Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kodiak_bull who wrote (20778)	2/28/2004 1:52:29 AM
From: energyplay	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23153

Guess the feds on Martha couldn't make the cut on a real case, like Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia, Global Crossing, the late trading by hedge funds in mutual funds, not to mention I think there may few cases about terrorism and it's financing...... Billions of dollars go missing in above frauds - and the feds are all over Martha. Busy writting traffic tickets while the town is being shot up.... Could not agree with you more. Textbook example of misplaced priorites.

To: kodiak_bull who wrote (20778)	2/28/2004 6:37:04 PM
From: Libbyt	Respond to of 23153

To do this she had to shade the truth....lie about it. I just met someone at a business dinner who was a federal prosecutor (he is now in private practice.) I asked him his thoughts on the Martha Stewart case, and he brought up some interesting points. He felt that the main reason that Martha was charged was to "make an example" of what would happen to someone who would lie when being investigated. He stated that often when prosecuting a case, that as many charges as possible would be brought against the defendant....since he believed many juries would "split the difference" if they were having trouble reaching a decision. When I served on a jury last summer this was exactly what happened during the jury deliberations. There were two issues that were being decided, and not everyone agreed on the outcome. Basically, the jury decision was to "split the difference"...so both sides did not received exactly what they wanted. this case should be fired for wasting all this time and money. This should have been settled months ago for a nolo plea and a $400K fine. I agree with you....a complete waste of time and money. During my jury duty I felt exactly the same way...that both sides should never have taken the case to trial, and that both sides were wasting my time and the taxpayers money. Despite the sophisticated methods of choosing a jury, taking a case to trial must be a major gamble in many cases. I was surprised that some of the members of my jury panel felt the way they did about the case. I would have thought that some would have resented the trial "issue" which involved a very wealthy couple. The couple wasn't in the "Martha Stewart" league of wealth, but probably to most on this jury panel their issues must have been hard to understand and to relate to their everyday life.