It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
Originally posted by JustAnIllusion
So what exactly did she do to get sent to jail?
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.
Originally posted by SwampFox
What would you be comfortable with them doing instead?
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.
: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.
: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.
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.