Enigma, I.C.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...martha_stewart

mh67511

Well I think this was the wrong verdict, but nothing can be done now, except to appeal it. I just hope she doesn't get much time in jail, as I do NOT feel she deserves it.

[ 03-05-2004: Message edited mh67511 ]

mh67511

Question: Who was prosecuting her? The government? If so, who pays? Do we taxpayers pay to prosecute her? Or how does it work...

jjj

Of course we the taxpayers pay to prosecute MS. Don't you know how important it is to get dangerous criminals locked up - gotta make the streets safe.

[img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

Raonaild

Jail time = Criminal charges = Government doing the prosecuting. So yes, taxpayers pay. They pay to ensure the laws of the land are upheld.

If this were a civil case, some individual(s) would be the plaintiff, and the worst verdict the defendant could expect would be payment of damages, not jail time.

mh67511

I think what makes this case so interesting is the fact that never before has there been a company that is so based on ONE PERSON. Her company is huge and every part of it is branded with her name.

It will be interesting to see what effect her being convicted will have on the company.

I wonder how often insider trading goes on. Seems to me like it would happen often because to me it's basically human nature. It's all about networking, who you know, and having the competitive edge.

And you know, after all of this, I think the FDA approved the ImClone drug anyways? I am not positive but I swear I read that somewhere.

angelfallon

I can't believe Martha might be going to jail. Do you guys think if she had testified for herself then it would have helped her chances of getting off?

mh67511

Definitely. That was a big mistake, IMO. They needed to play up the fact that she is not some Enron-like criminal (or rather not a criminal since Ken Lay walks free...anyways) but rather a happy homemaker. And considering she claimed her innocence so strongly, it makes no sense why she wouldn't take the stand.

I'm Not Your Boy Toy

my only problem with this suit (and others like it) is that select people are prosecuted and found guilty. usually if you have tons of money you get off the hook, or if youre guilty people dont like you.

Jerry D

I think it's ridiculous that they went after her in the first place. I honestly don't know much about Martha Stewart, so I don't have much of an opinion about her one way or the other, but I do feel that it seemed like this whole case was so unnecessary, and I think it should have been settled out of court, and I don’t think that what she did was really such a big deal. I sometimes feel that because she’s such a visible person, that the government wanted to make an example out of her, and I think that’s patently unfair.

Katiebear

I admit it I don't like Martha Stewart however I do respect her success as a businesswoman and I was floored that she was found guilty.


I mean really how can she go to jail compared to the guys of Enron its ridiculous IMO.

Jennicole

I personally think she is guilty and I don't think it's been the first time. But saying that I think there are tons of top executives who do the same thing and Martha just happened to be the one that got caught.

Insider stock tips lead to billions of dollars lost for the average stock trader every year so one way or another we always pay for the "big man". But it's the way the world is ruled and really I can't see it ever changing. I personally don't think Martha will get any jail time I think she'll probably have to pay back some of the money. And after this you watch how her company will soar! People love a drama! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Here's a link to an article about why insider stock trades may be easier to track...http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0528/p19s01-wmpi.html

mh67511

What we all have to realize though is that Martha Stewart was NOT charged with insider trading.

I fail to understand why, after the investigation, they did not charge her with insider trading. All of that charges against her related to the INVESTIGATION of her supposed insider trading.

Does that mean that after an investigation, they did not have enough evidence to prove that she committed insider trading?

I think it is perfectly plausible that she sold the stock based on the tip, but I HIGHLY doubt she sold it SOLELY on one tip. She is not some dumb housewife we're talking about, she is a successfull businesswoman who I doubt would base her decisions simply on what one person told her. I'm sure that it was a combination of factors and that the plan to sell if it dropped below $60 is not as ludicrous as the government seems to think.

If she were not such a celebrity and simply just an "executive," I doubt this would have even gone to court or even been such a big deal.

Jess519

I always thought that the rigorousness with which they pursued this was ridiculous.

For one, I'm sure they could have worked out a plea that would have eliminated the need for a trial. A trial that the taxpayers are paying for.

That's why I think the whole thing was absurd, because part of trying someone for a trial is to serve the common good - getting criminals off the street, justice for all citizens and all that. But in this case they are really harming more people than they are helping (or providing justice for). Because 1) the taxpayers are footing the bill for the trial and 2) everyone who holds stock in Martha's company or works for the company or does business with the company is negatively affected by the trial and the verdicts.

All so they could make an example out of someone (I guess that was their reasoning?)

BfEeNlJiAcMiItNy

I believe what Martha did was wrong. I think that they need to save that space they have for her in prision, and give it to a rapist or child molester. There is much more dangerous people in this world then Martha Stewart.