Today's the day

[Guest zipperzone]

That Martha goes to the big house.

 

What a colossal waste of tax payer's money!

[HooBoy]

As David Letterman pointed out , we can rest easy knowing that the Dept of Justice has locked up Martha Stewart and Homeland Security kept Peace Train singer Cat Stevens out of the country.

 

Baby, baby its a wild world!!!:*

[jack]

No joke. She's going in. None of us would want to be doing what she will do today. Its scary.

 

Nonetheless, Martha would not be getting stripped searched this morning if she had simply said, I made a mistake and sold that stock based on a telephone call I got before the news was public. I was wrong. Period. She would not be making her bed in a 125 women suite of tough broads who might like to try her out just because they are bored and would like something really really different to do. Scary.

 

We have all just survived two or three years of a downed stock market. Many people have been injured, hurt, by the market which was further blemished by corporate outlaw people. Many of them are either in jail or are on their way.

 

Inside trading has always been a no-no, against the law because it leaves other stock holders like you and me in the learch, exposed to losing money after the fact, after the insiders have sold out high before the bad news hits sending the price to the bottom for us, if we wished to sell on the news, at a loss.

 

Perhaps it is more difficult to fathom a verbal crime compared to a physical crime of some sort. What Martha did was lie about a crime to the government. You can't do that. There is a right and a wrong like there is a life and a death. There is a time that circumstances require you to be honest, yes or no. Martha lied. Hopefully, she will be a better women for her experience (what a way to get better) and secondly, after she walks inside and they slam the door shut, other people around the United States will reflect on when to tell the truth. It is better that Martha goes and does time for lieing. ;(

[Luv2play]

Technically, your point about Martha trading on "insider" information is not correct but I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments that the stock market depends on integrity and that Martha Stewart, a director of the New York Stock Exchange at the time she sold her Imclone stock, was not acting in accordance with her position and responsibilities.

 

If she had just fessed up and admitted that she had acted improperly, she probably would have been fined and faced some restrictions on her capacity to act as a director of a publicly traded company, namely her own. How much better this would have been than what she has lost and what she now faces! But she committed the error of the "big coverup", just as Richard Nixon did and look what happened to him.

 

I don't think it is a waste of taxpayers' money to send Martha to jail for a spell. If she had been treated leniently, the message would have been reinforced that the stock market is a rigged game and that the small investor is just so much cannon fodder, to be chewed up while the big boys (and girls) make out like bandits! The Martha saga at least serves as a warning to those that think they can get away with this kind of behaviour. After all, capitalism depends on the tenet that the strong are obliged to follow the rules just as the rest of us are obliged to do.

[woodlawn]

>Inside trading has always been a no-no, against the law

>because it leaves other stock holders like you and me in the

>learch, exposed to losing money after the fact, after the

>insiders have sold out high before the bad news hits sending

>the price to the bottom for us, if we wished to sell on the

>news, at a loss.

 

You make an excellent point, and one that is constantly ignored or overlooked by most who comment on this case. Martha sold her Imclone shares because her broker advised her to do so as a result of information that was not available to the public. The fact that she sold her shares means that someone else bought them. The buyer of those shares made the purchase without knowing what she and her broker knew. The buyer was cheated. Insider trading is NOT a victimless crime.

 

Martha wasn't charged with insider trading, although some rather knowledgeable people (such as former SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt) have stated that she should have been. Then again, Al Capone didn't go to prison for any of the murders he undoubtedly committed, but for tax evasion.

[happyguy2]

Last night on the CBS news they covered this story, ignoring the aspects of why Martha was going, but taking an interesting angle. They showed how other celebreties have been sent there (even Tokyo Rose) and that it looked more like a College Campus. They showed how two inmates go daily into town to pick up the mail (unescorted) - It was quite interesting. They said that the "residents" were looking forward to having Martha there, hoping she would eventually bring news of the way they are treated and also teach them stuff.

 

I am sure that the previous posters are correct in saying that some people (guards and inmates) might give her a hard time, but I take the probably naive view (hope) that it might work out well for everyone, if she has the right attitude....

 

hg

[Luv2play]

I can't comment on what basis Harvey Pitt made his comments since I didn't see them but I do know that the problem with charging Martha with insider trading was that she did not receive her information from an "insider", that is someone at Imclone who was in a position of having "inside" information. Waskel (Imclone's CEO) was charged with this offense since he was an insider at Imclone and his close relatives who also sold stock could also have been charged with insider trading but were not since Waskel cooperated with the authorities.

 

Stewart's and Waskel's broker, although not an insider, was prohibited from disclosing to other clients what he knew of the trading activities of Waskel. He also lied to investigators and that is why he is going to prison.

 

Insider trading has a long history and many get away with it as it is very hard to obtain the evidence to convict. These high profile cases are salutary to the system because they remind people that there is a risk if they engage in this kind of behavior. That is a good thing, as Martha would say!!!}(

[Guest zipperzone]

>Inside trading has always been a no-no, against the law

>because it leaves other stock holders like you and me in the

>learch, exposed to losing money after the fact, after the

>insiders have sold out high before the bad news hits sending

>the price to the bottom for us, if we wished to sell on the

>news, at a loss.

 

She was not guilty of insider trading. She sold on the advice of her stockbroker. If you can't follow his advice, what the hell do you have him/her for in the first place. HE is the one who is guilty>

 

>Perhaps it is more difficult to fathom a verbal crime compared

>to a physical crime of some sort. What Martha did was lie

>about a crime to the government. You can't do that. There is

>a right and a wrong like there is a life and a death. There

>is a time that circumstances require you to be honest, yes or

>no. Martha lied. Hopefully, she will be a better women for

>her experience (what a way to get better) and secondly, after

>she walks inside and they slam the door shut, other people

>around the United States will reflect on when to tell the

>truth. It is better that Martha goes and does time for

>lieing. ;(

[Guest zipperzone]

>What Martha did was lie

>about a crime to the government. You can't do that. There is

>a right and a wrong like there is a life and a death. There

>is a time that circumstances require you to be honest, yes or

>no. Martha lied.

 

Well now, technically you're right.

 

But one must wonder "why not"? The government has no compunction about lying to you. It comes from the highest source immaginable.

You'd need a computer to count the number of lies that erupt from the mouths of Bush, Asscroft, Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, the list goes on and on.

 

Since when did life become a one way street? Oh around Jan 20, 2000, I'd say!

[woodlawn]

>I can't comment on what basis Harvey Pitt made his comments

>since I didn't see them but I do know that the problem with

>charging Martha with insider trading was that she did not

>receive her information from an "insider", that is someone at

>Imclone who was in a position of having "inside" information.

>Waskel (Imclone's CEO) was charged with this offense since he

>was an insider at Imclone and his close relatives who also

>sold stock could also have been charged with insider trading

>but were not since Waskel cooperated with the authorities.

 

 

I'm not an expert on the law regarding insider trading, but Pitt is. As he explained it in an interview on CNBC, under the decisions of the Second Circuit the prohibition applies not only to officers, directors and employees of the company in question but also to those who knowingly receive nonpublic information from those persons. That would certainly cover the broker and, depending on what he told Martha, her as well.

[woodlawn]

>She was not guilty of insider trading. She sold on the advice

>of her stockbroker. If you can't follow his advice, what the

>hell do you have him/her for in the first place. HE is the one

>who is guilty>

 

If Stewart was aware that Bacanovic was conveying to her material nonpublic information about the company that he had obtained from an insider, she would indeed be guilty.

 

Stewart cannot plead ignorance of the law in this case. She herself was once a stockbroker. That means she was required to pass an exam demonstrating that she understood, among other things, the prohibition on insider trading.

[Luv2play]

Pitt may well be an expert on insider trading but then did he explain why Martha and her broker were not charged? I believe the problem was that Waskel did not tell his broker why he was selling his holdings, only that he wanted to sell. Likewise, all that Martha was aware of was that Waskel was selling, not the reason why. So the non-public information that Waskel was aware of (the negative FDA decision on his cancer drug) was not the cause for Martha selling. So, no insider trading charge that would stand up in court.

 

Let's face it, if Martha could have been charged with insider trading, she would have been. There was just no evidence to support such a charge. So I come back to my question. Why did Harvey Pitt say what he did?

[Luv2play]

You may recall (or not) that Martha's first job was being a stockbroker, long before she became the fashion maven. She was a director of the NYSE. She was NOT some little housewife depending on the advice of her stockbroker to make every move in managing her portfolio. She was a sophisticated investor who knew the rules!

 

She chose to ignore the rules. She then lied about it. She then was caught in her lies. She was convicted. She has gone to jail. Get over it.x(

[KY_TOP]

>

>>What Martha did was lie

>>about a crime to the government. You can't do that. There

>is

>>a right and a wrong like there is a life and a death. There

>>is a time that circumstances require you to be honest, yes

>or

>>no. Martha lied.

>

 

Bill Clinton lied under oath and how much prison time did he get?

Oh that's right NONE.

Way is he any better than Martha?

[Luv2play]

As George Orwell wrote in Animal Farm, some animals are more equal than others x(

[+ deej]

>Way is he any better than Martha?

 

Bill Clinton wasn't being questioned on Federal criminal charges. For good, for bad, or otherwise it's still legal to have sex (unless you're paying for it).

 

I agree with others here. Had Martha come clean and said "I made a mistake", she probably would have received a fine and a slap on the wrist. Instead, she snowballed and lied to federal investigators, got caught, and is now serving time for it as well as losing a SERIOUS chunk of money when her stock price tanked.

 

Her next book should be a hoot!

[+ Lucky]

Just because!

http://img.slate.msn.com/media/1/123125/2091444/2091479/031203_DouglasFaneuil.jpg

[woodlawn]

>Pitt may well be an expert on insider trading but then did he

>explain why Martha and her broker were not charged? I believe

>the problem was that Waskel did not tell his broker why he was

>selling his holdings, only that he wanted to sell. Likewise,

>all that Martha was aware of was that Waskel was selling, not

>the reason why. So the non-public information that Waskel was

>aware of (the negative FDA decision on his cancer drug) was

>not the cause for Martha selling. So, no insider trading

>charge that would stand up in court.

 

And how exactly do you know what Sam WAKSAL told Bacanovic or what Bacanovic told Martha? Were you on the line with them at the time? The fact that you do not know the name of one of the people you keep talking about does not encourage me to believe that you are familiar enough with the facts of this case to tell us what did and did not occur with such particularity.

 

 

>Let's face it, if Martha could have been charged with insider

>trading, she would have been. There was just no evidence to

>support such a charge. So I come back to my question. Why did

>Harvey Pitt say what he did?

 

I would have thought that anyone who follows this board would know this by now: you can't get away with making stuff up and demanding that the rest of us treat it as a fact for purposes of these discussions. The truth is you have no idea whether what you are saying is true or not. So there is no reason why the rest of us should regard it as gospel.

 

The fact that the US Attorney's Office chose not to prefer a charge of insider trading certainly does not mean there was NO evidence, as you claim above, to support such a charge. What it MAY mean is that in the opinion of the AUSA in charge of the case, the evidence was not sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In that event, whether he believes the suspect is guilty or not, a prosecutor has an ethical obligation NOT to bring the charge. It's a tough standard to meet, especially when the best evidence of what occurred could only come from one of three people all of whom have an excellent reason to lie.

[Tommygunzz]

OK--another point of view. Do we put all crime on hiatus just because Martha is the one picked off? If she committed a crime, she does the time.

 

Just because there are others out there who have committed more heinous crimes that have gone un-prosecuted, I don't see how any kind of comparative justice makes her crime less important. Laws are laws. She was convicted of breaking one and she must take her lumps.

 

I agree that there are others out there who have committed more awful crimes, but to dismiss her infraction is wrong. Sure there are murderers, rapists, coporate infidels who need to be prosecuted, but to use comparative justice as an excuse to nail her, believing that we are letting others go scot-free is ridiculous.

[bigjake8]

If Martha remains true to form, she's spent the last few months educating herself on the social rules of prison, learned to live in a 9x12 room, and has already started to network with the prisoners.

 

She may be in with a bunch of tough old broads, but shes a tough old broad herself. I wouldn't doubt it if she becomes a bit of a matriarch. She would be best choosing a job that would allow her to be as social as possible, like GED prep, becasue she's a social animal and it's her strong point.

 

As far as potential violence, you can bet she also spent soem time learing self defence. All she would need to do is kick the shit out of one inmate and she's "in".

 

 

When she get's out, she can write a book, and start the "Martha Stewart" foundation to help indigent women learn the social skills to succeed in the world, and VIOLA, she's vindicated.

 

>That Martha goes to the big house.

>

>What a colossal waste of tax payer's money!

[Ignoto]

>Martha wasn't charged with insider trading, although some

>rather knowledgeable people (such as former SEC Chairman

>Harvey Pitt) have stated that she should have been.

 

I'm not sure that Pitt said anything about criminal charges -- there are also civil penalties -- but in any case, quoting him about securities regulation is sort of like quoting Ken Lay about utility regulation.

[Guest zipperzone]

>OK--another point of view. Do we put all crime on hiatus

>just because Martha is the one picked off? If she committed

>a crime, she does the time.

 

 

I still contend that it is a waste if taxpayer money. It serves no purpose to put a 63 year old woman in jail for telling a lie. If she is found guilty - as she was - fine her. Fine her ten million bucks or whatever. Believe me that would hurt. But to throw her ass in jail is just plain nonproductive. I don't believe in jail time for white collar crime. There are more effective ways of punishing them.

 

And in her defence - look at the tens of millions she has contributed to the country in payment of income tax, not to mention the employment she has given to countless people. She's hardly a liability to society.

 

Here I am defending her and I don't even like her - go figure!

 

I also felt the same way when they locked up Leona Helmsley - and God know, I hated that bitch. I just don't feel jail is a very progressive way to punish people.

[Luv2play]

So it's Waksal, not Waskel, BIG DEAL. Doesn't change anything, people know who I'm talking about. I did identify him as the CEO of Imclone so who else do you think I'm referring to?

 

Also I said "no evidence TO SUPPORT A CHARGE". GET IT? I don't need your gratuitous lecture about "reasonable doubt".

 

The evidence that was presented in the case revealed that Martha was told that Waksal was selling his holdings. On that basis she sold her shares. There was no corroborated evidence presented that she was given insider information about the FDA ruling. That is what I'm basing my comments on. Martha or her broker may have been told that the FDA had ruled against the cancer drug before it became public info but this could not be proved.

 

That is why it is so hard to prove insider cases. There is rarely any direct evidence of the nature of the conversations between insiders. Indirect evidence such as telephone logs and e-mails often point the finger but defendants will usually come up with other explanations such as Martha's attempt to cite a pre-existing arrangement to sell at $60.00. Unfortunately for her, no-one was buying her explanation. And her untruthful explanation was unfortunately made to federal investigators, which is a crime.

[Luv2play]

You may be right that Martha will become an activist for female inmates. I have been struck by the kind of women who have been interviewed in the media concerning their experiences at the type of correctional facility where Martha is incarcerated (over 50 percent are there for drug-related offenses). I realize they may be the least hardened of the group, but they do come across as someone who could be your neighbour or relative, like the woman who was imprisoned for accepting a shipment of medical marijuana. You have to wonder about how the "war on drugs" is being waged and who are the real victims.

[woodlawn]

>So it's Waksal, not Waskel, BIG DEAL. Doesn't change

>anything, people know who I'm talking about. I did identify

>him as the CEO of Imclone so who else do you think I'm

>referring to?

 

I thought you were referring to Sam Waksal. The fact that you didn't know his name until I told you makes me wonder what else about the case you don't know.

 

 

>

>Also I said "no evidence TO SUPPORT A CHARGE". GET IT? I don't

>need your gratuitous lecture about "reasonable doubt".

 

You need someone to explain to you the difference between having "no evidence to support a charge" and having "evidence not sufficient to prove a charge beyond a reasonable doubt." Because you seem to think those two things are the same, and they are not.

 

 

>The evidence that was presented in the case revealed that

>Martha was told that Waksal was selling his holdings. On that

>basis she sold her shares. There was no corroborated evidence

>presented that she was given insider information about the FDA

>ruling. That is what I'm basing my comments on. Martha or her

>broker may have been told that the FDA had ruled against the

>cancer drug before it became public info but this could not be

>proved.

 

Unless her conversation with Bacanovic was recorded by someone, only two people in the world know what was really said, and both of them were defendants in the case. That neither one would admit passing or receiving inside information does not exactly come as a shock.

 

 

>That is why it is so hard to prove insider cases.

 

It is no harder to prove a case of insider trading than to prove any other case in which all of the witnesses also have some degree of culpability -- that is almost always true in organized crime cases, for example. You make a deal with one of the witnesses and he testifies against the others. That also happened in the Stewart case, with Bacanovic's assistant. Unfortunately for the prosecution, the assistant was not in a position to swear to what Bacanovic and Martha actually said during their conversation, and Bacanovic refused to make a deal. It might have been better for him if he had.