Hey, we don't have to like it.
It's a reality people who choose celebrity face, and Martha chose celebrity.
Quote:The Securities industry looks very bad these days, and by extension, so does the Securities and Exchange Commission. It appears that the SEC has not been doing its job,
As usual, setanta, you've got me scratching my head.
It appears as if you have painted the SEC into a corner.
On one hand, you decry their ineptness ("impotence") and cry "foul" at their prosecution of Ms. Stewart.
But would they not be exercising that ineptness were they NOT to bring charges?
It has been a stated policy of the Justice Dept. that, following terrorism, the integrity of the publicly traded markets is their number two priority,
As much as we may not like it, that integrity will not return without some convictions, and those convictions will include some very high profile cases such as Ms. Stewart's.
Now for you there may be no discrepancy in these two positions, but I perceive that you have created a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario.
And to the rest of those on this thread who have responded positively to Ms. Stewart, if you aren't doing anything for the next 12-15 months, I am sure that her defense team would LOVE to have you sit on her jury!
At least Martha has the wherewithall to finance her own defense with good attorneys. Most of us will already be in the pokey. c.i.
Quote:Meantime, I was surprised yesterday afternoon that the most salient fact from the 41-page Stewart indictment didn't get more attention. According to the government, Martha actually tampered with her computerized phone logs after the fact to throw off investigators. This is mind-blowing.
What could she have been thinking?
Here's how it worked: About a month after Martha allegedly sold her ImClone stock on insider advice, she had her assistant go into the phone log and erase the notation for a conversation with her stock broker from the key day it happened. Investigators, she thought, would now see December 27, 2001 and think she simply spoke to the broker. Gone was the description of him telling her to sell the stock because Waksal was also selling it off.
It's hard to understand how Stewart, who is a bright woman, thought this would never be traced. But it turns out to be the smoking gun in her case. Why would she have made the change if she had nothing to hide? At this point, one would hope that Stewart would change her plea to guilty and pay her fine. Dragging this case out only continues to harm her.
I would sincerely hope that those expressing misgivings at the prosecution of Ms. Stewart would do so without the benefit of the above information.
OOPS!!!!
ALMOST FORGOT THE LINK!!!!!!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88620,00.html
(Whew!!! That was CLOSE!!!)
Very interesting--NPR's Talk of the Nation is doing a program on this subject right now--their guest finds this a very bizarre prosecution (and states he has spent 17 years reporting on Wall Street) and notes that the SEC is bringing a civil suit, which implies that they haven't the evidence to press a criminal case.
NPR's website
You can access a "Talk of the Nation" page at the above URL. Callers are immediately asking: "What about Enron, what about World Com?" One does wonder why the emphasis on Martha, when there are such bigger crooks around, who haven't gotten this kind of personal attention. The guest has pointed out: "If a cop pulls you over and says: 'You were doing 85 mph,' and you reply: 'But everyone else is doing 110 mph,' the likely response will be: 'Too bad, you were speeding.'"
Very interesting program, which you can hear right now, if you choose.
I'm with maxsdadeo on this one.
Setanta: The SEC is only bringing civil, not criminal charges in this instance because the Justice Dept., normally not so engaged, is taking care of that aspect of the case.
Setanta,
Love the NPR link... I don't remember anyone making use of the radio on one of my threads. In the next couple of days, there may be some indepth magazine articles.
ehBeth wrote:
(is this a political issue in the U.S.?)
Yeah, people are playing the feminism card and the celebrity injustice card.
I'm gonna wait to see if other 'charges' are made before I come to any conclusion on her innocence. gotta admit things aren't looking too good, but one negative such as described above is pretty flimsy in my books. It might just be a BIG mistake on her part - from ignorance and fear.
c.i.
dlowan wrote:I still think there is something gross about the celebrity carve-up process...
Nah, what's gross is the ridiculous desire to defend celebrities that you know are guilty.
Defending the underdog is noble and such but sometimes they are the underfog for good reasons and their own actions.
I'm sick of the "save Winona", "OJ was framed, "Save Martha", "Save Kevin".....
If they did the crime the fact that others get away with it is irrelevant. It seems people are willing to forgive crimes commited by their idols and all a lawyer has to do nowadays in a celebrity legal issue is claim some kind of ism.
People are making much of how the "mens club" is sticking it to her bbut without showing a shred of evidence to support it.
The case against Martha has evidence to support it. The case that she is targeted for being a successful women only has vague feminist complaints about long standing injustice to support it.
Have any of you who claim she is being torn down for being a successul woman in a "man's world" actually looked into who is bringing the acse against her? Do you know their names?
If your answer is no, then on what basis do you conclude that the actions taken against her are motivated by envy etc?
I really wish people would try to substantiate the wildcards they play.
MARTHA IS GETTING RAW DEAL.
YES
53% [ 8 ]
NO
26% [ 4 ]
WELCOME TO BIG TIME CAPITALISM!
20% [ 3 ]
Total Votes : 15
I haven't checked yet, but I wonder how many of the Yes votes are women? Men?
(Sorry to be gone so long-my employer had lots for me to do this afternoon. I guess it's time to have that little talk again, about my priorities, and how he can't expect to monopolize my time when i have so much nonsense to take care of here.)
Well, i greatly enjoyed the NPR program on this topic. Several points: When i knew that the SEC would not bring criminal charges, the Justice Department action had very much the odor of a witch hunt-but knowing that the SEC will bring a civil suit for securities fraud alters the perspective considerably. Civil suits have a less rigorous standard of evidence than criminal prosecutions, which will allow SEC and Justice to play off one another both "lending" and "borrowing" evidence-from a prosecutorial point of view, this makes sense. (A later guest on the program, the Dean of the Washington University School of Law, by the way, felt that this was the reason SEC is bringing a civil suit, and not because the case is too weak for a criminal prosecution-additionally, there is less of a burden of proof of intent to defraud.) Another point i will be at pains to make is that although i now consider this prosecution to be justified (in view of SEC's civil suit), i would still remark that no such hoorah is being made over Waxall, who was the source of the insider information in this case-for SEC and Justice to contend that this is just another case, is extremely disingenuous. I believe that they are using this case to show how aggressive the SEC has become-which does have a bad odor, although i don't suggest that it is wrong to follow this prosecution. And, a final point. For a generation, for 20 to 30 years, the SEC has been relatively toothless in its enforcement-this is part of the reason why i have been skeptical about this prosecution. However, the Shrub, whom all here know i despise, has made an appointment for the chairman of a man who has been very aggressive, and is beefing up the enforcement division, and going after the crooks. This is essential to small investor confidence. Given the view, even within the business community, that the administration cares only about the health of the energy industry, it is also very good for the administration's image. For all that i despise the administration, i feel compelled to congratulate them for this appointment. The Dean of Washington University Law School commented that SEC enforcement had gotten energized and was aggressively doing the job they were intended to do for the last seventy years (and have usually failed to aggressively pursue--my comment, not his)-credit where it is due.
(I may be off-line tonight, my cable-modem software on the computer at home has become corrupted, so I'll have to reload the whole shootin' match, and then check it out with the ISP. Hope to see y'all tonight, but it might not be until tomorrow.)
Setanta wrote:Very interesting--NPR's Talk of the Nation is doing a program on this subject right now--their guest finds this a very bizarre prosecution (and states he has spent 17 years reporting on Wall Street) and notes that the SEC is bringing a civil suit, which implies that they haven't the evidence to press a criminal case.
With insider trading the charges are civil if the violation is less than $100,000. If it exceeds $100,000 then the SEC can go for criminal charges. Martha's deal is pegged at just under $50K.
The charges against her are yet to be proven in a court of law and until than she is innocent. However, as the saying goes if you can't do the time don't do the crime.
Fishin', on the NPR program, they mentioned a figure of $239,000, but said the SEC had opted for a civil suit for other reasons . . .
They also said the charge is not insider trading, but securities fraud, a distinction i'll be happy to leave to the law dogs . . . woof woof . . .
The $239,000 is the value of the sale transaction. If she hadn't used "insider info" and had waited until after the ImClone announcement to sell the same stocks would have sold for $193,000. The $46K difference is what the SEC uses for the determnination not the total value of the sale.
