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.

[tdadams]

She said Stewart's husband, who split in 1990 after more than 20 years of marriage, was watching his ex-wife on television embellish small details of her life several years after the divorce when he made a prophetic comment.

I've worked in entertainment for many years. The truth is, almost every celebrity's biography is embellished. There's always a bit of truth to it, but you have to ask yourself what's being omitted.

The rock star who started his own record company in his college dorm room... was financed by his millionaire father. The indie director who made a smash film for $7000... received post-production services and marketing worth millions from a major studio.

[SolutionsOnly]

Boy, if this isn't ever one of the those 20/20 hindsight crocks, I don't know what is.

[raybbr]

All I am saying is that the judge has no choice.

It's supposed to be that way. We have been hearing about activist judges all the time changing the law. What would happen to the judge if the just gave her probation and a stiff fine? Seriously, think what has happened to all the judges changing the law and making decisions on their own. Even the Supreme Court, by looking to public opinion and foreign decisions, has completely circumvented existing law. And, nothing has happened to them.

The truth is that most people want to see her hang because of who she rathet than what she did. Silly

[dwilli]

I'm not championing anyone, I've never watched her shows or bought any of her products. The only time I have ever
saw her is on Letterman.

The fine folks on this forum are glad to see her get time behind bars because of her ties to the democrat party. The
mood would be reversed if Stewart were a big Republican
donor.

[ladylib]

I believe the judge told the jurors that they were not to consider the fact that Martha didn't testify on her own behalf. Not testifying is her right.

If the jurors were annoyed by the fact that she didn't testify, that could be grounds for an appeal. At least that's what I heard on the news today.

[Bonaparte]

"You would consider what she did fitting her into those categories?"

But didn't you say we shouldn't imprison somebody who endangers nobody on the street? If that's what you believe, then you shouldn't want to imprison the above-named offenders. After all, they're not violent criminals either and their incarceration will make our neighborhoods no safer, right?

[dwilli]

That's silly.

[Bonaparte]

"The fine folks on this forum are glad to see her get time behind bars because of her ties to the democrat party."

Actually, she belongs behind bars because she broke the law and is no better than anybody else. Like Boesky and Milken, she is an experienced broker and knew she was committing a serious offense. That's why she tried so frantically to cover up and lie in her effort to obstruct justice.

[Bonaparte]

"That's silly."

That's what I think, but you're the one who suggested that we shouldn't incarcerate a criminal who does not pose a threat to safety on the street. You did say that, didn't you?

[Bonaparte]

Thanks for posting that excellent summary from the NY Post, dennis. It will be interesting to see if she sues them for defamation. From the tone of the article, they probably have all their ducks in a row.

[traumer]

HUBBA - BUBBA

[TheBattman]

I have a question----

Say you have a sizeable stock investment in a company. Someone you know that has connections to the higher-ups in the company gives you a call and says that the head of the company is dumping stock. What would you do?

Not to devend Martha on this - she did lie which is basically what got her convicted - but I would probably dump my shares too.

Thing is, if Martha holds onto her stock and the stock tanks - she made a poor judgement and threw money out the window that she shouldn't have.
On the other hand, if she does the smart thing and jumps out of that stock ASAP, she is guilty of insider trading. So what does Martha do? The smart thing, she dumped those stocks.

Now, if she had told the truth - she would have been charged with insider trading and other higher-penalty crimes and would now be preparing for a sentencing with much worse terms that what she is facing now. If she lied, she is in the situation she is in now.

Sounds like she was between a rock and a hard place.

What would you have done?

[Bonaparte]

"but I would probably dump my shares too."

You would be a fool to do that, unless the CEO's stock dump was public and conformed to SEC requirements. If it didn't and an investigation was initiated, you could be implicated. This just happened to Stewart.

[Maria S]

"I'm glad you'll feel safer walking down the street minus the threat of your being mugged by Martha Stewart and her posse."


What I will feel safer about is knowing that maybe some other trained/licensed ex-stock broker who worked on Wall Street is not selling shares early (on inside information) in a company that I also own shares in. Maybe this conviction will clean things up in the world of stocks...even a little would help. If I'm trusting a company enough to hand over some of my hard-earned money, I expect to be treated equal to someone like Martha Stewart.

[smiley]

That old and wise adage: "Pride Goeth Before A Great Fall" was never more appropriate than it is in Martha's case. Martha did herself in...period.

[Devil_Anse]

A federal judge can do a downward departure, giving her less jail time than the Guidelines.

I won't comment on whether or not she deserves the time. But I must say, her ex-husband is hardly the person to be pointing fingers at her regarding honesty--after he cheated on her with one of her assistants.

[Bonaparte]

Very well stated, Maria. These are crooks who undermine investor confidence and destabilize our market economy. Vultures like Waksal, Bacanovic and Stewart build companies and profit from them on the backs of thousands of investors like you and then rob them blind. It amazes me that such obvious criminals would have so many apologists.

[Bonaparte]

Has Andy Stewart been dishing dirt on her? I though he declined to comment.

[Reelect President Dubya]

She didn't, by any stretch of the imagination, commit insider trading.

But I sure am glad we put her in her place.

That's what the law is for.

[Thinkin' Gal]

Another American I-CON false idol falls to the ground.

That said, woe to those who champion her demise, yet perpetrate the same crimes. They too, will have their reward.

How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.

Business woman Martha Stewart (news - web sites) arrives at federal court in New York City on March 5, 2004. A jury found Stewart guilty of lying to investigators about her suspicious sale of stock in biotech company ImClone Systems Inc. The eight women and four men returned their verdict on third day of deliberations, finding Stewart guilty of one count of conspiracy, two counts of making false statements and one count of obstruction of agency proceedings. (Peter Morgan/Reuters)

While Martha Stewart the American falls, symbolizing the Babylonian mammon queen, the literal land of Babylon (Iraq) is being rebuilt by America.