Slammer or not, Martha keeps pitching

Oak Lawn (IL) Reporter ^ | 7/22/04 | Michael M. Bates

[Mike Bates]

So it appears Martha Stewart will, one of these years, go to prison for five months. I’m starting to wish there were a way to send her up the river for life.

Not that her crimes warrant such a sentence. I used to be ambivalent about her case, wondering if what she did justified such tough, resolute prosecution.

She was sentenced for lying about a stock sale.

I can understand her astonishment at being nailed for that. Not many years ago, we had a president who was giving Burger King stiff competition for turning out the most whoppers.

Lying under oath didn’t damage his reputation. Then again, there’s little that could have.

It’s ironic that Clinton was a beneficiary of Martha’s rather limited largess. He and several other Democrats received political contributions from her.

I’m surprised she didn’t cop a plea for leniency based on that. Where are Roger Clinton and the Brothers Rodham when you really need them?

According to court documents posted on the Smoking Gun web site, Martha listed several reasons why she deserved an extra measure of mercy. Some of them will bring a lump to your throat.

She helped her sister out with money after the sister’s husband died. She donated household goods to an orphanage. Martha gave a "small honorarium" to the Bryant Park Restoration Corporation.

Nor were these her only acts of selfless generosity. She greeted new neighbors with freshly baked bread. And, get the hankies out, this altruistic woman even served cocoa to the parents of kids appearing on her TV show.

No, I am not making this up. She really thought deeds such as these should be taken into consideration in her sentencing.

You may have noticed that Mrs. Stewart is not a sympathetic figure. Her arrogance is legendary and, even after all she’s been through, she apparently still doesn’t get it.

In a letter to the judge written days before sentencing, Martha patiently explained: ". . .the way we looked at our business is that we were ‘teachers’ and what we taught had to be based in fact, truth and ‘highest standards of perfection’, a phrase I adopted from the American Poultry Association’s handbook, ‘The Standard of Perfection.’"

Yet the unwashed masses simply never understood the fact and truth to be learned in whipping up a really good Pineapple Upside-Down Cake.

What finally convinced me that Martha Stewart is a clear and present danger that needs to be kept out of society for keeps was how she’s acted since her sentencing.

She sashayed out of court and stepped to the microphones and cameras awaiting her. Martha must have studied the Clinton playbook. Like Bill, she said she had been punished for a "small personal matter." She claimed she’s been "choked and almost suffocated to death during that time. . ." This sounds like Hillary’s laughable claim that when her husband finally ‘fessed up, she was so stunned she could hardly breathe and had to gulp for air.

But then Martha really got down to business. She urged her supporters to continue standing by their gal:

"Perhaps all of you out there can continue to show your support by subscribing to our magazine, by buying our products, by encouraging our advertisers to come back in full-force to our magazines. Our magazines are great."

Then she said she wasn’t exploiting the occasion for a sales-pitch. Right. Share the love. Send cash.

The following day she spoke of the many, many good people who have gone to prison and cited Nelson Mandela. I’m no fan of his, but I do believe his imprisonment was due to a principled belief. By contrast, Martha’s headaches stared when she tried to save a (relatively) few bucks.

On Monday evening, Mrs. Stewart found yet another silver lining. She told Larry King on his program that she intends to write a book about her experience. What’s the use of going through the criminal justice system without making a buck on it?

Yes, a very dangerous woman, one who every day provides additional evidence that she should be locked up permanently. And that’s a good thing.

[Eva]

I knew that one was going to make you wonder. I was trying to post on another thread and hit the back button and the wrong window came up. LOL Sorry.

[Mike Bates]

For goodness' sake, don't be sorry. :)

[Badeye]

"She certainly can. There are consequences of doing so in a civil case that are not present in a criminal case, but she does not lose her Fifth Amendment rights when she walks through the civil courtroom doors.

Ask OJ Simpson....sorry, she can't plead the Fifth in a Civil Court Trial. She can cause the court to find her "In Contempt"....but that doesn't change the fact she can't plead the Fifth.

Perhaps NYC has laws on this topic the rest of the nation isn't aware of.......

[BikerNYC]

She can invoke the Fifth Amendment. No question about it. There is still the potential of an insider trading case that could be brought against her and she could invoke her Right in any context because of it.

But there would be consequences of doing so in a civil courtroom. One consequence would be that the judge would tell the jury that they could infer that anything Martha would have testified to would completely contradict her position at the trial. That "negative inference" is devastating and is the reason most people in her position choose to testify in civil trials. But, she would still have the right to invoke, if she wanted to and risk losing the civil trial.

[Badeye]

"She can invoke the Fifth Amendment. No question about it."

Sorry, she can refuse to testify and be found in contempt of the court. But she cannot claim Fifth Amendment protection in a Civil Trial.

Which is why the insider trading charges are being pursued in Civil Court, btw.

[BikerNYC]

Insider trading is also a crime that she can be indicted for.

Are you a lawyer?

Do a google seach with "invoke fifth amendment civil trial" and you will find countless instances where people have invoked their Fifth Amendment rights in civil trials. Catholic clergy have recently done it. This is not controversial.

[Badeye]

Insider trading is also a crime that she can be indicted for.

Are you a lawyer?

Do a google seach with "invoke fifth amendment civil trial" and you will find countless instances where people have invoked their Fifth Amendment rights in civil trials. Catholic clergy have recently done it. This is not controversial.

Sorry, we disagree completely. No big deal, when the trial comes it will all be laid out in this forum, among others. About 18 months from now.

[BikerNYC]

A witness may invoke his Fifth Amendment privileges in a civil proceeding where his answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings. (Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 76 [1973] [citing McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34, 40 [1924]). A witness may invoke his privilege against self incrimination even where no criminal charges are yet pending if there is even a possibility (not likelihood) of prosecution. (In re Master Key Litigation v. McCulloch, 507 F.2d 292, 293 [9th Cir. 1974] [see Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486-87 (1951)).

Remember the Enron guys invoking the Priviledge during Congress' civil investigation of that debacle? You can invoke in civil proceedings.

[Badeye]

"Remember the Enron guys invoking the Priviledge during Congress' civil investigation of that debacle? You can invoke in civil proceedings."

I think you are confusing laws here, and what you can do while testifying before congress.

[BikerNYC]

Oh, for cripes sake. If you ever get called as a witness in a civil proceeding, and your testimony might incriminate you in some future criminal proceeding, please, please, please see a lawyer before you testify. By so testifying, you could be considered to have waived your priviledge.

I'm sure your lawyer will quote to you some language from the Supreme Court decision in Lefkowitz v. Turley, cited in my previous post:

The Fifth Amendment provides that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." The Amendment not only protects the individual against being involuntarily called as a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution but also privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings. McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34, 40 (1924), squarely held that

"[t]he privilege is not ordinarily dependent upon the nature of the proceeding in which the testimony is sought or is to be used. It applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, wherever the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility him who gives it. The privilege protects a mere witness as fully as it does one who is also a party defendant."

And, for your sake, don't go around telling people of your opinion on this matter, it doesn't make you sound so good.

[Badeye]

You keep mixing criminal law with civil law.

Sorry, I don't agree, and your own posts demonstrate why. And btw, I never do anything without my corporate attorney's signing off on it. I've also been in civil trials, both as plantiff and defendent.

Anyway, thanks for the effort. Now, before you decend into another round of disparaging remarks...chill.

We disagree, its allowed.

[ZULU]

Maybe Hitlery will pick her to run as her Vice-Presidential Candidate in 2008 or appoint her to a Federal Department as Commissioner of Good Works.

[Mike Bates]

That ticket would certainly be a double-bagger.