Martha Stewart: Has she been unfairly targeted...

I think what is being done to Martha is wrong.
She got insider information--she didn't give it.

The guys/women who have the inside info and give it out are the baddies.
I consider myself pretty honest, but if my broker called me up and said "Sell", I'd sell. If an employee of a company I had stock in did the same, I'd sell. Her great crime was being buds with a guy who had the inside info. HE broke the law. What she did, IMO, shouldn't be considered illegal.

I feel like she's a scapegoat.

If you look at the what she is charged with, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13085-2003Jun4.html
you'll see that she wasn't charged with insider information.

Though technically, even if she acts on it, she would be guilty.

She is charged with obstruction of justice (lying to the feds) and securities fraud (against her own stockholders),

Here is the indictment:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/marthaindict1.html

Are there more insidious criminals on Wall Street at which the feds should be looking?

Of course.

But don't cry for Martha.

As a former broker herself, her claim of innocence will fall upon deaf ears, and her unwillingness to admit wrongdoing and take a 30 day sentence has put her in this position.

She has no one to blame for her predicament but herself.

I think she's being treated unfairly. Nightline covered this topic tonight and made some good points. One is that if this were anyone else, these charges wouldn't warrant a fraction of the attention that she's getting. This is almost like a public hanging -- so many people are getting a crazy glee out of watching this woman go down in flames.

The point was also made that the people who are going after her so hard are those in the upper-eschelon -- not those who watch her show and buy her magazine and products. Naomi Wolf pointed out that she broke a class barrier not only by coming from a working-class family but also by showing everyone in society how to live a little more like the upper-crust do.

She took "women's work" seriously and made everyone see the importance of it, and even how to make it satisfying. She's also not only one of the richest women in the US, but one of the richest *people* in the US. A woman from a poor background busting through the ranks and taking names the whole way -- the patriarchal jerks in the rich white men's club just couldn't take it.

She didn't engage in any grand conspiracy, and the primary basis of the charges is that her "lying" to the public (if she did indeed lie) caused her stocks to unfairly not fail. But, even though she used to be a stockbroker herself, does that mean that she shouldn't take the advice of her own broker? Like Sophia, I think anyone would do that. If she was only taking advice and not conspiring, then she wouldn't be lying to the public by proclaiming her innocence, and wouldn't be committing a crime.

No celebrity gets a fair shake and that swings both ways.

LibertyD,

You allude to "people who are going after her ... in the upper-eschelon", can you name any of them? I'd like to look into the angle that she is being targeted for some reason and would like to know who is allegedly doing it.

Craven, no names were mentioned, but I assume that Wolf was talking about Martha Stewart's competitors and rivals. Since more vigor is being given to this case than is actually necessary by the feds, there was a lot of speculation as to why -- and since she's well-known for having an unpleasant personality, it seems reasonable to assume that she pissed off the wrong people and they're making this as painful and humiliating as possible for her.

http://www.marthatalks.com/


Statement From Martha's Attorney
The following is a statement from Robert G. Morvillo and John J. Tigue, attorneys for Martha Stewart:



NEW YORK, June 4, 2003 -- Robert G. Morvillo and John J. Tigue, personal attorneys for Martha Stewart, today issued the following statement on her behalf:

"Martha Stewart has done nothing wrong. The government is making her the subject of a criminal test case designed to further expand the already unrecognizable boundaries of the federal securities laws.

The indictment reveals that the predicate for the entire investigation - the accusation that Martha Stewart sold her ImClone shares based on inside information - has proven to be false. It is most ironic that Ms. Stewart faces criminal charges for obstructing an investigation which established her innocence. This turn of events can only be characterized as bizarre and raises questions about the motivation for such peculiar charges.

Though the government has not charged her with insider trading, it alleges that public statements drafted by her distinguished attorneys in June 2002 about the reasons she sold ImClone stock constitute a fraud. These unprecedented charges are baseless. The press releases were issued in response to Congressional leaks that Ms. Stewart sold her ImClone shares because she was tipped that its cancer drug application was going to be denied - another allegation that has proven to be absolutely false. In this country, those who have been falsely accused of a crime have always been free to proclaim their innocence without fear of being punished by the government for their resistance. These press releases did little more than truthfully deny that she had been tipped on Erbitux. To attempt to criminalize such statements and use the federal securities laws to deprive those under investigation of the ability to speak out in their own defense violates basic principles of American democracy and is most disturbing.

As to the remainder of the allegations, we are also unaware of any case in which a witness has voluntarily submitted to an unsworn interview by a federal prosecutor -- and then been prosecuted for allegedly false statements that have nothing to do with the stated purpose of the interview. In this case, the focus of the interview was Erbitux and Martha truthfully denied being tipped as to its status.

Why then has the government, after nearly a year and a half, chosen to file these charges? Is it for publicity purposes because Martha Stewart is a celebrity? Is it because she is a woman who has successfully competed in a man's business world by virtue of her talent, hard work and demanding standards? Is it because the government would like to be able to define securities fraud as whatever it wants it to be? Or is it because the Department of Justice is attempting to divert the public's attention from its failure to charge the politically connected managers of Enron and WorldCom who may have fleeced the public out of billions of dollars?

We urge the media to ask these questions - and to consult with legal experts on the validity and broader implications of these extraordinary charges. We believe such an inquiry will verify that this indictment is unique and goes well beyond any other criminal securities law case. We ask the public to withhold judgment until the government's unfounded charges are publicly aired and refuted. When this happens, we are convinced that justice will follow and Martha Stewart will be fully exonerated."

I find the woman annoying and boring--based on those few occassions when i've had the misfortune to be exposed to her television program. That is no reason for her prosecution.

I do not doubt for a moment that she and her financial advisors would attempt to profit from any information they could garner about the prospects of particular investments--if the government can show no illegality, then they should back down.

She is arrogant and hubristic--whom the gods would destroy they first make famous--this is no reason to prosecute her. The government (any administration) is arrogant and hubristic, which is a good reason to prosecute, but we simply have no mechanism for that. (Federal employees do not by and large change from one administration to the next, so we've got Carter employees, Reagan employees, employees of George I and Clinton employees mixed with the new George II appointments and those hired during this administration--and their attitudes, one and all, are shaped by the power and relative anonymity of their positions.)

Finally, i would point out that her celebrity makes this a case which will attract attention to the "faithful watchdog" aspect of securities and exchange regulation--another specious basis for prosecution. I think it likely that Martha would cheat if she got the chance and thought she could get away with it. I think it likely that the government thought they had her, found they didn't, and now will do anything they can to get her.

I have roughly no sympathy for anyone in this case, and would refer to the basic underlying principle of the rigged crap game which is American justice, innocence until guilt is proven.

Martha's attorney says "Martha Stewart has done nothing wrong." That's a bad opening statement. If Martha was commenting on someone making that statement, assuming it was not her, she would nail them to a cross. Certainly many people believe in guilty until proven innocent but if you've got a billion dollars and decide to grab an extra $45,000 dollars do you really believe people should look the other way? Why cry for leniency when anyone else would be nailed for it?

I'm not convinced she didn't do wrong. If she could have done something to forward herself, or her pocketbook, and thought she wouldn't get 'done' for it, it would be of a piece with her history. She's not famous for being a terribly ethical person. I don't think the charges/trial should be about her past actions, but if she lied/covered-up/whatever, she's got to face up to it.




(is this a political issue in the U.S.?)

I also hear she was a complete cow to all the staff that worked for her....the evidence is clear, she broke the law, but the charges aren't too heavy. Let her get her sentence. I don't think she was targeted.

I do believe she is being targeted, because if this were part and parcel with the normal enforcement policies of the Securities and Exhange Commission, they'd have quite a few much larger fish to fry than Martha. I do think they're doing this for the publicity value--for all i suspect Martha is just as dirty as a freshly plowed field, i'd like to see my tax dollars spent going after the big boys for whom such operations are business as usual . . .

When the Federal Courts begin to prosecute for "lying",
are they going to indict the unpresident and his 'spinners'?
Does 'spinning' mean one is CLEANING UP THEIR LIE enough that it is no longer a 'lie' but an opinion?

And this LEADERSHIP is what we pay our tax dollars for? Can anyone wonder that we have "wars and rumors of wars"?
No trust, no honesty, no decency, no truth, no compassion, no assistance, no REAL tax break, EVER. (please do not call these 'doles' to the wealthier purses a 'break')

And poor Martha, poor little rich Martha. I like her- she'll do fine.

Martha Martha Martha!! I guess that makes me Jan with a bad memory for my sister's real name....Martha will most likely do just fine and not see any jail time.

I think that she did wrong, but that the government is making a stink way out of proportion with the misdeed. The "old boy's club" hates a successful woman, and would love to put her "in her place", back in the kitchen. (Wait a minute, she WAS in the kitchen! )

If her only crime was lying, and someone found the stained blue TROUSERS.................. Looks like there is still a double standard in this country!

Hmm...I don't recall Oprah ever being taken to court....

cav- I would bet that if Oprah passed wind in public, there would be a "stink" about it!

Ah, low humor . . . my favorite variety . . .

Starr Jones would make a bigger stink...doh, and after all my nice posts in the appearances thread

Hmmm - we have a nasty little thing in Oz that we call "tall poppy syndrome" which is about loving to cut down people who stick their heads up above the mass - you know, we adulate 'em, then glory in their downfall.

I do not know enough about the situation to know if she has been targeted unfairly or not - but I DO catch a whiff of big-time tall poppy lopping.