Martha Stewart found Guilty

Subject: RE: Martha Stewart found Guilty
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 04:23 PM

even though insider trading charges may be hard to prove (which is probably why those charges were dropped)
(unless you tapped the phone call) you can be fined by (securities commission? - the stock market regulators) and prevented from further trading, they dont need the same proof as the criminal courts

Subject: RE: Martha Stewart found Guilty
From: Charley Noble
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 05:07 PM

SRS and other Concerned Defenders of Martha Stewart-

Thanks for the clarification. So she was convicted on attempting a cover-up and lying to the investigators. I frankly think she's guilty of the insider trader charge but I'll take what I can get.

So, do you really think Martha is being too harshly dealt with or are you simply playing lawyer? The jury seems unanimous on her conviction. And most commentators think she has no grounds for appeal.

Enlighten us some more.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: Martha Stewart found Guilty
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 05:51 PM

Charley, I think there is politics as usual going on here, and as others have remarked, the Justice Department went looking for a soft target to use as an "example" for the Big Boys they're trying to do something about. It's apples and oranges as far as I'm concerned. (But I won't be surprised if it comes out later that John Ashcroft sicced his guys on Mawtha because she's some kind of castrating female. . .)

My irritation with the justice system is of long standing, however, not just with this case.

I detest these "Three Strikes" laws that take away the ability of the judge to actually do his or her job and JUDGE and sentence people based on what unique evidence and testimony is presented and NOT based on a special interest penalty set by the legislature and mandated sentencing guidelines. These are usually pushed into law one by one by bereaved families. John Doe commits a nasty crime, and had "X" "Y" and "Z" on his record. If he acted this way in this case, then there must be only one way in which someone else with the same set of circumstances will act, so those others are also axe murderers, etc. If they come before the court, then there is no hope of any extenuating circumstances being listened to, and as far as victims of one crime are concerned, you can throw away the key on anyone else who even smells like the first guy. There have been a colossal number of really stupid sentencings with these legislated sentences.

In this country where we are more and more often imprisoning mentally ill people and trying children as adults, and sending non-violent offenders to prison, I have to echo the 90's exercise guru Susan Powter and say "Stop the Insanity!" Different context, same passion.

Despite your conclusion that she was doing insider trading, Martha Stewart wasn't charged or convicted of it. She is caught up in a stupid justice system that has been haywire for years. Hers was a "victimless" crime in that if she had done this one trade as they suggest, someone else who was gambling money on the stock exchange lost money in that transaction, not knowing the stock would temporarily tank. (It is now back up to that previous high, by the way, because they have another drug that is proving to be a winner). Restitution and censure would have taken care of it. For those folks who tumbled entire institutions, who bankrupted states with their price fixing and stock dealings and collusion, those are the folks the Justice Department needs to concentrate on. But since it's going so slowly, it looks like someone decided it was time for a little hot dogging. Hence, the Martha Stewart trial.

SRS

Subject: RE: Martha Stewart found Guilty
From: Charley Noble
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 09:49 PM

SRS-

I do agree with 90% of what you're saying about the current state of our Federal injustice system. In fact your arguments probably apply to how it has functioned for the past 20 years or longer.

And it's probably true that the prosecutors targeted Martha once they realized they had a celebrity to exploit but then she made the mistake of thinking she could bluff her way out of it. I'm still pleased to see her convicted. There probably will be a book about her trial and incarceration but I believe if she authors it she'd not be permiited to profit from the sales.

Let's keep our eyes on the bigger fish.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: Martha Stewart found Guilty
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 11:52 PM

Shana Alexander will probably write it. If you're not familiar with her, look up Jean Harris, Patty Hearst, and probably any number of other difficult stories and you'll find she has written about them. Do you remember years ago on 60 Minutes when she debated from the left with James Kirkpatrick on the right? She became more of a household word with the Saturday Night Live skits that ended with "Shana you slut!" but regardless of that, her style of research and writing are second to none.

SRS

Subject: RE: Martha Stewart found Guilty
From: harpgirl
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 09:25 AM

Charley, I don't consider myself as eloquent on the subject as SRS is;however I come from a business oriented family (my father was a Merrill Lynch VP for many years), I invest and watch the market closely, and I run my own small business successfully.

Insider trading is done by the executives and members of the Boards of Directors of companies. Martha was neither in ImClone and could not then be accused of insider trading. Her broker alerted her to the family dumping their stock. Any good broker would do this for a good customer. Savy investors go in and out of the market in large chunks almost daily. That's what we want our mutual fund managers to do to make us a profit. Watching the activity on Omnimedia yesterday, I noticed two institutions trading in and out all day long in large chunks. Where did they get their information? This happens continually in the stock market each and every day.

We don't know if she truly attempted to lie and then changed her mind. She didn't even take the stand. Her lawyers did a poor job defending her; of that I'm sure. Nevertheless, changing ones mind about lying is not a crime, I don't think. I just don't see how she can be convicted of anything if she didn't insider trade to begin with.

I just think she became a convenient scapegoat for the Ashcroft crowd to take the heat off all the Bush buddies who are getting off scott-free while they loot the public, like Kenneth Lay, Dick Cheney, and all the other unindicted co-conspirators in the Bush administration.

Martha is only guilty of greed, hubris, and a bad personality, imo.

Subject: RE: Martha Stewart found Guilty
From: Raptor
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 10:02 AM

Chicken Soup for the Tarts Soul!:

Take one full chicken

Boil in water

Dump the stock

Stew in jail

Raptor

Subject: RE: Martha Stewart found Guilty
From: GUEST,jaze
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 03:03 PM

I can't get past the fact that the Gov't spent 40 million dollars on this and she only gained about $50,000. That's alot of money to make an example of someone.

Subject: RE: Martha Stewart found Guilty
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 07:09 PM

Yeah and jaze - look at the smoke screen that they made for the likes of
World Com and the real villians of the Stock Racket!

Martha Stewart is not a criminal - but the same as any other tip tradin stock slinger. DOW down ... oh well just it says in the manual - bad news = stuff falling in the poopbin!

Subject: RE: Martha Stewart found Guilty
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 21 May 04 - 03:31 PM

Well lookee here! I see this open and shut case unravelling a tad!

RPT-Federal agent charged with perjury in Stewart case
Reuters, 05.21.04, 2:19 PM ET

NEW YORK, May 21 (Reuters) - Federal prosecutors said on Friday that a U.S. secret service agent was arrested on charges he committed purgery when he testified earlier this year at the trial of Martha Stewart and her broker.

Larry Stewart was charged with two counts of perjury in a complaint filed in Manhattan federal court. Larry Stewart, 46, lives in Bethesda, Maryland, and he surrendered on Friday to the Secret Service, according to court documents.

The perjury charges were related to testimony he gave Feb. 19 and Feb. 25, the documents said.

Larry Stewart, who is not related to Martha Stewart, testified as an expert witness about the ink contained on a worksheet maintained by Peter Bacanovic, Martha Stewart's broker.

SRS

Subject: RE: Martha Stewart found Guilty
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 21 May 04 - 03:37 PM

That other piece came out of Forbes online, here's a bit longer one: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040521.wmartha0521/BNStory/Business/

And this is an AP story from the Dallas Morning News:

Associated Press

NEW YORK – Federal authorities Friday charged a government witness from the Martha Stewart trial with perjury, accusing him of giving false testimony. Prosecutors said they had discovered two false statements made on the stand by Larry F. Stewart, a national ink expert who works at the Secret Service. The government said it had uncovered eight separate false statements made by Larry Stewart on the stand. Larry Stewart is no relation to Martha Stewart.

Martha Stewart was convicted March 5 of lying about why she sold 3,928 shares of ImClone Systems stock in 2001, just before the stock price plunged. During the trial, Larry Stewart testified that a notation of "(at)60" on a worksheet that codefendant Peter Bacanovic used to track Stewart's portfolio had been made in a different ink than other marks on the sheet. Larry Stewart of the Secret Service said infrared and ultraviolet light tests had confirmed differences between the "(at)60" entry and other marks.

"The '(at)60' entry is a different ink than the remaining entries on the document," the scientist said. The worksheet, among the most critical pieces of government evidence in the trial, is a summary of gains and losses in 36 stocks Martha Stewart owned in late 2001 at Merrill Lynch & Co. Among the alleged false statements by Larry Stewart was that he took part in an August 2002 examination of the worksheet. Under cross-examination, the ink expert had testified it was impossible to tell how many pens had been used to mark on the document. Bacanovic's team contends he simply used different pens in his work.

SRS