Martha Stewart Guilty

[undergroundagent]

And so...the empire crumbles.

At least, inmates at Riker's Island will be getting quality cookies.

Edited March 5, 2004 by undergroundagent

[wesbed]

I'm no Martha Stewart supporter by any means. However, I figured she had enough money to make sure things went her way. Amazing.

>>Guilty<<

>>Martha Talks<<

Edited March 5, 2004 by wesbed

[Hardbopjazz]

She's already designing a new orange jump suit.

[BERIGAN]

I don't like her personally, but watch her get more time in jail than a rapist, or child molester!

[Dr. Rat]

I don't like her personally, but watch her get more time in jail than a rapist, or child molester!

I'd be surprised if she did much time or any hard time at all.

Everybody seems to think of stock fraus as a victimless crime, but it isn't: somebody BUYS the stock that tanks--They lose money, they get hurt.

Could be its someone I like even less that Martha (maybe Michael Eisner was dabbling in med stocks that day) but maybe it was the World Wildlife Fund. Still it's fraud, people get hurt, and the perpetartors deserve to be punished, not winked at.

Actually, though she's hard for me to abide, her products are great and she actively used her power to make sure that was the case. You have to give her she'll defraud stock buyers, but not spatula buyers.

You gotta admire that. Hopefully the judge will take it into consideration at sentencing. He's probably got a comfy bathtowel of hers.

--eric

[Christiern]

Neither the judge nor anyone else (like the prison system) will want to make a decision that smacks of favoritism. I think she'll get a few years in a prison that has no golf course or outdoor swimming pool.

Some people think that would be "a good thing."

A billionaire who gives her private secretary a cake for Christmas? No wonder people aren't weeping.

[kh1958]

As usual, the press does an incredibly poor job of describing what is happening, however, it is my understanding that the insider trading charges were dismissed by the judge on the grounds that the government didn't present enough evidence to justify going to the jury. She has been convicted of lying in connection with the government investigation of her alleged insider trading. In other words, she was not proven guilty of the alleged insider trading but rather of obstructing the government's investigation of a crime she apparently did not commit.

[catesta]

Neither the judge nor anyone else (like the prison system) will want to make a decision that smacks of favoritism. I think she'll get a few years in a prison that has no golf course or outdoor swimming pool.

Some people think that would be "a good thing."

A billionaire who gives her private secretary a cake for Christmas? No wonder people aren't weeping.

It would not surprise me if she does a couple of years, but I still think it will be more of a minimum security facility.

I had not heard the cake story before, sounds like she took a page out of the Leona Helmsley employer/employee handbook.

[wesbed]

A billionaire who gives her private secretary a cake for Christmas? No wonder people aren't weeping.

I saw a Martha Stewart Biography on A&E. I don’t remember the exact details but the show mentioned that Martha had charged her own mother for some decorating services after Martha had become wealthy. The TV show interviewed Martha’s brother and he confirmed the story to be true. The brother made some comment that it was unbelievable that Martha wouldn’t give her own mother some free services.

Did anybody else see this Biography?

Edited March 5, 2004 by wesbed

[Eric]

kh1958 -

You are exactly correct. She got nailed for the coverup, not the crime.

Something else worth remembering ... early in her career, she worked as a trader on Wall Street. I think she knew exactly what she was up to and at least they got her on obstruction.

I am a hardcore capitalist and it pisses me off when people do stuff like this. She will get exactly what she deserves.

Eric

Edited March 5, 2004 by Eric

[Dr. Rat]

As usual, the press does an incredibly poor job of describing what is happening, however, it is my understanding that the insider trading charges were dismissed by the judge on the grounds that the government didn't present enough evidence to justify going to the jury. She has been convicted of lying in connection with the government investigation of her alleged insider trading. In other words, she was not proven guilty of the alleged insider trading but rather of obstructing the government's investigation of a crime she apparently did not commit.

The story I heard (from same faulty media) was that the prosecuters decided not to pursue the fraud charge because it's hard to prove--goes to intent, etc., etc.

Whereas with the obstruction charge, they only had to prove that the story she gave was false. They didn't have to prove what the real story was.

--eric

[rachel]

I agree that the press just can't quite get it right. There was no fraud or insider trading. The charge that was dropped before going to jury was the securities fraud charge; basically that charge meant that Martha tried to manipulate the value of her stock by proclaiming her innocence.) The judge realized that this was quite a stretch and threw it out several weeks ago.

It was determined that there was never insider trading even before the trial began. Incidently, the stock that she sold is probably worth even more now since the FDA has subsequently approved the drug that Imclone was developing, so I don't think that anyone who bought this stock after she sold it is suffering terribly. Since Ms. Stewart only stood to lose a hundred grand or so had she kept the stock and has ended up losing more like 500 mil., I can hardly imagine that she was trying to bilk anyone.

So she gave her secretary a cake for her birthday-- big deal; does anyone even discuss or care about what Donald Trump or Jack Welch gives their secretaries?

Edited March 5, 2004 by rachel

[Jazzmoose]

I'm pretty sure the judge dismissed the fraud charges due to lack of evidence, but then I'm relying on the same sources as the rest of you.

I must admit I'm suprised at the verdict.

[Dr. Rat]

I agree that the press just can't quite get it right.  There was no fraud or insider trading.  The charge that was dropped before going to jury was  the securities fraud charge; basically that charge meant that  Martha tried to manipulate the value of her stock by proclaiming her innocence.)  The judge realized that this was quite a stretch and threw it out several weeks ago. 

OK, now that charge WAS a stretch, and regarded the value of her own company Martha Stewart Living.

It was determined that there was never insider trading even before the trial began. 

I missed this. I know the feds decided not to bother prosecuting on this point, which is different. Do you know something I don't know?

Incidently, the stock that she sold is probably worth  even more now since the FDA has subsequently  approved the drug that Imclone was developing.  Since Ms. Stewart only stood to lose a hundred grand or so had she kept the stock and has ended up losing more like 500 mil., I can hardly imagine that she was trying to bilk anyone.

Rich people get rich by carefully attending to little six figure sums here and there. It wasn't smart, but she might have thought she could ride it out. Who knows? Goes to motive, and as the feds know, that's a hard case to prove.

So she gave her secretary a cake for her birthday-- big deal; does anyone even discuss  or care about what Donald Trump or Jack Welch  gives their secretaries?

I agree the personal stuff does get taken too far. And it was probably a damn good cake.

--eric

[Eric]

I am a financial guy and most of the fraud I've seen over the years involves 1) someone who does not need the money and 2) greed. This is a classic case. Fraud *is* hard to prove, so that is why the other charges exists. Similar to nailing guys like Al Capone on tax evasion back in the 1930s.

Eric

Edited March 5, 2004 by Eric

[rachel]

<<It was determined that there was never insider trading even before the trial began. >>

I missed this. I know the feds decided not to bother prosecuting on this point, which is different. Do you know something I don't know?

That's what I meant, that even before the trial they decided not to pursue that charge versus the securities fraud charge which was thrown out during the trial.

I guess I'm still fuzzy on how one can be guilty of covering up a non crime...

Edited March 5, 2004 by rachel

[maren]

These are the charges that weren't dropped, and she was convicted of all of them:

False statements: Alleges, among other things, that Stewart lied when she told the Securities and Exchange Commission, the FBI and federal prosecutors she had prearranged with Bacanovic to sell ImClone when it fell below $60. (GUILTY)

False statements: Alleges, among other things, that Stewart lied when she told the SEC, the FBI and prosecutors that she did not recall being told on Dec. 27, 2001, that the family of ImClone Systems founder Sam Waksal was selling stock. (GUILTY)

Conspiracy: Alleges that Stewart and Bacanovic "willfully and knowingly" worked together to obstruct justice and make false statements in the stock trading scandal. (GUILTY)

Obstruction of justice: Alleges that, from January to April 2002, Stewart "willfully and knowingly" tried to hamper the SEC investigation of her stock sale by providing misleading information. (GUILTY)

Also, apparently an SEC civil suit is still possible:

Obstructing SEC investigations and lying to the government are serious crimes with serious consequences," the SEC said Friday. "The SEC's civil insider-trading case against Ms. Stewart and Mr. Bacanovic is currently stayed but remains pending."

But, as others have pointed out:

Stewart could have faced even more prison time, but the judge threw out the most serious charge -- a securities fraud count that alleged she deceived investors in her own company when she publicly declared her innocence in the scandal. The judge had referred to the charge as "novel."

(All these quotes are from AP online)

[Dr. Rat]

<<It was determined that there was never insider trading even before the trial began. >>

I missed this. I know the feds decided not to bother prosecuting on this point, which is different. Do you know something I don't know?

That's what I meant, that even before the trial they decided not to pursue that charge versus the securities fraud charge which was thrown out during the trial.

I guess I'm still fuzzy on how one can be guilty of covering up a non crime...

My understanding is that in order to prove the fraud charge they'd ahve to prove that Stewart sold the stock in bad faith--that she sold the stock knowing it's value was about to fall.

This is a "state of mind" case, and prosecuters don't like them. They can be very hard to prove.

The case they did prove was that she lied to investigators. This is easier to do, they just had to show that the story she told them was a lie. That's a crime in itself. Even if she had not committed a crime and lied to, say, cover for someone else, she'd be liable to prosecution.

That's my understanding, but I'm just a rat (and not even a doctor at that)

--eric

[catesta]

They should really teach her a lesson and give her one of those crappy Martha Stewart pillows being peddled at K-Mart to lay her head on while in jail.

Damn things go flat after a month or two of use.

[vibes]

They should really teach her a lesson and give her one of those crappy Martha Stewart pillows being peddled at K-Mart to lay her head on while in jail.

Damn things go flat after a month or two of use.

Word. I'm laying on one right now. Piece of shit.

[Dan Gould]

Incidently, the stock that she sold is probably worth even more now since the FDA has subsequently approved the drug that Imclone was developing, so I don't think that anyone who bought this stock after she sold it is suffering terribly.

Are you NUTS?

Martha's fraudulent story was that she sold because the stock dropped below $60.

Today's close for imclone: $47.85

THE 52 WEEK LOW FOR THE STOCK: $14.45!!!!

This stock fell $45, or another SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT after Martha sold on an illegal tip from her stockbroker. She lied to cover up the tip. She made false statements and conspired to obstruct justice.

No, it wasn't "insider trading" because she didn't hear directly from Sam Waksal that she better sell (Waksal just told all of his family members directly, he didn't give enough of a shit about Martha to tell her. All of them have pled guilty to insider trading, I believe.)

The fact that the judge threw out the fraud charges is particularly bad news for Martha. Why? Because as brave and confident as her lawyer may sound, they have no grounds for appeal. There is no ruling the judge made that is reversible. The trial was clean and tidy and on the charges that the judge let stand, the evidence was compelling. Had the judge allowed the fraud charges to stay, here's what would have happened:

The jury convicts.

The appeal is successful, because it is a novel application of the statute, and each guilty verdict is tossed. Why? Because the conviction on the fraud charges made it easier for the jury to convict on all charges. Boom, Martha is "exonerated".

Instead, she's got no grounds for appeal, and come June, she will be in the Lenora Helmsley wing of the Federal Correctional Facility in Danbury, CT, where she belongs.

***********************

Let me tell y'all something about Martha, because I actually know her, or at least I have seen her in action, up close and personal. Long before she became "Martha Stewart," she was a caterer in Westport Connecticut. I worked for Taylor Rental in Wilton and had many occasions to deliver party supplies to her home. She was then, and I have no reason not to believe she is now, a bossy, snide, nasty, horrible, vicious and ugly woman (on the inside, where it counts).

My mother has had multiple professional encounters with her, and her experiences are at least as bad as mine.

How does she treat her employees now? Who gives a shit? I can tell you how she treats both "little people" and peers. It ain't pretty.

[7/4]

You don't say!

[rachel]

No, Dan, I'm not nuts, as you so eloquently suggest; just throwing out the fact that Erbitux was approved by the FDA for discussion. So why is the stock doing poorly? Doesn't it have the potential to bounce back if it performs well farther along in FDA trials?

As for her demeanor, I guess I didn't realize that she was also on trial for being a bitch.

Edited March 6, 2004 by rachel

[ghost of miles]

One of the jurors was quoted as saying "We would have loved to have heard the other side of the story." Sounds like the defense's decision not to put Martha on the stand was a mistake... the result couldn't have been any worse than this.

[Jazzmoose]

You don't say!

Pretty much sums it up, doesn't it!