Martha Stewart guilty on all counts

AP/MSNBC | March 5, 2004 | unknown

[Bonaparte]

Updated: 4:01 p.m. ET March 05, 2004 NEW YORK - Martha Stewart was convicted Friday of obstructing justice and lying to the government about a superbly timed stock sale, a devastating verdict that probably means prison for the woman who epitomizes meticulous homemaking and gracious living. In a statement, Stewart said she would appeal the verdict.

More...

[bogdanPolska12]

Stop you killing me laughing my wife is laughing so hysterical now. These are classic

[Osage Orange]

You wrote:

"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."

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Were you aware that Martha herself...used to be a broker. And also held a seat on the NYSE?

Fwiw-

[Bonaparte]

"...can buy their way out of doing hard time."

It bothers me too, seawolf. But there's no perfect justice on this earth. Good lawyering costs money, so the wealthy and influential will always have an advantage the rest of us don't have.

I try to look at it this way -- Stewart is a completely egocentric, penny-pinching narcissist. The whole world now knows that she's losing millions and millions of dollars all because she stupidly tried to saved some chump change on a minor item in her portfolio and then got caught in lies that a kindergartener could see through. And she's going to lose big at the receiving end of a shareholders' suit.

IOW, it sucks to be her.

[calcowgirl]

[bogdanPolska12]

"...I would immediately drop a dime on the criminal who passed me that information. I would be meeting with my lawyer that morning. I would be meeting with the SEC that afternoon. And I would be meeting with the FBI that evening."
Yes, but would you SELL the stock before you called the lawyer? ;^)


No I rather loose that money then break a law and spent time in jail. I agree with Bonaparte on this I would do same thing.

[Bonaparte]

You mean securities fraud, conspiracy, making false statements to the FBI (among others) and obstruction of justice aren't enough for a finding of guilty? Of course she covered up for Bacanovic, but she also covered up for her own felonies. The judge's refusal to allow Stewart's lawyer to remind the jury that his client didn't committ a crime she was not even being tried for is hardly objectionable. Such a "reminder" would have been an irrelevancy and the prosecutors would have rightly objected. So why should an experienced judge waste everybody's time with an avoidable waste of time?

[cornelis]

Ah too hell with it, a dollop of Cool Wip'll do (Steyn)

[DCPatriot]

Your reply was tasteful and I yield to the expert.

Sure you're not one of them 2 liars, huh? ;^)

[PFKEY]

8 of 10 Freepers would have done the same thing under her same circumstances.

PS: And the other 2 Freepers are liars.Not to be critical here but I think you are wrong.

Just because it might be something you would consider does not mean that it is the standard.

I wouldn't have convicted Martha but I beleive as the following quote states she knew what the risks were and well she got caught.

I also think she will server a year in a Fed prision then come out and pick up where she left off.

She is a smart woman and will continue to be successful.

She might want to reconsider her stand on moral issues.

If this were 'Joe Average', I might consider some liency, however Martha Stewart is hardly an average person when it comes to trading. Martha Stewart was a licensed broker for over 20 years. Prior to appearing in public to face charges, she resigned her seat on the NYSE. Not only did she know better, she was in a position where getting insider information was a daily occurance; and knew she was legally and morally obligated to ignore it when it came to trading. Martha was very foolish, she KNEW what she was doing was illegal, thus began covering her tracks immediately - even before the formal charges were made. This may only be the first time she's been caught; if you are willing to assume a person who did indeed do this (and had her day in court) NEVER contimplated doing the exact same thing for over 20 years. There is a distinct liklihood that this is just the first time she's been caught.

I did see your sarcasm tag but decided to comment to you just as a convient way of stating my opinion.

Thanks...

[DCPatriot]

Well there's one sure way to find out.

We could start an honest Vanity thread. A Freeper Poll: Would You Have Sold Your Stock If You Were Martha? We'll try to write a cohorent essay of sorts on the thesis that...if people are honest, they would have sold their stock first chance they got. Just like Martha.

I'm cynical enough to think there is a little larceny in all of us.

I suppose we could break it down in terms of morals...the purchaser(s) of the stock she sold that day...in effect got hosed. One party knows a secret that could "damage" the consideration of value...all parties should know.

But what if it was held by a Day Trader who sold it hours later. How far down the pipeline is she liable.

I don't believe she should see any jail time, but rather an extremely high monetary fine. Something that would "hurt" her at that moment.

I believe that Martha's just won the lottery in terms of movie and book contracts. She'll be back stronger than ever because she's the best in her field. She's got that Donal Trump "luck". Hard work and dedication.

[DCPatriot]

And you're right about her being held to a higher standard just on job resume experience alone. Her personality status aside.

[Bonaparte]

"I suppose we could break it down in terms of morals...the purchaser(s) of the stock she sold that day...in effect got hosed."

They did indeed -- as did the shareholders in her own publicly company, which, because of her criminal wrongdoings, has gone into a tailspin. She will be facing those shareholders in court.

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

Actually, the law is a bit more complex than that; you must violate a legal or fiduciary duty of some kind to be guilty of insider trading.

Your statement is totally inaccurate, with all due respect. There is no necessity for any legal or fiduciary duty to be violated in order for it to be insider trading. Here is a good link.

The story you related about the psychiatrist is a true one, and I believe the doctor/patient privilege was violated in that case. However, it is not necessary for a fiduciary relationship, a doctor/patient relationship, or a lawyer/client relationship to exist, nor any fiduciary responsibility whatsoever. If you trade on insider information for your own personal account, you are committing a serious crime.

Question: If her Imclone stock sale was "insider trading", then why was Martha Stewart not charged with insider trading? Answer: It wasn't legally considered insider trading.

I believe you are incorrect. She wasn't charged because the prosecution did not feel that they could prove their case. It was much easier for them to prove that she lied about what she did than to prove that what she did met the requirements for insider trading (which, I believe, is clearly the case. She had non-public information, of considerable value, and knew that the source was the CEO of the company.)

[AmericaUnited]

she would have taken an approximate $50K loss if she'd sold it honestly.

That's like a guy worth $100k, robbing someone for $100.

[PFKEY]

I'm cynical enough to think there is a little larceny in all of us.

Well the temptation is the same for all of us. Now, how we handle that temptaion determines our character. Martha has a character flaw. But then again don't we all.

I too do not beleive she should do time and a heavy fine would be a suffecient consequence.

You are absoluty right in that see will be back stronger than ever.

I really like Martha a lot despite her other glaring flaw of being a liberal.

Some of my best freinds are liberals.

We just can talk about politics and be friends at the same time.

[gg188]

Martha Stewart convicted of, and about to do time for, lying.

Convicted of lying---same thing as Bill Clinton, but Billie boy didn't do time!

But I distinctly remember Martha being one of Bill's hags a few years back, hoping to sleep with the Rapist-in-Chief. I bet she feels abandoned! Her prosecution is in New York. Oh---Hillary's New York. It becomes clearer...:-)

[nmh]

Martha knew EXACTLY what she did. This is why she changed the e-mail. She was also a Wall Street trader. She has NO excuse for what she did. As a former trader she knows this IS breaking the law. She is getting what she deserves.

[nmh]

You know it! It bears repeating:

"If this were 'Joe Average', I might consider some liency, however Martha Stewart is hardly an average person when it comes to trading. Martha Stewart was a licensed broker for over 20 years. Prior to appearing in public to face charges, she resigned her seat on the NYSE. Not only did she know better, she was in a position where getting insider information was a daily occurance; and knew she was legally and morally obligated to ignore it when it came to trading."

"Martha was very foolish, she KNEW what she was doing was illegal, thus began covering her tracks immediately - even before the formal charges were made. This may only be the first time she's been caught; if you are willing to assume a person who did indeed do this (and had her day in court) NEVER contimplated doing the exact same thing for over 20 years. There is a distinct liklihood that this is just the first time she's been caught."

[nmh]

"It's a good thing."


Mind if I second that?

;)

[nmh]

What's hilarious is that the FDA has since APPROVED the drug! Ye of little faith ... . No kidding.