Greg_W Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 what law did she break? SEC rules on insider trading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texplorer Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Many here are asking why Martha was singled out. I ask why a woman who already has many millions participates in a clearly illegal activity that has far reaching potential to hurt her. I think the answer must be simple. GREED So, in my opinion, I hope Matha serves the maximum amount of time in prison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 I felt like she was being scapegoated so the public would think that our SEC under Bush is actually doing something. I still think that but now I don't care because she had the GALL to say, "It was only $40,000.00". Not much if you're a billionare but who bought the stock she sold and then lost there shirt for a "MEASLY $40,000.00?" I don't know about you guys but $40K is not pocket change for me. Lock er up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 I felt like she was being scapegoated so the public would think that our SEC under Bush is actually doing something. I still think that but now I don't care because she had the GALL to say, "It was only $40,000.00". Not much if you're a billionare but who bought the stock she sold and then lost there shirt for a "MEASLY $40,000.00?" I don't know about you guys but $40K is not pocket change for me. Lock er up. Wasn't this all started under Clinton? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pindude Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 what law did she break? SEC rules on insider trading. That's a common misperception. On the contrary: the feds didn't charge her on anything to do with insider trading. All the charges brought against her, and for which the jury found her guilty, had to do with lying and "obstruction of justice"--her behavior and cover-up activities--once the feds started investigating her for possible insider trading charges. If Martha had more fully "cooperated" with the feds from the beginning after the initial allegations of wrong-doing, she likely wouldn't be in the trouble she is in now. If the feds thought they had anything on her regarding insider trading, they obviously would have charged her for those too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 what law did she break? SEC rules on insider trading. That's a common misperception. On the contrary: the feds didn't charge her on anything to do with insider trading. All the charges brought against her, and for which the jury found her guilty, had to do with lying and "obstruction of justice"--her behavior and cover-up activities--once the feds started investigating her for possible insider trading charges. If Martha had more fully "cooperated" with the feds from the beginning after the initial allegations of wrong-doing, she likely wouldn't be in the trouble she is in now. If the feds thought they had anything on her regarding insider trading, they obviously would have charged her for those too. Thanks for the clarification. Everyone gets hit with Obstruction of Justice, from what I know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-rock Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 ...the downfall of her business and her public humilation are far more punitive than anything the courts could hand down. OJ is still playing golf with his entourage, and he murdered somebody. Somehow I think Martha will manage. As far as celebrity criminals are concerned, I'm much more interested in what happens to Kobe, the rapist athletic star. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pindude Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Thanks for the clarification. Everyone gets hit with Obstruction of Justice, from what I know. Who knows, maybe if they weren't going to get her on lying and obstruction of justice, they would've pressed to get her on insider trading. Seems to me they were out for her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badvoodoo Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 And badvoodoo, she worked hard to create her wealth. How is that being a bored, rich, waspy housewife? She has tons of energy and drive. Unfortunately, she chose to break the law and has to pay the piper. I think CBS is right; it's pure jealousy. I didn't say she WAS one of these people. I said it's who she embodies. Hatin the game, not the playa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 ...the downfall of her business and her public humilation are far more punitive than anything the courts could hand down. OJ is still playing golf with his entourage, and he murdered somebody. Somehow I think Martha will manage. As far as celebrity criminals are concerned, I'm much more interested in what happens to Kobe, the rapist athletic star. It goes to show how important good council can be, doesn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EWolfe Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 Either way, you gotta admit, she looks great for 62 Maybe not in a year, though! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 actually she is 56 she was convicted on 4 charges...conspiracy, obstruction of justice and two counts of making false statements to federal investigators. each charge carries a maximum sentence of five years in jail she will get sentenced in june and then she can file an appeal, so she may not see jail time for a while. right now, its anyones guess how long she will serve. do you think her cell mate will go easy on her when she drops the soap?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klenke Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 No, I believe she's 62. Every reference to this I've heard has said so. This bio confirms this (she's three weeks younger than my dad). What I have found interesting (but am not at all surprised with) is the way people have posted to this thread with lots of erroneous information regarding the facts of the case and the judicial system in general. People have posted saying she was being made an example of, as if to say they have no faith in our judicial system. Or people have said she doesn't deserve it? Deserve what? Deserve to be convicted or deserve to do time? The latter has not even happened yet. You first get convicted, then get sentenced. The penal time is determined by the egregiousness of the crime. The conviction (any conviction, ideally) has nothing to do with merit or desire, it has only to do with fact and how those facts weigh against the law. Everyone here should be held to the same standard regardless of wealth, etc.. The merit and desire part come into play in the sentencing: "let the punishment fit the crime." A conviction is not a punishment into and unto itself. The sentence is the punishment. This is where one's prior convictions, etc., come into play. I wonder if the same people who think she has been singled out or got an unjust punishment would have been the same people to speak out if she got off, as if it is in their mentality to take the non-government stance, whatever that stance came to be as the outcome of this trial. To me, it's simple: if the jury says she's guilty, she's guilty. They found that she did the crime so must do time. The jury did not and does not decide how much time. That's for the judge to determine. Our judicial system is not perfect but it's a hell of a lot better than a lot of the alternatives in this world. You want your hands chopped off for stealing something trivial, move to Saudi Arabia. And tell me how Enron or the Bush Administration has anything to do with this trial? Those are separate issues with their own independent attendant problems. You can draw your obscure references but you're not fooling me and only making yourself less credible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 And tell me how Enron or the Bush Administration has anything to do with this trial? Those are separate issues with their own independent attendant problems. You can draw your obscure references but you're not fooling me and only making yourself less credible. You are the one making yourself less credible by saying that the Enron deal is independent of the Martha deal. Enron is a big deal with respect to our economy (investors' faith in the funny money of the stock market) and also with general public outrage against white-collar criminals. Martha is one of many who are being now targeted because the feds are pressured to "make a bust" and make people feel secure in their investments. Martha looks like she is guilty and maybe she would have been prosecuted this vigorously if she were a nobody. But I doubt it. Her trial is guaranteed headlines. Keeps it in the public eye that the government is serious about white-collar crime. Bravo. I'll be clapping more when they put away Kenneth Lay, etc... the guys who swindled millions for millions. And BTW, perhaps the reason they dropped the charges of securities fraud is because they didn't have enough evidence because Martha destroyed it all? From the official story it doesn't sound like she really did anything too terrible. But the official story probably doesn't contain all the evidence that Martha flushed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
griz Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 I can't wait to see that bitch in an orange jumper... she deserves every bit of jail time she gets, for sure. I also love the fact that she's lost hundreds of millions of dollars over what would have been a drop in the bucket of losing 40k. martha ...from all the honest hard working people in the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 It goes to show how important good council can be, doesn't it? And good counsel is even better! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmokeShow Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Hmmm... Who cares? Really? It seems justice will be served. Make this thread more interesting. How many of you would still let Martha be your sugar mama even if she is a liar, white collar criminal, and an evil bitch off camera? Can we get someone to write the appropriate climbing analogy for doing Martha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arlen Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Shouldn't this thread be in the climbing board? YOU DON'T NEED PITONS and ropes to climb Kilimanjaro. There are no sheer cliffs on the northwest ascent. But there aren't any amenities either, just six grueling days of dust, scarce water, outhouses, unheated huts, and the hovering threat of altitude sickness. But doing it with Martha Stewart softens the blows. Martha and I and another friend, Sharon Patrick, plus two guides and ten porters, were climbing Africa's highest mountain. The baggage included brush-on blush, 36 liters of bottled water, and other creature comforts. The wildflower collages and flambeed bananas were brainstorms of Martha, who espouses gracious living, even at 19,340 feet. link to Forbes article (but registration required) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 It goes to show how important good council can be, doesn't it? And good counsel is even better! You got me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.