...in Prison

go!

today Martha will show you how to make a lovely coconut meringue file cake

...with a woman named Bubba.

Today on Martha Stewart Living:
15 ways to avoid being someone's bitch

"Today I will show you how you can turn a bar of soap, some caffeteria meat and sheets into a homemade explosive."

it's a good thing

how to turn bedsheets into lovely curtains in 3 easy steps. brightens up even the drabbest cell.

Today, how to arrange bolted down furniture for postive feng shui.

how to turn dining hall leftovers into a tasty casserole for visiting hours

It can be difficult to think of gift ideas that are both original and meaningful, especially when there are a lot of people in your life. Whether they are your closest friends or your cellmate, the people you shower with, or even the guard, they are significant. Decide what best suits each person. Don’t rush into gift-giving mode, you have all the time in the world.

http://www.toreadors.com/martha/

And remember: light & colours are very important for humans to bring us in harmony with nature...

If you want to show your positive attitude towards the world and your investors, put on for instance a bright orange suit and if you feel a little cramped inside your new house, paint the walls yellow and the bars in the windows skyblue for a more spacey effect.

Martha will show her fellow jailers how decorate thier cells.

I wonder who benifits from this conviction and MS going to jail. Many more people are suffering from the falling stock price. Also, the uncertain future of this company and its products is not "A Good Thing" for the consumer.

Way to ruin a funny thread, tool. ds must stand for dip shit, no?

On this weeks show, Martha will show us some wonderful oragami made from prison cafeteria napkins.

the headline in the newspaper said, "martha cooked"

Martha Stewart is an amateur, compared to the likes of Bush&Co. Insider trading? hell that's childs play.

http://www.rense.com/general50/isnide.htm

Martha Stewart may be heading to prison because she sold stock after learning that a company was failing for a reason that was out of her and other company officials control. Martha Stewarts Company was playing by the rules, a product they invested a lot of money in failed to be certified as safe by the Government so they knew the stock would fall. If the following allegations are true, George Bush's profit was due to underhanded accounting practices inflating the value of the stock, before selling at a huge profit. Who should be in jail? Martha Stewart for selling before her stock tanked for legitimate reasons? Or George Bush for profiting from selling stock thatís value was inflated by Enron-style accounting practices? --smg



Bush's Insider Connections Preceded Huge Profit On Stock Deal

By Knut Royce
The Center for Public Integrity

It has been widely reported that Texas Gov. George W. Bush made money over the years with a little help from his friends. But new details show that he served on an energy corporationís board and was able to realize a huge profit by selling his stock in the corporation because an accounting sleight-of-hand concealed it was losing large sums of money. Shortly after he sold, the stock price plummeted. That profit helped make him a multimillionaire.

The year 1986 was very good for George W. Bush.

After a decade of striking Texas brown dust instead of oil, his luck finally turned that year when go-for-broke Harken Energy Corp. bought his failing oil exploration firm for stock. Four years later the company concealed large losses just before the GOP presidential hopeful unloaded those securities for a nice profit. That, in turn, helped finance his stake in the Texas Rangers baseball club and catapult him into the ranks of multimillionaires.

And it was in 1986, too, that Harkenís CEO introduced Bush, the companyís new director and consultantóas well as son of then-Vice President George Bush--to a little startup health-care company. He put in a modest investment, and a few years later walked away with a six-figure windfall.

There also was a little benefit on the side. In 1994, when Bush was running for Texas governor, and scrambling for campaign cash, insiders in that health-care company, now known as Advance Paradigm, contributed $23,700.

Bushís sale of the Harken stock in 1990 attracted the attention of regulators and the national media because he was tardy in filing the required public disclosure, and because the trade came shortly before the company reported for the first time that it was incurring huge losses.

Hemorrhaging Concealed

But The Public i has found that Harken was bleeding profusely even before Bush unloaded his stock. Harken effectively concealed the hemorrhaging by selling a retail subsidiary through a seller-financed loan but recording the transaction in its 1989 balance sheet as a cash sale. Securities and Exchange Commission records suggest that Bush, a company director who sat on Harkenís audit committee and was a paid consultant to the firm, may nonetheless have been unaware of the sleight-of-hand accounting or, for that matter, other significant company actions Nevertheless, SEC accountants cried foul when it discovered Harken had recorded the 1989 sale as a capital gain.

But it was months after Bushís June 1990 sale of the stock at $4 a share, for a total of $848,560, that the SEC directed Harken to recast its 1989 annual report and to publicly disclose the extent of its losses that year, according to records reviewed by The Public i.

It is unclear how a timely acknowledgement of the true losses would have affected the value of the stock when Bush sold. But most investors look at a companyís balance sheet, among other indicators of corporate well-being, before parting with their money.

Two months after Bushís sale, Harken reported for the first time in a quarterly report that it was losing a lot of money, and the stock dropped to $2.37 a share. By the end of the year, it was trading at about $1.

Harken masked its 1989 losses when in mid-year it sold 80 percent of a subsidiary, Aloha Petroleum, to a partnership of Harken insiders called International Marketing & Resources for $12 million, $11 million of which was through a note held by Harken. By Jan. 1, 1990, IMR, in turn, sold its stake in Aloha to a privately held company called Advance Petroleum Marketing, and the Harken loan was effectively transferred to Advance, though garanteed by IMR.

ëGeorge and I Became Friendsí

Advance Petroleum was headed by a Texas entrepreneur, David Halbert, who had been a friend and business partner of Harkenís CEO, Mikel Faulkner. In 1986, Faulkner had introduced Harkenís newest director, Bush, to Halbert. Harken, in a stock swap, had just acquired the ailing Spectrum 7 Energy Corp., where Bush had been CEO and a significant shareholder.

ìGeorge and I became friends,íí recalled Halbert in a telephone interview with The Public i. Halbert said that at the time Faulkner introduced Bush to him he had just formed a little home-health-care firm, Allied Home Pharmacy, and was in the process of raising $250,000 in seed money.

ìMikel said (to Bush), ëHey, you might want to invest in this,íî Halbert recalled. ìI said fine. I donít remember how many people we brought in, but it wasnít that many. Maybe 25 or 30 . . . It was sort of friends and family, and George invested.íí So did Faulkner. Halbert said Bush also put in a little more money in an offering to existing shareholders in 1991.

Halbert said he did not recall how much Bush invested in the company.

Allied Home Pharmacy became known as Advance Paradigm, one of the nationís leading pharmacy benefits management companies, when it went public in 1996. Two years later, Bushís trust sold his stock in the firm.

Public records give no precise amount of how much he earned on the Advance stock sale, but Bushís financial disclosure form made public last year shows that he realized a capital gain, or profit, of as much as $1 million on the sale. Asked how much the Texas governor paid for the stock and how much he profited from the sale, spokesman Scott McClellan referred all questions to the manager of Bushís blind trust, Robert McCleskey. McCleskey declined to discuss his clientís investment in the Advance stock. He said that under the terms of the Texas blind trustóa legal requirement for the governor but less rigorous than the blind trust that applies to federal executive branch officersóhe cannot tell even Bush how much profit he made on the sale.

SEC Probe Was Limited

The SECís division of enforcement launched a probe of Bushís sale of his Harken stock the day after the Wall Street Journal on April 4, 1991, reported that he had been eight months late in filing the required insider-trading form with the regulators. This investigation was separate from the earlier division of corporation finance probe that resulted in Harkenís recasting its 1989 balance sheet.

SEC enforcement investigators focused on whether Bush dumped his stock on June 22, 1990, because he knew that the companyís second-quarter report, announced on Aug. 20, would show a $23.2 million loss and depress the stock. Part of that loss was $7.2 million that Harken wrote off because it was being pressed by a nervous bank and renegotiated the Aloha sale to generate quick cash. Alohaís buyer, Advance Petroleum, was a clear winner in the renegotiated deal.

The SEC probe was limited to whether Bush had inside knowledge of the red ink that would be reported in the August filing and concluded that he did not.

It is unclear whether Bush, who holds a masterís degree from the Harvard Business School, knew that the company, after five straight years of profits, began to bleed profusely in 1989, its first year of being traded on the New York Stock Exchange, though in its annual report for that year it had declared a net loss of only $3,300,000.

Even that small loss would have surprised readers of the January 1990 issue of National Petroleum News, a trade publication. Interviewed some time during the fourth quarter of 1989 for a lengthy and glowing article on Harken, company president Faulkner said that based on the strong earnings during the first three quarters, he expected that year to be the most profitable yet. ìWe made $6 million last year (1988) . . .Weíll certainly be ahead of last year.íí

Alas, a year later, in an amended 1989 annual report filed on Feb. 5, 1991, the company reported that after ìdiscussionsî with the SEC, which insisted that Harken use the traditional ìcost recoveryíí method of accounting, it was revising its declared 1989 net loss of $3,300,000 fourfold--to $12,566,000. Harken also filed an amendment to its third quarter report for 1989 revealing that over the first nine months of that year it had lost nearly $4 million, rather than the $4.6 million profit it had declared.

Faulkner, now Harkenís chairman, did not return repeated calls from The Public i seeking comment on the Aloha sale and the subsequent public filings.

Company Directed to Correct Reports

The SEC can prosecute company officers for willfully filing fraudulent reports. But in the Harken case, as in most similarly questionable filings, the investigation was conducted by the agencyís accounting staff, which did not believe there was intent to defraud and therefore did not refer the matter to the SECís enforcement division. Instead, the agency directed the company to publicly correct its reports, according to a retired SEC official familiar with aspects of the case.

It is also clear that Harken did not draft the misleading 1989 annual report, filed with the SEC on April 16, 1990, merely to buttress the value of Bushís stock. The filing date was two months before the company reported it became aware that Bush wanted to sell.

In its 1989 annual report, Harken recognized a profit of $8 million on the sale, which allowed it to limit its declared losses to only $3,300,000 for the year. But the SECobjected, saying that the income can be recognized only as the principal of the loan is reducedóthat is, when real cash comes in.

A corporate accountant interviewed by The Public i agreed with the SECís claim, saying he found it ìunusualíí for a company to declare an earning on the sale when it is contingent on a loan. The accountant, who asked to not be further identified, said he knew of no other instance when a company declared full gain on a sale based on a loan.

Why Harken initially sold to IMR is unclear. But a senior tax lawyer who works for a leading auditing firm told The Public i after reviewing portions of the SEC filings that he believes Harken wanted to show a cash infusion to mitigate the 1989 losses.

ìIt looks like the sale was done (to IMR) in order to show a book gain of $7 or $8 million,íí said the attorney, who also asked not to be further identified. ìThat would have eliminated a good part of their loss during that time. Given the fact that the sale was to a related entity, I would guess they were just trying to show a better financial statement at that time.íí

Advanceís Halbert said that he believes IMR bought, and then quickly sold, Aloha because of a sudden change of heart. ìI think it had something to do with IMR wanting to own it [Aloha] but there was some concern about the affiliate relationship [between Harken and IMR],íí he said.

The SEC, too, was curious about the transaction, according to agency records obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

Six weeks before Harken publicly announced in January 1991 that it was revising its 1989 losses upward, the SEC asked the company to explain ìwhether the sale of Aloha to Advance was contemplated at the time IMR purchased Aloha from Harken.íí In a letter, it also asked Harken to explain why the company and its independent accountants concluded it could declare a capital gain on the sale.

The SEC declined to provide Harkenís responses to The Public i.

Conflicting Accounts Offered

In its public filings to the SEC, Harken gave conflicting accounts of who sold Aloha, who bought it, and even when the sale occurred.

In its 1989 annual report, for example, it declared that it sold Aloha to IMR on June 30. In one passage of the report, it says that IMR then sold Aloha to Advance on Jan. 1, 1990; in another it says IMR sold on March 30.

But in its 1990 report, Harken declared that it was its subsidiary E-Z Serve Holding Co. that sold Aloha to IMR.

Adding to the confusion, E-Z Serve, which shortly after the transaction was spun off as a separate publicly traded company, claimed in its 1991 annual report that it had sold Aloha to Advance Petroleumónot IMRóin 1989.

Harken was notorious during that period for filing confusing reports. In 1991, Harken founder Phil Kendrick told Time magazine that the companyís annual reports ìget me totally befuddled.ííQuoted in the same article, Faulkner had this advice to those trying to figure out the companyís financial statements: ìGood luck. Theyíre a mess.íí

The corporate fog did not, however, obscure the fact that by the time the SEC directed Harken to recast its 1989 report, Bush already had already sold his stock in the company.

The bulk of the $848,560 went to pay off a bank loan he had taken out in 1989 to buy a partnership interest in the Texas Rangers for $600,000. He received nearly $16 million for his stake when the team was sold two years ago.

Bushís run of financial good luck starting in 1986 is in stark contrast to the woeful performance of his previous oil ventures, which he had launched in 1977. Though he had little difficulty in rounding up investors for his Arbusto, Bush and Spectrum 7 oil exploration firms, they were all money losers.

Even as Harken in late 1989 and early 1990 appeared to be trying to minimize its losses, its bankers were clamping down because the company was having trouble meeting its loan payments.That led to a renegotiated loan agreement in May 1990, which required Harken to come up with fresh cash, raised the interest rate, required new guarantees from major shareholders and featured stricter terms overall.

ìAfter closure (on the sale of Aloha) Harken discovered they had trading losses on gasoline purchases and they came back to us and said, ëWe really need some cash,íî Halbert recalled.

Cash Raised in Nick of Time

Halbert said he was able to raise the cash in the nick of timeójust three days before Iraq invaded Kuwait, setting in motion huge gasoline-price increases that drove numerous small distributors out of business.

Under the original contract, Harken had given Advance an option to purchase the remaining 20 percent of Aloha, or 60,000 shares, for $50 each, or a total of $3 million.

By the time the contract was renegotiated in August, Advance agreed to pay off the $10 million note by the following year, which it did, instead of in March 1993 as stipulated in the original contract.It also relieved Harken from picking up the cost of fixing leaking underground tanks to meet environmental standards.

In turn, Advance got the $3 million of Aloha stock for $1. Harken also forgave $5 million in loans it had made to Aloha and about $1 million in interest payments.

The renegotiated contract reduced Harkenís bottom line, and the SEC clearly believed the write-off might have helped depress the stock. During its investigation of whether Bush benefited from insider information when he sold his stock, the SEC on July 25, 1991, asked both Bush and Harken to disclose when the companyís officers and directors ìfirst became aware . . . that the Advance note . . . was going to be renegotiated; and that Harken intended to write down its investment in Aloha.íí

Unaware of Magnitude

After the SEC ended its investigation, according to one of its memos, the regulators concluded that Harken and Bush were unaware of the magnitude of the write- downs until at least mid-July, or after Bushís stock sale.

While the renegotiated contract clearly hurt Harkenís bottom line, Halbert admits it clearly was beneficial for Advance Petroleum.

Meanwhile, Bush was generating admirers among Advance Paradigmís insiders, the limited number of shareholders.

In 1994, when the company was known as Advance Health Care and Bush was making his first run for Texas governor, those insiders gave him $23,700 for his first gubernatorial run, including $14,500 from Halbert, his brother, Jon, their father and their wives. Virtually all the money came on the same day, July 22.

ìThat was his first time around, and he was trying to raise money any way he could,íí recalled Halbert.

And, as has been the case throughout Bushís career, a long-time friend of the family came to his aid.

This time it was Benno C. Schmidt, the pioneering venture capitalist and partner in J. H. Whitney & Co. in New York. Schmidt, who died last October at age 86, had been a director of Advance Health Care, and J. H. Whitney had provided the firm with much needed capital in 1993.

ìBenno was an old friend of the Bush family. He called me one day and said, ëDavid, I think we ought to do something for young George,íî Halbert recalled. ìHe said, ëI think we ought to have a fund-raiser.íî

So after a board meeting on July 22, Bush spoke at a private little dinner attended by the directors and their wives and walked away that night with $20,750.


Knut Royce is a senior fellow at the Center for Public Integrity.

Godless.

Godless,
Did you get drunk and forget your way home again?

The political section is over there. --------->

Apparently you misunderstand that all forms of communication is after all POLITICAL!!

Once this Martha Stewart thread was started, it got political. Get it?.

BTW I don't indulge in drinking, smoking, or warping my mind with religious rhetoric!.

Godless.

Well then perhaps you forgot about the cut and paste policy. Or perhaps you didn't realize that this thread wasn't here to discuss the post, but to make jokes.

Godless:


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!


Did you expect someone to read that monstrosity?
What a waste of your time.

Na!! what I forgot is that I was dealing with kids!.

Godless.

What you forgot is that there is a time and a place. This thread was neither.

Now back on topic:
Soon you'll be able to buy your very own Martha Stewarts license plates at Kmart.

Some of you seem to be hopeless. I'm gald to see you seem to be enjoying life so much! Try not to be so angry, and try to enjoy life for a fucking change. :D If Hanoi John wins, do you think your life will actually change that much? :confused:

To warden:

Martha: "All I did was try to redecorate the cell and was violated in a most heinious way by Bubba. I will now have to apply a wonderfully aromatic ointment I have mixed up containing toothpaste, mayonnaise, some flowers from the prison garden, and a half cup of my breast milk, to my most intimate of areas to ease the swelling."

... and I thought I was hopelessly insensible.

An.droid not all Americans think alike. However there is here a demonstration of the child like mentality of most Americans. First of all none of these kids really understand the issues of Martha Stewart and what her alleged crime is about, they only understand that a rich person is been prosecuted and they jump for joy. Why do you suppose that is?. It is called "class envy" because most of these shmucks have no ability to be self made, and when a famous person that was forcebly brought down, this is fun for them to join the ranks of the senseless dumbasses who pry on the lives of the rich. The political system here in this country is to ruin the rich buisnessmen for the likes of the majority of poor. This is a good way to get votes, Rudolph Guliani did it to Michael Milken, and now another would be political sob lawyer is doing it to Martha Stewart. Hell these dumb ass kids wont even know who Michael Milken is without looking the net for it. So in essense yes it is one of Americans good old pass time to bring down those who they themselves wouldn't ever be, just look what happened to Janet Jackson.

Godless.

It is called "class envy" because most of these shmucks have no ability to be self made
Well no. It's called "I worked all week (and most likely brought in more money than you) and now it is time to have fun." We aren't making fun of her because she is rich, but because we didn't like her anyway. I have to wonder if you actually understand if this is illegal. She isn't going to jail just because she is Martha Stewart... as good a reason as that may be;) Now, if you want to start a serious thread on that matter you are quite able.... but this is obviously not it.

She is "well connected" and in todays world if you aren't well connected you won't go very far. She has always been around money and people with lots of it. Many people don't have access to people with power or wealth because they live in off beat areas of the country or just live where there's not allot of money floating around.

Lol. How about "She isn't going to jail because she is well known as Martha Stewart."

place during America's recurrent witch hunts
Ok, so why do you think this is a witch hunt? Insider trading is a no-no. I could care less who does it.

It is funny however when it is someone who tries to be the epitome of perfectness.

not going to jail because she's Martha Steward, but is going to jail nonetheless because she is in fact Martha Steward who happened to be Martha Steward
How about "she's not going to jail because she's Martha Steward, but is going to jail nonetheless because she participated in insider trading". Better?

But that's what I've been trying to point out that it wasn't true insider trading because she didn't independently decide nor deliberately scheme to manipulate her shares because she was approached and quite bluntly told to sell her shares.
"I'm sorry officer. I didn't realize the speed limit was 35mph, and my buddy said it was 65mph."
Ignorance is not a valid defence under the law, whatever the crime.

Or, should she have said something like, "Well, no. I'm a good girl."
That's exactly what she should have said. "I don't need to do the right thing because nobody will ever know" is hardly a good excuse.

Insider trading was made illegal by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The securities laws broadly prohibit fraudulent activities of any kind in connection with the offer, purchase, or sale of securities. These provisions are the basis for many types of disciplinary actions, including actions against fraudulent insider trading. Insider trading is illegal when a person trades a security while in possession of material nonpublic information in violation of a duty to withhold the information or refrain from trading.

~Securities and Exchange Commision Site (on 'Insider Trading)~ (http://sec.gov/about/laws.shtml#invadvact1940)

The full text of this Act may be found here, in the 'Securities Lawyer's Desktop,' published by The University of Cincinnati College of Law (http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/34Act/).

The Act addresses the crime of 'Insider Trading':

Section 20A -- Liability to Contemporaneous Traders for Insider Trading (http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/34Act/sec20A.html)

Section 21A -- Civil Penalties for Insider Trading (http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/34Act/sec21A.html)

Other sections of the Act are relevant to the crime:

Section 21 -- Investigations and Actions (http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/34Act/sec21.html)


More recently, in 2000, the Commision clarified its rules against 'Insider Trading': 'Find Law; For Legal Professionals' (http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/00106/000597/title/Subject/topic/Securities%20Law_Fraud%20%20Insider%20Trading/filename/securitieslaw_1_289)


Considering all this, it seems that what Martha Stewart did was illegal, though, perhaps she did not understand that.


The charges centered on why Stewart dumped about $228,000 worth of ImClone Systems stock on Dec. 27, 2001, just a day before it was announced that the Food and Drug Administration had rejected ImClone's application for approval of a cancer drug. The announcement sent ImClone's stock plummeting.

Stewart and Bacanovic claimed they had a standing agreement to sell when the price fell below $60. But the government contended that was a phony cover story and that Stewart sold because she was tipped by her broker that ImClone CEO Sam Waksal was frantically trying to dump his own holdings.

Waksal later admitted selling his stock based on advance word of the FDA decision. He is serving seven years in prison for insider trading.

Stewart, who averted more than $51,000 in losses by selling when she did, was not charged with insider trading; instead, she and her broker were accused of lying about the transaction and altering records to support the alleged cover story.

WAVY.COM (http://www.wavy.com/Global/story.asp?S=1691880)

$51,000 is small potatoes, but it still hurt all the little guys out there that didn't have that information; it's still a crime.

The government's star witness was Douglas Faneuil, a former Merrill Lynch & Co. assistant who said he passed the tip about Waksal to Stewart on orders from his boss, Bacanovic. Faneuil said that when he told Bacanovic about a flurry of selling by the Waksal family that morning, Bacanovic blurted: "Oh my God, get Martha on the phone." He also said Bacanovic pressured him to lie about the transaction.

Prosecutors further contended Bacanovic doctored a worksheet of Stewart's portfolio after the fact by making the notation "(at)60" next to her ImClone stock. A forensics expert with the Secret Service testified that the mark was made in a different ink.

In addition, Stewart's personal assistant testified Stewart altered a computer log of a Dec. 27, 2001, message from Bacanovic, then immediately told her to restore the log to its original wording.


All the evidence indicates that Stewart is, at least, guilty of complicity to Bacanovic's In-trading.
That crime is not really so grievous though. The truth is, her broker did what any normal human being would do, and she appreciated it.

Also, a longtime Stewart friend, Mariana Pasternak, testified Stewart confided that she had known the Waksals were selling. Pasternak said Stewart added: "Isn't it nice to have brokers who tell you those things?"


That's what's so funny about In-trading to me: no normal person could resist it. If you're a broker, your job's on the line, and if you fail to give ALL the infomation you have, be it illicit or not, you may lose it (the job).

I suppose the person who is ultimately responsible would be whoever told Waksal the FDA was going to deny ImClone. I bet they'll know who that was soon enough, if they don't all ready. Waskal is rotting in jail, after all.


It's obvious that Bacanovic and Stewart are guilty of In-trading, but, remember, they were convicted of far worse:
Stewart, of false statements, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice.
Bacanovic, of all that jazz plus perjury.

It's a good thing Stewart never landed on the stand, else she'd be facing Bacanovic's sentence.



I really don't see how anyone could claim that Stewart is innocent.

See here, my man!

#1) It's really just too bad if she didn't understand what she had gotten involved in; Ignorantia Legis Excusat Neminem! Ignorance is no excuse!

#2) She conspired against the court.

Thus, She deserves everything she's getting.

y'all whine too much

knit your leftover soap rope into this lovely curtain to make communal toilets cozy and private

With just a few macaroni borrowed from the kitchen, and permission from mommy... I mean, your cell mate, you can turn that drab toilet seat into a work of art!

The day when I feel that the justice system is pure justice itself adhering to a justice that is also universal in nature (outside terrestrial tinkering and red-tape) will be the day when I'll consider whether Steward is guilty or not
Based on this, you will never consider the guilt of anyone. As such, you have no say in this matter, so please take it elsewhere.

How to remove bars from the window using only soap, tissues, and food coloring.

Try your hand at soap sculpture!
It will enliven that dreary, old cell of yours, and the razor and file needed will only cost you ONE episode of unnatural bodily violation!

You too can buy Martha's latest book: The Imprisoned Mind

Somebody should read her tips on how to perform a home enema using only household ingredients.

Oh yeah!

http://www.bobandtom.com/pix/martha-b.gif

:eek:
That's actually pretty disturbing.

It's a good thing.