Martha Stewart - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

fishin · 10-30-2003, 04:11 PM

So...has she already "paid her dues" since she's suffered such financial loss after her bout with negative press? (ie should she just be slapped on the wrist with some community service and let go?) Opinions?

Superbelt · 10-30-2003, 04:22 PM

I'm glad she is going to jail.

Now what about Ken Lay? Why has he not even been charged?

fishin · 10-30-2003, 04:30 PM

Why do you say she is going to jail? She hasn't even gone to trial yet.

Superbelt · 10-30-2003, 04:36 PM

I'm projecting.

fishin · 10-30-2003, 04:47 PM

I am still a big believer in the whole "innocent until proven guilty" idea. It's annoying how so many people have already convicted her based on her personal reputation. There are people out there who want her to fry who have no clue what the facts are or even what the case is really about...(not saying that thats what youre doing. the question was a bit of a setup...sorry)

filtherton · 10-30-2003, 04:58 PM

Quote:

I am still a big believer in the whole "innocent until proven guilty" idea. It's annoying how so many people have already convicted her based on her personal reputation. There are people out there who want her to fry who have no clue what the facts are or even what the case is really about

Yeah, but that is what america does. We make important decisions without knowing all of the facts. Technically, the beltway snipers are innocent until proven guilty too.

Quote:

So...has she already "paid her dues" since she's suffered such financial loss after her bout with negative press? (ie should she just be slapped on the wrist with some community service and let go?) Opinions?

Paid her dues? To hell with that, she's paid her dues and still has more money than my whole family has made in the last ten years combined. Cry me a river. The law shouldn't make exceptions for rich people juat because they lost money. If she did what they accuse her of doing she should go to prison for a long time. I'm talking poor people's prison too, none of this club med white collar prison bullshit.

james t kirk · 10-31-2003, 07:09 AM

I still want to know why they chose to single her out.

Why not the THIEVES from ENRON, and Worldcom, and Global Crossings

Those guys STOLE billions from investors. In many cases, people lost everything, every cent of their pension, their savings for retirement - gone.

And yet these guys seem to be untouchable.

Martha saves 50 grand by selling on a tip (yes, yes, it's insider info and it's illegal, but who here wouldn't have done the same thing?) and she goes to jail.

Let's see, steals billions vs. 50 grand.

WTF is wrong with that picture?

Bernie Ebbers, Ken Lay, Geoffry Skilling, and that fat pig looking dude from Global Crossing all have billions sitting in the bank that they STOLE and they are living in the lap of luxury.

fishin · 10-31-2003, 07:47 AM

That is the question that I have. She should definitely be punished what is just and right. But it seems like people think she should get the death penalty for a comparatively measly crime. She may be a nasty person, but she isn't going to trial for that...

Liquor Dealer · 10-31-2003, 08:07 AM

I've never met the woman - if she's anything like what I've heard her being described as I'm glad I haven't had the opportunity- But! like most of you have stated - even if she's guilty as sin for insider trading, it's chicken feed compared to what a lot of others have done recently and aren't feelin' 10% of the heat Stewart is right now. If we are really sincere about dealing with Wall St. then start at the top and work down - not viceversa. When they're through dealing with those that are really corrupt then they can deal with the petty white collar criminals. If they deal with the biggies they'll never get around to worrying about people like Stewart.

Bill O'Rights · 10-31-2003, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by james t kirk
I still want to know why they chose to single her out.

Why not the THIEVES from ENRON, and Worldcom, and Global Crossings

Those guys STOLE billions from investors. In many cases, people lost everything, every cent of their pension, their savings for retirement - gone.

And yet these guys seem to be untouchable.

Martha saves 50 grand by selling on a tip (yes, yes, it's insider info and it's illegal, but who here wouldn't have done the same thing?) and she goes to jail.

Let's see, steals billions vs. 50 grand.

WTF is wrong with that picture?

Bernie Ebbers, Ken Lay, Geoffry Skilling, and that fat pig looking dude from Global Crossing all have billions sitting in the bank that they STOLE and they are living in the lap of luxury.

Because we, and by we, I mean the American public, at large, need to "see" justice being meted out. Martha done did wrong, little question about that, beyond the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. She is being served up as a scapegoat for us to vent our anger and frustration at, while Lay, Ebbers and the like, lie quietly in the shadows until all has blown over, and their news is used to line the bird cage and we've all moved on to bigger and better.

Now, I'm no Martha fan, but I do think too much attention is being focused on her, and not the bigger fish. I, for one, would love to see them all serving some serious jail time, in a "real" prison, and being forced to serve meals up to the homeless...many of whom they put there.

j8ear · 10-31-2003, 01:47 PM

Martha's being chraged with crimes relating to "lying" and "covering up" crimes which they (the government) are otherwise unable to charge her with.

The way such innocuous, seemingly best intentioned crimes are legislated it would be almost impossible for a jury to aquit her if the government has any legal skill what so ever.

Be advised that the single most useful tool in law enforcement's arsenal is deception, and that they have actually suceeded in making it a crime for you to employ this tactic, while using it themselves routinely. End result...whether they are able to gather enough evidence to prove you committed a crime or not...you will be charged with something, and probably convicted.

If anything screams for jury nullification it is 'charges' like this, trumped up entrapment.

I am quite confident she will be convicted of something, which will not at all reflect the crime she ~probably~ committed, AND she will NOT DO a single day in prison.

-bear

lurkette · 10-31-2003, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by james t kirk
I still want to know why they chose to single her out.

Why not the THIEVES from ENRON, and Worldcom, and Global Crossings

Fucking amen, captain.

She's a scapegoat, and we all love to see the mighty fall, especially when she's made an industry of being more perfect than the rest of us. And yeah, she did something wrong and should be punished. But so should the bastards who basically raped their corporations and raided the pocketbooks of their shareholders. Unconscionable.

Lebell · 10-31-2003, 02:22 PM

A crime is a crime and comparing one criminal's punishment to another's punishment or lack-there-of is foolish.

The answer is not to let Martha go free but to punish the other wrong-doers.

fishin · 10-31-2003, 02:28 PM

I agree with you lebell. Her case should be tried as an individual case. Not as some watershed case as some people are making it out to be. Something like this should not be used as a "sign of what's coming."

Peetster · 11-02-2003, 05:54 AM

Help me understand how this is Politics. Seems more like a General Discussion thread, unless one makes the assumption that politics = crime and punishment. ;-)

james t kirk · 11-02-2003, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peetster
Help me understand how this is Politics. Seems more like a General Discussion thread, unless one makes the assumption that politics = crime and punishment. ;-)

Because it is "politics" that got Martha busted.

Peetster · 11-02-2003, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by james t kirk
Because it is "politics" that got Martha busted.

No, it was "breaking the law" that got her in trouble. You just supported my point. Again, how do you equate politics with breaking the law?

Killconey · 11-02-2003, 11:15 AM

The political spectrum covers a wide variety of news and I think that the Martha Stewart case does indeed fit in, but I can see where Peetster might want the focus shifted a little.

Have you ever considered how this case will be affected due to the fact that the conservative Bush Administration is in power and that members of that administration have already been accused of having ties with Enron? That fact right there might answer the question posed at the beginning of the thread: Will she go to jail or just be slapped on the wrist? as well as add some political credibility.

I think that because of the enormous media backlash that Enron and company caused, there will be a political need for Martha Stewart to be prosecuted harshly. The courts (which are a part of the American political system called the Judicial Branch) will most likely feel the need to prove that this kind of political corruption is not condoned by the United States government. I think that Martha Stewart is needed as a media scapegoat and that is exactly what she will be used as.

10-30-2003, 04:11 PM	#1 (permalink)
fishin Crazy	Martha Stewart So...has she already "paid her dues" since she's suffered such financial loss after her bout with negative press? (ie should she just be slapped on the wrist with some community service and let go?) Opinions?

10-30-2003, 04:30 PM	#3 (permalink)
fishin Crazy	Why do you say she is going to jail? She hasn't even gone to trial yet. __________________ liberals rule. phhtt.

10-30-2003, 04:47 PM	#5 (permalink)
fishin Crazy	I am still a big believer in the whole "innocent until proven guilty" idea. It's annoying how so many people have already convicted her based on her personal reputation. There are people out there who want her to fry who have no clue what the facts are or even what the case is really about...(not saying that thats what youre doing. the question was a bit of a setup...sorry) __________________ liberals rule. phhtt.

10-31-2003, 07:47 AM	#8 (permalink)
fishin Crazy	That is the question that I have. She should definitely be punished what is just and right. But it seems like people think she should get the death penalty for a comparatively measly crime. She may be a nasty person, but she isn't going to trial for that... __________________ liberals rule. phhtt.

10-31-2003, 08:07 AM	#9 (permalink)
Liquor Dealer Super Agitator Location: Just SW of Nowhere!!! In the good old US of A	I've never met the woman - if she's anything like what I've heard her being described as I'm glad I haven't had the opportunity- But! like most of you have stated - even if she's guilty as sin for insider trading, it's chicken feed compared to what a lot of others have done recently and aren't feelin' 10% of the heat Stewart is right now. If we are really sincere about dealing with Wall St. then start at the top and work down - not viceversa. When they're through dealing with those that are really corrupt then they can deal with the petty white collar criminals. If they deal with the biggies they'll never get around to worrying about people like Stewart. __________________ Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

10-30-2003, 04:22 PM	#2 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	I'm glad she is going to jail. Now what about Ken Lay? Why has he not even been charged?

10-30-2003, 04:36 PM	#4 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	I'm projecting.

10-31-2003, 07:09 AM	#7 (permalink)
james t kirk Junkie Location: Toronto	I still want to know why they chose to single her out. Why not the THIEVES from ENRON, and Worldcom, and Global Crossings Those guys STOLE billions from investors. In many cases, people lost everything, every cent of their pension, their savings for retirement - gone. And yet these guys seem to be untouchable. Martha saves 50 grand by selling on a tip (yes, yes, it's insider info and it's illegal, but who here wouldn't have done the same thing?) and she goes to jail. Let's see, steals billions vs. 50 grand. WTF is wrong with that picture? Bernie Ebbers, Ken Lay, Geoffry Skilling, and that fat pig looking dude from Global Crossing all have billions sitting in the bank that they STOLE and they are living in the lap of luxury.

10-31-2003, 01:47 PM	#11 (permalink)
j8ear Gentlemen Farmer Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey	Martha's being chraged with crimes relating to "lying" and "covering up" crimes which they (the government) are otherwise unable to charge her with. The way such innocuous, seemingly best intentioned crimes are legislated it would be almost impossible for a jury to aquit her if the government has any legal skill what so ever. Be advised that the single most useful tool in law enforcement's arsenal is deception, and that they have actually suceeded in making it a crime for you to employ this tactic, while using it themselves routinely. End result...whether they are able to gather enough evidence to prove you committed a crime or not...you will be charged with something, and probably convicted. If anything screams for jury nullification it is 'charges' like this, trumped up entrapment. I am quite confident she will be convicted of something, which will not at all reflect the crime she ~probably~ committed, AND she will NOT DO a single day in prison. -bear __________________ It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

10-31-2003, 02:22 PM	#13 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	A crime is a crime and comparing one criminal's punishment to another's punishment or lack-there-of is foolish. The answer is not to let Martha go free but to punish the other wrong-doers. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

10-31-2003, 02:28 PM	#14 (permalink)
fishin Crazy	I agree with you lebell. Her case should be tried as an individual case. Not as some watershed case as some people are making it out to be. Something like this should not be used as a "sign of what's coming." __________________ liberals rule. phhtt.

11-02-2003, 05:54 AM	#15 (permalink)
Peetster Right Now Location: Home	Help me understand how this is Politics. Seems more like a General Discussion thread, unless one makes the assumption that politics = crime and punishment. ;-)

11-02-2003, 11:15 AM	#18 (permalink)
Killconey Crazy Location: Various places in the Midwest, all depending on when I'm posting.	The political spectrum covers a wide variety of news and I think that the Martha Stewart case does indeed fit in, but I can see where Peetster might want the focus shifted a little. Have you ever considered how this case will be affected due to the fact that the conservative Bush Administration is in power and that members of that administration have already been accused of having ties with Enron? That fact right there might answer the question posed at the beginning of the thread: Will she go to jail or just be slapped on the wrist? as well as add some political credibility. I think that because of the enormous media backlash that Enron and company caused, there will be a political need for Martha Stewart to be prosecuted harshly. The courts (which are a part of the American political system called the Judicial Branch) will most likely feel the need to prove that this kind of political corruption is not condoned by the United States government. I think that Martha Stewart is needed as a media scapegoat and that is exactly what she will be used as. __________________ Look out for numbers two and up and they'll look out for you.