In my mind, the Prosecutors wanted to go after Martha Stewart for Securities Fraud, all along. The problem was that it was going to be rather difficult to prove such an allegation, and it was eventualy thrown out by the Judge on the basis that it was "too weak to support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt." The Prosecution obviously added Obstruction of Justice because it is easy to prove. Yet, what they really wanted ( in the big picture ) was to have a potentially all-encompassing weapon to use against any chief executive of any company who makes sweeping declarations in regulatory findings. Such a precident would have hugely different consequences any time that a CEO would speak.
How does she deserve 5 years for lying about a call that she (the customer) got from her broker advising her to sell her remaining shares in a stock that she had been selling already? She deserves a slap on the wrist, it is her moron broker who deserves the jail time.
Is that she will receive 6 months to a year, max at Danbury, CT. It is not a tough place to do time. There are 4 roll-calls each day and you get plenty of food that is hot when it is suppose to be, and cold when it is suppose to be. No big barbed-wire fences, and you can roam around as much as you wish, just don't decide to roam past the edge of the property otherwise you will wind-up doing a whole lot more time than you were initially charged with! For Martha, it will be a huge reality check because you live in a "communal" dormitory setting . . . gang showers, bunkbeds, etc. just like in a military setting. The biggest thing to deal with: Boredom
I was wondering.....can K-Mart now sue Martha for not abiding by her contract with them? She had a responsibility to maintain a good public image as not to damage K-mart. Kinda like the Steve thing with Dell ....dude' your gettin a dell....well Steve thought it also met.... dude....your gettin a high..... Dell dropped him like a "cup of hot coffee at Mcdonalds"........ Michael B.
Wag: >First off, I agree with everything that Turok has said >with regards to the Feds case against Martha Stewart. >He obviously has a tremendous amount of insight into the >Rule of Law than most of us here. Thanks Wag. What there is of it comes from putting my decade plus partner through a very expensive law school in the mid '90s. I figured if I was paying I would at least learn something myself. JB
>Is that she will receive 6 months to a >year, max at Danbury, CT. ClubFeds ain't what they used to be, but they are still well above average cush. In the late '80s/early '90s when Boeski, Mitnick and Banano were doing time in the Lompoc ClubFed the facility included: Long(1mile) and short(1/8mile) running tracks Well maintained softball field with bleachers Indoor gym with full NBA size basketball court Racquet ball court Tennis courts World class workout facility with all the latest in weight and cardio gear Bocci court Pool tables Large shop for inmate projects (Martha would love that) Horseback riding Driving range And as Wag points out, no bars, no locks, no fences. I hear they're not quite as cush these days. JB
Pspr: >As I stated before, the liberal Cal. Supremes refused to >halt the activities of the SF mayor pending resolution >through the series of court reviews that are going to >take quite some time even though it is in violation of >state law as it is now. This is nonsense. It may be nonsense to you, but it's the way the system was designed to work and it's working as designed. Unless there is a time factor related to damages (Your Honor, if the defendant is allowed to continue the activity while the wheels of justice turn there will irreparable damage to my client) then the Supreme court is NOT SUPPOSED to intervene. The Supreme Court of California (not familiar with other states but suspect they are similar) is tasked with resolving cases that have been filtered through the lower courts. A determination of emergency must be found for it to act otherwise. In this case an emergency could not be shown so it's in the low courts for now. JB
There is a big differnence, in that a judge ruled that no reasonable person could possibly find Stewart guilty of the "stock fraud" charge beyond a doubt. There is a huge difference between an honest dispute of opinion between guilt/innocence of the defendant, and wilfully bringing a charge you know to be BS, purely for tactical reasons. The law is about dispensing justice, not scoring points or getting in the papers. Anyone who pressures a defendant with a trumped-up charge is guilty of creating a kangaroo court, banana-republic show-trial justice, and should either hang or rot behind bars for the rest of their natural life. There is a great case that the prosecution brought the "stock fraud" charge purely for intimidation reasons. That IMO should be a major criminal offence, perverting the course of justice. It is clearly arbitrary, capricious, unjust, and immoral. Any public employee bringing such a charge should go to jail for a very long time for trying to achieve injustice and stabbing their employers (the public, who are paying hard-earned tax dollars to these guys to achieve JUST results in the courts) in the back.
Turok, we are not talking about two individuals or corporations in a civil case. We are talking about blatent violation of an existing state law. And, yes their position is nonsense. Just as the position of the Florida Supreme court was nonsense during the last presidential election until the Chief Justice finally couldn't ignore the law and justice any more and reversed his position. P.S. I live in FL, just for the record. AND we are getting off topic.