Martha: She Made the Mistake of Being a Self-Made Billionaire

Ludwig von Mises Institute ^ | Posted March 6, 2004 | William L. Anderson and Candice E. Jackson

[Hank Kerchief]

She lied ...

What lie?

When was she under oath?

Since there was no insider trading, what did she lie about?

Why do people hate success, especially when it doesn't grovel to every parasitic slime that crawls out from under the rocks to criticize when they think it's safe?

Hank

[decimon]

She laid the tracks to the prison cell with her lies.

From what I've read, she never lied under oath. LEOs can lie to us in the course of an investigation but we can be jailed for lying to them. Don't think I like that.

[UCANSEE2]

Not innocent, true.

Prosecutable yes.


Why her, though? Why not the others who routinely use insider trading to make much much more on their investments than YOU?

Well, now, we don't want the public knowing that the insiders use their knowledge to profit, which means they are STEALING FROM YOU, if you don't have the same insider info.

Must keep the game protected. Must keep the investing public happy so they invest their dollars, so we can make millions of dollars.

[an amused spectator]

Many people don't understand that almost anyone can be "gotten" by the "authorities" if it's deemed necessary.

A person with Stewart's means could hire enough "eyes" to put more than half the jury, or members of their families, in jail for felonies within five years. It would be inevitable, with the legal code becoming almost as complex as the tax code.

[Truth29]

If she did anything else, she certainly wasn't tried for it. Like juror number 8, you sound like you are convicting her of alleged crimes not before the court.

[Redleg Duke]

Looks like Martha Stewart has unleashed a troll onto Free Republic. "g_f_axelsen...member since March 9th, 2004".

[edsheppa]

I really, really detest intellectual dishonesty.

[Helms]

This was a case where Rush's 1.5% chance of being wrong kicks in. But also it is this as well:

Tragic flaw From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

A tragic flaw, in literature is the one problem an otherwise perfect protagonist (often called the tragic hero) has, that eventually brings him down in the end.

The concept was created in ancient Greek tragedy. More often than not, the tragic flaw is hubris, such as in the works Antigone and Oedipus Rex.

[UCANSEE2]

She made the mistake of lying, repeatedly, about a federal crime.

She did not tell investigators the truth. If the police arrest you in the street, you also do not have to tell them anything or tell them the truth. It is your right. They must provide the proof, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO INCRIMINATE YOURSELF.

She also, based on her position as a broker and as a board member, knew better. She knew the rules, and didn't follow them.

And she KNEW everyone else in positions like hers was getting away with it. This does not justify the crime, but sure would make one believe that they could get away with it, and not consider they would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

She was given ample chance to ammend her statements, and then she was given several chances to plead out.

So, now you are saying she should have 'changed her story', and instead of taking the blows for the crime, plead out, and avoid responsibility for her actions? You can't seem to make up your mind.

This is no ones fault but Martha's. Sometimes people have to stand up and accept accountability for their actions.

You started off stating that she did and has taken responsibility, faced a trial, been convicted, going to jail. What'd you want her to do, PLEAD OUT?

[Cboldt]

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr18169.htm

A still-pending case that is very relevant to the discussion, but is seldom mentioned.

[Hank Kerchief]

She made the mistake of lying, repeatedly, about a federal crime.

What federal crime?

Hank

[CharacterCounts]

Non violent short term (less than 2 years) federal prisoners are sent to a facities that have no bars at all. The are more like a college campus than a prison. She will be permitted to check herself out about twicw a week to go shopping at the nearest town. She may even have some menial job for her in the local town which she can report to daily. Her living quarters will be similar to a dorm room with no locks. She will be required to perform duties at the facility or risk losing her priviliges. There are no guards per se, however she will be required to answer a check in two to three times daily.

It will not be the most pleasant of circumstances, but will be far better than a prison. If, however, she refuses to follow the rules, she will be shipped to a medium security prison with real fences, guards and bars.

I can tell you this because I have represented these types of individuals in the past. Additionaly, the government will take extraordinary measure to insure that no harm befalls Ms. Stewart. They simply do not want the bad press that would result.

My prediction is that Ms. Stewart will be a model prisoner for her short stay (she may be arrogant, but she's not stupid) and make a significant recovery in financial terms once she is released.

[xusafflyer]

Spoken like her defense attorney :)

I'm just following human nature. Something like this just doesn't happen spur of the moment and only once.

[rdb3]

Why her, though? Why not the others who routinely use insider trading to make much much more on their investments than YOU?

She was the one charged and tried. Let the others be charged and tried. They have not so far. She has. And has been convicted.

Well, now, we don't want the public knowing that the insiders use their knowledge to profit, which means they are STEALING FROM YOU, if you don't have the same insider info.

We're talking about two different things. I'm talking about Martha Stewart specifically. In this case, she was all that mattered or should have mattered.

Must keep the game protected. Must keep the investing public happy so they invest their dollars, so we can make millions of dollars.

You are most welcome to your opinions. However, this is outside the purview of this case.

Show 'em my motto!

[BlueNgold]

Your right to avoid self-incrimination does not extend to allow you the right to lie about details or make knowingly false statements to protect yourself and others. Your right to avoid self-incrimination gives you the right not to answer - period.

I'm saying that she was given the opportunity to correct her known misiniformative statements, call it changing her story if you wish, but she lied ... she was given the chance to come clean long before this ever went to a grand jury. Had she done so she likely would have been compelled as a witness in the related cases, but not charged.

Once again .. why do people feel the need to defend their fave celebrities? She lied. She got caught. She went down. All this griping about fixing the corruption of corp America, just as long as it's not Martha ... what a load of hooey.

[rdb3]

LEOs can lie to us in the course of an investigation but we can be jailed for lying to them. Don't think I like that.

Whas has that to do with this case?

Show 'em my motto!

[biblewonk]

She sold the equivalent of ten dollars worth of stock on the advice of her broker, or was it a friend of hers? Whoopteedoo, where's the crime?

[BlueNgold]

Federal Crime of insider trading (not her, Waxel(sp)). Her buddy from ImClone was under investigation, which is how they came to even look at Martha in the first place. It was a legitimate investigation, and he went down hard. In the course of their investigation they came upon evidence leading them to Martha. When they interviewed her, she lied. That is what she was covincted of - giving knowingly false statements to investigators.

The feds didn't just pull her name out of thin air, people. The $$ trail and communications records trail led them to her. She could have avoided all of this, but she chose not to. Her bad decision cost her millions, and maybe her freedom.