So, what's your opinion?

[Xstcher]

On Martha Stewart's sentence?

[~wildangel~]

Whats her sentence? What in the world did SHE do? Burn a house down? Seriously what happened?:question

[~wildangel~]

Ok, i gotcha now and heres a link for people to read:
http://www.savemartha.com/martha_stewart_trial_what.html

I don't know much about stocks:o

[w1che]

It was a joke.. With her appeals it will be year or more before anything happens and what's with the 30,000 dollar fine? That's like maybe 30 cents to her, not even enough to pay court cost..

[sinecure]

I think it was an appropriate sentence.... perhaps just a bit on the harsh side.

She's a first-offender, has suffered economically and personally from the trial and felony conviction.

The "gain" from her criminal activity was minimal.

And most inportantly,... I doubt that she's going to be a "serial inside-trader". :question :question

She was a well-known face to make an example of. That's the way the "justice system" works, folks.

["justice system"... it is neither "systematic," nor does it routinely dispense absolute "justice".]

[w1che]

Quote from Sin.. The "gain" from her criminal activity was minimal.
>>>>>>>

This is one of the very few times I have to disagree with Sin..:wink

Sin I think you are looking at this as a victimless crime, when in fact it is far from that. Some one had to buy those 4,000 shares that didn't have the information she had. Their loss was substantial as the stock took a nose dive. It's hard enough making money in the market without someone dumping shares with information no one else has. The thing that really upsets me about this is she is worth hundreds of millions and what she made was nothing to her except for her greed..

[RosieWolf]

what they've done to martha for selling what belonged to her is why i think the stock market is just a huge scam.. why shouldn't someone be able to sell what they supposedly own when they want to?.. what bloody damm problem did a measly 4000 shares really cause? so someone else bought em, they didn't have to, they weren't forced to, no one makes you buy and sell on the scam market.. if she had sold 4 million shares, yes, then i'd say somethin was a little hookey, but 4000?.. give me a break.

[w1che]

Rosie you need a brewski so you can think clearly.. :lol

Now you ok? Lets say those 4,000 shares cost me 100,000 bucks and they dropped just 10 bucks a share. I would have lost almost one half of my money over night. Hell people rob banks & don't steal that much money and that's what she did, She stole the money she made when she sold because she knew the stock was going to drop like a rock. Without rules the market would be a sham like it was before the great depression. The rules are for every one no matter if they do have a TV show and are worth more money then they can ever spend.. Greed on her part plain & simple..

[sinecure]

Well, W1che... look at what they convicted her on... conspiracy, lying to Fed. Investigators [Memo to self... don't EVER talk to a Federal Investigator...NOT TALKING is a right... fibbing to them is a felony.]

I think YOU would do likewise if the following events happened to YOU...


Stewart's odyssey from media luminary to convicted white-collar criminal began in January 2002, when government investigators began looking into her sale of nearly 4,000 shares of ImClone Systems the month before. While the trade took place just one day before the biotechnology company announced disappointing news about its main drug, sending the share price into a decline, Stewart maintained she had sold the stock because she and her Merrill Lynch broker had earlier agreed to sell if the price fell below $60 a share.
.
Her broker, Peter Bacanovic, also told investigators that the sale took place because of a $60-a-share agreement. But in the trial, his former assistant testified that he had been ordered by Bacanovic to tell Stewart that members of the Waksal family were dumping their ImClone shares.
.
Samuel Waksal, a founder and at the time the chief executive of ImClone, pleaded guilty to orchestrating trades by other family members as well as other crimes. He began serving a seven-year sentence last summer. Bacanovic was his broker.

Note that he testimony was that an underling allegedly told Martha that the CEO of ImClone was dumping shares. If that's truly all he said... I don't see a criminbal case against Martha.

Now... if you wanna know what this was REALLY all about... you don't have to even squint to read between THESE lines:

Prosecutors, as they did when Stewart was indicted and throughout the trial, portrayed the case as a matter of preserving the integrity of government investigations.

"Citizens like Ms. Stewart who willingly take the steps to lie to officials when they are under investigation about their own conduct, those citizens should not expect the leniency that Ms. Stewart seeks," prosecutor Karen Patton Seymour told the judge.

The judge noted she had received more than 1,500 letters from Stewart supporters across the country pleading for leniency.

But she said a prison term was appropriate because "lying to government agencies during the course of an investigation is a very serious matter, regardless of the outcome of the investigation."

[DustyBottoms]

I realize she was just convicted of lying. She should have just kept her mouth shut or have been truthful.

However, I have a problem with the original charges.

If I own stock in companies, I am going to use any information I can get to forecast their health and trade accordingly. Isn't this the basis of investing (gambling) in the stock market?

OK - I own a few measly shares of MS. Does that make me an insider? If not, at what point do I become so? I don't think you can be called an insider unless you have some control in the company.
Now the guy that was on the board and feeding information was an insider. He deserved the charges.

I think the original charges on Martha were bogus. Martha sold hers, I would have also, It's human nature. Especially if it amounts to a large part of your savings. I have a strong feeling so would W1che. :wink

At this point we have established what we are. Now we are just haggling over the price. :clap

[w1che]

Samuel Waksal was a close friend of hers so she knew all about what was going on. I deal in stocks all the time & I will tell you if I own Microsoft stock & Bill Gates was a close friend of mine. I would know if the new windows program was going to fly. If someone called me & said Gates & his family was dumping their stock I would know something was up so if I turned around & dumped all of mine at the same time the feds would be looking at me. That's how they look for insider information being passed around..

Well the jury heard all the evidence & they convicted her that's good enough for me. The Feds are not the ones that convicted her as some would have you believe. The jury did their job and I'm sure glad Sin, DB & Rosie were not on the jury..

DB if you receive inside information from anyone in a position within a company to have that info you can be convicted for insider trading and it doesn't matter if your buying or selling..

[DustyBottoms]

Originally posted by w1che

Well the jury heard all the evidence & they convicted her that's good enough for me. The Feds are not the ones that convicted her as some would have you believe. The jury did their job and I'm sure glad Sin, DB & Rosie were not on the jury..

DB if you receive inside information from anyone in a position within a company to have that info you can be convicted for insider trading and it doesn't matter if your buying or selling..

W1che - They convicted her of lying, not insider trading.

Hypothetical:

All of your life savings are invested in google.

A friend of yours works for google and tells you they are in deep trouble.

Are you are telling me you would not take any action and let your savings disappear rather than sell? :luck

[aclu14]

The real crime is the millions of dollars the feds are spending on this case! Look who gets to pick up the tab! :mad

[w1che]

The judge threw out the insider trading charge. I don't have all the information on why she would do that but leave the lying & conspiracy charge in tact, but there must have been a good reason within the law.

If I had a friend give me & inside tip what would I do? I hope that would never happen but if it did I would not sell all my shares because that would be asking for jail time and believe me it wouldn't be worth it to me. You can't justify what she did by what I would do any way because she & I would both be breaking the law.. DB you sound like a liberal by that "Well anyone would do it so it must be alright."

99.9% of the people wouldn't do it because they never get insider information and that's why the law is in place..

[DustyBottoms]

I guess you are not getting the point.

She was not an insider. The insider was the guy who gave her the tip.

She was free to act on the information she received.

[w1che]

No I think you're not reading what I'm writing.. Well then again I may not be making myself clear. IF YOU RECEIVE INSIDE INFORMATION FROM WHOM EVER & YOU USE THAT INFORMATION TO YOUR ADVANTAGE BUYING OR SELLING STOCK. YOU ARE GUILTY OF INSIDER TRADING AND CAN GET UP TO 10 YEARS IN JAIL.

Wow I hope that's clear because if it's not I have to give up.. :lol

[sinecure]

Originally posted by aclu14
The real crime is the millions of dollars the feds are spending on this case! Look who gets to pick up the tab! :mad

Yeah, well.... file this away for future reference-- "Law enforcement is never cost-effective... nor would you want it to be."

:wink :question :clap

Welcome back.... didja have a good vacation? :wave

[sinecure]

Hey W1che... I know that General Motors stock will go up this year. Better buy some.

Now...if you should buy some GM stock-- is that insider trading? Nope.

The reason the I.T. charge was dropped was undoubtedly because the case just wasn't there. The only "proof" they had was the statements of the guy who allegedly told Martha that the CEO was dumping shares..and this guy was given a "pass" by the prosecution in exchange for his testimony against Martha. Commonly done in criminal cases, but juries don't like this kind of "evidence". The only thing they could prove was the lying to a Fed. and conspiracy... which are plenty bad enough. If she hadn't lied and told the Fed Investigators about this bogus "sell at $60" order she and her broker invented, well she'd get a pass as well.

[w1che]

Sin I know you're pulling my leg. It has to be inside information that is not known to the general public. It has to come from someone that could have information that is not known to the public. Like a merger deal or someone calls that could know the books are being cooked & there is an investigation about to start.. I can give you all the stock tips I want to because I have no real way of knowing anything for a fact...

Lets move on to something more interesting... Like the weather.. :lol