THE MARTHA STEWART CASE IS A FARCE

Given what I know about the Martha Stewart case, I have serious doubts that she is guilty of anything--other than being wealthy and unpopular with some folks. Unfortunately, being wealthy and unpopular is enough to land someone in prison. Just look at the examples of Michael Milken, Charles Keating, and Leona Helmsley.

Insider trading laws are vaguely written and arbitrarily enforced in order to keep investors and company officials off balance. In Roman times emperors posted their rules so high that they were far beyond the range of anyone to be able to read them. Thus, the average Roman would always have to wonder if he were breaking the law or not. Today, it is the folks on Wall Street who must wonder if they are being targeted by any US attorneys.

The obstruction of justice charges that Stewart faced are what got her convicted. In their most literal sense, laws against obstruction of justice basically say that individuals, once accused by the federal government of wrongdoing, cannot defend themselves. That is because, by definition, a defense is a claim that prosecutors are wrong, and in the modern world of federal courts, telling a US attorney that he or she is wrong is by definition to engage in obstruction of justice.

US attorneys seriously damaged capital markets and the NASDAQ stock exchanges through their predatory and outrageous prosecutions of Michael Milken and Microsoft. It was the average American who suffered most during the NASDAQ crash in 2000 and 2001.

All they have achieved is to have a well-known person being sentenced to prison and owning a felony record. Oh, and we now see some federal prosecutors behaving as though they had just solved the Case of the Century. These are dark times, indeed, for the pursuit of justice in the United States of America.
1,208 views 8 replies
Reply #1 Top
They threaten to put you in jail for something you have done. You defend yourself. They nit-pick your defence to pieces and find some trifling thing that they consider "crime", and then put you in jail for it.

Makes it soundly appear that the true intention was just to get Martha Stewart, and not seek justice. Hell, lets just randomly throw accusations at people we don't like, and hope they'll slip up while they defend themselves. Heck, we won't NEED the original crimes to be true. Push people hard enough and you'll create a circumstance that is punishable.

Asshats. Killers and rapists are plead down, drunk drivers leave the courthouse without a license and get back into their cars, and for some reason it was worth untold amounts of money to put a woman who has a cooking/decorating show in jail. There was a crime here, that's for sure, but Martha didn't commit it.

Reply #2 Top

yall are really breakin my heart here. 


Insider trading laws are vaguely written and arbitrarily enforced in order to keep investors and company officials off balance
  so we're to believe that poor martha--a veritable babe in the woods who worked for 8 years as a stockbroker and was a nyse director at the time she just happened to sell her imclone stock one day before the shit the fan--was entrapped by cleverly worded regulations that led her to believe it might be legal to alter documents that might implicate her in a conspiracy? 


Makes it soundly appear that the true intention was just to get Martha Stewart, and not seek justice.
this was a sting operation? the government forced her to commit perjury?  there would have been no investigation if she'd made some clever 'tip avoidance earplugs' using ordinary office supplies and not listened to bacanovic's trusty assistent who tesitified he was ordered to warn ms stewart about the impending bad news for imclone.


There was a crime here, that's for sure, but Martha didn't commit it.


if you invested and lost money in imclone because you didnt get the same tip martha did, i wonder if you'd be as supportive of her?

Reply #3 Top

so we're to believe that poor martha--a veritable babe in the woods who worked for 8 years as a stockbroker and was a nyse director at the time she just happened to sell her imclone stock one day before the shit the fan--was entrapped by cleverly worded regulations that led her to believe it might be legal to alter documents that might implicate her in a conspiracy?


Martha Stewart was convicted of insider trading?


this was a sting operation? the government forced her to commit perjury? there would have been no investigation if she'd made some clever 'tip avoidance earplugs' using ordinary office supplies and not listened to bacanovic's trusty assistent who tesitified he was ordered to warn ms stewart about the impending bad news for imclone.


So, perjury is a serious offense now? I thought many people thought it was wrong that Clinton was impeached for it.

Reply #4 Top

Martha Stewart was convicted of insider trading?


why would you ask that?


perjury is a serious offense now? I thought many people thought it was wrong that Clinton was impeached for it


another example of sloppy (messy?) thinking.  if he was guilty of perjury, he was liable to impeachment.  it was avoidable; all he had to do was lie more cleverly--as reagan did so well--by claiming he had no recollection.

Reply #5 Top
"why would you ask that?"


Because she wasn't convicted of insider trading. If she wasn't, then she is innocent, isn't she? I don't think they could fulfill the "until proven guilty" part, did they?

Your argument is that we are taking up for "poor martha" when martha is some sort of evil insider trader. Our point is the charge she IS in jail for is a sour grapes effort to save face since they COULDN'T prosecute here for what you are accusing her of...

Reply #6 Top

Because she wasn't convicted of insider trading


i never said she was...which is why i couldnt understand the point of the question.  she was convicted of conspiracy and perjury.  my argument is she wasnt the victim of confusing regulations--or if she was, shes gotta be a world-class moron as are the other members of the nyse who voted her onto their board--she worked as a broker for 8 years and took her own company public at a very decent profit.  youre not gonna suggest she was confused about whether it was illegal to alter document dates and lie about it?

bacanovic's assistant testified under oath hed been instructed to tip her off about imclone prior to her luckily dumping her stock at just the right moment.  

Reply #7 Top
So, perjury is a serious offense now? I thought many people thought it was wrong that Clinton was impeached for it.


Bless you my child, you took the words off my keyboard!
By the by...where's Marvin? Shouldn't he be here, defending his positon?
Reply #8 Top

What gets me about Stewart's case isn't whether she was innocent or guilty. I believe she was guilty; however, she was a high profile target that took the heat off of the Ken Lays and Jeffrey Skillings, who caused FAR more damage to the stock market (read: completely undermining investor trust) than Stewart ever did with her ill advised and boneheaded move.


Right or wrong, you can't convince me that what Stewart did isn't done in virtually every business lunch on the planet...it's unethical, but the response was akin to swatting a fly with a sledgehammer, in my not so humble opinion.