Replies

So summer, you seem like a nice person from your posts. But the people who went after Ms. Stewart are not. They are merely ambitious attorneys who are allergic to real work, and see the government as a way to climb the social ladder. They look at Rudy Giuliani - who used high profile Wall Street prosecutions that featured the now famous 'Perp Walk', a marketing gig invented by him (he would call the press and tell them when an executive was going to be arraigned) - and they want to do the same thing. So they look for a fish. And this one had blonde hair.

Read this: Martha is Innocent and then tell me what you think about what you've been seeing in the media.

I actually had not followed this case up until a few days ago, because as I said, she's not exactly a pleasant person. But the thing that caught everyone's attention was the charge the judge dismissed: the prosecutors charged her with fraud for pleading innocent, which they alleged was a fraudulent scheme to keep her stock price up, even though she "knew she was guilty"! Something like that is straight out of a Communist show trial. And it makes all the other charges suspect. Even the judge politely called it a "Novel" theory. Novel is damn right: it inverts all of Anglo-Saxon law for 1000 years.

As far as why she was not charged with "insider trading", I'm not sure, but I think I know why: "Insider Trading" is not a Federal crime listed in the United States Code. I think it is only part of the SEC regulations, which are not laws of the United States, but rules of a particular agency of the United States, for which you can only be fined (or lose certain privileges, such as a Broker's license). Someone on this thread may correct me, I'm too lazy to go to Findlaw and look it up myself.

But that in itself is a story. In Europe, "insider trading" is not a crime, and in the U.S., it happens all the time, it simply must be disclosed. In this case, I don't think you could even make a civil case of it, since her broker told her, not the other 'insider', Waksal. She and the broker don't constitute an insider group, so all they could do was nail her on some small fibs about how it actually happened. And if you read the other article, that hinges on simple wording - it appears that she was trying to avoid the impression that it was insider trading.

The whole thing is jive that wouldn't have made it to the docket if her name wasn't Martha and she wasn't a dislikable blonde. Even the juror who talked basically said he wanted to convict because she was a big fish - leading to the question, would he have convicted if the accused were merely some no-name investor?

I leave you to ponder these reality checks. Personally, I think a nice little civil fine with restitution might have been the most she should have gotten.

In Europe, "insider trading" is not a crime..."

French Court Finds Soros Guilty Of Insider Trading -- Fined 2.2 Million

"As far as why she was not charged with "insider trading", I'm not sure, but I think I know why: "Insider Trading" is not a Federal crime listed in the United States Code."

Securities And Exchange Act, 1934

The law against insider trading has been in the USC for 70 years.

You knew more about the Stewart case before you read Rockwell's commentary.

For corrections to the rest of your mistaken notions about insider trading, go here.

So summer, you seem like a nice person from your posts.

Thanks, Regulator. :)

I clicked your link and read the Rockwell essay, but my impression from the juror's remarks is that the jury actually did not buy the story that a standing agreement to sell Martha's stock at $60 existed, but, they could not convict on the "changed ink" theory of the government, due to the doubt cast on that theory by the government's own expert witness. By "changed ink" theory I mean the stockbroker's "@$60" written notation which the government claimed was LATER written by the stockbroker next to Martha's name as part of the cover up.

For me, this case simply the following: the government is trying to investigate Waksal, and as part of their investigation of Waksal, they find themselves talking to Martha Stewart, not intending to go after her.

But, because Waksal is her social friend, and doesn't want to make him look bad in any way, Martha is motivated not to cooperate with the investigation, and instead, lies to the federal officials. Big mistake on Martha's part. Because in doing so, now, Martha has committed a crime.

The feds now have this scenario before them: the opportunity to teach everyone NOT to lie to federal officials, via a lesson thanks to this well known public figure who did lie.

And, the feds seized this opportunity, because had it been Joe Blow who lied, the lesson would not have been covered in the media -- and yes, of course the feds knew that.

But, I do not blame federal prosecutors for being peeved at Martha because these cases of white collar crime are often quite complicated, and the federal government, I do believe, has the right to expect cooperation from people they are questioning.

Had Martha met with prosecutors, and her lawyer, and told prosecutors: "Here is what truly happened" and told the truth -- well, what then?

I don't think Martha would have been prosecuted for anything. But that would have required Martha to been more faithful to the law than to her social connections. It is difficult for the wealthy to do that.

I feel sorry for Martha in one sense, because she did build her company from nothing and she is not busy plotting criminal schemes, but, I also feel that when one is questioned by federal officials, one should tell the truth. I don't think that places an unfair burden on a person.