Today's the day

[Luv2play]

FYI not knowing how to spell a name and not knowing the name are 2 different things. And if you can explain the difference between no evidence to support a charge and evidence not sufficient to prove a charge, be my guest.

[woodlawn]

>FYI not knowing how to spell a name and not knowing the name

>are 2 different things.

 

The fact that you figured that out shows that you are not quite ready for the nursing home yet. Congratulations.

 

>And if you can explain the difference

>between no evidence to support a charge and evidence not

>sufficient to prove a charge, be my guest.

 

Anyone who has a rudimentary grasp of English should be able to explain that 'no evidence' means there is NO evidence, while 'evidence not sufficient' means that there may be SOME evidence, but not a sufficient quantum of evidence to meet a specific legal standard. Are you following any of this?

[woodlawn]

>I'm not sure that Pitt said anything about criminal charges --

 

Yes, in his interview with Maria Bartiromo on the day the Stewart verdict was announced, Pitt specifically stated that in his opinion Martha's actions (as alleged by the prosecution) DO constitute insider trading.

 

>there are also civil penalties -- but in any case, quoting him

>about securities regulation is sort of like quoting Ken Lay

>about utility regulation.

 

Pitt is one of the leading securities lawyers in America. I may not care for his politics, but on an issue of law I'd certainly take his word before I'd take yours.

[Luv2play]

Thank you dear for showing clearly how you take words out of context. I have stated from the beginning "no evidence TO SUPPORT A CHARGE" and you have consistently quoted me as stating "no evidence" PERIOD, which is not what I said. End of argument.

[woodlawn]

>Thank you dear for showing clearly how you take words out of

>context. I have stated from the beginning "no evidence TO

>SUPPORT A CHARGE" and you have consistently quoted me as

>stating "no evidence" PERIOD, which is not what I said. End of

>argument.

 

Please don't lie. It makes no difference to the meaning of the phrase whether you say 'no evidence' or 'no evidence to support a charge' and you know it. When you say 'evidence not sufficient to support a charge' you use a phrase that encompasses a situation in which there is SOME evidence to support the charge but not sufficient evidence to meet the necessary standard. When you say 'no evidence to support a charge' you use a phrase that clearly means there is NO evidence that supports that charge. Why do you keep denying this?

[woodlawn]

>Thank you dear for showing clearly how you take words out of

>context. I have stated from the beginning "no evidence TO

>SUPPORT A CHARGE" and you have consistently quoted me as

>stating "no evidence" PERIOD, which is not what I said. End of

>argument.

 

Please don't lie. It makes no difference to the meaning of the phrase whether you say 'no evidence' or 'no evidence to support a charge' and you know it. When you say 'evidence not sufficient to support a charge' you use a phrase that encompasses a situation in which there is SOME evidence to support the charge but not sufficient evidence to meet the necessary standard. When you say 'no evidence to support a charge' you use a phrase that clearly means there is NO evidence that supports that charge. Why do you keep denying this?

[Luv2play]

Oh don't be tiresome. Lie? Who's lying? No evidence to support a charge means that what evidence there was was insufficient to bring a charge. Period. Any ambulance chasing lawyer could tell you that. Assuming you aren't one yourself.

[+ glutes]

They were going to do a cavity search on Martha, but they couldn't find an ice-pick!

[woodlawn]

>Oh don't be tiresome.

 

Can't help it. Some people just bring that quality out in me.

 

 

> Lie? Who's lying?

 

You. You're pretending not to know something you do know because you can't stand to be proved wrong. It's a fairly common occurrence on this board.

 

>No evidence to

>support a charge means that what evidence there was was

>insufficient to bring a charge. Period.

 

I thought I already explained to you that making shit up and insisting we all treat it as a fact doesn't work here. Perhaps if I repeat it five or six more times you will begin to get it.

 

>Any ambulance chasing

>lawyer could tell you that.

 

I'm sure you know more of that sort than I do.

 

>Assuming you aren't one yourself.

 

Assuming is all you will ever be able to do when it comes to me. I wouldn't provide personal information where someone like you would have access to it for anything in the world.

[Luv2play]

Res ipsa loquitur!

[+ glutes]

What a suprise....

 

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Imprisoned domestic diva Martha Stewart is considering doing a book on her experience in federal prison, according to a published report.

 

New York magazine reported on its Web site that lawyers working on behalf of Stewart have been quietly approaching book publishing executives about some sort of memoir. Stewart began serving a five-month term at the minimum security prison in Alderson, W. Va. on Oct. 8, although she continues to appeal her conviction on federal obstruction of justice charges.

 

The magazine said the book deal could be worth more than $5 million.

 

"The money is getting very high, but she could deliver it when she came out and have it out by the summer," one unidentified source told the magazine.

 

The magazine said that Crown is emerging as a strong contender. Crown is a unit of Random House, which is a unit of German media conglomerate Bertelsmann. The magazine had no comments from Stewart's spokespersons.

 

The magazine said initial plans for the book were for a "prison diary," but that further discussions suggest the book might reach further back than that.

 

It said that lawyers started pitching the book during the Frankfurt Book Fair during the week of Oct. 4, just before she reported to prison.