- "Maybe it's a victory for the little guys who
lose money in the market because of these kinds of transactions." - juror Chappell Hartridge, Martha Stewart trial -
-
- The "dumbing down" of the American education
system is more obvious than ever, by the comments of some of the jurors
from Martha Stewart's rigged trial - and rigged it was. I'll prove that
in moment, but for this moment, the focus is upon the stupidity of those
who sat, and those still setting, in judgement of Martha Stewart and her
collapsing enterprise. Martha Stewart's life is a genuine rags to riches
historiette. A young girl who grew up poor and managed her successes and
accomplishments through honesty, hard work, genius and free enterprise.
Having beauty and charm helped, too. If she is to be faulted at all for
any of her accomplishments, it is the same fault that some other
rags to riches prosperians are guilty of: not knowing when the
well is full. In cases like theirs, it is not greed that motivates,
but rather, fear . . . the fear of being poor again, and so, they never
really look at what they have, they just keep filling the storehouse, knowing
that each bucket-full they pour in, is another bucket-full between them
and poverty. The greedy by contrast, those like the Rockefellers, Henry
Ford, Carnegie, J.P. Morgan, the Bushes, the Walton's . . . they have no
idea what poverty is, which explains their disdain and ignoring of the
poor. Their god is money, and their desire is insatiable, because money
gives them power and control - power over other people and the ability
to control them, and government. Martha Stewart never sought control or
power over anybody outside of her own business, and even those inside had
great liberty to perform. While Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia
is an incorporated business, it never had and never sought any form of
monopoly - it began and remained, essentially, Martha Stewart, spreading
her wings and doing what she did best - making life better for "the
little guy." Her products were sold through K-Mart, not Neiman-Marcus
or Macy's, neither of which the little guy can afford to shop at.
Martha had no monopoly on any of her products - other brand names sold
right next to hers - Martha just made her products more popular, if not
better.
-
- Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia (MSLO) employs 551 people
throughout it's corporate offices. Secretaries, clerks, typists, general
office workers, all working for a decent wage or salary. These were all
little guys, men and women who needed or wanted jobs. None of them
were affluent or rich - the rich and the affluent don't seek jobs, especially
where they'll be rubbing elbows with little guys. If MSLO collapses,
so do all of those jobs. And so will the manufacturers employee's jobs.
-
- The shares of stock in Martha Stewart's company were
priced for the little guy - the average Joe trying to do some small
investing, hoping to build his or her own nest egg for the future. It is
not business tycoons and monopoly capitalist financiers who lost money
via plummeting stock prices in MSLO, it is the thousands of little guys
whom had invested small sums. But the persecutors of Martha Stewart would
have us all believe that they are now on a righteous crusade, for the
little guy, to rein-in the big bad wolves of corporate business. The
problem is, most of the big bad wolves are still roaming free, devouring
not just straying lambs, but entire flocks, and the self-righteous crusaders,
like Karen Potter Seymour, chief prosecutor for the government against
Martha Stewart, has no intention of going after the big, bad wolf corporate
monopoly capitalists, because they are the one's calling the shots. It
is the monopoly capitalists and their government whores, who want the Martha
Stewart's of this world to be hunted down, put in jail and put out of business
- and they don't care what lies, tricks, chicanery or violations of the
law that they have to resort to, to get it done - because free enterprisers
like Martha Stewart not only hinder the monopoly capitalists from establishing
their absolute monopolies, they also become icons of encouragement for
other people to engage in free enterprise. When the average little guy
sees people like Martha Stewart, or others, pull themselves up by the boot
straps, and make inspiring accomplishments, they are inspired to try as
well, and the monopoly capitalists are threatened! And when those Mammonite
pimps are threatened, the government whores feel threatened as well, because
their very existence is dependent upon the favors, graft and adulterous
relationship that exists between them. The monopoly capitalists exist solely
because of the corruption of government, enacting laws for them and agai
nst the rest of us, laws that not only enable and empower them to create
their monopolies, but laws that protect them from the rest of us, when
they step on us.
-
- There are two primary groups of the little guys
out there in the world - those who accept that station in life and keep
moving forward, holding out hope for a better life, and those who so resent
their station in life, refusing to count their blessings, that they not
only envy those who succeed, but are motivated by jealousy that is akin
to the greed of the monopoly capitalist robber baron. Such are the parasitic
piss ants that have condemned and justify the persecution of Martha Stewart.
Such are the parasitic piss ants who prosecuted and tried her, and presided
over her so-called trial, a clear and obvious example that the rule
of law is a dead relic in America. The rule of law says that you must
have committed a crime in the first place, before the government can come
along and investigate you. By it's own admission, the government says that
Martha Stewart committed no crime in the first place, i.e., no violations
of the Securities and Exchange fraud laws. If she committed no violations,
then the government's interest in her was to cease immediately, says the
law, and any subsequent actions by the government was illegal. Moreover,
since the government's subsequent actions were all illegal, it becomes
totally irrelevant whether or not Martha Stewart lied to them or not. The
Constitution of the United States of America is the Law of the Land
- not the U.S. Federal Code, and the Constitution, in conjunction with
long-standing precedents of juris prudence, says that the government is
the law breaker here, not Martha Stewart. The courts have also held for
over two-hundred years in America, that if you've committed no crime, then
you cannot be charged with lying to government agents. But the government
has great disdain for the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, as well
as the whole Constitution itself.
-
- Furthermore, every defendant has the absolute right to
defend themselves, offering whatever defense they desire. No court has
any legal authority to tell a defendant or the defendant's lawyer, what
defense they can or cannot present. Your defense, whether sane, rational
and plausible, or idiotic, irrational and implausible, is a matter for
a jury to decide - not a ruling that a judge can make before or during
the trial. To do so, constitutes an illegal, rigged trial. And to compound
matters, judges then instruct the juries, what they can or cannot
consider in passing judgement, and in some cases, judges instruct juries
that they must return some kind of guilty verdict . . . that the evidence
of guilt has been established, but it's up to the jury to decide how
much guilt there is. That's un-constitutional. In the case of Martha
Stewart, Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, a 1986 Reagan political appointee,
ruled that Martha's lawyer could not contend that Martha was being prosecuted
because she was a successful woman in a man's world. Along with that
ruling was the admonition that Martha's lawyers could be disbarred if they
attempted to use that as part of their defense. Moreover, Judge Cedarbaum
sifted the evidence in favor of the prosecution, by restricting the questioning
of prosecution witness Douglas Faneuil, who had already perjured himself
(but nobody charged him for lying to the feds). Faneuil had earlier testified
that he was never under the care of a psychiatrist or physician. However,
it was subsequently proven that he was being treated by a psychologist.
He had sworn to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth!" Cedarbaum ruled that, "a psychiatrist is not
a psychologist," and denied Martha's lawyers from pointing out
this lie, or confronting him with it on the witness stand. That's called
rigging the trial and judicial bias. It's not the first for
Cedarbaum, nor will it be t he last, unless she leaves the bench, soon.
Nor was it unexpected. She has her own financial portfolio to keep in mind,
enriched by political favors and monopoly capitalists. And some favors
have to be repaid . . . when you lay down with your legs spread wide, you
give what you've been paid for. Cedarbaum had no qualifications to ascend
to the federal bench, but that's irrelevant when you climb into bed with
monopoly capitalist pimps and political whores. And, as for Karen Potter
Seymour, she's had a reputation for being wide open since her college
days, where her reputation would be more likened to that of Xavier Hollander
than her self-portrayal as the Virgin Mary, according to most sources.
She's been married more than once and chastity apparently has never been
one of her virtues. Neither is honesty, considering the case she fabricated
against Martha Stewart. But then, since when has the government ever been
known for its honesty? Government is only as honest and obedient to the
law as the people who work in government - it is the responsibility of
citizens to oversee the conduct of government. The juror has the power
to rein-in judges and prosecutors, provided they have the brains to do
so. The constitutions of many states openly declare, that the juror sets
in judgement of the law, as well as the accused. That right is not explicitly
stated in the U.S. Constitution (although it is found in Common Law), because
at the time of the drafting of the Bill of Rights, it was never thought
that there would be a federal criminal code for prosecuting citizens, since
such was declared to be a "states right" and forbidden to the
federal government by the 9th and 10th Amendments. There exists an organization
called FIJA - Fully Informed Jury Association for the promotion of the
Fully Informed Jury Act, an attempt to get every state's constitution to
recognize the right of jurors to judge the law as well as the accused.
If a jury or juror believes that the law is wrong or being misapplied,
they have a right and an obligation to acquit the defendant, regardless
of what the accusations or evidence is, or the judges instructions. Prior
to 1898, all juries in America were instructed by judges, that they had
that absolute right. But in 1898, the Robber Barons, various powerful lawyers
and judges met, to circumvent the jury process, along with dozens of laws,
to favor the Robber Barons and protect them from the people they were trampling
upon. For example, a man defending his property against the railroad robber
barons, under the new laws and the absence of a jury being properly instructed,
could be charged with a felony, and little likelihood of being acquitted,
since the juries were now being told that they had to apply the law,
as instructed by the judge. The American justice system literally changed
overnight. By the mid 1930's, Blackstone's Commentary on Common Law
ceased to be the standard legal text in law schools or government offices.
Blackstone's was THE definitive authority on the law for nearly 200 years,
in England and America. Lawyers, judges, sheriffs and legislators all relied
upon Blackstone's for doing their jobs. No more!
-
- Based upon the comments of jurors Chappell Hartridge
and those appearing on the Today Show, it is clear that the jury, or at
least a good part of it, had already pre-judged Martha Stewart, and that
it was their envious little guy twisted mentality that determined
their verdict. Some of the jurors even stated that they wanted to find
her innocent, but that the defense didn't prove her innocence. There is
an obvious disregard for the law on the face of it - that Martha was to
be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt - that's
the Constitution - the law of the land. There is no requirement
to prove innocence, and the lack of a defense is no reason to find
anyone guilty. This is a clear reflection of the dumbing down of
the American education system, which used to teach the meaning and the
spirit of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights! One of the jurors appearing
on the Today Show spoke English so poorly, that one would have to question
whether she even understood what was said in the courtroom. If she didn't
understand any part of what was said or testified to, she was supposed
to be disqualified.
-
- Sir William Blackstone (1728-1780, the author of Blackstone's
Commentary on Common Law and arguably one of the world's most influential
authorities on law and justice, his Commentaries having been translated
into French, Russian and German, is credited with having more effect upon
the drafting of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution
than anyone. All of the Founding Fathers of America were well versed in
Blackstone's Commentaries. It is Blackstone himself who had declared,"It
is better that ten guilty men go free, than for one innocent man to be
deprived of life, liberty or freedom." That philosophy was the
chief cornerstone of the Bill of Rights and the foundation of the American
justice system, until 1898. Today, the philosophy is, "It is better
that ten innocent men be deprived of life, liberty or freedom, than for
one guilty man to go free!" It is this philosophy that is the
driving force behind the law & order political tyranny of today.
It demonstrates moral depravity and spiritual bankruptcy. "It is
the spirit and not the form of law that keeps justice alive."
-Earl Warren-
-
- The ancient Greek philosopher Arcesilaus once wrote,
"Where you find the laws most numerous, there you will find also the
greatest injustice." On average, each state and the federal government,
pass 3,500 new laws each year. That's a total of 178,500 new laws each
year. And when you are accused of violating one of them, it takes the prosecutor,
your lawyer and the judge, several hours, sometimes even several days,
to research the laws and determine just exactly what law or laws you broke
- yet you are expected to know and obey the law! How the hell can
you be expected to obey the law, when even the courts and the lawyers
don't know what the law is?
-
- In Proverbs 17:15 it says, "Acquitting the guilty
and condemning the innocent - the Lord detests them both." And in
Proverbs 20:23, God says regarding justice, "The Lord detests differing
weights, and dishonest scales do not please him." It has oft been said that you only get as much justice as you
can afford to buy in America. It has also been noted that politics
weighs heavier on the scales of justice than does the facts and the truth.
There is one standard of justice for those on the right side of the political
fence, and another for those on the wrong side of it - and that fence is
always changing boundaries.
-
- There was nothing more than accusation, innuendo and
spurious circumstantial evidence against Martha Stewart - and nothing was
proved. Feminists hate Martha Stewart, because she represents everything
in a woman that they loathe - the dedicated homemaker. Even though Martha
is divorced, she has taught millions of women how to make a comfortable
home, set a table, cook up a feast fit for royalty, and look like a princess
while you're doing it. She's family oriented. She's always kept
her religious views private, but by example, Martha Stewart demonstrates
the part of the Proverbs 31 woman better than most. What man wouldn't want
to come home to woman like her? She is envied by many married women - and
by those little guys with twisted little minds, who covet
everything Martha Stewart had or has. What a price she has paid, for doing
a good thing! When this injustice began, she was worth about $1.4 billion
dollars. Today, she has less than $300 million. I don't envy one red cent
of it. She earned, honestly, every dime she ever made. Can Judge
Cedarbaum or persecutor Karen Seymour make that claim? The salary money
they were paid during their kangaroo court charade is rightly filthy
lucre - dishonest gain! What of the rest of what they have?
-
- I've never purchased any of Martha's products, save for
a set of mismatched pillow cases at a yard sale. I've never owned one cent
of stock in her company. A ten-dollar bill will get me a single share,
and I hear K-Mart is having a sale! Where's my car keys?
|
