The Sleazy Political Persecution of Martha

Prosecutorial bullies usually try such cases in the press and then intimidate their victims into 'settling' without bothersome due process.

Believe it or not, the government now charges Martha Stewart with "securities fraud" during that same period because she supposedly tried in vain to prop up her own stock by denying that she was guilty of the crime then charged -- insider trading. Yet the government now admits she was never guilty of that crime. Instead, she supposedly "obstructed justice" (her own threatened prosecution for a nonexistent crime) and made "false and misleading statements" about her reasons for making a perfectly legal sale of ImClone shares. Any jury of passably sane people would laugh this out of court.

It was the "sources close to a Congressional investigation" that defrauded MSO investors a year ago. That political persecution was aided and abetted by the tabloid press, notably The New York Times.

The SEC recycled this government trash and came up with a civil charge of sorts. Yet the SEC's complaint effectively refutes both its own charges and those of the government. The SEC says, "Stewart asked Faneuil for the current market price of ImClone shares and was given a quote of approximately $58 a share. Stewart then instructed Faneuil to sell." That is exactly why Stewart said she sold ImClone that day -- the price was falling fast. Faneuil's now claims he told her that the Waksal family was selling, but not why (Waksal did not say). But the SEC refutes Faneuil's new story too by saying, "Stewart then immediately called Waksal [after selling her ImClone shares], and left the following message: "Martha Stewart [called] something is going on with ImClone and she wants to know what." The fact that she had to ask that question proves Martha Stewart did not know what was going on with ImClone after talking to Faneuil and selling her shares. End of story. Case closed.

The SEC says Martha Stewart saved $45,673 by selling late on December 27 rather than on Dec. 31. SEC attorney Wayne Carlin tells reporters it was "unfair" of Martha Stewart to sell her remaining shares in ImClone so promptly (she had "unfairly" unloaded many more ImClone shares in October). But unfair is not illegal. The smart money had gotten out by Dec. 14, when ImClone was $70, and the smartest money was shorting 77 million shares by then.

It took the government a year to fabricate three new offences, all of which amount to the same charge of giving a supposedly misleading explanation for a perfectly legal stock sale. This newly refabricated case is not about illegal lying at all: Martha Stewart has not been charged with perjury. Perjury is one of the fabled "nine counts" that is not hers, but her broker's. In a more important sense, however, this case has always been about lying. There was Congressional lying a year ago about Martha Stewart's alleged tip from Sam Wacksal. And what little remains of that discarded case is now based entirely on the testimony of a proven liar, Douglas Faneuil. He says he was lying before (when he supported Stewart's recollection) but has converted to telling the truth now (when he supports the government's story). Yet this is a fellow who admits his past testimony has been for sale, and any gift Mr. Faneuil may have gotten from his boss was token change compared to being offered only a misdemeanor wrist slap and let off without even a dollar fine.

So what is Martha Stewart's crime? The New York Times, exemplifying its notoriously creative journalism, now editorializes that Martha Stewart engaged in an "illegal stock trade" and " was tipped by insiders that the Food and Drug Administration was not going to approve" Erbitux. That is just more lying from the source that spread the same lie a year ago.

In reality, Martha Stewart stands accused of saying she could not recall details of a two-minute phone conversation on Dec. 27, 2001, while the government claims to know precisely what she recalled. She also stands accused of sometimes confusing her broker with her broker's assistant. Her broker, in turn, is charged with using two different pens, quite possibly on the same day.

And Martha Stewart herself stands accused of altering a computer record of a phone call, even though she immediately "directed her assistant to return the message to its original wording." Did the government ever really intend to ask a jury to send Martha Stewart to prison for such heinous "offences against the United States"? Not likely.

Prosecutorial bullies are accustomed to trying such cases in the press and then intimidating their victims into "settling" (writing big checks) without bothersome due process. In this non-case, however, the government would be smarter to settle out of court by handing Martha Stewart a big check to compensate for a year of slanderous lies and leaks about her.

If this sleazy mess ever goes to court, the architects of the fiasco will have to sneak out of court under umbrellas to avoid journalists' embarrassing questions.

Yes she was on the NYSE board...so she like her hero Hillary REALY believe that through "special training", she has the RIGHT to abuse the rules and twist the procedures to do things "their way". Hillary used the rules of Law to break the laws as did Martha...

She is going down...because of all people, (due to her status, power and UNDERSTANDING of right and wrong manipulations concerning PUBLICALLY HELD companies)she knew better than to TRY to jack with the Feds and the SEC.

She is going to go down because she LIED. The others (waskell and the 2 lil brokers) have finally given enough testimony and documets to SEAL Martha's lying mouth shut.

The orginal LIE was she had a "Stop Loss" order in...what she isn't telling is WHY she decided it wasn't a mere stock market "hiccup" BUT was really going to NOSE DIVE due to "pending" FDA announcement. Hence the phone calls made all around that morning...(people who place STOP LOSS orders do so because they are too busy to watch the market and want to secure their gains without playing the ticker by the minute or hour).

SOOOOOOOO She WAS given the inside skinny. WHAT she had hoped for was that her "Half Lie" would be covered up with the her "Half Truth". WELL well well in this case...Waskell and company have decided to come forward with the REAL TRUTH and Martha has suddenly been given an ultimatum...to CO-OPERTATE with the FEDS...BUT (to save her lying face) she chose NOT to and has decided to play the Hillary Victim game instead (another classic move by a Hillary worshipper).

'CEPT this time the victim game isn't gonna fly, she is a full fledge loser, and has nothing to bail her out OR to make her sympathetic.

The F_T_D poster here is doing nothing but spinning the "Martha is a vicrim news" to help inflate his stock purchase. BTW, F_T_D has made the first fatal mistake in stock buying and selling...HE (she) has gotten "emotionally" involved.

If it makes you feel any better to believe that the law makes it happen this way, go ahead an believe. But you evidently haven't got a clue what investment bankers do, and how IPOs are promoted.

Err...actually I do have a clue, I worked at Merrill Lynch for several years ;-) The folks arguing so hard for Martha are the ones who don't have a clue why this activity has to be illegal for the market to work effectively. I know that IPO's aren't a fair game for the average investor, but we are talking about shares that are already in play on the public market. When that is the case, insider info not only unfairly helps the "tippee", but it defrauds the shareholders who are not "tippees". It is STEALING from them.

Err...actually I do have a clue...

The folks arguing so hard for Martha are the ones who don't have a clue why this activity has to be illegal for the market to work effectively.

Err... She hasn't been charged with insider trading, has she?

There's a reason for that.

It's practically impossible to prove unless you plea-bargain with a rat to testify against somebody, and there is no way of knowing whether the rat is telling the truth or saving his little rat ass.

But I take it your perfectly comfortable with rat-justce.

I know very little about Martha Stewart and did not even know that she was close to the Clintons. I did know she was a Democrat but had never endorsed or campaigned for a Democratic candidate in New York State. Too many Republicans buy her books and videos for her to get too political I would imagine.

What everyone seems to be missing here is the egregious abuse of Prosecutorial discretion on the part of the SEC and US Attorneys in this case. Technical reporting violations as alleged in the indictment are not normally handled this way. The SEC would usally attempt to extract a consent decree; money would be given to Government but both sides would be able to save face. The Government did NOT EVEN TRY to make an insider trading case because the eveidence of that is ridiculously weak.

There is something odd about this indictment and the timimg of it. It is possible that Martha's high profile legal team may have pissed off the Feds and pushed them into into indicting. While that is possible my conviction is that some political axe is being ground with this indictment.

As has been documented many of the "insider trading" cases of the late 1980s as indirect way of stopping hostile takeovers. When most of these convictions were overturned it became obvious that there was strong political pressure behind some of the indictments.

When the political motivation behind the Michael Milken and other prosecutions of that era came out no one really seeemed to care that much. In the public's eye Milken was a greedy parasite; So what if he had been legally railroaded?

I am sensing a similar callousness toward Martha as she is subjected to what seems to me be an unfair prosecution. Martha is rich and her whole persona seems to really irritate the hell out of a lot of working professional women for some reason. Martha seems to get particularly harsh treatment from female reporters. Whatever the reason Martha is not being portrayed sympathetically by the media.

Stepping back from this entire situation I have concluded that Martha has become "collateral damage" in the Government's desire to "get" Sam Waiksal the former CEO of ImClone. My hunch is that this entire threat of prosecution was brought against Martha to use as leverage against Sam Waiksal. That the the Federal Government is apparently pursuing vendettas against private individuals should give everyone pause.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.