Martha provokes outrage while government corruption gets yawns

OS Register ^ | 3/14/04 | Steven Greenhut

[Dan Evans]

If you bought the stock from Martha and lost $60K the next day how would you feel?

I would feel that if I hadn't bought the stock from Martha I would have bought it about ten seconds later (from the guy who needed the money for his plasma TV). I had a buy order in and it would have made no difference what Martha did, the result would have been the same -- the stock would have tanked. It is really the fault of the Feds but they have successfully laid the blame on Martha.

[Mr. K]

dude- you're too stoopid to ardue with

[Dan Evans]

dude- you're too stoopid to ardue with

Actually no. I have an IQ of about 125 -- not a genius but hardly stupid.

But what didn't you understand about my previous post?

[Zon]

How would you like to be the one who bought Martha's stock only to see them tank the next day- and then later learn that Martha knew it was going to happen when she sold them to you?

What if it was you buying ImClone? If Martha didn't sell her ImClone stock you would have bought the stock from somebody else that was selling. Who are you going to blame for your actions? 

As it actually happened, it's better that the money is gained by the informed speculator because they will more likely make better use re-investing the gains than the merely "lucky" guy that sold that day who may squander it away.

[newzjunkey]

The 'crime' of which you speak was something that was dismissed against Martha.

[Major_Risktaker]

Someone who did not have the same privileged information....Mr. K

This story sound like the movie "Trading Places"

In the movie, Duke -n- Duke had the OJ Future report before the public release date, of course the wrong report as the story goes.

It is really the fault of the Feds but they have successfully laid the blame on Martha...Dan Evans

The question is, where are these Government Rats who leaked the report, how much money did they receive if any?

Why are they not held accountable for their illegal action and in jail?

____________________________

Bottom Line...

Ok guys, Martha should have made a deal paid a fine, neither admitted nor denied wrong doing. On chat boards the rumor of the CEO sell and the drug not approved was spoken about on those days, I was there.

IMCL Message Board

Martha is getting nailed to the cross for everyday Chit-Chat on Wall Street. If you don't trade stock during the weekly or trade daily you may never understand the game.

Martha's 8 million dollar defense SUCKED! She should have used the money to pay a fine and moved on.

SEC fines 28 brokerages more than $26 million in price-fixing case.

WOW! Price fixing and no one went to jail.

The SEC also brought civil charges against 51 individual traders for the brokerage firms, temporarily suspending them from the securities business. The brokerage firms and the traders, who agreed to the sanctions, neither admitted nor denied wrong doing.

SEC FINES

When it's all said and done I don't believe Martha will serve any jail time and all changes will be expunged off her record.

[Moonman62]

I thought this was going to be about federal corruption, but it didn't even make it out of the state of California. The federal government was using Enron accounting before there was an Enron, and it's still using it today.

[Dan Evans]

On chat boards the rumor of the CEO sell and the drug not approved was spoken about on those days, I was there.

That raises a question. Is information that you get from an Internet chat board considered to be public information or is it inside information? The insider trading law is frightfully vague:

"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."

Justice Clarence remarked dryly, "That's rather unusual, for a criminal statute to be that open-ended, isn’t it?"

Re Martha paying a fine: That would be best from Martha's perspective but did the Feds offer that or did someone want her head on a pike? I think there is a larger issue here. These vague laws are being used to subjugate rich and influential people. People like Martha, and Bill Gates and Bill O'reilly pose a potential threat to corrupt government officials. So Martha goes to jail, Bill Gates gets dragged through court and O'reilly gets audited every year.

The government will do whatever it can to send the message that they had better toe the line, cough up the cash, and keep their mouths shut. Why should we care? Because after all the journalists and industrialists and wealthy have been turned into government minions, there will be nothing standing between us and Big Brother.

[Mr. K]

geez- another idiot joins the parade... what is it you two are incapable of understanding? She sold stock she knew was going to tank... based on illegally obtained information

someone (not me or you) bought this stock and lost money. your argument that someone else would have bought the stock the same day is stupid beyond belief- whoever bought the stocks lost, and Martha took their cash as sure as if she stole it

[Zon]

Zon wrote: "What if it was you buying ImClone? If Martha didn't sell her ImClone stock you would have bought the stock from somebody else that was selling. Who are you going to blame for your actions? 44

geez- another idiot joins the parade... what is it you two are incapable of understanding?

Slinging ad hominem insults speaks degradingly off yourself

She sold stock she knew was going to tank... based on illegally obtained information... someone (not me or you) bought this stock and lost money. your argument that someone else would have bought the stock the same day is stupid beyond belief- whoever bought the stocks lost, and Martha took their cash as sure as if she stole it

It certainly appears that you are feigning that you misunderstood. It is a fact that if Martha didn't sell her stock the same person that would have bought her stock would have bought the stock from another seller and the person still would have lost money. Martha would have had absolutely no part in that person's loss. So if it was you who bought the stock, from some other seller than Martha who would you blame for your actions/loss?

[Major_Risktaker]

Because after all the journalists and industrialists and wealthy have been turned into government minions, there will be nothing standing between us and Big Brother.

Martha didn't play ball and her Big Brother tapped her on the shoulder. Funny, the Government leaker is still working for this Big Brother.

Who is this Big Brother?

SO WHO TOLD SAM.
Some Little Brother of Big Brother?

Is information that you get from an Internet chat board considered to be public information or is it inside information?

I think it is all BS and rumor....you know freedom of speech and buyer beware kinda thing. If Martha had some real IMCL info she would have held her shares and had a friend short IMCL 100,000 share on the side.

She is no criminal in my book, just real stupid in this IMCL matter.

Dan, thanks for the response...