Kayleigh Re: Legal weirdness in NY

[Guest guest]

I know Isseks, he is a nice man and AFAIK respected as a lawyer, but misses seeing the bigger picture quite often. This, I believe, is one of those times. He's making a laughingstock of the "AA is religious" idea.

Assuming that is true, and I don't think it is, Isseks' obligation is not to the proper characterization of AA. It is to get his client off, and if this gambit works, he will have met that obligation. Pretty impressive and damn good lawyering, even though I think he'll lose on appeal.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Maybe he deliberately made an absurd ruling, hoping that a higher court will

overturn it by ruling that AA is not a religion?

Does anyone have the opinion? I'd love to read it, and then we could decide what the judge reasonably is about.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Maybe we should all write to Westchester Co. DA Jeanine Pirro and urge her not to make her appeal an argument of "This should be overturned because AA is not religious", but rather to acknowledge the previous 2nd Circuit rulings yet focus on the "AA'ers are not clergy and AA meetings, 'shares', and after-meeting conversations cannot be deemed to be formally sanctioned religious confessions carrying priest-penitent privilege." Should we do this?

I'd suggest not. She doesn't give a rat's ass about our interests. She will do whatever she thinks she must to secure a reversal. Unless you mean trying to convince her that arguing according to our inerests is most likely to get her her reversal?

The 2nd Cir is not going to reverse itself on the matter of AA being a religion. Certainly not this quickly. For one thing, AA **is** a religion, and what it held in Warner is simply very good law. There is no reason this case should not be confined to setting the parameters of the priest-penitent privilge; but the DA will argue otherwise if she thinks it would get her what she wants. I doubt she will do that, because the binding precedent is new and strong.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

.. Mona, you said before that the defense lawyer's first priority is to win a case, then to make any statement. I believe that would be just as true for a DA.

Completely and absolutely. Moreover, this case has drawn national interest, and she will not be without all the legal brainpower and advice she could hope for. I can thinks of scads of lobbies who will be waving their hands offering any help she needs. And her goal is solely to get that reversal - she doesn't care about preserving what is important to us about Warner, and most probably is hostile to it.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

> ... OR, maybe the judge is a stepper or step-sympathizer. ...

Maybe he deliberately made an absurd ruling, hoping that a higher court will

overturn it by ruling that AA is not a religion?

-wally

[Guest guest]

>Wally,

>

>This has just been posted on Addict L. Does anyone know the scoop on

>Jeanette? Does she not think AA is religious?

>

>http://listserv.kent.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0108a & L=addict-

>l & F= & S= & P=3347

>

>

>

She may be a member of this group... not sure.... I do know she's not an AA

supporter.

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

>Wally,

>

>This has just been posted on Addict L. Does anyone know the scoop on

>Jeanette? Does she not think AA is religious?

>

>http://listserv.kent.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0108a & L=addict-

>l & F= & S= & P=3347

>

>

>

She may be a member of this group... not sure.... I definitely don't think

she's anywhere near an " AA shill. "

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

> > Maybe we should all write to Westchester Co. DA Jeanine Pirro and urge

>her

> > not to make her appeal an argument of " This should be overturned because

>AA

> > is not religious " , but rather to acknowledge the previous 2nd Circuit

> > rulings yet focus on the " AA'ers are not clergy and AA meetings,

>'shares',

> > and after-meeting conversations cannot be deemed to be formally

>sanctioned

> > religious confessions carrying priest-penitent privilege. " Should we do

> > this?

> >

>

>I'd suggest not. She doesn't give a rat's ass about our interests. She

>will

>do whatever she thinks she must to secure a reversal. Unless you mean

>trying

>to convince her that arguing according to our inerests is most likely to

>get

>her her reversal?

I was going to say something myself, but I figured I'd wait to see what Mona

had to say. I'm not a lawyer, but if I were, I wouldn't want a bunch of

amateur Masons sending me an email inbox full of unsolicited shit, or

mail in person. Mona, you said before that the defense lawyer's first

priority is to win a case, then to make any statement. I believe that would

be just as true for a DA.

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

>

> Are you kidding, Steve?? District Attorney is a POLITICAL position

>-- if they want to retain or increase their political power, they need to

>know what the public wants, and how to appease different factions.

>Citizens write letters to DA's all the time and make their views known.

I'm not denying there are some political connections... but outside the

immediate area, what the hell is a New York DA going to care about a letter

or email from Dallas?

And, as perhaps evidenced by a spate of emails to this group soliciting

" votes " for doorknob knows what, such techniques can also backfire. No, the

DA wouldn't take a pro-AA attitude... she'd continue to prosecute the case

and win. But she might just become **less** sympathetic to anti-AA arguments

should she deal with other AA-related cases in the future.

I know, if I got a shitload of letters at my office advocating me as a

newspaper editor to support a certain issue, since I don't have legal issues

involved, I might be deliberately contrarian and advocate **against** that

issue even if I had previously supported it.

Steve

>

> Trust me, Pirro has probably gotten dozens of mails about this

>already -- it will be in the thousands in no time. Many if not most will

>be from steppers and step-sympathizers urging her to appeal the decision

>and fight to keep the murderer behind bars, *on the grounds that AA is not

>religious*. And a few will be from civil libertarians who support Isseks'

>position in toto trying to convince her that an appeal is unwarranted and

>hopeless. The way I figure it, letter-writers with the viewpoint that AA

>IS religious but the INTERPRETATION in the decision was wrong will be

>severely underrepresented. Maybe not represented at all, unless one of us

>does it.

>

> I mean, I know Pirro doesn't give a rat's ass (as Mona so delicately

>put it) about me and my opinion personally -- but someone somewhere might

>be tallying up the letters by theme and advising Pirro accordingly. It

>just doesn't seem right that NONE of the letters will express support for

>Isseks' previous work at the same time as hope for a successful appeal by

>Pirro.

>

> Oh well, I'll think about this further.

>

>~Rita

>

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 8/3/01 2:42:04 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

> steverino63@h... writes:

>

>

> > . Mona, you said before that the defense lawyer's first

> > priority is to win a case, then to make any statement. I believe that would

> > be just as true for a DA.

> >

> >

>

> Completely and absolutely. Moreover, this case has drawn national interest,

> and she will not be without all the legal brainpower and advice she could

> hope for. I can thinks of scads of lobbies who will be waving their hands

> offering any help she needs. And her goal is solely to get that reversal -

> she doesn't care about preserving what is important to us about Warner, and

> most probably is hostile to it.

>

> --Mona--

-----------------

That is true. Several of the news accounts are already quoting her as

saying that AA does not meet any official criteria as a religious organization.

And I think that her biggest supporters will be those who are absolutely hostile

to the " AA is religious " rulings of and Warner. Yet you seem confident

that these rulings will not be questioned due to this case. How do you imagine

Pirro will reconcile the issues?

~Rita