Re: OB
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote: The problem is that not sentencing her to jail time might hamper jail time sentencing for other white-collar criminals with trials pending. You have to look at the big picture on how best to punish corporate criminals.
BBB
I'm sorry BBB, but you are wrong. That is plain old nonsense. She hasn't been convicted of insider trading. She isn't a Ken Lay who multiplied her fortune illegally at the expense of his shareholders. Her little piece of Emclone was a joke.
The woman earned her fortune. $50,000 (supposedly saved by her sale) to a Billionaire is a joke. Think about it. That's $50 to a Millionaire... how much to average Joe? A couple dollars? And, I repeat; they didn't convict her of that. They convicted her of telling a lie. So far that lie cost her about $800,000,000 and you think she needs some jail time before she learns her lesson?
Please.
OB
OB, I guess we will have to agree that we disagree. But that's OK, friends can disagree and still be friends.
BBB
They are simply using her as an example. What better than use a high profile individual to scare the h*ll out of any else? I do not agree with the sentence, as the punishment should fit the crime. She should not go scott free, but jail time for lying seems a bit much.
Letty and others - Martha was not convicted of insider trading, she was convicted of lying. So your comment is moot, she is not guilty of what you are accusing her of. So even discussing whether or not she caused people to lose money or she gained at the expense of others is incorrect. She is innocent by the court of any of these charges.
Of Course darlin... otherwise I'd have to make new friends everyday. :wink:
Do her apologists assert that she did not break the law?
I mean, I don't mind if you think it's a sexist conspiracy, celebrity exemplification or whatever all the theories about her being railroaded are.
Nor would I wish to disagree that the punishment doesn't seem to fit the crime (I will note that I don't know that based on fact, just a hunch).
But I'm curious as to whether her apologists think she was in fact guilty of a criminal offense, and one that could have been punished more harshly according to law.
If so, do you guys want those laws changed or something?
And Bill, your arguments about how rich she is are really shoddy. Her fortune has nothing whatsoever to do with the crime.
The only thing it says it that she was daft to have done it, not that she didn't and is not guilty for it.
It's an odd day when someone points to someone's wealth as an excuse for criminal behavior.
"No seriously, OJ was rich! I mean to a rich guy a wife's worth less than for us poor folk you know, he could have bought another one. Seriously for him it was like a buck fifty or something."
Craven de Kere wrote:And Bill, your arguments about how rich she is are really shoddy. Her fortune has nothing whatsoever to do with the crime.
The only thing it says it that she was daft to have done it, not that she didn't and is not guilty for it.
It's an odd day when someone points to someone's wealth as an excuse for criminal behavior.
"No seriously, OJ was rich! I mean to a rich guy a wife's worth less than for us poor folk you know, he could have bought another one. Seriously for him it was like a buck fifty or something."
At no point did I suggest she wasn't guilty. Nor did I suggest that her wealth should excuse her from prosecution. I suggested she's been punished enough. 3/4 of her net worth disappeared as a direct result of these charges. It matters little what your Net Worth is; 75% is a lot of it.
Your OJ strawman is out of place. Since most criminal laws do consider intent and motive... Martha's need or lack thereof for money is relevant as far as the initial accusations were concerned. Her losses are certainly relevant when it comes to determining what punishment she deserves for lying during the investigation as well. That wasn't the case in any part of OJ's trial.
Craven de Kere wrote:Do her apologists assert that she did not break the law?
But I'm curious as to whether her apologists think she was in fact guilty of a criminal offense, and one that could have been punished more harshly according to law. ?
As OC pointed out, there was insufficent evidence to prove that a crime had occurred. Further it might be noted that one of the witness that testified that a crime had occurred has now been charged with lying under oath about evidence of that alleged crime.
I do not know how much more harshly one can be punished than to be punished for a crime that can not be proven.
Further, the American legal system operates on precedent. If the prosecutors can get away with this kind of logic in a high profile case, it will not only be a slam dunk in run of the mill cases, it will be legel.
Martha says she will be back
It looks like Martha got off much easier than someone else with less celebrity and wealth would fare. As a feminist, I believe that if women want the same rights and responsibility as men they must be prepared to take the same responsibility for their actions as men. That's what equality means! ---BBB
Martha Stewart Gets 5 Months in Prison
Jul 16, 12:05 PM (ET)
By ERIN McCLAM
NEW YORK (AP) - Martha Stewart was handed a prison term of just five months Friday for lying about a stock sale. After asking the judge for leniency, she emerged defiant from the courthouse to say she was being persecuted and declared, "I'll be back."
"I'm not afraid. Not afraid whatsoever. I'm very sorry it had to come to this," she told a crowd of media and supporters afterward, speaking in a strong voice on the courthouse steps.
Stewart, who was also ordered to serve five months of home confinement and fined $30,000, did win a key victory when U.S. District Court Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum stayed her sentence pending appeal, a process that could last many months.
The sentence was also far less than it could have been. Experts had predicted she would receive 10 to 16 months.
In the courtroom, Stewart, 62, projected a much less confident image, appealing in a shaky voice for a reduced sentence and asking the judge to "remember all the good I have done."
"Today is a shameful day. It's shameful for me, for my family and for my company," she said. As she was sentenced, she stood and faced the judge, her jaw tight but otherwise showing little emotion.
But outside the courthouse, Stewart was confident and upbeat. She smiled broadly to the cheers of supporters as she complained that a "small personal matter" had been blown out of proportion.
She even plugged her company's magazine and products, while joking that she didn't mean to make a sales pitch.
"Our magazines are great," she said. "They deserve your support, and whatever happened to me personally shouldn't have any effect whatsoever on the great company Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia."
Shares in the company shot up after the sentence was announced. The stock was up $2.52, or nearly 30 percent, at $11.16 in late-morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange.
Cedarbaum granted a defense request to recommend to prison officials that Stewart be assigned to a minimum-security federal prison in Danbury, Conn., close to her home in Westport.
During home confinement, which Stewart said she plans to serve at her home in Bedford, N.Y., the judge said she would consider waiving a typical provision that the detainee wear an electronic monitoring bracelet.
Cedarbaum did reject a defense request to send Stewart to a halfway house rather than prison, noting that "lying to government agencies during the course of an investigation is a very serious matter."
But the judge said she was imposing the lowest sentence she could under federal sentencing guidelines. "I believe that you have suffered, and will continue to suffer, enough," Cedarbaum said.
Prosecutor Karen Patton Seymour had argued for a heavier sentence.
"Ms. Stewart is asking for leniency far beyond what ordinary people who are convicted of these crimes would receive under the sentencing guidelines," she said.
The jail term was the latest blow for Stewart, once the CEO of a $1 billion media empire. After her 2003 indictment, she resigned as head of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. (MSO) And following her conviction, she surrendered her seat on its board.
Yet her fall from grace did little to hurt her standing among her fans. In the final weeks before Stewart's sentencing, hundreds of well-wishers sent letters to the judge asking for mercy.
Former Merrill Lynch & Co. stockbroker Peter Bacanovic, who was convicted along with Stewart of lying about the 2001 stock sale, was scheduled to be sentenced later Friday.
It was Dec. 27, 2001, when Stewart, in a brief phone call from a Texas tarmac on her way to a Mexican vacation, sold 3,928 shares of ImClone Systems Inc., a company run by her longtime friend Sam Waksal.
Prosecutors alleged that Bacanovic, 42, ordered his assistant to tip Stewart that Waksal was trying to sell his shares. ImClone announced negative news the next day that sent the stock plunging. Stewart saved $51,000.
Stewart and Bacanovic always maintained she sold because of a preset plan to unload the stock when it fell to $60. ImClone now trades around $80.
The star witness against Stewart was Douglas Faneuil, a young former brokerage assistant who vividly described Bacanovic's order when he learned Waksal was trying to sell: "Oh my God. Get Martha on the phone."
Ann Armstrong, a veteran Stewart assistant, also testified Stewart had altered a computer log of a message Bacanovic left earlier that day about ImClone.
But the verdict on March 5 - guilty on four counts apiece for Stewart and Bacanovic - set off a string of events as dramatic as the trial itself.
In April, lawyers for both defendants accused one juror of lying about an arrest record in order to get on the trial. Cedarbaum denied a request for a new trial, saying there was no proof the juror lied or was biased.
And in May, federal prosecutors accused Larry F. Stewart, a Secret Service ink expert, of lying repeatedly in his testimony at the trial - mostly about the role he played in ink-analysis testing of a stock worksheet.
Just last week, Cedarbaum again denied new trials for Stewart and Bacanovic, this time saying there was "overwhelming independent evidence" to support the guilty verdicts.
Both the juror issue and the Larry Stewart perjury charges are expected to form the basis of the appeal.
Only the little people pay taxes.
Leona Helmsley! Right, Cav?
That would be her, Letty.
Martha
Given her management personality style, Martha Stewart might not have gotten in trouble if she had understood Dee Hock's quote: "If you don't understand that you work for your mislabeled 'subordinates,' then you know nothing of leadership. You know only tyranny."
BBB
OCCOM BILL wrote:
At no point did I suggest she wasn't guilty.
Ok, just to be clear I wanted to know if this outrage was that a guilty person is serving a sentence or an innocent one.
Quote: Nor did I suggest that her wealth should excuse her from prosecution. I suggested she's been punished enough. 3/4 of her net worth disappeared as a direct result of these charges. It matters little what your Net Worth is; 75% is a lot of it.
Bill, unfortunately our legal system is not such that individual citizens get to decide alternative occurances are substitute for the legal system.
Quote:Your OJ strawman is out of place.
No, it is not. Your ridiculous use of the money argument is the same, one could argue that OJ's loss in terms of money from the hit his reputation took should be factored into the legal punishment meeted out.
It's an absurd argument.
Quote:
Her losses are certainly relevant when it comes to determining what punishment she deserves for lying during the investigation as well.
No they are not. This is the bullshit I am calling you on.
Acquiunk wrote:Craven de Kere wrote:Do her apologists assert that she did not break the law?
As OC pointed out, there was insufficent evidence to prove that a crime had occurred.
OC says she's guilty.
Are you saying she was not and was injustly convicted? Well, that would be laughable. I urge you to make the case.
Again, the question was a simple one, do you think she was guilty of a crime?
Quote:
Further, the American legal system operates on precedent. If the prosecutors can get away with this kind of logic in a high profile case, it will not only be a slam dunk in run of the mill cases, it will be legel.
It already
is legal.
Oh, boy
, here we go again...
Craven de Kere wrote: Quote: Nor did I suggest that her wealth should excuse her from prosecution. I suggested she's been punished enough. 3/4 of her net worth disappeared as a direct result of these charges. It matters little what your Net Worth is; 75% is a lot of it.
Bill, unfortunately our legal system is not such that individual citizens get to decide alternative occurances are substitute for the legal system.
What hell are you talking about Craven? This Judge could very easily have sentenced probation in light of the circumstances and another Judge may well have. Our "legal system" knows no such limitation as you suggest. Certain crimes have mandatory sentences, yes... but this wasn't one of those.
Craven de Kere wrote: Quote:Your OJ strawman is out of place.
No, it is not. Your ridiculous use of the money argument is the same, one could argue that OJ's loss in terms of money from the hit his reputation took should be factored into the legal punishment meeted out.
Craven, no, no one could argue that. Losing 3 quarters of your net worth... 3 quarters of a billion dollars because you lied about a FINANCIAL TRANSACTION most certainly can and in fact WAS taken into consideration at sentencing.
Quote:"I believe that you have suffered, and will continue to suffer, enough," Cedarbaum said
.Hmmm, I wonder what the Judge meant by suffered?
To suggest that OJ should have been given the same courtesy after committing murder remains an idiotic strawman... if he indeed commited murder.
He was found not guilty, remember?
Craven de Kere wrote: It's an absurd argument.
Your response is what's absurd, dude.
Craven de Kere wrote:Quote:Her losses are certainly relevant when it comes to determining what punishment she deserves for lying during the investigation as well.
No they are not. This is the bullshit I am calling you on.
You are calling it bullshit...why I have no idea... the Judge didn't. :wink: But just to dispell any remaining doubt about whether or not it's relevant.
Stanley Twardy Jr., a former Connecticut U.S. attorney wrote:As for Stewart, "the judge probably felt that, given the loss of status and the impact on her business, that this punishment was fair and just,"
Is it safe to assume you'll recognize the expert status of a former U.S. Attorney over either of our lay opinions? :wink:
OCCOM BILL wrote:Oh, boy
, here we go again...
Nah, I've got work to do. I'll keep it short. I just realized you didn't know that the sentence
was the legal minimum. So when you said it could be less because of the financial thing you were thinking about mitigation within the guidelines when I thought you meant throwing them out alltogether.
Where you are wrong is in claiming that less was legal and that the financial punishment could
replace the minimum (not just mitigate against the severity within the minimum and maximum).
My wording was imprecise and my arguments very sloppy so I'll just quote the judge:
Quote: "The sentence I have just imposed is, in my opinion, the minimum permitted under current law."
Yes the judge can take the financial hit into consideration within the scope of the delineated sentencing guidelines, no the judge could not have legally done what you are claiming she could and should have done and given her probation because of it, she got the minimum allowed by law and the financial hit can only bring it down to that and not replace it.
Craven de Kere wrote: OCCOM BILL wrote:Is it safe to assume you'll recognize the expert status of a former U.S. Attorney over either of our lay opinions? :wink:
Sure, especially when it contradicts your opinon. ;-)
You wish. Watch:
Craven de Kere wrote: You claim you want the financial hit to replace it, Stan's just saying that coupled with the sentence it's a fair sentence.
Which proves the financial hit is relevant. His opinion on what's fair is as meaningless as yours or mine. Nice try.
Craven de Kere wrote: Look Bill to make this short where you are wrong is in claiming that less was legal and that the financial punishment could replace the minimum.
This you just made up. Please provide for me this "minimum"... or simply admit it doesn't exist.
Craven de Kere wrote: My wording was imprecise so just use the judge's:
Quote:"The sentence I have just imposed is, in my opinion, the minimum permitted under current law."
Please source this quote. I believe you have deliberately misquoted to lend additional weight to her statement, and to the intellectually dishonest statement, you make below. I saw the quote as:
Quote:Ms. Stewart is asking for leniency far beyond what ordinary people who are convicted of these crimes would receive under the sentencing guidelines
A sentencing guideline is hardly a legal minimum Craven.
Craven de Kere wrote:Yes the judge can take the financial hit into consideration within the scope of the delineated sentencing guidelines, no the judge could not have legally done what you are claiming she could and should have done and given her probation because of it, she got the minimum allowed by law and the financial hit can only bring it down to that and not replace it.
I believe the portion highlighted above is somewhere between a foolish mistake and a deliberate lie. If it was indeed illegal to grant probation, please prove it.
Sorry Bill, I shortened my post and hadn't known you were replying to it before I truncated it. Like I said, I don't want to do the dance on the superfluous parts so I will address the simple core of the issue, whether or not the judge
could have given her no jail time.
OCCOM BILL wrote:Please source this quote. I believe you have deliberately misquoted to lend additional weight to her statement, and to the intellectually dishonest statement, you make below. I saw the quote as:
Quote:Ms. Stewart is asking for leniency far beyond what ordinary people who are convicted of these crimes would receive under the sentencing guidelines
Bill you are speaking of a different quote. And you mimmick me and simply toss out terms I use that have meaning beyond rhetorical bludgeons.
If you have an issue with "intellectual honesty" take it up with the judge and with the news wires that I lifted that quote from verbatim.
Do a
Google News Search you will find a bunch of articles titled "
Martha Stewart Gets Minimum Sentence for Lying" from Reuters.
U.S. District Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum said:
"[b]The sentence I have just imposed is, in my opinion, the minimum permitted under current law," the judge said.[/b] "I have not lost sight of the seriousness of the offense of which you have been convicted. lying to government agencies during the course of an investigation is a very serious matter."
That is the quote Reuter's posted verbatim so you'll have to take up your "misquote" suspicions with them.
Quote:I believe the portion highlighted above is somewhere between a foolish mistake and a deliberate lie. If it was indeed illegal to grant probation, please prove it.
No thanks Bill,
the judge claims it was the minimum, all the credible
pundits I have read claim it was the minimum. All the
legal commentary I have read says it was the minimum. And
newspapers are calling it the minimum.
Now, it
is possible that they are all wrong, but quite frankly I do not have the time to dig through the law right now and if you do not believe them that is fine with me.
And if you find evidence to the contrary, I will, of course, be interested. I just don't think it's likely that they are wrong and am loathe to do tedious work that I think will put me back exactly where I am.
Why are people defending someone who got busted for lying to the government, and got the minimum penalty on conviction?
I was a fan of Cousin Martha in the early days. Was a subscriber in the early 1990's. I absolutely admire her ability to corral the talents of others (as long as she gives appropriate credit), but ... she was charged and convicted and given the minimum sentence. That should be a good thing.
