PDA

View Full Version : Something YOU should care about - Black Friday



bigalerickson
03-05-2004, 05:02 PM
(sorry for the poor editing, and grammar, i just wasn't in the editing kind of mood)

Hello Everyone,

Today Martha Stewart was convicted on all four counts she was charged wtih. This is one of thre greatest travesties that could befall corporate america, women's rites, and women themselves, as well as it is proof positive that America's judicial system is backasswards and something should be done about it.

Don't believe me? Fine. Listen to the facts.

Well first the emotional appeal of the truth. Is Martha guilty of insider trading? You better believe she is. Did Martha lie to the investigators, most likely. Should any of this carry the weight of a persons freedom? Absolutely not!

We are talking about a fraud case worth $50,000. Which is approximately %0.1 or .001 of her total net worth. The IRS overlooks any mistake that is less than 1% of your total worth. We are truly talking about the equivalent to us getting double steered into a 50 dollar race to seven and then getting convicted of a conspiracy to cheat.

Now moving onto the truly offensive part... There are 23 idictments or cases pending in the securities fraud arena that exceed 10,000,000. That is ten million dollars. Yet these federal cases have been put aside to be able to give a full frontal assault to this case.

This case was not one of giving the American people justice. For no justice was ever taken away. This case was of a personal matter of greed and desire for power. Quoting CNN "though the lead prosecutor appeared to be holding back tears of joy." This case just made his career, being able to take down the most notorious (and I think most successful) women America has ever scene.

All this time, CEO and CFO of Worldcom are sitting quietly, Enron is starting to negotioate. These are just a few of the examples of people who have taken away from America. These are the people that need to convicted and brought down into Maximum security reception in a federal penitentiary.

NOT MARTHA. Not the women who has shown the women of down home middle America how to make their home a place of pride, a truly comfortable home for their family to live and friends to appreciate visiting. Martha gave to women what Hilary Clinton only dreams of doing.

But, alas they did it. They crucified a woman who had done wrong, but in no way did that merit what she is receiving. Her expected sentence is to exceed that of an average first degree murder conviction.

Now just so we are clear on a couple things. I do not own any of her stock, or any Kmarts. I do not own any of her products, or read her literature, nor does anyone in my family. I have been watching this unfold like the rest of America watched OJ go free. Additionally, I carry no political flags, and rarely make a stand on any political issue. But, this is unacceptable.

In closing a quote from one of the jurors "This is a victory for the little guys. ... No one is above the law." This is not a victory for the little people, today the little people had to see one of their heroes fall. Not because of corruption that costs thousands of people their jobs, not because she stole from government, or from her employers. Because she made a decision to put a little hustle behind her proverbial muscle.

Some of you may take the high road here, even I did at first. But the fact is each one of us has made somewhere along the way a decision based on info from someone we trust to give us the slightest of edges despite its slightly deceitful manner.

I apologize for the long post for those who are still reading, and I only hope that a few more people may realize what has happened today. And how government really cares about. It sure doesn't care about the little guy.

Peace my friends. Thank you for listening.

Alex

NH_Steve
03-05-2004, 05:58 PM
RU serious??? What with all the corporate fraud and abuse over the last few years and all the INSIDE bulls**t that went along with it, as the INSIDERS nearly always profited while the unsuspecting investors and employees lost out -- and you're worried about Martha Stewart???

I'm sorry, were can I send a donation to the Martha Stewart prosecution team so they can better afford to go after about a THOUSAND more Leona Helmsley's, Ken Lay's, Dennis Kozlowski's, and the former fat cat head of the Stock Exchange while they are at it -- I'm all for it!!!!!

Troy
03-05-2004, 07:32 PM
TAP, TAP, TAP !!!

bigalerickson
03-05-2004, 07:49 PM
You see, you're missing my point. I absolutely want them going after people like that. But instead they are going after someone who really isn't part of that whole scene at all. Martha is a business socialite with a created public image, that is what they wanted to tear down. not someone who is defrauding the american public.

Wally_in_Cincy
03-06-2004, 08:15 AM
Martha is truly a sacrificial lamb. There are much bigger fish to fry in the corporate fraud world. If she gets any time other then probation it would be very unfair.

The judicial system, quite frankly, is the only thing in this world that scares me. Fortunately I have not had to deal with it very often.

tateuts
03-06-2004, 09:29 AM
Big Al,

You get a call from your broker saying "sell" and what do you do? You ask "excuse me, was this information obtained legally? Will you put that in writing? Are we doing the right thing? " No. You say "get rid of it. Get me out. Just dump it for what you can get!"

I think she is taking the heat for trying to help her broker cover his ass. They were close and he was doing her a favor.

Now the government is ramping up to go after the bigger fish. Betty Crocker and the Pillsbury Doughboy. Once they are knocked off, it's Tony the Tiger.

Like you say, there are way bigger fish to fry but no bigger names. What they've done is B.S. and I'm more ashamed of our legal system than I was before - if that's possible.

Chris

Harold Acosta
03-06-2004, 09:53 AM
I havent follow much of the Martha Stewart case but she is not a fallen "Angel". She will get what she deserves, and if it is jail, that's fine with me.

Martha got inside information that a product the company she had stock with, was not going to get FDA approval. She got the info from the President of that corporation, who also told his daughter about it. Since they all knew that once the information got out; the price of the stock would fall; they all "conspired" to "dump" the stock on inocent traders who did not have the info, and would not have bought it if they knew.

How would you feel if you had been suckered into buying that stock?

I feel no pain for Martha. If she did wrong, no matter what the amount of dumped stock, she should pay for it. She will probably get about a year or year-and-a-half of jailtime, if any. So why not let her know how it feels to be "inside the wall"?

...and all this BS about Martha being targeted because of who she is, or what she has done, is just that; a bunch of bull $hit. She will get what she deserves....I'm just fine with that.

Sid_Vicious
03-06-2004, 10:12 AM
The Tiger is ok, but I've never trusted that Doughboy ;-)

As far as the verdict goes, all I can say is, if I were to be questioned by legal officials, especially federal ones, and I were to lie, then I'd expect to receive all hell for it. You just don't do that, no matter the reason. She may have been a moderate compared to the bigger fish, but still, you do not lie and get caught doing it...sid

dr_billiards
03-06-2004, 03:15 PM
OMG !!!!!
Now where am I going to learn how to make those pretty little crafty thingies, and baked goods in between playing my 9-Ball Matches. LOL /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif j/k
I agree with you.

eg8r
03-06-2004, 10:08 PM
I could not agree more. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif WTG Harold.

I am quite confident she will not ever see a day in jail but most of the rich never do. She has enough money to tie this up for years (if she is lucky) in appeals. The problem is that the common man would never be able to afford this luxury, so we would be headed off to jail. Oh well, as long as the money she uses to pay her attorney's was made legitimately then that is life and she will work the system just like any other person would do if given the opportunity and resources to pull it off.

eg8r <~~~My mother is heartbroken over this /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r
03-06-2004, 10:12 PM
I know no one might like this, but this is similar with Clinton's impeachment. Everyone said Clinton was impeached because he had "relations" with Monica. No one ever mentions the perjury or obstruction of justice issues. Same this is happening with Martha. She is not being tried for insider trading, rather obstruction of justice and perjury. It is quite easy to forget what she is being accused of as far as this court is concerned.

eg8r <~~~Likes to see the celebrities get treated like a common man every once in a while. Lock her up for a little bit.

eg8r
03-06-2004, 10:14 PM
[ QUOTE ]
As far as the verdict goes, all I can say is, if I were to be questioned by legal officials, especially federal ones, and I were to lie, then I'd expect to receive all hell for it. You just don't do that, no matter the reason. She may have been a moderate compared to the bigger fish, but still, you do not lie and get caught doing it...sid <hr /></blockquote> Tap Tap Tap

eg8r

nhp
03-08-2004, 06:48 AM
I feel more sorry for the guys who get a life-sentence because their third strike was stealin a slice of pizza.

Ken
03-08-2004, 08:09 AM
You would have loved Germany in the thirtys and forties. Please get your facts correct for once. Martha was neither charged nor convicted of perjury.

I suppose you approve of the common (and legal) police tactic of lying to suspects but the ordinary citizen should be thrown in jail for doing the same. Who's your greatest hero? Is it Adolf, Saddam or Joe S?
KenCT

eg8r
03-08-2004, 08:28 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You would have loved Germany in the thirtys and forties. <hr /></blockquote> Does this healthy, intellectual gem of a quote mean that Germany was strict on its laws and no one person, celebrity or not, was too big to be tried for acting illegal? Considering the slant of the rest of your post, I find this completely asinine. Martha acted illegally, there is nothing more to say. Just because there are other, "bigger" fish in the water does not mean she should get a free ride.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ken:</font><hr> Please get your facts correct for once. Martha was neither charged nor convicted of perjury.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote quote Ken is referring to:</font><hr> She is not being tried for insider trading, rather obstruction of justice and perjury. It is quite easy to forget what she is being accused of as far as this court is concerned.
<hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> Who said "convicted". Do not pop off the top about facts when you stumble on the simple things like "comprehension".

One other thing, which facts do you feel I have stated wrongly? You mentioned "for once" meaning this has happened on more than one occasion, so here I am willingly asking for you to show me where I purposely stated a lie as a fact.

As far as Martha being tried for Perjury, here is a link (http://money.cnn.com/2004/03/08/news/companies/martha/index.htm) that states which counts she was found guilty. I think the very first one in the image states perjury, but maybe I am mis-stating that fact. Help me out Ken.

As far as do I approve of the police tactic of lying to suspects...Who cares. I mean really, what is the point. The law blatantly states you cannot lie under oath and obstruct justice. Why change the subject? Is it because you have nothing more to say on the current subject. How I feel about the rest of the law has nothing to do with how I feel about the law as it pertains to Martha Stewart.

Thanks for playing.

eg8r

eg8r
03-08-2004, 08:49 AM
I wonder how Ken feels about other celebrities who are/have been on trial. One subject could be Rush Limbaugh. Do you feel the same about him as you do Martha?

eg8r

Qtec
03-08-2004, 08:54 AM
Rush is not a criminal. He is a victim.

HaHaHaHaHa...........

Q

eg8r
03-08-2004, 09:01 AM
Even though the post was not directed to Q, he still tries to answer it, without any attempt at giving an answer.

eg8r

Rich R.
03-08-2004, 09:07 AM
Martha allegedly profited, or saved, between $40,000 and $50,000 by her actions.
I would venture a guess that it cost the tax payers millions for her prosecution.
Don't you find that the least bit ludicrous? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Yes, she may have broken the law, but I believe tax dollars would be better spent going after the people who are cheating the system out of millions of dollars. Tax payers deserve a little more for their money.

This case was all about some prosecuter wanting to make a name for himself, not bringing a criminal to justice.

For example, a policeman is on a corner. Up the street in one direction, a movie star is J-walking. In the other direction, a man is robbing and killing a shop owner. The policeman can only capture one of the law breakers.
It appears, you would rather him go after the J-walker. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

eg8r
03-08-2004, 09:18 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Martha allegedly profited, or saved, between $40,000 and $50,000 by her actions.
I would venture a guess that it cost the tax payers millions for her prosecution.
Don't you find that the least bit ludicrous? <hr /></blockquote> Which part? The part where she decided to risk ruining her career and her vast wealth over 50k, or the fact that someone decided the law was more important than a celebrity and went and spent some money making sure even the celebrities get a fair trial?

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, she may have broken the law, but I believe tax dollars would be better spent going after the people who are cheating the system out of millions of dollars. Tax payers deserve a little more for their money.
<hr /></blockquote> The first part of your first sentence is enough. No need to say anymore. She broke the law and she went to court, no different than you or I. That is what I like about this case.

[ QUOTE ]
This case was all about some prosecuter wanting to make a name for himself, not bringing a criminal to justice. <hr /></blockquote> You could be absolutely correct. However, the by-product of this self-serving prosecutor was another criminal getting caught and tried.

[ QUOTE ]
For example, a policeman is on a corner. Up the street in one direction, a movie star is J-walking. In the other direction, a man is robbing and killing a shop owner. The policeman can only capture one of the law breakers.
It appears, you would rather him go after the J-walker. <hr /></blockquote> You are absolutely wrong in this accusation. You obviously do not understand what I am saying. Back to the analogy, my stance would, WHOMEVER the officer caught (he would make this decision), I would want that person tried fairly in the court system. I am not making any choices as to WHO goes to court, but rather, if they do go to court, then the court does what it is supposed to do. That is, to try the person fairly, and if they are deemed guilty then so be it.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
03-08-2004, 09:44 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rich R.:</font><hr>...This case was all about some prosecuter wanting to make a name for himself, not bringing a criminal to justice....<hr /></blockquote>

I agree Rich. There was a builder locally who cheated folks out of $32 million. His name is Bill Erpenbeck.

This guy ripped his HVAC guy off for $500,000, almost destroying the HVAC guy's business he had built up for 25 years. And that's just one sub-contractor. Erpenbeck was also taking folks' money at closing and instead of paying the people that were to be paid he was laundering the money and paying himself.

Erpenbeck, over a year after he was indicted, was still in "negotiations" with the federal prosecutor.

NEGOTIATIONS? wtf?

They finally jailed him for witness-tampering in the case.

Martha is a small-fry.

Rich R.
03-08-2004, 11:01 AM
eg8r, in this particular case, I believe the "celebrity" was treated much harsher, than you or I would be treated.
If it were you or I, they, most likely, never would have spent the money to pursue the case. If they did, it would have been plea bargained down to almost nothing within a week.

Since our legal system has limited resources to pursue criminals, I would just like to see the money spent in a more efficient manner. IMHO, Martha is not the most dangerous criminal in NYC.

eg8r
03-08-2004, 11:42 AM
[ QUOTE ]
If it were you or I, they, most likely, never would have spent the money to pursue the case. If they did, it would have been plea bargained down to almost nothing within a week.
<hr /></blockquote> You might be correct, however Martha was offered a deal and she was pretty sure she would be able to beat it. Turns out that might not have been the correct choice.

[ QUOTE ]
Since our legal system has limited resources to pursue criminals, I would just like to see the money spent in a more efficient manner. <hr /></blockquote> I don't think I am disagreeing with you, rather I am just stating that since it did go that far, then there is no reason not to try her.

eg8r