Nailed!

[Gary - K7GLD]

Looks like Martha Stewart will be doing her show from behind bars soon - about time the celebs got treated with the same contemp as us ordinary mortals...



NOW, if we could also nail Barbra Streisand, Rosie O and a few of their loud liberal fellow celebs, my day would be lots brighter...

 

[15w40]

Her latest magazine.



#ad

 

[JSmith]

Look at the joy Ms. Stewart has brought to the US house hold. I am not saying she should not do time, but look at the others.



Hillary, has not brought squat to the US home. Unless you want to count my daughter asking at age nine what a bj is. Hillary invests $1000, comes away with $100000plus. Oh this is ggreat because she is the smartest woman in America, PLEASE, spare me the anguish.



Enron???????????????



The whole herd of retirement ripoffs, mutual funds gone. Who has gone to jail? Who will go to jail, no one.

Hey, get Martha!

If and when Hillary is tried I will feel justice was served.

 

[boonsur]

I'll have to admit, if someone gave me a tip that could save $250,000, I'd act on it, too. And, if that someone was a good friend, I'd probably try to make sure I scratched his/her back, in return (cover-up, if that's what they're calling it these days).

 

[jrobinson2]

Who exactly did Martha hurt? As I understand it all she did (except any cover-up) was offer her Imclone stock for sale, no one was forced to buy her stocks, the price was dropping like a rock before she sold so a lot of buyers apparently knew there were issues and it was obviously a high risk investment from the start. If I find out the state of California is about to ban diesel engines and sell my truck to someone who doesn't know am I an "inside trader"?

Jared

 

[dresslered]

Who exactly did Martha hurt?

You're joking, right?



Do you think that certain people should have a clear advantage when playing the stock market? The guidelines are very clear.



Only a few people knew that the FDA had rejected ImClone's application for approval of a new cancer drug. Should these people be allowed to step out from 'the high risk investment' while the others are betting on their own research and speculation?

 

[Elite1]

I agree 100% with Dresslered... A few years ago I was pretty heavily invested in a cancer drug company (not Imclone) and it didn't get FDA approval, the stock sank like a rock and I lost a considerable sum... but I knew the risks involved in Biotech stocks. Now if I found out that a company executive tipped a few people to sell ahead of the news... . I would be very upset. The other issue in this case is that Martha used to be a stock broker... so she knew full well that she was breaking the law. Then she tried to cover it up, then dug herself deeper by lying to authorities. She deserves to do some time, IMO

 

[Andy Perreault]

Originally posted by jrobinson2

Who exactly did Martha hurt?

I lost quite a large sum on the stock market about 5 years ago, due to an insider trading situation. Someone came out smelling like a rose while the stock went to near nothing. I had to sell it for downpayment money when I bought a house, but I sold it for about 1/8th of what I invested. Some people think these insider trading deals are harmless. But it's always the innocent working class schmuck who gets screwed out of his money, because he wasn't privvy to the inside information. I haven't dabbled in the stock market since then. Remember, when someone gains a huge amount, that money has to come from somewhere. It doesn't just magically appear!

(In my situation, I figure the equity I've gained in this house has made up for the loss, so I feel a little better about it nowadays. I chalk it up as "tuition for the school of hard knocks")

Andy

 

[4STR]

I am with LSmith on this one. Why did the feds waste millions in tax dollars to nail a small fry (Martha S. ) when there are larger fish (Enron, etc. ) to fry? In my opinion, I think they, the federal prosecutors involved, saw it as a chance to make a name for themselves without regarding the cost/benfit (i. e. spend millions to nail a crook who made tens-of-thousands in ill gotten gains) ratio involved. This case was guarunteed to gain some big publicity for the prosecutors which, I believe, is what they were really after in order to climb the corporate, fed. gov. , ladder.



Since they are going to spend it anyway, I wish they would spend it on catching the big fish (Enrons, etc. ). I am not adbvocating they let Martha off scott free. No! Instead, fine her and others involved for triple the amount made from the stock sale. Basically, the fed prosecutors should stop acting like punks using my tax money to gain some publicity and go after the bigger fish (e. g. Enrons, etc. ) who have committed the more egregious sins.

 

[Glen]

Bad behavior cannot be justified by pointing out worse behavior.

I suspect we will get the others too.

 

[Sled Puller]

Not a big fan of white collar crime doing time in prison, just means we have to pay for their keep.



Need to hit them with something else, shave her head,dress her in orange, make her do her show like that, and donate the profits to a needy cause.

 

[KBennett]

It's all about greed. You have a woman that is filthy rich and she is so greedy that she is now going to jail for doing something stupid. The Enron guys are next and some of them have already gone down. The government is building a bigger case against them. I have nothing against Martha but if she had told the truth in the first place the penalty should have been less IMO.



I think Bill and Hillary should be next.

 

[Andy Perreault]

Originally posted by Sled Puller

shave her head,dress her in orange, make her do her show like that, and donate the profits to a needy cause.

And have her do her show along the side of the highway, picking up trash.

 

[Peter Campbell]

I don't think that she will be doing "hardtime" - she is eligible for up to 20 years-consecutive maximums. For this I would expect no less than one year and no more than 3. That way no real life stealing time- No right to vote - cannot be a principal in a company again ( possible SEC sanctions ). A convicted FELON.

 

[jrobinson2]

Actually this has nothing to do with insider trading, if it did there would be a conviction on some sort of trading related charges. Someone is trying to make a name for themselves here. The only charges related to stocks claimed that she lied about her Imclone transactions to artificially inflate the value of her own company's stock, in other words her crime was claiming to be innocent of a crime with which she was never charged, and the judge threw out those charges last week. This whole case is about a tip from her Stockbroker that the price of the company’s stock had dropped from $64 at opening to $58 under heavy selling (7. 7 million shares vs. the daily average of 1. 1 million), and that his clients, ImClone founder and CEO Sam Waksal, and Waksal's daughter, Aliza Waksal, also had been selling. Isn't this what a stockbroker is for? Aliza Waksal avoided $630,295 in losses and her grandfather three times that, while Stewart saved only $45,000, but you don't make a name for yourself prosecuting 80 year old grandfathers and unknown daughters do you. All the convictions involve covering up a crime that apparently never occurred. Don't get me wrong Perjury is a serious charge and deserves some punishment but one to twenty in prison? Apparently its OK for Bill Clinton to lie under oath but not Martha? AGAIN, WHO DID SHE HURT? she has not been charged or convicted of ANY SEC violations involving Imclone except by the MEDIA! The government never even tried!

If anyone cares for a view besides the mass media and government agenda try here: http://www.reason.com/0310/fe.mm.st.shtml

Jared

 

[Sled Puller]

See, we don't have enough info to decide whos right or wrong, just what we are force fed, a reporters interpretation.



She ticked somebody off, though, that is for sure.

 

[dpuckett]

Saw the "nailed" just under the Janet Jackson thread.....

Originally posted by Sled Puller

She ticked somebody off, though, that is for sure.

That, or not enough money changed hands behind closed doors. If her lawyers had been payed well enough, or if the prosecution hadnt offered them a counter offer completely unrelated to the case at hand, she might be free.



That said, I think she should not get any preferrential treatment for breaking the law. BUt $250K when she is a billionare? Something sounds just a little off, here, if you ask me. I dont really have enough evidence one way or another to make a fair and unbiased assessment of the case. I just wonder if the prosecution proved BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT her guilt, or if the jury convicted her because she was a celibrity- the "she's rich, she needs a few rough breaks" BS I hear from the inbred, narrow minded, lazy, pink- necked locals 'round here.



Daniel

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

AHHhhh, circumstantial ethics among the usually conservative - you know the folks who USUALLY say a person is RESPONSIBLE for their own actions... Wonder if those above who seem to feel what Martha did was OK would feel the same if by the time THEY saw what was going on, THEY were selling $64 stock for $10 a share...



OR are some of you guys saying she really broke NO laws, and it was all a farce? She knew what was going on - at least well enough to try to cover it up after the fact - she made a choice - now she will pay the price - or are some here saying that a millionaire should not be arrested for shoplifting like us ordinary folk?



Our government is still hitting hard at stuff like this - the Enron bunch HAVE been hit, more are in the crosshairs - what sort of message do you send to other folks crossing the line if you look the other way for a Martha - but only go after the smaller fish?



She got what she deserved, she broke the law, and she knows it!

 

[dpuckett]

I was by no means saying go easy on her. I havent followed the story closely enough to make my own judgement. She has been found guilty, BUT, I was raising the question of a biased jury that saw an opportunity to get back at a rich celebrity. Having been in the hot seat recently, I now have a broader perspective of the whole judicial system, and the crooked goins-on therein. More times than not, one has to prove his/ her innocence, rather than the way it is enumerated in the Constitution, esp if the plaintiff is a rich political supporter of the prosecution, or if the defendant is a high profile person, thus being a constant target. Circumstantial ethics? Gimme a break. I wont even get into the politics of that one.



Daniel

 

[rrausch]

Another point I don't think anybody here brought up... Martha just did not make enough Political Contributions! If she had been giving generously to both Parties, I bet she would have gotten out of it someway.