>(SportKite1) idolizes a felon:
>
>>From: Dave Smith
>
>>But what about the honest people who lost a substantial portion of their
>hard
>>earned savings because of her crooked dealings?
>
>Hmmm...I was always under the impression that playing the stocks was a gamble
>to begin with. If one invests their life's savings solely into a stock such
>as
>this one to begin with, I'd say that person was a fool and deserved what they
>got.
>
>Ellen

Now that is really ignorant... the odds are high enough... would you expect the
games in Vegas to be fixed too, they don't need to be, the games are all in
favor of the house. But the stock market confers a very different kind of
risk, much more measured, and folks don't expect cheating. What Mothra did is
tantamount to slipping in a pair of loaded dice... was a time she'd be shot on
the spot for cheating... she deserves no mercy... I'd give her the full 20
years and strip her of all her wealth, and at that she should consider herself
very fortunate... her kind of crime harms a lot of innocent familys. And the
fact that others stole more by the same means has no bearing... given the
opportunity she'd have stole more, and by her demeaner she'd do it again.
Leave the douche bag to rot.


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

Nancy Young wrote:

> > > The insider trading charges were dismissed, so my question is, how can
> > > Martha be charged with obstruction of justice and lying about something
> > > (insider trading) that she didn't do? Seems like the dismissal of the
> > > first charge makes the others a moot point.
> >
> > The insider trading charges were dismissed due to a lack of evidence
> > on the part of the prosecutors. That does not mean Martha did not commit
> > insider trading, only that it could not be proven. Perhaps if Martha had
> > not lied to the SEC, she would have gotten convicted on the insider
> > trading charge.
>
> I don't believe she was ever charged with insider trading. She can't,
> she is not an insider.

You do not have to be an insider to be guilty of insider trading. The person
who trades stocks based on information that was passed on them by the insider
is as guilty as the insider who passed it on.

SportKite1 wrote:

> >But what about the honest people who lost a substantial portion of their hard
> >earned savings because of her crooked dealings?
>
> Hmmm...I was always under the impression that playing the stocks was a gamble
> to begin with. If one invests their life's savings solely into a stock such as
> this one to begin with, I'd say that person was a fool and deserved what they
> got.

The stock market is indeed a gamble. In fact, a stock broker I know once told me
that if I had money to invest I would probably be better off to take it to the
race track and bet on the horses.

Never the less, the stock market is supposed to be an honest system whereby
companies can raise money through the issuance of stocks, and when the company
succeeds and makes a profit, the value of the shares goes up. It is enough of a
risk to invest in a company without a proven track record, but we seem to have a
whole new generation of people in business who seem to be more interested in
manipulating stock values and screwing their investors out of their money than
they are in running a profitable business.

Dave Smith wrote:

> we seem to have a
> whole new generation of people in business who seem to be more interested in
> manipulating stock values and screwing their investors out of their money than
> they are in running a profitable business.


There's nothing new about stock manipulation. The stock market crash of
1929 was the result of it, among other things. The SEC was created in the
aftermath to try and address the problem.

Stock market manipulation is a part of our national history. Almost the
entire Kennedy fortune was created by stock manipulation (the remainder
being the result of very profitable rum running operation).

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com

Dave Smith wrote:

> we seem to have a
> whole new generation of people in business who seem to be more interested in
> manipulating stock values and screwing their investors out of their money than
> they are in running a profitable business.


There's nothing new about stock manipulation. The stock market crash of
1929 was the result of it, among other things. The SEC was created in the
aftermath to try and address the problem.

Stock market manipulation is a part of our national history. Almost the
entire Kennedy fortune was created by stock manipulation (the remainder
being the result of very profitable rum running operation).

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> Nancy Young wrote:
>
> > > > The insider trading charges were dismissed, so my question is, how can
> > > > Martha be charged with obstruction of justice and lying about something
> > > > (insider trading) that she didn't do? Seems like the dismissal of the
> > > > first charge makes the others a moot point.
> > >
> > > The insider trading charges were dismissed due to a lack of evidence
> > > on the part of the prosecutors. That does not mean Martha did not commit
> > > insider trading, only that it could not be proven. Perhaps if Martha had
> > > not lied to the SEC, she would have gotten convicted on the insider
> > > trading charge.
> >
> > I don't believe she was ever charged with insider trading. She can't,
> > she is not an insider.
>
> You do not have to be an insider to be guilty of insider trading. The person
> who trades stocks based on information that was passed on them by the insider
> is as guilty as the insider who passed it on.

She was not charged with insider trading unless I am very much
mistaken. And I think you're wrong about that, no offense at all
intended.

nancy

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> Nancy Young wrote:
>
> > > > The insider trading charges were dismissed, so my question is, how can
> > > > Martha be charged with obstruction of justice and lying about something
> > > > (insider trading) that she didn't do? Seems like the dismissal of the
> > > > first charge makes the others a moot point.
> > >
> > > The insider trading charges were dismissed due to a lack of evidence
> > > on the part of the prosecutors. That does not mean Martha did not commit
> > > insider trading, only that it could not be proven. Perhaps if Martha had
> > > not lied to the SEC, she would have gotten convicted on the insider
> > > trading charge.
> >
> > I don't believe she was ever charged with insider trading. She can't,
> > she is not an insider.
>
> You do not have to be an insider to be guilty of insider trading. The person
> who trades stocks based on information that was passed on them by the insider
> is as guilty as the insider who passed it on.

She was not charged with insider trading unless I am very much
mistaken. And I think you're wrong about that, no offense at all
intended.

nancy

Nancy Young wrote:

> She was not charged with insider trading unless I am very much
> mistaken. And I think you're wrong about that, no offense at all
> intended.

You are correct that the insider trading charge was dropped, but
I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of US law.

If you know a material fact about a company, and that information is not
available to the general public, and you use the information in your
trading, you are guilty of insider trading.

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com

Nancy Young wrote:

>
> > > > The insider trading charges were dismissed due to a lack of evidence
> > > > on the part of the prosecutors. That does not mean Martha did not commit
> > > > insider trading, only that it could not be proven. Perhaps if Martha had
> > > > not lied to the SEC, she would have gotten convicted on the insider
> > > > trading charge.
> > >
> > > I don't believe she was ever charged with insider trading. She can't,
> > > she is not an insider.
> >
> > You do not have to be an insider to be guilty of insider trading. The person
> > who trades stocks based on information that was passed on them by the insider
> > is as guilty as the insider who passed it on.
>
> She was not charged with insider trading unless I am very much
> mistaken. And I think you're wrong about that, no offense at all
> intended.
>

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...al/8130039.htm

Insider trading charges were apparently stayed pending the outcome of the trials on
the other charges. She still faces those insider trading charges. And if you think
that insider trading does not involve the recipient of the tips, check out this
side from the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...al/8130039.htm

Reg wrote:

> Nancy Young wrote:
>
> > She was not charged with insider trading unless I am very much
> > mistaken. And I think you're wrong about that, no offense at all
> > intended.
>
> You are correct that the insider trading charge was dropped, but
> I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of US law.

The charges were not dropped. They were stayed pending the results of the
other trials.

>

Nancy Young wrote:

> Can someone please look up what charges were dropped?

I think it was in the "Securities Fraud" category, not
insider trading.

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com

Reg wrote:
>
> Nancy Young wrote:
>
> > Can someone please look up what charges were dropped?
>
> I think it was in the "Securities Fraud" category, not
> insider trading.

Exactly! Thank you, Reg. Sorry, I could have looked it up but I'm
trying to clean up from my first potsticker making experiment. She
was charged with defrauding her stockholders, not insider trading.

nancy (note to self, do not add water to hot oil)

Nancy Young wrote:

> Exactly! Thank you, Reg. Sorry, I could have looked it up but I'm
> trying to clean up from my first potsticker making experiment. She
> was charged with defrauding her stockholders, not insider trading.

Yes. The logic behind it was somewhat convoluted, enough for the judge
to call it a "novel" interpretation of the law. She was accused of a crime,
and by asserting her innocence she was trying to defraud her investors
and therefore guilty of a yet another crime. Very, very weird.

The US Justice Department never intended that charge to stick (they
must not have given the judge was practically laughing under her breath
about it) but they succeeded in cornering Martha. She lied under oath (a
Justice Department investigation is, in effect, a deposition and is conducted
under oath) and that's all was required for a successful prosecution.

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com

Dave Smith wrote:

> http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...al/8130039.htm
>
> Insider trading charges were apparently stayed pending the outcome of the trials on
> the other charges. She still faces those insider trading charges. And if you think
> that insider trading does not involve the recipient of the tips, check out this
> side from the US Securities and Exchange Commission.
>
> http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...al/8130039.htm
>

Dave, what you're referring to are civil charges, not criminal Very different.

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Nexis wrote:
>
> >
> > >
> > > Of course not, because to her, a fine of a few thousand dollars is
> > > pocket change. That same fine would ruin my finances for years. Fines
> > > should be proportionate to the person's net worth. Martha probably has
a
> > > few hundred million dollars worth of assets, so fine her half. Even to
a
> > > multi-millionare, half of her money is a huge blow.
> >
> > Except that the fines are already more than a few thousand bucks...not
to
> > mention she lost 1/4 of her worth the day she was convicted. She was
worth
> > around 4.5 million in the morning, down to just over 3 in the afternoon.
>
> But what about the honest people who lost a substantial portion of their
hard
> earned savings because of her crooked dealings? There have been a
significant
> number of crooked stock deals. People have invested their savings under
the
> belief that properly invested money will grow and provide them with
financial
> security, and at the same time, helping the national economy to grow.
> Meanwhile, shifty CEOs and major investors are working out crooked deals
to
> grab a quick profit at the expense of the legitimate investors.

Actually, I hadn't addressed her crime at all in that post, only the fact
that the fines weren't "a few thousand dollars" and that the fines were not
the only financial loss.
Stock is a risky proposition under any circumstance, and people should only
go into it knowing that they can lose the money. I'm not saying what she did
was right, but I guarantee you 90% of the people in the world would sell off
a stock if they knew, for whatever reason, that they were about to be
flocked if they didn't. Anyone who says otherwise is either unrealistic or
lying or possibly the Pope.
Personally, I think the lot of them (after all, she didn't get this info in
a premonition) should have to pay the people who did lose money everything
they lost.

kimberly
>

"PENMART01" > wrote in message
...

>
> Now that is really ignorant... the odds are high enough... would you
expect the
> games in Vegas to be fixed too, they don't need to be, the games are all
in
> favor of the house.

Except Baccarat. The odds are 50/50, which is why the house makes you pay
(generally 5%) on bank bets.

kimberly

>
> ---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =---
> ---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
> Sheldon
> ````````````
> "Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."
>

Reg wrote:

>
> > the other charges. She still faces those insider trading charges. And if you think
> > that insider trading does not involve the recipient of the tips, check out this
> > side from the US Securities and Exchange Commission.
> >
> > http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...al/8130039.htm
> >
>
> Dave, what you're referring to are civil charges, not criminal Very different.
>
>

Never the less, according to that newspaper report, she is still facing charges for
insider trading.

Nexis wrote:

>
>
> Stock is a risky proposition under any circumstance, and people should only
> go into it knowing that they can lose the money. I'm not saying what she did
> was right, but I guarantee you 90% of the people in the world would sell off
> a stock if they knew, for whatever reason, that they were about to be
> flocked if they didn't. Anyone who says otherwise is either unrealistic or
> lying or possibly the Pope.

Of course they would sell if they knew that their stock was about to down the
dumper. That's why there are regulations against disclosing information about
stocks privately when the same information is not publicly known. From what I
understand of Stewart's case, she was advised by an insider that there was about
to be an announcement about a company in which she held stock, and that
announcement would make the stock value plummet. By selling early she avoided a
huge loss.

> Personally, I think the lot of them (after all, she didn't get this info in
> a premonition) should have to pay the people who did lose money everything
> they lost.

Sure. I can go for that.... restitution to the losers in addition to a penalty.

>Stock is a risky proposition under any circumstance, and people should only
>go into it knowing that they can lose the money.

That's not entirely true, stock is rated according to risk... many folks invest
in stock with the most secure ratings for slow growth in the long haul, not to
get rich quick... Mothra's stock was a secure rated stock, now it's value is
crap, entirely because of that greedy low life' bitches horrendous criminal
behaviour, she didn't play by the rules, she's a common cheat. She needs to be
made to pay to make all those investors whole again and then even more for the
pain and suffering they endured due to Mothra's criminal business dealings.
There is no reason to believe Mothra hasn't been breaking the rules all along,
now she got caught and needs to be made to suffer the consequenses... I have no
mercy for her kind of pick pocket douche bag... lock her in a small cage and
throw away the key... give her curtains... I wouldn't give the greedy bitch a
window. An awful lot of hard working familys will suffer for a very long time
because that arrogant bitch thinks her shit doesn't stink... TWENTY YEARS she
deserves.


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

Let he who would not sell stock on a tip, cast the first stone. Did
Martha Stewart lie? Of course she did. Did she have any choice.
Absolutely not. Would anybody who has been caught smoking pot, claim
that he or she is guilty of trafficking. Of course not. Clearly, no
self respecting Prosecutor would expect Martha Stewart to tell the
truth, under the circumstances, and any suggestion that Martha Stewart
deserves to go to jail for lying is absolutely preposterous.

Make no mistake about it, Martha Stewart was not prosecuted, she was
entrapped.

The jury that convicted Martha Stewart harbors the delusion that they
have sent a message to the little investor, but the exact opposite is
in fact true. The jury sent the clear message that if you have
Republican connections and you lie to the American people [somebody
like John Poindexter] the Federal Government will hire you. If you are
Democrat like Martha Stewart, you will be entrapped.

The business of America is business, and Marthe Stewart is the very
best. This witchhunt has sent the clear message that if you are an
intelligent business person, and you do the right thing [tell a little
white lie to protect your stockholders] the Federal Government will
destroy you. I think the idiots who targeted Martha Stewart and turned
the world of the little investors who relied on the value of her company
stock, upside down, are as guilty as Enron's, Ken Lay is. If Martha
Stewart spends a single day in jail, the do-nothing regime of an idiotic
administration that is screwing the small investor, should collapse even
faster than Howard Dean did.

http://www.geocities.com/tom5515/rise.htm

Mike Walton wrote:

> Let he who would not sell stock on a tip, cast the first stone.

Anyone in their right mind would. But that is why there are regulations
against it.

> Make no mistake about it, Martha Stewart was not prosecuted, she was
> entrapped.

???? WTF are you talking about. She received a tip from someone with inside
information. That person was a friend of hers, not a cop. She used to be a
stockbroker, so she should have known better. In fact, she did know better,
which is why she changed the message on her log. She willfully engaged in
criminal behaviour.

On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 20:10:16 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>Of course they would sell if they knew that their stock was about to down the
>dumper. That's why there are regulations against disclosing information about
>stocks privately when the same information is not publicly known. From what I
>understand of Stewart's case, she was advised by an insider that there was about
>to be an announcement about a company in which she held stock, and that
>announcement would make the stock value plummet. By selling early she avoided a
>huge loss.

My understanding is that she received information from with access to
non-publically disclosed information about the actions of an insider.
That is, her broker told here the president of the company was unloading
his shares.

So, what would you or I do in that case? Say "damn, wish I could sell
mine" or say "Well, dump mine too"? The broker definitely violated the
law by disclosing confidential information. The big problem is that
Martha was a stock broker, so she knew better.

Dave Smith wrote:

> Never the less, according to that newspaper report, she is still facing charges for
> insider trading.

Civil charges, plus lawsuits, will be dogging her for years. I expect
there will be a class action suit by MSO investors at some point.

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com

On 8 Mar 2004 17:38:28 -0800, (Mike Walton)
arranged random neurons, so they looked like this:

>Let he who would not sell stock on a tip, cast the first stone. Did
>Martha Stewart lie? Of course she did. Did she have any choice.
>Absolutely not.

Are you nuts? She didn't have a choice? Let's just suppose, for the
sake of argument, that, when whatever governmental entity first
inquired, she had slapped her cheeks, looked chagrined, and said, "Oh,
my God! What was I thinking? You're absolutely right! That was an
insider thingy, wasn't it? Oh, please, please, forgive me!" You think
she'd be facing jail time now? I don't *think* so. A hefty fine, yes,
but nothing worse, IMHO.

>Would anybody who has been caught smoking pot, claim
>that he or she is guilty of trafficking. Of course not. Clearly, no
>self respecting Prosecutor would expect Martha Stewart to tell the
>truth, under the circumstances, and any suggestion that Martha Stewart
>deserves to go to jail for lying is absolutely preposterous.

Oh, I see - we have our tongue firmly in our cheek, do we? At least, I
hope so.
>
>Make no mistake about it, Martha Stewart was not prosecuted, she was
>entrapped.

Let me define the legal word, "entrapment": n. in criminal law, the
act of law enforcement officers or government agents inducing or
encouraging a person to commit a crime when the potential criminal
expresses a desire not to go ahead. The key to entrapment is whether
the idea for the commission or encouragement of the criminal act
originated with the police or government agents instead of with the
"criminal." Entrapment, if proved, is a defense to a criminal
prosecution. The accused often claims entrapment in so-called "stings"
in which undercover agents buy or sell narcotics, prostitutes'
services or arrange to purchase goods believed to be stolen. The
factual question is: Would Johnny Begood have purchased the drugs if
not pressed by the narc?

Now, IIRC, Martha voluntarily lied. Was not induced to lie. Was not
refusing to recant the lie, no? Thus, no "entrapment." Puhleeze.
>
>The jury that convicted Martha Stewart harbors the delusion that they
>have sent a message to the little investor, but the exact opposite is
>in fact true. The jury sent the clear message that if you have
>Republican connections and you lie to the American people [somebody
>like John Poindexter] the Federal Government will hire you. If you are
> Democrat like Martha Stewart, you will be entrapped.

I am as big a liberal Democrat as the next person, but I believe you
are mixing apples and oranges. I infer that you are referring to Ken
Lay, et al? Charges are still being teed up, and if nothing happens to
these miscreants, maybe President Kerry can take care of the little
beggars.
>
>The business of America is business, and Marthe Stewart is the very
>best. This witchhunt has sent the clear message that if you are an
>intelligent business person, and you do the right thing [tell a little
>white lie to protect your stockholders] the Federal Government will
>destroy you.

"...do the right thing (tell a little white lie to protect your
stockholders)..."?? Are you nuts? You really think Martha lied to
agents of the federal government for her *stockholders* benefit? And
you really think this was a "little white lie"? A "little white lie"
is when I tell my DH that his gawdawful haircut looks good on him, not
that I didn't get insider information to sell a stock that's going to
tank.

>I think the idiots who targeted Martha Stewart and turned
>the world of the little investors who relied on the value of her company
>stock, upside down, are as guilty as Enron's, Ken Lay is. If Martha
>Stewart spends a single day in jail, the do-nothing regime of an idiotic
>administration that is screwing the small investor, should collapse even
>faster than Howard Dean did.

So, just how much Martha stock do you own? You cannot *begin* to
compare Ken Lay with Martha Stewart. Lay's actions destroyed people's
lives and, I daresay, a LOT of Enron's investors were "little
investors." I have a feeling that we're on the same approximate
political page, but Martha lied and lies have consequences. Ken Lay
will have his own particular level of hell with which to deal, I do so
dearly hope.

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
AAC(F)BV66.0748.CA

"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret
had been as old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had
been as full as the waitress', it would have been a very
good dinner." Anonymous.

To reply, remove replace "shcox" with "cox"

Mike Walton wrote:
> Make no mistake about it, Martha Stewart was not prosecuted, she was
> entrapped.

Trapped, maybe, but not "entrapped." That is a crime that police commit
when they encourage someone to commit a crime who is not predisposed to
commit the crime (this is why they can sting drug dealers and get away
with it, but not ordinary people with clean drug records).

Anyway, as the other poster said, this was not a police operation, so
"entrapment" is not even applicable.

> The jury sent the clear message that if you have Republican
> connections and you lie to the American people [somebody like John
> Poindexter] the Federal Government will hire you. If you are Democrat
> like Martha Stewart, you will be entrapped.

What about me, a registered Libertarian? They won't entrap me, but won't
hire me... either they just leave me alone or I get the death penalty
for standing for freedom ;-)

> The business of America is business...

True. My U.S. History I professor, a PhD, drilled that into our heads
many times. It is sad, in a way, but good, in a way.

> If Martha Stewart spends a single day in jail, the do-nothing regime
> of an idiotic administration that is screwing the small investor,
> should collapse even faster than Howard Dean did.

I hope Asscroft dies under the surgeon's blade. And I hope Bush loses
the next election. I may be a Christian, but that does not mean I will
not go to Hell ;-)

--
John Gaughan
http://www.johngaughan.net/

Reg > wrote in
om:

> Dave Smith wrote:
>
>> we seem to have a
>> whole new generation of people in business who seem to be more
>> interested in manipulating stock values and screwing their investors
>> out of their money than they are in running a profitable business.
>
>
> There's nothing new about stock manipulation. The stock market crash
> of 1929 was the result of it, among other things. The SEC was created
> in the aftermath to try and address the problem.
>
> Stock market manipulation is a part of our national history. Almost
> the entire Kennedy fortune was created by stock manipulation (the
> remainder being the result of very profitable rum running operation).
>

That and the debauchery of all the males.

Such an illustrious family!

On 03/08/2004 5:41 PM, in article , "Dave
Smith" > opined:

> Mike Walton wrote:
>
>> Let he who would not sell stock on a tip, cast the first stone.
>
> Anyone in their right mind would. But that is why there are regulations
> against it.
>
>> Make no mistake about it, Martha Stewart was not prosecuted, she was
>> entrapped.
>
> ???? WTF are you talking about. She received a tip from someone with inside
> information. That person was a friend of hers, not a cop. She used to be a
> stockbroker, so she should have known better. In fact, she did know better,
> which is why she changed the message on her log. She willfully engaged in
> criminal behaviour.
>
>
Actually what she did was lie to the feds which is not a bright move.
--
================================================== ========================
"If George W. Bush announced that a cure for cancer had been discovered,
Democrats would complain about unemployed laboratory rats," Ann Coulter.
================================================== ========================

More accurately, justice has to have been seen to have been done. Her
profile is high so she has become an example. However, she's a woman. Lets
wait and see what happens to Ebbers, whose crimes where far worse, IMO.

Robin (not a woman, BTW)

"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> "<RJ>" > wrote in message
>
> > Martha acted on a tip from her broker. ( who doesn't ? )
> > She acted on it, and got caught
> >
>
> This was not just a tip from the broker. It was relayed information from
an
> inside source. It is illegal. You and I don't get tips like she got.
Then
> she lied.
>
> Maybe she does not deserve 20 years, but there must be some punishment for
> the crime.
> Ed
>
>
>

"larry" > wrote in message >. ..
> Well she lied, cheated, stole and got caught.. so I guess she deserves to
> go to JAIL. I think they should fine the #%&$ out of her and put her
> back to work to pay some big taxes. But on the other hand those with
> plenty of money are not very afraid of paying a fine.. big deal.. but some
> time in stripes scares nearly everybody.
>
>
> Laurence

From today's Washington Times

Saving the streets from Martha Stewart


By Wesley Pruden


We'll all sleep better now, feeling safe and secure in our beds (with
or without flowered sheets). The feds are finally getting Martha
Stewart off the streets.
Her expensively coiffed scalp will look nice on the wall behind
the desk of the U.S. district attorney who led the prosecution.
Martha, who insists on things being done right, will help him choose
the appropriate presentation for her scalp. A mahogany frame against a
deep red matte ought to set off Martha's blonde locks in an elegant
and fetching way.
Some of the reporters and pundits who are offended most by
Martha's advocacy of grown-up clothes and neat hair, orderly digs, and
flowers and dishes arranged for a king's most demanding subjects
haven't had so much fun since the feds hounded Jim and Tammy Faye
Bakker into prison and oblivion for overbooking their hotel.
The first juror who spoke up after the verdict called throwing
Miss Stewart into the slammer a victory for "the average guy." You
could hear in his voice the triumphant note of revenge done well.
"Maybe it's a victory for the little guy who loses money in the
markets because of these types of transactions, the people who lose
money in 401(k) plans," said Chappell Hartridge, 47, a computer
programmer who talks too much. "Maybe it might give the average guy a
little more confident feeling that can invest in the market and
everything will be on the up and up."
Well, maybe. But making Martha Stewart an example for a seminar on
prudent investing is a bizarre use of a federal criminal trial,
particularly since the feds' bill of particulars was thin soup to
begin with and made more so when the judge threw out the charge of
insider trading, the only blob of genuine bone and fat in the pot.
Juror Hartridge and his prejudices, it now seems clear, was exactly
what the feds were counting on to save them from the humiliation of a
collapsing railroad job.
Miss Stewart, by all accounts, is not very nice: Arrogance,
haughtiness, self-importance and a condescending manner are no more
attractive in a Connecticut maven of gracious living than in, for
example, a presidential candidate from Massachusetts. A nice Polish
girl from New Jersey got into trouble in the first place by hanging
out with the wrong crowd, the swells and belles of the Upper East Side
who summer on Long Island Sound. She should have listened to her mama,
who knew that hanging out with the wrong crowd is guaranteed to get a
girl into trouble, and not necessarily the kind of trouble a girl can
get into between flowered sheets. One of the cable-TV talking heads, a
woman who was once a federal prosecutor, called Miss Stewart the
prototypical "rich bitch," showing up in court in her furs, jewels and
designer dresses. Indeed, her expensive lawyers should have taken her
back to New Jersey to find a Wal-Mart to deck her out in a peasant
frock. They could have returned to Lower Manhattan to warn some of her
celebrity friends, such as Rosie O'Donnell and Bill Cosby, to stay
away from the courthouse if they really wanted to help.
"If anything," the voluble Juror Hartridge said of the parade of
Martha's rich and famous friends, "we may have taken it a little as an
insult. Is that supposed to sway our opinion?"
In a word, yes. That's the way lawyers play the game. This time,
the defense trick worked instead for the prosecution. Miss Stewart may
be entitled to a rebate from her lawyers.
But Martha Stewart was not indicted on the charge of bitchery,
witchery or even slickery. She was indicted on charges of conspiracy,
obstruction of justice and making false statements to federal agents,
who are themselves enabled by the law to lie. The government even
suggested that she was guilty of "lying" simply for saying that she
was innocent of wrongdoing. This is pretty rich from the side that
gets to mark the cards.
We've always taken a certain pride in the proposition that in
America, class doesn't count, that we look out for the poor but don't
begrudge the rich their wealth. We look to them as an example of how
to make it to a million-dollar mansion on Coffee Pot Lane. Recent
decades of class warfare, abetted by the rich, the pampered and the
celebrated who play at populism, have changed that. Greed has replaced
religion as the national religion, and with greed comes envy.
Martha Stewart's transgressions were more sins than crimes, and
learning a little humility is never a bad thing. But when the
government commits vendetta, the sin becomes a crime. The government
ought to be ashamed of its bullying self.


Wesley Pruden is editor in chief of The Times.

(Steve Dufour) wrote in message . com>...
> "larry" > wrote in message >. ..
> > Well she lied, cheated, stole and got caught.. so I guess she deserves to
> > go to JAIL. I think they should fine the #%&$ out of her and put her
> > back to work to pay some big taxes. But on the other hand those with
> > plenty of money are not very afraid of paying a fine.. big deal.. but some
> > time in stripes scares nearly everybody.
> >
> >
> > Laurence
>
> From today's Washington Times
>
> Saving the streets from Martha Stewart


she's had her comeuppance.



http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/8137164.htm

Posted on Mon, Mar. 08, 2004


Kerry alternately pleases, befuddles Arab Americans and Jews

By James Kuhnhenn

Knight Ridder Newspapers


WASHINGTON - Sen. John Kerry is a former altar boy with a Jewish
heritage that includes at least two victims of the Holocaust in his
family tree. His brother converted to Judaism. He supports Israel. So
he should be a cinch with Jewish voters and donors, yes?


Not quite.


Over the past few months, wary leaders of the Jewish community have
questioned Kerry's stance on the Middle East. Many were incensed when
he told Arab-Americans in October that Israel's security fence
presented a "barrier to peace."


They've urged him to clarify his position and warned that Jews, a
reliable Democratic bloc in the past, are politically in play after
President Bush's forceful post-Sept. 11, 2001, policies in the Middle
East.


"The Jewish community has not been a battleground until now," said
Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., who attended a question-filled session
between Kerry and Jewish leaders last week in New York.


For Kerry, holding on to Jewish voters is especially important in
states such as Florida. So far, Kerry has fared well with Jews as he
has moved to secure the Democratic Party nomination, but the Sunshine
State could be crucial in November's general election, and Jewish
defections to Bush could cost Kerry the state.


The closely divided U.S. electorate, however, has led Kerry to perform
a political high-wire act.


Arab-Americans are also becoming a political force and constitute a
sizable voting bloc in states such as Michigan and Pennsylvania. Kerry
has gone out of his way to appeal for their votes. He has scored with
his criticism of Attorney General John Ashcroft, whom many
Arab-Americans accuse of civil rights violations in the aftermath of
Sept. 11.


"We feel closer to Senator Kerry than we did to many of the other
(Democratic) candidates who were running," said James Zogby, founder
and president of the Arab American Institute, an advocacy group for
Arab-Americans.




Zogby pointed out that Ralph Nader, who is of Lebanese ancestry,
received more than 13 percent of the Arab-American vote in 2000. More
than 80 percent of those voters, Zogby said, chose Nader because of
his pro-Arab stance on Middle East policy.


"There's something there (for Kerry) to be concerned about," Zogby
said.


The Middle East thicket also could affect Kerry's ability to raise
money. Jewish contributors have always been a staple of the Democratic
donor base. With President Bush armed with a record-setting campaign
treasury, any slippage in fund raising could be disastrous.


"Among the Democratic voter base for whom Israel is a seminal issue,
there are many more who are writing checks to Republicans than I have
ever seen," said Weiner, a Kerry supporter.


The Middle East also poses another problem for Kerry: It illustrates
the criticism that he equivocates on issues.


In his speech to Arab-Americans in Dearborn, Mich., in October, Kerry
said Israel's security fence was "provocative and counterproductive"
and presented a "barrier to peace."


He also said that, if elected president, he would name former
President Jimmy Carter or former Secretary of State James Baker as
peace envoys to the region.


But many Jewish leaders have long perceived Carter and Baker as being
tougher on Israel than on Arab countries and object to giving them
negotiating roles.


At his meeting with about 50 Jewish leaders in New York on Feb. 28,
Kerry backed off and offered to send President Clinton's former
national security adviser Samuel "Sandy" Berger and his special Middle
East envoy, Dennis Ross, as his intermediaries.


Kerry also has been a persistent critic of President Bush's foreign
policy, calling it arrogant and inept and has demanded a greater role
for the United Nations. That sparked a question from Jack Rosen, the
president of the American Jewish Congress.


"Given his position on the question of multilateralism and knowing
that the United Nations has not been a kind home for the Israelis ...
would he continue to maintain the current Bush policy of vetoing any
one-sided resolution at the U.N. Security Council," Rosen said he
asked. "He quickly reacted and said he would maintain that same
policy."



[ just listen to this guy. is there any question that he's putting
israeli security interests ahead of american security interests? does
he even consider american security interests after 9/11? ]



Kerry also repeated his assertion, made in a debate earlier in the
day, that the fence is "necessary to the security of Israel until they
have a partner to be able to negotiate." Campaign spokesman David Wade
later said the objections Kerry expressed in Michigan about the fence
were based on its proposed location inside the West Bank, not on
Israel's right to build it.


Rosen, a longtime Democrat, is a fan of Bush's Middle East policy and
gave $100,000 to the Republican National Committee in 2002. He said
that while Kerry has a long pro-Israel record, he was withholding
final judgment.



[ $100,000 to the RNC in 2002? and now he's "withholding final
judgment?" about kerry? **** rosen. he's not a democrat, he's
another ****ing neocon who's putting israeli security interests ahead
of american security. until rosen gives $100,000 to the dem party, i
say dems should "withhold final judgment" that he's still a democrat.

republicans can have all the israel-first jews that they want. dems
don't need them for this election, and after defeating bush, maybe
this whole jewish lobby mystique can finally be put to rest and they
can go run into the arms of their newfound nascar/kkk buddies in the
republican party.

look at lieberman's candidacy. look at the success of mel gibson's
movie even though the hysterically pro-semitic media overwhelmingly
criticized it. they ain't all that. the vast majority of americans
are NOT fixated on full-tilt support of israel. if dem jews can't
understand that the best way to reduce anti-semitism in the long term
is NOT having the most incompetent president in modern history be
their champion for israel, then they're a lot more emotional, and a
lot less smarter than they appear.]





"You can't go to Michigan and give nuances to one crowd and then come
to New York and give nuances to another crowd," he said.


Former New York Mayor Ed Koch, a lifelong Democrat turned Bush
supporter, exemplifies the problem Kerry faces.


"I am for Bush because I think his position on international terrorism
and the Bush doctrine, which is we will go after terrorists and
countries who harbor them, trumps everything else," Koch said. "I
don't agree with any domestic position he has taken."


In meetings with Jewish backers, Kerry reminds them that his brother
Cameron converted to Judaism and that his sister-in-law is Jewish.
Kerry also mentions his Jewish ancestry - his grandparents on his
father's side were Jewish.


Last week, an Austrian genealogist hired by the Boston Globe
discovered that Kerry's grandmother's sister and brother, Jenny and
Otto Lowe, died in the Holocaust. On his Web site, genealogist Felix
Gundacker said Otto Lowe was murdered in the Theresienstadt ghetto in
Czechoslovakia in 1943. Jenny Lowe disappeared in the Treblinka death
camp.


Two weeks ago, aboard his campaign plane, Kerry voiced concern about
the resurgence of anti-Jewish sentiment in America and abroad. Asked
whether he intended to watch Mel Gibson's controversial "The Passion
of the Christ," Kerry said he was unsure.


"I'm concerned about the anti-Semitism message," he said. "I don't
know if it's there or not there. But it's a concern. There's a lot of
that around right now. There's a lot in Europe. There's a lot in other
parts of the country. I think we have to be careful of it."

"SportKite1" > wrote in message
>
> Hmmm...I was always under the impression that playing the stocks was a
gamble
> to begin with. If one invests their life's savings solely into a stock
such as
> this one to begin with, I'd say that person was a fool and deserved what
they
> got.
>
> Ellen

They deserve to get screwed by someone doing illegal stock trading or
manipulation? You have to be an idiot to think that.

Stocks are a risk investment, not a gamble and you don't "play" the market.
You play games of chance in a casino. You invest in stocks.
Ed

> wrote in message

>
> I live across
> from a park and at least once each spring, I see the prisoners out
> picking up trash and they're dressed in all orange attire.
>
>

Orange in the spring? Surely Martha will take care of the fashions when she
gets there.
Ed

(Steve Dufour) wrote in
om:

> "larry" > wrote in message
> >. ..
>> Well she lied, cheated, stole and got caught.. so I guess she deserves
>> to go to JAIL. I think they should fine the #%&$ out of her and put
>> her back to work to pay some big taxes. But on the other hand those
>> with plenty of money are not very afraid of paying a fine.. big deal..
>> but some time in stripes scares nearly everybody.
>>
>>
>> Laurence
>
> From today's Washington Times
>
> Saving the streets from Martha Stewart
>
>
> By Wesley Pruden
>
>
> We'll all sleep better now, feeling safe and secure in our beds (with
> or without flowered sheets). The feds are finally getting Martha
> Stewart off the streets.
> Her expensively coiffed scalp will look nice on the wall behind
> the desk of the U.S. district attorney who led the prosecution.
> Martha, who insists on things being done right, will help him choose
> the appropriate presentation for her scalp. A mahogany frame against a
> deep red matte ought to set off Martha's blonde locks in an elegant
> and fetching way.
> Some of the reporters and pundits who are offended most by
> Martha's advocacy of grown-up clothes and neat hair, orderly digs, and
> flowers and dishes arranged for a king's most demanding subjects
> haven't had so much fun since the feds hounded Jim and Tammy Faye
> Bakker into prison and oblivion for overbooking their hotel.
> The first juror who spoke up after the verdict called throwing
> Miss Stewart into the slammer a victory for "the average guy." You
> could hear in his voice the triumphant note of revenge done well.
> "Maybe it's a victory for the little guy who loses money in the
> markets because of these types of transactions, the people who lose
> money in 401(k) plans," said Chappell Hartridge, 47, a computer
> programmer who talks too much. "Maybe it might give the average guy a
> little more confident feeling that can invest in the market and
> everything will be on the up and up."
> Well, maybe. But making Martha Stewart an example for a seminar on
> prudent investing is a bizarre use of a federal criminal trial,
> particularly since the feds' bill of particulars was thin soup to
> begin with and made more so when the judge threw out the charge of
> insider trading, the only blob of genuine bone and fat in the pot.
> Juror Hartridge and his prejudices, it now seems clear, was exactly
> what the feds were counting on to save them from the humiliation of a
> collapsing railroad job.
> Miss Stewart, by all accounts, is not very nice: Arrogance,
> haughtiness, self-importance and a condescending manner are no more
> attractive in a Connecticut maven of gracious living than in, for
> example, a presidential candidate from Massachusetts. A nice Polish
> girl from New Jersey got into trouble in the first place by hanging
> out with the wrong crowd, the swells and belles of the Upper East Side
> who summer on Long Island Sound. She should have listened to her mama,
> who knew that hanging out with the wrong crowd is guaranteed to get a
> girl into trouble, and not necessarily the kind of trouble a girl can
> get into between flowered sheets. One of the cable-TV talking heads, a
> woman who was once a federal prosecutor, called Miss Stewart the
> prototypical "rich bitch," showing up in court in her furs, jewels and
> designer dresses. Indeed, her expensive lawyers should have taken her
> back to New Jersey to find a Wal-Mart to deck her out in a peasant
> frock. They could have returned to Lower Manhattan to warn some of her
> celebrity friends, such as Rosie O'Donnell and Bill Cosby, to stay
> away from the courthouse if they really wanted to help.
> "If anything," the voluble Juror Hartridge said of the parade of
> Martha's rich and famous friends, "we may have taken it a little as an
> insult. Is that supposed to sway our opinion?"
> In a word, yes. That's the way lawyers play the game. This time,
> the defense trick worked instead for the prosecution. Miss Stewart may
> be entitled to a rebate from her lawyers.
> But Martha Stewart was not indicted on the charge of bitchery,
> witchery or even slickery. She was indicted on charges of conspiracy,
> obstruction of justice and making false statements to federal agents,
> who are themselves enabled by the law to lie. The government even
> suggested that she was guilty of "lying" simply for saying that she
> was innocent of wrongdoing. This is pretty rich from the side that
> gets to mark the cards.
> We've always taken a certain pride in the proposition that in
> America, class doesn't count, that we look out for the poor but don't
> begrudge the rich their wealth. We look to them as an example of how
> to make it to a million-dollar mansion on Coffee Pot Lane. Recent
> decades of class warfare, abetted by the rich, the pampered and the
> celebrated who play at populism, have changed that. Greed has replaced
> religion as the national religion, and with greed comes envy.
> Martha Stewart's transgressions were more sins than crimes, and
> learning a little humility is never a bad thing. But when the
> government commits vendetta, the sin becomes a crime. The government
> ought to be ashamed of its bullying self.
>
>
> Wesley Pruden is editor in chief of The Times.

I don't actually like Martha Stewart too much, but I don't think she should
go to jail. What offends me about the decision is that I feel that with the
underlying charge of insider trading dropped, it was wrong to pursue the
other charges. It comes down to lying about a crime she thought she had
committed, but hadn't. Nobody should go to jail for that. It's not a
question of jurisprudence, just one of exercising reasonable discretion.
However, if her (new) lawyers can make a case on appeal that the
convictions can't stand because they are based only on lying about
something she didn't do, I wish them well.

>From: "Edwin Pawlowski"

>They deserve to get screwed by someone doing illegal stock trading or
>manipulation? You have to be an idiot to think that.
>

Sorry, but Martha didn't manipulate her own stock. She alledgedly sold some
stock SHE had invested in and was convicted for covering up a crime that wasn't
proven to be committed.

If one invests their entire LIFES SAVINGS on one stock, that fairly recently
went public and has some serious name recognition with one person - a very
controversial person at that - they are an idiot.

>Stocks are a risk investment, not a gamble and you don't "play" the market.
>You play games of chance in a casino. You invest in stocks.

Heh. Symantics. Hey, how about consolodating your entire life's savings into
Disney right now. Sound good?

Ellen

> I don't actually like Martha Stewart too much, but I don't think she should
> go to jail. What offends me about the decision is that I feel that with the
> underlying charge of insider trading dropped, it was wrong to pursue the
> other charges. It comes down to lying about a crime she thought she had
> committed, but hadn't. Nobody should go to jail for that. It's not a
> question of jurisprudence, just one of exercising reasonable discretion.
> However, if her (new) lawyers can make a case on appeal that the
> convictions can't stand because they are based only on lying about
> something she didn't do, I wish them well.

Thanks. Very interesting point. What I object to is the glee of many
people over a famous person being punished, without much regard to
fairness or justice.

NO ! OJ deserved it !

Historic, Internet Jury Poll Comments
_____________________________________

OJ is free, send Martha to Jail. LOL 03/11/04 9:14:57 AM MST
The envy is incredible, isn't it? 03/11/04 7:36:55 AM MST
total injustice 03/11/04 7:26:01 AM MST
The jury is still out. 03/10/04 2:49:50 PM MST
Martha Stewart is just a scapegoat. 03/10/04 1:35:01 PM MST
Prosecutors pandered to populist prejudices! What a country it now is!
03/10/04 11:50:28 AM MST
Another Stalinist, Show Trial ! 03/10/04 10:32:27 AM MST
you are crack pots - and thats a goodthing 03/10/04 9:28:29 AM MST
Not Guilty 03/10/04 6:36:19 AM MST
Free Martha ! 03/09/04 9:37:20 PM MST

What do you think -you get to add your comments after reading the
Closing Argument, and determining Guilt or Innocense. The Internet
jury is still out !

http://skakel.tripod.com/martha.htm

larry > wrote:
> Well she lied, cheated, stole and got caught.. so I guess she deserves to
> go to JAIL. I think they should fine the #%&$ out of her and put her
> back to work to pay some big taxes. But on the other hand those with
> plenty of money are not very afraid of paying a fine.. big deal.. but some
> time in stripes scares nearly everybody.

Martha stole? I don't think so. Lie? Cheat? Okay, I will grant you that,
but MS was never accused of being a thief. I think a hefty fine is in order
too. Since MS reportedly earned an extra $50K out of that imclone deal, she
should be fined at least that much. Sentencing MS to jail would only serve
to waste tax payers' dollars.

SportKite1 wrote:
> Hey, how about consolodating your entire life's savings into Disney
> right now. Sound good?

I invest as little money in Disney as possible. Eisner is a fascist. But
until Pixar finishes their contract, I will have to buy DVDs... but no
way will I buy stock.

--
John Gaughan
http://www.johngaughan.net/

Check out Bongo News' latest:
http://www.bongonews.com/layout1.php?event=939

Personally, I like Martha and would hate to see her talents wasted in
prison. She can afford a hefty fine and some community service.
She's already suffered plenty (her empire's value dipping, her tv show
getting dropped by Viacom, public humiliation, etc.). It's aged her.

P.S. Way too many people here know way too much about prison garb!
;-D

- Chris
---
http://www.sudairy.com/

Chris wrote:
> She's already suffered plenty (her empire's value dipping, her tv
> show getting dropped by Viacom, public humiliation, etc.). It's aged
> her.

Wow, the suffering. Just think, I worry about putting enough food on the
table not to starve my family. Yes, Martha's "empire" dipping in value
must be difficult. Maybe she will have to fire her servants or go
without the personal chef.

Suffering plenty is going to jail, eating the crappy prison food, and
being forced to think about how she screwed the little people in the
stock market just so she could get away with a few extra dollars.
Sheldon has it right. Her crimes are much larger than they appear at
first. I have no sympathy. Prison life is not exactly difficult for
non-violent offenders, but being caged up and thinking about how
everyone else is free sucks. Wishing you could do something simple like
sleep in, drive someplace, eat decent food, spend time with your
family... prison is more psychological than anything.

> P.S. Way too many people here know way too much about prison garb!

I am the only male in my immediate family that is not a convicted felon.
I would say "person," but my mother is not a felon although my sisters
have both spent time in the county jail.

I also live on a military installation that has a federal prison camp
(non-violent convicts, i.e. tax evaders, embezzlers, and the like). They
are out all the time mowing the lawns, trimmin, edging, pulling weeds,
etc. Better them than me :-)

--
John Gaughan
http://www.johngaughan.net/