Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

EX-HUBBY SAW FALL COMING (Martha)
New York Post ^ | 3/08/04 | JOHN LEHMANN

Posted on 03/08/2004 3:23:09 AM PST by kattracks

Edited on 05/26/2004 5:19:58 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

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.


(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: marthastewart
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 341-346 next last

1 posted on 03/08/2004 3:23:09 AM PST by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Goodness...if they put people in jail for telling whoppers or breaking the laws.......where will we put all the Democrats?
2 posted on 03/08/2004 3:25:51 AM PST by The Raven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
If she goes to prison, I guess she could teach other prisoners how to cook

Holiday Pruno recipes?

3 posted on 03/08/2004 3:28:52 AM PST by BikePacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
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.

4 posted on 03/08/2004 3:30:53 AM PST by dwilli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dwilli
Federal sentencing guidelines are rather strict. Attorney on Fox this morning said depending on her pre-sentencing review, she will get 10-24 months. This is not something that can be mitigated by the judge. The only thing that would keep her from going to prison would be a presidential pardon, and I think the odds of that are slim to none.

Remember, before the trial she was offered a chance to plead guilty and pay a fine. She refused. This is her fault, not the government's.

5 posted on 03/08/2004 3:37:58 AM PST by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
I understand all that but to put her in an orange jumpsuit
is silly. Take what she apparently loves most, money and
sophistication.
6 posted on 03/08/2004 3:40:43 AM PST by dwilli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dwilli
Well, you might think it is silly, but it is the law. If you think this is so silly, write your Congressman. Federal sentencing guidelines are to prevent unequal sentencing for the same crime. If Martha Stewart were Jane Jones from Tupelo, Mississippi, no one would be thinking her sentencing was silly.
7 posted on 03/08/2004 3:43:43 AM PST by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dwilli
Martha would prefer you call the color of that jumpsuit "pumpkin"!
8 posted on 03/08/2004 3:46:30 AM PST by forward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
I'm glad you'll feel safer walking down the street minus the threat of your being mugged by Martha Stewart and her posse.
9 posted on 03/08/2004 3:49:25 AM PST by dwilli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dwilli
Does the judge have discretion? He may not have a choice.

The really really stupid thing is that if she disgourged teh 50k she would ahve had a slap on the wrist and her life.

The judge may have no choice.

Stewart was convicted by her own arrogance.

Keep in mind, anyone else who would be likewise conviceted would 100% go to jail not "mercy".
10 posted on 03/08/2004 3:49:27 AM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dwilli
"Take what she apparently loves most, money and sophistication.

Hah - that's not enough - take her freedom away too.

Humiliate her with the jump suit and lots of "up the wazoo(s)" checks for weapons and contraband. She IS a criminal, after all!

11 posted on 03/08/2004 3:50:30 AM PST by Wumpus Hunter (<a href="http://moveon.org" target="blank">Communist front group</a>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dwilli
What part of the fact that this is the LAW do you not understand? It has nothing to do with how I feel, nor how YOU feel. It is codified in the federal sentencing guidelines, and the judge MUST follow them.
12 posted on 03/08/2004 3:51:18 AM PST by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
I had as much fun as anyone else hypothesizing about Martha's jail cell.

Listening to the jurors, I'm wondering if what they found her guilty of is really the remaining charges. It sounded like at least some of them wanted to send a class-warfare message. Others seemed put off by her not presenting her own case by testifying.

Thing is, almost everybody who has stock at times listens to tips from others. I'd put a higher priority on those who destroyed the life savings of pensioners and/or lying about the condition of their corporations while dumping their own stock spending lots of time in orange jump suits.

Even better, sentence them to 20 years or so living in a retiree trailer park filled with people who lost everything with the illegalities.

13 posted on 03/08/2004 3:51:57 AM PST by grania ("Won't get fooled again")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Martha Stewart's ex-husband, Andy Stewart, feared the princess of perfection's long-held habit of telling whoppers

No wonder she was a Clintonista!

14 posted on 03/08/2004 3:52:36 AM PST by reg45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grania
The Enron and WorldCom cases are still ongoing. Skilling has already pled guilty and will be going to prison.

The reason Martha's case was finished first is because it was less complicated.

15 posted on 03/08/2004 3:53:25 AM PST by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
But...but...but...I thought that lying to a federal prosecutor and obstruction of justice were no longer crimes!

If it was OK for Billary, why not for Martha?

16 posted on 03/08/2004 3:57:30 AM PST by shhrubbery!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
Skilling has yet to be convicted. I think you mean Fastow.:)

Does the federal guideline of 10-24 months include actual prison time, or total length of sentence, including time spent on community service?

17 posted on 03/08/2004 3:58:04 AM PST by independentmind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
My point is no matter what the federal sentencing guidelines mandate, it is sill to put this 60 year old woman behind bars when the government could be spending her
money on foolish projects.

The guidelines are simply there to prevent judges from
dealing under the table. The pardon and lighter sentence
market used to be quite profitable for crooked court officers.
18 posted on 03/08/2004 3:58:18 AM PST by dwilli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
Well, you might think it is silly, but it is the law.

There was a famous quote - something to the effect that "the law is an ass". Just think, Martha will serve almost as much time as a murderer. I feel much better now.

19 posted on 03/08/2004 3:58:23 AM PST by raybbr (My 1.4 cents - It used to be 2 cents, but after taxes - you get the idea.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
All I am saying is that the judge has no choice. Unless Martha can get this thrown out on appeal, she is going to serve time in prison. The plea offered her originally would have been a better choice for her.
20 posted on 03/08/2004 4:00:08 AM PST by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 341-346 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson