Safe at last! We finally got that monster. Phew!

Not only that Beth, but she managed to dodge the more serious crime she was under scruitiny for and only got convicted for lying about it.

In this climate when people are calling for a corporate crackdown I think it's odd.

Bill, the federal guidelines were 10-16 months BTW. Her attorneys tried to get the federal guidelines ruled unconstitutional.

I am hereby officially eating some crow... for using the words deliberate, lie and others that implied you were making stuff up. Sorry dude. I'll be back later to prove it wasn't an "illegal sentence", or to eat some more crow.

I suspect that Cousin Martha's real troubles lie ahead. There is still the very real possibility of a civil lawsuit on the part of her stockholders. She had a contract which made her liable for any damage any of her personal actions did to the company and stock. Not an unusual contract for a corporate 'face/name', but unusual in that she actually has damaged her own corporate name.

We were talking about this at work today. The cost of subscriptions to her magazine have dropped significantly (they never used to discount them), her website is offering all kinds of deals and freebies (I got an email announcing some of them yesterday. I'm on 'her' list as I use her site to keep track of birthdays), Mark Burnett apparently is angling to take over her show ... Martha Stewart stockholders face an interesting dilemma. Sue her - and perhaps lose it all, or let it go, and hope the company manages to recover.

Bill,

I lied and ended up doing the tedious work to prove the law ( you claimed probation was possible so I should have left the burden of proof on you but I'm daft...).

Martha Stewart's defense nearly achieved what was considered to be an unlikely downward departure from the guidelines. Incidentally she dodged even tougher new standards. In every legally possible way under the conviction to get some slack she got it.

The charges Martha was convicted for were conspiracy, obstruction and two counts of false statements.

The obstruction charge had the highest sentencing range of all the charges and would give a level 12 sentence which is in zone C of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines under USSG 2J1.2.

Now it could have been higher if grouping of the charges had taken place, which was possible as the charges are not defined as "closely related counts" in the guidelines. Furthermore, there is a provision that allows for a 3 level increase if the obscruction is considered substantial.

But it did not and Martha stayed in Zone C on the basis of the obstruction charge.

If Martha had been unlucky enough to have adjustments to bump her into level 13 she would not have been so fortunate to be able to spend half the time at home.

Level 13 would have meant 12-18 months and if she were sentenced to exactly 12 she'd have had no good time as for sentences of 12 months and under there is no good time off. 12 months and a day would have granted her 54 days of good time off.

So as you can see, Martha dodged every single possibility of a higher sentence and did fall within the lowest applicable range.

Now the range she was in calls for 10 to 16 months. Many people did not expect downward departure on the basis of aberrant conduct because her lying was over a period of months. This is why people were expecting 10-16 months.

So she got the minimum of 10. But furthermore got this:



So the very minimum possible imprisonment was 5 months.

Let's recap:

• She dodged insider trading and was only convicted for lying.
  
• She dodged grouping of the counts against her which would have increased the minimum.
  
• She dodged having 3 levels added to her sentencing due to "significant" obstruction.
  
• She did not qualify for downward departure because her criminal acts were multiple and over months.
  
• She received the minimum possible term in level 12.
  
• Furthermore, of this minimum term she received the minimum possible imprisonment time, which was half of the 10 month term getting the rest in home detention.
  

Bill, you were wrong.

Now I ask that you demonstrate "intellectual honesty" and substantiate your accuastion of intellectual dishonesty on my part.

I assert that you simply mimmick my use of the term as a rhetorical bludgeon.

That's sad, it insults the principle of intellectual honesty and I care more about that than you using it to describe me.

What I cited was correct and I just substantiated it through tedious reading of laws.

So if you want to bandy about the term, show some of it and demonstrate the ability to back up your claims.

Ok, no need to substantiate the intellectual dishonesty accusation.

But read my last post and eat crow on the whole damn thread's subject.

Martha had the worst law team in the world.

Nah, Occom Bill has had worse. just ask him.

That's just cruel...cruel...

I realize I'm mumbling, but that's cause it's tough to talk with this much crow in my mouth. Pass the Tabasco will ya. This crow really sucks. I followed all of your research after I read her indictment… do you know what I learned? (takes another big chomp of crow) Martha Stewart is a former securities broker.

I further didn't know that the Fed used such specific sentencing guidelines, let alone why I would assume that they'd be as flexible as the States that I have read about. I accused you of intellectual dishonesty not as a bludgeon, but because I was utterly convinced, you were practicing it. That was probably difficult for you to see since you were simply quoting Reuters and I was talking out of my ass. Of course, I wasn't practicing it either; I was far too busy showing off my ignorance of law… but it was an honest ignorance! Okay, that's all the crow I can handle for one night (I'll have the rest for breakfast).

I do still think jail is silly for her but… She did earn it, she did know better and I do favor specific sentencing structure over the wildly varying hillbilly variety, so if I were in charge she'd still be going to jail. (Bows head in total defeat) All right, I mean it this time, damn it... I'm stuffed. No more crow till morning.

That my friend is fact. I had a complete idiot defending me.

You're good people Bill!

No worries Bill, I share your current position* without exception.

* Seems too harsh, but is as lenient as the law allows, and without sentencing guidelines sentences can be arbitrary...

If I were judge jury and executioner she'd be free on the basis of her financial losses (then again, without the threat of legal problems there wouldn't be much in way of loss).

But within the structure that is a legal system, I think it worked the way it was meant to.

I gather you realize he's referring to my "OCCOM BILL has a fool for a client" thread. :wink:

Who is "you"?

This played heavily in the very beginning of the story, under a "how can a former securities broker be so stupid" way.



Incidentally, Stewart's team was trying to argue that the Fed guidelines were unconstitutional to try to get more flexible state action.

That was the most interesting (and futile) move in the case to me.

Ah, didn't see you snuck in front of me there. Boy I hate it when I have to change positions on my own thread, but you are completely right on this one. Saver the flavor.

Who is Who is "you"? directed at? If me, not you. :wink:

Boy, I keep getting behind. Her broker was definitely the guiltier of the two. If that jerk wouldn't have called, she couldn't have been so dumb. If my broker calls and says hey babe, you're about to loose $50,000 on EmClone cause dude's trying to sell, I'm probably going to say sell too. Of course, that was before doing this reading.

That was a hell of a thread Bill, and thanks Craven for reminding me.

Ya, that one sucked, eh?

Sort of a Floridian flavor to it. If you know what I mean.