Smearing Martha Stewart's name is not a good thing

Smearing Martha Stewart's name is not a good thing
EDITOR:
The government's so-called case against Martha Stewart appears to be a prosecutor's attempt to make a name for himself by dragging hers through the mud. It's easy to do with a well-known one like hers. And that's not a good thing.
How did this start? On Dec. 27, 2001, Stewart sold 3,928 shares of ImClone stock. Her stockbroker's assistant had told her that the family of ImClone CEO Sam Waksal was dumping theirs.
She had no way of knowing that Waksal was dumping his stocks because he knew that ImClone's pending cancer drug wasn't getting FDA approval. In fact, after she sold the stock, Stewart left a message on Waksal's phone asking what was going on. The fact that she had to ask shows why the government did NOT charge her with inside trading, although prosecutors had accused her of that.
The price of the stock was falling fast that day, from $63.49 at the opening of trading to $58.30 at the close of trading, with 7.7 million shares traded that day.
By selling her stock on Dec. 27 rather than on Dec. 31, Stewart saved $45,673. An SEC attorney said that wasn't fair. Not fair? What would you do? It certainly wasn't illegal.
The government is accusing Stewart of giving a misleading explanation for a perfectly legal stock sale. But she has not been charged with perjury.
A year ago, "sources close to a congressional investigation" planted a story in The New York Times on June 7, 2002, implying that Stewart sold her 3,928 shares on a tip from ImClone CEO Waksal. This vicious smear campaign knocked the stock of her company, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, from $19 to $11 in just a couple weeks.
Now it gets really embarrassing. The government accuses her of "securities fraud" because during that time, she denied that she was guilty of committing any crime.
Imagine that -- she's accused of trying to manipulate the value of her Omnimedia stock by proclaiming her innocence in any "insider trading" involving the sale of her ImClone stock.
The government case went from insider trading to no case to a fabricated one.
Martha Stewart did not bankrupt any companies. She did not put people out of work. She did not raid the working person's pension plan.
She's being bullied by prosecutors. They have tried her case in the press and expect her to "settle" by writing a big check to avoid all that court time. But I think Stewart is smarter than that. I hope she wins. It would be a good thing.
MARY REAM
Niles
Five reasons that Walgreen shouldn't build in Poland
EDITOR:
As a property owner adjacent to the proposed Walgreen drug store at the northwest corner of Routes 170 and 224 in Poland, I am opposed to the project.
I have no animosity toward the company, but am opposed to this construction for the following reasons.
1. It requires a heavy variance to the zoning.
2. It imposes heavy traffic on existing facilities which cannot be expanded, and presently clogs traffic from Route 680 through Main Street and Riverside Drive to Route 224 East.
3. There are over 70 entrances or outlets within one block of the corners of the intersection. These are low use exits, mostly less than 30 vehicle uses per day -- serving multiple customers.
4. Walgreen's needs have been estimated at 900 cars per day. Potential traffic jams would make the fire station useless and put children in two schools in harm's way.
5. The site is less than adequate for Walgreen. Better use of this valuable piece of land could be just around the corner. The residents of the Poland area have spoken through their petitions. If this store is imposed on them, we will all suffer.
ED CONRAD Sr.
Poland