Martha Stewart sentencing Friday morning

James S

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 27, 2002
Messages
5,078
Location
on an island surrounded by reality
sad.

Martha Stewart might be described as a lot of things, but stupid and no head for business certainly aren't phrases you'd use. I don't believe that she'd risk jail time for "little financial gain" (although to me the amounts involved are much more than little, she could have written a check for that amount without having to move funds /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif )

I just don't buy it.
 

flashlight_widow

Enlightened
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
243
Location
Texas
She was just sentenced to 5 months in prison and 5 months home confinement. She won't be taken away to prison immediately, of course - pending the outcome of all appeals - so, it will likely be some time before she sees the inside of a jail cell.

Personally, I think it bites. Now, admittedly, I LOVE Martha Stewart. I even had a letter published on her website! But, I think there are a great many people who are very jealous and bitter towards her, and who really enjoyed seeing her go down. I think people who don't have time to do things or who don't care about their homes really have a lot of bitterness towards her and her shows and publications. Personally, I wouldn't care if her show was broadcast from a jail cell - she still knows how to make a damn good Thanksgiving turkey. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 

Lebkuecher

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 5, 2003
Messages
1,654
Location
Nashville TN
I feel like an example needed to be made but I would be the first to sell off my stock in a company if I heard there were issues with it. (I think most people would) Money is just to hard to come by and my loyalty is to families well being first.
 

David_Campen

Enlightened
Joined
Jun 29, 2004
Messages
674
Location
California
[ QUOTE ]
Martha Stewart might be described as a lot of things, but stupid and no head for business certainly aren't phrases you'd use. I don't believe that she'd risk jail time for "little financial gain"

[/ QUOTE ]
And what she was convicted for was not the original act but for lying later to cover it up. It is hard to imagine what she was thinking. Did she just get very bad advice from her lawyers or did sho ignore their advice. All she had to do was say to the SEC (through her lawyers) "yeah, perhaps you are right and I did sell stock improperly based on inside information, I didn't mean to but if I did then I will of course disgorge the profits and pay an appropriate fine"

I feel sorry for Martha Stewart. Ken Lay is another story, I would love to see him doing hard time in the general population of some fine state prison some place like, say, Angola state prison.
 

Frangible

Enlightened
Joined
Jun 19, 2003
Messages
789
Exactly how can you be convicted of lying to cover up a crime, when you were found INNOCENT of the crime?
 

raggie33

*the raggedier*
Joined
Aug 11, 2003
Messages
13,423
lool i had a crush on martha and she is like 30 years older then me maybe less but raggie likes fooddddd .but i doubt it will work out id eat her decration.id use the wrong spooon to eat my salad etc etc
 

The_LED_Museum

*Retired*
Joined
Aug 12, 2000
Messages
19,414
Location
Federal Way WA. USA
I heard on the news this morning that she received five months in jail, and two years probation. There was a period of time she also received home detention (where she has to use one of those electronic ankle things), but I don't remember what period of time that was anymore.
 

LukeK

Enlightened
Joined
May 30, 2003
Messages
529
Location
TX
She was lucky to get 5 months. It could have been upwards of 16, and with her uncooperative and defiant attitude, it wouldn't have surprised me if it had turned out to be a lot more. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon3.gif
 

GJW

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
2,030
Location
Bay Area, CA
[ QUOTE ]
Frangible said:
Exactly how can you be convicted of lying to cover up a crime, when you were found INNOCENT of the crime?

[/ QUOTE ]

She was not found innocent of anything.
One of the counts was thrown out -- BIG DIFFERENCE!

She was found guilty of four counts of lying to investigators and obstructing justice.
Since she was not the sole defendant she can certainly be guilty of lying about their crimes.
 

MR Bulk

Flashaholic
Joined
Aug 12, 2002
Messages
6,059
Location
Hawaii
Home detention? Personally I would Love home detention - more time to play around modding flashlights!
 

cy

Flashaholic
Joined
Dec 20, 2003
Messages
8,186
Location
USA
[ QUOTE ]
flashlight_widow said:Personally, I think it bites.

[/ QUOTE ]I agree, I think it bites too! Think of all the resouces used to take her down. According to her statement this morning 200 people lost their jobs over this. There still is a chance she will win her apeal.
 

Frangible

Enlightened
Joined
Jun 19, 2003
Messages
789
[ QUOTE ]


She was not found innocent of anything.
One of the counts was thrown out -- BIG DIFFERENCE!

She was found guilty of four counts of lying to investigators and obstructing justice.
Since she was not the sole defendant she can certainly be guilty of lying about their crimes.


[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. She was found guilty for lying about a crime that never occurred.

If only they went after Bin Laden with this kind of zeal.

Appearently, we only bring justice down upon evil chess champions and interior decorators, though.
 

James S

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 27, 2002
Messages
5,078
Location
on an island surrounded by reality
[ QUOTE ]
Appearently, we only bring justice down upon evil chess champions and interior decorators, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, they are a heck of a lot easier to catch. You just call them up and say "turn yourself in at such and such" and they actually DO!

But then, perhaps the terrorists would too, I doubt that anybody has tried...

So lots of press, very little danger of getting into a firefight.

I'll be surprised if she has to serve any time until after her appeal. She's not exactly a flight risk and isn't a danger to herself or anybody else (well, perhaps to your self esteem, but that doesn't really count) so she'll go home, and the next judge will have to face my scorn if he continues to find her guilty of lying about a crime that never happened...
 

MichiganMan

Enlightened
Joined
Aug 31, 2002
Messages
589
Location
Saginaw, MI, USA
And she's smart too, look at this little gem from the Barbara Walters Interview

[ QUOTE ]
When asked how she would handle prison food, fellow inmates and strip searches, she said, "I could do it … I'm a really good camper. I can sleep on the ground.… If it is looming ahead of me, I'm going to have to face it, and take it and do it and get it over with. And there's many other people that have gone to prison. Look at Nelson Mandela."

[/ QUOTE ]

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif Hmm, I wonder if Mandela liked his marshmallows straight from the campfire or preferred to use them to make smores... sigh.

Anyways, I find it intriguing the way people love, love to hate the rich and powerful (tm) who commit abuses of power (insider trading, sexual harassment, suborning perjury, nepotism, graft, rape, etc) and love to see them "get their's" when the rich and powerful (tm) in question are abstract people we never previously knew. But principles suddenly change when the rich and powerful (tm) is someone we're familiar with, especially if we've previously watched the person perform, voted for them, or have personal animus against those we percieve as opposing the offender. Then suddenly formally indefensible defenses start getting tossed about ("$200k isn't that much and who did it hurt? " "She lying, or she wanted him to do it" (I loved hearing this come out of the mouth of NOW leaders) "Every man has done something like that, who wouldn't lie about it?" etc) I grew up on Donahue and tv Movie of the Week villains, we used to really despise the people who did these things... and if they were found not guilty of what they were accused then we were just sure it was only because they used their wealth and influence to beat the system.

But not Martha and other certain offenders, interesting, interesting.
 

James S

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 27, 2002
Messages
5,078
Location
on an island surrounded by reality
[ QUOTE ]
Then suddenly formally indefensible defenses start getting tossed about ("$200k isn't that much and who did it hurt? "

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you're not accusing me of making it up too /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

When it's people we don't know anything about we assume the courts and the press are giving us enough info, and we assume that they are doing the right thing.

When it's someone we know something about we try to overlay what we know about the person and when it doesn't match we tend to ***** and moan a bit /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

We know a little about Martha, it doesn't make a lot of sense. So we're unhappy when the courts make decisions based on the same lack of info. Cause we know they would do worse to us with even less info.
 

ygbsm

Enlightened
Joined
Dec 5, 2002
Messages
482
Location
NY
"Exactly how can you be convicted of lying to cover up a crime, when you were found INNOCENT of the crime?"


Under Federal Law, there apparently does not need to be any "crime" to "cover up" for someone to be found guilty under the statute. According to the United States Code -- 18 USC 1001:

"(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully -
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."

The statute does not have any explicit requirement that there be any underlying crime or that the person found guilty of making a false statement even be the one accused of an underlying crime if there were one. Thus, it is concievable that some third party who had nothing whatsoever to do with the stock transaction, say a friend who was asked by government agents about Martha's whereabouts the day before the stock transaction could be found guilty under 1001 if she lied and the fact she lied about was material.
Or say there was a assault and a friend of the accused liies about the accused's whereabouts at the time of the assault to federal agents -- though not accused of assault himself, that person might be subject to 1001 penalties.
Moral -- don't lie to federal authorities (and get good legal counsel, of course). In fact, saying nothing may be an alternative to attempt to avoid penalties under 1001 (although there perhaps might result in some sort of obstruction of justice claim).
In Martha's case, some press accounts suggest that Martha's attorney who represented her during her interview with the federal authorities perhaps did not (and perhaps could not) spend a great deal of time with her to prepare her for those interviews.
It is unlikely Martha could have kept silent or avoided a "voluntary" interview because of the negative business effect such a refusal may have had. An issue at trial was what actually was said during the interviews -- Martha and her counsel made no provision to have them recorded either stenographically or by videotape and some legal commentatotrs have suggested that was an oversight. It is standard pactice for an attorney preparing witnesses to testify under oath to remind them to tell the truth -- here, it may have been possible for Martha's counsel to have advised her that her actions relating to the stock sale were unlikely to form the basis for a credible claim of any violation of US Securities law (as the prosecutions inability to prevent Judge Cederbaum from throwing out their theory of securities laws violations suggests) -- Martha may then have not felt any need (although her feeling the need to do so is just speculation) to conceal/massage/hide/etc. the truth, because there was nothing really substantive to fear in relation to securities law violations.
 
Top