The Real Crimes of Martha Stewart

The Wall Street Journal ^ | Friday, January 23, 2004 | MEGHAN COX GURDON

[presidio9]

"Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, we are here today in the Court of Public Opinion to hear of heinous crimes committed by Martha Stewart, the Dictator of Domesticity. I ask you to set aside any old-fashioned prejudices you may have in favor of self-improvement, and forget any qualms you have about blaming a complete stranger for your own feelings of inferiority.

[antaresequity]

It's the timing of the statements that stinks, and the fact that she made the statements to a conference of stock analysts who were analyzing her own stock.

I didn't know that and that is certainly troubling. However, if they don't have enough to charge her with insider trading, then how can they possibly charge her with lying about it?

Perhaps her comments were more to the effect that she lied about the seriousness of the investigation, or aspects thereof?

[nopardons]

I doubt that her Series 7 is current, OTOH, she was on the Board of the NYSE, when she pulled this stunt. It is the law, that a " sell " bid be in writing,with one's broker, for it to be considered legal.Martha claimed she had one. She " doctored " (proven that the order note, scribbled by Martha, was added later, in a different pen )her diary entry and the broker has NO SUCH WRITTEN ORDER ON FILE !

Yes, the SEC has codified guidelines, there ARE laws governing all trades, and LYING to the SEC and the FBI are also against the law.

If you'll wait a little while, I'll go dig out the exact crimes she's being sent to trial for. I have them in a different room and have to go finish making dinner now, so can't do it right now. :-)

[presidio9]

It's a very interesting case, right on the line, but if by professing her innocence she provided false information to the prospects of her company, she may well lose. I agree, this isn't the same as a CEO lying about corporate projections, but clearly her personal status in a criminal investigation is relevant to her ability to continue in a position of trust with her company, which is relevant to it's outlook.

You are confusing charges against Banovic with charges against Stewart, but I forgive you. The crime that she face prison for is "share manipulation." No need to "be gentle" with me. Really.

[nopardons]

You bet she did !

[MHGinTN]

ping to #134 ... perhaps we Tennesseans think similarly.

[cyncooper]

Of course, you'll have the benefit of knowing this in advance, unlike Ms. Stewart...

Yes, poor naive Martha....

lol

[presidio9]

It is the law, that a " sell " bid be in writing,with one's broker, for it to be considered legal.Martha claimed she had one.

That's the broker's problem, not Stewart's.

LYING to the SEC and the FBI are also against the law.

Right, but that's not what she's being charged with.

[Ditter]

I just don't like her!

[presidio9]

I saw one poster call her a witch. Suspecting the prosecution has a case is not the same as "wanting her in jail because they don't like her". Please point me to the post of one, let alone that of "many people" as you preposterously say, that says they don't like her so she should go to jail.

All the people who make the case that she should go to jail because she is guilty of "insider trading" are equally guilty. They have not taken the time to learn the facts of this case, and are forming their opinion solely on negative character perception.

[SJackson]

You're still missing the point: First you have to prove that she lied (and was in fact guilty of insider trading when she claimed to be innocent), or else claim that even telling the truth about yourself can be construed as share manipulation.

No I'm not, I never said she was guilty. The Feds are going to have to prove she was lying, a difficult task I'd presume, since if they could easily prove it the insider trading violation was a dead bang certainty. She had inside info from Wachtel or her broker, (?)guilty. And they seem to have passed on that.

The securities laws are stacked in favor of the govt, perhaps for good reason, since these violations are often tenuous in terms of providing concrete evidence.

Securities laws aside (and, btw, I think it's likely she violated those) the idea that her profession of innocence is a crime is despicable.

The Feds should have made there case on what they had, if they couldn't prove she had inside information, there's other fish in the sea.

[presidio9]

I just don't like her!

At least you are honest :)

[cyncooper]

All the people who make the case that she should go to jail because she is guilty of "insider trading" are equally guilty

What is your problem? There haven't been "all" these people making any such case.

Sheesh

[SJackson]

It is the law, that a " sell " bid be in writing,with one's broker, for it to be considered legal.Martha claimed she had one.

No it isn't. Violated her brokers company policy, not the law.

[presidio9]

Yes, poor naive Martha....

Your tune may change when you don't hate the defendent so much. The precedent here is that the SEC can make up rules as they go along.

[nopardons]

No, it's HER problem ! Her broker did NOT sell when it hit 60, she LIED about it and also fiddled with her notes.

Obviously, you don't know anything at all about brokers, Wall Street, the SEC,the law, or anything pertaining to this trial. LOL

The obstruction of justice IS about the lying. You're far out of your depth, dear.

[cyncooper]

I don't "hate" Martha Stewart, presidio9.

You confuse wanting to hear the case with hate? Curious.

I haven't said anything about sending her to jail, either.

[presidio9]

Go back an re-read the thread. Just like in our society in general, there are a lot of people here who are fixated on the insider trading aspects. Insider trading BAD, but since she has not been charged with insider trading (a point I have been forced to make several times myself on this thread, there are a lot of people here making rash judgements without full benefit of the facts.

[presidio9]

Obviously, you don't know anything at all about brokers, Wall Street, the SEC,the law, or anything pertaining to this trial. LOL

LOL, once upon a time I WAS a broker Sherlock.

[CobaltBlue]

The place she proclaimed her innocence was a conference of stock analysts, who were analyzing her own stock. If you don't see a problem with that, I am surprised. At any rate, I do.

[presidio9]

Let me get this straight: You want her to stand trial and face prison time for share manipulation because she told the press she was innocent and you don't hate her? With friends like you, who needs enemies?