Martha Stewart: Has she been unfairly targeted...

I say a definate Yes.......and no.

...On one hand if you break the law you're taking a chance on suffering the consequences. So I don't see where one can say she's being treated unfairly by the SEC, or prosecutors.
...However, I am confused by the mean spiritedness, and moral condemation, from the media, and public. I've never watched her program, I don't know anything about her personality, but I do ask myself if I,in her situation would do the same thing. Hmm..lessee, hold on to stock, and lose a fortune, or sell, and save a fortune.....DUH! Rolling Eyes

And I wonder how many of her detractors, would act any different.
...Just to make my moral position clear; I have no respect for the law. I respect human beings, and I observe the golden rule. I am prevented from breaking most laws, by my personal code of ethics, and threat of incarceration. I have seen too many rich citizens, and murderous policepersons, laugh at the law, to have respect for the law.

0 Replies

Booman,

Good point, I'm inclined to agree that those who cheer her misfortune might be motivated by less noble reasons than rule of law, at the same time I do not think the authorities are basing their actions on these motives and have yet to see otherwise.

0 Replies

Given that the SEC is going after her in a civil case, I'm less inclined to see this as a witch hunt on the part of the Department of Justice. I do believe SEC and Justice are using her celebrity to tout themselves as tough on securities fraud--i'd be more convinced if they moved with as much determination and as much fanfare on brokerage houses and the accountants. Although i see Booman's point, i'm a devotee of the concept of the rule of law, and would only remark that we live in a largely lawless society because those at the top and those in positions of authority or enforcement responsibility can too commonly be termed scoff-laws.

(i got smart, deleted all the cable modem software, and did a complete reload--took about 3 minutes.)

0 Replies

I heard another perspective about this civil suit about Martha's sale of 4,000 shares. It seems there were something like 7 million shares sold during the same day or period, and Martha's share is so miniscule, what's the beef? She's already lost a great deal more than $239,000. c.i.

0 Replies

CDK - my small point, such as it was, was not either that she is being persecuted for her gender nor celebrity - but simply that the pack feeding frenzy mentality thing that occurs in the less elevated media and in the minds of its consumers is an ugly thing, that perversely, and I acknowledged, quite irrationally, makes me wish to defend such celebrities.

I do not think they should go unprosecuted for their deeds.

0 Replies

Quote:

hold on to stock, and lose a fortune, or sell, and save a fortune

A minor, although relevant point, she lost her fortune as a RESULT of the trade, (diminished stock value in Martha Stewart Omnimedia), and in her quest to "time" the market by selling her Imclone before the news hit the street.

The ironic epilogue to this is that now, Imclone may actually work in fighting cancer, and Sam Waksal and Martha are left to contemplate what might have been he certainly, and her possibly, behind bars.

To put it in financial perspective, her attempting to sell Imclone stock and the value of what she sought to retain versus the value of what she lost as a result of the trade is comparable to us palming the gratuity off of a table we might pass at a restaurant.

Comparisons to a common thief are not out of line in this instance.

0 Replies

The poll appears to be shifting...

MARTHA IS GETTING RAW DEAL.

YES
42% [ 8 ]

NO
26% [ 5 ]

WELCOME TO BIG TIME CAPITALISM!
31% [ 6 ]

Total Votes : 19

The eight votes have held for one plus hours; while, the WELCOME TO BIG TIME CAPITALISM has increased.

0 Replies

Well, i'm not buckin' the trend then, cuz that's my original vote. I do try to take the pragmatic view, for however i may argue the politics or justice of something. If yer gonna run with the big dogs, you better be able to hang, or get back on the porch.

0 Replies

I'll have to track down the articles I read this morning. My understanding was that there are two sets of charges against Cousin Martha, one in the criminal courts, and the other civil.

0 Replies

I didn't find the 'good' article that I was reading but there are indeed criminal and civil charges involved. Looks like at one group believes they've got enough evidence to make criminal charges stick. The article I was looking for talked about the concern that the evidence in the criminal trial would be used against Cousin Martha in the lawsuit against her by her own stockholders in regard to the loss of value of her companies.

http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2003/6/6/business/stew05g&sec=business

and in case the link times out ...

Quote:

Martha Stewart, who turned a small catering outfit into a multi-million dollar media and home decorating business empire, has been charged with lying to US federal authorities investigating her sale of stock in a biotech company run by a friend.

In a nine-count criminal indictment, the government charged that Stewart and her former stockbroker, Peter Bacanovic, had interfered with the investigation of the suspicious timing of her ImClone Systems Inc stock sale.

Within hours of pleading not guilty to the charges on Wednesday, Stewart resigned her positions as chairman and chief executive of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. However, she will remain on the company's board as chief creative officer. Board member Jeffrey Ubben was named chairman, and company president Sharon Patrick was named CEO.

Stewart and Bacanovic, who was a broker with Merrill Lynch & Co, conspired to "fabricate and attempt to deceive investigators with a fictitious explanation for her sale", the 41-page indictment said. Stewart sold nearly 4,000 ImClone shares the day before the firm delivered bad news that caused its stock to plummet.

Stewart, a former stockbroker and model, was also charged with securities fraud and making false statements. She was released on her own recognizance after entering a not guilty plea on all counts at her arraignment here.

To the surprise of some legal experts, prosecutors did not bring criminal insider trading charges against Stewart even after more than a year of investigating her sale of ImClone shares.

Instead, prosecutors left those allegations to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which filed a civil suit charging that Stewart "committed illegal insider trading...after receiving an unlawful tip from Bacanovic."

The SEC suit also charged both Stewart and Bacanovic with making false statements.

Bacanovic was additionally charged with perjury for allegedly lying to SEC investigators. He was also the broker for Sam Waksal, a friend of Stewart's and at the time ImClone chief executive, which was trying to bring an experimental cancer drug to market.

Securities fraud carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison, and obstruction of justice carries a penalty of up to five years jail and a fine of up to a US$250,000.

The SEC, in its civil suit, is seeking to bar Stewart from being a company director and to limit her activity as an officer of a public company. - Reuters

0 Replies

simple question. Does anyone here really care about Martha Stewart? Nope...good night

0 Replies

Funny you should mention that, dyslexia. It's related to another interesting article about Martha's value. http://slate.msn.com/id/2084026/

Quote:

0 Replies

Letty, I don't 'care' about Martha, the person. However, I am interested in Martha the business case. I've been following her marketing for nearly 15 years now.

0 Replies

The criminal charges against her for not admitting that she had insider info are bogus IMO. It seems to fly in the face of the whole 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination. In this case, she refused to incriminate herself so they dreamed up some other charge to bring her up on.

That's like charging anyone who pleads not guilty to any crime with obstruction of justice.

0 Replies

fishn' This administration makes up its own rules as it goes along. Only this administration is allowed to lie. Everybody else will be charged with a crime. Have they found any WMD's in Iraq, yet? How about Saddam? YOu know, he's the most dangerous man in the world only second to Osama. c.i.

0 Replies

Just look at all the ideas in this thread! And just look at all the headlines.

I contend that lawsuits, as serious as the participants may be, on a larger scale are actually carried out primarily as a form of entertainment. Right or wrong, illegal or not, Martha's downfall is great press and captures the public's imagination. That's why she will be pursued and prosecuted.

The majority rules, so even murder would be legal if enough people voted to make it so! So, what is it the public demands more and more of, in this jaded day and fast-food age? As our social ideals and psychologies change, the justice system gradually becomes just another reality show, a people's court with real-life tragedy, drama, gossip and suspense. That's why the courts exist!

Shall we throw her to the lions and pass the popcorn?
Thumbs up, or thumbs down, what say ye?

0 Replies

fishin': I believe this is the gist of the obstruction charge:

Quote:

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?

The above is excerpted from my previous link, for those keeping track. Smile

0 Replies

Free Martha!!!

Prosecute Enron!

Sexist lynching!!!

Bah!

0 Replies

well, I can't see if your tongue is in cheek, but I do think its a damn shame that Ken Lay still hasn't been laid a glove on, and they're making this kind of a stink over Martha Stewart making 40 Gs.

0 Replies

Martha Stewart: Has she been unfairly targeted...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know