Martha Stewart Convicted of All Counts

[William Joyce]

Yeah. Let's see. Martha Stewart's great threat to society was that she heard the head of the company was dumping stock, so she wanted to follow suit. It's not even clear to me that this was ever "insider" information, as I believe that wasn't even litigated. But even if it was, I challenge ANYONE on this board to explain the difference between insider information and outsider information. Then, she tried to cover it up when the FBI came calling, and that's what they tagged her with.

Uh huh. Sorry, I'm unable to work up any righteous anger over what she did.

Know why Martha Stewart was a target, like so many others? Because they could get her. Why can't they get the thugs who commit subway slashings? Huh? I think people have their priorities backward here.

If you buy stock, you oughtta KNOW that some people are going to have better info than you. What's next, prevent people from reading the Wall Street Journal so everyone can have the same information? Make it a crime to research the company on the Internet by way of making a purchase or sale?

Most Americans don't understand jack about the securities laws, criminal or civil. What they understand is that this uppity white lady is in big trouble. So they all cheer.

That's not justice. That's swine trampling.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by William Joyce
Yeah. Let's see. Martha Stewart's great threat to society was that she heard the head of the company was dumping stock, so she wanted to follow suit. It's not even clear to me that this was ever "insider" information, as I believe that wasn't even litigated. But even if it was, I challenge ANYONE on this board to explain the difference between insider information and outsider information. Then, she tried to cover it up when the FBI came calling, and that's what they tagged her with.

Uh huh. Sorry, I'm unable to work up an righteous anger over what she did.

Know why Martha Stewart was a target, like so many others? Because they could get her. Why can't they get the thugs who commit subway slashings? Huh?

I think people have their priorities backward here.

If you buy stock, you oughtta KNOW that some people are going to have better info than you. What's next, prevent people from reading the Wall Street Journal so everyone can have the same information? Make it a crime to research the company on the Internet by way of making a purchase or sale?

Most Americans don't understand jack about the securities laws, criminal or civil. What they understand is that this uppity white lady is in big trouble. So they all cheer.

That's not justice. That's swine trampling.

It's really very simple. She broke current laws and now she has been convicted for doing so. She'll likely see prison time for her stupidity.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time!

 

[Big D]

Originally posted by William Joyce
She was a dynamic and successful woman, the best, but she was brought down by peasant jealousy.

If that is the case, then Martha now understands the problems of my people.

 

[Johnney]

if she jsut would have come out and said i did this this and this, she wouldnt be in half the trouble she is. its not that she broke the law that everyone doenst like, its that she tried to cover shit up. its like bill clinton... no one cares that he got a hummer in the oval office, they cared that he tried to cover it up

 

[eric]

I challenge ANYONE on this board to explain the difference between insider information and outsider information

I will make it very simple. I am the CEO of a corporation, I am privy to information that is not available to the public. I can not use that information to profit, or give that information to anyone else so they can profit, plain and simple !

 

[eric]

Very simply she got greedy and now will pay the price. Funny how peoples opinions on personal responsibilty change depending on who the people are !!

I remember a kid here not long ago who simply wanted to skateboard but could not because of local rules. He was told to grow up and follow the rules like it or not. He was not playing with other peoples money like this greedy fool, and yes, that is what she was doing, the rules must apply to all !!!

 

[Johnney]

no shit there. seems the more celeb they are, the more innocent they are.

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by William Joyce
I just can't celebrate. In law school, a professor got me hostile to the whole idea of "insider trading" or the idea that you can really effectively clamp down on it --- or want to. Plus, Martha was a scapegoat because of who she was. She was a dynamic and successful woman, the best, but she was brought down by peasant jealousy.

I agree. Martha has been treated far more harshly for making a few tens of thousands on insider information than the architects of the dot.com fraud which cost investors billions of dollars.

I can't help but think that this is a modern day witch burning.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by wonderwench
I agree. Martha has been treated far more harshly for making a few tens of thousands on insider information than the architects of the dot.com fraud which cost investors billions of dollars.

I can't help but think that this is a modern day witch burning.

Bitch about the prosecutors for not doing further harm to others, but the lack of prosecution or less harsh penalties do absolutely nothing to negate the fact that Martha committed a crime.

She committed a crime and was convicted through the court system. She now must pay the penalty. What did or didn't happen to others doesn't change what she did.

 

[Johnney]

well ive read where they are supposed to be cracking down on corporate crimes nowdays. jsut so happened she was the one they got on to. doesnt make it any less criminal. the only reason it got the press it did was because of who it was. joe blow down the street gets hooked for insider trading and no one knows about it. which hunt, im not so sure.

 

[eric]

Same with Ebers, he needs some time in prison to think about what he has done !!

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Bitch about the prosecutors for not doing further harm to others, but the lack of prosecution or less harsh penalties do absolutely nothing to negate the fact that Martha committed a crime.

She committed a crime and was convicted through the court system. She now must pay the penalty. What did or didn't happen to others doesn't change what she did.

I'm not saying she didn't commit the crime nor that she shouldn't be punished. I am just pointing out that there is a particular nasty glee in the press about her case. I do think her gender is a factor. Power, successful women have been attacked as "witches" throughout history.

 

[wonderwench]

The ones who deserve the most hard time are the elite investment bankers and analysts who conspired to commit and then propagate this fraud. The Frank Quattrones and Henry Blodgetts are the ones who have wreaked havoc in our economy.

 

[Johnney]

Originally posted by wonderwench
I'm not saying she didn't commit the crime nor that she shouldn't be punished. I am just pointing out that there is a particular nasty glee in the press about her case. I do think her gender is a factor. Power, successful women have been attacked as "witches" throughout history.

i dont htink she was singled out. there are others with their own cases pending. she jsut happened to be in this mess at this time.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by wonderwench
I'm not saying she didn't commit the crime nor that she shouldn't be punished. I am just pointing out that there is a particular nasty glee in the press about her case. I do think her gender is a factor. Power, successful women have been attacked as "witches" throughout history.

That I agree with. Many like to see the rich and famous get prosecuted, it makes a good story and sells newspapers. This has certainly gotten more 'airtime' than it should have. I was just making a point that she was found guilty regardless. She was given her due in court and now she will be punished in some manner.

I may feel a bit bad for the beating she has taken in the press, but I don't feel bad at all that she was found guilty of a crime.

 

[winston churchi]

This whole topic -

It reminds me of another woman who was prosecuted in New York.
Leona Helmsely - remember her?

I recall before she was prosecuted, when she was the 'queen' of New York she did an interview with sixty minuets...remember that?
Not a nice woman indeed.

This whole Martha Stewart story reminds me of Leona.

 

[wonderwench]

Her trading on an insider tip is chickenfeed compared to Tyco, Adelphia, Worldcom, Healthsouth, Enron.......

She also received bogus legal advice. She should have cut a deal to avoid the publicity of a trial.

It just makes me sick that Quattrone's first trial resulted in a hung jury. He is one of the slimiest sleazoids of them all.

 

[eric]

Very easy, they should all be prosecuted !

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by eric
Very simply she got greedy and now will pay the price. Funny how peoples opinions on personal responsibilty change depending on who the people are !!

I remember a kid here not long ago who simply wanted to skateboard but could not because of local rules. He was told to grow up and follow the rules like it or not. He was not playing with other peoples money like this greedy fool, and yes, that is what she was doing, the rules must apply to all !!!

I think the point is that I don't believe she broke the rules. If I were convinced that she broke the law, I'd be all for her getting the punishment. However, I fail to take the word of a drug addicted secretary as the absolute truth. They guy is not credible. However, the jury was never told in full about some of the problems with his testimony and his history of lying to cover up his own probems at Merrill Lynch. I have a problem with that. The prosecution put him on the stand as if he's never had a credibility problem- that's not accurate and it leads me to believe he'd lie to save his skin.

Furthermore, unless she was under oath when she made false statements, I cannot see how she can be prosecuted for making false statements. The only reason that she's being prosecuted is because the FBI maintains that she was answering SEC charges- except she was not undergoing an SEC violation at that time. What oath did she break? Every single lawyer who defends their client by offering a different theory of the crime in a criminal proceeding would be guilty of the same crime she's been convicted of!

And, let's be reminded, it is not her guilt or innocence on insider trading being judged. She's being judged on statements that she's made- I do not believe that is the way the law should be interpreted.

I have never known her to be a bitch nor have I ever known her to be unscrupulous in her business dealings.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Moi
Furthermore, unless she was under oath when she made false statements, I cannot see how she can be prosecuted for making false statements.

For the same reason you'll be prosecuted if you lie to police when you get pulled over. Or if you call the police and falsify information to get someone in trouble. If they find out that you lied you'll be charged with a crime and prosecuted. I'm sure the penalty is stiffer when these lies are being told to federal investigators.