RFC POLL: Is Martha Stewart Guilty?



On 01/29/2004 3:39 PM, in article [email protected], "Dave
Smith" <[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
>>
>
> Should we not hear the evidence first?
>
>
Who's *we* canuck?

This is an American circus!
--
=======================================================================
The principal difference between genius and stupidity is that there are limits to genius!
=======================================================================
 
"Dave Smith" <[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.
>
> 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.

There have been so many cases of people who acted in their official capacity to cheat people out of
billions of dollars, that what Martha did doesn't seem all the serious. I imagine that movers and
shakers often have information not available to the general public and therefore participate in
insider trading to some degree. Had she engineered some fraudulent accounting scheme to inflate the
value of her company or to hide losses and liabilities, it would be different. If her husband owned
a company called "Martin Stewart Omnimedia" and she dumped her stock when she found out that Waxal
dumped his, I don't think it would be any different. The broker shouldn't have called her. I think
the primary problem lies there.
 
On 01/29/2004 1:16 PM, in article
[email protected], "zxcvbob" <[email protected]>
opined:

> 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

Her whole defense is a stretch. But it's not as bad for the government as the OJ jury that was
stacked with black women who think it's ok for their husbands to beat the **** out of them. I know
that may sound racist to some BUT the jury consultant hired by the dream team admitted that's
exactly what they wanted to do. Clark and Darden were too stupid to see it coming.

Stewart is knowledgeable about stocks, that's what she did for a living.

It comes down to how she plays to the jury.

She lied to the feds, that's not a smart thing to do.

My prediction, she is found guilty and does some time.
--
==========================================================================
"When a broad table is to be made, and the edges of planks do not fit, the artist takes a little
from both, and makes a good joint. In like manner here, both sides must part with some of their
demands," Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)
==========================================================================
 
ENRON execs looted a company, screwed thousands of workers, and they're still free and
enjoying the $$$

I guess Martha just didn't buy enough American justice.

<rj>

On 29 Jan 2004 19:25:55 GMT, [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.
>
>To me, it looks like she is guilty of insider trading, but that it was just a blunder and that she
>didn't systematically lie to cover it up. Her lies seem to have been clumsy enough to suggest that
>she just didn't think very much about the whole thing.
>
>
>
>
>Naomi D.

<rj
 
Default User <[email protected]> deliciously posted in
news:[email protected]:

> 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

I tend to agree Brian. I really do not care for her TV persona and I have never purchased the
products she endorses. Basically, I do not like her. At all. OTOH, the media has crucified her and I
agree with all 5 of your points. There are others out there that have done worse than she is accused
of without such serious repercussions.

Michael

--
NOUVELLE CUISINE: "It's so beautifully arranged on the plate - you know someone's fingers have been
all over it." ~~ Julia Child
 
Default User <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> 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.
>

> 5. Portrayed by Cybill Shepherd in a TV movie.
>
>
>
> Brian Rodenborn

Hey! I LIKE Cybill Shepherd . . . Lynn in Fargo
 
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.
>
> nancy

My opinion, too. Okay, Martha may not have been honest, and cut a few ethical corners, which she
should not have done. I just think it's all been blown out of proportion to the seriousness of her
actions in her case because she IS famous. And some people just plain don't like her which is
entirely legitimate. I think she's taken domesticity completely over the top, but she's Martha
Stewart so that the rest of us don't have to be. I don't wish this very public humiliation on her.

I haven't heard that her financial shenanigans ruined any other people. Ken Lay and those who
contributed to the collapse of Enron deserve to be barbecued alive for ruining their company and
their employees lives through their incredible greed. Those ******** helped screw up my state's
economy through a manufactured energy crisis, too. The only suitable punishment for Ken Lay would be
having to live in a roach infested tenement building surrounded by his former employees.

Melissa
 
On 01/29/2004 11:48 PM, in article
[email protected], "Melissa Houle"
<[email protected]> opined:

> 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.
>>
>> nancy
>
> My opinion, too. Okay, Martha may not have been honest, and cut a few ethical corners, which she
> should not have done. I just think it's all been blown out of proportion to the seriousness of her
> actions in her case because she IS famous. And some people just plain don't like her which is
> entirely legitimate. I think she's taken domesticity completely over the top, but she's Martha
> Stewart so that the rest of us don't have to be. I don't wish this very public humiliation on her.

There is one saying that transcends multiple cultures, the gist is what goes around comes around or
you reap what you sow, etc.

famous" crybabies. SHE IS IN FEDERAL COURT BECAUSE SHE LIED TO FEDERAL PROSCUTORS AND HER
STOCK HOLDERS!

SHE WOULDN'T BE DODGING PAPERAZZI ON HER WAY UP THE COURTHOUSE STEPS EVERYMORNING NOW WOULD SHE?

Six months in the pen with the bull dykes might be an epiphany for her and she may spend the rest of
her life a little more thankful for all the things she has.

that woman."

>
> I haven't heard that her financial shenanigans ruined any other people. Ken Lay and those who
> contributed to the collapse of Enron deserve to be barbecued alive for ruining their company and
> their employees lives through their incredible greed. Those ******** helped screw up my state's
> economy through a manufactured energy crisis, too. The only suitable punishment for Ken Lay would
> be having to live in a roach infested tenement building surrounded by his former employees.
>
> Melissa

--
===============================================================
I love cooking with wine, sometimes I even put it in the food.
===============================================================
 
"The Wolf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BC3FAAE5.5014C%[email protected]...
> On 01/29/2004 11:48 PM, in article [email protected], "Melissa
> Houle" <[email protected]> opined:
>

she's
> famous" crybabies. SHE IS IN FEDERAL COURT BECAUSE SHE LIED TO FEDERAL PROSCUTORS AND HER STOCK
> HOLDERS!

I feel the same way about Rush Limbaugh. He is under the thumb of the prosecutor in Palm Beach
County because he purchased drugs in a Denny's parking lot with boxes full of cash. He illegally
structured bank withdrawals to hide the transactions. Then he obtained duplicate prescriptions from
multiple sources simultaneously to feed his addiction. There are pharmacy and bank records to
support this. In addition, his housekeeper supplied voice recordings and emails to support the claim
that he had her illegally obtain narcotics for him. Now, after bashing the ACLU and liberal trial
attorneys, he hired a liberal trial attorney to defend him and has not refused the help of the ACLU
on his behalf. Any common person would have been in jail by now, but Rush asserts that he is being
unfairly treated because he is a celebrity. His attorney asserts that there is no utility in
charging him with a crime, however Rush says that more white people (his term) should be prosecuted
and "sent up" for taking illegal drugs. They claim that there are no victims, but someone had to
knock over a drug store, steal a delivery truck, or break into a warehouse to divert the
"prescription drugs" for sale on the street. The housekeeper was pressured to do illegal acts.
Limbaugh claims to be the highest rated talk show on radio and is definitely Clear Channel's cash
cow. His illegal acts jeopardize that company's bottom line the same way that Martha's alleged
illegal acts impact her company. The only difference here is that I would enjoy seeing the Bush
puppets, Clear Channel and Rush Limbaugh, suffer and you would like to see liberal Democrat, Martha
Stewart, suffer.
 
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:32:09 GMT, The Wolf <[email protected]>
wrote:

>SHE WOULDN'T BE DODGING PAPERAZZI ON HER WAY UP THE COURTHOUSE STEPS EVERYMORNING NOW WOULD SHE?

$250,000? Worth $1,000,00? Hah! You silly boy!

Your crudeness is not the problem, but your incredible stupidity is. Really...you cannot carry on
that way when you don't know your ass from your elbow.

Bluster all you want, but if you can't get your facts straight, go to the back of the class with the
goof-offs and don't say a word unless someone calls on you.

Now, behave!

Boron
 
On 01/30/2004 7:29 AM, in article [email protected],
"Vox Humana" <[email protected]> opined:

>
> "The Wolf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:BC3FAAE5.5014C%[email protected]...
>> On 01/29/2004 11:48 PM, in article [email protected], "Melissa
>> Houle" <[email protected]> opined:
>>

> she's
>> famous" crybabies. SHE IS IN FEDERAL COURT BECAUSE SHE LIED TO FEDERAL PROSCUTORS AND HER STOCK
>> HOLDERS!
>
> I feel the same way about Rush Limbaugh. He is under the thumb of the prosecutor in Palm Beach
> County because he purchased drugs in a Denny's parking lot with boxes full of cash. He illegally
> structured bank withdrawals to hide the transactions. Then he obtained duplicate prescriptions
> from multiple sources simultaneously to feed his addiction. There are pharmacy and bank records to
> support this. In addition, his housekeeper supplied voice recordings and emails to support the
> claim that he had her illegally obtain narcotics for him. Now, after bashing the ACLU and liberal
> trial attorneys, he hired a liberal trial attorney to defend him and has not refused the help of
> the ACLU on his behalf. Any common person would have been in jail by now, but Rush asserts that he
> is being unfairly treated because he is a celebrity. His attorney asserts that there is no utility
> in charging him with a crime, however Rush says that more white people (his term) should be
> prosecuted and "sent up" for taking illegal drugs. They claim that there are no victims, but
> someone had to knock over a drug store, steal a delivery truck, or break into a warehouse to
> divert the "prescription drugs" for sale on the street. The housekeeper was pressured to do
> illegal acts. Limbaugh claims to be the highest rated talk show on radio and is definitely Clear
> Channel's cash cow. His illegal acts jeopardize that company's bottom line the same way that
> Martha's alleged illegal acts impact her company. The only difference here is that I would enjoy
> seeing the Bush puppets, Clear Channel and Rush Limbaugh, suffer and you would like to see liberal
> Democrat, Martha Stewart, suffer.
>
>

State and Feds is Apples & Oranges.

If Rush did indeed break Florida law you will see him in court.
--
===========================================================================
³If we die, we want people to accept it. We're in a risky business, and we hope that if anything
happens to us it will not delay the program. The conquest of space is worth the risk of life,²
Gus Grissom.
===========================================================================
 
On 01/29/2004 8:00 AM, in article
[email protected], "Boron Elgar"
<[email protected]> opined:

> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:32:09 GMT, The Wolf <[email protected]> wrote:
>

>> SHE WOULDN'T BE DODGING PAPERAZZI ON HER WAY UP THE COURTHOUSE STEPS EVERYMORNING NOW WOULD SHE?
>
>
>
> $250,000? Worth $1,000,00? Hah! You silly boy!
>
> Your crudeness is not the problem, but your incredible stupidity is. Really...you cannot carry on
> that way when you don't know your ass from your elbow.
>
> Bluster all you want, but if you can't get your facts straight, go to the back of the class with
> the goof-offs and don't say a word unless someone calls on you.
>
> Now, behave!
>
> Boron

Dear Boron The Moron,

Please accept my sincerest apologies, apparently I left out three zeros.

From now on I will spell out such so it doesn't happen again, ok?

Martha Stewart Inc. was, emphasis on *was* worth one billion American dollars. I don't know where
you are from, nor do I care, but one billion American dollars is some serious coin, comprende?

She put it all at risk and may end up doing some time with the bull dykes over two hundred fifty
thousand American dollars. I don't think she is the sharpest knife in the drawer!

You behave! The Wolf
--
====================================================
"Fast Eddie, let's play some pool," Minnesota Fats.
====================================================
 
So Martha practices a little *****craft. So What!. She may have stolen a mere 40K. There are fat
bastards on Wall Street that stole trillions. This is just a big diversion to keep the attention of
the masses away from the major f***ery that is really going on. Same with the Whacko Jacko farce.

Farmer John
 
On 01/30/2004 12:47 PM, in article
[email protected], "Vox Humana"
<[email protected]> opined:

>
> "The Wolf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:BC3FFFF4.501B7%[email protected]...
>> On 01/30/2004 7:29 AM, in article
> [email protected],
>>
>> State and Feds is Apples & Oranges.
>>
>> If Rush did indeed break Florida law you will see him in court.
>
> This IS Florida, after all. The state run by the Bush crime family and the religious right. Logic
> doesn't always prevail.
>
>
Oh I see, what state does the Clinton crime family run?
--
 
"Naomi Darvell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
>
> To me, it looks like she is guilty of insider trading,

No, she's not an insider and hasn't been accused of insider trading. Waksal was an insider, and is
now inside. I doubt that any jury will find against her as there was no criminal intent. Whole thing
is a gigantic waste of time and money.
 
"The Wolf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BC401CA1.5021A%[email protected]...
> On 01/30/2004 12:47 PM, in article [email protected], "Vox Humana"
> <[email protected]> opined:
>
> >
> > "The Wolf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:BC3FFFF4.501B7%[email protected]...
> >> On 01/30/2004 7:29 AM, in article
> > [email protected],
> >>
> >> State and Feds is Apples & Oranges.
> >>
> >> If Rush did indeed break Florida law you will see him in court.
> >
> > This IS Florida, after all. The state run by the Bush crime family and
the
> > religious right. Logic doesn't always prevail.
> >
> >
> Oh I see, what state does the Clinton crime family run?

Hint: Clinton is the opposite of Bush.
 
On 01/30/2004 3:42 PM, in article [email protected],
"Vox Humana" <[email protected]> opined:

>
> "The Wolf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:BC401CA1.5021A%[email protected]...
>> On 01/30/2004 12:47 PM, in article [email protected], "Vox Humana"
>> <[email protected]> opined:
>>
>>>
>>> "The Wolf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:BC3FFFF4.501B7%[email protected]...
>>>> On 01/30/2004 7:29 AM, in article
>>> [email protected],
>>>>
>>>> State and Feds is Apples & Oranges.
>>>>
>>>> If Rush did indeed break Florida law you will see him in court.
>>>
>>> This IS Florida, after all. The state run by the Bush crime family and
> the
>>> religious right. Logic doesn't always prevail.
>>>
>>>
>> Oh I see, what state does the Clinton crime family run?
>
> Hint: Clinton is the opposite of Bush.
>
>
According to who?
--
===============================================================
I love cooking with wine, sometimes I even put it in the food.
===============================================================
 
Vox Humana <[email protected]> countered Pup in message
news:[email protected]... [snip]
> > > Florida: Bush-owned and Operated
> > >
> > Oh I see, what state does the Clinton crime family run?
> >
> Hint: Clinton is the opposite of Bush.

Who's spectrum are you looking at? Both aim(ed) square for that fence edge known as "I don't wanna
**** anyone off."

The Ranger