Martha Stewart guilty on all counts

AP/MSNBC | March 5, 2004 | unknown

[Bonaparte]

Only a certifiable idiot would sell the stock before contacting the authorities. You can't have it both ways. Either you participate in a criminal conspiracy or you don't.

[Muleteam1]

>>She's nothing but a common criminal.<<

Yes indeed. A rich criminal, but still a criminal.

Muleteam1

[Nick Danger]

What's next? Is this "old news"? Is it time to "move on"?

Me too. I was quite active on FR during the Clinton impeachment. I remember well how people with emotional investments in Clinton would twist reality into every kind of pretzel to avoid dealing with the fact that "their guy" had just perjured himself on national television. He didn't say it. If he did say it, it was no big deal. If lying under oath is a big deal, then everybody does it. If everybody doesn't do it, then it's all about sex.

This is deja vuvu.

If somebody can explain why this case was flawed, and why it will be overturned on appeal, I'm all ears. But I'm really disappointed to hear standard-issue Clintonian excuses for perjury.

[Bonaparte]

"If she were just some wealthy housewife playing the market who was unaware of the law, I'd say to cut her some slack and lay it all on the broker."

Ah, the "housewife" exclusion to the insider trading statutes. Great idea, Ditto! I think I'll become a "housewife" (I can now do that in San Francisco) and then embark on a lucrative career as an inside trader. Can't wait to get started!

[Lando Lincoln]

Martha repeatedly messed up. Had she admitted her screw-up when she was first investigated, and apologized, she would likely have receceived only a token civil penalty. Her pride, power and arrogance is what may put her in the slammer.

Lando

[Bonaparte]

It's always the cover-up, as they say.

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

Ah, well. I think she was railroaded. But I can't say I like her very much.

I agree. The person who was at fault was her broker, who had no business telling Martha of any insider information. In a way it is kind of like entrapment. Martha did not go out looking for insider information, it was placed in her lap by her broker.

We are a nation of laws, despite Bill Clinton's efforts to the contrary. The law says that if you receive inside information, and you know it is inside information, you may not act on it. It doesn't matter if you are the CEO of the company, his broker, or another client. It doesn't matter if you found the information left in a public toilet. If it is non-public information, you have an unfair advantage over the general public, and acting upon it is patently and specifically illegal. Martha knew the information came straight from the horse's mouth (Waksal) and acting upon this insider information is a clear violation of the law.

There was an insider trading case in the 1970s which involved employees of Sorg Printing. Sorg was one of the primary printers of financial documents in the country. If a corporate raider wanted to attempt to take over another company, documents had to be printed in advance, in preparation for the surprise announcement. Some of the printers actually took the time to read the stuff they were printing, and, like knowing tomorrow's lottery numbers today, were able to make tons of money. They were caught, convicted and imprisoned.

By the way, getting Bette Currie to hide Monica's gifts under her bed is also obstruction of justice. Martha Stewart is not above the law, but Bill Clinton is.

[Bonaparte]

Hey, Nick! Where's the little gumshoe guy?

[sharris]

Martha!......welcome to Cell Block Living!!!

[Ditto]

I think I'll become a "housewife" (I can now do that in San Francisco) and then embark on a lucrative career as an inside trader. Can't wait to get started!

LOL. Make lots of money and fancy cookies too? Want to get married? ;~))

I think the point is that the broker would have never told the wealthy housewife. Martha is an insider. That's why she got tiped.

[cupcakes]

Martha Stewart is the head of a company, she is not your average person who doesn't know of regulations in the stock market. As a broker once, I can tell you that there are disclosure documents for someone of her stature. She is held to a higher standard, and rightly so, as far as knowing and behaving within the boundaries of securities' laws. You can rest assured that as the head of a publicly traded company she is not your average investor who didn't know that she could not act on that insider information.

[cupcakes]

BTW, it is a appropriate her broker also got in trouble. He too is held to a higher standard in regards to securities trading.

[cupcakes]

Well said Hodar. I didn't even know the rest of her background. Given that she was certainly more than aware that she could not act on insider trading. Any peon broker or trader knows that.

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

If you owned $50,000 in let's say, Kodak shares, would you sell them Monday if you got a call over the weekend that the company was going belly-up due to the conversion to digital photography vs. celluoid film? I anxiously await your answer.

Although the ethically challenged might perceive a dilemma here, there is really something that easily trumps ethics in cases such as this. That something is a paper trail. You can't take your Kodak (or Imclone) shares down to the corner of Wall and Broad, or sell them on E-Bay. When you sell them, there is going to be a serious paper trail. Even those of us with less than perfect morals will think twice before we perform an act, no matter how lucrative, for which we are very likely to be prosecuted.

If a big bag of money falls off an armored vehicle, a totally honest person will return it no matter what. But, even a dishonest person will think long and hard about keeping the money if he notices that there is a camera at the traffic signal, and it is pointing right at him.

[DCPatriot]

"Only a certifiable idiot would sell the stock before contacting the authorities. You can't have it both ways. Either you participate in a criminal conspiracy or you don't."

So....you would sell the stock 1st thing after talking to the FBI?

You'd have to be a certifiable idiot NOT to sell the stock at some point given the infomation you were given.

What would you do? Wait until the stock was worthless? Now THAT's an idiot!

Cheers!

[Bonaparte]

The hilarious part is that all this erupted over amounts that were far from substantial, especially to people like Stewart and her broker. A $50K loss? Not even a blip to Martha. And Bocanovic is another cheapstake bean counter. Do you know what he dangled in front of Faneuil to buy his silence? A few inexpensive perks. Who did he think this boy was, a grape picker?

[JimRed]

She's nothing but a common criminal.

Agreed, but I'll bet she doesn't get put into the general population with the whores and junkies. Now THAT would be justice!

[Bonaparte]

"So....you would sell the stock 1st thing after talking to the FBI?"

No. I just told you I would not trade on that stock. Read my post again.

"What would you do? Wait until the stock was worthless? Now THAT's an idiot!"

You've clearly had little experience in the market. Once you become aware that your broker is engaging in a criminal conspiracy like this and has solicited you to join him in a crime, you have no choice but to freeze all activity on that stock and rat him out. If you take a hit on your investment, you just have to sue him. It's called risk. If you can't handle it, you shouldn't be trading.

[Bonaparte]

No, she won't be doing "hard" time. She'll be in a country club minimum security lock-up like Milken was. She'll have her cel, her tennis, etc. Her hair dresser and cosmetic surgeon will visit her on a regular basis. Real punishment is for us little people.

[wingnuts'nbolts]

Oh common! She was head of the SEC and a Stock Broker herself. She was just plain avaricious and above the law.
Not innocent and not railroaded!