NEWS: Martha Found Guilty

Martha Stewart was found guilty on four felony charges by a jury. Stewart is charged with conspiracy, obstruction of justice and two counts of making false statements. She can face up to 20 years in jail.

Sentencing has been set for June 17.
When the verdict was read, Stewart sat completely still, staring forward. Her face remained expresionless and she appeared to have no reaction to the guilty verdict.

Fox News

[Edited on 5-3-2004 by Banshee]

If only she had invested her money in an oil company she would never have even been charged.

This is such BS. She lied to the FBI and said she was innocent. not to a jury or a judge but the FBI in an interview. Who doesn't lie to them when they are investigating? I mean lieing is bad but this is crazy

Originally posted by nativeokie
If only she had invested her money in an oil company she would never have even been charged.

I can't believe they actually found her guilty. I wonder how much time she'll do? She must be shytting herself.

I'm uncomfortable with this. I hate her, but I don't want her to go to jail for doing the EXACT same thing I would have done.

Broker: Sell. I got a hot inside tip.
Me: Okay.
Feds: Did you break the law?
Me: Um, nope.

This seems like one of those cases where being famous made her a target.

Im glad she was found guilty because that probably means that she WAS guilty and it may send a message to the rest of the corporate scum bag leaches...I doubt...we are all doomed..

So what exactly did she do to get sent to jail?

Originally posted by JustAnIllusion
So what exactly did she do to get sent to jail?

WTF do you think this whole damn trial was about?????

read the news paper or something ..get a damn clue



[Edited on 5-3-2004 by McGotti]

Looks like she is expecting 4 or 5 years in a fed pen, ... 'club fed'.

Max was what, 20 years, but not likely applied.

Released on prior bail, pending sentencing.

[Edited on 5-3-2004 by smirkley]

mcgotti, you dont have to be such a jackass. it was just a question so dont get your panties in a twist.

when i read the news, i usually dont read about martha stewart. jackass.

Originally posted by RANT
I'm uncomfortable with this. I hate her, but I don't want her to go to jail for doing the EXACT same thing I would have done.

Broker: Sell. I got a hot inside tip.
Me: Okay.
Feds: Did you break the law?
Me: Um, nope.

This seems like one of those cases where being famous made her a target.

Are you hinting towards the death penalty? lol, just kidding btw. What would you be comfortable with them doing instead?

Originally posted by SwampFox
What would you be comfortable with them doing instead?

I honestly don't know. I think the guy selling his own stock and telling people committed insider trading, and the broker that told Martha committed insider trading, but I personally identify with Martha less as a company owner (thus subject to insider trading laws) and more as someone that buys stock.

I know she's not even guilty of that. She's guilty of lying in the criminal investigation of the other two guys, so.... jail? Sure why not. Maybe one year. The trial has cost her hundreds of thousands if not millions in lost stock value, but she'll live.

I'd trade a year of my life in jail right now if I could come out to her money.

When she goes to jail, SOMEONE is going to make a KILLING selling FREE MARTHA STEWART T-shirts and gear, especially in NYC and San Francisco.

I expect a Will & Grace joke in the next couple episodes. Jack will mention a FREE MARTHA rally.

Originally posted by RANT
I'm uncomfortable with this. I hate her, but I don't want her to go to jail for doing the EXACT same thing I would have done.

Broker: Sell. I got a hot inside tip.
Me: Okay.
Feds: Did you break the law?
Me: Um, nope.

This seems like one of those cases where being famous made her a target.

Wow. That is exactly what I was going to say. She didn't do anything I wouldn't have done. But I don't hate her like you. I love Martha Stewart. Its a good thing!

I'd have to agree, I don't see it as being a huge deal that she sold. Isn't that what most people do? Even though she lied, I dont see her getting 'up to 20 years' for that.

After thinking about this, it is a bit unfair that any citizen can be convicted of lying, but that Feds get away with murder. I was familiar with 18 USC 1001 as a convenience for making written declaration in lieu of oath, but it seems the Feds may be getting out of hand using this for any oral statement.

www.lewrockwell.com...

:Assume, for argument�s sake, that Steward did lie about her trade of ImClone stock. Perhaps she might have been better off telling the truth, one says, but it is also imperative from a legal point of view to note that when she told those alleged lies, she was not under oath. Furthermore, "obstruction of justice" and "making false statements," the main charges against her, run only one way. The U.S. Government has official policies in law enforcement about lying, all the way to the F.B.I. Training Manual that instructs agents to lie during criminal investigations.

Thus, we have private individuals subject to criminal charges, but government officials are immune from those same charges. What we are witnessing is nothing short of tyranny.

profs.lp.findlaw.com...

:18 U.S.C. 1001, Material Misrepresentation to the Federal Government

Did you know that it is a crime to tell a lie to the federal government? Even if your lie is oral and not under oath? Even if you have received no warnings of any kind? Even if you are not trying to cheat the government out of money? Even if the government is not actually misled by your falsehood? Well it is.

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 makes it a crime to: 1) knowingly and willfully; 2) make any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation; 3) in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the United States. Your lie does not even have to be made directly to an employee of the national government as long as it is "within the jurisdiction" of the ever expanding federal bureaucracy. Though the falsehood must be "material" this requirement is met if the statement has the "natural tendency to influence or [is] capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which it is addressed." United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 510 (1995). It is not necessary to show that the government was actually deceived or misled. Though you must know that your statement is false at the time you make it in order to be guilty of this crime, you do not have to know that lying to the government is a crime or even that the matter you are lying about is "within the jurisdiction" of a government agency. United States v. Yermian, 468 U.S. 63, 69 (1984). For example, if you lie to your employer on your time and attendance records and, unbeknownst to you, he submits your records, along with those of other employees, to the federal government pursuant to some regulatory duty, you could be criminally liable.

Right on, Rant.

If this would have been anyone else, it would never have made it to court. Personally, I couldn't give a flying rat's behind one way or another about Martha. I hear she's a real b*tch, but that's nothing to me. What I do see is yet another media frenzy to crucify a star simply because there was the opportunity to do so. Were I in her shoes, I would've probably done the exact same thing. That's how the stock market works!!!

Think about this people. Say you own a million bucks worth of Q-clone stock. I give you a call and say "Hey, it's me, Q. My stock's getting ready to tank in a major way--I've already sold mine, if that tells you anything. I suggest you do the same!"

What do you do? What do you do? Sure, you can ignore the fact that you know for a fact that you're going to lose your arse, and hold on to the stock while it slides into the gutter faster than a liquored-up bum's urine. Or, you do what any sane individual would and get rid of the stuff like it was a ball of plutonium--drop it fast, and get away faster! Thus preventing yourself from losing your million bucks.

That's how the market works. I don't want to hear any more whining about how insider tips give someone an unfair advantage in stock trading. Wall Street is not a charity! Fortunes are made, and lost, by the quality of information you have on your holdings. If you don't know enough about your stocks to keep from losing your arse, then you deserve to for gambling in a game you know nothing about. Even if you know what you're doing, there is always the chance that's what's going to happen anyway. Why do you think there were so many people practicing their swan dives off skyscrapers back in '32?

As for her lying about it, I would see that as the only crime involved. Personally, I think she got bad legal advice on what to say and what not to. You'd think with all that money, she'd be able to get better representation. Something besides "Lie to them!" would have been keen.

Anyway, what little time she does get (I'm guessing 2 years, with shock probation after 6~8 months--any takers?) will be spent in a relatively cushy, minimum security spread. Of course, we all know she's going to have the homiest cell on the block!

Q, nice post buddy!!

This comes from a Washington Times Article:
The charges against Ms. Stewart are all based on an offense, insider trading, with which she is not charged. The government accuses her of plotting with her Merrill Lynch broker, Peter Bacanovic, to cover up an insider trade (conspiracy); lying to investigators about it (false statements to federal agents and obstruction of justice); and misleading investors by falsely proclaiming her innocence (securities fraud).
But Ms. Stewart is not charged with the act she allegedly covered up and lied about: the sale of 4,000 ImClone shares on Dec. 27, 2001, shortly before the company announced that it had failed to get the Food and Drug Administration's approval for a new cancer medicine. The government says Ms. Stewart sold her ImClone shares because she knew ImClone CEO Sam Waksal and his daughter were selling theirs.

Insider trading my @$$. It's obvious why they can't charge her for Insider Trading. Example:
So if I'm in line waiting to get a soda, let's say. The guy ahead of me who is at the machine currently, turns to me empty handed and tells me the machine just took his money without giving him a soda. He's tried all the buttons and multiple tries and knows 100% sure the machine is empty(or atleast isn't giving up any sodas). I can either knowingly throw away my money or keep it knowing that I will lose it otherwise. But keeping it now means I'm guilty of Insider Trading.

People, this is how the market works!! I mean do you really think that all these people in the market don't have inside information floating between them? I mean, in loose terms, inside info is EXACTLY why people pay Brokers in the first place!!! But I know, that wasn't what she was charged with right. She was charged with, Conspiracy & Lying to the Feds during their investigation.

Doesn't it seem strange that she's convicted of Crimes which Stem from a Primary (Alleged) Criminal Act of which she's not even being chaged with? Hello, does anyone else see this as the Legal System being F.U.B.A.R??

Example (again): Some cop comes out of nowhere and begins arresting you for some alleged crime. You insist he has the wrong person, so on and so forth. Because of that, you are now charged with 'resisting arrest', 'attacking a peace officer', etc. Come to find out, the original alligations were wrong, and you shouldn't have been hassled in the first place. But now because of their mistake and stubbonness, the continue with the secondary charges that stemmed from their initial 'wrong' action against you. Is that ok too?

**Important Note:** All these secondary charges, including Martha's, put nobody in danger or caused anyone harm in any way. Even O.J. driving his Bronco with a huge Police convoy behind him was a more dangerous 'Resisting Arrest' moment than ol' Martha here. Ya see what I'm getting at? Please don't go off about O.J. now. I used it for one simple example only, leave it at that.