For the lawyers, and anyone who wants to be Lawyer-for-a-day. [Archive]

lrd

03-09-2004, 08:09

I was reading the commentary on the Martha Stewert case and came across this: http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/04.03.08a.htm

My question has to do with this statement:
What this law says is that if you tell a lie to a federal official, you can be put in prison. Let's think about that.

First, this is not a law just against perjury. There is no requirement that you be under oath. The lie does not have to occur in a courtroom or a government office. As stated, it does not even have to be a lie to a federal official-- it could be a lie to a friend.

Second, your lie does not have to cover up any crime. As stated, you would have to go to jail if you deliberately told the census taker you were a Methodist when you were really a Catholic. Or, as in Martha Stewart's case, it might be that you hadn't committed any crime, but federal police came by thinking maybe you had, and you were afraid what you had done might have been criminal too (even though it turned out it was not), because federal regulations are so intricate, and so you lied. Bang, you go to jail, if the Justice Department decides it doesn't like you or wants the publicity.

Third, no Miranda warning is going to help you. The idea of the Miranda warning is to stop you from incriminating yourself of your previous crimes-- a bad idea, by the way, but there you have it. Here, however, there doesn't have to be any previous crime. So you don't get a warning. You will be committing a crime once you lie, and at that point I suppose the policeman must give you a Miranda warning if he wants to ask you "Did you just lie to me?" and use your answer as a confession. But by then it's too late.

Thus, this a powerful law. Can you escape its reach? Well, you could always tell the truth, which is a good thing to do. But I don't think 5-year federal prison sentences for lying are appropriate, particularly since we don't enforce the law uniformly. (Note, by the way, that a lot of politicians would be in prison if we did enforce it--- and that's not just a joke--- they do tell material lies a lot about matters of public policy.) I'm not sure what to make of this. What do you think?

Sigi

03-09-2004, 09:03

She was found guilty of lying to a policeman. Although my family is full of LEO's, I don't think this should be a crime. It most certainly should not carry a 5 year sentence. The best thing to do is say nothing at all. Period. Ever.

But to say that someone should be charged with a crime because they lied to the police - in this case federal officials - is wrong. It is not under oath or in a court of law.

The false statment statute, 18 USC sec. 1001, makes it even harder for people to give any statement at all since it may be construed as a false statement.

As a rule I stay out of trouble. I have, however, made a few mistakes along the way to age 35. Keeping my mouth shut and answering no questions has served me just fine.

18 USC sec. 1001

TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 47, Sec. 1001
Sec. 1001. - Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully -

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

(c)With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to -

(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or

(2)any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate

lrd

03-09-2004, 09:33

Originally posted by Sigi
. . . The best thing to do is say nothing at all. Period. Ever.

But to say that someone should be charged with a crime because they lied to the police - in this case federal officials - is wrong. It is not under oath or in a court of law.

The false statment statute, 18 USC sec. 1001, makes it even harder for people to give any statement at all since it may be construed as a false statement.
So do you think that this will lead to less cooperation with LEOs?

Sacamuelas

03-09-2004, 09:54

No. Unless you mean from the citizens that commit crimes, cover them up, and lie about it to investigators. Then Yes. Although I don't think those people are the ones that are the people who usually "cooperate" anyway now are they???

NousDefionsDoc

03-09-2004, 10:22

She was found guilty of lying to a policeman.

Might want to check that.

Free Martha NOW! Attica! Attica!

lrd

03-09-2004, 10:32

Originally posted by Sacamuelas
No. Unless you mean from the citizens that commit crimes, cover them up, and lie about it to investigators. Then Yes. Although I don't think those people are the ones that are the people who usually "cooperate" anyway now are they??? So you don't think this will set a precedent? What if you hadn't committed a crime prior to being questioned?

From the Wall Street Journal (http://users2.wsj.com/WebIntegration/WebIntegrationServlet?call=L_L&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2F0%2C%2 CSB107870225058648676%2C00.html%3Fmod%3Dopinion%25 5Fmain%255Freview%255Fand%255Foutlooks) (subscription required): Maybe there's some rough justice in putting Miss Stewart in an orange jumpsuit for fibbing about the circumstances of that sale with her broker. Manifestly the jury thought so. But in a case ostensibly brought on behalf of sticking up for the forgotten "little guy," we'd like to think prosecutors might have weighed the price paid by the truly innocent here: all the Martha Stewart Living shareholders, employees, executives, and so forth whose livelihoods have suffered tremendously since this case first broke into the headlines and whose futures, like their company, are now in limbo. And it's not just Miss Stewart's company: Kmart, a big buyer of Martha's products, is going to take a hit too.

We also have doubts about what "message" this conviction really does send about lying. In hindsight we can now see that had Miss Stewart said absolutely nothing at all when investigators came calling, she would not be facing jail time today. Our guess is that the corporate defense lawyers are a more reliable guide about the message of this prosecution, and right now they're pretty much all agreed that the real lesson here is to zip up completely when the FBI starts calling. Hard to see how this is a big victory for transparency.

Finally, we come to a point we've stressed before: the absence of an underlying crime. Most of the charges against Miss Stewart were brought under Title 18, Section 1001 of the U.S. Code, which makes it a crime to lie to investigators. The dangers for overreach here should be obvious, and comments made back in 1996 by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and recently unearthed by the New York Sun now look prophetic.

"The prospect remains that an overzealous prosecutor or investigator - aware that a person has committed some suspicious acts, but unable to make a criminal case - will create a crime by surprising the subject, asking about those acts, and receiving a false denial," Justice Ginsburg wrote in a concurring opinion in Brogan v. United States, warning against the "sweeping generality" of Section 1001's language.

In short, in the Schadenfreude afterglow of Martha Stewart's conviction we also see before us the innocent people who will pay the highest price for that prosecution, as well as a huge new incentive for CEOs to clam up next time the feds ask questions.

NousDefionsDoc

03-09-2004, 10:41

I saw a report on Fox where they said one of the jurors actually said something to the effect of "Well we got that rich bitch." I don't remember the exact wording.

Surgicalcric

03-09-2004, 10:44

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I saw a report on Fox where they said one of the jurors actually said something to the effect of "Well we got that rich bitch." I don't remember the exact wording.

Sounds like grounds for an appeal to me, but what do I know.

NousDefionsDoc

03-09-2004, 10:48

I thought so too, but the legal experts said no, nothing said in interviews after the tril unless it involves some kind of external pressure. Like bribery or threats.

Surgicalcric

03-09-2004, 10:52

It would seem to me that if they could show the jury, or a juror had passed judgement on her prior to hearing the defense a case could be argued for a mistrial.

I did not see the Fox News report so I am just going on what sound logical, but then again we are talking about our Federal Judicial System.

Smokin Joe

03-09-2004, 10:53

I got 10 bucks that says she only gets probation and/or a fine. Also that she doesn't ever see the inside of a jail cell.

Any takers?

Roguish Lawyer

03-09-2004, 10:55

Originally posted by Smokin Joe
I got 10 bucks that says she only gets probation and/or a fine. Also that she doesn't ever see the inside of a jail cell.

Any takers?

You're on. :lifter

NousDefionsDoc

03-09-2004, 10:56

I'll take it Joe. She has to go at least a little - federal sentencing guidelines. I saw somewhere where 10 months is the absolute minimum she can do.

Sacamuelas

03-09-2004, 11:00

I don't remember Sam Waksal (IM clone founder), Ms. Stewart, the stockbroker, or the young assistant running to the AG's office to report their parts in this fiasco on their own free will. From what I remember, they were forced to cooperate in a formal investigation after hiding behind lawyers,etc.

How exactly is your worst case scenario for the aftermath of this conviction not already the norm for CEO's,etc?

No one can make you talk, but I would gladly answer any questions about my past to a federal investigator. i just don't think there is some conspiracy against Martha,Inc. Someone please explain to me why she is being targeted.

BTW- Mr. WAKSAL was convicted of securities fraud for this stock tip/illegal trade information that he gave to the broker for Martha. Martha got away with it on her end for the very reasons you guys say "might" hurt the other future investigations. She kept her pie hole shut and so did the others initially. She lied, she told half the story, and she misled. Otherwise, she would be looking at insider trading too. This future lack of cooperation argument is a crock...

Sigi

03-09-2004, 11:05

Originally posted by lrd
So do you think that this will lead to less cooperation with LEOs?

As a general rule I don't go out of my way to make the LEOs' job more difficult. But there are questions that the police ask that don't need answering.

Like I said I have a family full of LEO's (both Federal and local.) I have heard so many "got one over on the bad guy" stories that it is old hat. The police can lie and stretch the truth to get a confession, but turnabout is not fair play?

I watch cops once in awhile and I laugh at what people tell the police. Sometimes it's better to say nothing at all.

Once upon a time I was at a private party during college. The police had broken that party up 3 times over the fall. When the police knocked at the door I told the guy "Do not open the door." They left. There are limits to what the LEO's can do. Some people do not know those limits.

Note to NDD: She lied to a federal officer. I said policeman. Is that what you meant?

NousDefionsDoc

03-09-2004, 11:05

Someone please explain to me why she is being targeted.

COME ON!
1. Woman
2. White
3. Rich
4. Crappy bathmats
5. Famous
6. Worked for it
7. Famous
8. Rich
9. Blonde
10. Not unattractive

Watch what happens to the US Attorney that won the case in a year.

I wonder if Martha was off-shoring?

Airbornelawyer

03-09-2004, 11:05

Originally posted by Surgicalcric
Sounds like grounds for an appeal to me, but what do I know.
One of the jurors said he voted to convict Stewart because she was a stockbroker and should have known she was doing something illegal. She was not convicted of a securities law violation, so this "she was a stockbroker" is irrelevant. But if it means the jurors conflated the securities laws issues with the 1001 violations, there may be reversible error.

This is not my area of law, so I don't know how this would actually play out. RL is the litigator. Would erroneous application of the law by a juror be reversible error, or would there have to be some flaw found in the jury instructions, so it was the court's error?

NousDefionsDoc

03-09-2004, 11:08

Originally posted by Airbornelawyer
One of the jurors said he voted to convict Stewart because she was a stockbroker and should have known she was doing something illegal. She was not convicted of a securities law violation, so this "she was a stockbroker" is irrelevant. But if it means the jurors conflated the securities laws issues with the 1001 violations, there may be reversible error.

This is not my area of law, so I don't know how this would actually play out. RL is the litigator. Would erroneous application of the law by a juror be reversible error, or would there have to be some flaw found in the jury instructions, so it was the court's error?

Right. She's also not a stockbroker. That juror is a dumbass.

Free Martha NOW! Attica! Attica!

lrd

03-09-2004, 11:09

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I wonder if Martha was off-shoring?
:D

Surgicalcric

03-09-2004, 11:09

Where is CSB when we need him? If I am not mistaken he is a CDA.

Surgicalcric

03-09-2004, 11:10

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Right. She's also not a stockbroker. That juror is a dumbass.

Yet another argument for professional juries.

NousDefionsDoc

03-09-2004, 11:12

Won't work. They would either have to be appointed or elected and that means politics. You'd have a trial by twelve judges.

Surgicalcric

03-09-2004, 11:20

I am not sure which is worse 12 judges, or 12 bubbas.

DunbarFC

03-09-2004, 11:29

Forbes refers to it as a " conspiracy of dunces "

Maybe that's why the FEDS went after her - she was too stupid to even dodge them

Smokin Joe

03-09-2004, 11:36

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
You're on. :lifte

Orginaly posted by NousDefionsDoc

I'll take it Joe. She has to go at least a little - federal sentencing guidelines. I saw somewhere where 10 months is the absolute minimum she can do.

I'm going have to learn how to accept paypal.
:D

Come on sweet innocent Martha 50ish blonde female with no prior record. She is just a poor innocent victim of her attorney and her broker.

Shaaa right whatever. I still don't think she'll do any jail or prison time.

Roguish Lawyer

03-09-2004, 12:23

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
10. Not unattractive

You think she'll send you some SPAM recipes from the slam if you ask nicely?

Roguish Lawyer

03-09-2004, 12:25

Originally posted by Airbornelawyer
Would erroneous application of the law by a juror be reversible error, or would there have to be some flaw found in the jury instructions, so it was the court's error?

Jurors do not apply the law, they find facts. Erroneous jury instructions can form the basis of a successful appeal if you can show they affected the outcome.

Roguish Lawyer

03-09-2004, 12:27

Originally posted by Surgicalcric
Yet another argument for professional juries.

Jury reform is high on my agenda. The people you'd want on a jury tend to be people who get out of jury duty because they have better things to do. Big problem.

The Reaper

03-09-2004, 12:30

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
Jury reform is high on my agenda. The people you'd want on a jury tend to be people who get out of jury duty because they have better things to do. Big problem.

I think jury nullification should be briefed as an option.

TR

Guy

03-09-2004, 13:14

This is one of those situations...

"Does the means, justify the ends"!

In this case. I think that a hefty fine, would justify the ends. I think the public would gain more with a $100-200 million fine...then the collapse of a company which employs thousands of people, who had nothing to do with her lying.

Roguish Lawyer

03-09-2004, 13:17

The case illustrates something important for people to understand when they are questioned by authorities. Martha Stewart really didn't do anything horrible until she tried to cover up what she did. It is the cover-up that led to the prosecution. Sound familiar?

She should have kept her mouth shut and retained counsel immediately.

Sacamuelas

03-09-2004, 13:31

Originally posted by Guy
"Does the means, justify the ends"!
In this case. I think that a hefty fine, would justify the ends. I think the public would gain more with a $100-200 million fine...then the collapse of a company which employs thousands of people, who had nothing to do with her lying.

That is not how the law was designed to be enforced. That kind of standard is exactly what gets people wrongly convicted of crimes(for being disliked) as well as letting criminals walk for illegitimate reasons (was a great football player/rental car spokesman/minority in LA).

With that thinking, then should Bernie Evers (worldcom CEO) get off free? When the gov. brought its case against MCI/Worldcom about 1500 MS employees almost instantly lost their jobs. Should we not let people be prosecuted or even accused of crimes that have extreme power or extravagant wealth?

How about Bill Clinton? Does everyone agree that he should have been allowed to commit perjury because of his power and position as POTUS? It definitely would have been better for the United States not to have to publicly go through that scandal with our elected president agreed?

Sometimes enforcing the law is hard and has unintended consequences... but it must be enforced IMO. At least, we should all expect and strive to get there. Not become complacent to its corruption.

Otherwise, I am going to hire a few more assistants and hygienists so that if I am ever prosecuted, you guys will let me off because six women who are supporting 15 kids will be unable to work while I am in trial and/or in jail. That doesnâ€™t even count the sob story my lawyer will tell about my infants without a father figure.
Comments?

RL- you telling me you ACTUALLY think she talked with the investigators without an attorney present AND before she could get in touch with her attorney on the cell phone for advice???
Yeah, okay... I bet her friggin driver has a law degree. Hell, I think you get one for signing up for protests inthe student unions at most liberal arts campuses! They loiter on every corner it seems...waiting for ambulances! LOL
:munchin

Roguish Lawyer

03-09-2004, 14:07

My firm represented Martha Stewart in another matter. I will not discuss what I have been told about her.

Sacamuelas

03-09-2004, 14:26

Well..okay. JC agrees with NDD.

The Reaper

03-09-2004, 14:41

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
The case illustrates something important for people to understand when they are questioned by authorities. Martha Stewart really didn't do anything horrible until she tried to cover up what she did. It is the cover-up that led to the prosecution. Sound familiar?

She should have kept her mouth shut and retained counsel immediately.

No statement, no poly, no waiver?

TR

Guy

03-09-2004, 16:19

Sacamuelas:
I cannot believe that, YOU of all people...being from that great state of LOUISIANA! Have the audacity, to lecture about what's right or wrong. :D

I have some honey-do's to complete before my honey gets home.

I'll be back!

Sacamuelas

03-09-2004, 16:23

Guy.. I actually am from a sister state (MS) but visit VERY often to experience the "culture" in the food and beverage industry.

I wish my state would pass the same anti-car jacking laws as LA did. They don't do everything wrong. However, I will give you the fact that LA may be the most corrupt state in the USA politically.

EDITED- POST MADE NO SENSE AS THE CRAZY JAWBREAKER GOT CONFUSED ON WHICH THREAD HE WAS POSTING IN. Thought it was the one about gun rights/self defense issues. I was :confused:

Roguish Lawyer

03-09-2004, 17:05

Originally posted by Sacamuelas
RL- you telling me you ACTUALLY think she talked with the investigators without an attorney present AND before she could get in touch with her attorney on the cell phone for advice???
Yeah, okay... I bet her friggin driver has a law degree. Hell, I think you get one for signing up for protests inthe student unions at most liberal arts campuses! They loiter on every corner it seems...waiting for ambulances! LOL

I do not believe that counsel was involved in her apparent creation of a BS story about the stock being sold pursuant to a limit order rather than her oral instructions given after receiving inside information from Waksal. I do not believe that counsel advised her to coerce others into going along with the BS story either.

Roguish Lawyer

03-09-2004, 17:18

Originally posted by The Reaper
No statement, no poly, no waiver?

TR

Yep, good advice.

Sacamuelas

03-09-2004, 17:26

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
I do not believe that counsel was involved in her apparent creation of a BS story about the stock being sold pursuant to a limit order rather than her oral instructions given after receiving inside information from Waksal. I do not believe that counsel advised her to coerce others into going along with the BS story either.

noted... Thanks

Just another reason she deserves it. She is so arrogant that she went against her attorney's advice or decided that she did not need an attorney in the first place. Either way, no sympathy should be felt for her because she was "trapped" into lying to a federal investigator... it simply wasn't the case.

Roguish Lawyer

03-09-2004, 17:38

It's too bad, because we like her cook books. :D I'm serious.

NousDefionsDoc

03-09-2004, 17:48

Sacamuelas,
What the hell is wrong with you? You're ok with this?

I don't care if she eats roasted kittens, being a bitch is not a crime. That prosecuter didn't make his case, so he used "She lied". The word lazy comes to mind.

Personally, I'm not sure it should be a crime to lie to a US Attorney or even to a Senator.

No, she is obviously not an honorable person, but that gloating peacock probably isn't either.

This was a political prosecution, and that's all. Now if they want to fine her or forbid her from holding office in a public company, I've got no problem with that at all. But putting that woman in prison is to me the heighth of hipocrisy.

All I'm saying is that the game rules have to be the same for everybody and if anything, I think the government has to be held to a higher standard. If the US Att can lie, or a cop, then you can't put people in jail for lying - especially not only lying.

What's next - "He looked at me bad and rolled his eyes!"

"That bastard! Guilty! 15 years!"

Make the damn case for the crime or leave her alone.

The Reaper

03-09-2004, 17:55

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
All I'm saying is that the game rules have to be the same for everybody and if anything, I think the government has to be held to a higher standard. If the US Att can lie, or a cop, then you can't put people in jail for lying - especially not only lying.

Common misconception.

Truth is that the police, FBI, U.S. Attorney, etc. can lie all they want to you to get you to do what they want, but you cannot lie to them, at least not in a sworn statement.

TR

Roguish Lawyer

03-09-2004, 17:55

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Sacamuelas,
What the hell is wrong with you? You're ok with this?

I don't care if she eats roasted kittens, being a bitch is not a crime. That prosecuter didn't make his case, so he used "She lied". The word lazy comes to mind.

Personally, I'm not sure it should be a crime to lie to a US Attorney or even to a Senator.

No, she is obviously not an honorable person, but that gloating peacock probably isn't either.

This was a political prosecution, and that's all. Now if they want to fine her or forbid her from holding office in a public company, I've got no problem with that at all. But putting that woman in prison is to me the heighth of hipocrisy.

All I'm saying is that the game rules have to be the same for everybody and if anything, I think the government has to be held to a higher standard. If the US Att can lie, or a cop, then you can't put people in jail for lying - especially not only lying.

What's next - "He looked at me bad and rolled his eyes!"

"That bastard! Guilty! 15 years!"

Make the damn case for the crime or leave her alone.

The system won't work if defendants can just lie whenever they want. We put people under oath and expect them to tell the truth. Without teeth behind that obligation, you can't have meaningful trials. You can keep quiet, but you can't lie.

lrd

03-09-2004, 18:05

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
The system won't work if defendants can just lie whenever they want. We put people under oath and expect them to tell the truth. Without teeth behind that obligation, you can't have meaningful trials. You can keep quiet, but you can't lie. Which brings us back full circle. First, this is not a law just against perjury. There is no requirement that you be under oath. The lie does not have to occur in a courtroom or a government office. As stated, it does not even have to be a lie to a federal official-- it could be a lie to a friend. This is what caused me to ask the question in the first place.

Guy

03-09-2004, 18:55

Sacamuelas:

How in the world can you compare Martha Stewart to the CEO's of these major corporations?

Stewart was convicted for lying! It had nothing to do with her company.

The CEO's are/will/maybe convicted of stealing $millions from ordinary folks! Companies folded or downsized. People lost jobs and retirement income. I know of a CEO that got a seven figure end-of-year bonus and the company laid off hundreds!

You cannot compare the two.:confused:

Sacamuelas

03-09-2004, 19:17

Based on the convictions, Martha was involved in and most likely instigated an illegal conspiracy to cover herself. She used her influence, wealth , and connections with people's bosses to ensure "the story" would be told by all involved. According to the law, that is illegal. They destoyed evidence and misled investigators.

All the other what if's and worst case hypothetical scenarios involving lying to federal investigators are just ... sensationalizing the issue.

Where are all you freedom fighters (meant politically not militarily in this instance) out crying for the massoui guy? They arrested him for being the 20th hijacker.. then proceeded to pursue different charges against him later. Should he be exonerated and freed since they didn't know exactly which of his crimes they could get to stick in a court of law?

She broke multiple laws... she got convicted for all but one. I can't understand why this makes everyone so mad. I don't have anything against the lady... but she has to take responsibility for what she did. Trust me, she knew it was illegal. Any friggin idiot knows that is illegal without even considering her access to top notch and unmatchable legal access (ie. RL).

again, no sympathy

NousDefionsDoc

03-09-2004, 19:28

I'm not saying you should be able to lie in a sworn statement. But I don't think that is the case here. I doubt officials can lie in a deposition or whatever its called.

If she was read her rights and it was a sworn statement or a deposition or whatever, then yes, she's guilty. But if he was just asking questions, that's wrong.

Roguish Lawyer

03-09-2004, 19:33

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I'm not saying you should be able to lie in a sworn statement. But I don't think that is the case here. I doubt officials can lie in a deposition or whatever its called.

If she was read her rights and it was a sworn statement or a deposition or whatever, then yes, she's guilty. But if he was just asking questions, that's wrong.

Here is the indictment in the Martha Stewart case:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/marthaindict1.html

NousDefionsDoc

03-09-2004, 19:36

LOL - 41 pages of lawyer talk? No way. Was she sworn or not?

Roguish Lawyer

03-09-2004, 19:42

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
LOL - 41 pages of lawyer talk? No way. Was she sworn or not?

I don't believe so, but when you are talking to the SEC, you are obligated to tell the truth. Those interviews generally are transcribed. Lying to the SEC is REALLY stupid.

Sacamuelas

03-09-2004, 19:46

Since you won't read it... I will summarize.

Your wrong, I am right.. there that is settled. :lifter

Now, please go get Eagle to tell me how to fix that poor bastad in the medical forum that looks like RL after a friday night accident playing with his "poker group". LOL

MD- "Umm...Sir, how did that get in there? "

RL- "well, I was playing cards with my HETEROsexual friends and I slipped and fell. Just please don't call my wife. I don't want to 'worry' her."

MD- "UHHH, Yeah sure you did sir. That is what you said last weekend when you came in also. You might want to move all the large fallic shaped objects that stand upright on your floor the next time you 'play cards' okay. Eventually you are going to rupture something. "

NousDefionsDoc

03-09-2004, 19:48

You know you're insane, don't you? LOL

Guy

03-09-2004, 19:48

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
LOL - 41 pages of lawyer talk? No way. Was she sworn or not?

I don't care if she was sworn in or not!

The indictment, which you'll find below, alleges that Stewart, 61, lied to federal investigators when questioned about the circumstances of her December 2001 stock sale, which came just before ImClone's share price collapsed (a move that saved the multimillionaire a whopping $45,000).

I would like to know...how much did they spend on prosecuting her?

I'll bet you, that if a cost analysis was conducted -vs- the fines they could have levied against her. Would make people go WOW!

Roguish Lawyer

03-09-2004, 19:56

Originally posted by Sacamuelas
Now, please go get Eagle to tell me how to fix that poor bastad in the medical forum that looks like RL after a friday night accident playing with his "poker group". LOL

MD- "Umm...Sir, how did that get in there? "

RL- "well, I was playing cards with my HETEROsexual friends and I slipped and fell. Just please don't call my wife. I don't want to 'worry' her."

MD- "UHHH, Yeah sure you did sir. That is what you said last weekend when you came in also. You might want to move all the large fallic shaped objects that stand upright on your floor the next time you 'play cards' okay. Eventually you are going to rupture something. "

I'll take that bullet now. Thanks. :(

Sacamuelas

03-09-2004, 19:57

Guy-

You sure do sound like the old democrat standatrd defense during the monica scandal. Using the old "we agree he broke the law... but has anyone looked to see how much it would cost?"
FWIW, I don't care how much it costs. THe law must be followed. BTW, it wouldn't have cost squat if the woman you are defensing so faithfully woudl have just told the truth about what she did... or here is a new idea... NOT broken the law in the first place.

Exactly where in the law does it dictate a cost/benefit analysis for investigating crimes.. Let me quote NDD.

"You know you're insane, don't you?" ;) LOL

Just messing with you Guy. Well, I do think your wrong, I just blame it on all the sand in your shorts not insanity. LOL

NousDefionsDoc

03-09-2004, 19:59

Clinton got a way with it.

Roguish Lawyer

03-09-2004, 20:03

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Clinton got a way with it.

Did he? How will he be remembered in history?

NousDefionsDoc

03-09-2004, 20:06

As the first Prison Bitch of the first woman President.

lrd

03-09-2004, 20:06

Let's forget it was Martha Stewart and pretend it was your old Aunt Martha who told a fib to your boss about where you spent the weekend. This law can be applied if you lie to any federal employee. (And I would wager that many of us are either federal employees or married to federal employees.)

I'm assuming from your responses that you don't think this will be a problem.

Guy

03-09-2004, 20:48

Sac:
Where in the world do you come up with your analogies? Iâ€™ve always stated, â€œClinton was a liar from day oneâ€! Not only did he lie, he also committed adultery, which many people in uniform had their careers ended. HE WAS THE COMMANDER AND CHIEF!

Comparing the two is like comparing me with snoop doggy dogâ€¦lmao

Iâ€™d much rather have my tax dollars spent on criminals such as rapist, murderers, CEOâ€™s that plunder and steal millions from law abiding citizens than a women who saved $45K.

Sacamuelas

03-09-2004, 21:31

Originally posted by Guy
Sac:
Where in the world do you come up with your analogies?
Comparing the two is like comparing me with snoop doggy dogâ€¦lmao

Iâ€™d much rather have my tax dollars spent on criminals such as rapist, murderers, CEOâ€™s that plunder and steal millions from law abiding citizens than a women who saved $45K.

Alright...
We are at an impasse. You and I don't seem to be understanding each other's points of view.

I say you just give me your credit card number so I can withdraw(steal or "save" as you put it) $45,000 dollars and we will call it even. After all, it is only 45k, it shouldn't be prosecuted b/c investigating it would cost to much once you try and get through all my attorney's and fabricated cover stories.

That and you being out your money and the people who bought the actual IM clone stock that martha sold illegally while knowing its value would tank that day aren't law abiding citizens that deserve protection I guess. Only the CEO employees deserve protection under federal law .

Snoop dog???? and you wonder where I get my analogies. LOL

Guy

03-09-2004, 22:15

In your point of view or mind, you see her as a CEO. Not as an individual who lied and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I see it as an individual who should be prosecuted however, to what extent?

Should thousands suffer because of some politiciansâ€™ witch-hunt?

"Wearing blinders, only let you see straight ahead"!

CRad

03-09-2004, 23:00

I once asked Chuck about a military operation that cost who knows how much money and worse it cost the lives of several highly trained operators. I said was it worth it to save on little soldier who had 1/100th of the experience any of the operators had and would probably leave the military at the end of the deal. His reply was that it was worth everything that went into it and then some because of what it meant to everyone who saw it done and what it meant to them.

The prosecution of Martha Stewart says that if you lie, cheat or steal regardless of the reason you will be prosected no matter who you are, how much you "saved," made or lost. You will be prosected no matter what it costs us, the United States. Even Presidents are not above the law. It tells the law-abiding people they are doing the right thing by doing the right thing and reinforces that value by making them realize that because of their sense of right they don't have to worry about being in Martha's place or laughed at like Bill Clinton.

That is the lesson of those prosections. I, for one, don't give a damn what it costs to say you can't do what you chose and dance away as if it does not matter how you conduct yourself. We have laws and rules in this country and everyone is supposed to honor them. Everyone regardless of race, creed or social status.

Ta-Ta Martha!

Surgicalcric

03-09-2004, 23:51

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
...If the US Att can lie, or a cop, then you can't put people in jail for lying - especially not only lying.

All this and I am the one Woobie tries to call out for being anti-LEO.

NDD:

Come on now you know good and well LEO officers dont lie. They are a deity. You better recognize before one of them calls you back onto the carpet for being anti-LEO.

Note: No LEO's were actually polled to substantiate the accusations put forth here. The opinion expressed is merely in a somewhat joking manner and is not intended to offend the sensitive fragilities of other LEO's past and/or present who may visit this thread and find a need to make unfounded comments over said content due to a perceived anti-LEO gang affiliation which I may or may not have. :D

Guy

03-10-2004, 07:52

Originally posted by CRad
That is the lesson of those prosections. I, for one, don't give a damn what it costs to say you can't do what you chose and dance away as if it does not matter how you conduct yourself. We have laws and rules in this country and everyone is supposed to honor them. Everyone regardless of race, creed or social status.

Ta-Ta Martha!

How come no one is being persued and prosecuted for the same sex marriages in California?

IT'S AGAINST THE LAW!:munchin

Sacamuelas

03-10-2004, 10:57

Originally posted by Guy
How come no one is being persued and prosecuted for the same sex marriages in California?

IT'S AGAINST THE LAW!

Because Woobie..errrr... I mean Badmommy is the one enforcing the law. I found this pic of him online today. No wonder the law is not being enforced against the Mo's.

NOTE: You have my word. THIS IS ACTUALLY WOOBIE, his personal security is NOT being compromised because HE posted this pic himself on a public board with his username.
Now this truly deserves the new smiley....:munchin

Sacamuelas

03-10-2004, 11:07

Reference: http://www.socnetcentral.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=35171&perpage=20&pagenumber=6

lrd

03-10-2004, 11:07

Well, there goes my thread. LOL

It was a good discussion while it lasted.

(S., I hope you aren't lying about B. I'm a federal employee, you know.)

DunbarFC

03-10-2004, 11:11

Well in the wake of Martha and the on going mutual funds investigations I just recieved an email from my companies CEO ( I work for a very large financial institution ) that we are not to delete ANY emails for the time being

I see a email server crash in my future.........and the overreactions begin

CRad

03-10-2004, 14:48

Originally posted by Guy
How come no one is being persued and prosecuted for the same sex marriages in California?

And why are shoplifters chased down in stores and prosecuted when sometimes what they have taken is worth little more than a dollar? Becausae in the overall scheme of things they cost huge sums of money to the American consumer.

As far as the same sex marriage goes - who are you going to prosecute? The mayor for allowing it? The clerk for selling the license? The Magistrate for preforming the function? The couple for buying the license and asking that it be done? The State's AG for not enforcing the State Constitutution? There may be some prosecution but it could take some time to figure out who to charge.

Martha! Prison Orange looks good on you, Girl!

Guy

03-10-2004, 15:04

Originally posted by CRad
...There may be some prosecution but it could take some time to figure out who to charge.

Martha! Prison Orange looks good on you, Girl!

Add in money in already "cash strapped state". What do you get?

Politicians who don't or won't pursue the issue. The LAW is not applied equally across the playing field.

As far as Martha and, I was the prosecuter...I would have milked her ass for a couple of hundred million dollars easily! :D

CRad

03-10-2004, 15:21

Originally posted by Guy
Add in money in already "cash strapped state". What do you get?

Politicians who don't or won't pursue the issue. The LAW is not applied equally across the playing field.

As far as Martha and, I was the prosecuter...I would have milked her ass for a couple of hundred million dollars easily! :D

Too bad you couldn't have married her and explained to her about keeping her big fat mouth shut <he!he!> Failing that, too bad she didn't live in California where they need her money so they can prosecute other cases. The outcome might have been way different.

Excuse me, Warden do these cinder blocks come in any other shades of gray. This one makes me look pasty. - Martha Stewart on her first day in Lock-up

DunbarFC

03-10-2004, 15:29

I hear she just ordered the first season of " OZ " on DVD :eek:

Sacamuelas

03-10-2004, 15:36

Originally posted by lrd

(S., I hope you aren't lying about B. I'm a federal employee, you know.)

LOL..me too. That is why I am allowed to lie all I want. But the pic is really him.

CRad

03-10-2004, 21:34

Originally posted by DunbarFC
I hear she just ordered the first season of " OZ " on DVD :eek:

You made that up.

DunbarFC

03-10-2004, 21:46

Originally posted by CRad
You made that up.

You're right

It was actually "Sexy Prison Schoolgirls 5 "

:cool:

lrd

09-16-2004, 05:12

Martha Stewart Asks to Begin Prison Sentence as Soon as Possible

Wednesday, September 15, 2004

NEW YORK — Martha Stewart (search) announced Wednesday that she had decided to surrender for prison as soon as possible, citing the need "to put this nightmare behind me."

Stewart's announcement came at a Manhattan news conference with lawyers and executives of her company. The 63-year-old Stewart will do five months in a federal prison — likely getting out early next year — followed by five months of house arrest.

The millionaire businesswoman was sentenced in July after she was convicted of lying about why she sold ImClone Systems Inc. (IMCL) stock in 2001.

"I hope that my time goes as fast as that," said Stewart, who grew uncharacteristically emotional at the end. "I want to reclaim my good life and good works and allow others to do the same."

"I would like to be back as early in March as possible to plant a spring garden and to truly get things growing again," she said, adding that she would miss her pets, including two dogs and seven cats.

"I'll see you next year."

Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia (MSO) shares rose 41 cents, or 3.68 percent, to $11.55 on the New York Stock Exchange (search) on Wednesday.

Stewart had said she hoped to serve her time at a minimum-security facility in Danbury, Conn., close to her home in Westport.

Immediately after her March conviction, though, a more combative Stewart had promised a battle to prove her innocence.

"I will appeal the verdict and continue to fight to clear my name," she said in a statement. "I believe in the fairness of the judicial system and remain confident that I will ultimately prevail."

Stewart also said in July that was considering serving her sentence just to put the matter behind her and her company. The news conference was held in the offices of the media company, and Stewart was accompanied by her appeals lawyer, Walter Dellinger.

A spokeswoman for federal prosecutors in Manhattan said she had no information on what Stewart was planning to do.

Stewart and her former stockbroker, Peter Bacanovic (search), were convicted in March. He received the identical sentence of five months in prison and five months of house arrest.

Stewart resigned as CEO of the company when she was indicted and gave up her seat on the board after she was convicted. She remains its leading creative force and holds the title of founding editorial director.

www.foxnews.com