Stewart Sentenced

Search

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
(Reuters)

NEW YORK -- Celebrity homemaker Martha Stewart was sentenced on Friday to five months in prison and five months of house arrest, the lightest term allowed by law, for lying about a stock sale -- and vowed to make a comeback.

Her former stockbroker, Peter Bacanovic, drew the same term for conspiring with her.

Speaking in a shaking voice before the sentencing, Stewart made a brief plea for leniency to U.S. District Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, who could have given the 62-year-old businesswoman 16 months behind bars.

The judge recommended a minimum security federal prison in Connecticut, not far from one of Stewart's posh homes, and ordered two years' of supervised release and a $30,000 fine. But Stewart does not have to surrender until an appeal is decided.

"Today is a shameful day," said Stewart, who built a catering company into a media and merchandise empire of lifestyle magazines, cookbooks and television shows. "I ask that in judging me, you remember all the good I've done."

Clad in a dark pantsuit, Stewart looked upset as the judge read the sentence but quickly regained her composure and kissed her daughter and her sister. She told reporters in the courtroom she was not surprised "at all" by the sentence.

The judge said she chose the minimum sentence because Stewart had no criminal record and she believed the defendant had "suffered and will continue to suffer enough."

"The sentence I have just imposed is, in my opinion, the minimum permitted under current law," the judge said. "I have not lost sight of the seriousness of the offense of which you have been convicted. Lying to government agencies during the course of an investigation is a very serious matter."

Outside, Stewart declared she would make a comeback.

"I'll be back. Whatever I have to do in the next few months, I hope the months go by quickly," she said. "I'm used to all kinds of hard work, as you know, and I'm not afraid."

She called the case "a small personal matter" that was blown out of proportion with "venom."

Stewart was found guilty in March of conspiracy, making false statements and obstruction of agency proceedings -- all stemming from her suspicious sale of stock in biotech company ImClone Systems Inc. (IMCL) on Dec. 27, 2001.

Prosecutors said the sale occurred after Bacanovic ordered an assistant to tip Stewart that ImClone founder Sam Waksal was dumping all his shares, knowing federal regulators were about to give a thumbs down to the company's anti-cancer drug.

Bacanovic, 41, was convicted of conspiracy, making false statements, perjury and obstruction of justice. Cedarbaum sentenced him to five months in prison, five months of house arrest, two years' supervised release and a $4,000 fine. He too does not have to surrender pending appeal.

While there was no case made for insider trading, prosecutors said she and her broker lied to cover up the tip.

The ensuing debacle wiped off $400 million in market capitalization, or nearly half, in Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia (MSO), the company she founded.

But news of the sentence sent Martha Stewart shares up $2.95 at $11.59 in late trade on the New York Stock Exchange. Earlier they hit $12.00, the highest since her conviction.

"People like her, and they're happy she won't spend too much time in prison," said management consultant Peter Cohan.

Indeed, Stewart was greeted outside by supporters like Pat Turner, a Georgia resident who planned a trip to New York to coincide with the sentencing.

"I think she'll take this and turn it into a positive, hold her head high," Turner said. "I think she'll come back and be bigger and better because that's the kind of person she is."

Stewart has enjoyed remarkable support from fans, especially compared with more reviled white-collar criminals who are seen evading justice through wealth and influence.

The judge said she received more than 1,500 letters from Stewart supporters, who also set up fan clubs and Web sites and even petitioned President Bush to step in.

Stewart asked to serve house arrest in her home in suburban Bedford, New York, where she would wear a monitoring device.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
818
Tokens
Bon voyage to the Homecoming Queen of Cellblock B. What cracked me up is how she implored people to continue supporting her magazines, products, etc.

Haven't seen that kind of crass blatant chutzpah since they locked away Jim Bakker.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,917
Tokens
Another Bush administration successful prosecution. I thought all they did what profit with their corporate cronies like Kenny boy?
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
This abortion of justice is not really a Bush administration thing; just the cultural trend towards punishing the rich for the sake of being rich. Public disdain of Martha Stewart has been popular for a long time -- she is lampooned on Saturday Night Live, Mad TV and other sketch comedy shows and has been for years, was an occasional punchline of jokes on The Family Guy, etc. Combine that with the senseless, rabid hatred of anyone with money in modern America, and you have all the ingredients necessary to convict an inncocent person of a complete non-crime.

Just in case anyone missed the facts of the matter, Stewart was convicted of "obstruction of justice" in a case which the government dropped. As a person who spent most of 2003 fighting an obstruction charge, I am particularly sympathetic to someone who didn't manage to get off (in my case I was not even the original suspect, but because I was unable to provide information which the government was certain that I had [and I did not] I was charged with obstruction -- basically my clairvoyance was not up to federal standards.)

She obstructed ... a dropped ... case.

It is legal for me to lie to you, my wife, and anybody else, as long as I don't lie to the government.

It is okay for the government to lie in the process of prosecuting me for lying to the government (the government's "expert witness" in the Stewart case has been charged with perjury.

It is okay, of course, for the government to lie to anyone at any time about anything.

It is okay for jurors in a given case to demonstrate beyond any doubt that the defendant did not receive an impartial trial (such as the juror who on his way out of the courtroom cited Stewart's conviction as a "victory for the little guy.")

But whatever you do, don't get rich and don't lie to the government. That's bad, bad, bad, bad, bad.



Phaedrus
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,917
Tokens
Everyone knows she was tipped off to the Waksal share selling which would have been insider trading but they couldn't prove it. The crime was the coverup. Making up the story of the "verbal" stop order was total b.s. She was a freakin broker in her earlier life. They ALWAYS write up stop orders.

I'm sorry she should pay the price. This sh_t goes on all too often and the pigeons who get stuck buying the shares often end up screwed. (though in this case Immclone eventually recovered if you held on long enough)

P.S. She was also a board member of the NYSE. No way in hell she gets away with this and we still maintain any kind of integrity in our system

[This message was edited by SENDITIN on July 16, 2004 at 09:06 PM.]
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
"Insider trading" is as ridiculous and subjective a crime as "money laundering." It is a deliberately vague law that is selectively enforced and has virtually no resemblance to the purposefor qhich it was originally intended (to punish manipulation of stock prices.)


Phaedrus
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,917
Tokens
Seems pretty straight forward to me:

Insider trading" refers generally to buying or selling a security, in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence, while in possession of material, nonpublic information about the security. Insider trading violations may also include "tipping" such information, securities trading by the person "tipped" and securities trading by those who misappropriate such information

Are you saying we should just let the inmates loose? Should Sam Waksal not go to jail?
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
818
Tokens
Holy shvt!, I'm in agreement with Send on this. Nice post.
1036316054.gif
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
What you posted (SEC 10-1 I think) is ridiculously vague, just like the federal law surrounding insider trading is.

Qualifying phrases such as "refer generally" and "also may include" generally means that the law is, as I said, vaguely-worded and selectively enforced.

The term "material, nonpublic information" is also vague and subject to interpretation. All successful long-term investors obviously have better quality information than is generally available -- if they didn't, they would not be successful investors.

The SEC itself has conceded that insider trading laws are vague, and purposefully so. The vagueness of insider trading laws is considered (by the government, and by extremely stupid people) a good thing because it makes them easy to enforce. Ask anyone who has ever been a stockbroker (me excluded since I'm on the other end of the argument) and he'll tell you that the laws are vague, and vague for a reason. Look around on the 'Net and you'll find all kinds of studies into this problem and proposed solutions for it, like this guide to keeping on the right side of insider tradingp ublished by Wharton Business School, and this scathing criticism of vague legislative verbiage by a federal judge that was published in The Wall Street Journal in 1989 (even back during that asshole Guiliani's run up to power this was a major problem, and the rewrites in 2000 that you cite above only served to exacerbate the problem and increase the SEC's power to do as it pleases.)

Here's the federal insider trading law, 15 USC 78(j)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce or of the mails, or of any facility of any national securities exchange – ... (b) To use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security . . . any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

None of Stewart or Waskal's actions fall under the description of 15 USC 78(j), and really, SEC 10-1(b) does not apply because neither Stewart nor Waskal have a fiduciary relationship to the transaction. Further, study case law and you will note that breach of fiduciary is a civil matter and not a criminal one. So even under the SEC 10-1(b) definition above, the Stewart case doesn't qualify.

It's interesting to see that despite the fact that with all of the evidence available the state could not make a case against Stewart, yet you (and most of the rest of the pimped sheep American public) insist that this case was there to be made and that convicting Stewart of "obstruction" of a non-case is just by virtue of the fact that there was a case and not a non-case.

Astounding.

Get this through your head: all successful professional investors rely on "material, non-public information" in order to make a profit. If they didn't have it, they wouldn't be successful investors. It might not necessarily be something along the lines of the Waskal-Stewart situation, but the number of things which can fall under the definitions laid out in the USC and SEC codes is limitless, and the current war of envy being waged by politicians in order to curry favour with the voting public is a danger not only to the wealthy people being victimised, but to the overall health of the economy as well. How much bullshit do you think that professional investors, fund managers, venture capitalists, etc. are willing to take before they just stop bothering investing in US regulated securities at all? What happens to the financial markets when there is no liquidity? (this can happen with remarkable rapidity btw, as it nearly did in 1990-91.)

All of this mythological surge in "corporate corruption" that the political class is using to secure its foothold in the heart of the American voter is absolutely nothing new, and nothing more extraordinary than any other period in American history. It's just in the news now, after the spectacular collapse of the Internet hype bubble left everyone looking for someone to blame -- and God knows the Federal Reserve and SEC, which empowered the Internet hype bubble, weren't going to take the blame -- so suddenly now we have this enormous class of corrupt corporate cronies who are stealing America away with false balance sheets, insider trading etc. Notice that the last wave of "corporate corruption" also came at a time when the market collapsed. How anyone cannot connect the dots on this cycle and realise that the SEC and Justice Department are about the last entities on Earth who should be considered "friends of the American people" is beyond me -- as far as I am concerned they are barely up the ladder from the al-Qaeda in that regard.


Phaedrus
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,917
Tokens
POINT 1. I'll bet you the pornography laws are "vague" too...they're made that way for a reason. First it's hard to cover every conceivable angle because if you try, some schmuck lawyer will find a loophole.

POINT 2. You really have to stretch to say Stewart did nothing wrong. The reason they didn't go after her for insider trading was because it was a he-said she-said situation between Stewart and Fanueil. Plus they didn't know for sure if a stop loss order really did exist. Her lawyer later ADMITTED she was tipped off during the obstruction trial. She was CONVICTED OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BY A JURY...is that not a crime in your eyes? Here's a quote from one of your posts:

Don't ever lie to cover up: This is one of the lessons of the Martha Stewart case and the recent conviction of Credit Suisse First Boston trader Frank Quattrone. They were both convicted of obstruction of justice. Stewart might have made a better case admitting that she received the information and leaving it to the government to prove that she knew the information was not public

POINT 3. Sam Waksal has a fiduciary responsibility to his stockholders even when he's taking a dump in a public toilet. How can you get off saying he has no responsibility in the matter? His leaking started the whole mess. Didn't they also have calls between Martha and him or his staff as well?

POINT 4. I'm not sure if there's been another time in history where there has been so many successful corporate corruption charges brought...and yes I agree it was in response to the market tanking...does that mean we shouldn't do it? I think Spitzer is doing yeoman's work as well, though sometimes heavy handed. It's about f-cking time.

POINT 5. Have you seen any evidence of investors, managers, or venture capitalists "fleeing" this market because of the prosecutions? If anything I think your logic is bass ackwards. A more level playing field (non-corrupt) should attract people not make them flee.

Seacrest out...er.. I mean Sheep out...baahhhhh
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
posted by SENDITIN:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
POINT 1. I'll bet you the pornography laws are "vague" too...they're made that way for a reason. First it's hard to cover every conceivable angle because if you try, some schmuck lawyer will find a loophole.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes they are; in fact child pornography laws are an insane miasma guaranteed to not protect children.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
POINT 2. You really have to stretch to say Stewart did nothing wrong. The reason they didn't go after her for insider trading was because it was a he-said she-said situation between Stewart and Fanueil. Plus they didn't know for sure if a stop loss order really did exist. Her lawyer later ADMITTED she was tipped off during the obstruction trial. She was CONVICTED OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BY A JURY...is that not a crime in your eyes?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that obstruction is a very much over-used ploy, and that it does not make basic logical sense for the government to be able to prosecute someone for obstructing a case which was dropped (see also "Obstruction: The New Tax Evasion")

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
POINT 3. Sam Waksal has a fiduciary responsibility to his stockholders even when he's taking a dump in a public toilet. How can you get off saying he has no responsibility in the matter? His leaking started the whole mess. Didn't they also have calls between Martha and him or his staff as well?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't say that Waskal had no fiduciary duty to ImClone stockholders; rather, that the alleged "tip off" from himself to Martha Stewart has no fiduciary relevance and therefore no breach of fiduciary occured even if the phone call did.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
POINT 4. I'm not sure if there's been another time in history where there has been so many successful corporate corruption charges brought...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think (but honestly have never compare dthem side-by-side) that Guliaini still has Spitzer beaten, back from the Drexel-Burnham-Lambert days.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
... and yes I agree it was in response to the market tanking...does that mean we shouldn't do it?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is this a serious question? Do you not find it an odd coincidence that the government's standard response to economic problems created by the government is to suddenly demonstrate enormous predilection with corporate corruption?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
POINT 5. Have you seen any evidence of investors, managers, or venture capitalists "fleeing" this market because of the prosecutions? If anything I think your logic is bass ackwards.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I have, and no it isn't.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
A more level playing field (non-corrupt) should attract people not make them flee.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The idea that anything remotely resembling a "level playing field" is being crafted out of the SEC and Spitzer's actions is simply laughable. If you're a fund manager or corporate CEO, you can be sued if your fund/company underperforms market average. Market average is most simply defined as what 50% of the market beat and 50% of the market fell short of. If you're a fund manager or corporate CEO and your fund/company significantly outperforms the market, get ready for an audit. Watch every telephone conversation, e-mail, and even casual conversations in social functions, because all are possibly evidence for later. And God help you if you get paid more than Eliot Spitzer thinks you should, since his new quest is to "level the playing field" with regard to corporate paycheques, as if that is even any of the attorney general of New York's goddamned business.

The current investment climate is not a level playing field by the greatest feat of imagination; it is an environment that is overtly hostile to corporate executives and fund managers. In such an environment, basic psychology dictates that a number of quality players are going to leave, and those who stay are going to focus on connections and craftiness in order to stay ahead of the game, rather than the lofty egalitarian goals which Spitzer et al. wish to foist on them.


Phaedrus
 

New member
Joined
Sep 25, 2000
Messages
4,257
Tokens
The government has a history of being vague and having double standards or in some cases no standards whatsoever....

How would this Stewart situation compare to the relationship between Cheney and Halliburton and the no-bid contract that gouged the American taxpayer for billions with $45 for a case of pop and services charged for but never rendered?

Just a little insider trading by Cheney to raise his profit from Halliburton?

I suppose then if one sells off 8 or 9 stocks , and one of them has internal problems within the company, then the seller has to prove he didn't know about the internal problems. Then if the bottom of that stock in question falls out, the seller is guilty of a crime. If he sells the stock and afterwards it skyrockets in price he's labelled a dumbass?

Why is it people can trade stock at a whim legally while gambling on sports is strictly prohibited in most if not all the same places? What is the difference between dumping a couple thousand into a company's piece of paper and selling it at the end of the day for a modest profit or putting a couple thousand on Tampa Bay some weekend during football season? It's all gambling, people.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,810
Messages
13,573,513
Members
100,875
Latest member
edukatex
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com