The Real Crimes of Martha Stewart

The Wall Street Journal ^ | Friday, January 23, 2004 | MEGHAN COX GURDON

[Ancesthntr]

The simple fact is that this lady, who is both a former stock broker and a member of the New York Stock Exchange Board of Directors, knew the law very well: it is illegal to knowingly act upon information about a company that is not available to the public. She knew for sure that Imclone stock was going to take a dive, because she heard about some very bad - and as yet unknown - information from the ultimate insider, the guy who ran the company (and who just happened to be a personal friend). I don't feel sorry for Martha - in an effort to save herself a few tens of thousands of dollars, this lady worth tens of millions or more acted on information that the rest of us didn't and couldn't have had. I personally lost NOTHING on Imclone, but I hope that they throw the book at her. It will set an example for those in similar positions in the future.

[presidio9]

OK, I'll break it down for all of you: Martha Stewart has not been charged with insider trading. She is essentially being charged with "thought crimes." Seriously.
The Feds investigated Stewart for insider trading, and cleared her due to lack of evidence. Seriously.
But the Feds had taken a beating with all the corporate scandals and they needed a very public victory. They needed a scapegoat. So the Feds charged he with stock manipulation, saying that when she declared her innocence to reporters, her real intention was to bolster the share price of Marth Stewart Omnimedia, of which is was President, CEO, and a major shareholder. Seriously.

Who among us, when being investigated for a crime would not profess our innocence? I am not making this up. Anybody who examines the charges will see that the situation is that simple. So, no, I am no fan of Martha, but I definitely hope she gets off. So should you.

[AbsoluteJustice]

"People are all hysterical about the Patriot Act, but here is a genuine violation of rights, and it's totally ignored because Martha Stewart happens to be the victim. "

I am still trying to understand how a woman that dumped her stock the day before stocks tanked is somehow a "genuine violation of rights." That rights are you referring to? The right to not break the law? She is being accused of securites fraud. Last I checked this fits perfectly with what she is being accused of. And this Patriot Act nonsense.....I have yet to have ONE person tell me where their "personal liberties" have been DIRECTLY effected by the act.

[familyop]

I like your "googlebomb links," BTW. ...most excellent and a good idea!

[CobaltBlue]

My feelings about Martha Stewart are complicated. I used to subscribe to her magazine, and still think she does nice work, but never in a million years could any one human being live like that. She's ultra-rich and has a cadre of servants in her home, and a gaggle of employees in her business. She's selling a fantasy.

But it's a pretty fantasy, and it's a nice fantasy. It was especially fun when the kids were little and I was a stay at home mom all the time.

I got tired of her because I couldn't ever get her recipes to come out right. Now I subscribe to Cook's Illustrated because their recipes ALWAYS work. Always, always, always.

Some people do hate her because they think she's pretentious, and some hate her because they don't like her taste. And yes, some people are just jealous cats.

But if she did get insider information, and if she did lie about it, I think it's fair for the prosecutors to go after her.

[AbsoluteJustice]

Thanks for the clarification

[presidio9]

I am still trying to understand how a woman that dumped her stock the day before stocks tanked is somehow a "genuine violation of rights."

The stock dumping has nothing to do with this case. You should read up on it a bit before being so free with your comments.

[Modernman]

And how would you describe getting information on a Federal drug disapproval from the head of the company and/or his wife before the public release of the info?

If I recall correctly, insider trading laws don't apply to this situation as she is not, technically speaking, an insider (she's not a corporate officer, board member etc.).

[job]

As I understand, the securities fraud charge stems from what she said to federal investigators, and her denial of wrongdoing, all in an effort to keep her own stock, Martha Inc., up. In other words, if she said oops, I screwed up, her Martha INc. stock couldhave crashed. But, feds say she deliberately lied in order to keep the stock up.

[CobaltBlue]

The stock dumping does have something to do with the case. She is charged with obstructing justice by lying about the stock dumping.

[Tribune7]

I'm pretty neutral on Ms. Stewart. But, yeah, it's a witch hunt.

[Rodney King]

The stock dumping has nothing to do with this case. You should read up on it a bit before being so free with your comments.

It has everything to do with the case. If not for the stock dumping, she would not have been in the position to cover it up and obstruct justice, which is what she is charged with. It was the stock dumping that she was obstructing justice about. She didn't just walk up to the DA and start lying to him about random things for no reason. Now, the whole SEC civil suit against her for stock fraud based upon her public statements being untrue is total BS, and if she fights she will likely win. Nike was recently sued for lying in public about their child labor programs in SE Asia and they were acuqitted of that, the civil case against Martha would seem to fall along similar lines.

Back to the stock dumping... a lot of people think that it is no big deal. In fact, some economists assert that insider trading is a good thing because it ensures that capital markets are more efficiently priced. What you are all forgetting however is that if people feel like the game is rigged against them, they won't invest in the capital markets and the economy will be greatly harmed.

[weaponeer]

And how would you describe getting information on a Federal drug disapproval from the head of the company and/or his wife before the public release of the info?

As you will probably be reminded many times, SHE'S NOT CHARGED WITH INSIDER TRADING. The gov't cannot prove she did what you said. So they didn't charge her with it. How do you know she did it?

She is being prosecuted for pleading innocent.

[job]

which brings up the question, if you have stock in company, or are a company officer, can you never plead not guilty, or deny liability? If the opposite is true, the mere fact that a charge is brought against you, would take away your constitutional right against self-incrimination.

[IYAS9YAS]

Yeah, she does everything herself...right.

[Modernman]

Insider trading laws really only exist because we consider it unfair that somebody else makes a buck in a way that the rest of us are unable to.

Insider trading (assuming there is no manipulation of stock prices) really is a victimless crime.

[presidio9]

That is preposterous. If they can't prove that she engaged in stock dumping, how are they supposed to prove that she lied about it?

[presidio9]

Looks like some of you are so enthusiastic about crucifying Ms. Stewart that I am going to have to keep making this same point over and over again: How in God's name do you charge someone with lying about stock dumping when you are not sure that she was stock dumping in the first place? Ever hear the term "innocent until proven guilty?"

[brownsfan]

this trial is an absolute witch hunt.
Guess what----

They found one.


Ahhhh haaaaa haaaaa! Stop that! I'm surfing at work, and they're looking at me laughing.