EX-HUBBY SAW FALL COMING (Martha)

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

[kattracks]

March 8, 2004 -- Martha Stewart's ex-husband, Andy Stewart, feared the princess of perfection's long-held habit of telling whoppers would one day trigger her downfall, a former business partner told The Post yesterday. Norma Collier, who was Martha Stewart's first business partner when they started a catering business in Connecticut in 1974, said yesterday that Stewart's self-made disaster was "very sad" - and almost inevitable.

[Howlin]

http://news.google.com/news?q=grounds+for+appeal++Martha+Stewart&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=nn

[Howlin]

And you were wrong.

Then why aren't any of the lawyers speaking in that whole list of articles I linked even HINTING at that as part of the appeal?

[Bluntpoint]

Because in this case the judge was very careful and tight with the rules of procedure of the case.

Most attorneys don't belabor the obvious.

If there was a challenge by the defense during trial as to an instruction, and the comments of the juror afterwards gave evidence that the instruction should have or not have been given, etc, then the various legal eagles on the networks and in print would discuss it.

[Howlin]

Most attorneys don't belabor the obvious.

So you're saying that even though it's not mentioned once in page after page of articles on the internet or by the talking heads on TV, we should know and assume that that is going to be one of the points of her appeal because "most attorneys don't belabor the obvious.?"

Good to know.

[Bluntpoint]

Reread my original post.

You made a sweeping statement about what is and is not appealable.

I pointed out to you that you were mistaken.

No where did I say that this would be an appealable issue in the instant case.

However, you seem to think that if some talking head did not address all the rules of civil procedure when discussing this particular case, that somehow the rules not mentioned do not exist.

[Bluntpoint]

I went to a cardiologist last week. He spoke about my heart.

He did not mention my prostate. But I still have one.

For now.

[Howlin]

Well, then WHERE is the rule for federal cases?

I have stated repeatedly that I have HEARD lawyers say that those are the only grounds that can be appealed. Now, unless all those lawyers in all those articles and on all those talk shows don't know as much as you do, you'd think ONE of them would have mentioned that as a possibility, wouldn't you?

[Bluntpoint]

Again, they are not going to discuss appealable issues that are not present in this instant case.

There is no discussion here probably because an instruction, etc, was not challenged by the defense that could be associated with later juror comments.

I'm sorry that a lay person like yourself has trouble wrapping your head around that.

Look up the Federal Rules of procedure. It is a thick book. Most of which is not discussed by the talking heads in Martha's case because they are irrelevant to the case at hand.

Now, I'm going to find some urologist and tell him I know more than he concerning testicular misfires.

I'll ping you into such discussion when it gets hot and heavy.

[Howlin]

Again, they are not going to discuss appealable issues that are not present in this instant case.

Well, I have to apologize. I evidently have been misreading your posts; I didn't realize we were discussing ALL cases.

DUH on my part.

[Cboldt]

Well, then WHERE is the rule for federal cases?

I'm looking for an online citation, but it is true that the grounds for appeal (in a global sense, not that such grounds stand in this case) does include juror and jury activities.

In an earlier message, you refered to "District courts" as not being the same as Federal Courts. The case noted by Bluntpoint was a case in a Federal District Court.

Here is a case, heard in Federal Court, where juror misconduct was raised as grounds for a new trial: Mistrial? Rosenthal Jurors Say They Received Outside ...

Tim McVeigh's counsel also argued for a new trial based on juror misconduct. CNN - Appeals court considers McVeigh's bid for new trial

Here is a broader reference: JURY MISCONDUCT AND POST TRIAL JUROR INTERVIEWS

[Howlin]

I think I'll just second what Mr. Bluntpoint suggested: "Knock yourself out." I've got a life to live. Well, what's left of one, at least. I long ago resolved not to devote any more effort than necessary to people who strike me as bellicose, or otherwise unpleasant vis-a-vis their behavior towards me.

You must have a long list then, judging from the reactions I see on most threads you post on.

And I can surely see why: you are resorting to personal attacks rather than advancing the discussion.

[Howlin]

Well, I can see it's United States v. now! I had a kneejerk reaction to having worked in state district courts for so long!


I read your cites and don't agree that any of those circumstances apply to this case; up the thread, I was under the impression that people were saying that THIS would be an issue in appeal, when it's obviously not.

What a juror THINKS is of no concern in this case. They are entitled to draw their own conclusions based on what they see and hear.

[Cboldt]

I read your cites and don't agree that any of those circumstances apply to this case; up the thread, I was under the impression that people were saying that THIS would be an issue in appeal, when it's obviously not.

Speaking for myself, I was addressing what appeared to be your sentiment, that juror conduct can NEVER be grounds for appeal in a Federal case, and that ONLY judicial error can be grounds for appeal in a Federal case. The cases I cited merely refute that.

You'll note my previous message to you as well, where I said that I doubted juror misconduct would stand as grounds for appeal in Martha Stewart's case. But as Bluntpoint said, the notion can't be dismissed out of hand.

[Howlin]

Well, I looked back over my posts and I don't see anywhere I talked about anything other than Martha's case.

I guess we just all three misunderstood what the other one was talking about.

[Pure Country]

I am not a MS fan. I don't have a problem with the jail time. My only concern is that her empire will crumble. That alone doesn't bother me until I put all of the workers, the stores that carry her goods and their workers livelihoods at stake....then I wonder what is the best to do with Martha. Does what she did really amount to something that should put all of these workers at risk? I don't know. There ought to be some way to punish her that lets her company keep on top of things. Maybe she could pay a huge fine, plus community service and whatnot bigtime.

[Don Joe]

You must have a long list then, judging from the reactions I see on most threads you post on.

Stalking other posters?

And I can surely see why: you are resorting to personal attacks rather than advancing the discussion.

Falsely accusing someone of a personal attack is itself a personal attack.

[Cboldt]

I looked back over my posts and I don't see anywhere I talked about anything other than Martha's case.

None of us is perfect in reading comprehension, nor are we mind readers!

The first time you mentioned possible grounds for appeal (276), you did so in the context of Martha's case. But you said as a stand-alone sentence that "It can only be a mistake the judge made." Bluntpoint and I both noted that in the global sense, there are other possible grounds for appeal.

Then at 307 you said "I've not heard or read any lawyer or article say that anything the jury does can be grounds for appeal. How about posting a link to an article that states that." Again, I'm sure your context was just Martha's case, but the statement reads as a broad assertion.

At 313 you said "Not one of them has mentioned a problem with the jury being reasons for appeal; in fact, most of them have outright stated that that is not the case in federal trials." And at 327 you said "I have stated repeatedly that I have HEARD lawyers say that those are the only grounds that can be appealed."

Anyway, again speaking for myself, comments to you were meant to be helpful. Hope you can see why I misunderstood where you were coming from (which was just Martha's case), and thought you were of a mind that it was not possible to appeal a federal case on jury grounds. In fact, suitable grounds for appeal are about the same, whether a case be state or federal. No, I don't have a raft of cites to support that.

[Howlin]

Yet another dodge.

[Howlin]

Well, I was only ever referring to Martha.

As I said, we all misunderstood each others posts.

[Don Joe]

My only concern is that her empire will crumble. That alone doesn't bother me until I put all of the workers, the stores that carry her goods and their workers livelihoods at stake....

A valid issue, one that will likely be raised, if reports in today's news are accurate.

The logic that says that she was prosecuted because she harmed "the little people", and then use her prosecution as a vehicle to harm "the little people" at a level an order of magnitude above the alleged "crime"... well, let's just say that this does not IMO speak very well as to either the honesty or the motives behind the government's case.

But all doubt seems to evaporate when one looks at the two recent WND articles revealing apparent insider trading by our esteemed Senators, at a rate making Ms. Stewart seem a piker by comparison.

Yet, no prosecution of our Senators -- not even a call for prosecution. Not even a whisper of accusation. Just business as usual.

Those who make the law are not merely above the law -- they now flaunt their para-royalty in our faces, as they offer a sacrificial bogeywoman for slaughter.

Are we so foolish as to be satisfied with this offering?

No, of course not. We'll demand a few more sacrificial bogeypersons, and leave our esteemed Senators to continue their insider trading -- outstripping the market by 20%, far in excess of even the best professional fund managers -- and we'll call it "justice."

What fools we are. What complete and utter fools.

Oh well. They say people get the type of government they deserve. The more I observe, the more I conclude that the aphorism is stunningly accurate.

I wonder what is the best to do with Martha. Does what she did really amount to something that should put all of these workers at risk? I don't know. There ought to be some way to punish her that lets her company keep on top of things. Maybe she could pay a huge fine, plus community service and whatnot bigtime.

Well, if ironic justice was to have its day, she'd be sentenced to serve jury duty at the trials of the aforementioned Senators.

Here are two shockers. These are must-read articles for everyone who cares about "insider trading", the Stewart case, or the future of our country.

Are U.S. senators real 'inside traders'?

And:

The real insiders

Anyone who reads those articles and still finds cause to rail against Stewart needs to have his head examined. Seriously.

Go, read them. Now. You'll thank me.