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 ...
Perhaps Martha Stewart is a private citizen and by her actions, not directly harming my freedom? While Elizabeth Dole practically drools over any chance to take a right from the citizens of the respective states and regulate it at the national level? Hmmmmmm....
You don't think that crooks in the stock market are worthy of prosecution? You think that people like the Enron people should be allowed to run up a stock and pocket profits, leaving regular investors holding the bag? How in the world are people supposed to invest successfully if no one who breaks the security laws is prosecuted? We all might as well go to Vegas and play roulette!
You are such a Bush antagonist that even when his administration is doing something correct, you are compelled to proclaim it is wrong.
I don't think I said that. Just not federal prosecution. However I'm not sure I would be willing to bet Stewart's story against someone that was charged in the same crime, whose charge was dropped in exchange for his testimony. Do you think without that testimony the case was open and shut? Considering that more than one securities lawyer, even on Fox, has stated that she probably shouldn't have been charged in the first place I'd say the prosecution's case was quite weak. This whole trial came down to 'he said, she said'. Mind you I don't like Martha Stewart in the least for more than one reason.
No. It did not. The jury did not have to rely solely on the testimony of Faneuil or even the testimony of Stewart's friends and co-workers. For instance, she went on record with repeated lies on repeated occasions to federal investigators. If you'd read the indictment, the verdict sheet, the transcripts, you would know this. If you had even read the articles posted at FR with some care, you would know this.
When a defendant is being tried on matters related to criminal conspiracy and no evidence is available from court-ordered surveillance of the culprits, defendants are routinely convicted, at least in part, because one of the parties to the conspiracy rolls over on them. That's what Glass did in the Rosenberg trial. It's always up to the trier of fact, in consideration of all available evidence, to decide who is credible and who isn't. In Stewart's case, the jury has spoken. And another jury will speak again when she's tried on fresh charges directly related to the illicit trading.
Because of who she is, odds are that Martha will end up doing her time at a federal minimum security "country club" prison. In these types of prisons, the inmates are usually housed in barrack-type facilities and not in individual jail cells.
When the Watergate breakin hit the news, I was the FIRST person who said if Nixon was involved in any way, shape, or form, he had to go.
Unlike you, my principles don't change depending on whether I like the person or not; the laws are the laws.
In "JUST DESSERTS",by Jerry Oppenheimer,pages 118-143 cover the subject. The firm's name was Monness,Williams&Sidel.Monness,Crespi&Hart,BTW, were in on her taking HER stock public! There's tons of stuff about Martha and the BUCKET SHOP/BOILER ROOM etc., in Christopher Byron's " MARTHA INC." too. And If you're up to searching for stuff about Monness,Williams&Hart, from 1973,I'm certain it's in the archives of the WSJ,the N.Y. Times, and the Post and the Daily News' achieves. :-)
Yes,Martha once claimed that she was going to sue,but NEVER did.
And now, Greta has two of her case's jurors, on her show.LOL
Here's a simple question. A trader buys and sells cattle futures,on the floor,in Chicago.Some trades make money;others don't.That trader takes the profits and sticks them in one or two of his clients' accounts;the other people get a few dimes,or none,and ALL of the loses.This is against the law.This is against SEC and the CBOT rules and regs. Does the government have better things to do, than to go after this crook?
And now, you're a flagrant hypocrite to boot.This is just pathetic.
Good, bring out the Hillary question. I answer what a capitalist and a conservative would answer and you can label me a 'Clinton supporter'. Let me ask you a question. What is the point of the SEC other than to 'regulate'(control) trades? Why should the national government be involved in such a transaction? Why wasn't it involved before the mid 1930s? Like a true 'conservative', you advocate continued support of FDR, the man whose actions lengthened the Depression and gave us Social Security.
Of course you ignore Federalist 45 and what it states because you actually believe the national government has an interest in a purely capitalistic venture. The states perhaps but not the national government. Let me state clearly for the daft in the audience. The SEC should not exist. You want to roll back decades of government expansionism not laid out by the men who founded this nation? Start with government organizations and 'programs' established under the leadership of FDR
You can't fathom what a Republic would be because you would have little, if any, say at the national level. You wouldn't be able to worship Bush as you would be more involved at the state level instead of advocating alphabet voting at the national level. The Founders of which you so despise saw the detriment in what this nation of states has become.
You ask me who I would vote for? Someone that states this and actually follows up on it. I could care less who's 'in control' as long as they do what they promise and stick to the Constitution. I may be the lone voice out in the wilderness voting this way but every election I do my best to convince one friend, one coworker, and one family member of the futility of voting R vs D year in and year out. History has proven quite clearly R and D have not worked.
My brother's ex was interviewed by magazine and complained that during the marriage he always got the last word and she could never win an argument. Before publishing, they faxed him the copy and invited his response for publication. His published reply was, "She's right."
The federal government has an explicit constitutional interest in interstate commerce, which is what the stock market engages in. When you live in San Francisco and buy shares through an exchange in New York that provide you with part "ownership" of an enterprise in Missouri, you've just invited the feds into your business.
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.