CDRLabs.com

I don't know if anyone has been following the case, but Martha Stewart was found guilty on all four counts against her; she faces upto 20 years in jail and a fine of upto $1 million.
Her broker, Peter Bacanovic - was found guilty on 4 of 5 counts.

The irony is that she wasn't even charged with insider trading, it was more about the fact that she lied about it and obstructed justice...


What are your thoughts?

for outsiders - what's the story about (in a nutshell) ?

In a nutshell, the prosecution claimed that Martha sold her IMClone
shares the day her stock broker told allegedly told her that the company founder and his family were dumping (all) their shares.
It turns out that he knew the FDA was just about to reject the company's
anti-cancer drug. The rejection happened the day after the sale of all the shares.
I don't know how on earth he thought HE would get away with selling EVERYTHING the day before the rejection announcement, being that he isi the founder and CEO.

Martha and the broker claimed she had a pre-existing stop-loss order
to sell when the stock reached $60.

The broker's assistant was granted immunity, in exchange for which he agreed (possibly reluctantly) to testify against his boss.

The irony is that they didn't even charge her with insider trading, rather with lying about the alleged insider trading, (making false statements?) and obstruction of justice.

The founder, Sam Waksal, who is about 65 years old, was found guilty a while ago of insider trading - his case went to trial much faster - and is serving 7 years in jail with no possiblity; that is a far cry from the luxurious lifestyle he was leading before that.
He is apparently cleaning toilers and performing other typical prison chores.

I think that about sums it up to the best of my knowledge.

This whole case is a joke. They wouldn't have gone after her as much as they did if she wasn't a high profile TV star.

Go find Bin Ladin your idiots!

Ian wrote:This whole case is a joke. They wouldn't have gone after her as much as they did if she wasn't a high profile TV star.

Go find Bin Ladin your idiots!

I agree and why is it a crime to lie to a federal officer?She wasn't under oath at the time.I hope she likes orange jumpsuits.

BTW...insider trading happens everyday,we just don't hear about it.

Bottom line: She won't go to jail.

If she does go, our prison system will drastically change. Instead of lifting weights and playing basketball, all the criminals with her in jail will be crocheting drapes and tablecloths.

thanks for the exposition, VEFF.

Ian wrote:This whole case is a joke. They wouldn't have gone after her as much as they did if she wasn't a high profile TV star.

yeah, i thought the name sounded familiar from something like that, that's why it didn't make to me at first.

the story is idiotic. if they were going to nab her for insider trading fine, but for lying ???
well Americans are crazy people sometimes.

then again, it does make sense, Clinton wasn't "nearly impeached" for shoving sigars into inappropriate places etc., but for lying about it. so why not Marth Stewart?

she should serve. Its simple. I am soooo tired of seeing high profile people get off on charges without any jail time. I have served my fair share for lesser things.

Lying in this case obstructed an investigation. While you are not compelled to say anything (you are protected by 5th Amendment of the Bill of Rights to not be a witness against yourself), you may not say or do things to block the investigation. The irony is that she is the "authority" on gracious living, but can't seem to live it herself.

Ian, this isn't blocking a search for anyone else of importance. The country has been dealt serious blows to confidence in major institutions lately. We have less confidence in our economy, jobs, government, and corporation. To salvage any of that, the government must act especially on high profile situations. She will serve 3-5 years, probably.

I just think our time and money could be better used for other things thats all. Personally, I think she won't serve time at all. Big fine and community service. That's about it.

Surely then she's only guilty of wasting police time and/or contempt of court? That doesn't warrant a lengthy jail term, does it?

To salvage any of that, the government must act especially on high profile situations. She will serve 3-5 years, probably.

The government shouldn't have any jurisdiction over criminal cases, that's for the courts. If the government gets involved in any way, that is wrong -- it isn't their job to enforce the law.[/quote]

It's a good thing.

I have one more thought on the subject:
Why did Martha lie in the first place when the stocks in question are only worth $238,000 and she is worth $1,000,000,000?She has lost in stock value and legal fees an estimated $400,000,000.
You do the math.
If she cooperated in the first place with the authorities she would most likely of only had to pay a fine and do some community service.

I agree she's high profile, but certainly don't agree its a joke.

burninfool wrote:I have one more thought on the subject:
Why did Martha lie in the first place when the stocks in question are only worth $238,000 and she is worth $1,000,000,000?She has lost in stock value and legal fees an estimated $400,000,000.
You do the math.
If she cooperated in the first place with the authorities she would most likely of only had to pay a fine and do some community service.

It does seem strange.

I still say though that there's something wrong with a legal system that apparently sends someone down for a long time for obstruction (the obstruction is surely completely separate from the alleged insider trading?). Seems very strange.

"The government shouldn't have any jurisdiction over criminal cases, that's for the courts. If the government gets involved in any way, that is wrong -- it isn't their job to enforce the law."

Who do you propose prosecutes her then?

burninfool wrote:I have one more thought on the subject:
Why did Martha lie in the first place when the stocks in question are only worth $238,000 and she is worth $1,000,000,000?She has lost in stock value and legal fees an estimated $400,000,000.
You do the math.
If she cooperated in the first place with the authorities she would most likely of only had to pay a fine and do some community service.

1) Exactly! She only saved $79,000 by selling a day before the annoucement (about $2 / share), when her empire was worth $1 billion.
The $79,000 she initially saved has now cost her about $400 - 700 million!!
It is a sign of her greed.

2) You echo my sentiments exactly: If she had simply come clean about it, she probably would have gotten probation, as you said.

2) She used to be a stockbroker herself, so she should have known better.

3) She was on the board of the NYSE (New York Stock Exchange)!!!
She is expected to

4) She was goood friends with the founder and CEO, so she should have known that there was a good chance the Feds would connect the dots.

5) She told her best friend about it, putting her in an awkward position.


I am not saying I want her to serve jail time, as mean of a person as she apparently is, according to reports.
However, I am saying, that she was very foolish, greedy and over confident.

They obviously wanted to make an example of her and her stockbroker.

I would prefer to see Scott Peterson go to jail, if he's convicted of killing his pregnant wife and unborn baby.
The guy had a mistress, played golf or went fishing with his buddies while
the police were still searching for his missing wife.
A camera caught him in the background laughing it up, drinking beers and talking on a cell phone, all during a vigil for his wife, where her parents were sad and almost passing out from the sadness, fear and shock.

JamieW wrote:"The government shouldn't have any jurisdiction over criminal cases, that's for the courts. If the government gets involved in any way, that is wrong -- it isn't their job to enforce the law."

Who do you propose prosecutes her then?

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted what was said, but the impression I got from the word "government" being used is that politicians were getting involved in this case.

Judges are civil servants, yes, but they're no more part of the "government" than road-sweepers or teachers, surely?

Jase, I would like to make a suggestion to you. Read what I actually write and don't make up things in your own head that I didn't say nor did I allude to. But I wasn't even speaking about judges. I was speaking about the prosecuters.

I'm going to stop now unless you tell me English is your second language because I'm already tired of responding to things I did not say.

Whatever. I had prepared a reply in my head but I just can't be bothered to get into another argument over something so trivial (to me anyway; the judicial system of the USA is of little importance to me). I had assumed that "government" meant "political administration", as opposed to "the state" which is politically inert and run by civil servants.

I take it that politicians do not have any direct control over your equivalent of the Crown Prosecution Service over there, and therefore responses to institutions taking a battering are impossible, at least in theory, right?

my thought is just wow.

My thought is also wow -- a rich celebrity actually managed to screw up so badly that she didn't get away with it... that has to be some sort of record