RFC POLL: Is Martha Stewart Guilty?



T

Thecatintx

Guest
What possible good would having my opinion do? From what I read, most people don't even clearly
understand the charges against here - which do not include insider trading.

Why is this on a recipe newsgroup?

Pardon me, I'll go grumble elsewhere. CatinTX
 
T

The Ranger

Guest
Dog3 <[email protected];not> suggested in message
news:[email protected]...
> Let your opinion be heard. Results posted on Sunday, 2/1/04. Cast your vote here:
> http://www.misterpoll.com/1666990844.html

Quick-n-dirty poll. I understand the need to keep it such but question 3, "Do you think Martha is
not guilty and will be found innocent of all charges?" should have been broken down into two
questions. "Do you think Martha is not guilty?" and "Do you think she will be found innocent of
all charges?"

The Ranger
 
Z

Zxcvbob

Guest
Dog3 wrote:
> Let your opinion be heard. Results posted on Sunday, 2/1/04. Cast your vote here:
> http://www.misterpoll.com/1666990844.html
>
> Michael
>

Guilty of insider trading, but she wasn't charged with that so it doesn't matter. Because she was a
director on the NYSE and once a stock broker, the bar is a little higher for her than normal people.
I'm not sure why the govt didn't bring this charge, I guess their case sucked.

Not guilty of obstruction of justice, but she might be convicted anyway.

Short prison sentence plus $10000 fine if she's convicted; conviction overturned on appeal.
Eventually, she walks.

Best regards, Bob
 
T

The Ranger

Guest
TheCatinTX <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> What possible good would having my opinion do?

Nothing good whatsoever will come out of an opinion offered by you...

> Why is this on a recipe newsgroup?

I don't see "recipe" anywhere in the title of rfc... RFC is more than your personal index for
collecting recipes. BTW: Where /is/ your recipe?

> Pardon me, I'll go grumble elsewhere.

Please.

The Ranger
 
D

Dog3

Guest
"The Ranger" <[email protected]> deliciously posted in
news:[email protected]:

> Dog3 <[email protected];not> suggested in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Let your opinion be heard. Results posted on Sunday, 2/1/04. Cast your vote here:
>> http://www.misterpoll.com/1666990844.html
>
> Quick-n-dirty poll. I understand the need to keep it such but question 3, "Do you think Martha is
> not guilty and will be found innocent of all charges?" should have been broken down into two
> questions. "Do you think Martha is not guilty?" and "Do you think she will be found innocent of
> all charges?"
>
> The Ranger

Thanks for the input. You're right, 3 could have had 2 parts. I could change it but people are
already voting so I will leave it as is.

Michael
--
NOUVELLE CUISINE: "It's so beautifully arranged on the plate - you know someone's fingers have been
all over it." ~~ Julia Child
 
D

Dog3

Guest
[email protected] (TheCatinTX) deliciously posted in
news:[email protected]:

> What possible good would having my opinion do?

No good would come from your opinion.

> From what I read, most people don't even clearly understand the charges against here - which do
> not include insider trading.
>
> Why is this on a recipe newsgroup?

AFAIK, this group is not a recipe group. It is a cooking group. The name of the group is
rec.food.cooking. Martha Stewart cooks.

>
> Pardon me, I'll go grumble elsewhere. CatinTX

Okay.

Michael

--
NOUVELLE CUISINE: "It's so beautifully arranged on the plate - you know someone's fingers have been
all over it." ~~ Julia Child
 
S

Steve Calvin

Guest
TheCatinTX wrote:

> What possible good would having my opinion do? From what I read, most people don't even clearly
> understand the charges against here - which do not include insider trading.
>
> Why is this on a recipe newsgroup?
>
> Pardon me, I'll go grumble elsewhere. CatinTX

Obviously you haven't followed along at all before busting in... your opinion therefore would
probably serve no purpose what-so-ever.

This isn't a "recipe" newsgroup. If you want only recipes then head off to rec.food.recipes where
it's nice and moderated and NO discussion is allowed. It seems as though you may be happier there.

--
Steve

Men are from Earth. Women are from Earth. Deal with it.
 
S

Steve Calvin

Guest
Dog3 wrote:
>
>> Let your opinion be heard. Results posted on Sunday, 2/1/04. Cast your vote here:
>> http://www.misterpoll.com/1666990844.html Michael

Michael,

I know that there are no changes to be made but there should have been a #4.

Do you think Martha IS guilty and will be found innocent of all charges

--
Steve

Men are from Earth. Women are from Earth. Deal with it.
 
T

The Wolf

Guest
On 01/29/2004 11:29 AM, in article
[email protected], "zxcvbob" <[email protected]>
opined:

> Dog3 wrote:
>> Let your opinion be heard. Results posted on Sunday, 2/1/04. Cast your vote here:
>> http://www.misterpoll.com/1666990844.html
>>
>> Michael
>>
>
> Guilty of insider trading, but she wasn't charged with that so it doesn't matter. Because she was
> a director on the NYSE and once a stock broker, the bar is a little higher for her than normal
> people. I'm not sure why the govt didn't bring this charge, I guess their case sucked.
>
> Not guilty of obstruction of justice, but she might be convicted anyway.
>
> Short prison sentence plus $10000 fine if she's convicted; conviction overturned on appeal.
> Eventually, she walks.
>
> Best regards, Bob

Wall St. Journal reporter was interviewed and said there is one serious charge of lying to prop up
her own company stock.

If convicted on that she does time, Federal sentencing guidelines judge has no wiggle room.
--
========================================================
I'd rather have a German division ahead of me then a French division behind me," Gen.
George S. Patton
========================================================
 
B

Bob Myers

Guest
> Dog3 <[email protected];not> suggested in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Let your opinion be heard. Results posted on Sunday, 2/1/04. Cast your vote here:
> > http://www.misterpoll.com/1666990844.html
>

Quite frankly, I could not possibly care less. I don't ever watch her incredibly dull television
shows, read her magazines, or otherwise consume ANY output of Martha Stewart Pan-Galactic Inc., so
whether she's still churning this stuff out or crocheting toilet-seat covers for her cell will make
absolutely no difference to me, now or ever.

Bob M.
 
Z

Zxcvbob

Guest
The Wolf wrote:
> On 01/29/2004 11:29 AM, in article [email protected], "zxcvbob"
> <[email protected]> opined:
>
>
>>Dog3 wrote:
>>
>>>Let your opinion be heard. Results posted on Sunday, 2/1/04. Cast your vote here:
>>>http://www.misterpoll.com/1666990844.html
>>>
>>>Michael
>>>
>>
>>Guilty of insider trading, but she wasn't charged with that so it doesn't matter. Because she was
>>a director on the NYSE and once a stock broker, the bar is a little higher for her than normal
>>people. I'm not sure why the govt didn't bring this charge, I guess their case sucked.
>>
>>Not guilty of obstruction of justice, but she might be convicted anyway.
>>
>>Short prison sentence plus $10000 fine if she's convicted; conviction overturned on appeal.
>>Eventually, she walks.
>>
>>Best regards, Bob
>
>
> Wall St. Journal reporter was interviewed and said there is one serious charge of lying to prop up
> her own company stock.
>
> If convicted on that she does time, Federal sentencing guidelines judge has no wiggle room.

She would appeal that one on constitutional grounds. IIRC, the lie that she told was that she
proclaimed her innocence -- part of her right to due process. It would be like charging people with
perjury for pleading "not guilty" in a trial if they were eventually convicted.

So I'll ammend my prediction a little: *long* prison sentence if she's convicted, overturned
on appeal.

Bob
 
V

Vox Humana

Guest
"The Wolf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BC3EAE81.4FF32%[email protected]...
> On 01/29/2004 11:29 AM, in article [email protected], "zxcvbob"
<[email protected]>
>
>
> Wall St. Journal reporter was interviewed and said there is one serious charge of lying to prop up
> her own company stock.
>
> If convicted on that she does time, Federal sentencing guidelines judge
has
> no wiggle room.

I think that is the most troublesome aspect of the case. She may have lied, and that may have
propped up her company's stock. I don't see how they could prove that she lied with the intent to
prop up the stock unless she explicitly told someone her motivation. In the end, she acted as a
private citizen with respect to her stock transactions, not as the head of her company. I think this
is where the prosecution will fail. I think she will walk, or there will be a last-minute deal where
she pleads guilty to some minor infraction and pays a large fine. She will say that she admitted
guilt to minimize damage to her company and the prosecutors will be able to save face.
 
N

Nancy Young

Guest
Naomi Darvell wrote:
>
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Another problem-- among people who think she's guilty, there are going to be differences in how
> serious people think the offense is.

I'm thinking, how many of us here, upon getting a call from someone who knew that the principals
were dumping the stock, would say, no I am not going to sell, that wouldn't be right, I'll just lose
the money. I get out in a heartbeat. And I have a big honest streak.

Now, I know this is wrong thinking, but they threw the big gun at Martha, their top lawyer. Excuse
my french, but I firmly believe that person should be going after those f**** at Enron who
deliberately stole all those retirement savings from their employees. That is a trial I can get
behind, seems they are having more fun making Martha miserable over some kind of 'making an example'
type of thing.

Just my opinion.

nancy
 
D

Default User

Guest
Naomi Darvell wrote:
>

> Another problem-- among people who think she's guilty, there are going to be differences in how
> serious people think the offense is.

Plus a lot of people, including maybe some jury members, will think she's been punished
enough already.

1. Lost her position heading her own company.

2. Out at least a few hundred million bucks.

3. May lose her signature TV show.

4. The butt of many jokes.

5. Portrayed by Cybill Shepherd in a TV movie.

Brian Rodenborn
 
Z

Zxcvbob

Guest
Nancy Young wrote:
> Now, I know this is wrong thinking, but they threw the big gun at Martha, their top lawyer. Excuse
> my french, but I firmly believe that person should be going after those f**** at Enron who
> deliberately stole all those retirement savings from their employees. That is a trial I can get
> behind, seems they are having more fun making Martha miserable over some kind of 'making an
> example' type of thing.
>
> Just my opinion. nancy

Bernie Ebbers (of Worldcom) is the f***** I want to see fried. I've already paid good money
to see it.

Bob
 
S

Steve Calvin

Guest
Nancy Young wrote:

> Naomi Darvell wrote:
>
>>x-no-archive: yes
>>
>>Another problem-- among people who think she's guilty, there are going to be differences in how
>>serious people think the offense is.
>
>
> I'm thinking, how many of us here, upon getting a call from someone who knew that the principals
> were dumping the stock, would say, no I am not going to sell, that wouldn't be right, I'll just
> lose the money. I get out in a heartbeat. And I have a big honest streak.
>
> Now, I know this is wrong thinking, but they threw the big gun at Martha, their top lawyer. Excuse
> my french, but I firmly believe that person should be going after those f**** at Enron who
> deliberately stole all those retirement savings from their employees. That is a trial I can get
> behind, seems they are having more fun making Martha miserable over some kind of 'making an
> example' type of thing.
>
> Just my opinion.
>
> nancy
Can't argue with that. My better half and I were talking about this the other night and both of
us think that the f****'ers at Enron who were at the top should all be hung by their heals and
fed Exlax for a while. Then thrown into prison for a long time. Then when they're older they
should be released in the subway somewhere COLD with no money or access to it (if that's
possible) and be homeless.

--
Steve

Men are from Earth. Women are from Earth. Deal with it.
 
V

Vox Humana

Guest
"Nancy Young" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Naomi Darvell wrote:
> >
> > x-no-archive: yes
> >
> > Another problem-- among people who think she's guilty, there are going
to be
> > differences in how serious people think the offense is.
>
> I'm thinking, how many of us here, upon getting a call from someone who knew that the principals
> were dumping the stock, would say, no I am not going to sell, that wouldn't be right, I'll just
> lose the money. I get out in a heartbeat. And I have a big honest streak.
>
> Now, I know this is wrong thinking, but they threw the big gun at Martha, their top lawyer. Excuse
> my french, but I firmly believe that person should be going after those f**** at Enron who
> deliberately stole all those retirement savings from their employees. That is a trial I can get
> behind, seems they are having more fun making Martha miserable over some kind of 'making an
> example' type of thing.
>
> Just my opinion.

I agree completely. The biggest, and perhaps the only mistake she made was trying to do damage
control after-the-fact.
 
D

Dave Smith

Guest
Naomi Darvell wrote:

> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Another problem-- among people who think she's guilty, there are going to be differences in how
> serious people think the offense is.

IF she is guilty, it is a serious offence. A lot of hard working people have been screwed out of
their life savings by crooked business people and it's about time that the rich started paying for
their crimes to the same degree that the less fortunate have to. I keep hearing people whining about
how bad the economy is because of unions, but I would suggest that a good part of the economic
problems we see today is a result of loss of confidence in the stock market.