From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Mar 09 2004 - 00:21:21 GMT
Hi Platt, Leland, and all:
PLATT:
> > I see where the heavy hand of government and a group of envious jurists
> > have conspired to bring down an individual whose life was dedicated to
> > quality, namely one Martha Stewart.Say what you will about the
> domestic
> diva, she brought the art of gracious living to the average shlub and
> was
> richly rewarded for her efforts.
LELAND:
> Besides, she's not being punished for violating society's vulgar static
> patterns, she's being punished for violating society's basic static
> patterns by using her position of influence to profit herself. Unless,
> of course, you believe she's innocent.
>
> I was remarking the other day (when the verdict came in) that it is a
> sign of the society in which we live that a jury could find Martha
> Stewart guilty of fraud and profiteering, but not find O.J. Simpson
> guilty of murder. Mind-boggling.
RICK
Hi Leland, Martha was not found guilty of "fraud and profiteering". She
was convicted of obstructing justice; in particular, lying to federal
investigators. The fraud charge against her was thrown out. This is
another example of instances in which the cover-up does more damage than the
crime. If she had taken the deal previously offered to her and admitted to
insider trading, she would have paid a fine and served no time at all. But
instead, she got cocky, lied to investigators and forged documents to try
and prove her 'innocence'.
As for the comparison to the OJ verdict, the OJ prosecutors put on a
terrible case and made novice mistakes at pretty much every turn (I'd
suggest reading Vincent Bugliosi's book on the trial in which he
convincingly argues that any 1st year law student should have been able to
convict OJ and that he was acquitted not because of a biased jury but
because of severe prosecutorial incompetence); the Martha prosecutors (from
what I know of the case), by contrast, put on a much tighter case (at least
with respect to the obstruction charges).
Platt, my friend, your characterization of the Stewart Jury as "envious
jurists" who conspired " to bring down in individual whose life was
dedicated to quality" strikes me as preposterous. Martha was a thief who
illegally received and acted on insider information to enrich herself and
then lied about it at every turn. She lied under oath, forged documents,
and even got others to lie and forge on her behalf. The jury was dead-on.
She stole $40,000 at the expense of legitimate investors as surely as if she
robbed a bank with a gun and then she tried to lie and cheat her way out of
it. Regardless of the alleged quality of her products or efforts on behalf
of "average shlubs", her refusal to plea to the crime she actually committed
and decision to lie and cover-up endangered the corporation she built and
the hundreds, if not thousands, of hard-working "average shlubs" who depend
on it for their livelihoods. I can just hear them saying, "Sure I can't
feed my family anymore, but the quality of throw pillows at K-Mart is just
so much better than it used to be. Thank God for Martha!!!"
take care
rick
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 09 2004 - 00:22:34 GMT