L'Affaire Stewart

Sheldon Richman and others have offered some interesting insights into the Martha Stewart case. The WSJ has been especially good on this during the last many months, especially of late discussing the poor legal advice she received. The whole case is perhaps best summarized by a letter today, and, like the writer, I would emphasize his Point 4:

”To the Editor, WSJ:

You indicate that there is one lesson to take away from this case,"Keep quiet when the feds call." In light of the jury's unanimous verdict, let me offer some others:

1. When the feds call, don't concoct a story about a fictitious $60 limit order.

2. When the feds call, don't alter incriminating phone messages.

3. When the feds call, don't tell your"friend" of 20 years,"Isn't it great to have brokers who tell you these things?" in reference to the"tip" on ImClone.

4. And, most importantly, when the feds offer you a deal to plead guilty to one count of obstruction, pay a $250,000 fine and avoid trial and jail time -- take the deal. Because in the end, what is really going to hurt the honest and hard-working employees at MSLO is not the government's decision to prosecute this case, but their former CEO's duplicitousness, stubbornness and arrogance.

Zachary R. Hafer Attorney Brooklyn, N.Y. “

Anyone who has studied the rise of Positive Law (what the Chinese called Legalism) which has accompanied the rise of all Empires and their bureaucracies, certainly that of Rome, where the rights “given” women were then taken away, ought to understand that the individual cannot “win” in the circumstances in which Martha Stewart found herself. Welcome to the “New” Rome, Martha.

P.S.: With respect to Martha, I ought to confess a slight bias, although I have never met her. Many years ago, my sister-in-law, Yvette, hired Martha to cater her daughter’s wedding in Westport, Conn. Stewart’s behavior became so-high handed, that Yvette fired her!