Subject: Martha Stewart , a case for Jury Nullification 
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 19:41:08 -0500
To:       lpny_discussion <lpny_discuss@yahoogroups.com>
From:     Bob Armstrong <bob@cosy.com>

 Martha appears to have had astoundingly incompetent lawyers ,
 seeming almost to have colluded in railroading her .

 Had she had a Libertarian lawyer capable of pointing out the
 consequences of the verdict they were rendering  ( that one
 is subject to investigation by the government for taking advice
 from a broker and having it be true and saving money because of
 it ) , making it clear that whatever she said to the government
 concerned actions which , no matter what her answer as to "why"=
 ,
 were both legal and prudent , in fact , if in an account for=
 which
 she had fiduciary duty : required .

 It is her broker , Merrill Lynch , which may be subject to=
 action
 by its other clients for either breaching the confidentiality=
 of
 one of their other clients , Sam Waksal , or , alternatively ,
 failing to broadcast the news of his selling ( which requires=
 an
 eventual filing of an SEC form 4 ) simultaneously to all their
 other clients .  It is Merrill's other clients who may have a=
 bitch
 about Merrill giving selective treatment to contractually=
 equivalent
 clients .

 
 That the whole thing was motivated by an FDA flop-flip over the
 efficacy of ImClone's product - that Waksal's action was=
 motivated
 by seeing his life's work trashed , wrongly as it turns out ,=
 by
 some bureaucrats in the FDA , is a further condemnation of the
 State's aggression in this dangerous precedent .

--=A0
=A0Bob Armstrong -- http://CoSy.com -- 212-285-1864
Pix+ : .CoSy.MidWinterParty 17 =A0:=
 http://cosy.com/y04/MidWinter17.htm
Libertarian Presidential Candidates  :=
 http://CoSy.com/Liberty.htm
Restore our Right to Relax :
=A0http://ny.lp.org/cgi-bin/petition.cgi?Against_the_Smoking_Ban
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A02004/03/08 6:19:29 PM