Posted on 07/16/2004 7:35:46 AM PDT by wagglebee
I thought the prosecution was over-reaching on some things. It is problematic to not be able to prove that someone committed the actual crime but then get them for lying about the actual crime you can't prove they committed.
Make the 5 months count; put her in with the ho's and junkies.
You really didn't pay any attention at all to what she was charged with, nor to her trial, did you?
Martha can teach her fellow prisoners the right way to toss a salad.
"Problematic?"
"Problematic" is for roundtable discussions on PBS; this trial was plain damned prosecutorial vindictiveness!
Not to mentioned the prosecution also lied in this case.
I would really like to hear from freeper lawyers whether there has been a comparable case where someone went to jail for lying to police, during the investigation of an offence that could not be prosecuted.
I mean, is OJ Simpson in jail for lying about his shoes? I believe he was under oath.
That doesn't matter to people who just want her punished because she is rich. Thank goodness we will now get this dangerous criminal off the streets. Her whole trial was a sham from the beginning and if there is any justice she will win on appeal. Witnesses that lied, jurors that lied, jurors that said after the trial that it was a victory for the little people....what a sham.
"'Problematic' is for roundtable discussions on PBS; this trial was plain damned prosecutorial vindictiveness!"
Well, ok, so I used a different word than you would like. But my point stands--the prosecution was over-reaching, and she was convicted of lying about an offense they can't prove she actually committed. That is a problem, no matter how you word it. The federal government has too much power and too many things are federal crimes.
But, I do think that the moment the prosecutors filed charges of stock fraud based on her simply saying on her company's website that she was innocent, ALL charges against her should have been dismissed and the prosecutors sanctioned with contempt of court. This charge was the worst sort of prosecutorial misconduct; the news organizations have described the charge, in a rather tongue-in-cheek fashion, as "extremely innovative".
The judge agreed, and dismissed that charge.
But I care WAY more about unprincipled prosecutors, piling on fabricated charges to attempt to force a plea bargain than I care about an investor who may or may not have received an inside tip.
As a point of interest, they never even charged her with the offense that she's been convicted of lying about!
Does this mean that stripes are in???
All this anti-Martha nonsense is really just jihad against competence. The incompetent and the mediocre (or those who think there is some virtue in it) will always be ready to villify and destroy anyone they perceive as better than themselves. Some call it envy.
This is sickening. The woman was found guilty and convicted. "Remember all of the good things I have done". Right. That's a crock for sure. What really makes me mad is this woman because she has money hired a person to help her smooth the way to prison or make it a lot easier. Have you ever heard of such a thing? It is time to vote this judge out of office along with others who use their own personal opinions rather than the law to govern.
well. Sleazy Martha got off easy, but at least the DOJ went after her. In fact, this administration has gone after more big crony capitalists than any other administration since TR.
I'll mark your words but you're wrong.
She's going to jail where she belongs. I thought the sentence to be very fair, five months in jail and five months in-house arrest.
It isn't so much the amount of her crime. It's that she lied and connived so damn arrogantly. No one has the right to ignore a law as not applicable to them.
Let me tell a personal story. I have a nephew, very good-looking but frankly tween me and you, a bit stupid. For whatever reason, he is the most arrogant of arrogant SOB's. He smokes dope quite a bit. This past year he was put on probation at the University of Tampa for smoking dope out in the student quadrangle. I add this as indicator of his arrogance. Couldn't he have smoked his dope in a bathroom?
Anyway, right before he was due to graduate high school, he got caught with a "roach" in his car. At the time he had already been caught with marijuana at school and was given three day suspension.
Finally the school authorities had it with his constantly flipping the bird at the rules. He was put on house arrest and not allowed to graduate on stage with his class.
Now my sister, his grandmother, and my niece, his mother, were all in a rage over this. *I* was not. The brat deserved what he got and still it didn't teach him a lesson.
My sister and niece argued that it was only a roach and the punishment far exceeded the crime. Ahhhhhh, but we forget the arrogance factor, do we not?
To those who argue that lovely Martha's sentence does not fit the crime, I compare her sentence to my nephew's. And I ask, how is my nephew's crime worth his punishment? On the surface, it seems harsh.
Whenever anyone displays an arrogance, an "I'm above the law" attitude, well darn that's like putting a bullseye on your back.
And Martha has displayed arrogance in spades and she is hated by the judicial system.
Now ask yourself, if you told your kids not to smoke on the sneak and they not only continued to smoke on the sneak but they also cavalierly lit up in front on you, well wouldn't those arrogant actions make you madder and your punishment harsher?
This woman is a zero, has no remorse and all, and still believes she's going to avoid jail.
She's not. She flipped the bird to the prosecutors and the investigators and STILL she's an arrogrant snob.
And note please that the authorities in both Maryland (my nephew's home) and Florida threw the book at that arrogant boy. I don't suppose he's learned anything but until he does he will not be able to jaywalk without the book being thrown at him. It's what happens when you smirk at our system of laws.
Here's the deal. The authorities got her into a box, that is to say she had a choice; either lie and get out of the illegal insider trading or tell the truth about her dealings, who gave her the information etc. and be tried for that. Since she chose to lie, they got her on obstruction of justice. They had her either way.
So where was the jury on this one? No one asked me to be on the jury.
Bingo. Unfortunately that is what we are coming to in this country and the democrats are leading the way in fostering this class warfare.
"I would really like to hear from freeper lawyers whether there has been a comparable case where someone went to jail for lying to police, during the investigation of an offence that could not be prosecuted."
It's a favorite tactic of federal prosecutors. If you might not be able to make a case on the substantive offense, look for obstruction and bootstrap. You have some evidence indicating that there might have been a crime (there might not have been, and that's why you can't charge the substantive offense), and you have evidence that they deny there was a crime and haven't "assisted" the investigation. Voila, you have something you can go after them on.
AS A FORMER BROKER, she knew the rules.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.