Martha Stewart

[LadyFish]

Re: Martha Stewart

Regardless of any personal like or dislike of Martha, the fact remains that she's a celebrity and is thus being singled out for political reasons/points. So far as what information has been released, she didn't do anything that isn't done by countless others all the time. Her fame, or notoriety, is the catalyst for this highly unusual crusade against her, and is being fueled by her celebrity/political status. The cure is not in proportion with the disease and she is being singled out because of her public standing. This crap is a witch hunt IMO.<br /><br />P.S. I've learned a lot from Martha Stewart, except I caught her one time saying "Don't throw out all that leftover wine. Freeze into ice cubes for future use in casseroles and sauces." (What leftover wine?)

 

[JoeW]

Re: Martha Stewart

Dang Plywoody! This is the second topic in a row that I agree with you on. One of us has to watch that!

 

[gaugeguy]

Re: Martha Stewart

People get convicted of security fraud and insider trading every day. She is not being singled out. If it were you or me, we would be facing the jury also, she is high profile that is why it is such a big story. If you get an inside tip that a stock you hold is going to tank or fly sky high and you act on that tip, you are breaking the law. If you lie to an officer of the law, you are breaking the law.<br /><br />The jury will take all the evidence in, and they will find her guilty, she broke the law and then lied about it.

 

[11 footer]

Re: Martha Stewart

They should have slaped her with a big fine shut up about it.<br /><br />I can't stand her, she's gotta be one most anoying to ever get on TV, but they are throwing the book at her makeing an example, thats not fair.

 

[SCO]

Re: Martha Stewart

Allright, I admit it, I do like Martha Stewart. Her show is good when it is not about crafts but about gardening or cooking great food. I don't see how they can let her off just because she is wealthy, but I don't think she should be punnished unfairly either. Obviously there is little damage, but the crime can be sinister as in the Enron case. THere is a whole different level of intent to defraud and malice in a case like Enron(some of that had to be insider trading leaving the investors holding the bag). Conclusion...she should get a medium to light slap.

 

[Ralph 123]

Re: Martha Stewart

Gauge, she is not being prosecuted for anything I've ever heard of before and I am somewhat familiar with the area - she is being prosecuted because she said publicly that she is innocent. The government is saying, because she said publicly she is innocent, she mislead investors in HER company. That is just insane. I don't think anybody in history has been charged for doing this especially being charged before it has been proven she is guilty of what she claimed innocence of...see?<br /><br />The obstruction piece is she lied to prosecutors by saying she had a stop loss order in place. That is something more reasonable to go after but not to this degree. They still have not proven she is lying about the order.<br /><br />I have no personal feelings about her at all but I firmly believe she is being prosecuted unfairly and is indeed being singled out.

 

[salty87]

Re: Martha Stewart

she was an officer of a publicly traded company. she used to be a licensed broker. she knows the laws and rules. if she obstructed justice and traded on inside information, then she broke the laws. if she then tried to cover that up in an attempt to prop up her company's stock price, she's guilty of market manipulation. just cause you like her cooking doesn't mean she's above the law.<br /><br />federal prosecutors get creative all the time. they use mail fraud to bring state cases to federal court, they've also used tax evasion against lots of people. just because they've never tried this angle before doesn't mean it isn't valid.

 

[crab bait]

Re: Martha Stewart

yeah, but can't they just lock-er-up for just one nite..<br /><br />she could make toilet bowl cozzies or funny face bunk pillows, or somethin'.. <br /><br />it would be good for all..<br /><br />especially the tv 'movie of the week'...<br /><br />' MARTHA, GOOD GIRL GONE BAD'... staring paris hilton..

 

[Ralph 123]

Re: Martha Stewart

1) She is not charged with insider trading<br /><br />2) She has been charged with OofJ and it now needs to be proven<br /><br />3) You can't say she manipulated stock price by claiming she is innocent before she has been convicted. What if she is found not guilty? Show me one person who held or bought the stock because she proclaimed her innocence. This is pure BS.<br /><br />4) This isn't getting creative, this is selective, vindictive, malicious prosecution that cost people, innocent people who held stock in her company, lots of money.<br /><br />Like I said, I have no feelings about her one way or the other but as an American I am offended and outraged at this misuse and abuse of power.

 

[SpinnerBait_Nut]

Re: Martha Stewart

Well I for one hopes she don't make it into THE HALL OF FAME

 

[gaugeguy]

Re: Martha Stewart

I don't follow this case closely, but I just did a quick search on the charges against her and I came up with these. As a footnote I read something else about the SEC persuing a civil suit against her for insider trading.<br /><br />Charges against Martha Stewart and her co-defendant, ex-stockbroker Peter Bacanovic: <br /><br />MARTHA STEWART: <br /><br />_Conspiracy: Alleges Stewart and Bacanovic "willfully and knowingly" worked together to obstruct justice and make false statements in the stock-trading scandal. <br /><br />_False statements: Alleges, among other things, Stewart lied when she told the Securities and Exchange Commission, FBI and federal prosecutors she had prearranged with Bacanovic to sell ImClone when it fell below $60 per share. <br /><br />_False statements: Alleges, among other things, Stewart lied when she told the SEC, FBI and prosecutors that she did not recall being told on Dec. 27, 2001, that the Waksal family was selling ImClone stock. <br /><br />_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. <br /><br />_Securities fraud: Alleges Stewart "well knew" her personal reputation was critical to shareholders in her company, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia. Alleges she made misleading public statements in June 2002, after news of her ImClone sale broke, and intended to "defraud and deceive" her investors. <br /><br />I am really not a fan of Martha, but I don't dislike her either. She tried buying some land up here a while back and a few people met her and they thought she was real snooty...not a good fit I guess.

 

[Ralph 123]

Re: Martha Stewart

This is what we have been saying. The first 4 are basically OofJ - lying to investigators and the last one is the one where she allegedly defrauded her own investors by saying she is innocent. Note no criminal charges of insider trading. Cause they can't prove it. All of this crap was predicated on an investigation of insider trading.

 

[Link]

Re: Martha Stewart

Oh Rats SCO beat me to it.<br />I also like Martha Stewart's shows and just about everything she does on them. I also like her web site.<br /><br />My concern is would everyday people in the same situation be doing interviews with Barbra Walters or just the Jury! The latter I think.<br /><br />Now you Guys quit picking on Martha, she's just a girl ya know

 

[Fly Rod]

Re: Martha Stewart

I really don't like her. Is it because she holds herself above most people or is it because she dosen't smile.<br />The bottom line: She got insider info and does she deserve to be prosecuted. "YES ! !" Does she deserve to go to jail ?? "NO !! <br />Remember that stock person I think his name is Milkean. He milked millions from the stock market. Got 1 year in jail and paid $1,000,000.00 in fines and he kept the rest and got an excellent job when he got out of jail from his Gronies.<br />This is a woman and there are differant rules. If found guilty she will more then likely get 10 years only because she is a woman. That is "WRONG". <br />If found guilty maybe fine twice as much or triple of what she profited. She has already lost millions in endorsements.<br />Let us not, prosecute her more, because she is a woman.

 

[SpinnerBait_Nut]

Re: Martha Stewart

I don't like her period.<br />Never did.<br />But she should not be put in jail just because she is a woman.<br /><br />If she broke the law and is proved to have, then she is no better than any of us on this board.<br /><br />You know the 'ol saying, "Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time"

 

[snapperbait]

Re: Martha Stewart

Send her up the river!... <br /><br />Crabby... "MARTHA, GOOD GIRL GONE BAD'... staring paris hilton.." <br />I find that curiously arousing for some strange reason....

 

[Xcusme]

Re: Martha Stewart

 

[Fly Rod]

Re: Martha Stewart

It is the only time that she smiles. you might say it is the million dollar smile ! !

 

[rolmops]

Re: Martha Stewart

This must surely be a witch hunt.Or is it a ploy to keep our attention away from the fact that we still do not know how many of these high flying CEOs were and maybe still are in Vice President Cheney's energy cabinet?<br />One Jaded Rolmops

 

[one more cast]

Re: Martha Stewart

If she was a just a plain 'ol person (like Ray)she would have just got POOFED away.