EX-HUBBY SAW FALL COMING (Martha)

New York Post ^ | 3/08/04 | JOHN LEHMANN

[MississippiMan]

Ahhh, gotcha. Thanks...

MM

[nopardons]

I didn't ask you who you would vote for, on this thread.

Markets would be a mess without laws and regulations;especially now,when there are not only more people alive, than when the NYSE started under that Buttonwood tree, but because more people,not to mention pension funds,investing in all of the markets.With the invention and the introduction of the telephone, the ticker,the lighted board,and the net, this is a far cry from the early days of stock exchanges here and abroad.

You want to go back to the supposed halcyon days of no regulations, no government departments? Those fays were rife with corruption,which damned near brought down the Bank of England and the monarchy, when the South Sea Bubble broke! Our country was almost brought to her knees, many times over, prior to the Crash of '29, And almost NO ONE was playing the market in those days.

It wasn't the Crash of '29, BTW,which first brought the Federal Government into the picture, but the horrendous depression of 1907!The Panic, which launched that depression, had Congress going nuts.And, to the best of my knowledge, FDR was neither president, nor a Congress critter in 1907.

But gee,let's just do away with ALL laws concerning stock, bond,options,futures, and commodities.Then we can have a panic, or depression, or a crash, or what have you,that will REALLY be of such proportions, you can be as miserable As you like and have a whole lot of company;instead of being miserable, with just a few companions.

Since you obviously know absolutely know absolutely whatsoever about the NYSE( forget about the other exchanges for the moment), read "THE PLUNGERS AND THE PEACOCKS", by Dana L. Thomas,for starters.

[nopardons]

It's a bit MORE complex than that. If you want to know the facts about her marriage,Andy, and what really happened, which is NOT what you stated, just FREEPmail. :-)

[nopardons]

I should have read further. LOL

Thanks for correcting the erroneous garbage,before I got here. :-)

[nopardons]

You're welcome...my pleasure. :-)

NP

[TheBattman]

Amazing - if you have a friend who works for a company that is "up-and-coming", they can reccomend the stock and give you all the info you might want or need to invest. That same friend warns you that trouble is on the horizon and you cannot act on that info.

Just doesn't seem "right" to me.

I understand the intent of the law - to keep big execs. from dumping stock in their own company, thus leaving the "average Joe" stockholder holding the bag. But sometimes the law just doesn't make sense....

[Al Simmons]

"Let me guess, he saw it coming right around September 21st."

Don't know anything about that, but recall reading a piece some years ago about how, when she divorced him, she tried to scre* him out of his share of the business, which he had helped her start. Did not paint a flattering picture of her, and have not thought much of her since.

Martha should have talked to Leona Helmsley before she decided to go 'the full monte' in the trial.

Regarding her lawyer, whose performance violated several (based on my experience) cardinal rules of succesful defense, i.e.:

a. If the Gov't offers a deal, and the evidence looks decidedly one-sided, take it, and

b. If your client really wants to be acquitted in a case where the evidence is decidely one-sided, he/she must take the stand, engender sympathy, and lie well err..... testify credibly....

OTOH, it is quite possible that Martha was the one who drove the "zero-sum" game strategy....in which case the dude defending her should have punched...I would have...it didn't take a brain surgeon to figure what was going to happen given the way the defense handled this case....remember Mike Tyson and Leona Helmsley, both of whom were convicted of more serious crimes based on (arguably) less evidence than the Gov't had against Ms. Stewart.

[Al Simmons]

"This is what's killing her, a huge blow to her bloated ego."

Err...that's not the only thing BLOATED about her these days....

[Bonaparte]

"If the Gov't offers a deal, and the evidence looks decidedly one-sided, take it"

She wouldn't let him do a deal. He probably begged her to.

"...she must take the stand..."

In this case, the prosecution would have torn her a new one on cross. It would have opened all sorts of doors Morvillo wisely wanted to keep closed, not the least of which was a virtual "discovery" in advance of her forthcoming civil trial (coming soon to a courtroom near you).

Everybody's trashing her attorney. He did the best he could do with an extremely difficult client under adverse conditions. I'm surprised he even took the case.

[185JHP]

If Martha reforms and begins to post on FR, I've got a screenname for her: "strangetastingmuffin." I loved your anecdote!

[Bonaparte]

"Err...that's not the only thing BLOATED about her these days...."

Wadaya mean, Al? She's as svelt and lithesome as the day she sold her first penny stock!

[nopardons]

Martha's treated Andy and ALL of her family and friends like garbage.

She has had Andy (I'll just stick to him right now)do all kinds of backbreaking work,for years, after he'd already put in a day's work, at his job, whatever that was at the time. If it hadn't been for the fact that he was running a well known publishing house,her first book would NEVER have been published.For years, he was her favorite doormat. He grew a bit of a backbone,during the divorce.

[nopardons]

HI! :-)

[longtermmemmory]

Most people are missing the fact that SHE COULD HAVE AVOIDED THE WHOLE MESS, if she disgourged teh profits at the very begining in order to "avoid any appearance of impropriety". She would have looked more polished. Instead she chose arrogance.

[nopardons]

She also had two,count 'em, TWO plea bargains available to her, and one with NO jail time at all. She chose to go to trial!

[Bonaparte]

"strangetastingmuffin"

Hahahahaha! I love it!

[185JHP]

Thanks.

[Don Joe]

My, my, my, the French Knitting Team certainly has been busy in this thread.

Some of you people should be ashamed of yourselves. I'm not going to name names, but you know who you are. This is the most pathetic mass catfight I've ever seen, bar none. Class warfare is alive and well -- on a "Conservative" site, no less.

The Republic is done. Stick a fork in it.

This isn't about M. Stewart. This is about ME. And YOU. And ALL of us.

But go ahead. Laugh. Knit. Be the Harpie. The bleachers beckon, take your seats. Let the games begin.

Just don't go losing your head over it.

Meanwhile, there are a couple of articles you might want to take a peek at.

First:

"Are U.S. senators real 'inside traders'?
Study shows stock portfolios outperform market by 12%"

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37480

Hmm, now isn't that interesting.

So when are we going to put *them* in the dock -- and in the cell?

Allow me to place the first bet: "Never."

And now, for the "kill shot":

"Free Martha Stewart"

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37490

Some excerpts, for your fuming pleasure:

"Free Martha Stewart"

By Joseph Farah

---

Posted: March 9, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

I don't like Martha Stewart.

Like so many other average Americans, I detest her cult of celebrity. I find her perfectionism annoying. I, too, would be severely tempted to convict her if I saw her pal Rosie O'Donnell in the courtroom. Her financial support for Bill Clinton, Al Gore and any other breathing Democrat is enough to make me sick.

However, let's face facts. She's guilty of nothing. The charges against her amounted to trumped-up nothingness. Unless the conviction last week is reversed on appeal, she almost certainly faces jail time.

This is not right. This is not justice. This is not the American way.

For those of you who haven't followed the details of the case closely, here's what really happened.

One of Stewart's many friends is a man named Samuel D. Waksal, the founder of a company called ImClone that developed a promising cancer-fighting drug. A day before the company announced the Food and Drug Administration had refused to approve the drug, she dumped 4,000 shares of ImClone stock, valued at $51,000.

Waksal is serving a seven-year sentence on several charges of security fraud related to ImClone stock. Ironically, the FDA later approved the drug – which offers great hope to cancer patients throughout the country.

So what is the big offense that will send Martha Stewart up the river with Waksal? Lying. More specifically lying to government officials.

What did she lie about? She maintained her innocence about stock fraud – a charge she never actually faced because of lack of evidence. But because she said right along that she was innocent, the government tried her on the bogus charge of lying.

What ever happened to the notion in this country that we oppose self-incrimination? Martha Stewart got herself in trouble with her own words – in trying to protect herself, in trying simply to maintain her innocence.

Outside the courtroom, U.S. Attorney David Kelley said all Americans were victims of Stewart because lies to investigators weaken the nation's law enforcement system.

I hope he was joking. We have judges in this country making up laws. We have judges enforcing unconstitutional orders. We have government officials breaking the law with impunity. Chaos is reigning in the streets of America because of government law-breaking, lies and deceit. So, to set an example, a government prosecutor pursues – at a cost of over $10 million to the taxpayers – this nothing case against Martha Stewart to plaudits of those who relish class warfare.

"When we first indicted this case, we said it was about lies, all about lies," Kelley said. "As you saw in the evidence, that's what it was."

Yes, that's all it was.

Now, I don't like liars, but let's face it: Nobody lies nearly as much as government officials. They lie. They steal. They defraud the American public on a daily basis. Lying to them shouldn't be a crime, it should be a constitutional requirement.

Let's recall that Bill Clinton lied under oath while serving as president. He lied in a lawsuit charging him with sexual harassment. But we were told that was no big deal.

Perjury is a much bigger deal – and should be – than lying to a government official.

Yet, the way things actually work, government officials – who should be required to live under a higher standard of ethical behavior than ordinary taxpayers – have some kind of immunity.

The Martha Stewart case is a travesty of justice. The real lesson is that the government can put away anyone it wants, any time it wants.

That's not a lesson that should give comfort to any American – no matter what our station in life.

---

My, my, I got a bit carried away there, didn't I. I excerpted the whole article. Oh, well. I guess now I know how the Off-With-Her-Head! harpies feel, getting caught up in the moment.

No I don't. I was just kidding about that. If I *really* felt like one of those harridans, I'd throw myself in front of the 123 IRT. I *do* have a conscience, after all.

Well, niteynite, all.

[Miss Marple]

Thanks! I like the screen name you thought of! LOL!

[CaliGirlGodHelpMe]

"If you have a friend...they can give you all the info you might want or need to invest."

Well, not ALL the info you might want. It would be illegal for you to buy stock because, say, your friend told you he's about to be bought out by another company. The purpose of insider trading regulations, as I understand them, is to prevent friends and relatives of insiders from profiting unfairly from info the public does not have access to. I think it makes good sense.