General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Does Martha Deserve it?

Started by Larry · · Last activity · 149 posts · 3,022 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
7 March 2004
Last activity
13 June 2004
Original author
Larry
Posts
149
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
3,022
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 41–60 of 149
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. More accurately, justice has to have been seen to have been
    done. Her profile is high so she has become an example.
    However, she's a woman. Lets wait and see what happens to
    Ebbers, whose crimes where far worse, IMO.

    Robin (not a woman, BTW)

    "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    "<RJ>" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    Quoted message said:

    Martha acted on a tip from her broker. ( who doesn't ? )
    She acted on it, and got caught

    This was not just a tip from the broker. It was relayed
    information from


    an

    Quoted message said:

    inside source. It is illegal. You and I don't get tips
    like she got.


    Then

    Quoted message said:

    she lied.

    Maybe she does not deserve 20 years, but there must be
    some punishment for the crime. Ed

  2. "Dave Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Nexis said:


    Quoted message said:


    Of course not, because to her, a fine of a few
    thousand dollars is pocket change. That same fine
    would ruin my finances for years. Fines should be
    proportionate to the person's net worth. Martha
    probably has


    a

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    few hundred million dollars worth of assets, so fine
    her half. Even to


    a

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    multi-millionare, half of her money is a huge blow.

    Except that the fines are already more than a few
    thousand bucks...not


    to

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    mention she lost 1/4 of her worth the day she was
    convicted. She was


    worth

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    around 4.5 million in the morning, down to just over 3
    in the afternoon.

    But what about the honest people who lost a substantial
    portion of their


    hard

    Quoted message said:

    earned savings because of her crooked dealings? There
    have been a


    significant

    Quoted message said:

    number of crooked stock deals. People have invested their
    savings under


    the

    Quoted message said:

    belief that properly invested money will grow and provide
    them with


    financial

    Quoted message said:

    security, and at the same time, helping the national
    economy to grow. Meanwhile, shifty CEOs and major
    investors are working out crooked deals


    to

    Quoted message said:

    grab a quick profit at the expense of the legitimate
    investors.

    Actually, I hadn't addressed her crime at all in that post,
    only the fact that the fines weren't "a few thousand
    dollars" and that the fines were not the only financial
    loss. Stock is a risky proposition under any circumstance,
    and people should only go into it knowing that they can lose
    the money. I'm not saying what she did was right, but I
    guarantee you 90% of the people in the world would sell off
    a stock if they knew, for whatever reason, that they were
    about to be flocked if they didn't. Anyone who says
    otherwise is either unrealistic or lying or possibly the
    Pope. Personally, I think the lot of them (after all, she
    didn't get this info in a premonition) should have to pay
    the people who did lose money everything they lost.

    kimberly

  3. Mike Walton said:

    Let he who would not sell stock on a tip, cast the
    first stone.

    Anyone in their right mind would. But that is why there are
    regulations against it.

    Quoted message said:

    Make no mistake about it, Martha Stewart was not
    prosecuted, she was entrapped.

    ???? WTF are you talking about. She received a tip from
    someone with inside information. That person was a friend of
    hers, not a cop. She used to be a stockbroker, so she should
    have known better. In fact, she did know better, which is
    why she changed the message on her log. She willfully
    engaged in criminal behaviour.

  4. On 8 Mar 2004 17:38:28 -0800, [email hidden] (Mike Walton)
    arranged random neurons, so they looked like this:

    Quoted message said:

    Let he who would not sell stock on a tip, cast the first
    stone. Did Martha Stewart lie? Of course she did. Did she
    have any choice. Absolutely not.

    Are you nuts? She didn't have a choice? Let's just suppose,
    for the sake of argument, that, when whatever governmental
    entity first inquired, she had slapped her cheeks, looked
    chagrined, and said, "Oh, my God! What was I thinking?
    You're absolutely right! That was an insider thingy, wasn't
    it? Oh, please, please, forgive me!" You think she'd be
    facing jail time now? I don't *think* so. A hefty fine, yes,
    but nothing worse, IMHO.

    Quoted message said:

    Would anybody who has been caught smoking pot, claim that
    he or she is guilty of trafficking. Of course not. Clearly,
    no self respecting Prosecutor would expect Martha Stewart
    to tell the truth, under the circumstances, and any
    suggestion that Martha Stewart deserves to go to jail for
    lying is absolutely preposterous.

    Oh, I see - we have our tongue firmly in our cheek, do we?
    At least, I hope so.

    Quoted message said:


    Make no mistake about it, Martha Stewart was not
    prosecuted, she was entrapped.

    Let me define the legal word, "entrapment": n. in criminal
    law, the act of law enforcement officers or government
    agents inducing or encouraging a person to commit a crime
    when the potential criminal expresses a desire not to go
    ahead. The key to entrapment is whether the idea for the
    commission or encouragement of the criminal act originated
    with the police or government agents instead of with the
    "criminal." Entrapment, if proved, is a defense to a
    criminal prosecution. The accused often claims entrapment
    in so-called "stings" in which undercover agents buy or
    sell narcotics, prostitutes' services or arrange to
    purchase goods believed to be stolen. The factual question
    is: Would Johnny Begood have purchased the drugs if not
    pressed by the narc?

    Now, IIRC, Martha voluntarily lied. Was not induced to lie.
    Was not refusing to recant the lie, no? Thus, no
    "entrapment." Puhleeze.

    Quoted message said:


    The jury that convicted Martha Stewart harbors the delusion
    that they have sent a message to the little investor, but
    the exact opposite is in fact true. The jury sent the clear
    message that if you have Republican connections and you lie
    to the American people [somebody like John Poindexter] the
    Federal Government will hire you. If you are Democrat like
    Martha Stewart, you will be entrapped.

    I am as big a liberal Democrat as the next person, but I
    believe you are mixing apples and oranges. I infer that you
    are referring to Ken Lay, et al? Charges are still being
    teed up, and if nothing happens to these miscreants, maybe
    President Kerry can take care of the little beggars.

    Quoted message said:


    The business of America is business, and Marthe Stewart is
    the very best. This witchhunt has sent the clear message
    that if you are an intelligent business person, and you do
    the right thing [tell a little white lie to protect your
    stockholders] the Federal Government will destroy you.

    "...do the right thing (tell a little white lie to protect
    your stockholders)..."?? Are you nuts? You really think
    Martha lied to agents of the federal government for her
    *stockholders* benefit? And you really think this was a
    "little white lie"? A "little white lie" is when I tell my
    DH that his gawdawful haircut looks good on him, not that
    I didn't get insider information to sell a stock that's
    going to tank.

    Quoted message said:

    I think the idiots who targeted Martha Stewart and turned
    the world of the little investors who relied on the value
    of her company stock, upside down, are as guilty as
    Enron's, Ken Lay is. If Martha Stewart spends a single day
    in jail, the do-nothing regime of an idiotic administration
    that is screwing the small investor, should collapse even
    faster than Howard Dean did.

    So, just how much Martha stock do you own? You cannot
    *begin* to compare Ken Lay with Martha Stewart. Lay's
    actions destroyed people's lives and, I daresay, a LOT of
    Enron's investors were "little investors." I have a feeling
    that we're on the same approximate political page, but
    Martha lied and lies have consequences. Ken Lay will have
    his own particular level of hell with which to deal, I do so
    dearly hope.

    Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd AAC(F)BV66.0748.CA

    "If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret
    had been as old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had
    been as full as the waitress', it would have been a very
    good dinner." Anonymous.

    To reply, remove replace "shcox" with "cox"

  5. Mike Walton said:

    Make no mistake about it, Martha Stewart was not
    prosecuted, she was entrapped.

    Trapped, maybe, but not "entrapped." That is a crime that
    police commit when they encourage someone to commit a crime
    who is not predisposed to commit the crime (this is why they
    can sting drug dealers and get away with it, but not
    ordinary people with clean drug records).

    Anyway, as the other poster said, this was not a police
    operation, so "entrapment" is not even applicable.

    Quoted message said:

    The jury sent the clear message that if you have
    Republican connections and you lie to the American people
    [somebody like John Poindexter] the Federal Government
    will hire you. If you are Democrat like Martha Stewart,
    you will be entrapped.

    What about me, a registered Libertarian? They won't entrap
    me, but won't hire me... either they just leave me alone or
    I get the death penalty for standing for freedom ;-)

    Quoted message said:

    The business of America is business...

    True. My U.S. History I professor, a PhD, drilled that
    into our heads many times. It is sad, in a way, but
    good, in a way.

    Quoted message said:

    If Martha Stewart spends a single day in jail, the do-
    nothing regime of an idiotic administration that is
    screwing the small investor, should collapse even faster
    than Howard Dean did.

    I hope Asscroft dies under the surgeon's blade. And I hope
    Bush loses the next election. I may be a Christian, but that
    does not mean I will not go to Hell ;-)

    --
    John Gaughan johngaughan.netjohngaughan.net
    [email hidden]

  6. Reg <[email hidden]> wrote in
    :"]news:[email hidden]:

    Quoted message said:
    Dave Smith said:

    we seem to have a whole new generation of people in
    business who seem to be more interested in manipulating
    stock values and screwing their investors out of their
    money than they are in running a profitable business.

    There's nothing new about stock manipulation. The stock
    market crash of 1929 was the result of it, among other
    things. The SEC was created in the aftermath to try and
    address the problem.

    Stock market manipulation is a part of our national
    history. Almost the entire Kennedy fortune was created by
    stock manipulation (the remainder being the result of very
    profitable rum running operation).

    That and the debauchery of all the males.

    Such an illustrious family!

  7. Dave Smith said:


    Nancy Young said:
    Quoted message said:

    > The insider trading charges were dismissed, so my
    > question is, how can Martha be charged with
    > obstruction of justice and lying about something
    > (insider trading) that she didn't do? Seems like the
    > dismissal of the first charge makes the others a
    > moot point.

    The insider trading charges were dismissed due to a
    lack of evidence on the part of the prosecutors. That
    does not mean Martha did not commit insider trading,
    only that it could not be proven. Perhaps if Martha
    had not lied to the SEC, she would have gotten
    convicted on the insider trading charge.

    I don't believe she was ever charged with insider
    trading. She can't, she is not an insider.

    You do not have to be an insider to be guilty of insider
    trading. The person who trades stocks based on information
    that was passed on them by the insider is as guilty as the
    insider who passed it on.

    She was not charged with insider trading unless I am very
    much mistaken. And I think you're wrong about that, no
    offense at all intended.

    nancy

  8. Nexis said:

    Stock is a risky proposition under any circumstance,
    and people should only go into it knowing that they can
    lose the money. I'm not saying what she did was right,
    but I guarantee you 90% of the people in the world
    would sell off a stock if they knew, for whatever
    reason, that they were about to be flocked if they
    didn't. Anyone who says otherwise is either unrealistic
    or lying or possibly the Pope.

    Of course they would sell if they knew that their stock was
    about to down the dumper. That's why there are regulations
    against disclosing information about stocks privately when
    the same information is not publicly known. From what I
    understand of Stewart's case, she was advised by an insider
    that there was about to be an announcement about a company
    in which she held stock, and that announcement would make
    the stock value plummet. By selling early she avoided a
    huge loss.

    Quoted message said:

    Personally, I think the lot of them (after all, she didn't
    get this info in a premonition) should have to pay the
    people who did lose money everything they lost.

    Sure. I can go for that.... restitution to the losers in
    addition to a penalty.

  9. On 03/08/2004 5:41 PM, in article [email hidden], "Dave
    Smith" <[email hidden]> opined:

    Quoted message said:
    Mike Walton said:

    Let he who would not sell stock on a tip, cast the
    first stone.

    Anyone in their right mind would. But that is why there
    are regulations against it.

    Quoted message said:

    Make no mistake about it, Martha Stewart was not
    prosecuted, she was entrapped.

    ???? WTF are you talking about. She received a tip from
    someone with inside information. That person was a friend
    of hers, not a cop. She used to be a stockbroker, so she
    should have known better. In fact, she did know better,
    which is why she changed the message on her log. She
    willfully engaged in criminal behaviour.


    Actually what she did was lie to the feds which is not a
    bright move.
    --
    ==========================================================================

    "If George W. Bush announced that a cure for cancer had been
    discovered,
    Democrats would complain about unemployed laboratory rats,"
    Ann Coulter.
    ==========================================================================

  10. Nancy Young said:

    She was not charged with insider trading unless I am very
    much mistaken. And I think you're wrong about that, no
    offense at all intended.

    You are correct that the insider trading charge was
    dropped, but I respectfully disagree with your
    interpretation of US law.

    If you know a material fact about a company, and that
    information is not available to the general public, and you
    use the information in your trading, you are guilty of
    insider trading.

    --
    Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot)
    com

  11. Nancy Young said:


    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > The insider trading charges were dismissed due to a
    > lack of evidence on the part of the prosecutors.
    > That does not mean Martha did not commit insider
    > trading, only that it could not be proven. Perhaps
    > if Martha had not lied to the SEC, she would have
    > gotten convicted on the insider trading charge.

    I don't believe she was ever charged with insider
    trading. She can't, she is not an insider.

    You do not have to be an insider to be guilty of insider
    trading. The person who trades stocks based on
    information that was passed on them by the insider is as
    guilty as the insider who passed it on.

    She was not charged with insider trading unless I am very
    much mistaken. And I think you're wrong about that, no
    offense at all intended.

    miami.com8
    130039.htm

    Insider trading charges were apparently stayed pending the
    outcome of the trials on the other charges. She still faces
    those insider trading charges. And if you think that insider
    trading does not involve the recipient of the tips, check
    out this side from the US Securities and Exchange
    Commission.

    miami.com8
    130039.htm

  12. Dave Smith said:

    Of course they would sell if they knew that their stock was
    about to down the dumper. That's why there are regulations
    against disclosing information about stocks privately when
    the same information is not publicly known. From what I
    understand of Stewart's case, she was advised by an insider
    that there was about to be an announcement about a company
    in which she held stock, and that announcement would make
    the stock value plummet. By selling early she avoided a
    huge loss.

    My understanding is that she received information from with
    access to non-publically disclosed information about the
    actions of an insider. That is, her broker told here the
    president of the company was unloading his shares.

    So, what would you or I do in that case? Say "damn, wish I
    could sell mine" or say "Well, dump mine too"? The broker
    definitely violated the law by disclosing confidential
    information. The big problem is that Martha was a stock
    broker, so she knew better.

  13. On 03/08/2004 5:10 PM, in article [email hidden], "Dave
    Smith" <[email hidden]> opined:

    Quoted message said:
    Nexis said:

    Stock is a risky proposition under any circumstance,
    and people should only go into it knowing that they can
    lose the money. I'm not saying what she did was right,
    but I guarantee you 90% of the people in the world
    would sell off a stock if they knew, for whatever
    reason, that they were about to be flocked if they
    didn't. Anyone who says otherwise is either unrealistic
    or lying or possibly the Pope.

    Of course they would sell if they knew that their stock
    was about to down the dumper. That's why there are
    regulations against disclosing information about stocks
    privately when the same information is not publicly known.
    From what I understand of Stewart's case, she was advised
    by an insider that there was about to be an announcement
    about a company in which she held stock, and that
    announcement would make the stock value plummet. By
    selling early she avoided a huge loss.

    50k

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    Personally, I think the lot of them (after all, she
    didn't get this info in a premonition) should have to pay
    the people who did lose money everything they lost.

    Sure. I can go for that.... restitution to the losers in
    addition to a penalty.


    She ended up losing about 750,000,000
    --
    ================================================
    "Is it chicken or is it tuna," Jessica Simpson.
    ================================================

  14. Reg said:


    Nancy Young said:

    She was not charged with insider trading unless I am
    very much mistaken. And I think you're wrong about that,
    no offense at all intended.

    You are correct that the insider trading charge was
    dropped

    Can someone please look up what charges were dropped?

    nancy

  15. Reg said:
    Nancy Young said:

    She was not charged with insider trading unless I am
    very much mistaken. And I think you're wrong about that,
    no offense at all intended.

    You are correct that the insider trading charge was
    dropped, but I respectfully disagree with your
    interpretation of US law.

    The charges were not dropped. They were stayed pending the
    results of the other trials.

  16. Dave Smith said:

    miami.com81
    30039.htm

    Insider trading charges were apparently stayed pending the
    outcome of the trials on the other charges. She still
    faces those insider trading charges. And if you think that
    insider trading does not involve the recipient of the
    tips, check out this side from the US Securities and
    Exchange Commission.

    miami.com81
    30039.htm

    Dave, what you're referring to are civil charges, not
    criminal Very different.

    --
    Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot)
    com

  17. Nancy Young said:

    Can someone please look up what charges were dropped?

    I think it was in the "Securities Fraud" category, not
    insider trading.

    --
    Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot)
    com

  18. Reg said:


    Quoted message said:

    the other charges. She still faces those insider trading
    charges. And if you think that insider trading does not
    involve the recipient of the tips, check out this side
    from the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

    miami.commiami.com
    8130039.htm

    Dave, what you're referring to are civil charges, not
    criminal Very different.

    Never the less, according to that newspaper report, she is
    still facing charges for insider trading.

  19. Reg said:


    Nancy Young said:

    Can someone please look up what charges were dropped?

    I think it was in the "Securities Fraud" category, not
    insider trading.

    Exactly! Thank you, Reg. Sorry, I could have looked it up
    but I'm trying to clean up from my first potsticker making
    experiment. She was charged with defrauding her
    stockholders, not insider trading.

    nancy (note to self, do not add water to hot oil)

  20. Dave Smith said:

    Never the less, according to that newspaper report, she is
    still facing charges for insider trading.

    Civil charges, plus lawsuits, will be dogging her for years.
    I expect there will be a class action suit by MSO investors
    at some point.

    --
    Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot)
    com

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.