MSO: Halted & Guilty

pspr,

Steroids will be legalized soon here...and we are fine for now....we borrowed some more money, until we can tax Bill Gates more...ah heck....let our kids worry about it...hey at least we balance our budget now...for a while...if it gets submitted on time...LOL Califorinia is temporarily bankrupt...I can hear it now...Arnold is pissed and throws a barbell at the legislation headquarters..... I'LL BE BACK' Pepo, I need your support for kalifonya....

I am not defending the system.....Martha's arrogance has a MAJOR role in this....They just used her profile to get leverage...on enforcement. Kinda like the mass mentality fear that the IRS uses to get more voluntary bang for the enforcement buck...

Believe me I am not some 'wide-eyed", "wet behind the ears" pre-madonna...when it comes to these issues.

I think the discussion here is good, and nothing personal...these issues can be taken to heart...and should be serious...I do not have all the answers... we only hear about these high profile cases....I wonder how many positive prosecutions and convictions have been made....I wonder if Martha's crucifiction maybe has helped others to follow the law more....I am sure Martha is not thinking of that now...actually I bet she is pissed to take the advice from her trial lawyers....

Michael B.


Quote from pspr:

ES, don't you live in California? You have the SF mayor breaking California law and liberal prosecuters refusing to prosecute him and liberal courts refusing to uphold the law.

Maybe Martha should have told the court that she thought the law discrimated against her. Powerful business women are always being discriminated against. The Cal. court upheld the right of the mayor to make that determination and violate the law.
More...
 
Quote from Turok:

>Ever hear of freedom of speach?

And unless you are a complete moron you know that even the freedom of speach has real and legal limits. There are MANY things that I can tell you that aren't protected by that right.

JB
More...


There is a difference between yelling fire in a theatre, testifying under oath and talking to someone.
 
It will be interesting to see if Martha's lawyers come up with a constitutional challenge in their appeal. Although, I didn't think they seemed very bright when in front of the camera.
 
>There is a difference between yelling fire in a
>theatre, testifying under oath and talking to
>someone.

Yes, and "talking to someone" if that "someone" is a federal investigator acting in the course of his/her job, rightly does not carry with it the same freedom of speach as talking across the fence to the neighbor. This has been constitutionally tested repeatedly.

JB
 
believe me ....she has the money to mount this quest.....

I wonder if sitting in jail will change her much...I actully liked seeing her on TV...I admit it....Classy lady with a lot of answers..I liked the way she made me feel....

Michael B.

asked the wife to serve ice sculptures before serving dinner (just after watching Martha's show).....said I liked the way it made me feel...This bump I have on my head is not from birth.

Quote from pspr:

It will be interesting to see if Martha's lawyers come up with a constitutional challenge in their appeal. Although, I didn't think they seemed very bright when in front of the camera.
More...
 
I got to go eat lunch....I am home alone...wifey working with the bitch's (she is a veterinary technician, don't get excited!)...I think I will go to the Thai Food buffet and save one of those paper umbrella's in memory of the queen....Good ol' Martha...(just can't picture her and Michael in jail)

Michael B.

talk to you folks soon.... :) :)
 
Quote from Turok:

>There is a difference between yelling fire in a
>theatre, testifying under oath and talking to
>someone.

Yes, and "talking to someone" if that "someone" is a federal investigator acting in the course of his/her job, rightly does not carry with it the same freedom of speach as talking across the fence to the neighbor. This has been constitutionally tested repeatedly.

JB
More...

That might be the case, but that is not how it should be. Noone should be made so pious that the result of lying to him or her about an alledged white collar crime results in this kind of ordeal, especially when no charges are even brought on that alledged crime.
 
Since I have recently gained weight, I will weigh in on this subject.

There are plenty of people in federal prison for long periods who lied to federal investigators. The federal prison population has gone up 466% since parole ended on Nov 1 1986.

Further, since Martha has not accepted guilt, there is no basis for a downward departure. Ashcroft has said he wants judges put on notice that downward departures will be appealed.

On the same subject, The Feeley Amendment to last April's PROTECT Act (the horrible law that encompasses the Amber Alert)
prohibits downward departures except in a very few cases.
Martha doesn't qualify for a downward departure. But, I wouldn't be surprised, given her celebrity, if she gets one and the prosecutors don't challenge it.

In my opinion she deserves at least 5 years, but will probably not get that much time. She will be coddled, and whatever sentence is given there will be complaining that it was too stiff, when in fact it will be too lenient. We'll see if this judge treats her like other defendants.
 
>That might be the case, but that is not how it should
>be. Noone should be made so pious that the result of
>lying to him or her about an alledged white collar crime
>results in this kind of ordeal, especially when no charges
>are even brought on that alledged crime.

I would fear *for* any system of justice that would allow false statements to be made at will and with inpunity.

JB

As a side note...there are times I actually fear this system of justice as it's far from perfect.
 
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.

Secondly, "Obstruction of Justice" is indeed a crime. I am rather puzzled as to some of the logic on this thread that believes that it is not, and thus Martha Stewart should somehow go unpunished.

Thirdly, last time I checked, the SEC does in fact have the opportunity to charge Martha Stewart and her broker Peter Bakonovic for insider trading, which they actually did back in June of last year. My guess is that this charge will now move forward.

Fourthly, with all due respect, my goodfriend Pspr is wrong when he states that "it is not illegal to lie to most state and city investigators". Ever hear of making False Statements to a Peace Officer? I have. And does it ever get prosecuted? Yes it does!

Fifth, Stewart's attorney, Robert Morvillo is a moron. He put on a "bare-bones" defense in that he called only one witness and questioned him for just 20 minutes . . . and when it came to cross-examining the most damaging testimony of all, from Stewart's secretary Ann Armstrong ( a government witness ) who stated that Martha tried to delete the phone message from Peter Bacanovic about ImClone back on Dec. 27, 2001, Morvillo gently cross-examined her and then never undermined Armstrong's testimony in Morvillo's closing argument.

Sixth, Stewart is not being jailed because she stated that she "couldn't recall" her conversation with Sam Waksal, as a poster stated earlier. She is being jailed because the Jury found Stewart's secretary credible. She is being jailed because the message from Bacanovic . . . "Peter Bacanovic thinks ImClone is going to start trading downward" was later partly erased by Stewart following a telephone conversation with her lawyer, so said Armstrong. All the Jury had to do was ask the rhetorical question, "Gee, why did Martha want that message to be deleted?" Furthermore, the Jury found Stewart's girlfriend Marianna Pasternak credible and Stewart's business manager, Heidi DeLuca not.

Seventh, Stewart is a moron for even allowing this case to get this far . . . especially under such a backdrop over the last several years of Corporate Fraud and Wall Street greed. Her arrogance did her in. It is really as simple as that.

And lastly, Turok is once again spot on when he says that "The Wheels of Justice are indeed turning in California and that it just takes time to wind its way through the System."

The fact of the matter is that the Attorney General Bill Lockyer is not simply ignoring what San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome has been doing with regards to allowing marriage licenses to be given out to members of the same-sex, as Pspr has indicated. Lockyer has already asked the California Supreme Court to decide the legality of same-sex marriage. The legal process just takes time . . .

http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/2004/04-027.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top