Martha StewartPosted by Buck T. on 3/08/04 at 09:35 (146426)
I hear our governemnet is going after Mickey Mouse next.
Re: Martha StewartMahatmelissama on 3/08/04 at 09:55 (146434)
You know, she may be a wench as the media paints her...but I don't think she deserves to be in jail from what I have read. Pretty scary. It could happen to any of us if we were famous. :-s
Re: Martha StewartPaul S on 3/08/04 at 10:04 (146436)
To put what she did in perspective, it was as if you or I had $100,000.00,
and we robbed somebody of $7.29. That is how much that $50,000 was to her worth at the time. If she had just 'fessed up and admitted it, this would never have happened. It all rests on her shoulders
Re: Martha Stewartjohn h on 3/08/04 at 13:34 (146458)
I think Martha in her own mind does not think she did anything wrong. She does not seem like she will show any contrition. I had read many articles whe was really hard on her employees. Some people with new found wealth do not handle it very well. There is no doubt she had inside information which none of us ever have. She will in my opinion not get over 2 years but there is no country club prisions anymore so how someone like Marth will really have a tough go. She is tough at least on the exterior but is now 62. Her pride is hurt more than any prison sentance they will dole out.
Re: Martha StewartR C on 3/08/04 at 14:08 (146460)
I've been following this story on TV and newspapers. In my layman's view, Martha was appropriately exonerated for the fraud charge, and she deserved the guilty verdict on three out of the four remaining charges. (The government's case with respect to the conspiracy charge seems weak to me.) Under sentencing guidelines, Martha currently faces at least a year of prison. In addition, there are some potential civil liabilities. As far as appealing the case goes, I think that there are sufficient grounds for appeal (the talking heads always identify three or four reasons), but there's apparently no consensus that she would prevail.
As much as I am personally sympathetic towards her, I think she should do time.
Re: Martha Stewartmarie on 3/08/04 at 15:51 (146466)
I pretty much agree with you RC and I really like her company and its products. I feel that she will get a year or less with probation. It was a small amount of money in her eyes but don't you think it was a bit greedy to worry about such a little amount enough to commit a crime? The ironic thing is that the drug that was the center of all of this was just approved by the fda.
Re: Martha StewartDr. Z on 3/08/04 at 16:34 (146472)
Is it true that she was offered a deal before the trial to just pay a fine. Is this true?. I heard this rumor
Re: Martha StewartR C on 3/09/04 at 14:21 (146547)
I heard that Martha was offered a deal that involved probation. Well, she gambled and lost.
I had not heard that the Imclone drug in question has been approved by the FDA after all. Ironic indeed! I wonder how much $$ Martha could have made by holding on to her shares!
Re: Martha StewartBuck T. on 3/10/04 at 15:36 (146621)
I have a friend here in Texas who lost his house as an Enron employee. Ken Lay and his family sold their stock day before company went bankrupt.
Many famillies here confused why government doesn't do something to him.
Lay and his millions are living it up in Florida.
I did enjoy the scarlet letter speech the prosceuting attorney gave
on steps of courthouse. Sure all former Enron families believe government will not tolerate white collar crime after hearing it.
Re: Martha Stewartpala on 3/10/04 at 17:41 (146635)
how many people were effected by that bankruptcy? and what is a scarlet letter speech?
Re: Martha StewartBuck T. on 3/11/04 at 09:51 (146683)
Hi Pala: Think 2,500 people lost jobs but am not sure. It was a bunch.
Scarlet letter is a story written long ago which symbolizes people who cover their own sins by acusing others. Read it long ago in high school, but main story line is a quaker woman was acused of comitting adultry. She was forced to wear the scarlet letter A everywhere she went to signify her as a sinner. The guy didn't have to do anything and those who condemed her were guilty of sins themselves but were condeming her so they wouldn't have to face own sins.
Take care, Buck
Re: Martha Stewartjohn h on 3/11/04 at 12:52 (146710)
Before she became rich and famous Martha was a stock broker and clearly knows the rules. She was not found guilt of insider trading but of lying to the government. Her broker is not getting much publicity but he went down with the ship by not giving her up on insider trading. Much like Gordon Liddy refused to give up Nixon. Her broker was a highly respected and successful guy who made about $550,000 last year and now will be barred forever from dealing in securities. Martha after her year or perhaps less in confinment should still have a hundred or more million left and could easily start up again as she still has lots of fans. Her stock actually went up a little yesterday and her company is cash rich with zero debt. She owns 61% of the stock in her company and was at one time worth one billion dollars. Seems like her stock has fallen around 50% or more. She will make it through this but with a lot of hurt pride. It seems many people who gain extraordinary wealth and power forget there are still rules to be followed. There are always people out there willing to try and beat the system to make a few extra dollars when they are already wealthy beyond most of us wildest dreams. This was truly a dumb move on her part. If you are going to be a robber then rob a big bank not McDonalds.
Re: Martha StewartBuck T. on 3/11/04 at 19:15 (146745)
John: My point is that Key Lay also broke the rules and hurt more people than Martha Stewart. Lay was also large lifetime campain contributer to Bush. Government was starting to look soft on white collar crime and election coming up. Martha maybe used as political football. I will feel justice when Lay is in cell next to Martha.
Re: Martha Stewartpala on 3/12/04 at 08:52 (146772)
that is a good point buck. people who break the law should be equally prosecuted.
Re: Martha Stewartjohn h on 3/12/04 at 11:27 (146789)
buck: i say send them all to jail. I do not care what color their collars are or if they are mail,female, or tansgender. It looks like they are going to have a tough time making a case againt Lay but they are still trying. They need to get his buddy to roll on him or they do not seem to have a case. The market is always a tough guy for the average guy as you are not on the same playing field with people in the know and in particular with people who work on the stock exchange floor You know there are always people who have insider information whether they be brokers or people who work for companies.
Re: Martha StewartBuck T. on 3/13/04 at 10:42 (146867)
John: In Texas we wonder why government would have any problems going after Lay. It's right there in the open. Just because you are a friend of a certain polictical party doesn't exempt you from whats right. Especially when you ruin the lives of 2,500 employees.
Re: Martha Stewartpala on 3/13/04 at 11:30 (146874)
buck, can those employees bring a civil suit against lay? is there no redress for them at all at this point?
Re: Martha Stewartjohn h on 3/14/04 at 11:32 (146941)
Buck: I do not care what political party Lay belongs to as I think the agencies involved are hot on his trail. This is not about politics but about a crook. I hope and think in the end he will be convicted and he and his buddies will serve a lot longer than Martha. There is talk now that Martha may not serve any time at all. The thinking being if she goes to jail then all the investors will lose most of their money as she is the company and without her name it may not survive. Of course she owns 61% of the stock. Crooks come in all political models including Republicans and Democrats. Greed is not based on party affiliation. Apparently Martha must be a Democrat as she gave Hillary $1000 but that really has nothing to do with her actions in this mess. The problem lies with the CHARACTER of the individual.
Re: Martha StewartBuck T. on 3/15/04 at 08:23 (147029)
Hi Pala and John: Thanks Pala for civil suit idea. Will ask one of unemployed when I see them.
John: I live in Texas and I think its all politics. Halliburton Oil company, based in Houston, just admitted charging us the taxpayers millions too much for not only fuel, but for services in Irac. The companu admits it and offers no reason or apoligies. It's a main contributor to a certain political party. Dick Chaney was paid 40 million by Halliburton as its C.E.O. He has 18 million in stock--someplace.
Halliburton received and will continue to receive contracts without any bidding process.
Re: Martha Stewartjohn h on 3/15/04 at 08:57 (147033)
All of Chaney's holdings are in a blind trust as required by law.He does not control the trust in any manner.Unfortunately Haliburton is one of about two or three companies that are able to provide the services they provide. Buck we are venturing into an area that the board administrator does not want us to discuss and that is politics so to comply with his rules we need to move on to more germaine subjects. Thank you..
Re: Martha StewartBuck T. on 3/19/04 at 11:13 (147304)
John: Sounds good. Take care.