Found in my e-mail earlier.




New York 'Jittery' as Prison Releases Martha Stewart
by Scott Ott

(2005-03-04) -- Residents of New York and neighboring states were on edge
today as one of the nation's most notorious criminals, Martha Stewart, was
released from a West Virginia prison.

"Stock brokers will be watching their backs," said one Wall Street
executive.
"We're all a bit jittery. She's done her time, but did the correctional
institution really correct her?"

Almost no one interviewed for this story would allow his name to be used,
fearing reprisals from the wealthy convict who remains under house arrest.

"In the world of finance, your word is your bond," said one unnamed bond
trader. "If she lied to federal investigators, what might she do to a
simple,
naive Wall Street trader? I'm not sleeping well. I feel vulnerable."

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said he has beefed up security in
the
financial district, and every police officer carries a photo and
description
of Martha Stewart.

"New Yorkers just have to live their normal lives," said Mr. Bloomberg.
"Go
to work. Make deals. Use your cellphone. We have nothing to fear, but fear
itself."

" BOB" > wrote:

>Found in my e-mail earlier.
>
>
>
>
>New York 'Jittery' as Prison Releases Martha Stewart
>by Scott Ott
>
>(2005-03-04) -- Residents of New York and neighboring states were on edge
>today as one of the nation's most notorious criminals, Martha Stewart, was
>released from a West Virginia prison.
>
>"Stock brokers will be watching their backs," said one Wall Street
>executive.
>"We're all a bit jittery. She's done her time, but did the correctional
>institution really correct her?"
>
>Almost no one interviewed for this story would allow his name to be used,
>fearing reprisals from the wealthy convict who remains under house arrest.
>
>"In the world of finance, your word is your bond," said one unnamed bond
>trader. "If she lied to federal investigators, what might she do to a
>simple,
>naive Wall Street trader? I'm not sleeping well. I feel vulnerable."
>
>New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said he has beefed up security in
>the
>financial district, and every police officer carries a photo and
>description
>of Martha Stewart.
>
>"New Yorkers just have to live their normal lives," said Mr. Bloomberg.
>"Go
>to work. Make deals. Use your cellphone. We have nothing to fear, but fear
>itself."
>
>
She's an evil scumbag, which is why most of mindless Amerika is
fascinated with her, and made her rich - it's the "Oprah Syndrome".
She should have rotted in hell, instead of doubling her wealth and
fame while in "prison". A fine example for kids.

Good for Martha!


--
Wayne Boatwright
____________________________________________

Give me a smart idiot over a stupid genius any day.
Sam Goldwyn, 1882-1974

TheAlligator wrote
> >
> She's an evil scumbag, which is why most of mindless Amerika is
> fascinated with her, and made her rich - it's the "Oprah Syndrome".
> She should have rotted in hell, instead of doubling her wealth and
> fame while in "prison". A fine example for kids.

Ektually, she quadrupled her wealth during the last 5 months; signed up
for two t.v. shows. Formidable lady. Go Martha!

Mac

"TheAlligator" > wrote in message
...
> " BOB" > wrote:
>
> >Found in my e-mail earlier.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >New York 'Jittery' as Prison Releases Martha Stewart
> >by Scott Ott
> >
> >(2005-03-04) -- Residents of New York and neighboring states were on edge
> >today as one of the nation's most notorious criminals, Martha Stewart,
was
> >released from a West Virginia prison.
> >
> >"Stock brokers will be watching their backs," said one Wall Street
> >executive.
> >"We're all a bit jittery. She's done her time, but did the correctional
> >institution really correct her?"
> >
> >Almost no one interviewed for this story would allow his name to be used,
> >fearing reprisals from the wealthy convict who remains under house
arrest.
> >
> >"In the world of finance, your word is your bond," said one unnamed bond
> >trader. "If she lied to federal investigators, what might she do to a
> >simple,
> >naive Wall Street trader? I'm not sleeping well. I feel vulnerable."
> >
> >New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said he has beefed up security in
> >the
> >financial district, and every police officer carries a photo and
> >description
> >of Martha Stewart.
> >
> >"New Yorkers just have to live their normal lives," said Mr. Bloomberg.
> >"Go
> >to work. Make deals. Use your cellphone. We have nothing to fear, but
fear
> >itself."
> >
> >
> She's an evil scumbag, which is why most of mindless Amerika is
> fascinated with her, and made her rich - it's the "Oprah Syndrome".
> She should have rotted in hell, instead of doubling her wealth and
> fame while in "prison". A fine example for kids.

I wondered why you call yourself "The Alligator"......

Elly

"Wayne Boatwright" > wrote

> Good for Martha!

Ditto. Of all the people needing incarceration, she's got to
be a the bottom of the list. She did it, she is out, good for
her. What a waste.

nancy (where's that **** from Enron? Kenneth Lay,
something like that)

MARTHA RULES
YOU GO GIRL

BOB wrote:
> Found in my e-mail earlier.
>
> New York 'Jittery' as Prison Releases Martha Stewart
> by Scott Ott
>
> (2005-03-04) -- Residents of New York and neighboring states were on
> edge today as one of the nation's most notorious criminals, Martha
> Stewart, was released from a West Virginia prison.
>
> "Stock brokers will be watching their backs," said one Wall Street
> executive.
> "We're all a bit jittery. She's done her time, but did the
> correctional institution really correct her?"
>
Oh pulleeeeeeze. Like Martha is a terrorist or something. They should be
watching the skies for airplanes, not worrying about Martha making a stock
trade.

Jill

Alligator said:

> She's an evil scumbag, which is why most of mindless Amerika is
> fascinated with her, and made her rich - it's the "Oprah Syndrome".
> She should have rotted in hell, instead of doubling her wealth and
> fame while in "prison". A fine example for kids.

Are you so positive that you wouldn't have done the same thing given the
same circumstances? I'd like to think I wouldn't, but I can't be sure.

Elisa

"George Beasley" > wrote:
>I wondered why you call yourself "The Alligator"......
Strangely, your suggested line of reasoning is exactly why I was given
this nickname to begin with <G>. I'm sorry, but I just don't think
Martha going to or getting out of prison is worthy of the onslaught of
coverage, which is exactly how I feel about Michael Jackson. Maybe he
did it, maybe he didn't - he's certainly weird, but everybody has the
right to be that way. Oprah seems to be a genuinely nice person, but
she is the patron saint of the victimization movement. Everyone I
know cringes visibly upon hearing "you go girl" - maybe I just run in
different circles. As I understand it, if you worked for Martha
(sheAlligator) you wouldn't be so anxious to see her leave prison. So
let's look at a dichotomy: Martha is convicted of a federal crime,
gets even richer and is now an American idol. Jeff Smith was accused
of molestation by some guys who waited decades until he was rich to
come out. No trial, no conviction, nothing but accusations - his
entire life and fortune is ruined overnight. Wait, he was a white
male - the only person who can't possibly be a victim these days, eh?
(go ahead, scream bigot - that's all part of the trend, anyway).
By the way - how long do you think that YOU would rot in prison for
Securities violations and federal perjury charges? 5 months? 5
years, more likely.

Dog3 > wrote:
>I am with you and Jill on this one. IMO there are far worst criminals out
>there. I don't like her much but I respect MS for what she's done with her
>life.
I understand your line of reasoning, I really do. But since when is
crime and resultant punishment a matter of comparison between other
lawbreakers? Of course, she didn't exactly bring down the World Trade
Center, but she committed crimes for which there are punishments. Ken
Lay committed worse crimes and should get worse punishments, but that
doesn't mean that because the scales are tipped, Martha should get
off. In my opinion, she got off REAL easy - not for the stocks, but
for the perjury. And in response to an earier comment - NO, I
wouldn't have done the same thing under the circumstances - I don't
steal pens from work and I don't keep extra change if the clerk makes
a mistake - sad that seems to be some kind of character flaw these
days. By the way, my pretty-much grown children don't lie or steal
either - wonder how they got that way?

In article >,
(TheAlligator) wrote:

<snip funny post>
> >
> She's an evil scumbag, which is why most of mindless Amerika is
> fascinated with her, and made her rich - it's the "Oprah Syndrome".
> She should have rotted in hell, instead of doubling her wealth and
> fame while in "prison". A fine example for kids.

No, you're confused. The "fine example for kids" is being tried in
California.

There are actually some things about Martha that are worth emulating.

Regards,
Dave

--
Living in the Ozarks
For email, edu will do.

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth
becomes a revolutionary act. - George Orwell, (1903-1950)

On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 06:06:02 -0600, "jmcquown" >
wrote:

> BOB wrote:
>> Found in my e-mail earlier.
>>
>> New York 'Jittery' as Prison Releases Martha Stewart
>> by Scott Ott
>>
>> (2005-03-04) -- Residents of New York and neighboring states were on
>> edge today as one of the nation's most notorious criminals, Martha
>> Stewart, was released from a West Virginia prison.
>>
>> "Stock brokers will be watching their backs," said one Wall Street
>> executive.
>> "We're all a bit jittery. She's done her time, but did the
>> correctional institution really correct her?"
>>
>Oh pulleeeeeeze. Like Martha is a terrorist or something. They should be
>watching the skies for airplanes, not worrying about Martha making a stock
>trade.
>


Damn, I'm going to lock my doors. It won't be 24-hours until she's
beating eggs, whipping potatoes and smashing garlic.

No food will be safe. ;-)


Rusty

Au Contraire.... Martha has been a sacrificial lamb. She only lied and stole
40K. There are Wall Street crooks out there that filched billions. Now, the
gullible public can safely entrust their cash to Wall Street secure in the
knowledge the guilty have been punished. She was a high profile individual.
Remember, the head that rises above the crowd gets chopped off. I sincerely
hope she gets revenge on the *******s that put her in prison. Her TV
programs may be the mechanism to do this. Notice the stock in her company
was manipulated upward in the last few months. Martha goes to prison and her
handlers score big. Last nights Dateline NBC was a sickening infomercial.

Farmer John
..

"Fudge" > wrote in
:

> Au Contraire.... Martha has been a sacrificial lamb. She only lied and
> stole 40K. There are Wall Street crooks out there that filched
> billions. Now, the gullible public can safely entrust their cash to
> Wall Street secure in the knowledge the guilty have been punished.

A nice analysis of her "crime":

http://harrybrowne.org/articles/MarthaStewart2.htm

The real criminals are the federal prosecutors, making big names for
themselves.

"ScratchMonkey" > wrote in message
>
> A nice analysis of her "crime":
>
> http://harrybrowne.org/articles/MarthaStewart2.htm
>
> The real criminals are the federal prosecutors, making big names for
> themselves.

Nice? She did something wrong and the writer says "so what" to her lying
and using inside trading. Just because you don't agree with a law, you
don't have the right to break it.

She did something out of greed, got caught, paid her time. Move on. She
let greed take the place of common sense.

Yes, there are far worse criminals, yes, they should be punished also.
Rather them make excuses for Martha, put that time to god use to nail the
other *******s.

Rusty wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 06:06:02 -0600, "jmcquown" >
> wrote:
>
>> BOB wrote:
>>> Found in my e-mail earlier.
>>>
>>> New York 'Jittery' as Prison Releases Martha Stewart
>>> by Scott Ott
>>>
>>> (2005-03-04) -- Residents of New York and neighboring states were on
>>> edge today as one of the nation's most notorious criminals, Martha
>>> Stewart, was released from a West Virginia prison.
>>>
>>> "Stock brokers will be watching their backs," said one Wall Street
>>> executive.
>>> "We're all a bit jittery. She's done her time, but did the
>>> correctional institution really correct her?"
>>>
>> Oh pulleeeeeeze. Like Martha is a terrorist or something. They
>> should be watching the skies for airplanes, not worrying about
>> Martha making a stock trade.
>>
>
>
> Damn, I'm going to lock my doors. It won't be 24-hours until she's
> beating eggs, whipping potatoes and smashing garlic.
>
> No food will be safe. ;-)
>
> Rusty

"Oh the humanity!" LOL

Jill

"TheAlligator" > wrote in message
And in response to an earier comment - NO, I
> wouldn't have done the same thing under the circumstances - I don't
> steal pens from work and I don't keep extra change if the clerk makes
> a mistake - sad that seems to be some kind of character flaw these
> days. By the way, my pretty-much grown children don't lie or steal
> either - wonder how they got that way?

I don't steal pens either, I point out clerk's errors in change, if I find
money on the ground, I try to find the owner...however, if I got a stock tip
from a good friend that could save me from losing $40,000 the very next day,
I am not sure that I am that rightous to ignore the information. I know I
would be tempted....

Elisa

"Elisa" > wrote:
>I don't steal pens either, I point out clerk's errors in change, if I find
>money on the ground, I try to find the owner...however, if I got a stock tip
>from a good friend that could save me from losing $40,000 the very next day,
>I am not sure that I am that rightous to ignore the information. I know I
>would be tempted....
>
>Elisa
>
>
Of course you'd be tempted, Elisa and so would I. Almost everything
is a temptation - the true test of character is how you respond to it.
And from what little I know about you, I'm fairly certain that YOU
wouldn't have done it, either. Especially if, as in her case, it was
the equivalent of pocket change. Whatever you think about her, she is
certainly not stupid - she knew she committed a federal felony the
second she made the call.

"TheAlligator" > wrote in message
...
> "Elisa" > wrote:
>>I don't steal pens either, I point out clerk's errors in change, if I find
>>money on the ground, I try to find the owner...however, if I got a stock
>>tip
>>from a good friend that could save me from losing $40,000 the very next
>>day,
>>I am not sure that I am that rightous to ignore the information. I know I
>>would be tempted....
>>
>>Elisa
>>
>>
> Of course you'd be tempted, Elisa and so would I. Almost everything
> is a temptation - the true test of character is how you respond to it.
> And from what little I know about you, I'm fairly certain that YOU
> wouldn't have done it, either. Especially if, as in her case, it was
> the equivalent of pocket change. Whatever you think about her, she is
> certainly not stupid - she knew she committed a federal felony the
> second she made the call.

I try to be a good person, but I can be so weak....;-)

Elisa

"Elisa" > wrote:
>I try to be a good person, but I can be so weak....;-)
>
>Elisa
>
>
Well, welcome to the club!

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "ScratchMonkey" > wrote in
message
> >
> > A nice analysis of her "crime":
> >
> > http://harrybrowne.org/articles/MarthaStewart2.htm
> >
> > The real criminals are the federal prosecutors, making big names
for
> > themselves.
>
> Nice? She did something wrong and the writer says "so what" to her
lying
> and using inside trading. Just because you don't agree with a law,
you
> don't have the right to break it. <snip>

Since you're such a righteous and stern law and order man you should
know that MS has NOT been convicted of insider trading. That charge
wasn't even brought against her by the feds. In fact, her lawyers more
than once told the federal judge, Miriam Greenbaum, that the less alert
members of the public would believe that she was being tried for
insider trading.

Whether her action in selling the IMClone stock was, technically,
insider trading is yet to be determined. No criminal proceedings are
planned on the issue, as most knowledgeable observers do not believe a
criminal act took place. The SEC is planning a civil investigation but
no hearings, deposition-taking, etc., have been scheduled yet.

Mac

> wrote in message >
> Since you're such a righteous and stern law and order man you should
> know that MS has NOT been convicted of insider trading. That charge
> wasn't even brought against her by the feds.
> Mac
>
IIRC, she was convicted of lying tot he SEC. My point is, she broke the law
and is not above it because she is a celebrity, she its not above it because
other have done worse. Neither are you, neither am I.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> > wrote in message >
> > Since you're such a righteous and stern law and order man you
should
> > know that MS has NOT been convicted of insider trading. That
charge
> > wasn't even brought against her by the feds.
> > Mac
> >
> IIRC, she was convicted of lying tot he SEC. My point is, she broke
the law
> and is not above it because she is a celebrity, she its not above it
because
> other have done worse. Neither are you, neither am I.

She was convicted of lying to the FBI and of obstruction of justice.
While all this was going on she wasn't accused of any crime....neither
insider trading, stealing, defrauding anyone, cooking the books, living
the high life, or cooking wimpy onion soup. No one lost money because
of her actions. A sense of balance seems to have been lost in the
baying for blood and the intoxication of moral outrage.

Mac

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> > wrote in message >
>
>>Since you're such a righteous and stern law and order man you should
>>know that MS has NOT been convicted of insider trading. That charge
>>wasn't even brought against her by the feds.
>>Mac
>>
>
> IIRC, she was convicted of lying tot he SEC. My point is, she broke the law
> and is not above it because she is a celebrity, she its not above it because
> other have done worse. Neither are you, neither am I.
>
>

IIRC, she told the federal investigators she was innocent of insider
trading. Whether she was or not is irrelevant, she has a right to
not incriminate herself during an investigation, as all U.S. citizens
do via the 5th amendment to the U.S. Constitition. The jury was
apparently convinced she lied when she told the federal investigators
she was innocent and judged her guilty of lying to the investigators.
Seems like a blatent violation of her 5th amendment rights to me.

Dog3 > wrote:
>I don't even know why I'm defending her. She is NOT a fave of mine. I
>will bow out
Sorry Michael. I'm sort of a dichotomy myself. I state that
something is irrelevent to me, then go on a passionate tirade about
the very same issue. I guess I'll never understand myself, let alone
other people.

"TheAlligator" > wrote in message
...
> Dog3 > wrote:
> >I don't even know why I'm defending her. She is NOT a fave of mine. I
> >will bow out
> Sorry Michael. I'm sort of a dichotomy myself. I state that
> something is irrelevent to me, then go on a passionate tirade about
> the very same issue. I guess I'll never understand myself, let alone
> other people.

I read your thread and I do agree with many things you said. We would all
enjoy the world a lot better if everyone was honest, had good intentions,
and had compassion for others.
Often people are judged because of their actions and are labeled either good
or bad because of something they did. They may have been "good" their whole
life and because something happened where they made a wrong choice, they are
all of a sudden "bad". MS has done her jailterm, she has been publicly
humiliated because of what she did, now it would be good to close the book
on the issue and give her a chance.

Elly

"George Beasley" > wrote:

>
>"TheAlligator" > wrote in message
...
>> Dog3 > wrote:
>> >I don't even know why I'm defending her. She is NOT a fave of mine. I
>> >will bow out
>> Sorry Michael. I'm sort of a dichotomy myself. I state that
>> something is irrelevent to me, then go on a passionate tirade about
>> the very same issue. I guess I'll never understand myself, let alone
>> other people.
>
>I read your thread and I do agree with many things you said. We would all
>enjoy the world a lot better if everyone was honest, had good intentions,
>and had compassion for others.
>Often people are judged because of their actions and are labeled either good
>or bad because of something they did. They may have been "good" their whole
>life and because something happened where they made a wrong choice, they are
>all of a sudden "bad". MS has done her jailterm, she has been publicly
>humiliated because of what she did, now it would be good to close the book
>on the issue and give her a chance.
>
>Elly
>
>
I must admit, much to my chagrin, that you are the voice of reason.
So be it. Even though I despise her, I wish her the best. Really.

> wrote in message

> of her actions. A sense of balance seems to have been lost in the
> baying for blood and the intoxication of moral outrage.
>
> Mac
>

What would that sense of balance be? She lied, she made thing more
difficult than they had to be because she was evasive. .

"Rich McCormack" > wrote in message


> The jury was
> apparently convinced she lied when she told the federal investigators
> she was innocent and judged her guilty of lying to the investigators.
> Seems like a blatent violation of her 5th amendment rights to me.
>

What violation? Taking the 5th does not make you innocent. It just allows
you to shut up if what you would say will incriminate you. I figure if
people are as innocent as they let on, they would not need to invoke the
5th. Sure, the was some call for blood, but mostly because of her
obstructionist ways. I don't think she or her lawyers handled it very well
from a publicity point of view.

"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "ScratchMonkey" > wrote in message
>>
>> A nice analysis of her "crime":
>>
>> http://harrybrowne.org/articles/MarthaStewart2.htm
>>
>> The real criminals are the federal prosecutors, making big names for
>> themselves.
>
> Nice? She did something wrong and the writer says "so what" to her lying
> and using inside trading. Just because you don't agree with a law, you
> don't have the right to break it.
>
> She did something out of greed, got caught, paid her time. Move on. She
> let greed take the place of common sense.
>
> Yes, there are far worse criminals, yes, they should be punished also.
> Rather them make excuses for Martha, put that time to god use to nail the
> other *******s.

You know what I never understood. . .Martha got prison time for
lying--right? How come they never applied that rule to that juror that lied
about prior run-ins with the law? I'm not being a smart aleck, here, I just
don't understand. If the big federal point was all about lying, how come it
didn't apply to the juror. Actually, if you wanted to be a stickler about
it, how come it didn't apply to the fingerprint(or was it ink) analysis guy
that lied by implication that he did the actual analysis himself?
Janet

"Janet Bostwick" > wrote in message
> You know what I never understood. . .Martha got prison time for
> lying--right? How come they never applied that rule to that juror that
> lied about prior run-ins with the law? I'm not being a smart aleck, here,
> I just don't understand. If the big federal point was all about lying,
> how come it didn't apply to the juror. Actually, if you wanted to be a
> stickler about it, how come it didn't apply to the fingerprint(or was it
> ink) analysis guy that lied by implication that he did the actual analysis
> himself?
> Janet

It should matter and they should be punished. If they were, it did not
make the papers. Of course, they are not celebrities either.

"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Janet Bostwick" > wrote in message
>> You know what I never understood. . .Martha got prison time for
>> lying--right? How come they never applied that rule to that juror that
>> lied about prior run-ins with the law? I'm not being a smart aleck,
>> here, I just don't understand. If the big federal point was all about
>> lying, how come it didn't apply to the juror. Actually, if you wanted to
>> be a stickler about it, how come it didn't apply to the fingerprint(or
>> was it ink) analysis guy that lied by implication that he did the actual
>> analysis himself?
>> Janet
>
> It should matter and they should be punished. If they were, it did not
> make the papers. Of course, they are not celebrities either.
yeah, It's really difficult to not be cynical about everything, isn't it?
One thing I learned from the corporate world years ago was that a particular
set of facts or numbers could be made to tell any story. It all pretty much
depends upon the willingness of the audience to play along as they perceive
their goals being met.
Janet

"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in
om:

> Just because you don't agree with a law, you
> don't have the right to break it.

So founders of the US were wrong and had no right to violate the King's
laws? The US should accept its punishment and rejoin the UK as a colony?
Rights transcend laws. If a law says you can't speak your mind, the right
enumerated by (not granted by!) the first amendment overrules the law.

> She did something out of greed, got caught, paid her time. Move on.
> She let greed take the place of common sense.

Define "greed". Everyone has self-interest. Everything you do is guided by
it, even so-called altruism.

Martha's plight was a witch hunt, pure and simple, instituted by greedy
federal prosecutors looking for ways to further their careers. But unlike
Martha's, their greed was sated only by hurting others.

In the bizarre world of the SEC and FTA, common sense isn't. Insider
trading is an Alice in Wonderland bureacratic ruling (not a law except in
that Congress has abdicated its power to bureacrats to avoid accountability
by the electorate).

"Elisa" > wrote in
:

> if I got a stock tip from a good friend that could save me from losing
> $40,000 the very next day, I am not sure that I am that rightous to
> ignore the information.

In this case, it's not a matter of being righteous, but sensible. You'd be
perfectly in the "right" to act on it (ie. it's not an "evil" action), but
you'd also be placing yourself at risk of prosecution in our topsy-turvy
legal environment.

A great many laws are at best unfair and at worst downright evil. They
aren't created by saints. On the contrary, they're usually created by
rapacious special interests to plunder their competitors and prevent
upstarts from toppling them from their power. Representatives rarely read
the laws their interns write for them, but there's a movement afoot to
require Congress to read every word of every new law aloud to slow down
this abuse. They would no longer be able to claim igorance when they voted
for something horrific.

"ScratchMonkey" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in
> om:
>
>> Just because you don't agree with a law, you
>> don't have the right to break it.
>
> So founders of the US were wrong and had no right to violate the King's
> laws? The US should accept its punishment and rejoin the UK as a colony?
> Rights transcend laws. If a law says you can't speak your mind, the right
> enumerated by (not granted by!) the first amendment overrules the law.
>

But who defines what is and isn't a right?


>> She did something out of greed, got caught, paid her time. Move on.
>> She let greed take the place of common sense.
>
> Define "greed". Everyone has self-interest. Everything you do is guided by
> it, even so-called altruism.

That's probbaly true in a technical sense, but there is a huge difference
between doing something to help others becaiuse it makes you feel good, and
doing something to harm others to make money.

>
> Martha's plight was a witch hunt, pure and simple, instituted by greedy

So what *is* the definition of greed? You seem to know.

> federal prosecutors looking for ways to further their careers. But unlike
> Martha's, their greed was sated only by hurting others.
>
> In the bizarre world of the SEC and FTA, common sense isn't. Insider
> trading is an Alice in Wonderland bureacratic ruling (not a law except in
> that Congress has abdicated its power to bureacrats to avoid
> accountability
> by the electorate).

There's nothing bizarre about it. It's quite simple and easy to understand.
Certain information about companies is public and available for all to base
investment decisions on. Other information is not available to all - it is
available only to those involved in the operation of the company - insiders.
If they are permitted to buy and sell stock based on this information, it is
blatantly unfair. When Martha sold her stock based on inside information,
she was in effect saying to who ever bought the stock: "I know this stock is
worth a lot less than the current price, and you don't. So **** you, I am
going to take your money."

I agree that she was singled out because of her fame and probably also
because she is a woman. But so what? She did it, and the fact that others do
the same and get away with it is no excuse.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

ScratchMonkey > wrote:
>In this case, it's not a matter of being righteous, but sensible. You'd be
>perfectly in the "right" to act on it (ie. it's not an "evil" action), but
>you'd also be placing yourself at risk of prosecution in our topsy-turvy
>legal environment.
No, it has nothing to do with what laws are in effect. Wrong is wrong
and there's no way around it. I'm sorry you're incapable of seeing
that.

"ScratchMonkey" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Elisa" > wrote in
> :
>
>> if I got a stock tip from a good friend that could save me from losing
>> $40,000 the very next day, I am not sure that I am that rightous to
>> ignore the information.
>
> In this case, it's not a matter of being righteous, but sensible. You'd be
> perfectly in the "right" to act on it (ie. it's not an "evil" action), but
> you'd also be placing yourself at risk of prosecution in our topsy-turvy
> legal environment.

Huge difference between a stock "tip" and insider trading. One is perfectly
legal, the other is not for good reason.

"ScratchMonkey" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> So founders of the US were wrong and had no right to violate the King's
> laws? The US should accept its punishment and rejoin the UK as a colony?
> Rights transcend laws. If a law says you can't speak your mind, the right
> enumerated by (not granted by!) the first amendment overrules the law.

Everyone has the right to determine which laws they should obey and whick
can be ignored?
>
>> She did something out of greed, got caught, paid her time. Move on.
>> She let greed take the place of common sense.
>
> Define "greed". Everyone has self-interest. Everything you do is guided by
> it, even so-called altruism.

But if she used insider information, she let self interest transcend the
law. That would be illegal.

It would be in my self interest to grab the cash from the register at the
supermarket. Should that be allowed?




>
> Martha's plight was a witch hunt, pure and simple, instituted by greedy
> federal prosecutors looking for ways to further their careers. But unlike
> Martha's, their greed was sated only by hurting others.

It is a combinationof both. Yes, it probably got out of hand, but if she
was honest up front, she would have probably done little or no time and the
prosecutors would have missed on the publicity. She is now reaping the
benefits of self inposed martyrdom since she made the decision to do time
instead of waiting for appeal. Good move on her part.

ScratchMonkey wrote:

> "Fudge" > wrote in
> :
>
> > Au Contraire.... Martha has been a sacrificial lamb. She only lied and
> > stole 40K. There are Wall Street crooks out there that filched
> > billions. Now, the gullible public can safely entrust their cash to
> > Wall Street secure in the knowledge the guilty have been punished.
>
> A nice analysis of her "crime":
>
> http://harrybrowne.org/articles/MarthaStewart2.htm
>
> The real criminals are the federal prosecutors, making big names for
> themselves.

Harry Brown certainly has an interesting take on Martha's crime, and
contrary to what he says, I think it is a crime. The western world's
economy relies very heavily on the stock market, and the value of stocks and
investments should have some credibility to it. Sure, it can be a bit of a
crap shoot to invest in some companies. Sometimes you win and sometimes you
lose. In Martha's case, as I understand it, she got some inside information
that something had happened that was going to make the value of her stock
plummet. Accordingly, she dumped it. If the information she had been privy
to have been made public, she would have lost a considerable amount of
money. Instead, she sold the stock and someone from whom that important
information had been withheld lost money. She sold something in what is
supposed to be an honest market place, knowing full well that it was worth
much less.