Martha Stewart guilty on all counts.
Printable View
So what will she publish now?
Martha Stewart Living......BEHIND BARS!! hehehe!!
TOO BAD WE DONT HANG PEOPLE. THEY SHOULD SHOOT THE B*TCH. HER PRODUCTS ARE WAY TOO EXPENSIVE AND SHE IS MEAN TO PEOPLE I HEARD. RICH PEOPLE CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT IT SEEMS SO I'M GLAD FOR A CHANGE ONE OF THEM IS GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS. IN MODERN SOCIETY TOO MANY PEOPLE HAVE FORGOT WHAT HONESTY IS!
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Huh???Quote:
TOO BAD WE DONT HANG PEOPLE. THEY SHOULD SHOOT THE B*TCH. HER PRODUCTS ARE WAY TOO EXPENSIVE AND SHE IS MEAN TO PEOPLE I HEARD. RICH PEOPLE CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT IT SEEMS SO I'M GLAD FOR A CHANGE ONE OF THEM IS GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS. IN MODERN SOCIETY TOO MANY PEOPLE HAVE FORGOT WHAT HONESTY IS!
Jeckyl meet Hyde...
I JUST DON'T LIKE TO SEE RICH PEOPLE GET AWAY WITH THINGS LIKE THAT. AND I DON'T LIKE HER. SHE'S LIKE LEONA HELMSLEY. RICH AND MEAN.
Well I can agree with you on that MIPS. It's about time that societies elite get their comeupance, HOWEVER, of those that need some time behind bars, I'd put Martha WAY down on the list.
Oh God! What is this world coming to? For the second time in two days I agree with Jumper!! Oh woe is me! [img]graemlins/cry.gif[/img] [img]eek.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/wonder.gif[/img]
From what I heard she's looking at 20 years, but the "legal analyst" said she'd probably do just 4.
Which, of course, again begs the question of why crimes carry sentences that aren't served?
GAE WHY DO YOU THINK STEWART SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN OFF? I BET IF SHE HAD BEEN BLACK SHE WOULD HAVE GOTTEN AWAY WITH IT THOUGH. I'M NOT PREJUDICE I JUST KNOW HOW THINGS WORK. LOOK AT OJ.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It's simple, if you are a famous, more often then not you will not get the max sentence. Martha Stewart won't, Wynonna Ryder didn't, Robert Downey Jr. never does, neither does Scott Weiland, O.J. just plain walked....Quote:
Originally posted by gae:
From what I heard she's looking at 20 years, but the "legal analyst" said she'd probably do just 4.
Which, of course, again begs the question of why crimes carry sentences that aren't served?
But it's not just the famous folks, Raven. In fact, it seems to me that only Lew's clients do all of their time.
Gae, I heard she may only get 10 months to 16 months. The way the legal eagles explained it, they judge has to decide between a minimum sentence (10 mths) to Maximun (20 years). They take into consideration things like past records to decide the sentence. Then they can get 10% of their sentence reduced by good behavior.
I guess if she recorates all the cells, and bakes brownies, she may get out sooner. [img]wink.gif[/img]
Personally, I do not like Martha. If she did the crime, she should pay the time.....but there are many others who deserve an orange jumpsuit more that Martha.
Jay Leno, last night, showed a magazine with a picture of Martha Stewart, behind bars, on it's cover. It was called "BIG HOUSE & GARDENS".
Uh, thanks, Gae, for the vote of confidence.....
Alright, a quick word about sentencing, and I suppose it won't surprise any of you to hear that this is something that the media really doesn't comprehend (not the only thing, huh?).
I will give you an example- I recently defended a guy who got charged with 40 counts of theft, which in Indiana is a D-class felony that can carry a sentence of up to 3 years in jail. Had the media reported the story, they would have written something like "Lew's client faces 120 years." It sounds so much better to state that, even though it's wrong. In reality, all 40 counts merged into 1 (if you steal a dozen eggs, I view that as one act, not 12). So my guy was never looking at more than 3 years.
But 3 years is the maximum. It is handed out when there are aggravating factors, such as using a weapon, or if you have committed a similar crime in the past. In my case, this was the first time my guy had ever been in trouble in his life. Therefore, we don't give him the max.
I don't have the sentencing guidelines in Martha's case, but if the max she can get is 20, that would only apply if she had done this before. To my knowledge, her record is clean, and therefore I suppose she will do the minimum.
As for rich people not getting the sentences of poorer people, I cannot and will not argue that one with you. It is wrong, I'd rather it not be that way, but it always has been that way and it ain't gonna change anytime soon.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Spoken like a soon-to-be-married lawyer.Quote:
Originally posted by Lew:
Uh, thanks, Gae, for the vote of confidence.....
Alright, a quick word about sentencing, and I suppose it won't surprise any of you to hear that this is something that the media really doesn't comprehend (not the only thing, huh?).
I will give you an example- I recently defended a guy who got charged with 40 counts of theft, which in Indiana is a D-class felony that can carry a sentence of up to 3 years in jail. Had the media reported the story, they would have written something like "Lew's client faces 120 years." It sounds so much better to state that, even though it's wrong. In reality, all 40 counts merged into 1 (if you steal a dozen eggs, I view that as one act, not 12). So my guy was never looking at more than 3 years.
But 3 years is the maximum. It is handed out when there are aggravating factors, such as using a weapon, or if you have committed a similar crime in the past. In my case, this was the first time my guy had ever been in trouble in his life. Therefore, we don't give him the max.
I don't have the sentencing guidelines in Martha's case, but if the max she can get is 20, that would only apply if she had done this before. To my knowledge, her record is clean, and therefore I suppose she will do the minimum.
As for rich people not getting the sentences of poorer people, I cannot and will not argue that one with you. It is wrong, I'd rather it not be that way, but it always has been that way and it ain't gonna change anytime soon.
Mrs. Lew-to-be should be proud. Shot, perhaps, for her lapse of reason when she said yes, but proud indeed. Even before the wedding you're towing the party line, Lew! I LOVE it!
Besides, we'll always have Paris, right?
TO BE COURTEOUS WE SHOULD REALLY TALK ABOUT THIS ON HERE http://www.hostboard.com/cgi-bin/ult...c/f/108/t/7274
To really be courteous, you should not use all caps MIPS. Laziness is a sign of mental retardation and, while I don't think you're retarded, you could certainly pass for a NASCAR fan.
Have a nice day! [img]graemlins/whatever.gif[/img]
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Jumper, Jumper, Jumper.... [img]graemlins/whatever.gif[/img]Quote:
Originally posted by Jumper69:
while I don't think you're retarded, you could certainly pass for a NASCAR fan.
<---------- HUGE NASCAR FAN!
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Or an HGTV liberal!Quote:
Originally posted by Jumper69:
...you could certainly pass for a NASCAR fan.
I like NASCAR too but you have to admit, some of our brother and sister fans are, how should I put it, INBRED!!!! [img]tongue.gif[/img]
Well that I will give you, thought you were classifying all the fans. Most of the people you are talking about are Ward Burton fans.
Well that I will give you, thought you were classifying all the fans. Most of the people you are talking about are Ward Burton fans.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">IF THAT IS INTENDED TO INSULT ME I WILL ACT LIKE I DIDN'T READ IT. DO YOU ALWAYS GENERALIZE ABOUT PEOPLE? PRESIDENT BUSH IS A NASCAR FAN!Quote:
Originally posted by Jumper69:
I like NASCAR too but you have to admit, some of our brother and sister fans are, how should I put it, INBRED!!!! [img]tongue.gif[/img]
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As the Lewman would say: I rest my case! [img]eek.gif[/img]Quote:
PRESIDENT BUSH IS A NASCAR FAN!
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why isn't it?Quote:
Originally posted by gae:
Topic: It's not a good thing.