July 18, 2004
Prison Would Give Stewart New Lifestyle
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) -- The Danbury Federal Correctional Institution is only
about 20 miles from Martha Stewart's home in Connecticut, but it will seem
like a world away from her usual lifestyle.

If Stewart loses her appeals, she will in all likelihood end up at the
low-security prison that is home to 1,300 female inmates.

The queen of high-thread-count sheets will get military-style linens for her
bunk bed. She will have to trade in her wardrobe for prison khaki jumpsuits.
She could get stuck on kitchen detail -- backbreaking work that pays about
12 cents an hour and requires inmates to be up before the crack of dawn.

The women at Danbury have been closely following Stewart's legal saga and
anticipating her arrival for months.

``I can guarantee you they're watching anything or everything concerning
Martha,'' Joyce Ellwanger of Milwaukee, who served time last year there for
trespassing during a military protest demonstration, said Friday. ``I'm sure
it will be the prime topic of conversation at the table at Danbury.''

Stewart was sentenced Friday to five months in prison and five months of
home confinement for lying about a stock sale that has tarnished her media
empire.

A federal judge said he would recommend she serve her time in Danbury. The
federal Bureau of Prisons has the final say, although officials try to place
inmates within 500 miles of home.

For now, the sentence has been delayed pending an appeal.

Stewart's living situation will depend on whether she is assigned to
Danbury's barracks-style prison camp or to its traditional cellblock
housing. Either way, Stewart, 62, will have to spend her nights in a bunk
bed.

``She's lived a millionaire life. I lived a poor life,'' said Dorothy
Gaines, 45, who served time at Danbury before President Clinton commuted her
drug sentence in 2000. ``She's going to have to live like I lived.''

Inmates can take classes, including crafts. The prison camp has a baseball
field, volleyball net and walking track.

The woman who taught America how to decorate will not be able to decorate
Danbury's concrete walls. Inmates can personalize their space only by
hanging up to four photographs in their lockers.

Still, her homemaking talents could prove valuable: In some parts of the
prison, inmates with the cleanest cells get to eat meals first.

It has been called Club Fed, but all inmates are required to work. They can
request certain jobs such as plumbing, electrical or maintenance work. New
arrivals and those with short sentences tend to get kitchen work, but unlike
Stewart's television cooking demonstrations, this is a strenuous job that
can require being up by 4 a.m.

``It's only five months, but it's still going to be prison,'' Gaines said.
``She's still going to have to adjust to her new life, adjust to the fact
that she has nothing.''

She will still have an edge over some of the other inmates, Gaines said.

``Her home will still be there when she gets out,'' she said. ``She won't
have the struggles of trying to go find a job and being turned down because
she's a convicted felon. She won't know what it's like to apply for housing
and get turned down because she's a convicted felon.''

Most people in low-security prisons are there for drug crimes. About 4
percent are white-collar criminals, according to the Bureau of Prisons.
Danbury's famous inmates have included Watergate figure G. Gordon Liddy and
New York hotel queen Leona Helmsley.

``You meet judges and accountants, but you also meet the murderers,'' Gaines
said.

</>

I never was a huge MS fan. But she's lost her company, lost millions in net
worth, lost her esteem, lost pretty much everything. And now they want to
toss her into jail for violating insider trading laws which did not apply to
her because she was a common shareholder. She's suffered quite enough IMO.

Let no one make a mistake. If they can do it to her, they can do it to
anyone. Martha's fate is a disgrace and should not be taken lightly.

Paul

"Gregory Morrow" > wrote in
message nk.net...
>
> July 18, 2004
> Prison Would Give Stewart New Lifestyle
> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>
>
> HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) -- The Danbury Federal Correctional Institution is
only
> about 20 miles from Martha Stewart's home in Connecticut, but it will seem
> like a world away from her usual lifestyle.
>
> If Stewart loses her appeals, she will in all likelihood end up at the
> low-security prison that is home to 1,300 female inmates.
>
> The queen of high-thread-count sheets will get military-style linens for
her
> bunk bed. She will have to trade in her wardrobe for prison khaki
jumpsuits.
> She could get stuck on kitchen detail -- backbreaking work that pays about
> 12 cents an hour and requires inmates to be up before the crack of dawn.
>
> The women at Danbury have been closely following Stewart's legal saga and
> anticipating her arrival for months.
>
> ``I can guarantee you they're watching anything or everything concerning
> Martha,'' Joyce Ellwanger of Milwaukee, who served time last year there
for
> trespassing during a military protest demonstration, said Friday. ``I'm
sure
> it will be the prime topic of conversation at the table at Danbury.''
>
> Stewart was sentenced Friday to five months in prison and five months of
> home confinement for lying about a stock sale that has tarnished her media
> empire.
>
> A federal judge said he would recommend she serve her time in Danbury. The
> federal Bureau of Prisons has the final say, although officials try to
place
> inmates within 500 miles of home.
>
> For now, the sentence has been delayed pending an appeal.
>
> Stewart's living situation will depend on whether she is assigned to
> Danbury's barracks-style prison camp or to its traditional cellblock
> housing. Either way, Stewart, 62, will have to spend her nights in a bunk
> bed.
>
> ``She's lived a millionaire life. I lived a poor life,'' said Dorothy
> Gaines, 45, who served time at Danbury before President Clinton commuted
her
> drug sentence in 2000. ``She's going to have to live like I lived.''
>
> Inmates can take classes, including crafts. The prison camp has a baseball
> field, volleyball net and walking track.
>
> The woman who taught America how to decorate will not be able to decorate
> Danbury's concrete walls. Inmates can personalize their space only by
> hanging up to four photographs in their lockers.
>
> Still, her homemaking talents could prove valuable: In some parts of the
> prison, inmates with the cleanest cells get to eat meals first.
>
> It has been called Club Fed, but all inmates are required to work. They
can
> request certain jobs such as plumbing, electrical or maintenance work. New
> arrivals and those with short sentences tend to get kitchen work, but
unlike
> Stewart's television cooking demonstrations, this is a strenuous job that
> can require being up by 4 a.m.
>
> ``It's only five months, but it's still going to be prison,'' Gaines said.
> ``She's still going to have to adjust to her new life, adjust to the fact
> that she has nothing.''
>
> She will still have an edge over some of the other inmates, Gaines said.
>
> ``Her home will still be there when she gets out,'' she said. ``She won't
> have the struggles of trying to go find a job and being turned down
because
> she's a convicted felon. She won't know what it's like to apply for
housing
> and get turned down because she's a convicted felon.''
>
> Most people in low-security prisons are there for drug crimes. About 4
> percent are white-collar criminals, according to the Bureau of Prisons.
> Danbury's famous inmates have included Watergate figure G. Gordon Liddy
and
> New York hotel queen Leona Helmsley.
>
> ``You meet judges and accountants, but you also meet the murderers,''
Gaines
> said.
>
> </>
>
>
>
>
>

I never was a huge MS fan. But she's lost her company, lost millions in net
worth, lost her esteem, lost pretty much everything. And now they want to
toss her into jail for violating insider trading laws which did not apply to
her because she was a common shareholder. She's suffered quite enough IMO.

Let no one make a mistake. If they can do it to her, they can do it to
anyone. Martha's fate is a disgrace and should not be taken lightly.

Paul

"Gregory Morrow" > wrote in
message nk.net...
>
> July 18, 2004
> Prison Would Give Stewart New Lifestyle
> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>
>
> HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) -- The Danbury Federal Correctional Institution is
only
> about 20 miles from Martha Stewart's home in Connecticut, but it will seem
> like a world away from her usual lifestyle.
>
> If Stewart loses her appeals, she will in all likelihood end up at the
> low-security prison that is home to 1,300 female inmates.
>
> The queen of high-thread-count sheets will get military-style linens for
her
> bunk bed. She will have to trade in her wardrobe for prison khaki
jumpsuits.
> She could get stuck on kitchen detail -- backbreaking work that pays about
> 12 cents an hour and requires inmates to be up before the crack of dawn.
>
> The women at Danbury have been closely following Stewart's legal saga and
> anticipating her arrival for months.
>
> ``I can guarantee you they're watching anything or everything concerning
> Martha,'' Joyce Ellwanger of Milwaukee, who served time last year there
for
> trespassing during a military protest demonstration, said Friday. ``I'm
sure
> it will be the prime topic of conversation at the table at Danbury.''
>
> Stewart was sentenced Friday to five months in prison and five months of
> home confinement for lying about a stock sale that has tarnished her media
> empire.
>
> A federal judge said he would recommend she serve her time in Danbury. The
> federal Bureau of Prisons has the final say, although officials try to
place
> inmates within 500 miles of home.
>
> For now, the sentence has been delayed pending an appeal.
>
> Stewart's living situation will depend on whether she is assigned to
> Danbury's barracks-style prison camp or to its traditional cellblock
> housing. Either way, Stewart, 62, will have to spend her nights in a bunk
> bed.
>
> ``She's lived a millionaire life. I lived a poor life,'' said Dorothy
> Gaines, 45, who served time at Danbury before President Clinton commuted
her
> drug sentence in 2000. ``She's going to have to live like I lived.''
>
> Inmates can take classes, including crafts. The prison camp has a baseball
> field, volleyball net and walking track.
>
> The woman who taught America how to decorate will not be able to decorate
> Danbury's concrete walls. Inmates can personalize their space only by
> hanging up to four photographs in their lockers.
>
> Still, her homemaking talents could prove valuable: In some parts of the
> prison, inmates with the cleanest cells get to eat meals first.
>
> It has been called Club Fed, but all inmates are required to work. They
can
> request certain jobs such as plumbing, electrical or maintenance work. New
> arrivals and those with short sentences tend to get kitchen work, but
unlike
> Stewart's television cooking demonstrations, this is a strenuous job that
> can require being up by 4 a.m.
>
> ``It's only five months, but it's still going to be prison,'' Gaines said.
> ``She's still going to have to adjust to her new life, adjust to the fact
> that she has nothing.''
>
> She will still have an edge over some of the other inmates, Gaines said.
>
> ``Her home will still be there when she gets out,'' she said. ``She won't
> have the struggles of trying to go find a job and being turned down
because
> she's a convicted felon. She won't know what it's like to apply for
housing
> and get turned down because she's a convicted felon.''
>
> Most people in low-security prisons are there for drug crimes. About 4
> percent are white-collar criminals, according to the Bureau of Prisons.
> Danbury's famous inmates have included Watergate figure G. Gordon Liddy
and
> New York hotel queen Leona Helmsley.
>
> ``You meet judges and accountants, but you also meet the murderers,''
Gaines
> said.
>
> </>
>
>
>
>
>

I never was a huge MS fan. But she's lost her company, lost millions in net
worth, lost her esteem, lost pretty much everything. And now they want to
toss her into jail for violating insider trading laws which did not apply to
her because she was a common shareholder. She's suffered quite enough IMO.

Let no one make a mistake. If they can do it to her, they can do it to
anyone. Martha's fate is a disgrace and should not be taken lightly.

Paul

"Gregory Morrow" > wrote in
message nk.net...
>
> July 18, 2004
> Prison Would Give Stewart New Lifestyle
> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>
>
> HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) -- The Danbury Federal Correctional Institution is
only
> about 20 miles from Martha Stewart's home in Connecticut, but it will seem
> like a world away from her usual lifestyle.
>
> If Stewart loses her appeals, she will in all likelihood end up at the
> low-security prison that is home to 1,300 female inmates.
>
> The queen of high-thread-count sheets will get military-style linens for
her
> bunk bed. She will have to trade in her wardrobe for prison khaki
jumpsuits.
> She could get stuck on kitchen detail -- backbreaking work that pays about
> 12 cents an hour and requires inmates to be up before the crack of dawn.
>
> The women at Danbury have been closely following Stewart's legal saga and
> anticipating her arrival for months.
>
> ``I can guarantee you they're watching anything or everything concerning
> Martha,'' Joyce Ellwanger of Milwaukee, who served time last year there
for
> trespassing during a military protest demonstration, said Friday. ``I'm
sure
> it will be the prime topic of conversation at the table at Danbury.''
>
> Stewart was sentenced Friday to five months in prison and five months of
> home confinement for lying about a stock sale that has tarnished her media
> empire.
>
> A federal judge said he would recommend she serve her time in Danbury. The
> federal Bureau of Prisons has the final say, although officials try to
place
> inmates within 500 miles of home.
>
> For now, the sentence has been delayed pending an appeal.
>
> Stewart's living situation will depend on whether she is assigned to
> Danbury's barracks-style prison camp or to its traditional cellblock
> housing. Either way, Stewart, 62, will have to spend her nights in a bunk
> bed.
>
> ``She's lived a millionaire life. I lived a poor life,'' said Dorothy
> Gaines, 45, who served time at Danbury before President Clinton commuted
her
> drug sentence in 2000. ``She's going to have to live like I lived.''
>
> Inmates can take classes, including crafts. The prison camp has a baseball
> field, volleyball net and walking track.
>
> The woman who taught America how to decorate will not be able to decorate
> Danbury's concrete walls. Inmates can personalize their space only by
> hanging up to four photographs in their lockers.
>
> Still, her homemaking talents could prove valuable: In some parts of the
> prison, inmates with the cleanest cells get to eat meals first.
>
> It has been called Club Fed, but all inmates are required to work. They
can
> request certain jobs such as plumbing, electrical or maintenance work. New
> arrivals and those with short sentences tend to get kitchen work, but
unlike
> Stewart's television cooking demonstrations, this is a strenuous job that
> can require being up by 4 a.m.
>
> ``It's only five months, but it's still going to be prison,'' Gaines said.
> ``She's still going to have to adjust to her new life, adjust to the fact
> that she has nothing.''
>
> She will still have an edge over some of the other inmates, Gaines said.
>
> ``Her home will still be there when she gets out,'' she said. ``She won't
> have the struggles of trying to go find a job and being turned down
because
> she's a convicted felon. She won't know what it's like to apply for
housing
> and get turned down because she's a convicted felon.''
>
> Most people in low-security prisons are there for drug crimes. About 4
> percent are white-collar criminals, according to the Bureau of Prisons.
> Danbury's famous inmates have included Watergate figure G. Gordon Liddy
and
> New York hotel queen Leona Helmsley.
>
> ``You meet judges and accountants, but you also meet the murderers,''
Gaines
> said.
>
> </>
>
>
>
>
>

"Paul M. Cook©®" wrote:

> I never was a huge MS fan. But she's lost her company, lost millions
> in net worth, lost her esteem, lost pretty much everything.

No, she still has MILLIONS and MILLIONS of bucks.
She just isn't a BILLIONAIRE any more. Boo hoo.

> And now they want to toss her into jail for violating insider
> trading laws which did not apply to her because she was
> a common shareholder. She's suffered quite enough IMO.

You have it so wrong. She was never charged with insider
trading. She was charged with lying to a federal investigator
which is a felony. And she did, in fact, lie.

> Let no one make a mistake. If they can do it to her, they
> can do it to anyone.

Not true. Bill Clinton got away with it.

But for common people, don't do the crime if you can't do
the time.

> Martha's fate is a disgrace and should not be taken lightly.

I'd agree to the extent that she's getting totally nailed
because the feds need to demonstrate that they're getting
tough on Wall Street. The self-dealing money fund
managers are going to get off, the Enron and Worldcom
execs may get off, but the feds will at least have Martha's
hide to show as evidence that they are doing something.

"Paul M. Cook©®" wrote:

> I never was a huge MS fan. But she's lost her company, lost millions
> in net worth, lost her esteem, lost pretty much everything.

No, she still has MILLIONS and MILLIONS of bucks.
She just isn't a BILLIONAIRE any more. Boo hoo.

> And now they want to toss her into jail for violating insider
> trading laws which did not apply to her because she was
> a common shareholder. She's suffered quite enough IMO.

You have it so wrong. She was never charged with insider
trading. She was charged with lying to a federal investigator
which is a felony. And she did, in fact, lie.

> Let no one make a mistake. If they can do it to her, they
> can do it to anyone.

Not true. Bill Clinton got away with it.

But for common people, don't do the crime if you can't do
the time.

> Martha's fate is a disgrace and should not be taken lightly.

I'd agree to the extent that she's getting totally nailed
because the feds need to demonstrate that they're getting
tough on Wall Street. The self-dealing money fund
managers are going to get off, the Enron and Worldcom
execs may get off, but the feds will at least have Martha's
hide to show as evidence that they are doing something.

"Paul M. Cook©®" wrote:

> I never was a huge MS fan. But she's lost her company, lost millions
> in net worth, lost her esteem, lost pretty much everything.

No, she still has MILLIONS and MILLIONS of bucks.
She just isn't a BILLIONAIRE any more. Boo hoo.

> And now they want to toss her into jail for violating insider
> trading laws which did not apply to her because she was
> a common shareholder. She's suffered quite enough IMO.

You have it so wrong. She was never charged with insider
trading. She was charged with lying to a federal investigator
which is a felony. And she did, in fact, lie.

> Let no one make a mistake. If they can do it to her, they
> can do it to anyone.

Not true. Bill Clinton got away with it.

But for common people, don't do the crime if you can't do
the time.

> Martha's fate is a disgrace and should not be taken lightly.

I'd agree to the extent that she's getting totally nailed
because the feds need to demonstrate that they're getting
tough on Wall Street. The self-dealing money fund
managers are going to get off, the Enron and Worldcom
execs may get off, but the feds will at least have Martha's
hide to show as evidence that they are doing something.

Paul M. Cook©® wrote:

> I never was a huge MS fan. But she's lost her company, lost millions in
net
> worth, lost her esteem, lost pretty much everything. And now they want to
> toss her into jail for violating insider trading laws which did not apply
to
> her because she was a common shareholder. She's suffered quite enough
IMO.
>
> Let no one make a mistake. If they can do it to her, they can do it to
> anyone. Martha's fate is a disgrace and should not be taken lightly.
>


Hang 'er high, I say....

--
Best
Greg

Paul M. Cook©® wrote:

> I never was a huge MS fan. But she's lost her company, lost millions in
net
> worth, lost her esteem, lost pretty much everything. And now they want to
> toss her into jail for violating insider trading laws which did not apply
to
> her because she was a common shareholder. She's suffered quite enough
IMO.
>
> Let no one make a mistake. If they can do it to her, they can do it to
> anyone. Martha's fate is a disgrace and should not be taken lightly.
>


Hang 'er high, I say....

--
Best
Greg

>
> If Stewart loses her appeals, she will in all likelihood end up at
the
> low-security prison that is home to 1,300 female inmates.


Don't hold your breath for this to actually happen.

>
> If Stewart loses her appeals, she will in all likelihood end up at
the
> low-security prison that is home to 1,300 female inmates.


Don't hold your breath for this to actually happen.

Gregory Morrow wrote:

> Hang 'er high, I say....

Is that because she's a woman, rich, or blonde (for the time being)?

Mark Thorson wrote:

> Gregory Morrow wrote:
>
> > Hang 'er high, I say....
>
> Is that because she's a woman, rich, or blonde (for the time being)?
>


Naw...she just needs to learn a little humility, that's all....

--
Best
Greg

In article >,
Mark Thorson > wrote:

> Gregory Morrow wrote:
>
> > Hang 'er high, I say....
>
> Is that because she's a woman, rich, or blonde (for the time being)?
>

Many folks are jealous of the rich and famous...

Shame too, as anyone could do what Martha did. She is a self-made
millionaire. If anyone is gutsy enough to get off their butts and try,
they can do what she did!

She is to be admired, not envied.

Just IMNSHO!

K.

--
Sprout the Mung Bean to reply...

>,,<Cat's Haven Hobby Farm>,,<Katraatcenturyteldotnet>,,<

http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...user id=katra

In article >,
Mark Thorson > wrote:

> Gregory Morrow wrote:
>
> > Hang 'er high, I say....
>
> Is that because she's a woman, rich, or blonde (for the time being)?
>

Many folks are jealous of the rich and famous...

Shame too, as anyone could do what Martha did. She is a self-made
millionaire. If anyone is gutsy enough to get off their butts and try,
they can do what she did!

She is to be admired, not envied.

Just IMNSHO!

K.

--
Sprout the Mung Bean to reply...

>,,<Cat's Haven Hobby Farm>,,<Katraatcenturyteldotnet>,,<

http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...user id=katra

On 2004-07-18, Katra > wrote:

> She is to be admired, not envied.

Depends on how she made her millions. If it was using the same morals and
ethicals that landed her in jail, maybe not. Just a thought.

nb

Katra wrote:
>
>
> Many folks are jealous of the rich and famous...
>
> Shame too, as anyone could do what Martha did. She is a self-made
> millionaire. If anyone is gutsy enough to get off their butts and try,
> they can do what she did!
>
> She is to be admired, not envied.
>
> Just IMNSHO!
>
> K.
>

I do not admire her and I certainly do not envy her. Before the news
of her offense became public, I knew nothing about her. I still have
not found anything interesting about her. She committed a crime for
which she was convicted. She lied and hampered an investigation. She
lied over and over again and perjured herself in doing so.

However, I do not believe that incarcerating her will serve any
purpose. She is not dangerous out of prison and she will not
perpetrate the same offense again, whether or not she is in jail.
If I were the judge, I would sentence her to pay her "debt to society"
in cash and in services, instead of locking her up, which will cost us
for her room and board in the long run. Her fine could be doubled and
she would be more valuable teaching young people something like
cooking or keeping house, than cleaning floors in a penal institution.

Just my two cents worth.

Katra wrote:
>
>
> Many folks are jealous of the rich and famous...
>
> Shame too, as anyone could do what Martha did. She is a self-made
> millionaire. If anyone is gutsy enough to get off their butts and try,
> they can do what she did!
>
> She is to be admired, not envied.
>
> Just IMNSHO!
>
> K.
>

I do not admire her and I certainly do not envy her. Before the news
of her offense became public, I knew nothing about her. I still have
not found anything interesting about her. She committed a crime for
which she was convicted. She lied and hampered an investigation. She
lied over and over again and perjured herself in doing so.

However, I do not believe that incarcerating her will serve any
purpose. She is not dangerous out of prison and she will not
perpetrate the same offense again, whether or not she is in jail.
If I were the judge, I would sentence her to pay her "debt to society"
in cash and in services, instead of locking her up, which will cost us
for her room and board in the long run. Her fine could be doubled and
she would be more valuable teaching young people something like
cooking or keeping house, than cleaning floors in a penal institution.

Just my two cents worth.

>Subject: Jailbird Mothra Stewart's New Lifestyle....
>From: Katra
>Date: 7/18/2004 6:26 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
> Mark Thorson > wrote:
>
>> Gregory Morrow wrote:
>>
>> > Hang 'er high, I say....
>>
>> Is that because she's a woman, rich, or blonde (for the time being)?
>>
>
>Many folks are jealous of the rich and famous...
>
>Shame too, as anyone could do what Martha did. She is a self-made
>millionaire. If anyone is gutsy enough to get off their butts and try,
>they can do what she did!
>
>She is to be admired, not envied.
>
>Just IMNSHO!

Yeah make a big statue of her and Leona Helmsly..."here's to the little people"
Her arrogance got the best of her...she thought she could get away with
lieing...a normal person would have settled all this long ago.

>Subject: Jailbird Mothra Stewart's New Lifestyle....
>From: Katra
>Date: 7/18/2004 6:26 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
> Mark Thorson > wrote:
>
>> Gregory Morrow wrote:
>>
>> > Hang 'er high, I say....
>>
>> Is that because she's a woman, rich, or blonde (for the time being)?
>>
>
>Many folks are jealous of the rich and famous...
>
>Shame too, as anyone could do what Martha did. She is a self-made
>millionaire. If anyone is gutsy enough to get off their butts and try,
>they can do what she did!
>
>She is to be admired, not envied.
>
>Just IMNSHO!

Yeah make a big statue of her and Leona Helmsly..."here's to the little people"
Her arrogance got the best of her...she thought she could get away with
lieing...a normal person would have settled all this long ago.

In article >,
Margaret Suran > wrote:

> However, I do not believe that incarcerating her will serve any
> purpose. She is not dangerous out of prison and she will not
> perpetrate the same offense again, whether or not she is in jail.
> If I were the judge, I would sentence her to pay her "debt to society"
> in cash and in services, instead of locking her up, which will cost us
> for her room and board in the long run. Her fine could be doubled and
> she would be more valuable teaching young people something like
> cooking or keeping house, than cleaning floors in a penal institution.

I disagree. The US will not be an equitable society until our legal
system metes out punishments that are proportional to the effects of a
crime, and equally dispensed regardless of who is charged.

Currently we have a system where you can be put away for long sentences
(or life) after stealing a bicycle, if that triggers the "three strikes"
mandatory sentencing rules. Even if you get out of jail, you will have
a very hard time finding a job as a convicted felon.

But if a wealthy fat cat gets nailed for stock fraud or embezzlement,
they might serve a few months and/or pay a fine that does not put a dent
in their net worth. White collar crimes often damage a lot more people
(via lost jobs, lost savings) than street crimes. But the perps get a
slap on the wrist, because they have connections, and can afford to hire
high-powered lawyers and jury selection consultants.

Martha Stewart's insider knowledge allowed her to sell stock that she
knew would soon be significantly devalued. The buyers of that stock
lost many thousands of dollars. People were hurt.

People in the underclasses see this stuff for what it is, and it breeds
contempt for our legal and political systems.

--
Julian Vrieslander

Gregory Morrow > wrote:

> Naw...she just needs to learn a little humility, that's all....

The government should not be in the business of teaching anyone
humility, esp. at taxpayers expense.

Gregory Morrow > wrote:

> Naw...she just needs to learn a little humility, that's all....

The government should not be in the business of teaching anyone
humility, esp. at taxpayers expense.

>Julian Vrieslanderwrites:
>
>>Margaret Suran wrote:
>>
>> However, I do not believe that incarcerating her will serve any
>> purpose. She is not dangerous out of prison and she will not
>> perpetrate the same offense again, whether or not she is in jail.
>> If I were the judge, I would sentence her to pay her "debt to society"
>> in cash and in services, instead of locking her up, which will cost us
>> for her room and board in the long run. Her fine could be doubled and
>> she would be more valuable teaching young people something like
>> cooking or keeping house, than cleaning floors in a penal institution.
>
>I disagree. The US will not be an equitable society until our legal
>system metes out punishments that are proportional to the effects of a
>crime, and equally dispensed regardless of who is charged.
>
>Currently we have a system where you can be put away for long sentences
>(or life) after stealing a bicycle, if that triggers the "three strikes"
>mandatory sentencing rules. Even if you get out of jail, you will have
>a very hard time finding a job as a convicted felon.
>
>But if a wealthy fat cat gets nailed for stock fraud or embezzlement,
>they might serve a few months and/or pay a fine that does not put a dent
>in their net worth. White collar crimes often damage a lot more people
>(via lost jobs, lost savings) than street crimes. But the perps get a
>slap on the wrist, because they have connections, and can afford to hire
>high-powered lawyers and jury selection consultants.
>
>Martha Stewart's insider knowledge allowed her to sell stock that she
>knew would soon be significantly devalued. The buyers of that stock
>lost many thousands of dollars. People were hurt.
>
>People in the underclasses see this stuff for what it is, and it breeds
>contempt for our legal and political systems.

Mothra finally got caught... it was not her first offence of that genre and had
she not gotten caught it definitely would not be her last... she's just crying
foul the same as someone who's finally gotten caught for a traffic violation
they've commited a thousand times before and will continue doing... it's as
simple as that. She still thinks she's done nothing wrong. IMH she got off
*extremely* easy, I would have given her 5 years in prison (not 5 months). I'm
positive had the judge been able to predict her whiney court-steps speech she
would have given Mothra the maximum.

Besides, Mothra gives back nothing to society, she's a selfish, greedy,
mean-spirited bitch, with an ego as big as Mandela's is small. Perhaps her
fellow inmates will teach her the lesson she so rightfully deserves.


---= BOYCOTT FRANCE (belgium) GERMANY--SPAIN =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
*********
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."
Sheldon
````````````

>Julian Vrieslanderwrites:
>
>>Margaret Suran wrote:
>>
>> However, I do not believe that incarcerating her will serve any
>> purpose. She is not dangerous out of prison and she will not
>> perpetrate the same offense again, whether or not she is in jail.
>> If I were the judge, I would sentence her to pay her "debt to society"
>> in cash and in services, instead of locking her up, which will cost us
>> for her room and board in the long run. Her fine could be doubled and
>> she would be more valuable teaching young people something like
>> cooking or keeping house, than cleaning floors in a penal institution.
>
>I disagree. The US will not be an equitable society until our legal
>system metes out punishments that are proportional to the effects of a
>crime, and equally dispensed regardless of who is charged.
>
>Currently we have a system where you can be put away for long sentences
>(or life) after stealing a bicycle, if that triggers the "three strikes"
>mandatory sentencing rules. Even if you get out of jail, you will have
>a very hard time finding a job as a convicted felon.
>
>But if a wealthy fat cat gets nailed for stock fraud or embezzlement,
>they might serve a few months and/or pay a fine that does not put a dent
>in their net worth. White collar crimes often damage a lot more people
>(via lost jobs, lost savings) than street crimes. But the perps get a
>slap on the wrist, because they have connections, and can afford to hire
>high-powered lawyers and jury selection consultants.
>
>Martha Stewart's insider knowledge allowed her to sell stock that she
>knew would soon be significantly devalued. The buyers of that stock
>lost many thousands of dollars. People were hurt.
>
>People in the underclasses see this stuff for what it is, and it breeds
>contempt for our legal and political systems.

Mothra finally got caught... it was not her first offence of that genre and had
she not gotten caught it definitely would not be her last... she's just crying
foul the same as someone who's finally gotten caught for a traffic violation
they've commited a thousand times before and will continue doing... it's as
simple as that. She still thinks she's done nothing wrong. IMH she got off
*extremely* easy, I would have given her 5 years in prison (not 5 months). I'm
positive had the judge been able to predict her whiney court-steps speech she
would have given Mothra the maximum.

Besides, Mothra gives back nothing to society, she's a selfish, greedy,
mean-spirited bitch, with an ego as big as Mandela's is small. Perhaps her
fellow inmates will teach her the lesson she so rightfully deserves.


---= BOYCOTT FRANCE (belgium) GERMANY--SPAIN =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
*********
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."
Sheldon
````````````

In article <ErEKc.127255$XM6.112759@attbi_s53>, notbob
> writes
>On 2004-07-18, Katra > wrote:
>
>> She is to be admired, not envied.

I don't admire her or envy her, but if Joanna Schmo lied to the police
she'd go to jail. So then should Martha. No-one should be protected by
position or wealth.
--
Jane Lumley

wrote:

> Gregory Morrow > wrote:
>
> > Naw...she just needs to learn a little humility, that's all....
>
> The government should not be in the business of teaching anyone
> humility, esp. at taxpayers expense.

Yeah. We just need some laws to tell people what they can and can't do
and then let them decide for themselves which apply to them.

wrote:

> Gregory Morrow > wrote:
>
> > Naw...she just needs to learn a little humility, that's all....
>
> The government should not be in the business of teaching anyone
> humility, esp. at taxpayers expense.

Yeah. We just need some laws to tell people what they can and can't do
and then let them decide for themselves which apply to them.

Nancy Dooley wrote:

> Mark Thorson > wrote in message news:<40FAAD38.F7D69D0=
>...
> > "Paul M. Cook=A9=AE" wrote:
> >
> > > I never was a huge MS fan. But she's lost her company, lost millio=
ns
> > > in net worth, lost her esteem, lost pretty much everything.
> >
> > No, she still has MILLIONS and MILLIONS of bucks.
> > She just isn't a BILLIONAIRE any more. Boo hoo.
> >
> > > And now they want to toss her into jail for violating insider
> > > trading laws which did not apply to her because she was
> > > a common shareholder. She's suffered quite enough IMO.
> >
> > You have it so wrong. She was never charged with insider
> > trading. She was charged with lying to a federal investigator
> > which is a felony. And she did, in fact, lie.
>
> She wasn't even under oath when she lied. You can't commit "perjury"
> unless you're under oath.

That's why she was convicted of obstruction, not perjury.

Nancy Dooley wrote:

> Mark Thorson > wrote in message news:<40FAAD38.F7D69D0=
>...
> > "Paul M. Cook=A9=AE" wrote:
> >
> > > I never was a huge MS fan. But she's lost her company, lost millio=
ns
> > > in net worth, lost her esteem, lost pretty much everything.
> >
> > No, she still has MILLIONS and MILLIONS of bucks.
> > She just isn't a BILLIONAIRE any more. Boo hoo.
> >
> > > And now they want to toss her into jail for violating insider
> > > trading laws which did not apply to her because she was
> > > a common shareholder. She's suffered quite enough IMO.
> >
> > You have it so wrong. She was never charged with insider
> > trading. She was charged with lying to a federal investigator
> > which is a felony. And she did, in fact, lie.
>
> She wasn't even under oath when she lied. You can't commit "perjury"
> unless you're under oath.

That's why she was convicted of obstruction, not perjury.

Maybe it's time to play the "Ethinc Card".....

They're only persecuting her because she's Polish !!

( it plays so much better when you're a "victim ) ;o)



On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 20:00:43 GMT, Mark Thorson >
wrote:

>Gregory Morrow wrote:
>
>> Hang 'er high, I say....
>
>Is that because she's a woman, rich, or blonde (for the time being)?
>
>
>

<rj>

Maybe it's time to play the "Ethinc Card".....

They're only persecuting her because she's Polish !!

( it plays so much better when you're a "victim ) ;o)



On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 20:00:43 GMT, Mark Thorson >
wrote:

>Gregory Morrow wrote:
>
>> Hang 'er high, I say....
>
>Is that because she's a woman, rich, or blonde (for the time being)?
>
>
>

<rj>

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 07:43:26 -0700, "<RJ>" >
wrote:

>
>Maybe it's time to play the "Ethinc Card".....
>
>They're only persecuting her because she's Polish !!
>
>( it plays so much better when you're a "victim ) ;o)

Heck, it worked for OJ & Clinton, it should work for her too.


Denise, Brian & Wyatt (May 31, 02)

A good friend will come and bail you out of jail...
A true friend will be sitting next to you saying,
"Damn...that was fun!"

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 07:43:26 -0700, "<RJ>" >
wrote:

>
>Maybe it's time to play the "Ethinc Card".....
>
>They're only persecuting her because she's Polish !!
>
>( it plays so much better when you're a "victim ) ;o)

Heck, it worked for OJ & Clinton, it should work for her too.


Denise, Brian & Wyatt (May 31, 02)

A good friend will come and bail you out of jail...
A true friend will be sitting next to you saying,
"Damn...that was fun!"

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 07:43:26 -0700, "<RJ>" >
wrote:

>
>Maybe it's time to play the "Ethinc Card".....
>
>They're only persecuting her because she's Polish !!
>
>( it plays so much better when you're a "victim ) ;o)

Heck, it worked for OJ & Clinton, it should work for her too.


Denise, Brian & Wyatt (May 31, 02)

A good friend will come and bail you out of jail...
A true friend will be sitting next to you saying,
"Damn...that was fun!"

On 19 Jul 2004 07:23:20 -0700, (Nancy
Dooley) wrote:

>Mark Thorson > wrote in message >...
>> "Paul M. Cook©®" wrote:
>>
>> > I never was a huge MS fan. But she's lost her company, lost millions
>> > in net worth, lost her esteem, lost pretty much everything.
>>
>> No, she still has MILLIONS and MILLIONS of bucks.
>> She just isn't a BILLIONAIRE any more. Boo hoo.
>>
>> > And now they want to toss her into jail for violating insider
>> > trading laws which did not apply to her because she was
>> > a common shareholder. She's suffered quite enough IMO.
>>
>> You have it so wrong. She was never charged with insider
>> trading. She was charged with lying to a federal investigator
>> which is a felony. And she did, in fact, lie.
>
>She wasn't even under oath when she lied. You can't commit "perjury"
>unless you're under oath.
>
>Clinton lied under oath and never spent a day in prison.
>
>This is fair?
>Clinton was indicted by a Republican House. He was tried by a Republican Senate. He was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice. He was found "Not Guilty" on both counts. In United States you are considered innocent until found guilty.
>Bah. If it hadn't been for the Enron debacle (and the corporate
>shenanigans that it brought to light), they wouldn't have messed with
>Martha.
>
>N.

On 19 Jul 2004 07:23:20 -0700, (Nancy
Dooley) wrote:

>Mark Thorson > wrote in message >...
>> "Paul M. Cook©®" wrote:
>>
>> > I never was a huge MS fan. But she's lost her company, lost millions
>> > in net worth, lost her esteem, lost pretty much everything.
>>
>> No, she still has MILLIONS and MILLIONS of bucks.
>> She just isn't a BILLIONAIRE any more. Boo hoo.
>>
>> > And now they want to toss her into jail for violating insider
>> > trading laws which did not apply to her because she was
>> > a common shareholder. She's suffered quite enough IMO.
>>
>> You have it so wrong. She was never charged with insider
>> trading. She was charged with lying to a federal investigator
>> which is a felony. And she did, in fact, lie.
>
>She wasn't even under oath when she lied. You can't commit "perjury"
>unless you're under oath.
>
>Clinton lied under oath and never spent a day in prison.
>
>This is fair?
>Clinton was indicted by a Republican House. He was tried by a Republican Senate. He was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice. He was found "Not Guilty" on both counts. In United States you are considered innocent until found guilty.
>Bah. If it hadn't been for the Enron debacle (and the corporate
>shenanigans that it brought to light), they wouldn't have messed with
>Martha.
>
>N.

Allan wrote:

> Clinton was indicted by a Republican House. He was tried by a Republican
> Senate. He was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice. He was
> found "Not Guilty" on both counts.

This is factually wrong. Clinton was found guilty. The Senate didn't vote on
Clinton's guilt or innocence; its function was to presume guilt (because
he'd already been found guilty by the House of Representatives) and then
vote whether or not to remove him from office. If you want to compare
impeachment to a judicial procedure (which it isn't), then a more accurate
analogy would be that the House determined guilt or innocence and the Senate
determined the sentence.

Yes, Clinton *did* get away with perjury, but he was never tried for it in a
"real" court, i.e., a court which was part of the judicial branch of
government.

Bob

Allan wrote:

> Clinton was indicted by a Republican House. He was tried by a Republican
> Senate. He was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice. He was
> found "Not Guilty" on both counts.

This is factually wrong. Clinton was found guilty. The Senate didn't vote on
Clinton's guilt or innocence; its function was to presume guilt (because
he'd already been found guilty by the House of Representatives) and then
vote whether or not to remove him from office. If you want to compare
impeachment to a judicial procedure (which it isn't), then a more accurate
analogy would be that the House determined guilt or innocence and the Senate
determined the sentence.

Yes, Clinton *did* get away with perjury, but he was never tried for it in a
"real" court, i.e., a court which was part of the judicial branch of
government.

Bob

"Bob" > wrote in message
...
> Allan wrote:
>
> > Clinton was indicted by a Republican House. He was tried by a
Republican
> > Senate. He was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice. He was
> > found "Not Guilty" on both counts.
>
> This is factually wrong. Clinton was found guilty. The Senate didn't vote
on
> Clinton's guilt or innocence; its function was to presume guilt (because
> he'd already been found guilty by the House of Representatives) and then
> vote whether or not to remove him from office. If you want to compare
> impeachment to a judicial procedure (which it isn't), then a more accurate
> analogy would be that the House determined guilt or innocence and the
Senate
> determined the sentence.
>
> Yes, Clinton *did* get away with perjury, but he was never tried for it in
a
> "real" court, i.e., a court which was part of the judicial branch of
> government.
>
> Bob
>
>

You are really ignorant of the impeachment process. The original poster is
correct in the way things work.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.