it 5 up now that she thought back then it was okay to issue these 6 press releases and Abdel Rahman's calls for violence? What 7 else didn't she do? There is no evidence in this case that she 8 ever made another press release about Abdel Rahman. There is 9 no evidence that she ever issued a press release about his 10 innocence, his guilt, his appeal, prisoner transfer, or 11 prisoner exchange to Egypt, even his prison conditions. 12 She never said, don't forget Abdel Rahman, keep him in 13 mind. She didn't go voice her own opinion about Abdel Rahman. 14 Just Abdel Rahman's statements. Because according to the 15 evidence in this case, the only time after the imposition of 16 the SAMs that Lynne Stewart ever spoke publicly about Abdel 17 Rahman, it was to relay his sanction of a return to violence, 18 his withdrawal of support for the ceasefire on June 13, and his 19 reaffirmation of that withdrawal on June 20 or 21. And the 20 time that she did it on June 13 she wanted to hide it from Pat 21 Fitzgerald and that she thought she risked her whole career 22 because she knew she had circumvented the SAMs and defrauded 23 the United States and violated the law. 24 Acting in good faith. Mr. Tigar mentioned good faith 25 over and over. What does good faith mean to Lynne Stewart? It SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12209 51BMSAT3 Rebuttal 1 means she thinks she can get away with a lie. What do I mean 2 by that? Let's talk about Ahmed Sattar's false statement about 3 insulin and Abdel Rahman's medical condition. That's 4 Government Exhibit 1220X, January 8, 2001. On that call Sattar 5 tells Lynne Stewart that Abdel Rahman is refusing to take his 6 medicine. That's what he has learned. And Lynne Stewart 7 agrees. She knows that. And she knew that it happened in the 8 past. 9 And then Sattar tells Lynne Stewart that he is going 10 to issue a false press release saying that the U.S. Government 11 is refusing to give Abdel Rahman his medication, not what is 12 actually true, that Abdel Rahman is refusing it. Sattar 13 admitted on the stand that the press release that he wanted to 14 make was false. And Lynne Stewart says to Sattar that she 15 thinks it is okay to issue this false press release, that 16 falsely places the blame on the U.S. Government because no one 17 will know it is a lie, she says. They don't know that on the 18 outside. That's safe enough. Lynne Stewart thinks it is safe 19 enough to tell a lie because since nobody knows that on the 20 outside, no one will know it is a lie. Lynne Stewart is saying 21 it is okay to lie because she won't get caught. 22 And how does Lynne Stewart try to explain now why she 23 told Sattar in January of 2001 that it was okay to issue a 24 false press release blaming the U.S. Government for Abdel 25 Rahman -- for denying Abdel Rahman his medication, even though SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12210 51BMSAT3 Rebuttal 1 she knew Abdel Rahman was refusing? When she testified, she 2 said the lie, the false press release about Abdel Rahman's 3 insulin was okay because it was going to be made in good faith. 4 Transcript 7912 to 13. I didn't only have personal knowledge. 5 I didn't have secondhand knowledge. So as a result, you can 6 probably make a release, good-faith release to the press. But 7 she is lying. Because back then she didn't say, I don't know 8 what's going on in there. She said: They don't know what's 9 going on in the outside because she did know. Sattar had just 10 told her. He told her that Abdel Rahman was refusing his 11 medicine and that he, Sattar, was going to issue a false press 12 release about it. No one had told her that the government was 13 refusing to give Abdel Rahman his medication, so saying that 14 the government was refusing to do it was a lie. Sound 15 familiar? She uses good faith now to say that her lie back 16 then was okay and good faith now to say that her crimes back 17 then were okay. Because you know that to Lynne Stewart good 18 faith means she thinks she can get away with a lie. 19 I just want to say a brief word about the SAMs 20 commentary part of the bubble. Judge Koeltl will tell you that 21 it is not a defense in this case to say that the SAMs are 22 unconstitutional. That is not a defense. But Mr. Tigar tells 23 you that Lynne Stewart relied on the commentary to the SAMs. I 24 have referred to those exhibits before, but it is Government 25 Exhibit 2635, LS204, and LS205. So he says she relied on SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12211 51BMSAT3 Rebuttal 1 those. So she acted in good faith, even though she never 2 mentioned those to anyone, Lisa Sattar, Mohammed Yousry. I 3 went through that before. 4 What the commentary to the SAMs say is that the SAMs 5 are okay under the Constitution. They are constitutional. In 6 lawyer speak, Government Exhibit 2635 considers and rejects 7 constitutional challenges to the SAMs, considers them and 8 rejects them and says the SAMs are constitutional and they are 9 the rules. And the commentary, what it does in going through 10 it is, it balances the interests of everyone, of everyone in 11 society, people's safety, the interest of inmates, the interest 12 of lawyers, everybody, and it passes a rule that applies to 13 everyone. 14 Then it says that the rules were constitutional. And 15 once the rules are okay and constitutional, you look at the 16 rules themselves, the SAMs, which are crystal clear. And when 17 you violate them, that is not disagreement with the law -- that 18 is disagreement with the law. That is not good faith. When 19 you violate the rules that are constitutional and that clearly 20 say you can't do it when you violate them, it is because you're 21 disagreeing with the law, not because you're acting in good 22 faith. It is because you're putting -- your principles of his 23 message is going to get out no matter what above the law. It 24 is saying his message is going to get out, no matter what, and 25 I'm prepared to live with the repercussions. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12212 51BMSAT3 Rebuttal 1 This talk about the commentary to the SAMs is a 2 smokescreen and a distraction. Just because you're not 3 lawyers, don't be confused by it. The commentary says the 4 rules are okay because just because you are a lawyer doesn't 5 mean that you can run around and ignore and blow off whatever 6 rules you want and disagree with and then after the fact point 7 to some legal gobbledygook and try to snooker someone. Judge 8 Koeltl will instruct you that disagreement with the law is not 9 good faith. It isn't good faith. Lynne Stewart disagreed with 10 the law. She disagreed with the crystal clear rules and the 11 affirmations, and she blew them off, she risked her whole 12 career, and she got caught and now she is lying to try to get 13 out of it. 14 Let me say a few words about the ethical 15 considerations part of the bubble. There are two sources of 16 ethical standards. Judge Koeltl will instruct you about them, 17 the disciplinary rules and the ethical considerations. Those 18 are the two different terms. And the only ones that Mr. Tigar 19 read to you in his summation and the only ones that he read to 20 Lynne Stewart when she was on the stand and said she agreed 21 with were the ethical considerations, not the disciplinary 22 rules. 23 But there are disciplinary rules, too, and Judge 24 Koeltl will instruct you that the only -- that only the 25 disciplinary rules are mandatory, not the ethical SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12213 51BMSAT3 Rebuttal 1 considerations. Judge Koeltl will tell you only the 2 disciplinary rules are mandatory, not the ethical 3 considerations. And he will tell you that under the 4 disciplinary rules a lawyer can't help a client commit a crime. 5 Lynne Stewart told you on cross-examination that she knew that 6 the disciplinary rules must be complied with, transcript page 7 8384. 8 The disciplinary rules in New York where Lynne Stewart 9 is a lawyer, require all lawyers, including Lynne Stewart, to 10 abide by the law. They say that you can't as a lawyer engage 11 in illegal conduct that adversely reflects on your 12 trustworthiness, like lying. It says that you have to avoid 13 any conduct that involves fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, 14 like a conspiracy to defraud. It says that you can't engage in 15 conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, 16 like impeding and obstructing the implementation of the SAMs. 17 And it says you can't encourage your client or aid your client 18 to commit a criminal act or counsel your client to violate the 19 law or how to violate the law, like providing material support 20 to a conspiracy to kill and getting out of jail a pro violence 21 withdrawal of support for a ceasefire. 22 That's what the disciplinary rules say and Lynne 23 Stewart admitted knowing all of that. And in light of the 24 disciplinary rules which require these things, the only 25 question is whether she circumvented the SAMs and defrauded the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12214 51BMSAT3 Rebuttal 1 United States and lied in her affirmation and provided material 2 support. 3 Now, Mr. Tigar read to you some ethical 4 considerations. Remember, ethical considerations, not 5 disciplinary rules, which Judge Koeltl will instruct you, are 6 the only ones that are mandatory. Ethical considerations are 7 not. Let me show you one of the ones he read because he 8 stopped a bit short of finishing reading it all to you. He 9 read it to you and he read the first two lines or so. And he 10 did read this: Within the bounds of the law. A lawyer 11 represents a client zealously within the bounds of the law. 12 The law requires the lawyer to follow the law. But he skipped 13 this line: We are a government of laws and not of individuals. 14 That sounds a little too important to skip. Lynne Stewart must 15 have skipped that line, too. 16 This whole ethical consideration argument is a 17 distraction because the language that Mr. Tigar read to you and 18 showed you, none of it has anything to do even remotely with 19 issuing a communication from a terrorist to another terrorist 20 that says it is okay to end the ceasefire and resume violence, 21 not even remotely close. And early on I told you that this 22 case has nothing to do with being a lawyer and it is just a 23 case involving a person who happens to be a lawyer. Because 24 when Lynne Stewart issued Abdel Rahman's withdrawal of support 25 for the ceasefire it had nothing to do with being a lawyer. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12215 51BMSAT3 Rebuttal 1 And the ethical considerations that Lynne Stewart claimed she 2 relied upon back then have nothing to do with anything in this 3 case because Lynne Stewart wasn't acting like a lawyer when she 4 issued Abdel Rahman's statement. 5 What she is really saying to you now and what she 6 thought back then is that she thought she could blow off the 7 rules and the law that apply to everyone because she is a 8 lawyer and she is above the law. Do you think lawyers are 9 above the law? Mr. Tigar said in his summation that adults 10 accept the consequences of their actions and somehow used that 11 to attack the government lawyers in this case. Well, Lynne 12 Stewart, an adult by any measure, understood and now faces the 13 consequences of covering up her illicit conversations in the 14 prison with Abdel Rahman and Mohammed Yousry and then picking 15 up the phone and calling Esmat Salaheddin and issuing Abdel 16 Rahman's withdrawal of support for the ceasefire. 17 Just because she is a lawyer doesn't mean she can go 18 pull a book off a shelf years later and say, oh, I was guided 19 by these considerations. This bubble concept is so 20 preposterous to say it that Lynne Stewart could not possibly 21 have believed that it was true when she did what she did. It 22 can't be true in a civilized society because where would it 23 end? Each individual citizen or lawyer cannot decide the 24 content of the law. And the evidence shows that Lynne Stewart 25 didn't believe in it then. And her words and her actions at SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12216 51BMSAT3 Rebuttal 1 the time show you she didn't believe in it then. And your 2 common sense tells you that she didn't believe in it then. 3 You know why she did what she did. It is because she 4 disagreed with the law, because she thought she was above the 5 law. That's what she told Greta Van Susterin. She told Greta 6 Van Susterin -- what that evidence shows is that Lynne Stewart 7 thinks she can violate the law when she disagrees with it. As 8 you know, disagreeing with the law is not good faith. 9 In the Greta Van Susterin evidence, Mr. Tigar argued 10 that she told Greta Van Susterin, well, she acted like a 11 lawyer. He said: That's pretty good. What else Lynne Stewart 12 said during that interview shows you what Lynne Stewart thinks 13 it means to act like a lawyer. It means she thinks she can 14 blow off the law because she is a lawyer. Because listen to 15 what she said to Greta Van Susterin and the reasons she gave 16 for what she did and how and why what she meant she did when 17 she acted like a lawyer. 18 Lynne Stewart was asked: Had you signed an agreement 19 not to make those press releases because this is an unusual 20 client? I had. And then the next question she is asked: But 21 you knew -- you had agreed not to do that. And this is Lynne 22 Stewart's answer: We had agreed not to do that, but I 23 represent a client who is an important person on the world 24 scene. He was an important person. 25 What is she saying there? Yes, I broke my promise. I SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12217 51BMSAT3 Rebuttal 1 didn't mean to follow it when I signed it in the first place, 2 and I violated the SAMs and I defrauded the United States 3 because Abdel Rahman is important. Yes, I broke my promise, I 4 violated the SAMs, I defrauded the United States, but I 5 disagree with the law because Abdel Rahman is important. Yes, 6 I broke my promise and I violated the SAMs and I defrauded the 7 United States, but I can do that because I think my client is 8 more important than the law. Abdel Rahman is important and so 9 his message is going to get out, no matter what. 10 And then she is asked, I don't understand your 11 willingness, Greta Van Susterin says, to sort of poke the 12 government in the eye when she said you weren't going to do it. 13 You weren't going to issue this press release, and you did it 14 anyway. You were sort of asking for it. She said: "Well, you 15 know, Greta, you take on a client and you have to take the 16 client as who he is. The Sheikh is facing life in prison. His 17 only hope of ever getting out of prison is if the political 18 conditions in Egypt change. And if they change in some way, 19 what is she saying? Yes, I broke my promise, I violated the 20 SAMs, I lied in my affirmation, but Abdel Rahman is important. 21 I want him to get out of jail and the only way that's going to 22 happen is if the government of Egypt changes. 23 What other way is there to understand those 24 statements? Abdel Rahman is important. My cause is that he is 25 going to get his message out, no matter what is more important SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12218 51BMSAT3 Rebuttal 1 than the law. My cause is more important than the risk of 2 lives to innocent people, my cause is more important than the 3 rules. No, it is not. Because the rules apply to everyone 4 equally. Because they take into account everyone's interests 5 and everyone's safety and they are balancing everyone's 6 interest, even Lynne Stewart's and Abdel Rahman's. And they 7 apply equally to everyone, not just the cause of one person who 8 wants to get a message out, no matter what. 9 Your Honor, may we take a break? 10 THE COURT: Yes. 11 Ladies and gentlemen, we will take 10 minutes. Please 12 remember my continuing instructions. Please don't talk about 13 the case at all and always remember to keep an open mind until 14 I have instructed you on the law, you've gone to the jury room 15 to begin your deliberations. 16 Have a good break. I'll see you shortly. 17 All rise, please. 18 (Jury not present) 19 MR. TIGAR: Your Honor, I have an application. 20 This line of argument that government counsel has made 21 began, so far as I am now concerned, with a characterization of 22 Mr. Fitzgerald, saying something about the SAMs "when he did 23 not have the document in front of him" is Mr. Fitzgerald's 24 statement that Mr. Clark had violated the SAMs. 25 Then counsel returned to that theme saying that what SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12219 51BMSAT3 1 Mr. Fitzgerald had -- Mr. Fitzgerald had characterized 2 Mr. Clark's conduct as somehow irrelevant. As the Court is 3 aware, there is a prior statement of Mr. Fitzgerald that was 4 not offered in evidence that Mr. Clark had committed a "noble 5 violation of the SAMs." The reason it is not in evidence, your 6 Honor, is that we had elected not to open up the Fitzgerald 7 memorandum. 8 So government counsel knows that Mr. Fitzgerald, at a 9 time when he did have the SAMs in front of him, did make a 10 conclusion that -- it was a deliberate conclusion that it was 11 embodying a memorandum of the highest officials from the 12 Department of Justice and not simply a careless statement here. 13 Government counsel knows it, he knows why I couldn't bring it 14 out; yet, he tells it to the jury. 15 Then he goes into an encomium, richly deserved of 16 Mr. Clark, saying Mr. Clark is a man of peace. I let go of the 17 statement about man of peace yesterday, as historically 18 illiterate as it was. Mr. Clark is not a man of peace, as far 19 as the government is concerned. Mr. Clark is a coconspirator 20 in this case. The government told the Court that. And for 21 them now to stand up here and attempt to paint this picture is 22 fundamentally at odds with the theory with which they tried the 23 case. 24 And then that segued into a purported statement of 25 what the disciplinary rules say, which not only does not SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12220 51BMSAT3 1 reflect what is in the disciplinary rules, your Honor, it bears 2 no relationship whatever to your Honor's summary of key 3 provisions of the disciplinary rules in your Honor's 4 instruction. 5 Under the circumstances, your Honor, I move for a 6 mistrial; and in the alternative, that the Court instruct the 7 jury to disregard the government's characterization of Mr. 8 Fitzgerald's testimony, that the government disregard the 9 argument that Mr. Clark's conduct is materially different from 10 Ms. Stewart's conduct or Mr. Clark's interpretation of the SAMs 11 is somehow materially different from Ms. Stewart's. And that 12 the jury should, when it comes to understanding their 13 respective roles and content of disciplinary rules and ethical 14 considerations, should attend to the Court's instruction and 15 not counsel's version of it. 16 THE COURT: Government. 17 MS. BAKER: Your Honor, nothing that Mr. Barkow argued 18 was not fully supported by the evidence and no relief is 19 required, not even a curative instruction of any sort, let 20 alone a mistrial. 21 Just to take the last point first, your Honor has 22 already repeatedly instructed the jury, as recently as a couple 23 of times today, including first thing this morning, that your 24 Honor will instruct the jury as to the law and that if anything 25 counsel says is in any way different from your Honor's SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12221 51BMSAT3 1 instructions that the jury is to follow your Honor's 2 instructions. So that more than adequately addresses any point 3 about the disciplinary rules, although, as I said, everything 4 that Mr. Barkow said was fair argument. 5 As to -- 6 THE COURT: Let me just stop you just for a moment. 7 Defense counsel put up on the screen a whole series of ethical 8 considerations and introduced them in the course of the 9 summation by saying, these are not in evidence. 10 MS. BAKER: Your Honor, during Ms. Stewart's 11 testimony -- 12 THE COURT: Hold on. 13 MS. BAKER: Sorry. 14 THE COURT: But I also appreciate that in the course 15 of the testimony Ms. Stewart was asked about various ethical 16 considerations and disciplinary rules and testified about them. 17 There was no objection when the defense counsel put them up and 18 I certainly have not gone back to see whether each of those 19 ethical considerations was the subject of testimony or not. 20 MS. BAKER: Your Honor, that is what I wanted to say. 21 As Mr. Tigar was presenting them to the jury, I checked the 22 transcript. And in fact, although they had not been introduced 23 as standalone pieces of paper, Mr. Tigar had read each of them 24 verbatim as "questions" to Ms. Stewart. He would read the full 25 text and then say, were you familiar with that, or something to SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12222 51BMSAT3 1 that effect. 2 THE COURT: And then the question is, what about the 3 disciplinary rules that were just referred to? I instructed 4 the jury on two of the disciplinary rules. 5 MS. BAKER: Your Honor, the disciplinary rules were 6 the subject of questioning of Ms. Stewart by Mr. Dember. And 7 when Mr. Barkow was making his argument just now, he was in 8 large part quoting from the testimony of Ms. Stewart and not 9 from just a separate plain paper copy of the disciplinary 10 rules. So everything that Mr. Barkow argued was the subject of 11 testimony by Ms. Stewart. And that appears, among other 12 places, at transcript page 8389. 13 To turn to the point regarding Mr. Fitzgerald, 14 Mr. Barkow made an alternative argument regarding Mr. 15 Fitzgerald and what Mr. Fitzgerald had testified with respect 16 to Ramsey Clark. One alternative argument was that when Mr. 17 Fitzgerald gave his answer on the witness stand, he did not 18 have the SAMs in front of him. That was true, he did not have 19 them in front of him when he testified here in court. 20 A second alternative argument that Mr. Barkow made was 21 that Mr. Fitzgerald was just wrong in concluding with or 22 without the SAMs in front of him, that Mr. Clark had violated 23 the SAMs. And that latter independent alternative argument 24 would apply equally to any conclusion that Mr. Fitzgerald 25 reached on a prior occasion. So for Mr. Tigar to say that SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12223 51BMSAT3 1 there is some significance to this memorandum -- let me just 2 interrupt myself here to say, I don't have the memo in front of 3 me, but I don't know whether the memo was written with the SAMs 4 in front of Mr. Fitzgerald or not. I don't have the memo here, 5 but I would doubt that it says that he has the SAMs in front of 6 him. And if it doesn't say that he has the SAMs in front of 7 him, then that's just inference or argument by Mr. Tigar, which 8 isn't supported by the memo itself. 9 But even assuming arguendo that when Mr. Fitzgerald 10 wrote that memo that he had the SAMs in front of him, maybe 11 they weren't the right SAMs. But even if he had the right SAMs 12 in front of him, he was mistaken. And that was an independent 13 alternative argument that Mr. Barkow made, and it is fair 14 argument supported by the plain language of the applicable SAMs 15 which are now in evidence in front of this jury. And 16 Mr. Barkow in his argument explicitly invited the jury to look 17 at those SAMs themselves and look at the plain language of 18 those SAMs. 19 Again, what Mr. Barkow said was fair argument and it 20 requires no remedies, certainly not any reopening of the record 21 to put in the memorandum, certainly not a mistrial. 22 THE COURT: Mr. Clark is the other issue. 23 MS. BAKER: As to the allegation that Mr. Clark is a 24 coconspirator, what Mr. Barkow was arguing when he said that 25 Mr. Clark is a man of peace bears on Counts 4 and 5. And SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12224 51BMSAT3 1 whether or not Ramsey Clark violated at any time the plain 2 language of any SAMs, the government has never argued that 3 Mr. Clark was a coconspirator in a conspiracy to provide 4 material support to a conspiracy to kill. And the point of 5 that argument about Mr. Clark being a man of peace was that 6 Mr. Clark did not issue and the evidence is that he refused to 7 issue any statement in support of violence, even to take 8 Mr. Tigar's view of the facts, even a statement that Abdel 9 Rahman was disappointed in the ceasefire. 10 And so, again, everything that Mr. Barkow argued is 11 amply supported by the evidence in the record, and there is no 12 contradiction here because the government has never claimed 13 that Mr. Clark was a conspirator in a conspiracy to provide 14 material support. 15 THE COURT: It is sufficient for me -- the motion for 16 a mistrial is denied. And I will instruct the jury again that 17 nothing that counsel says is evidence and it is their 18 recollection of the evidence and the inferences from the 19 evidence that is to govern. And nothing that the lawyers say 20 is the law -- that I will instruct them on the law, 21 including -- I'm not going to draw their attention to the 22 disciplinary rules and the ethical considerations because I 23 think both sides have argued more disciplinary rules and 24 ethical considerations than I include in the charge. So it is 25 sufficient for me to tell them that I will instruct them on the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12225 51BMSAT3 1 law. And if anyone says anything different from the law, it is 2 my instructions on the law that they are to follow. 3 MR. TIGAR: Your Honor, I will simply say -- I know we 4 have used this phrase for the record -- had I known that 5 government counsel was going to stand up here and make this 6 argument about Mr. Fitzgerald and stand and tell your Honor 7 that Mr. Fitzgerald was just plain wrong in June of 2000 to say 8 that Ramsey Clark had violated the SAMs, I would have taken an 9 entirely different position about opening up the so-called 10 intelligence investigation issue because if Mr. Fitzgerald was 11 just plain wrong in 2000 about a decision that has so vitally 12 affected Ms. Stewart's life, that is to say whether that opens 13 that intelligence investigation, that would have been something 14 that I would have explored with this jury. 15 THE COURT: See you shortly. 16 (Recess) 17 MR. BARKOW: Your Honor, just so the Court is aware, I 18 believe -- I think I've been pretty on with my estimates so far 19 today. I believe I have about a half hour left. 20 What I'd like to do, given the amount of time, I don't 21 have that much left. What I would ask the Court to do, again 22 when I am going to end, it doesn't look like, unfortunately, 23 that the Court will be able to charge. I ask that I finish 24 because I definitely will be done by a time that is reasonably 25 close to a lunchtime and then I can just finish, barring any SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12226 51BMSAT3 1 unforeseen interruptions. I should be done around lunchtime. 2 THE COURT: I was going to say that it seemed clear to 3 me that I couldn't charge today. And I will cancel the lunch 4 and ask that the transportation be provided soon. 5 MR. BARKOW: Just so the Court is aware of this, I was 6 told during the break that something about transportation. The 7 Court might want to confer with the marshal, Mr. Donnelly, 8 about it. The Court might want to still get the lunch, based 9 on the information I have. I don't want to say this on the 10 record. It is something that the Court might want to know. 11 THE COURT: A, I know it takes time and, B, I had 12 scheduled lunch for later so that it is not as though the 13 jurors would go in and sit down to a meal. 14 The only other possibility, of course, is to begin the 15 charge today and to continue it tomorrow. But I don't think 16 that's the preferable way to do it, unless the parties 17 disagree. 18 No disagreement. 19 Let's bring in the jury. 20 (Jury present) 21 THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, I remind you that 22 nothing that the lawyers say is evidence. It is the lawyers in 23 the course of their summations that submit to you what the 24 evidence -- what they can submit the evidence has shown or not 25 shown. It is your recollection of the evidence that controls. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12227 51BMSAT3 1 And as I've also said, if at any point you have any desire to 2 see any of the exhibits or to review any of the testimony, you 3 are free to ask for that in the course of your deliberations, 4 and I will instruct you on that again in my final instructions. 5 Moreover, with respect to any issues of law, I repeat, 6 as I've told you before, that on any issues of law it is my 7 instructions, of course, that you must follow. And if any 8 lawyer says any principle of law different than what I tell you 9 what the law is, it is, of course, my instructions on the law 10 that you will follow. And I will give you -- I'll repeat these 11 instructions again in my final instructions to you. 12 Mr. Barkow, you may proceed. 13 MR. BARKOW: Thank you, your Honor. 14 Now I'd like to turn my attention solely to Counts 4 15 and 5, conspiracy to provide material support, and providing 16 and concealing material support to a conspiracy to kill. 17 Because what I have said up until now with respect to Lynne 18 Stewart has mostly been with regards to Counts 1, 6, and 7, 19 conspiracy to defraud by circumventing the SAMs and the two 20 false statements counts. 21 To prove Counts 4 and 5, Judge Koeltl will instruct 22 you that the government does not need to prove that the 23 defendant both knew and intended that their material support 24 they were providing to the conspiracy to kill was being 25 provided to that conspiracy. We don't have to prove both knew SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12228 51BMSAT3 Rebuttal 1 and intended. We need to prove either one, either the 2 defendant knew that the material support was being provided to 3 the conspiracy to kill, or the defendant intended to provide 4 that to the conspiracy to kill. Please listen to Judge 5 Koeltl's instructions on that and he will explain to you the 6 law in full. 7 With respect to Lynne Stewart we only need to prove 8 one or the other, but we have evidence of both, and I am going 9 to go through that. By the way, Mr. Tigar did use the word 10 good faith over and over in his summation in all kinds of 11 context. I just want to make clear that that concept doesn't 12 even apply as a matter of law. I've shown to you that it 13 doesn't help Lynne Stewart at all with respect to any of the 14 counts because she didn't act in good faith. She never 15 intended to honor her affirmation in the first place. But it 16 doesn't have any applicability at all to Counts 4 and 5, and 17 Judge Koeltl will instruct you on that. 18 How did you know that Lynne Stewart knew about the 19 existence of the conspiracy to kill and her material support in 20 the form of Abdel Rahman and his withdrawal of support for the 21 ceasefire was being used to prepare for and carry out the 22 conspiracy to kill charged in Count 2? How do you know that? 23 She issued the withdrawal of support from Abdel Rahman, the 24 spiritual leader of a terrorist group, to the world. That's 25 how you know. It is a terrorist group that has killed innocent SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12229 51BMSAT3 Rebuttal 1 people and it is a ceasefire. I started off in the beginning 2 of my remarks making this point, withdrawal of support for a 3 ceasefire has only one meaning, the support of a return to 4 violence. Because organizations that don't kill people and 5 engage in violence don't enter into ceasefires. And the 6 withdrawal of support for the ceasefire necessarily means a 7 withdrawal of support for peace and the choice of violence over 8 peace. It is not complicated. It is quite simple. 9 And Lynne Stewart actually knew what this ceasefire 10 was all about because she knew that the Islamic Group had 11 initiated it. And before that, she knew that the Islamic Group 12 had killed innocent tourists, for example, in Egypt and in 13 Luxor. And she knew that the ceasefire meant the cessation of 14 armed resistance. 15 I read you that quote at the beginning of my argument. 16 That's at pages 7647 and 48. She knew that Abdel Rahman was 17 influential in the Islamic world, in Egypt, and in the Middle 18 East, and in the Islamic Group. She knew that the withdrawal 19 for the support of the ceasefire was support for killing and 20 violence. 21 She also knew -- remember, she issued this statement 22 twice, once on June 13 of 2000 to Esmat Salaheddin and then 23 again in the reaffirmation, June 20 or 21, there is a fax in 24 evidence, Government Exhibit 2663, I think it is. But it is 25 the reaffirmation. You can ask for it. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12230 51BMSAT3 Rebuttal 1 In preparation for that, when she issued that second 2 statement in which Abdel Rahman said, I withdraw -- I do 3 withdraw my support for the ceasefire, she knew what was 4 happening because of her first statement. Because in 5 preparation for the telephone calls with Abdel Rahman, after 6 she issued her first press release about the withdrawal of 7 Abdel's Rahman support for the ceasefire, she was told about 8 the reactions that were happening on the ground in the Middle 9 East and within the Islamic Group in reaction to her first 10 press release. She was read the news articles by Mohammed 11 Yousry that were found in Mohammed -- the search of Mohammed 12 Yousry's home. And Mr. Dember argued this at great length and 13 Mr. Tigar did not respond specifically with respect to these 14 exhibits at all. 15 So I just want to recap it for you briefly. 16 Government Exhibit 2312-45BT. Newspaper article from Mohammed 17 Yousry's search. And it says that the Islamic Group will 18 reconsider the halt of violence in light of Abdel Rahman's 19 withdrawal of support for the ceasefire. And it says that 20 Taha, Abu Yasir -- it refers to him as both names -- says that 21 the Luxor massacre was done intentionally by members of the 22 Islamic Group seeking to free Abdel Rahman. Here is a quote 23 from it. Taha "underlined his total support for Abdel Rahman's 24 decision. He said the decision to halt violence, the 25 operations, was taken by humans and can be rescinded if the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12231 51BMSAT3 Rebuttal 1 majority inside the Islamic Group believes there is an interest 2 in doing so, particularly after Abdel Rahman's recent 3 instructions in which he has withdrawn his support for the 4 initiative." That's Taha's quote. 5 He pointed out that the group leaders might end the 6 unilateral truce they announced two years ago to stop 7 operations. 2312-49T, an article found in Mohammed Yousry's 8 search. It says that there are two wings in the Islamic Group, 9 one is in favor of the ceasefire and one is against the 10 ceasefire. The one against the ceasefire, that's the Taha 11 part. That's the splinter group, outside of the Islamic Group 12 and in defiance of the Islamic Group leadership. And the 13 article says that Lynne Stewart's first press release, Abdel 14 Rahman's withdrawal of support for the ceasefire, favors the 15 Taha pro violence splinter group. That's what it says. 16 2312-47BT, another article Mohammed Yousry read to 17 Lynne Stewart and so she knew what it said. It said that Abdel 18 Rahman's support for the ceasefire as an initial matter made it 19 happen. So that tells Lynne Stewart that withdrawal of support 20 with make it end. This is what it says: "Although Abdel 21 Rahman is blind, he is the general emir of the Islamic Group. 22 And when a vote is taken on any resolution, Abdel Rahman has 23 one vote, like any other member of the shura council. However, 24 his stature makes it hard for his opponents to object to his 25 opinion." SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12232 51BMSAT3 Rebuttal 1 He talks about his initial support of the ceasefire 2 made it happen. It says that his opponents find it hard to 3 object to his opinion. And now she knows that he had issued 4 his opinion, he withdraws his support for the ceasefire and it 5 is not going to happen that his opponents will be able to 6 overcome that. 7 2312-45BT. Taha in this article is talking about 8 renewing violence in light of the withdrawal of support for the 9 ceasefire. He also threatens the United States interests if it 10 doesn't free Abdel Rahman. Here is a quote from that. Taha 11 saying this told to Lynne Stewart by Mohammed Yousry: "The 12 group's leadership may end the truce that it had announced 13 unilaterally two years ago after the spiritual leader, Abdel 14 Rahman, withdrew his support for it. 15 There are also articles told to Lynne Stewart by 16 Mohammed Yousry telling her that the pro ceasefire side of the 17 Islamic Group, not the splinter group, but the pro ceasefire 18 side, is outraged and reacting vehemently to this first press 19 release. Those are Exhibits 2312-50T, 2312-47AT, 2312-55T, and 20 2312-57T. And so from that Lynne Stewart knows that the pro 21 ceasefire side sees her first press release as a major problem. 22 It might end the ceasefire and cause a resumption of violence. 23 After she gets all this information what did she do? 24 She did it again. She issued the reaffirmation on June 21. 25 She did it again. Government Exhibit 2663: Everything in the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12233 51BMSAT3 Rebuttal 1 previous statement is correct and indeed I said those things. 2 Any statement that comes from her and she confirms this from me 3 should be taken as I said it. I do withdraw my support for the 4 initiative, a line that Mr. Tigar omitted each time he talked 5 about this document in his summation. 6 And Mr. Tigar keeps pointing to another part of this 7 document where it says that Abdel Rahman, he didn't cancel the 8 ceasefire. But he did say, I withdraw my support for the 9 initiative. We never said that he didn't say, I canceled it, 10 because that is a smokescreen and that argument doesn't work 11 because Lynne Stewart knew that Abdel Rahman's support for the 12 ceasefire made it happen the first time. And she knew that his 13 withdrawal of support could make it end. In fact, she knew 14 that terrorists on the ground like Taha were taking it that 15 way. He was saying and she was told that he was reacting and 16 taking her first press release as support of him and a return 17 to violence. But she did it again anyway. 18 What would a person do who didn't support violence as 19 a means to an end after being told and learning about this 20 reaction by Taha? What would they do? What would a lawyer do 21 who didn't support violence to help her client after gaining 22 this information and knowledge? Compare what you know such a 23 person would do with what Lynne Stewart did. She didn't go 24 back and say, we can't do this. She didn't go back and say, I 25 won't do this. She didn't go back and say, you need to clarify SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12234 51BMSAT3 Rebuttal 1 this in a peaceful direction. You need to make sure this is 2 just about talk. 3 You need to make sure that you're stomping out this 4 Taha side that views this as a resumption of violence. Or 5 even, this is bad for your case. You need to fix this. 6 Instead, she did it again, I do withdraw my support for the 7 ceasefire. I do withdraw my support for the initiative. And 8 then even after the reaffirmation, even after she did it again, 9 Lynne Stewart said to Abdel Rahman, let me do it again. 10 Government Exhibit 1731T, pages 33 and 34, a June 23 11 prison call. Lynne Stewart tells Abdel Rahman, through 12 Mohammed Yousry, "I'm very pleased and I'd like to do more. 13 All you have to do is give me the information and I'll do the 14 rest." Why? Because Abdel Rahman's message was going to get 15 out, no matter what. 16 You might be thinking, this is just newspapers. And 17 wouldn't Mr. Tigar argue something about those? You'd have to 18 say, wouldn't Mr. Tigar argue something about those? Because I 19 said he didn't say a word about this, about these particular 20 newspaper articles in his summation. He didn't say a word 21 about the knowledge that these particular newspaper articles 22 gave to Lynne Stewart before she did it again, before she 23 issued the reaffirmation, Exhibit 2663, even though Mr. Dember 24 mentioned each one of them. 25 (Continued on next page) SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12235 51B5SAT4 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 MR. BARKOW: Well, let me say some words about 2 newspaper articles. Lynne Stewart wants you to believe that 3 she doesn't always believe what she reads in the newspapers. 4 But Lynne Stewart clearly thought that the middle eastern news 5 was reliable enough to read it to Abdel Rahman so he could be 6 kept up-to-date and make proper decisions about his case and 7 the direction it should take. 8 She believes newspapers when they're good for her case 9 but not when it hurts her case. This is her testimony, 10 transcript 7720, quote, Lynne Stewart: It was my belief in 11 representing Sheikh Omar that in order to make proper decisions 12 about his case and the direction it should take, he needed to 13 have knowledge. He had no way of really getting any knowledge. 14 It wasn't like we could subscribe to the New York Times for 15 him. He had no way of getting knowledge except through us so 16 it was very important that he was kept up-to-date, hence, all 17 the newspapers. 18 Judge Koeltl has told you that newspapers are not 19 admitted for the truth, and they're not, but he also told you, 20 transcript 9725, that they are admitted as evidence of 21 knowledge and state of mind and that is how the government was 22 relying upon them, because the articles read to Lynne Stewart 23 before the reaffirmation, before she did it again show you that 24 Lynne Stewart knew and what she was aware of. She knew how the 25 withdrawal of support was being taken in the field by SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12236 51B5SAT4 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 terrorists like Taha but she did it again. 2 How do you know what's happening in the world? How do 3 you have knowledge of what's happening in a place where you're 4 not? Newspapers, they might not get it right, certainly, and 5 Judge Koeltl has told you that, but it's a source of 6 information and knowledge. 7 If you didn't see it on TV, how do you know about the 8 tragedy about the tsunami in Asia? If you didn't see it on TV, 9 how do you know that the Giants won their last game or that the 10 Jets pulled it out last weekend? Or that Carlos Beltran signed 11 in principle with the New York Mets. How do you know what time 12 a movie starts and what time you should go to get there on 13 time? 14 Newspapers are a source of knowledge and information. 15 How many times have you said to someone, hey, I read in the 16 paper that -- whatever. Because you thought you knew it 17 because it was information that you were using to make your 18 decisions in life. Little decisions, like going to the movie, 19 or big decisions like reaffirming withdrawal of support for the 20 cease-fire. 21 Lynne Stewart was told information by Mohammed Yousry 22 that the withdrawal of support to the cease-fire was being 23 taken by Taha in the field as a blessing of a return to 24 violence. It was considered a disaster by the pro-cease-fire 25 leadership of the Islamic Group and it was viewed on the ground SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12237 51B5SAT4 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 by the splinter group involving Taha, by name, as support for 2 his violent cause. Thus, she knew it. But she blew it off so 3 she could follow her own agenda of, "his message would get out 4 no matter what." 5 Let me give you an analogy. This is what Lynne 6 Stewart is asking you to conclude about newspapers. 7 Let's say someone is given a can and on the can it 8 says dangerous chemical. Inhalation of this chemical can kill. 9 If you breathe it in you could die. Maybe it's true, maybe 10 it's not. But what does it say about one's knowledge and 11 intent if you take the can and you read the label and then you 12 dump it in public? 13 Lynne Stewart was told what was happening because of 14 what she did. She read the can but then she issued the 15 re-affirmation and dumped it in public. 16 She wants you to believe that she didn't really know 17 it because she just read the can. What she is really saying 18 is, well, I never opened the can and breathed its contents 19 myself and died. I never saw the can's contents dumped in 20 public so I don't really know what might have happened when I 21 dumped the can in public. 22 But she did know it and she chose to ignore it because 23 his message was going to get out no matter what. 24 What else did Lynne Stewart know? I went over at the 25 beginning how she knew about Abdel Rahman and his power and his SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12238 51B5SAT4 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 role in the Islamic Group and I'm not going to repeat that 2 again but I just refer you back to what I said in the beginning 3 and what Mr. Dember talked about. 4 But Mr. Tigar seemed to argue to you that it would 5 matter somehow that she didn't know all about Taha in May of 6 2000. Well, as I have just pointed out she sure knew all about 7 him in June of 2000 before she did it again and issued the 8 re-affirmation because she was told by Mohammed Yousry that 9 both Taha and the pro-cease-fire wing of the Islamic Group were 10 taking the withdrawal of support for the cease-fire as a 11 blessing of violence. 12 And you know, even in May of 2000 she knew who Taha 13 was because Mohammed Yousry told you that Lynne Stewart knew 14 that Taha was a leader of the Islamic Group when Sattar's 15 letter went in with the Taha message. 16 And Lynne Stewart knew that Sattar's letter, she knew 17 that letter intimately, it had been read to her on the plane 18 before it went in. She carried it in herself so she knew that 19 Taha who, as the letter said, the Egyptian government worries 20 about the most, wanted Abdel Rahman to support him in ending 21 the cease-fire. 22 And you know, it doesn't really matter in May if she 23 knew who Taha was specifically and she did know in June of 24 2000, but it doesn't really matter if she didn't know in May of 25 2000 specifically because to prove -- the government needs to SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12239 51B5SAT4 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 prove, in order to show that Lynne Stewart is guilty on Counts 2 Four and Five, that she was aware of the existence of the 3 conspiracy to kill and that she had knowledge of the existence 4 and her support was going to it, support she was providing. 5 She doesn't need to know each and every member of every 6 conspiracy. Judge Koeltl will tell you she doesn't need to 7 know all the details of the plan in a conspiracy. 8 And Lynne Stewart knew all she needed to know about 9 Abdel Rahman and the Islamic Group in May of 2000 and she knew 10 all she needed to know in June of 2000 about Taha. 11 Ask yourself this, who did she think would get this 12 message? Maybe -- who does she think this message would be 13 important to? Maybe she doesn't know Taha or Atia by face or 14 even Atia by name but she knows that there are people like them 15 out there who listen to what Abdel Rahman has to say and who 16 are taking his message as a blessing of violence and she did it 17 anyway, again. 18 And you know what else? Taha, who is certainly a 19 member of the conspiracy to kill, he knows who Lynne Stewart is 20 because she got him what he needed. 21 Sattar and Taha talk about Lynne Stewart repeatedly, 22 sometimes by name. Government Exhibit 1094X, page 2, a call on 23 May 29th of 2000, Sattar tells Taha, the female lawyer is going 24 to hold a press conference and announce Abdel Rahman withdrew 25 his support for the cease-fire. That's 1094X at page 2. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12240 51B5SAT4 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 1101X, June 4th of 2000, pages 7 and 8, Sattar tells 2 Taha -- this is just nine days before Lynne Stewart talks to 3 Salaheddin and issued Abdel Rahman's withdrawal of support for 4 the cease-fire, Sattar tells Taha that he is waiting for the 5 lady to call so Sattar can connect her to the place, 1119, page 6 3, June 18th of 2000, just before the re-affirmation Sattar 7 tells Taha that Lynne Stewart, quote, risked her whole future 8 because, quote, they have to sign papers, end quote. 9 And then, 1117X on June 18th, the same day, pages 5 10 and 6, Sattar tells Taha, quote, all the talking is on Lynne 11 Stewart. 12 Let me talk now about how Lynne Stewart intended for 13 her material support to be provided and concealed as it was 14 provided to the conspiracy to kill. Remember, we only need to 15 prove one or the other, knowledge or intent, but with Lynne 16 Stewart we have both. 17 It is perfectly fine for Lynne Stewart to believe 18 whatever she wants. It is perfectly fine for Lynne Stewart to 19 believe whatever she wants. This is the United States of 20 America and she can believe whatever she wants. But it is not 21 okay to act on those violent beliefs and here she acted on hers 22 when she issued Abdel Rahman's withdrawal of support for the 23 cease-fire and then when she did it again, armed with the 24 knowledge that she was given by the evidence that I just went 25 through. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12241 51B5SAT4 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 And the fact that Lynne Stewart believes in violence 2 does not make her guilty. The fact that Lynne Stewart believes 3 in violence does not make her guilty. But, the fact that Lynne 4 Stewart acted on those beliefs does make her guilty. 5 Her beliefs explain her conduct, her intent and her 6 motivation and why she might risk her whole career by blowing 7 off crystal clear rules, SAMs and affirmations, and by creating 8 the risk of death to get Omar Abdel Rahman out of jail. 9 As you know now how she thinks and what motivates her, 10 Lynne Stewart believes in directed violence. Violence -- this 11 is a quote, violence directed at institutions that perpetuate 12 capitalism, racism and sexism and at the people -- the people 13 who are their appointed guardians and accompanied by popular 14 support. She admitted on cross-examination that she said that 15 to Joseph Fried a reporter. 16 She admitted she said it. She believes in violence 17 when it has a purpose. She said she doesn't believe in 18 anarchistic violence, purposeless violence, but when it has a 19 purpose that she believes in, she agrees with it. 20 And you know that Lynne Stewart is a lawyer who tried 21 unsuccessfully to keep Abdel Rahman out of jail and who wants 22 to get Abdel Rahman out of jail. And you know that Lynne 23 Stewart didn't have any options or strategies that really had a 24 chance of working left in the legal system. 25 But you know that Lynne Stewart thinks that Abdel SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12242 51B5SAT4 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 Rahman would get out of jail if the government in Egypt changed 2 because she told Greta Van Susteren that. She said this: The 3 Sheikh is facing life in prison. His only hope of ever getting 4 out of prison is if the political conditions in Egypt change. 5 And if they change in some way, if his party were to be swept 6 into power in Egypt and Mubarak were sent to where he should 7 go -- a corrupt and terrible leader that has stolen millions 8 from this government, from your pocket and mine -- if he were 9 swept away and the Sheikh's people were in power you don't 10 think they'd trade somebody something to get him out? 11 Those are her words. That's what she thinks. 12 She knew that the Islamic Group had a history of 13 opposing the Mubarak government by force and she knew that the 14 Islamic Group had a history of targeting tourists as a means to 15 attack the government. 16 And she knew that Abdel Rahman had influence in the 17 Islamic Group and in the fundamentalist movement even after he 18 was cut off and imprisoned. But she believes that Islamic 19 fundamentalism was the only hope for change in Egypt. She told 20 Joseph Fried that, transcript page 8377 and 8378. She said, 21 the fundamentalist movement was the only thing that could move 22 the majority of the people and that's what we are talking 23 about, a people's movement that would bring about change, the 24 Islamic movement. 25 Now, Mr. Tigar told you on Thursday that based on a SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12243 51B5SAT4 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 State Department report that she had Lynne Stewart didn't think 2 that the government in Egypt could possibly change through 3 elections. 4 Mr. Tigar said, quote, the people do not have a 5 meaningful ability to change their government. This is 6 introduced for Lynne Stewart's state of mind. And he was 7 talking about that report. And then Mr. Tigar criticized the 8 government for not bringing in witnesses about Egypt to refute 9 something that Ramsey Clark had said about the government of 10 Egypt. 11 Well, the government agrees with Mr. Tigar that Lynne 12 Stewart thought it was impossible to change the government of 13 Egypt through elections. The government agrees that that's 14 what she thought. And whether she was right or not is besides 15 the point. Whether it's true or not is besides the point. It 16 doesn't matter to the case because what matters is what she 17 thought and her intent. 18 So, that's why there were no other witnesses brought 19 in, because it doesn't matter whether that's right or not, it's 20 what she thought. And both sides agree that this is what she 21 thought. 22 And the fact is that Lynne Stewart thinks and believes 23 that the Egyptian government cannot change through elections 24 and the political process and that shows you that she must 25 think that the government could only change by means outside of SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12244 51B5SAT4 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 elections and the political process, like a violent revolution. 2 Lynne Stewart's views of change in the government of 3 Egypt is the only way that Abdel Rahman could be free so the 4 only way that Abdel Rahman can be free is a violent revolution 5 in Egypt. And twice Lynne Stewart released to the world Abdel 6 Rahman's withdrawal of support for a cease-fire. 7 Lynne Stewart believes that the Mubarak government is 8 corrupt. She told Greta Van Susteren that. Quote, Mubarak, if 9 he were sent to where he should go -- a corrupt and terrible 10 leader that has stolen millions from this government, from your 11 pocket and mine. And she told you that she believes in 12 violence directed toward what she views as corrupt 13 institutions, like the board of education. She told you that 14 the board of education and banks are institutions toward which 15 violence could and should be directed. 16 She was asked by Mr. Dember, this is page 8368 and 17 8369 of the transcript: What kind of institutions are you 18 talking about that violence needs to be directed at? 19 And she said: Perhaps it could be banking 20 institutions. And I'm sure when the time and circumstances 21 occur, as I have had a long belief that they must occur, that 22 the people will make the right decisions about which 23 institutions to attack. New York City Board of Education could 24 be such an institution. 25 And then she tried on redirect examination to explain SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12245 51B5SAT4 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 to you that this Board of Education comment was really just an 2 example of an institution that she thought perpetuates sexism 3 and racism is and is entrenched and corrupted and carries out 4 what she calls a false mandate. 8699: 5 "Q Now, when you mentioned the Board of Education, 6 what were you saying about that? 7 "A I think it was responding to Mr. Dember's question 8 about, well, can you give an example about an institution that 9 you believe would be something that perpetuates sexism and 10 racism? Of course we came to find out that they were 11 entrenched, entrenched and corrupted, and in my view remain 12 that way today and that was what I meant by an institution 13 that, meaning not a building and not a school, certainly, but 14 as a group, a group of people socially interacting to carry out 15 what they see as a mandate and which I see as a false mandate." 16 But that doesn't help her because it still fits her 17 definition of an institution against which she thinks it is 18 appropriate to direct violence, an institution that is 19 entrenched, corrupt, and perpetuates, racism, sexism or 20 capitalism. 21 And it is a noble goal to take on institutions that 22 target racism, sexism and capitalism, but not through violence. 23 And Lynne Stewart said that she didn't believe in violence 24 toward a school or a building, just a group of people. So, 25 Lynne Stewart believes in violence directed against the Board SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12246 51B5SAT4 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 of Education? 2 But that's not the issue here. And Lynne Stewart is 3 not guilty because she believes that or thinks that. Lynne 4 Stewart is not guilty because she thinks that or believes that 5 and that is not the issue here. She is guilty because she 6 released two statements by Abdel Rahman in violation of the 7 SAMs and her affirmations and when she did it she intended for 8 them to work. 9 Her belief in violence against banks and the Board of 10 Education tells you a lot. If she believes that violence is 11 appropriately targeted at banks and the Board of Education, if 12 she thinks they are even close to appropriate targets for 13 violence she certainly believes that the government of Egypt is 14 an appropriate target too. 15 And you also know that Lynne Stewart has a hard time 16 figuring out why it's wrong that civilians who are in the wrong 17 place die during acts of terrorism. These are her words. 18 Quote: I'm pretty inured to the notion that in a war, or in an 19 armed struggle, people die. They're in the wrong place, 20 they're in a night club in Israel, they're in the stock market 21 in London, they're in the Algerian outback, whatever it is. 22 People die. So, I have a lot of trouble figuring out why that 23 is wrong especially when people are sort of placed in a 24 position of having no other way. 25 So, what have you got here? A lawyer who wants Abdel SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12247 51B5SAT4 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 Rahman out of jail and has no mechanism in the legal system to 2 accomplish that. She has knowledge all about Abdel Rahman and 3 the Islamic Group but she issued the withdrawal of the 4 cease-fire twice anyway. 5 She learned the withdrawal of support she issued the 6 first time caused an uproar, that there was a splinter group in 7 the Islamic Group that was already responding to it by saying 8 it was pro-violence so she knew that violence might erupt again 9 and civilians might be killed like she knew had happened before 10 but she did it again anyway because she didn't mind if 11 civilians died. 12 She didn't see what was wrong with that so long as the 13 institution against which the violence was being directed was 14 one that she viewed as corrupt. And here, the government of 15 Egypt, fits her definition. 16 And so long as something that Lynne Stewart wanted 17 happened and here that's Omar Abdel Rahman's freedom, or a 18 change in the government of Egypt, so long as something she 19 wanted would come out of it, that's directed violence. 20 And Lynne Stewart has a lot of trouble figuring out 21 why it's wrong to support violence if you like the possible end 22 results. Lynne Stewart knew to do so violated the SAMs and her 23 affirmation. She knew it defrauded the United States and she 24 knew it violated the promise in her affirmation because she 25 never intended to honor that promise in the first place because SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12248 51B5SAT4 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 she knew or she thought that helping Omar Abdel Rahman was 2 important enough for her to ignore the law and she thought that 3 it might get, for Abdel Rahman, through illegal and violent 4 means in Egypt, what she couldn't get for him acting as a 5 lawyer. And she defends herself and she tries to deceive you 6 by selling her support of violence as legitimate lawyering. 7 Reject it. 8 In view of what she, in view of what you know now in 9 what you know motivates her and she has every right to believe 10 but just not act upon, remember what she does; two withdrawals 11 of support for the cease-fire even though she knew what was 12 happening in the field, even though what you know now what 13 Lynne Stewart believes and motivates her. Remember what she 14 said. 15 Remember that after Lynne Stewart was told that 16 hostages were taken and a demand was made to free Abdel Rahman 17 or those hostages might be killed? How would a person react to 18 that who didn't support violence as a means to an end? How 19 would a lawyer react to that who didn't support the use of 20 violence? How would you compare such a person would react to 21 how Lynne Stewart reacted? 22 She was told that hostages were taken and a demand was 23 made to free Abdel Rahman or those hostages might be killed. 24 And at 1706X, page 27, Lynne Stewart said, good for them. She 25 applauds the hostage taking and the kidnapping in Abdel SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12249 51B5SAT4 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 Rahman's name. Good for the kidnappers. 2 And then, 1706X, at page 32, Lynne Stewart says about 3 the same event, things like that in the Philippines, even 4 though it might be futile and not successful, they still keep 5 your name as someone that, oh, the mujaheddin, eh, consider 6 their own here. It is very, very, very crucial... 7 Mujaheddin means jihad warriors. 8 Things like hostage taking and kidnapping and demands 9 to free Abdel Rahman are crucial even though futile to keep 10 Abdel Rahman as a hero to the jihad warriors. Lynne Stewart 11 thinks that kidnapping is somehow good for Abdel Rahman. Good 12 for them can only be good for one side, it can't be good for 13 the hostages. It can only be good for the kidnappers. 14 And I have got to say, I didn't catch all the 15 arguments that Mr. Tigar made about this but although Lynne 16 Stewart didn't have to testify, she did. And she didn't have 17 to talk about the Abu Sayyaf evidence, but she did. And she 18 skipped: Good for them. And she skipped things like hostage 19 taking, kidnapping and demands to free Abdel Rahman are crucial 20 even though futile to keep Abdel Rahman as a hero to the jihad 21 warriors. 22 And now Mr. Tigar is telling you something to spin 23 'good for them' which is absolutely clear on its own. Because 24 on the one hand he says, don't squeeze the meaning out of the 25 words. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12250 51B5SAT4 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 Well, good for them doesn't require any squeezing. 2 And then he says something about papers in her office. 3 But you know that she believes in directed violence when it has 4 a purpose that she agrees with. She wants Abdel Rahman free so 5 she agrees with Abu Sayyaf's purpose and that is why it is good 6 for them. 7 And you know that she has a hard time figuring out why 8 it's wrong that civilians might die in night clubs or stock 9 markets when terrorists who have no other choice kill them. 10 And that's why it was good for Abu Sayyaf. 11 And then Mr. Tigar suggests, as a fourth or fifth 12 alternative theory, that maybe the comment was actually about 13 the New York Times, not about Abu Sayyaf, not about the 14 terrorists. Good for the New York Times. But the New York 15 Times didn't report the demand so it can't be good for them for 16 reporting the demand. And she can't be saying that it's good 17 for the New York Times for not reporting the demand because 18 Mr. Tigar and Lynne Stewart keep telling us that the withdrawal 19 of support for the cease-fire was good because it was good to 20 keep Abdel Rahman's name out there. 21 MR. TIGAR: I object to what Mr. Tigar allegedly told 22 about the cease-fire, your Honor. 23 THE COURT: All right. Sustained. 24 Ladies and gentlemen, it's your recollection of the 25 evidence that controls and any inferences from the evidence and SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12251 51B5SAT4 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 summations are for all of the lawyers to tell you what they 2 submit the evidence has shown or not shown but it is the 3 evidence or lack of evidence, and that is for you and it is 4 not, as I also explained to you, the conduct of the lawyers 5 that is at issue. It is the evidence or lack of evidence in 6 the case. And throughout all of the -- or throughout the days 7 of summations you have heard various lawyers refer to what 8 other lawyers have argued and what the lawyers are doing is 9 they are submitting to you what they submit the evidence has 10 shown or not shown, and they're doing that in the context of 11 what other lawyers have pointed out to you the evidence has 12 shown or not shown. 13 But, I emphasize to you, simply because all of the 14 lawyers have referred to what other lawyers have said or not 15 said, the issues for you to determine are always what the 16 evidence has shown or not shown and what the inferences are to 17 be drawn from what is in evidence before you. And I will 18 explain that again in my final instructions to you. 19 So it is your function to determine what the evidence 20 is in the context of my instructions on the law. All right? 21 Go ahead. 22 MR. BARKOW: That's what the evidence shows that Lynne 23 Stewart said when she was told about the Abu Sayyaf kidnapping 24 and it cannot mean good for the New York Times for not 25 reporting the demand because they didn't report the demand; so, SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12252 51B5SAT4 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 it can't be good for them for reporting it. And it can't mean 2 good for them for not reporting it because Lynne Stewart, the 3 evidence shows, is telling you that she thinks that the 4 withdrawal of support for the cease-fire was good for Abdel 5 Rahman because it would keep his name in the paper and so 6 people wouldn't forget him. So, it can't mean good for the New 7 York Times. It just can't. 8 Good for them can only be good for one side. It can't 9 be good for the hostages. It can only be good for the 10 kidnappers. And it is not a crime for Lynne Stewart to believe 11 that but it is a crime for her to act on that belief by 12 issuing, twice, a withdrawal of support for a cease-fire that 13 she knows the second time is actually leading to a call for the 14 resumption of violence on the ground by terrorists. 15 Now, Government Exhibit 1193X, an October 2000 call. 16 In that call Lynne Stewart is told by Mohammed Yousry that 17 Abdel Rahman had issued, quote, a religious command to, quote, 18 kill Zionists and kill the supporters of Zionists. 19 And Ramsey Clark, she's told, is concerned, quote, 20 concerned, end quote, worried or very, quote, concerned, and 21 worried that, quote, this is it. 22 How would a person react to that who didn't support 23 violence as a means to an end? How would a lawyer respond to 24 that who didn't support violence to help out their client? How 25 would a lawyer react who, like Ramsey Clark, supports peace, SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12253 51B5SAT4 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 and doesn't support violence as a means to accomplish ends. 2 Compare how you know such a person would react to how 3 Lynne Stewart reacted. She would say, no, that's horrible or 4 anything like that. She said, page 13, well, I have a 5 different position. It's a different position than Ramsey 6 Clark. I have a different position. My position is, yes, he's 7 going to get his message out no matter what. 8 His message will get out no matter what. His message 9 will get out no matter what. I have a different position than 10 Ramsey Clark, my position is his message will get out no matter 11 what. 12 Lynne Stewart didn't have to testify but she did. And 13 Lynne Stewart skipped this too on the witness stand because 14 there is nothing that can possibly be said to help her on this. 15 What else did Lynne Stewart say in this call? 1193X, 16 page 12, I referred to this earlier. If it had been something 17 like talking about the Fatwah I wish that the Palestinians 18 would stop throwing rocks, then I mean we would say this is a 19 fraud and a terrible travesty. 20 Lynne Stewart thinks that they shouldn't disavow the 21 Fatwah because it is pro-violence and thinks that it should be 22 disavowed only if it's pro-peace. 23 Mr. Dember argued about this too and there was no 24 response. There was no response. And Lynne Stewart did not 25 have to testify but she did and she skipped this on the stand SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12254 51B5SAT4 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 too because there is no explanation that can possibly help her. 2 Can someone who believes an armed revolution against 3 banks decide, be the person who makes the decision about 4 whether information should be released from a convicted 5 terrorist leader or to a violent terrorist organization? 6 Can the gatekeeper for a terrorist's directive to 7 resume violence be someone who believes in violence against the 8 Board of Education? 9 Can someone who has a hard time figuring out what's 10 wrong with civilians dying in night clubs in Israel or in the 11 stock markets in London at the hands of terrorists -- who she 12 says have no other choice or no other way -- I'm sorry, be the 13 person who decides whether it's safe enough or too risky to 14 human life to do something? 15 Are you ready -- I'm sorry. 16 Can someone who disagrees with the law and who puts 17 her principles of 'his message will get out no matter what' 18 before laws that apply to and balance the interests of everyone 19 in society, the community, the public; to make the decision can 20 someone like that be the person who makes the decision of what 21 rules to follow and not to follow? 22 That is why Lynne Stewart was required to promise to 23 abide by the SAMs and that's why the laws apply to everyone 24 equally, even lawyers. 25 It is one thing for Lynne Stewart to believe in SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12255 51B5SAT4 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 violence against institutions that perpetuate capitalism. It 2 is perfectly okay for her to believe that even if it is out of 3 the mainstream but it is another thing for her to act on those 4 beliefs by relaying, twice, a directive to resume violence by 5 the spiritual leader of a terrorist group. 6 It's another thing, it's a crime, because it shows she 7 lied. It shows that they never intended to abide by her 8 affirmation, not ever. It shows that she circumvented the SAMs 9 and it shows that it's a crime because it shows that she 10 provided and conspired to provide material support to a 11 conspiracy to kill. 12 This is Lynne Stewart and she made promises to the 13 U.S. government and she never intended to keep them. And by 14 doing so, she made it possible for a convicted terrorist to 15 tell his terrorist group that the time for peace had ended and 16 the time to fire and kill had returned. 17 She delivered a directive to return to violence to a 18 terrorist group. Lynne Stewart issued a directive to return to 19 violence to a terrorist group. 20 She was going to get Abdel Rahman's message out no 21 matter what, no matter what the SAMs said no matter what she 22 promised to do in her affirmations but never intended to keep, 23 no matter what she had to do to conceal what she was doing when 24 the message was going in and going out, no matter what the 25 risks and what crazy stories she might have to make up if she SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12256 51B5SAT4 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 got caught. She was going to get the message out no matter 2 what. 3 A license to practice law is not a license to break 4 the law. A license to practice law is not a license to choose 5 which laws to obey and which to ignore. A license to practice 6 law is not a license to lie and it's not a license to ignore 7 the risks that innocent people might die. A license to 8 practice law is not a license to get Abdel Rahman's message out 9 no matter what. 10 We've spent months together in this trial spanning 11 four seasons on the calendar and now the case belongs to you. 12 And you have seen and heard a lot of evidence. The evidence 13 has proven to you that Ahmed Sattar, Lynne Stewart and Mohammed 14 Yousry broke Omar Abdel Rahman out of jail in violation of the 15 SAMs, in violation of the affirmations, and in violation of the 16 law; for Ahmed Sattar, as part of his role in a conspiracy to 17 kill with Rifa'i Taha and as a solicitation of murder; for 18 Lynne Stewart and Mohammed Yousry as part of providing and 19 concealing material support to a conspiracy to kill and as part 20 of a conspiracy...to do so, and for all the defendants in 21 violation of the SAMs. And the evidence in this case supports 22 only one conclusion, that the defendants are guilty as charged. 23 The time has come to hold Lynne Stewart accountable 24 for what she's done. The time has come to hold Mohammed Yousry 25 accountable for what he has done. The time has come to hold SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12257 51B5SAT4 Rebuttal Summation - Mr. Barkow 1 Ahmed Sattar accountable for what he has done. Convict them. 2 THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, that 3 concludes the summations. I repeat to you my instructions 4 which I have repeatedly given you from the very outset of the 5 summations to the close of the summations. I will now give 6 them to you again and I will repeat them in my final 7 instructions to you. 8 You have heard lawyers for all of the parties. 9 Nothing that the lawyers say is evidence. It is your 10 recollection of the evidence that controls. If you have any 11 question with respect to any evidence, you have the right to 12 ask for any exhibits or for any testimony. And, as I will tell 13 you, I'm not suggesting that you must or should do this, I am 14 simply saying this is something that we make available to you 15 in the course of your deliberations because, in the course of 16 your deliberations, you are required to discuss the evidence, 17 to exchange views with your fellow jurors. 18 With respect to all issues of law, it is my 19 instructions on the law that you must follow. If any lawyer 20 has stated any principle of law that is different from what I 21 tell you the law is, it is my instructions on the law that you 22 must follow. 23 I have also explained earlier, and it's appropriate 24 for me to explain again now just because of what, where we are 25 in the trial, we are going to break for the day because I could SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12258 51B5SAT4 1 start my instructions on the law today but I would not finish 2 them, taking into account your lunch and the fact that we would 3 break at 4:00, and giving instructions on the law is a matter 4 that should be done at a time of complete attention by all of 5 you and without interruption. 6 We will take some breaks in the course of the 7 instructions but I mean from the time that I start the charge 8 until the time that I finish, I need your complete and 9 undivided attention. 10 I also repeated some of the instructions because since 11 we are breaking now and going to resume at 9:30 tomorrow, it's 12 important to recall how I explained to you the great importance 13 of not talking about the case at all. 14 Remember, I've explained to you that the only time 15 that you will truly have the entire case before you is when I 16 have given you my instructions on the law, then you will be 17 able to consider all of the evidence that you have heard and 18 you, as the triers of fact, will be able to consider the 19 evidence or lack of evidence in the context of my instructions 20 on the law. And then you are required to discuss the evidence 21 in an atmosphere of complete fairness and impartiality, you are 22 required to exchange views with your fellow jurors. That's the 23 very essence of jury deliberations, as I will explain to you. 24 I repeat those instructions now because I realize that 25 you have heard all of the summations but you have not yet heard SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12259 51B5SAT4 1 my instructions on the law. 2 So, it is particularly important for you to understand 3 that you are not to discuss this case at all among yourselves 4 or with anyone when you go home. You are not to discuss the 5 case at all. There will come a time very quickly when you will 6 be deliberating in that spirit of mutual respect and 7 cooperation and discussing the evidence, but only after I have 8 instructed you on the law when you will have the complete 9 context of the entire case. So, please, please, don't talk 10 about this case at all. Don't talk about it among yourselves 11 or with anyone else when you go home this evening -- this 12 afternoon and evening. Don't talk about it at all when you 13 return tomorrow because you will not yet have my instructions 14 on the law. So, don't talk about the case. 15 Remember, please, don't -- don't look at or listen to 16 anything to do with the case. If you should see or hear 17 something inadvertently, please, simply turn away. Don't look 18 at or listen to anything to do with the case. 19 Finally, as I have explained to you, it is necessary 20 for you to continue to keep an open mind until I have finally 21 instructed you on the law and you have gone to the jury room to 22 begin your deliberations. 23 Fairness and justice to the parties requires that you 24 do that because only after I have instructed you on the law 25 will you have the complete picture that is before you. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12260 51B5SAT4 1 Finally, on a very ministerial matter, I had delayed 2 lunch today pretty far because I just didn't know where we 3 would be today, I didn't know if I would charge you on the law 4 or not, so we're sending you home without lunch today because 5 this is the convenient time to break. 6 That's my responsibility and I am, I regret that we 7 have not provided you with lunch today, but the reason for that 8 was I just didn't know when the convenient time for us to break 9 today would be and I didn't want to keep you around also if it 10 was the time that I could otherwise send you home. 11 So, that's where we are today. 12 Please remember to follow all of my -- all of my 13 instructions, and I will see you tomorrow morning at 9:30 when 14 I will charge you on the law. 15 All rise, please. 16 (Continued on next page) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12261 51B5SAT4 1 (Jury not present) 2 THE COURT: Please be seated, all. If you wait for 3 just a couple of minutes I will have the charge for you and I 4 will distribute it to you. You can obviously read along with 5 me silently tomorrow when I read the charge to the jury. 6 Just so that you are following up on the discussion I 7 had with Mr. Tigar yesterday, the charge is the one that you're 8 familiar with. I attempt to read it verbatim. 9 After I finish the charge and the jury goes to the 10 jury room and I talk to all of you, I ask you if there is 11 something that I said that's not exactly as it is in the charge 12 because the charge that you all have before you and that I 13 attempt to read verbatim is the charge that we would send into 14 the jury room. 15 So, you are welcome to look if there are any changes 16 and then you are welcome to tell me whether, you know, there 17 are any differences. 18 It is possible that I can read a word that's not 19 exactly the same as the word that's there and it's up to you 20 whether you want me to change something for the jury or change 21 the written charge. Very often lawyers simply say it doesn't 22 make a difference. 23 For example, I think I have been known to say: Some 24 people play major roles, others play minor roles. Sometimes I 25 may say: Some play major parts, others play minor parts. I SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12262 51B5SAT4 1 try to read what's there but I just point that out to you. And 2 many people simply say, it's fine. 3 You know, if there are no substantive differences you 4 can send what's written to the jury, but one purpose of the 5 conference with you is to ask whether anyone heard anything 6 different from what's there and whether anyone wants me to do 7 anything different about it. 8 The government should have the redacted indictment 9 ready to go to the jury. Everyone should look at it to make 10 sure that they all agree that that's the right redacted 11 indictment to go to the jury. And you all will have the 12 opportunity to physically inspect the charge before it goes -- 13 before it goes to the jury as well as the special verdict form. 14 All right, anything else? 15 MR. TIGAR: Your Honor, will you be providing the 16 charge in electronic form as well as paper form? Not 17 necessarily now but at some time? 18 THE COURT: I wasn't going to. I was going to 19 physically give it to you. 20 MR. TIGAR: I understand. And that is useful for our 21 purposes for following along but for our files -- I don't know 22 if the Court's record-keeping system causes a PDF form to be 23 made that the parties can have for their record-keeping 24 purposes or -- 25 THE COURT: I can check. If we can, if the parties SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 12263 51B5SAT4 1 would find it convenient and if we could -- if we could give 2 you an electronic version I'm happy to try and do that. 3 MR. TIGAR: That would be very helpful. I didn't mean 4 to put that burden on your Honor but now with the Pacer system 5 it is often possible to do that. 6 THE COURT: This has been done internally, it's not 7 been done through the Pacer but you all have been cooperative 8 with me in terms of giving me disks so if I can print something 9 out for you I would be happy to do that -- I mean give you an 10 electronic version. 11 Anything else? Okay. See you all at 9:15. 12 (Adjourned to 9:15 a.m., Wednesday, January 12, 2004.) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300