Martha Guilty on all 4 counts... - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

rider6061 · 03-08-2004, 07:28 AM

Do the crime...Do the time
That jury did not find her guilty because of who she is. They found her guilty with the evidence presented against her, which did show, IMO, alot of obstruction and deception.

She will be locked up but for only a small fraction of that twenty years. But she is still a convicted felon.

Karby · 03-08-2004, 09:32 AM

so what's gonna happen to her tv show? and her line of clothes? and bath towels?

Cycler · 03-10-2004, 06:57 AM

If I had done what she did would I have received the same punishment? In this case it appears as if Justice was done. Enjoy prison Martha, greed is bad I hope this teaches you that.

onetime2 · 03-10-2004, 07:24 AM

As others have said, she was found guilty because the evidence proved to the jurors she was guilty. She wasn't found guilty of insider trading but of lying to cover up the actions of her investment "team".

The jury was picked from a pool of potential jurors and the defense had an opportunity to uncover any misgivings about their intentions or biases.

I just want her to get what is typical of the crime. No more and no less. I don't know what others being convicted of the same thing have gotten but her punishment should be in line with them.

agball · 03-10-2004, 08:42 AM

Let her get a little roughed up in prison, give her a dose of reality

j8ear · 03-10-2004, 10:38 AM

Railroaded. Convicted for lying about things which she couldn't even be charged with.

What a joke.

For the little guy? The jury reported. What little guy. The 500 employees Martha had on staff. The millions of joe six pack and suzy home maker regular folk who invested in MSO?

Take note of the fact that there is no escape from your government. You will be lied up one side and down the other by the very law enforcement officials who will charge you with a crime for doing exactly what they value most. Deceive.

If they want, EVERY SINGLE one of us could be convicted of a crime which sends you to JAIL, at anytime, at the whim of your government.

NOT ONE OF US IS EXEMPT.

-bear

punx1325 · 03-10-2004, 12:50 PM

What's funny is her bailing out of her stock saved her 50 grand. The lawsuit has cost her millions of dollars now. And even more when she can't make anymore money.

j8ear · 03-10-2004, 04:10 PM

Here's an interesting op-ed piece by one of my favorite bloggers, Radley Balko:

I think it reinforces my points above quite eloquently.

published here: Link

as follows:

Quote:

By Radley Balko
America Mired in Morass of Laws and Regulations

Wednesday, March 10, 2004

Last week, Martha Stewart (search) was convicted of lying to federal investigators about a crime with which she was never charged. Most analysts agree that prosecutors never charged Stewart with the crime of insider trading because it’s a law too complicated for most jurors to understand.

Putting your personal opinion of Stewart aside for a moment, the case prompts larger questions about the laws and regulations that govern our land: If jurors can’t understand a law well enough to determine if someone broke it, just how do lawmakers expect citizens to understand it enough to obey it? Do we really want to live in a country where good-intentioned people are required to pay high-priced attorneys to tell them whether or not they’re breaking the law?

America has too many laws, and the laws we do have are tedious, overly complex and sometimes not only impossible to understand, but impossible to comply with. Our elected officials pass laws in fits of whimsy, responding to the latest scare headlines, demands from interest groups or data from polling firms. Reason, freedom or constitutional authority rarely enter into the debate.

The federal tax code (search) today covers 17,000 pages and requires over 700 different forms. The IRS estimates Americans spend 5.1 billion hours annually merely preparing their taxes. The Tax Foundation estimates that those wasted hours drain some $194 billion annually from the U.S. economy. All of that comes before Joe Taxpayer forks over his first dime.

The federal criminal code is just as bad. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the U.S. Constitution gave Congress the power to criminally punish “treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, and no other crimes whatsoever.” Yet the federal criminal code today spans some 1,400 pages, and that’s just the “pocket edition.”

The federal registry (search), which records all of the regulations the federal government imposes on businesses (all of which carry the force of law), now exceeds 75,000 pages. The Office of Management and Budget estimates that merely complying with these regulations — that is, paying lawyers to keep educated on them, interpret them and implement them — costs U.S. business another $500 to $600 billion per year.

When someone, such as Martha Stewart, is accused of a federal crime, businesses then are forced to comply with subpoenas and demands from lawyers for information — all on their own dime. When the IRS goes on a fishing expedition for tax evasion, for example, it can require banks and businesses to file through millions, even billions of checks, forms, documents and e-mail to comply with an information request. The same is true for the EPA, the Department of Labor or the Department of Energy. The federal criminal code, the tax code and the federal registry grow thicker every year, thrusting those costs ever skyward.

More disturbing than the cost of compliance, however, is the way federal officials can manipulate the confusing maze of federal laws, codes and regulations to score political points, make examples of certain people, settle scores, extort favors, or, in the case of regulation, punish disfavored corporations and industries. There are far too many federal laws — and people who break them — for our U.S. attorneys to enforce them with any sort of consistency. That means our federal laws are very selectively enforced, which makes the federal court system ripe for abuse.

It’s even worse with regulation. With the EPA, for example, it’s often impossible for corporations in some industries to abide by one environmental regulation without violating another. That’s fertile ground for corruption, particularly when the same body is charged with making, enforcing and adjudicating the law.

Since President Bush and Congress seem to be in a Constitution-amending mood these days, they might consider two amendments that could remedy the situation. The first would “sunset” every law passed by Congress in five years, therefore requiring Congress to specifically reauthorize those laws every five years. The amendment would contain language explicitly compelling Congress to reauthorize one law at a time — no “omnibus” bill where laws were reauthorized in batches. Such an amendment would not only force Congress to re-evaluate anachronistic laws and outdated legislation, it would also occupy more of Congress’ time —leaving it less time to pass new laws.

My second amendment would end the so-called “delegation doctrine,” (search) the process by which Congress grants its constitutionally mandated lawmaking ability to federal agencies like the EPA. The amendment would require Congress to debate and vote on every single regulation listed on those 75,000 pages in the Federal Registry. Again, such an amendment would not only subject the federal regulatory scheme to some much needed public debate, but the sheer amount of time it would take Congress to pass all of those regulations would result in fewer regulations.

Of course, neither of these amendments has much chance of ever passing. Both would not only strip Congress of a good deal of power, they’d make it a heck of a lot more difficult to be a congressman.

Consider, for example, the position Congress found itself in last year after passing the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (search), that Rube Goldberg-ian hunk of legislation that was supposed to flush the corruption out of politics:

Although Congress generally exempts itself from most of the laws it passes, this law applies specifically to Congress. The same congressmen who voted for the bill were now required to abide by it. Faced themselves with the burden of complying with the complex, inches-thick laws they pass for others, both parties were forced to hold education sessions with specialty lawyers explaining to them what they could and couldn’t do under the new law. A lawyer who taught the Democrats told the New York Times that his seminars elicited “a sort of slack-jawed amazement at how far this thing reached.” A lawyer who taught the Republicans said, “There's an initial stage where the reaction is, 'This can't be true.' And then there's the actual anger stage." Democratic Rep. Henry Matsui, who championed the bill, told the Times, “I didn’t realize all that was in it.”

That’s how much careful consideration Congress gave a bill it passed that applied to itself. Now imagine how little thought and care goes into bills it passes that apply to everyone else.

The answer, of course, is none.

If we merely required every congressman to actually understand a new law before voting for it, that would be a pretty good start.

Radley Balko is a freelance writer and publishes a Weblog at TheAgitator.com.

What say you?

-bear

SecretMethod70 · 03-10-2004, 05:08 PM

Sadly, that's entirely true. I still remember the time I called my congressman regarding internet radio legislation and realized that he didn't look at the proposed legislation one bit and instead had some intern summarizing it for him. Or the time when I found out that only ONE congressman actually read the ENTIRE DMCA when it was passed.

aarchaon · 03-17-2004, 04:30 AM

Give the homeless and the poor all of her money and assets. Justice++.

JohnnyRoyale · 03-17-2004, 03:55 PM

Tossing salad for the bull dyke in the cell block?

...it's a good thing.

03-08-2004, 07:28 AM	#41 (permalink)
rider6061 Crazy Location: oklahoma	Do the crime...Do the time That jury did not find her guilty because of who she is. They found her guilty with the evidence presented against her, which did show, IMO, alot of obstruction and deception. She will be locked up but for only a small fraction of that twenty years. But she is still a convicted felon. __________________ Is This Thing On?

03-08-2004, 09:32 AM	#42 (permalink)
Karby Psycho Location: somewhere	so what's gonna happen to her tv show? and her line of clothes? and bath towels? __________________ ~my karma ran over my dogma.~

03-10-2004, 06:57 AM	#43 (permalink)
Cycler Float on.... Alright Location: Where the wind comes sweeping down the plains, i.e. Oklahoma	If I had done what she did would I have received the same punishment? In this case it appears as if Justice was done. Enjoy prison Martha, greed is bad I hope this teaches you that. __________________ "I'm not even supposed to be here today." "I assure you we're open."

03-10-2004, 07:24 AM	#44 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	As others have said, she was found guilty because the evidence proved to the jurors she was guilty. She wasn't found guilty of insider trading but of lying to cover up the actions of her investment "team". The jury was picked from a pool of potential jurors and the defense had an opportunity to uncover any misgivings about their intentions or biases. I just want her to get what is typical of the crime. No more and no less. I don't know what others being convicted of the same thing have gotten but her punishment should be in line with them. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

03-10-2004, 08:42 AM	#45 (permalink)
agball Insane Location: Long Island	Martha Let her get a little roughed up in prison, give her a dose of reality

03-10-2004, 10:38 AM	#46 (permalink)
j8ear Gentlemen Farmer Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey	Railroaded. Convicted for lying about things which she couldn't even be charged with. What a joke. For the little guy? The jury reported. What little guy. The 500 employees Martha had on staff. The millions of joe six pack and suzy home maker regular folk who invested in MSO? Take note of the fact that there is no escape from your government. You will be lied up one side and down the other by the very law enforcement officials who will charge you with a crime for doing exactly what they value most. Deceive. If they want, EVERY SINGLE one of us could be convicted of a crime which sends you to JAIL, at anytime, at the whim of your government. NOT ONE OF US IS EXEMPT. -bear __________________ It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

03-10-2004, 12:50 PM	#47 (permalink)
punx1325 Junkie Location: San Diego	What's funny is her bailing out of her stock saved her 50 grand. The lawsuit has cost her millions of dollars now. And even more when she can't make anymore money. __________________ If something seems too good to be true, then it probably is....

03-10-2004, 05:08 PM	#49 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Sadly, that's entirely true. I still remember the time I called my congressman regarding internet radio legislation and realized that he didn't look at the proposed legislation one bit and instead had some intern summarizing it for him. Or the time when I found out that only ONE congressman actually read the ENTIRE DMCA when it was passed. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

03-17-2004, 04:30 AM	#50 (permalink)
aarchaon Insane	Give the homeless and the poor all of her money and assets. Justice++. __________________ Green. Yellow. Blue.

03-17-2004, 03:55 PM	#51 (permalink)
JohnnyRoyale Psycho Location: Boston, MAss., USA	Tossing salad for the bull dyke in the cell block? ...it's a good thing. __________________ I'm gonna be rich and famous, as soon I invent a device that lets you stab people in the face over the internet.