Martha = Guilty

optimusprime

optimusprime

CAGiversary!
.....on all 4 counts. How about that? I really kind of thought she'd get off. In any case, she got what she had coming. Discuss?
 
i heard that its 5 years for every guilty count. but since we are in america and she has money she will only get 6 to 8 months or community service. if she does go to jail and bush looses the election than bush will pardon her and she will be free by the end of the year
 
Pfffft! Like any prison could hold Martha! This is the woman who can, like, turn a pile of newspaper and a old pumpkin into a heirloom quality couch. She's female MacGyver, man. She'll escape within the first 2 weeks.
 
To be honest, I have to say I thought she was innocent. I didn't know until about a month ago that she used to be a stockbroker. I would have thought that, being someone who actually worked the trade, she would have been less likely to think she could get away with it.

It also didn't seem to me that she had much motive to do the sale. She would have lost about $40,000 by waiting until the news was announced. That's not a lot of money to her.

I'm sure the truth of the matter is somewhere between what the prosecution says it is and what the defense claims.
 
[quote name='Spiritseed']I personally don't care about her, it's O.J. that needs to be in jail.[/quote]

But how can anyone overcome the Chewbaca defense?
 
my grandpa was once on martha stewart's show. back in the days where being on her show was full of pride, not embarassment and shame. no, i definitely don't care, she got what was coming to her. you do the crime, you do the time, especially martha stewart. :?
 
[quote name='jmcc']Pfffft! Like any prison could hold Martha! This is the woman who can, like, turn a pile of newspaper and a old pumpkin into a heirloom quality couch. She's female MacGyver, man. She'll escape within the first 2 weeks.[/quote]

She won't escape, she won't be pardoned, but Better Homes and Gardens will do a 16 page photo spread on the most nicely appointed prison cell in America.
 
Ironically the company she insider traded with, ImClone, has shown results in treating cancer. (sorry I can't remember where I read this)

Regardless of how the trial plays out, there's some benefit coming out of it
 
I don't get why Martha Stewart if being pounded on by the government for a few thousand dollars worth of insider trades when multi-million dollar scandal-heading jokers like Ken Lay (who helped defraud Enron) are still free to enjoy their stolen assets. If we're going to suddenly start holding people accountable for financial mismanagement, we should go for the biggest fish we can find.
 
I agree with MaxBiaggi. Its just that the biggest fish are the ones running America *ahem* Halliburton *cough*, so of course they're untouchable.

Honestly I don't think Ms. Stewart was capable of such trading, not because of her personality, but because it just takes a shrewd business type to do that. I really don't think she has that in her, or she was misled or something.
 
[quote name='MaxBiaggi3']I don't get why Martha Stewart if being pounded on by the government for a few thousand dollars worth of insider trades when multi-million dollar scandal-heading jokers like Ken Lay (who helped defraud Enron) are still free to enjoy their stolen assets. If we're going to suddenly start holding people accountable for financial mismanagement, we should go for the biggest fish we can find.[/quote]

You are overlooking the people who had to buy the crap stock that she was selling. :roll:
 
[quote name='MaxBiaggi3']I don't get why Martha Stewart if being pounded on by the government for a few thousand dollars worth of insider trades when multi-million dollar scandal-heading jokers like Ken Lay (who helped defraud Enron) are still free to enjoy their stolen assets. If we're going to suddenly start holding people accountable for financial mismanagement, we should go for the biggest fish we can find.[/quote]

1. You can't justify bad behavior with other worse behavior.

2. You're right: Lay, Ebbers and the rest of the corporate crooks are worse, but it will be a lot more difficult to go after these people. There is just conjecture and heresay (after all the shredding that was done), and the witnesses testifying against them will all be people who are getting deals from the DA (it will be a lot of he-said, she-said). This illustrates the real problem of our justice system.....all logic is thrown out the window, and everything must be followed exactly to the letter of the law....letting obvious crooks like this walk when everyone knows they were guilty as hell.
 
[quote name='Lstorm34']i heard that its 5 years for every guilty count. but since we are in america and she has money she will only get 6 to 8 months or community service. if she does go to jail and bush looses the election than bush will pardon her and she will be free by the end of the year[/quote]

Since the charges are related, the sentences probably won't be concurrent...I'm not up on the legalese, but the news report I saw earlier today said the charges weren't stackable. The defense is going for probation, but the MOST she'll probably serve would be 1-2 years tops.
 
I read that she could get up to 20 years, but it's up to the judge. She could (and probably will) serve a lighter sentence.
 
This conviction is a joke. Wasting our tax dollars on shit like this pisses me off. Just like the whole Monica Lewinsky scandal. :roll: Get a fucking life and go catch some REAL criminals you fucking worthless lackeys!
 
Glad she got convicted. Evidence proofs that she did the insider trading, she cheated hard working plp out of $$$$, she's just a scammer.
 
The people would have been served trying to get her to cough up some resitution like 10 million or something. Whats the point of Martha in jail?

Also how many people lost money in Martha Stewart Living stock? And why..because of some unrelated stock and criminal investigation. I dont think Martha deserved this. Maybe a serious fine and some warnings about stock trading.

Hell..all of wall street is corrupt and full of inside trading. Why target Martha?

I hope they dont put her in jail. If you didnt commit a violent crime you shouldnt have to be in a prison away from the population. She should get probation, community service, and the stiffest fine possible.
 
Martha Stewart used to work for a brokerage firm so it's not like she accidently broke the law. She deserves to go to jail because paying a fine - even a steep one - is not enough punishment for her. A little jail time and my guess is that this won't happen again...
 
)she sure as hell did deserve this. She KNEW what she was doing was wrong. It is not like a normal person did this, she was a stockbroker and she knew the rules (like in Wall Street, Bud Fox knew the rules and he still went to jail even though he was likable)



On Ken Lay, at least he has been indicted and they have the pieces set up to take him down. They do not want a Tyco type ending and want to nail this guy (bush will probably make it a campaign issue and say he is tough on corporate criminals :lol: )


Also, do not blame anyone but fine men and women who serve and protect LA for OJ being free. If they had not fucked up all the evidence in the case, he would not have gotten off.
 
The problem is the public is pissed about Enron and Worldcom and most of these other scandals. The government is putting these very famous people behind bars hoping to restore our confidence in the stock market. The fact of the matter is that these examples are only the tip of the ice burg but the government wants you to believe that the SEC has everything under control. When in fact they do not.
 
[quote name='magilacudy']I agree with MaxBiaggi. Its just that the biggest fish are the ones running America *ahem* Halliburton *cough*, so of course they're untouchable.

Honestly I don't think Ms. Stewart was capable of such trading, not because of her personality, but because it just takes a shrewd business type to do that. I really don't think she has that in her, or she was misled or something.[/quote]

You do NOT think she is the shrewd business type? Clearly you are niave... she used to be a stock broker!!! She got to where she is in life because she is a shrewd business person that stepped on many to get where she is :shock:
 
This is bullshit. She is only getting this because she's famous. The only illegal thing she ever did was lie. Sure her other actions were immoral but not illegal. It disgusts me that she might get 20 years in jail, but Kenneth Lay, whose crimes are far worse, will probably get nothing.
 
[quote name='Tromack']This is bullshit. She is only getting this because she's famous. The only illegal thing she ever did was lie. Sure her other actions were immoral but not illegal. It disgusts me that she might get 20 years in jail, but Kenneth Lay, whose crimes are far worse, will probably get nothing.[/quote]

Not illegal? On what are you basing this? Please check out SEC Rule 10b-5 (and a bunch of others). Believe me, what she did was about as illegal as it gets.
 
[quote name='Tromack']This is bullshit. She is only getting this because she's famous. The only illegal thing she ever did was lie. Sure her other actions were immoral but not illegal. It disgusts me that she might get 20 years in jail, but Kenneth Lay, whose crimes are far worse, will probably get nothing.[/quote]

gettting information before the public so that you can cash out before your company takes a dive is legal?

If it is people like Ken Lay and Skilling should not go to jail I guess because they did the same. They lied to the public and costs thousands of people their pensions, but all they did was lie
 
News Alert

Martha Stewart was sentenced to five months in prison and five months of home confinement, and was fined $30,000. Ahead of the sentencing, Ms. Stewart asked the judge to "remember all the good I have done."

according to the WSJ
 
[quote name='bluefalcon']News Alert

Martha Stewart was sentenced to five months in prison and five months of home confinement, and was fined $30,000. Ahead of the sentencing, Ms. Stewart asked the judge to "remember all the good I have done."[/quote]

ummm.....look about 5 posts above you and you'll see that that 'alert' has been posted allready.
 
[quote name='javeryh'][quote name='Tromack']This is bullshit. She is only getting this because she's famous. The only illegal thing she ever did was lie. Sure her other actions were immoral but not illegal. It disgusts me that she might get 20 years in jail, but Kenneth Lay, whose crimes are far worse, will probably get nothing.[/quote]

Not illegal? On what are you basing this? Please check out SEC Rule 10b-5 (and a bunch of others). Believe me, what she did was about as illegal as it gets.[/quote]

If it is so illegal why wasn't she charged for it? No, she was only charged for lying about it.

And interesting side note. My dad knew Martha back when she was a broker. Not too well, but he knew her. He said that when she announced in a meeting that she was quitting to become a professional hostess, some guy in the meeting said, "What? You are becoming a hooker?"
 
It is 8 posts.. But your is just a tad bit different then my post.. I was a we bit more specific. Also 2 years probation from what?
 
[quote name='bluefalcon']It is 8 posts.. But your is just a tad bit different then my post.. I was a we bit more specific. Also 2 years probation from what?[/quote]

Yeah, Ericnmel99 didn't mention the fine.
 
[quote name='Tromack'][quote name='javeryh'][quote name='Tromack']This is bullshit. She is only getting this because she's famous. The only illegal thing she ever did was lie. Sure her other actions were immoral but not illegal. It disgusts me that she might get 20 years in jail, but Kenneth Lay, whose crimes are far worse, will probably get nothing.[/quote]

Not illegal? On what are you basing this? Please check out SEC Rule 10b-5 (and a bunch of others). Believe me, what she did was about as illegal as it gets.[/quote]

If it is so illegal why wasn't she charged for it? No, she was only charged for lying about it. [/quote]

She was charged with it. It's called insider trading - there's a whole tippee/tipper analysis that goes along with it but I won't go into detail about it here. Basically it is acting on information not known to the general public that was given to her by someone with the intent that she benefit from such information. The information must be material, i.e. information that which a reasonable investor would take into consideration when deciding to buy or sell stock. She was in possession of the material information and she acted on it therefore she is guilty.
 
If it were me I would have fined her 40,000usd, I mean thats what she would have lost if she didn't follow insider trading right?
 
for all the people saying the justice system was too hard on her, think of Sam Wascal.

He is serving 7 years, she get 5 months. I do not think she deserves any pity
 
What about all the jobs that were lost due to the beating that Martha Stewart Living took? Ads were withdrawn from the magazine and the only ally left is k-mart.

She made $50,000, and the government needed to crucify someone even if it meant putting people out on the streets.
 
[quote name='javeryh'][quote name='Tromack'][quote name='javeryh'][quote name='Tromack']This is bullshit. She is only getting this because she's famous. The only illegal thing she ever did was lie. Sure her other actions were immoral but not illegal. It disgusts me that she might get 20 years in jail, but Kenneth Lay, whose crimes are far worse, will probably get nothing.[/quote]

Not illegal? On what are you basing this? Please check out SEC Rule 10b-5 (and a bunch of others). Believe me, what she did was about as illegal as it gets.[/quote]

If it is so illegal why wasn't she charged for it? No, she was only charged for lying about it. [/quote]

She was charged with it. It's called insider trading - there's a whole tippee/tipper analysis that goes along with it but I won't go into detail about it here. Basically it is acting on information not known to the general public that was given to her by someone with the intent that she benefit from such information. The information must be material, i.e. information that which a reasonable investor would take into consideration when deciding to buy or sell stock. She was in possession of the material information and she acted on it therefore she is guilty.[/quote]

I know what insider trading is. This wasn't insider trading. Samuel Waksal was guilty of insider trading. She was just alerted that he was unloading shares. She, ostensibly, had no idea into the further workings of the company. She was not an insider, nor did she have inside information. And given that she had no responsibility to the company or its shareholders, it was not illegal for her to use her information.

Again, the people of Enron and Worldcom are far guiltier and don't get 1/10th of the media attention.
 
If she really didn't do it, then good for her. If she did do it, who would give a fuck? This kind of shit happens all the time.
 
[quote name='Tromack']I know what insider trading is. This wasn't insider trading. [/quote]

I don't think you do. You do not have to be an "insider" as the term is most commonly thought of such as an officer or director of a company to be guilty of insider trading. You can be an "insider" for purposes of the SEC if you are in possession of material information and you act on it. For example, the wife of a CEO is an insider if she has information about the company and uses it as a basis for buying or selling the company's stock even though she doesn't have any "real" connection to the company. If I am the CEO of a company and I tell you, someone I don't even know, who might be in a different country or whatever, material information about my company for your benefit and you act on it, you are still an insider.
 
She was not convicted on the insider trading charges because they couldn't make it stick. What she has been convicted of is trying to cover up a crime that itself was not found to be prosecutable.

This makes the whole thing a farce. Because it takes years to bring a solid case in situations like Enron and the genral public seems to think it should be as simple as prosecuting a common mugger the DOJ felt under great pressure to make a flashy case.

Stewart's biggest mistake was agreeing to talk with the Feds before talking to her lawyer. If she'd lawyered up the case would never have gone to trial. Instead she and numerous employees and investors in her company are made human sacrifices for the DOJ to look like they're doing their jobs in a way the public can comprehend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top