Free Martha

[kellycummings]

In the end it doesn't matter. Small crime, big crime, it's still a crime. You can't let people get away with the little things just because you can't prove the big things. If they did it then they should be punished accordingly. If you have a shoplifter and a murderer, you don't let the shoplifter go just because it's a smaller crime. Maybe then were aggressive in going after her but the SEC has always been aggressive, they have to be because the crimes they try to solve can be covered too easily. Unfortunately, white collar crime can be easy to get away with if you're given enough time to cover your tracks.

 

[minsue]

In the end it doesn't matter. Small crime, big crime, it's still a crime. You can't let people get away with the little things just because you can't prove the big things. If they did it then they should be punished accordingly. If you have a shoplifter and a murderer, you don't let the shoplifter go just because it's a smaller crime. Maybe then were aggressive in going after her but the SEC has always been aggressive, they have to be because the crimes they try to solve can be covered too easily. Unfortunately, white collar crime can be easy to get away with if you're given enough time to cover your tracks.

The main problem I have with the case is precisely that the SEC is not always agressive and was getting bitch slapped by the media for letting people off the hook so easily (Cheney, et al). I think they went after Stewart solely for the publicity. She's the woman America loves to hate.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The main problem I have with the case is precisely that the SEC is not always agressive and was getting bitch slapped by the media for letting people off the hook so easily (Cheney, et al). I think they went after Stewart solely for the publicity. She's the woman America loves to hate.

I think they went after because she is a celebrity. I never pay any attention to her because she doesn't interest me. Is she actually that hated?

 

[CharleyH]

just listening to the radio, and they are having a phone in for the question, "What will Martha's nickname be in prison?" As soon as something amuses me - I'll post it

 

[Guest]

I'd call her Good Thing, or Good Thang.

P.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

In the end it doesn't matter. Small crime, big crime, it's still a crime. You can't let people get away with the little things just because you can't prove the big things. If they did it then they should be punished accordingly. If you have a shoplifter and a murderer, you don't let the shoplifter go just because it's a smaller crime. Maybe then were aggressive in going after her but the SEC has always been aggressive, they have to be because the crimes they try to solve can be covered too easily. Unfortunately, white collar crime can be easy to get away with if you're given enough time to cover your tracks.

My murder example was bad. I am a little loopy, to many pain killers today. Let me retry.

You are accused of murder. You get your friend to lie for you. They pressure her into admiting it and they jail you for the obstruction. Then the suppoed victim turns up in Las Vegas alive and unharmed. How can you obstruct justice if there is no crime?

They have not proven that any crime was commited. None. People have automatic buy and sell numbers on the stocks in their portfolios. Is it not incumbant on the authorities to prove a crime has been commited before they charge someone with obstruction of justice? If no crime has been commited, then how logically can you be obstructing justice?

-Colly

 

[kellycummings]

My murder example was bad. I am a little loopy, to many pain killers today. Let me retry.

You are accused of murder. You get your friend to lie for you. They pressure her into admiting it and they jail you for the obstruction. Then the suppoed victim turns up in Las Vegas alive and unharmed. How can you obstruct justice if there is no crime?

They have not proven that any crime was commited. None. People have automatic buy and sell numbers on the stocks in their portfolios. Is it not incumbant on the authorities to prove a crime has been commited before they charge someone with obstruction of justice? If no crime has been commited, then how logically can you be obstructing justice?

-Colly

I agree with your murder scenario but with Martha, the crime she was accused of obstructing did happen because the man pleaded guilty. Now, whether or not she was actually involved in the illegal trade is another issue that apparently will never be truly resolved since the judge dropped the charges and I doubt they will try to re-charge her.
Plus, look at it this way. A man get arrested for murder and in searching the house they find drugs, guns, etc. Later, the murder charges are dropped for whatever reason. They aren't going to let him go on the others just because the original charge was dropped. He's still guilty of a crime.

 

[kellycummings]

I think they went after because she is a celebrity. I never pay any attention to her because she doesn't interest me. Is she actually that hated?

People don't like her because she comes off as so perfect. I'm not a fan but I don't not like her either. She does tend to be hated by many though. Jealousy is an issue too. She became very successful and people always look for flaws when someone does that.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Plus, look at it this way. A man get arrested for murder and in searching the house they find drugs, guns, etc. Later, the murder charges are dropped for whatever reason. They aren't going to let him go on the others just because the original charge was dropped. He's still guilty of a crime.

Actually, that would depend on what the search warrant said. I would assume the accused would require a search warrant. If the warrant said nothing about drugs or guns, they could not charge him regarding those, possibly ever.

 

[minsue]

Actually, that would depend on what the search warrant said. I would assume the accused would require a search warrant. If the warrant said nothing about drugs or guns, they could not charge him regarding those, possibly ever.

I don't think that's true, Box. If they went in looking for drugs or guns along with the reason given on the warrant, the evidence would be tossed. If they exceeded the scope of the warrant in their search, looking in rooms etc not covered, the evidence would be tossed. If they executed the search in good faith and the guns & drugs were in plain sight, I believe that evidence can be used against them.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I agree with your murder scenario but with Martha, the crime she was accused of obstructing did happen because the man pleaded guilty. Now, whether or not she was actually involved in the illegal trade is another issue that apparently will never be truly resolved since the judge dropped the charges and I doubt they will try to re-charge her.
Plus, look at it this way. A man get arrested for murder and in searching the house they find drugs, guns, etc. Later, the murder charges are dropped for whatever reason. They aren't going to let him go on the others just because the original charge was dropped. He's still guilty of a crime.

Box is correct, unless you were able to prove the drugs or gun were linked to the homocide you couldn't prosecute, the evidence would be inadmissible.

The man's admission that she helped obstruct an investigation is not what I am asking. What I am asking is how she can be guilty of obstruction of justice if prosecutors failed to prove a crime occured? It is true that just because they can't prove it dosen't mean a crime didn't happen, but it is equally true that just because they alledge it dosen't mean one did. Unless presumption of innocence dosen't go in SEC investigations should't it be incumbant upon prosecutors to prove there was a crime before they can charge someone with obstruction of justice?

-Colly

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I don't think that's true, Box. If they went in looking for drugs or guns along with the reason given on the warrant, the evidence would be tossed. If they exceeded the scope of the warrant in their search, looking in rooms etc not covered, the evidence would be tossed. If they executed the search in good faith and the guns & drugs were in plain sight, I believe that evidence can be used against them.

Actually no, you can't. The case is I believe Gonzales Vs. State of California. I could be wrong on the name, but during a drug raid on a suspects home the police disocerved and illegal casino in his basment, repleat with slots, and even a roultette table. In the USSC decision they held that the warrant was for drugs and that anything else discovered was not admissible as the police had provided no probable cause to suspect it was there. In effect, it was illegal search and seizure and thus not admissible.


-Colly

 

[shereads]

Suppose she was guilty of lying to protect herself or her broker. The chief problem with our system of justice is that the courts and prisons are overflowing with backed-up caseloads, and that there seems to be so little common sense used in determining which crimes are worth the time and expense to taxpayers of fully prosecuting them rather than cutting a plea deal.

Until there are unlimited funds to pay trial judges, prosecuting attorneys, and public defenders, not to mention lots of extra prison security guards, it would make enormous sense to reserve the full-bore power of the justice system for individuals who knowingly and deliberately brought harm to others. The difference between what Ken Lay and GWB did and what Martha Stewart did - even if she had been guilty of acting on "insider" information - is simple and vast: corporate bosses duping investors so shore up the price of their own stock before they dump it. It's a white-collar version of a street thug's shell game, at the cost of other people's lifetime savings, college funds, retirement plans; versus someone who was in no position to manipulate the price of the stock, but sold on the advice of her broker.

In both examples, there were lies and coverups. But the ones who planned to harm their investors are the only ones, in my view, whose trials and punishment we ought to be asked to pay for. An abbreviated trial, significant social embarrassment and harm to her own company and the many people who support themselves and their families working for her company, a stiff fine as an example to others, and some serious community service would be less dramatic a victory for the prosecutors of her case, but prison for her is just silly.

Think how streamlined the justice system in the U.S. would be if it were possible to eliminate egos and grandstanding as a factor. Instead of jailing someone for making a commercial for glass bongs, we'd fine him, make him wash cars to pay for the cost of bringing him to court, and save the cost of prosecution and prison for the drug lord who shot at his rival and hit someone's kid.

It's hard to apply the word "justice" to a sytem that seems to apply its meaner punishments so haphazardly.

 

[CharleyH]

WELL! Perdita still has the best nickname to call Martha - and apperantly, that was not what the DJ asked, they ARe going on . . . yawn . . . any other ideas?

 

[minsue]

Actually no, you can't. The case is I believe Gonzales Vs. State of California. I could be wrong on the name, but during a drug raid on a suspects home the police disocerved and illegal casino in his basment, repleat with slots, and even a roultette table. In the USSC decision they held that the warrant was for drugs and that anything else discovered was not admissible as the police had provided no probable cause to suspect it was there. In effect, it was illegal search and seizure and thus not admissible.


-Colly

Wow. Searching for case law is a pain in the ass. Could not locate the case you were referring to, but did find this:

United States v. Gray, 78 F.Supp.2d 524 (E.D. Virginia, 1999):



Under plain view doctrine, FBI agent’s viewing of subdirectories in defendant’s computer which turned out to contain suspected child pornography was within scope of search warrant which sought unrelated evidence of “hacking” or unauthorized entry into government agency library, where agent opened subdirectories in course of systematic search for evidence of hacking, and did not abandon original search upon inadvertent discovery of pornography files in order to begin unauthorized search; agent was entitled to examine each subdirectory, at least briefly, to determine if it was covered by warrant.



Discussion: This case basically allows the investigator or analyst to view every file on a computer. The court recognized that files may be intentionally mislabeled to hide their content and consequently, the investigator is allowed to briefly view each file in order to determine if it is relevant under the warrant.



The main point stressed by the court, however, is that the investigator never abandoned his original search for evidence of hacking. The investigator was systematically viewing the contents of every directory according to procedure. He did not specifically focus on the “Teen” or “Tiny Teen” directories. After completing his search for hacking data, a subsequent warrant was obtained to search for more pornography. The court distinguished this case from United States v. Carey, 172 F.3d 1268 (10th Cir. 1999), where that court held that the investigator impermissibly searched for additional child pornography after he found his first picture while executing a warrant on a narcotics case. The distinction lies in the fact that the investigator in Carey abandoned his original search and shifted his focus to child pornography. In the instant case, the investigator never abandoned his search for hacking material, but continued to give each file a cursory review for relevant evidence. If he happed to view more child pornography, it was legitimately in plain view.
http://www.locatethelaw.org/Searches/Plain View.htm

Off to procure much needed caffiene, but my ignorance on this is bothering me so I'm sure I'll be searching more case law when I return.

- Mindy

 

[CharleyH]

Wow. Searching for case law is a pain in the ass. Could not locate the case you were referring to, but did find this:


Off to procure much needed caffiene, but my ignorance on this is bothering me so I'm sure I'll be searching more case law when I return.

- Mindy

Min, searching for case law is easy, and well thats why I rely on Colly

 

[minsue]

Min, searching for case law is easy, and well thats why I rely on Colly

Good point. She's great, ain't she?

It is easy to find TONS of case law online, too. Searching for anything remotely relevant is another story.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Ack!Don't make me dig out my busines law text book. I know that's whre it is, but I also know it's in th ebasement somewhere in my boxes of books

-Colly

 

[CharleyH]

Good point. She's great, ain't she?

It is easy to find TONS of case law online, too. Searching for anything remotely relevant is another story.

Colly is multi-talented. USE her! lol -

It's easy - what you looking for?

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Oh my god. Right now she's doing Japanese flower arrangements with an adorable old man on late-night reruns of Martha Stewart Living.

It's giving me the creeps.

If a person can go to jail just for lying, that means...that means...that some of YOU people could go to jail! And I'd be so lonely here in an empty forum.

Catch me if you can!

 

[Guest]

Yea! Svenska's here. I just knew my day would get better.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

*hugs Perdyaya HARD*

 

[lucky-E-leven]

WELL! Perdita still has the best nickname to call Martha - and apperantly, that was not what the DJ asked, they ARe going on . . . yawn . . . any other ideas?

The Dominatrix of Decoupage

~lucky

 

[CharleyH]

LOL - And lucky spreads her legs

 

[CharleyH]

Ack!Don't make me dig out my busines law text book. I know that's whre it is, but I also know it's in th ebasement somewhere in my boxes of books

-Colly

Make her Min!!! in the boxes of what? LOL