Posted on 01/08/2023 8:21:42 AM PST by ChicagoConservative27
Nobody goes to jail for 20 years for trivial process crimes, especially when they were innocent of the primary offense. It seems more likely to me that the only reason Martha Stewart did any prison time at all was to make an example of a famous celebrity. If she had been a nobody, she probably would have gotten a suspended sentence.
As for you, I am guessing that you suffer from envy of someone much more successful than you are. In your imagination they must “know someone”. In real life they usually are just smarter and work harder. I am excepting of course known criminals like the Bidens, who actually are protected by the Democrat and mass media crime families.
“Nobody goes to jail for 20 years for trivial process crimes,”
We not talking about trivial crimes. We’re talking about short selling stock which is a major crime determined by the SEC.
Criminal Penalties. The maximum prison sentence for an insider trading violation is now 20 years. The maximum criminal fine for individuals is now $5,000,000, and the maximum fine for non-natural persons (such as an entity whose securities are publicly traded) is now $25,000,000.
Civil Sanctions. Persons who violate insider trading laws may become subject to an injunction and may be forced to disgorge any profits gained or losses avoided. The civil penalty for a violator may be an amount up to three times the profit gained or loss avoided as a result of the insider trading violation.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/25743/000138713113000737/ex14_02.htm
As for you, I am guessing that you suffer from envy of someone much more successful than you are.
So it’s reached the point of attacking the messenger. I spent over 35 years attached to military in a few different ways and comfortably live off my retirement and the family money. I have far more money than I need and I give to numerous charities like the DAV, Shriner’s Hospitals for Kids, and St. Jude. So if money is your idea of success, then you are very presumptuous in your judgement of the worth of people. Especially those you have no idea who they are.
You defend Stewart by saying she wasn’t found guilty of short selling. I can think of another person that was given a free ride through the justice system even though he was running the numbers, prostitution, illegal booze, and was never proven to be involved with any criminal behavior like murder or extortion. His name was Al Capone.
So where does anyone draw the line? If you like them or not? It’s been done before.
wy69
“We not talking about trivial crimes. We’re talking about short selling stock which is a major crime determined by the SEC.”
She was found not guilty of that offense by the judge, after being tried in front of a jury. But it seems that in your mind she is still guilty of the offense she was acquitted of. You might wish to reflect on the reasons you think that way.
“She was found not guilty of that offense by the judge...”
Again, no she wasn’t. That offense never made it to trial because the judge tossed it out. The evidence involved for it was never displayed to the public and it was taken out by the judge, not a jury or a reason was provided except the judge felt there was not enough evidence to continue.
So even though she lied about the proven selling of the stock, her communications with her brokers at Merrill, and was found guilty of stonewalling and lying to federal investigators at the justice department concerning the short sale and imprisoned for that effort which kept the evidence concerning the short selling action out of court with the one person call by the judge that kept her out of prison for that possible 20 years and as much as $5M fine which I showed you, I find it hard to understand how you can think she was tried for it, and since the investigation was specifically aimed at the evidence of that short sell she lied about, how can you lie about something that didn’t happen and you were found guilty of lying about it and imprisoned but not for the crime you lied about?
wy69
“She was found not guilty of that offense by the judge...”
Again, no she wasn’t. You can’t be found not guilty of an offense you were not tried for. That offense never made it to trial because the judge tossed it out. The evidence involved for it was never displayed to the public and it was taken out by the judge, not a jury nor was a reason provided except the judge felt there was not enough evidence to continue. In other simple words, the offense wouldn’t be proved so there’s no trial. That is not guilty, that’s the court’s version of no contest. And the judge alone made that move with no legal challenge. A deal was made and did not go public.
So even though she lied about the proven selling of the stock, her communications with her brokers at Merrill, and was found guilty of stonewalling and lying to federal investigators at the justice department concerning the short sale and imprisoned for that effort which kept the evidence concerning the short selling action out of court with the one person call by the judge that kept her out of prison for that possible 20 years and as much as $5M fine which I showed you from your entry, I find it hard to understand how you can think she was tried for it, and since the investigation was specifically aimed at the evidence of that short sell she lied about, how can you lie about something that didn’t happen and you were found guilty of lying about it and imprisoned but not for the crime you lied about?
wy69
Apologize for the double entry. Computer problem.
wy69
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.