Posted on 01/28/2004 9:17:32 AM PST by presidio9
Edited on 04/22/2004 11:50:58 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Just over a year ago a young man who had come to New York to interview for banking jobs was shot and killed by two muggers on a lower Manhattan street. On the first anniversary, his parents and friends could be seen posting descriptions of the killers and offering a reward for information. Someone the next day went through the street with a bullhorn repeating the offer.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Stewart was elected to the NYSE board on June 6.
Her resignation reflects the intense pressure stemming from the federal investigation into her sale of ImClone stock. On Wednesday, an assistant to Stewart's stock broker at Merrill Lynch pleaded guilty to a charge that he accepted gifts from his superior in return for keeping quiet about circumstances surrounding Stewart's stock sale.
......
Stewart maintains that her share sale was lawful and based on a prior agreement with her broker to unload ImClone shares if they fell below $60 apiece. Merrill Lynch found no record of a such an agreement, known as a "stop-loss," after an internal investigation.
Unrelated paragraphs were removed by me. The souce may be found here .
This is a case where a person with YEARS of experience dealing with the stocks, and a freakin' NYSE elected MEMBER consciously and with malice of forethought committed a crime using insider trading, and lied about doing it. Whether it's 4,000 shares, or 40 Billion shares, the crime is the same. Knowlege and full awareness of committing a criminal act, lying to investigators and obstructing justice. I don't care if she does make a nice apple strudle, or shows you how to fold napkins. Using information obtained from sources not available to the general public to make a stock transactions are illegal, and Martha knew it.
Which is what they are going to do, in a court of law. Your statement is like saying "Before you can go after someone for murder, you have to prove that he actually killed someone."
I believe the WSJ had an earlier article that said the "lying" basically went like this:
Government: Ms. Stewart, we believe you are guilty of insider trading.
Martha: I'm innocent!
The government takes the position that that she IS guilty, and thus, her plea of innocence constitutes lying to the investigator. Our system ain't supposed to work that way. The Wall St Journal has (I think) done a good job of showing that this is a great travesty of justice.
Prove it. The SEC can't, which is why she hasn't been charged with insider trading.
Wrong. The most seriouis charge, the one I have a problem with is "share manipulation." They are saying she tried to boost the price of Omnimedia when she claimed she was innocent of insider trading. They said she lied. However, since they can't prove that she was guilty of insider trading, they can't call her profession of innocence a lie. Before you charge someone with murder, you have to at least prove the "deceased" has not been around for a while.
I think I did in my post. I gave the source (Forbes.com) and copied the link. Martha's story has changed a few times. Don't you find it hypocritical that when Clinton pulled the "it depends what your definition of 'it' is", you were outraged. But when Martha does EXACTLY the same thing, you support her.
Martha stated that she would sell her shares at a stopgap of ~$60/share. If you ever invest in the stock market, you would know that a stop-gap order is a written contract that, even if terminated before the transaction occurs, is kept in your permanent records.
So, the story started out as "I placed a stop-gap order", which appears to be a lie. Then the statement that "I did not talk to the CEO of ImClone prior to placing my stock" ... phone records proved that to be a lie as well. Then we have the 'gifts' that were presented to subordinates to support Martha's lie.
So, why do you want to defend her? If you want to let Martha go, you have to also let the Enron, Global Tracking and Worldcom CEO's get off free too. They lied, worked in concert to defraud investors of their money, mislead auditors, destroyed evidence and robbed millions. Or, do you want Martha to get away because she makes a really nice centerpiece?
My position is that she should be treated the same as you or I would be if we sold on inside info the day before a negative event. That is, she should be prosecuted for it. I would agree that the charge about her trying to manipulate her stock price by lying is a BS charge.
Untrue. Stewart was neither the President of the United States nor under oath.
Martha stated that she would sell her shares at a stopgap of ~$60/share. If you ever invest in the stock market, you would know that a stop-gap order is a written contract that, even if terminated before the transaction occurs, is kept in your permanent records.
Untrue. I used to be a broker, and I still work in the business. Verbal stop orders are 100% valid and much, much more common than written ones. Written orders of any kind between customer and broker are unusual.
So, the story started out as "I placed a stop-gap order", which appears to be a lie. Then the statement that "I did not talk to the CEO of ImClone prior to placing my stock" ... phone records proved that to be a lie as well. Then we have the 'gifts' that were presented to subordinates to support Martha's lie.
I'm not sure where you are getting your direct quotes from, but I will remind you that Stewart did not need a bit of inside information to justify selling Imclone. Other than the testimony of Fanuiel, which is going to be discredited, the prosecution has no way of discounting whatever story Stewart feels like giving them. In essence they are trying her for thought crimes. It is going to be her word against their word.
So, why do you want to defend her? If you want to let Martha go, you have to also let the Enron, Global Tracking and Worldcom CEO's get off free too. They lied, worked in concert to defraud investors of their money, mislead auditors, destroyed evidence and robbed millions. Or, do you want Martha to get away because she makes a really nice centerpiece?
I am no fan of Stewart, but her trial sets a dangerous precedant. The other CEOs that you referred to committed very real documented crimes. No such evidence exists for Stewart.
Had she not been Martha Stewart, I assure you she would never have been charged with anything.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.