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.

[CobaltBlue]

IIRC, you can be charged with trading on insider information even if you are not an insider. I seem to remember a case a few years ago where the office boy who copied the SEC filings was sneaking a copy to a friend, and they both got busted for trading using insider information.

Now that they upload it's not as easy to do.

I used to live across the street from the guy in charge of security at the Labor Department, who had a story about someone who used to tip off an accomplice before a key economic statistic was announced by the way he adjusted his Venetial blinds.

[presidio9]

[brownsfan]

Ms. Stewart was a stockbroker. She knows the rules and she willingly broke them.
You don't have a clue as to what she is charged with do you? I will give you a hint...she isn't charged with insider trading.

Facts are such a pain in the ass, but I insist you go get some if you wish to continue this conversation.


Wouldn't it be easier to just tell everyone she's charged with obstruction of justice rather than bitch about how superior you are to everyone else?

[ridesthemiles]

I am a fan of Martha, and this trial is an absolute witch hunt.

It might seem like a witch hunt to her adoring fans, but there is ONE BIG hole in her self-defense----
BEFORE she came on the scene and made all felames feel inadequate to her highness, she was a VERY SUCCESSFUL STOCK BROKER on Wall Street. She would know the rules on insider trading far more clearly than 99.4% of the rest of America.
She's guilty, and she has cost her shareholders untold losses in her stock. He first bad decision was followed by many others, including trying to put the blame on her brokers. I hope she fries. She put her interests over a very small amount of money over the value of her company.

[meenie]

Martha Stewart is not a stock broker so she can't be guilty of security fraud. She was not an insider of the company that she sold the stock of. She refused to testify against Waksal, so the SEC has charged her with misleading or lying to investigators. Be careful the next time you listen to an analyst on TV or read the business section of the Wall Street Journal, you may be as guilty as Martha Stewart. If you act on the advice and buy or sell, don't dare deny that you took the advice or you will be a common criminal. This case is not going to fly. It doesn't deserve to.

[CobaltBlue]

It's almost impossible to tell all the facts about a case by what you read in the newspapers. Reporters aren't lawyers and their audiences aren't lawyers, either.

[brownsfan]

She is being charged with securities fraud
No she is not...and this is the point I am trying to make. The fact is there isn't enough evidence to support the charge.

She is being charged with: False Statements, Obsctuction of Justice, Securites Fraud (relating to her comments and the price of her own stock, not ImClone) and Conspiracy

The state (SEC) had nothing in regards to the initial investigation, the charges stem out of her willingness, or lack thereof in cooperating with investigators.

I bet she is aquitted.

- I would take that bet. She was charged with obstruction because of the indications of insider trading. They couldn't get Al Capone for racketeering, so they got him for tax evasion. Net result: He went to jail. Martha will do some time. Not a lot, but some. Rightfully so. If she saved money using the info she had, (and it appears she did), that is stealing. A woman of her means shouldn't steal.

[AbsoluteJustice]

Well hell if you are correct then that is a crime.

[weaponeer]

So tell me would she not be charged for securities fraud if she did not participate in insider trading?

Do a little research (I think it was in Wed or Thurs WSJ) and see what the prosecution's "legal theory" is for the fraud charge. It's not what you think. Even the presiding judge has called it "novel" but is going to hear it. I wouldn't be surprised if the judge throws out the cherge.

Essentially, the prosecution is charging her with fraud because she proclaimed her innocence. That's like the Feds arresting you for robbing a bank, and when they can't prove it, charge you with perjury and obstruction of justice for pleading innocent.

[Rodney King]

Looks like some of you are so enthusiastic about crucifying Ms. Stewart that I am going to have to keep making this same point over and over again: How in God's name do you charge someone with lying about stock dumping when you are not sure that she was stock dumping in the first place? Ever hear the term "innocent until proven guilty?"

Easy. They were investingating a possbile crime, and rather than cooperate with them she lied to them and conspired with others to deceive them. Are you saying that is ok if no charge is ever brought on the underlying crime? You know what would happen in every single civil case on the planet if that was ok? Everyone who got a subpoena would destroy all the files and say "hey, you can't prove the underlying charge, so we are going to move that the case be dismissed."

[Revolting cat!]

Gee whiz, what a humourless thread under a humorous article! Did anyone get the joke?

[antaresequity]

Setting aside the ImClone info, the Securities Fraud against her seems so bizarre.

The state claims she denied the insider trading charge, and as a result, she defrauded her investors. The denial it turns out was true, in as much as she was never charged with insider trading.

The state wants us to believe, that they are looking out for her investors, or potential investors, by prosecuting her on securities fraud. Yet the the prosecution event itself, has contributed to massive revenue losses and hammered stock prices.

So in a nutshell, they attack her on denying an unproven allegation, under the guise of public service, and in so doing, far more effectively destroy the wealth of innocent individuals than Martha supposedly did by denying the charges.

Who is going to prosecute the state? The state has done more to damage wealth in this case than any other participant.

[Modernman]

IIRC, you can be charged with trading on insider information even if you are not an insider.

You may be right. I just remember a case in law school where a footbal coach overheard parents of two of his players talking about what was going on at their company and he used the knowledge to make money in the market. The court ruled that insider trading laws didn't cover him.

It may have to do with some type of collusion between someone inside the company and an outsider, but I'm pretty rusty on the area.

[Eva]

Selective prosecution, not much different that the case against Rush Limbaugh.

[AbsoluteJustice]

". They couldn't get Al Capone for racketeering, so they got him for tax evasion."

THIS IS THE BEST COMPARISON I HAVE SEEN YET!!!!

The cheerleaders think that becuase they didn't have enough on one thing that she she can't be charged for another.

Case in point Al Capone
Great comparison!

[presidio9]

BEFORE she came on the scene and made all felames feel inadequate to her highness, she was a VERY SUCCESSFUL STOCK BROKER on Wall Street. She would know the rules on insider trading far more clearly than 99.4% of the rest of America. She's guilty, and she has cost her shareholders untold losses in her stock. He first bad decision was followed by many others, including trying to put the blame on her brokers. I hope she fries. She put her interests over a very small amount of money over the value of her company.

Ignoring for a minute your irrelevant point about Ms. Stewart's effect on the self-esteem of Western feminism, let me make the following point very clear: I was once a stockbroker. I can assure you that the title of stockbroker does not bestow on its holder an intimate knowledge of market regulations (which, in any event, changed in the 20 years interval between then and now). Ms. Stewart's skill as a broker was in asset gathering. She was a good networker, not a trader. Her supposed share dumping actually would not have cost "shareholders" anything. Erbidux was eventually approved and Imclone's share price rebounded. She lost money on the trade.

[antaresequity]

She is also being charged with (securities fraud)publicly denying the the charges (ostensibly misleading investors)...

If you can't see whats wrong with that picture I would be surprised.

[Orange1998]

Give the greedy b*tch life for all I care.

That is exactly why she is the mess to start with. Her attorneys are saying "why would Martha do this over small amount of money giving her wealth". She did it because she is greedy o'l *itch who could not give a damn about others. She lied to cover up her greed and for that she stands trial.

[Capt. Tom]

Martha has at least two things working against her.

1. By men she is perceived to be everyman's ex-wife.
(I stole that from a fellow Freeper because it is on target.)

2. By women she will not get any support from the Feminazis because she is encouraging women to be at home in the kitchen cooking. (remember Hilary's comments about baking cookies. Something like "what am I disposed to be doing baking cookies." Or something close to that.

The womens lib groups are so hypocritical about Martha Stewart. She just don't fit their agenda. - Tom

[exmarine]

This is dumb. It shows the government can persecute anyone they want anytime they want. I'm sure there are many in our own government who have committed much worse crimes than she committed. I'm on her side - the government is a bully.