[agarrett]

What if an "insider trader" charge had also been prosecuted? Would you feel the same way? BTW, I still don't understand why that charge was not added.

  They're going after her on insider trading in civil court. They're doing that so they can get the lower standard of proof, because they're using a brand new theory of insider trading.

  Martha Stewart did not, even if you accept the prosecution's case whole-heartedly, have insider information. She had, instead, market information. No one has ever before been convicted of insider trading based on market information, so this will be an entirely novel theory the government is trying out.

  Given the burdens of proof, it is far better for them to try it out in civil court, rather than criminal. I have no idea what the outcome might be if they succeed.

Drew Garrett

[Regulator]

Martha Stewart did not, even if you accept the prosecution's case whole- heartedly, have insider information. She had, instead, market information. No one has ever before been convicted of insider trading based on market information, so this will be an entirely novel theory the government is trying out

Novel theories = Trumped up charges. If they don't have real crimes to prosecute, just invent some...sorry, little editorial.

See my previous post about the status of "insider trading". I don't know that it is an actual crime under federal law. Can you verify? As far as going after her in "civil court", do you mean that she is being charged under SEC administrative laws or is the government actually suing her ?

[summer]

RE your post #65 - That's the first I've heard of an upcoming civil trial and the other info you mentioned. Thanks for your post.