"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "ScratchMonkey" > wrote in message
>>
>> A nice analysis of her "crime":
>>
>> http://harrybrowne.org/articles/MarthaStewart2.htm
>>
>> The real criminals are the federal prosecutors, making big names for
>> themselves.
>
> Nice? She did something wrong and the writer says "so what" to her lying
> and using inside trading. Just because you don't agree with a law, you
> don't have the right to break it.
>
> She did something out of greed, got caught, paid her time. Move on. She
> let greed take the place of common sense.
>
> Yes, there are far worse criminals, yes, they should be punished also.
> Rather them make excuses for Martha, put that time to god use to nail the
> other *******s.

You know what I never understood. . .Martha got prison time for
lying--right? How come they never applied that rule to that juror that lied
about prior run-ins with the law? I'm not being a smart aleck, here, I just
don't understand. If the big federal point was all about lying, how come it
didn't apply to the juror. Actually, if you wanted to be a stickler about
it, how come it didn't apply to the fingerprint(or was it ink) analysis guy
that lied by implication that he did the actual analysis himself?
Janet