The American Spectator

p> NICE NEIGHBORS br> Re: Reid Collins’s Tumbrel Rolling : /p>

Reid Collins writes: “The case has nothing — nada — to do with the ‘little guys who lose money in the market…’ By selling ImClone at a fortuitous moment, Martha Stewart did not cost any other little guys anything.”

Not true and you should know it. Martha’s selling of her stock moved the price down such that the Imclone investors who didn’t know about the FDA announcement lost more money than they would have otherwise. Let’s just say there might have been more of an equality to the losing of money if Sam and Martha had followed the rules. And I doubt if Martha (or Sam) thought very much about the “little guys” who were going to lose big a few days after they (Martha and Sam) made their Imclone profits. In fact, Martha’s conversation with her friend during her subsequent vacation supports that theory. I think it can honestly be said that if Martha was ever a “little guy”, those days are long gone and she has forgotten them entirely. After all, as Mr. Collins points out:

“Why do we suppose Stewart wound up owning 4,000 shares of ImClone in the first place?” - at a very good price too, I imagine.

Mr. Collins also notes: “…equating Martha Stewart with the guys who brought Enron, WorldCom, and the like to their knees is patently dishonest.”

p>But no one has done that. Murder is a crime but so is shoplifting. Are you suggesting that because a shoplifter didn’t kill anyone, we should forget about prosecuting him? br> — Brenda Costello br> Toronto, Ontario /p>