Martha Stewart Guilty!

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-03-05 04:02pm

Martha Stewart is guilty on all four counts. Details forthcoming. Wohooo!!!

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-03-05 04:08pm

Here's the early details:

Yahoo News

Yahoo News wrote:NEW YORK - Martha Stewart (news - web sites) was convicted Friday of obstructing justice and lying to the government about a superbly timed stock sale, a devastating verdict that probably means prison for the woman who epitomizes meticulous homemaking and gracious living.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-03-05 04:09pm

[nelson muntz]HA HA![/nelson muntz]

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-03-05 04:09pm

I admit she was rather annoying, but in the sea of corporate corruption she was but small fry. Who cares?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-03-05 04:16pm

Mayabird wrote:I admit she was rather annoying, but in the sea of corporate corruption she was but small fry. Who cares?

Very small fry.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-03-05 04:19pm

Joe wrote:
Mayabird wrote:I admit she was rather annoying, but in the sea of corporate corruption she was but small fry. Who cares?
Very small fry.

It's a moral victory. It shows people that even the wealthy can still see justice.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-03-05 04:41pm

Mayabird wrote:I admit she was rather annoying, but in the sea of corporate corruption she was but small fry. Who cares?

Yeah, but if they can't convict her on such small fry and lets face it, easy charges, how the hell can they go after the big fries?

On a side note, while Martha is a small fry, her buddy that got tried with her is not and he got slammed too.

Dark Hellion · Post by **Dark Hellion** » 2004-03-05 04:46pm

Martha isn't exactly small fry all over. She may be a small fry of corperate corruption, but as a public figure, she is rather huge.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-03-05 04:52pm

Dark Hellion wrote:Martha isn't exactly small fry all over. She may be a small fry of corperate corruption, but as a public figure, she is rather huge.

The charges were small fry because she only made *can't remember* 145 grand off of it. She's a far cry from Enron, but still, if you can't convict her you'll never convict Skilling (sp?).

The conviction of Martha is a credibility thing, now they just need some follow through and go after the big fries.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-03-05 04:55pm

I think she honestly thought she was above the law.

In any case,

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2004-03-05 05:00pm

The Kernel wrote:
Joe wrote:
Mayabird wrote:I admit she was rather annoying, but in the sea of corporate corruption she was but small fry. Who cares?
Very small fry.
It's a moral victory. It shows people that even the wealthy can still see justice.

Funny she did the same thing every other big player in Wall Street do.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-03-05 05:06pm

Knife wrote:
Dark Hellion wrote:Martha isn't exactly small fry all over. She may be a small fry of corperate corruption, but as a public figure, she is rather huge.
The charges were small fry because she only made *can't remember* 145 grand off of it. She's a far cry from Enron, but still, if you can't convict her you'll never convict Skilling (sp?).

The conviction of Martha is a credibility thing, now they just need some follow through and go after the big fries.

Actually, it was only 45 grand. It seems hard to believe that she would place her company in potentially serious jeopardy over chump change.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-03-05 05:13pm

Joe wrote:
Actually, it was only 45 grand. It seems hard to believe that she would place her company in potentially serious jeopardy over chump change.

I stand corrected, 45 grand. She has proved how predictable greed can be though, for 45 grand she's going to spend (atleast) probably 16 months in prison if you believe the talking heads on TV. She lost millions in stock, though they started to come back I bet they tank for the rest of the day and monday will go even lower.

All in all, Martha doesn't have to worry about money the rest of her life, but this fiasco basically ends her empire.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-03-06 01:11am

HA HA!!!

Johonebesus · Post by **Johonebesus** » 2004-03-06 06:17am

Wow, great, justice was served and a sixty year old woman may get 30 years (potential max, I know it's not a real possibility) for a piddling bit of insider trading. That really sends a message to corporate criminals like those responsible for Enron. The fat cats whose acts cost investors millions of dollars and ruined companies must be shaking in their boots.

Come one, you know the only reason she was prosecuted was because she is a celebrity who is rich but who doesn't have a lot of big political connections, plus the popular imagination describes her as a class one bitch. She might seem like a big somebody, but politically she isn't. This way, it looks like the government is going after big players when it really isn't. When the folks who caused the real damage get convicted, then we can celebrate. This was just a show.

Post by **Dalton** » 2004-03-06 08:42am

Hah, I'm rather selfishly relieved that this happened while I was NOT at work.

And while justice has been served, I don't think mocking and laughing at her is necessary.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2004-03-06 08:51am

Johonebesus wrote: This way, it looks like the government is going after big players when it really isn't. When the folks who caused the real damage get convicted, then we can celebrate. This was just a show.

But they do go after big player..........big player who are not part of the club.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-03-06 12:15pm

The Kernel wrote:It's a moral victory. It shows people that even the wealthy can still see justice.

No, what is shows people is that a relatively trivial amount like $45,000 will get wealthy people into trouble, but when you rob your employees of hundreds of millions of dollars in the form of their pension plans, you get a beach house in Miami.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-03-06 12:21pm

Durandal wrote:No, what is shows people is that a relatively trivial amount like $45,000 will get wealthy people into trouble, but when you rob your employees of hundreds of millions of dollars in the form of their pension plans, you get a beach house in Miami.

But in the popular imagination, people think that she's a big fish; an image that the media has been doing it's damnedest to create. From the surface, it looks like a moral victory, that money cannot buy the courts. That's the illusion they want. Of course, that's bunk.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-03-06 12:29pm

Durandal wrote:
The Kernel wrote:It's a moral victory. It shows people that even the wealthy can still see justice.
No, what is shows people is that a relatively trivial amount like $45,000 will get wealthy people into trouble, but when you rob your employees of hundreds of millions of dollars in the form of their pension plans, you get a beach house in Miami.

Unfortunately true, but I'll take one victory at a time. As for Ken Lay, I only hope that the justice department actually gets off their asses and decides to put him away eventually, but I realize that it is becoming more and more unlikely.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-03-06 12:57pm

The Kernel wrote:Unfortunately true, but I'll take one victory at a time. As for Ken Lay, I only hope that the justice department actually gets off their asses and decides to put him away eventually, but I realize that it is becoming more and more unlikely.

Even if they do, he'll go to a minimum security prison for a few years, and then he'll get out, withdraw the millions he has in secret assets (assuming the government seizes all his assets, not likely) and live happily ever after.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-03-06 01:20pm

Durandal wrote:
The Kernel wrote:Unfortunately true, but I'll take one victory at a time. As for Ken Lay, I only hope that the justice department actually gets off their asses and decides to put him away eventually, but I realize that it is becoming more and more unlikely.
Even if they do, he'll go to a minimum security prison for a few years, and then he'll get out, withdraw the millions he has in secret assets (assuming the government seizes all his assets, not likely) and live happily ever after.

Which, coming full circle, is probably what Martha will do (without the secret accounts).

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-03-06 01:43pm

THis is good news indeed.

A side note: my aunt is convinced that the evidence against Martha was fabricated by the gov't

.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2004-03-07 02:16am

I think this illustrates how obsessive some rich people are over their money. 45K is not worth going to jail over when you make millions. I could understand some guy whoose life savings was 45K but not her. I'd be like me going to jail for 200 bucks. No thank you.

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » 2004-03-09 03:10am

Johonebesus wrote:Wow, great, justice was served and a sixty year old woman may get 30 years (potential max, I know it's not a real possibility) for a piddling bit of insider trading.

Insider trading? Martha Stewart, not being an officer or employee of the company in question, cannot be quilty of insider trading with regards to that companies stock. Of course, the SEC continues to prosecute normal people who trade on special information, but both times its come up before the Supreme Court they've clearly said that that isn't insider trading as the law was written (they might have said something about the constitution too, I don't remember that bit). What Martha was found guilty of was not insider trading, but lieing to a federal investigator. Of course, the fact that Martha was charged with lieing in the investigation of something that the SCOTUS says isn't a crime strikes me as a bit of a...mockery of justice I guess you'd call it.