EX-HUBBY SAW FALL COMING (Martha)

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

[Cboldt]

... that's [juror comments] NOT grounds for appeal in this case. It can only be a mistake the judge made.

Not that I think an appeal will succeed, but FYI. There are several appropriate grounds for appeal, some of which involve the jury. For example, if it comes out that the jury was bribed. I don't know the boundry for juror misconduct that would trigger a retrial, but I'm sure we'll be hearing more about it as Martha continues her struggle against being held to account. If there is a problem with a juror, the verdict isn't reversed, she would have to go through a new trial.

The general statement that grounds for appeal lie with decisions from the bench is usually true, but not always.

[renosathug]

Laws are not just for the "little people", as those beneath her financial and social position are viewed by those in her circle.

She will not do "hard" time, but instead be in a minimum-security Federal facility. She probably will get 1-3 years, with an early release.

There is no reason she shouldn't do jail time. She knew what she was doing was wrong, then covered it up, then continued to lie to investigators. It would be worse to see her get by without any prison time, because this would only cofirm her exalted sense of her own importance.

[dwilli]

Saving the streets from Martha Stewart


By Wesley Pruden


We'll all sleep better now, feeling safe and secure in our beds (with or without flowered sheets). The feds are finally getting Martha Stewart off the streets.
Her expensively coiffed scalp will look nice on the wall behind the desk of the U.S. district attorney who led the prosecution. Martha, who insists on things being done right, will help him choose the appropriate presentation for her scalp. A mahogany frame against a deep red matte ought to set off Martha's blonde locks in an elegant and fetching way.
Some of the reporters and pundits who are offended most by Martha's advocacy of grown-up clothes and neat hair, orderly digs, and flowers and dishes arranged for a king's most demanding subjects haven't had so much fun since the feds hounded Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker into prison and oblivion for overbooking their hotel.
The first juror who spoke up after the verdict called throwing Miss Stewart into the slammer a victory for "the average guy." You could hear in his voice the triumphant note of revenge done well.
"Maybe it's a victory for the little guy who loses money in the markets because of these types of transactions, the people who lose money in 401(k) plans," said Chappell Hartridge, 47, a computer programmer who talks too much. "Maybe it might give the average guy a little more confident feeling that can invest in the market and everything will be on the up and up."
Well, maybe. But making Martha Stewart an example for a seminar on prudent investing is a bizarre use of a federal criminal trial, particularly since the feds' bill of particulars was thin soup to begin with and made more so when the judge threw out the charge of insider trading, the only blob of genuine bone and fat in the pot. Juror Hartridge and his prejudices, it now seems clear, was exactly what the feds were counting on to save them from the humiliation of a collapsing railroad job.
Miss Stewart, by all accounts, is not very nice: Arrogance, haughtiness, self-importance and a condescending manner are no more attractive in a Connecticut maven of gracious living than in, for example, a presidential candidate from Massachusetts. A nice Polish girl from New Jersey got into trouble in the first place by hanging out with the wrong crowd, the swells and belles of the Upper East Side who summer on Long Island Sound. She should have listened to her mama, who knew that hanging out with the wrong crowd is guaranteed to get a girl into trouble, and not necessarily the kind of trouble a girl can get into between flowered sheets. One of the cable-TV talking heads, a woman who was once a federal prosecutor, called Miss Stewart the prototypical "rich bitch," showing up in court in her furs, jewels and designer dresses. Indeed, her expensive lawyers should have taken her back to New Jersey to find a Wal-Mart to deck her out in a peasant frock. They could have returned to Lower Manhattan to warn some of her celebrity friends, such as Rosie O'Donnell and Bill Cosby, to stay away from the courthouse if they really wanted to help.
"If anything," the voluble Juror Hartridge said of the parade of Martha's rich and famous friends, "we may have taken it a little as an insult. Is that supposed to sway our opinion?"
In a word, yes. That's the way lawyers play the game. This time, the defense trick worked instead for the prosecution. Miss Stewart may be entitled to a rebate from her lawyers.
But Martha Stewart was not indicted on the charge of bitchery, witchery or even slickery. She was indicted on charges of conspiracy, obstruction of justice and making false statements to federal agents, who are themselves enabled by the law to lie. The government even suggested that she was guilty of "lying" simply for saying that she was innocent of wrongdoing. This is pretty rich from the side that gets to mark the cards.
We've always taken a certain pride in the proposition that in America, class doesn't count, that we look out for the poor but don't begrudge the rich their wealth. We look to them as an example of how to make it to a million-dollar mansion on Coffee Pot Lane. Recent decades of class warfare, abetted by the rich, the pampered and the celebrated who play at populism, have changed that. Greed has replaced religion as the national religion, and with greed comes envy.
Martha Stewart's transgressions were more sins than crimes, and learning a little humility is never a bad thing. But when the government commits vendetta, the sin becomes a crime. The government ought to be ashamed of its bullying self.


Wesley Pruden is editor in chief of The Times.

[from occupied ga]

You might want to read post #283. It should help you get a grip on your position.

[dwilli]

Will any of the "pound of fleshers" advise Wes Pruden to take his message back to DU as I was advised to do?

[Bluntpoint]

They are all out with their Sharpies writing "ZOT" on all the Washington Times paper machines.

[nopardons]

They just never give up,do they?

[nopardons]

Not everyone is a DEM or a GOP in every state. And swiping at a group, due to a region,is very wrong. But I guess it's only when YOUR ox is being gored, that it's okay to complain...yes?

So, how many of those SOUTHERN THREADS have you posted to?

[Miss Marple]

No. I don't care what Wes Pruden thinks, nor Brit Hume. It seems to me that she broke the law, refused a plea offer (twice) and was found guilty. I don't understand why she is being made to be a martyr.

Well, I have said my piece and I don't care to say more. Martha supporters can get all the public figures they want to say that she shouldn't go to jail, but that doesn't affect the verdict in the trial nor the sentencing guidelines.

[nopardons]

The FREE MARTHA group has joined the FREE MUMIA group, as far as I'm concerned.

Breaking the law is breaking the law , no matter WHO does it.

[Polybius]

I cannot see any gain from this woman doing prison time. The government needs money more than the self-satisfaction of putting her behind bars, Fine her 25, 50 million,whatever amount of dollars and years of community service.

The issue involved is company CEO's and Wall Street honchos having a Good Ole Boys and Girls Club where they use illegal inside information to make money they don't need any more of at the expense of unsuspecting Mom and Pop investors such the rest of us.

Martha Stewart, a billionaire, used illegal inside information to sell stock she knew was going to tank to some poor schmuck who was not in the Club. She saved $52,000 or, as she boasted in an interview, .0006% of her net worth.

In order to save .0006% of her net worth, she illegally sold that stock to some unsuspecting persons to whom $52,000 most likely meant quite a lot.

The testimony revelead that she later bragged, "Isn't it nice to have a broker that will do that (break the law) for you."

If you or I illegally swindled $52,000 from another person or persons, we would go to jail. So should Martha Stewart. Maybe not for 20 years but just long enough to demonstrate that there is not one set of laws for the Good Ole Boys and Girls Club and a second set of laws for the rest of us.

[billbears]

Unfortunately after reading and listening to conservative pundits all day, I can't find more than a handful that agree with your big government solution. Sounds like many, not liberal, agree that Martha even if she did something wrong didn't deserve this. Of course O'Reilly the populist agrees with you and a few on Fox News but that's not saying much considering the 'conservative' stance taken by many on that network.

But you keep advocating FDR solutions. BTW, the issues may have arisen before but only FDR was brash, and liberal, enough to establish the SEC in 1934

[nopardons]

Read the book I refcommended. And it was TEDDY, not Franklin, who got the ball rolling.

But then, you'd prefer to live in a " LORD OF THE FLIES " kind of world, than one that had some laws.

[from occupied ga]

Not everyone is a DEM or a GOP in every state.

SO what? The MAJORITY in NY are leftwing liberal DEMS which is all I claimed.

And swiping at a group, due to a region,is very wrong.

Nope it is very right. Besides you have it backwards. I was criticizing the region based on the group - not the other way around. Specifically I was saying that the MAJORITY of people in NY are freedom hating, success hating, envious liberal Democrats. This is absolutely true as PROVEN by the previously listed scum that they elect to represent them. But you knew that. you're just trying to change the subject because you know I'm right.

[billbears]

You really don't have an argument for anything do you? The Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 established the SEC. What Teddy may have done to 'get the ball rolling' didn't put securities under the rule of the national government. FDR did that.

But then, you'd prefer to live in a " LORD OF THE FLIES " kind of world, than one that had some laws.

No just a Republic where conservatives don't run to the national government for a solution and praise Acts passed by socialist regimes as a good thing. Of course I can't expect you to understand that as you aren't anymore conservative than most in Washington. Republican maybe, but not conservative

[Don Joe]

So sorry, you're wrong once again; that's NOT grounds for appeal in this case. It can only be a mistake the judge made.

I rather suspect that a juror who made his verdict on the basis of vindictive class hatred (he'd fit right in here, wouldn't he), rather than the facts and the law, could easily provide fodder for an appeal.

And if you two are envious of a lying, low class woman, go ahead, make her your role model.

I hate to disappoint you, but there is only one of me. Regardless, your accusations that I am envious of her, and see her as a role model, demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of my message.

How sad.

[Don Joe]

I'm not going to name names

Oh, go ahead! You seem so sure of yourself, just do it!

Well, since you insist, OK, I'll name a name -- but, I expect you to tell me what you think of her, and what you think of the treatment she received at the hands of the mobs, and, what you think of the mobs.

Her name is "Marie Antoinette"

Just be sure to ping the people you name.

As you command, Your Honor.

[Don Joe]

Poor Mr. Pruden. It appears that he's as stupid, blind, and worshipfull of Ms. Stewart as the few of us are -- or rather, as the few of us are repeatedly accused of being, our protestations to the contrary accounting for less than nothing to the French Knitting Team.

[Don Joe]

"If anything," the voluble Juror Hartridge said of the parade of Martha's rich and famous friends, "we may have taken it a little as an insult. Is that supposed to sway our opinion?"

Obviously it did. More grounds for appeal. Those lawyers might not be the dumb bulbs after all that everyone's making them out to be. If they knew she was facing conviction, what better tactic than to ensure that she was convicted for all the wrong reasons, with the evidence of such juror misconduct painted in letters ten feet tall?

[Don Joe]

She was indicted on charges of conspiracy, obstruction of justice and making false statements to federal agents, who are themselves enabled by the law to lie. The government even suggested that she was guilty of "lying" simply for saying that she was innocent of wrongdoing. This is pretty rich from the side that gets to mark the cards.

Welcome to Newmerica.