| I'm Not Afraid! How these words of Martha Stewart must gall the envious hateful failures whose only pleasure in life is in making other's suffer the same chronic terror that plagues their own miserable lives. It is not for her wealth they hate her, they do not hate the wealthy whose who own disintegrated personalities drive them to shrinks and drug rehabilitation centers—what they hate is self-confidence, courage, and unapologetic virtue. They hate it, because that kind of wealth exposes the poverty of their own pusillanimous vicious souls.
 "The Face Without Pain Or Fear Or Guilt"
That's what they hate about Martha Stewart. That face that radiates the joy of one who loves life; a face that defiantly refuses to apologize for enjoying it and refuses to be afraid.
But it is not invulnerable. In fact, it is most vulnerable, because it is also the face of innocence, of a kind of naiveté, a refusal to believe that evil has any potency, that anyone could actually hate virtue for being virtuous, that anyone could actively seek to destroy the good for being the good.
The Liberal Naiveté
In my 2/27/04 ASAP article "Free Martha," I said, "Martha is a big liberal, and there might be a sense of justice in the fact big government policies are now coming back to threaten her." It is a kind of justice, it is the fact you cannot defy reality, even naïvely or innocently.
There are many who are drawn to liberalism for just this reason. They are like children who trust everyone. Because they could not dream of hurting anyone, they do not believe anyone could. They could not imagine being anything but benevolent, they assume all malevolence must be some kind of mistake. But they are wrong.
In that article I pointed out, there was neither a crime or intent to do evil of any kind on the part of Martha Stewart. The only evil was the government's intent to punish someone that defied them, however innocuously, and to make the point, you better not defy them.
Martha was innocent of any of the false accusations of the government, but she was guilty of being naïve, of believing innocence and virtue would protect here.
That face is still defiant of pain, still innocent of guilt, still fearless—the new look is bewilderment, the fist glimmer of disillusionment with a government and a people she trusted.
"I'm not afraid. I'm not afraid whatsoever," Stewart said. "I'm just sorry it's come to this, that a small personal matter could be blown out of proportion and with such venom, such gore."
She's still naïve, though, thinking that the injustice is just a personal matter blown out of proportion. She still doesn't understand the nature of the evil that has ensnared her.
She is concerned in her "Open Letter" about the harm to her family, and the employees of her company that have lost their jobs. She is concerned abut the stock holders whose investments and futures have been threatened. The Crime of Innocence
Exactly what is the terrible crime Martha Stewart committed? Here are the facts:
She was not charged or indicted for so-called "insider trading." She was charged with lying to Federal investigators and "obstruction of justice."
To obstruct justice there must be some justice being obstructed. What was the justice in this case? A fishing expedition by the SEC and Justice department to find something, which was never found. There was no charge of any wrongdoing. There was no crime, and therefore no investigation of a crime. There was no justice being obstructed.
But she lied to Federal investigators didn't she? In fact, we may never know that. We only know, when questioned by these Federal investigators, Martha maintained her innocence. She was never put under oath. There is no recording of those interviews. There was no lawyer present. There are no witnesses. The Feds say she lied. That is the whole of the evidence for the terrible crime she is accused of committing.
You may believe the Fed's if you choose. The, law, by the way, that makes it a crime to lie to a Federal agent, U.S. Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 47, Section 1001, exempts those same federal agents from prosecution if they lie.
But didn't she make a public statement that she and her stockbroker Peter Bacanovic had a standing order to sell her ImClone stock when it fell to $60? Wasn't that a lie?
Its true, she made that statement. I do not know if the statement is true or not. The only witness to that was pretty much repudiated, but how anyone can be certain what agreements have been made between a stockbroker and client, I do not know. But even it were an outright lie, the public statement was not made to the Feds. In fact, the Feds only made the accusation of lying after the public announcement. The public statement is not the basis of any indictment. As for the motive of this alleged lie, I shall have more to say about that.
The Real Crime
"One of Stewart's many friends is a man named Samuel D. Waksal, the founder of a company called ImClone."
Waksal, "a one-time immunologist turned entrpreneur" was working with the well-known cancer scientist, John Mendelsohn to develop a new cancer drug, Erbitux. Erbitux was awaiting FDA approval. "The FDA takes 12 years to approve a substance. On average, the agency allows 'only five out of every 5,000 substances to be tested in clinical trials. Of these, only one is approved for patient use.' It's a testament to the tenacity of the entrepreneur that, despite the FDA, the Waksals of the world continue to drive innovation." Ilana Mercer points out in "The SEC's information socialism – part 2"
In December, the FDA rejected Erbitux. Attempting to salvage some of the huge investment, not just in money, but the tireless efforts of who knows how many dedicated scientists and technicians, Waksal tried "but failed, to sell his ImClone stock. Members of his family had a measure of success."
Waksal is serving a seven-year sentence on several charges of security fraud because of his attempts to sell his stock. It was the FDA decisions that destroyed the value of the ImClone stock. No one at the FDA has been charged with fraud, even though the FDA has subsequently approved the drug.
It was Waksal's attempt to unload his stock that prompted Bacanovic to alert Martha Stewart. The information was public. Any stockbroker could have known about the attempt of Waksal and family to sell their stock. The information Bacanovic forwarded to Martha was not insider information at all.
[Both the DOJ indictment and SEC complaint make much of Merrill Lynch's business and client information policy. Bacanovic broke that policy, apparently, by telling Stewart about the Waksal family attempt to sell their stock. The fact the stock was up for sale could not be hidden (else no one would buy it) and Merrill Lynch policy is not law.]
On the bad advice of her broker, Martha sold her 3,928 shares of ImClone. The next day, when the FDA rejection was announced, ImClone stock plunged—Stewart apparently saved $51,000. Ironically, ImClone stock is now selling at about $80 and Martha's stock would have gained more than she saved if she had not sold. One of the government's charges was based on the supposed savings Martha realized by selling her stock. Since she actually suffered a loss by selling the stock, not even that bogus charge has meaning.
The Cost of the Crime
The wrongful prosecution of Martha Stewart cost the taxpayers $10 million. No one seems concerned about how much this waste hurts the, "little people."
But it hurt much more than that. Dr. Samuel L. Blumenfeld notes "In defense of Martha Stewart":
"The prosecutors ... anxious to put Martha Stewart in jail have never created anything. They are government workers paid by the taxpayer. They have never met a payroll. On the other hand, Martha has created jobs for over 500 young, talented artists, photographers and writers.
"Through her own creative efforts, Martha Stewart created an enterprise of great cultural and financial value. Her image alone was worth millions of dollars. The government has gone about not only destroying her image but also her company whose stockholders have now suffered substantial financial loss. And who knows how many jobs will be lost because of this action....
"In short, Martha Stewart created value. The prosecutors have used their government sledgehammers to destroy it."
This is the motive for Martha Stewart's alleged lie, I mentioned earlier. It was an attempt to protect the value of what she had created, the value of the jobs so many workers and the profits so many investors depended on. The government's sole object was to destroy value, Martha's sole objective was to preserve it.
Oh yes, Dr. Blumenfeld also notes it should not be a crime "... to lie to a government official in order to protect oneself from being indicted for a non-crime. The Constitution protects us from self-incrimination."
At least, it is supposed to, but apparently it does not.
The Real Victims
In "The SEC's information socialism – part 2", Ilana Mercer says that Sam Waksal's greatest gift is recognized as "the intellectual ability to see possibilities where others cannot see past conventional wisdom. The entrepreneur and cancer researcher was recently led away in cuffs by Securities and Exchange Commission proxies—the same goons who are poised to read Martha Stewart her rights." (Which they never did, by the way.)
"The premise of the law," under which Sam Waksal and Martha Stewart have been prosecuted, Ilana says, "is not hard to divine: Competition in capital markets must proceed from a level playing field. All investors are entitled to the same information advantage irrespective of effort and abilities.
"In a word, socialism!"
"When Sam Waksal and Martha Stewart sold their shares, they conveyed all the information buyers were entitled to. A society that destroys its most productive and gifted members for no other reason than because they accrue more information than others and act on it has little to recommend it. Such a society will have fewer visionaries and, in this case, perhaps one less breakthrough cancer treatment."
The real victims are not just Sam and Martha, but every honest productive American citizen.
Why Martha?
Dr. Michael J. Hurd answers that question:
"The answer is easy. She's successful through her own efforts (not  because of acquiring political power) and she encouraged happiness simply by enjoying life. She didn't go on television and scream about the poor starving children of Africa. She didn't marry a powerful politician and seek to impose her will on the country. She simply achieved, doing what she enjoyed and encouraging others to do the same.
The short answer is this: "hatred of the good for being the good."
—Ayn Rand
A Lust for Depravation
The extent of that hatred by the failures of this world toward those who succeed, especially if that success is thoroughly and openly enjoyed, is almost unbelievable in its viciousness.
Pete Bowles describes some of the things those who hate Martha are celebrating, things their sadistic souls anticipate with relish. This 62 year old mother will be issued, "khaki shirts and trousers and steel-toed safety shoes," and "...military-style linens for her bunk bed."
Because of her age ... Stewart will be assigned to the bottom bunk
Her regimented routine will begin at 6 a.m. She will be dispatched to her job by 7:30 a.m. She will be required to work 7 hours a day, as a "food-service worker, orderly, plumber, warehouse worker, or groundskeeper."
She can be visited by family, but cannot be called by them. She can receive mail, which will be inspected before she receives it.
She will be strip-searched.
That these violations of someone's person, dignity, privacy, and body could actually be thought just for anything Martha Stewart has been wrongly accused and convicted of, is shameful; but for most of those haters of the good, even this is not enough to satisfy their lust for the suffering of the successful.
Declarations of Malevolent Viciousness
The following are selected posts to a popular conservative forum whose founder describes their mission as a "continuing fight for freedom, for America and our constitution and against totalitarianism, socialism, tyranny, terrorism ...."
The ignorance of the facts of the case, the obvious hatred of capitalistic success, and viciousness of these "conservatives" aptly demonstrates all that is wrong with so-called conservatism. I have emphasized some of the more obvious examples of that ignorance and viciousness.
—"The judge has gotten thousands of letters asking of mercy and probation. I am sad to say I did not get my letter off to him. The one asking for a public hanging. Ah, mores the pity, lost opportunities."
—She lied and was caught so yes, she violated the law and should be penalized. ..This type of insider trading happens everyday across America. It doesn't make it right.
[There was no insider trading.]
—If she were just a run-of-the-mill celebrity, I'd agree with lenience. But the fact that she is a licensed stockbroker herself means that she knew what she was doing was illegal, but she did it anyway.
[They hate the healthy, the strong, the successful.]
—She's really nasty.........if she had done that apology months ago, she'd be done with this now.
[If the successful would only apologize for their success, only say they are sorry they have produced so much value, then we could forgive them.]
—She managed to give out the web site, pitch the magazine, and practically pass out coupons to the fawning crowd. She never gives up.
[This is always what they want, for the good to quit, the noble to surrender, and the virtuous to "give up."]
—She's not one bit sorry! She's only sorry she got caught!
—She knew her stock was taking a nose dive and acted accordingly. Her investors did not know, and their INVESTMENT took a nose dive.
[This idiot doesn't even know which stock she sold, but is sure she ouught to be punished.]
These are the comments of supposedly freedom loving, highly moral, conservatives. These are your peers. This is the hateful spite you will face if it is your success that is put on trial.
A Rational Fear
In "Martha vs. the mob", Ilana Mercer writes:
"... Ms. Stewart was not an "insider" in this instance—she sold the shares of a company to whose shareholders she had no fiduciary duty.
"When it became apparent to the government that they had no "crime" for which to nab her, they used the unrehearsed interviews she had given law-enforcement officers in good faith to charge Ms. Stewart with conspiracy, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators about a matter that was not a crime in the first place. ...
"Notwithstanding the truly totalitarian nature of putting someone in jail for engaging in capitalistic exchanges, when the government alleges a crime has been committed, the onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the presence of certain elements, chief of which are 1) that a crime actually occurred 2) that there was criminal intent (mens rea).
"This burden was not met—our law and its zealous officers allowed a criminal prosecution to proceed without proof that a crime was committed or that a guilty mind was involved."
Ilana concludes, "We should all be afraid—very afraid."
Further Resources:
"The Wrongful Conviction of Martha Stewart," by Jacob G. Hornberger, March 10, 2004, provides many details of what was wrong.
Martha's letter to Judge Cedarbaum (PDF)
The Indictment (PDF)
The SEC Complaint
—Reginald Firehammer (7/19/04)
|
