[boots]

Martha Stewart has been found guilty on 4 counts. CNN

It's a Good Thing�.

[benb]

[::maroma::]

I'd hit it.�






...er, wait... wrong thread.

[gorickey]

Sentencing not until June? That sucks...lock her up NOW and throw the key out....

[philzilla]

[this place reserved for maxelson]

[benb]

Originally posted by gorickey:
Sentencing not until June? That sucks...lock her up NOW and throw the key out....

It's like a movie with a sequel!

[boots]

I'm just amused by the whole thing. It pisses me off that they go after her like they did, yet it's been how long since enron when under and we're still "looking into" some of those deals?

On the other hand, I can't help it: I intensely dislike Martha Stewart.

[fromthecloud]

"Okay ladies...make your cell an inviting space by decorating with..."

Someone is going to make that show.

[iWrite]

She didn't endear herself to jurors, I'm sure.

She showed up at court everyday with a $6,000 Hermes purse.

This is just like Leona Helmsley all over again.

[philzilla]

Originally posted by iWrite:
She didn't endear herself to jurors, I'm sure.

She showed up at court everyday with a $6,000 Hermes purse.

This is just like Leona Helmsley all over again.

she wasn't making any friends, and she was bragging about how much money she had?

this is just like iWrite all over again.

[spacefreak]

Shares of her stock wer halted.

In the hour before the verdict was read - undoubtedly once news that the jury had reached a decision - shares of her stock shot up 16%. They halted trading right after the verdict...I'm sure to prevent a plummet.

[itai195]

I'm just amazed by this:

Stewart, 62, was found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice and two counts of making false statements � charges that together carry a penalty of up to 20 years in prison.

She won't get the maximum penalty, but you can get up to twenty years for that? Sheesh... May as well commit a cooler crime.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by itai195:
Twenty years for that?

The key phrase is "up to". Only the worst offenders get anywhere near the maximum. Regardless, Martha has numerous oppotunities to make a deal and avoid all of this. She flat-out refused.

Why would she refuse to make a deal if she knew she was guilty? Because she didn't want her own stock to plummet. And that was the reason the prosecution was pressing for fraud charges (which the judge threw out a few days ago) - saying that Martha was lying primarily to keep her own stock afloat.

[d4nth3m4n]

Originally posted by ::maroma:::
I'd hit it.�






...er, wait... wrong thread.

i think you mean



glad to see her go down. im so sick of the nantucket set getting away with murder.

[NYCFarmboy]

I wonder if she was found charged in the first place just because she is a bitchy rich woman who didn't want to lose 50,000 bucks?

She should have testified.... I think her own arrogance finally did her end. I have no problem with the verdict.

but...

Look at Charles Grasso, the scumball former chairman of the New York Stock Exhange who extorted over 100,000,000.00. Has he been charged with anything?

[Immortal K-Mart Employee]

For once I am impressed with the US justice system who normally treat celebs like they are above the law.

Well time will tell after they sentence her, my bet is she will get probation and less then a year in jail.

[iWrite]

I liked her mink-collar coat as she left the courtroom today. (NOT.)

Wonder how much THAT set her back? Her mink-collar coat and $6,000 handbag and the testimony about how she stayed in a $5,000 a night suite while vacationing -- all while conspiring to dump stock to save $47K -- sure isn't impressive.

And, she sure didn't try to fit in with the "little people" either in life or at the trial.

Oh well. She sure seems like one tough cookie -- wonder where that recipe is on her website?

Philzilla: You need some money or a job or something? I can arrange a job for you, yes.

Just let me know, okay?

[Immortal K-Mart Employee]

Originally posted by iWrite:
IPhilzilla: You need some money or a job or something? I can arrange a job for you, yes.

Add Prozac and extreme make-over to that list.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by iWrite:
I liked her mink-collar coat as she left the courtroom today. (NOT.)

Wonder how much THAT set her back? Her mink-collar coat and $6,000 handbag and the testimony about how she stayed in a $5,000 a night suite while vacationing -- all while conspiring to dump stock to save $47K -- sure isn't impressive.

All the conspiring was AFTER the sale of the stock, when she tried to cover everything up and maintain her "squeeky clean" image. The actual sale of the stock was a few quick phone calls.

[ASIMO]

Not bad for a 62 year old. Hit it, Maroma.

So when does the Free Martha campaign begin?

[tsuki]

having 8 women jurors sunk her ship...most women really hate the biatch men would have sucked up...

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by ASIMO:
Not bad for a 62 year old. Hit it, Maroma.

So when does the Free Martha campaign begin?

It already has.

[typoon]

Originally posted by iWrite:
I liked her mink-collar coat as she left the courtroom today. (NOT.)

Wonder how much THAT set her back? Her mink-collar coat and $6,000 handbag and the testimony about how she stayed in a $5,000 a night suite while vacationing -- all while conspiring to dump stock to save $47K -- sure isn't impressive.

And, she sure didn't try to fit in with the "little people" either in life or at the trial.

Oh well. She sure seems like one tough cookie -- wonder where that recipe is on her website?

Philzilla: You need some money or a job or something? I can arrange a job for you, yes.

Just let me know, okay?

The Carzy thing about all this is the Drug that the FDA rejected was found to help something else and they approved it for that. She could Probalby have made Boatloads more if hse had held on then the measly 47,000 she made from it.

[wolfen]

Originally posted by philzilla:
she wasn't making any friends, and she was bragging about how much money she had?

this is just like iWrite all over again.

While iWrite portrays the stereotypical self-centered bourgeois material girl persona online, I think the comparison with Martha is a bit overmuch.



wolfen

[daimoni]

.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It already has.

Yahoo??

Don't tell me you use altavista sometimes.. or hotbot. .

Lycos?

[Dale Sorel]

Originally posted by iWrite:
This is just like Leona Helmsley all over again.

"Only little people pay taxes..."

[Arkham_c]

You know, I kinda feel bad for her. I'm sure I'm the only one, but if she had realized the severity if what she was doing she would not have done it. $200k in stock is nothing to her. It was just a dumb mistake, and now she's going to jail for it.

They should save jail for people who really deserve it, and just fine the living **** out of rich people who commit white collar crimes. I bet a $100M fine would do more to hurt her and teach a lesson than jail time would.

[tie]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Look at Charles Grasso, the scumball former chairman of the New York Stock Exhange who extorted over 100,000,000.00. Has he been charged with anything?

Nor has Kenneth Lay -- because of his strong connections to Bush. Apparently Martha Stewart didn't have the right friends. (Well, it sounds like she may only get a year in jail.)

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Yahoo??

Don't tell me you use altavista sometimes.. or hotbot. .

Lycos?

I use Yahoo as my start-up page, and since Yahoo gets results from Google (though that is going to end soon), I'll often save that extra step of clicking over to Google to get similar results.

On Google, however, I can't stand the recent flood of blogs and spam-type results that have seized their engine. Google needs to figure out a way to combat this.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by tie:
Nor has Kenneth Lay -- because of his strong connections to Bush. Apparently Martha Stewart didn't have the right friends. (Well, it sounds like she may only get a year in jail.)

The Lay investigation and case-building is still ongoing. The Enron affair was quite complex. Lay's not off the hook by any means. The Enron cases and charges are just starting to come to fruition.

The details with regards to Marth's case were relatively simple: 1 stock trade on 1 day.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Arkham_c:
You know, I kinda feel bad for her. I'm sure I'm the only one, but if she had realized the severity if what she was doing she would not have done it. $200k in stock is nothing to her. It was just a dumb mistake, and now she's going to jail for it.

They should save jail for people who really deserve it, and just fine the living **** out of rich people who commit white collar crimes. I bet a $100M fine would do more to hurt her and teach a lesson than jail time would.

Martha used to be a licensed stock broker. She knew what she was doing was wrong.

If you followed the trial...you'll see plenty of evidence regarding her numerous efforts to cover her tracks. If she didn't do, or think she didn't do anything wrong, there would be no need for her elaborate cover-up efforts. As a matter of fact, it was her lying to investigators on multiple occasions, and the covering-up of the activities, that ultimately did her in.

She had numerous attempts to make a deal and pay a hefty fine. She didn't want her own company to take a hit, and she thought she could win in court.

[insha]

How come Ken Lay has not been sentenced for the Enron debacle; and Martha Stewart gets One million in fine and 20 year in prison, for a far smaller offense.

She should be punished but I want to see Ken "I have the prez in my pocket" Lay needs to made the bitch on cell block four.

Is this really Justice?

EDIT: I need to learn to type faster...

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by Arkham_c:
They should save jail for people who really deserve it, and just fine the living **** out of rich people who commit white collar crimes. I bet a $100M fine would do more to hurt her and teach a lesson than jail time would.

Haaaahahahaha!

No.

[blackbird_1.0]

Originally posted by Arkham_c:
You know, I kinda feel bad for her. I'm sure I'm the only one, but if she had realized the severity if what she was doing she would not have done it. $200k in stock is nothing to her. It was just a dumb mistake, and now she's going to jail for it.

They should save jail for people who really deserve it, and just fine the living **** out of rich people who commit white collar crimes. I bet a $100M fine would do more to hurt her and teach a lesson than jail time would.

Its funny, the government gives Microsoft a slap on the wrist, and jails Stewart for this. I think its pure politics. Justice, pfft, it ought to be the other way around.

[saranwarp]

So Martha Stewart has just been convicted of covering up crimes that the government couldn't manage to prove she committed. Hmm...

[blackbird_1.0]

Its kind of funny, I read these Lounge post, the political, stuff, etc. I hear a lot of conspiracy stuff talked about. This is the first time I've hinted at something like that. I juat think she's a scapegoat.

[iWrite]

Hi Wolfen - thanks.

Just wanted to say (to Philzilla and others) that though you may think I'm similar to Martha Stewart I'm not.

You would never catch me with a $6000 to $12000 purse and wearing a mink-collar trimmed coat. Also, we're financially sound but are we "wealthy?" I don't consider us in that financial category, no. We're working class comfortable and that's about it -- I think we're solid middle class. I don't wear jewelry and I certainly do not wear designer clothes. Every day of the week I have on a plain white shirt with rolled up sleeves and jeans or shorts. I would never waste my money on jewelry or clothes or $5,000 a night hotel rooms -- even if I had enough money to blow it that way.

Anyway, I see this issue two ways.

First of all, I think that Martha Stewart is REALLY out of touch and I heard yesterday that she had no less than 4 public relations firms advising her. Well, "HELLO," why didn't one of them tell her, "DRESS DOWN, MARTHA." Because showing up in couture pantsuits with fur-lined coats and Hermes handbags that START at $6,000 each is NOT the way to align yourself with a working-class jury. Especially when it's over $47K.

With that much said, I kind of think she got what she deserved from the standpoint that she did something wrong -- and then she tried to cover it up. That bit about changing the message and then changing it back and then *someone* writing in ink on the record AFTER the fact ("sell at or below $60") is definitely deceptive.

Seriously, if the SEC had come to me and said, "Did you do this?" I would have admitted that I'd done it. I don't have the stomach to lie to the federal government and then try to take them on the way she did.

Secondly, I see the issue another way: Why bother? Why bother going after Martha Stewart over $47K?

Because, seriously, if we're talking about hurting "the little guy," or "the average stockholder," this trial brought by the federal government has caused SO much more damage to "the little guy" than Martha ever did in the sense that stockholders have been beaten up and lost a LOT of money because of the prosecution. I heard that MSO stock went down $95 million dollars yesterday alone. If her company tanks how many people will be out of a job? What about the investments in K-Mart? And other companies? So, you see, the prosecution of this woman has had a much deeper financial impact than merely selling early to keep $47K.

As much as I don't really like Martha Stewart, I admire her accomplishments. Yes, I might watch her show (if I'm at home) because it's interesting at times. It's hard not to respect what she has built from a business standpoint.

However, I do believe that she's imperious, condescending, and not always so nice. THAT is why people wanted to "get her." No one believes she's humble.

Remember the stories about her threatening her neighbor with a Range Rover? Or chasing down her husband's mistress to threaten her? (Her husband left Martha for his assistant and apparently Martha stalked her.) She's had more than one run-in with people wherein she was very very mean to people.

[Joshua]

Originally posted by iWrite:
Secondly, I see the issue another way: Why bother? Why bother going after Martha Stewart over $47K?

Because, seriously, if we're talking about hurting "the little guy," or "the average stockholder," this trial brought by the federal government has caused SO much more damage to "the little guy" than Martha ever did in the sense that stockholders have been beaten up and lost a LOT of money because of the prosecution. I heard that MSO stock went down $95 million dollars yesterday alone. If her company tanks how many people will be out of a job? What about the investments in K-Mart? And other companies? So, you see, the prosecution of this woman has had a much deeper financial impact than merely selling early to keep $47K.

The only "message" this case sends to the corporate world is that the government would rather use its (our) resources to prosecute big names than the serious everyday offenders. How much tax money was wasted to convict Martha of covering up a crime they didn't have the evidence to prove she committed in the first place?

[iWrite]

Yep, she was an easy target and conviction.

Let's look, instead, at the Worldcom's and Enron's, you know?

BILLIONS of dollars are gone. Retirees who worked their entire LIVES are impoverished and struggling. We know a couple that had to sell their home, average home but a nice home, and move into a single-wide mobile home to be able to afford to live -- seriously. Their entire life investments are just gone. They are living on about $1600 a month in a place where the average electric/power bill is about $200 alone (ours runs about $300 a month.)

Yet, the government knew that popular opinion with respect to Stewart was relatively negative and getting a conviction would win mostly popular support and be a feather in a the government's cap. This IS election year, you know? Martha Stewart has always been a liberal, also.

As much as I don't particularly like what she did or the way she allegedly acts towards others, I see this entire issue as a witch hunt -- literally -- and I'm surprised this case didn't take place in Salem instead.

[Zimphire]

And here comes in the idiots that like to blame Bush for everything



Yeah, that's why she was taken to court...

[boots]

I wonder if she'll do much jail time at all. I think the fine will probably be considered the major part of the punishment. It will be interesting to see how the sentencing goes down...

[iWrite]

Zimphire:

I voted for Bush.

I'm not blaming Bush for Stewart's conviction.

You cannot deny, however, the conservative legal atmosphere, you know? It's very prevalent right now -- what I call "The Ashcroft Atmosphere."

Anyway, this was an easy conviction and it makes people feel good to squash someone who is seen as imperious, too successful, a rich bitch, etc.

If she had led her life the way Oprah Winfrey does none of this would ever have happened. Oprah has been so magnaminous and made it a point to align herself with the average person and to give so much back to the communities she has lived in. Martha Stewart has not. Both are billionaires but the differences are overwhelming. A "kinder and gentler" Martha would have kept her in the positive in the court of public opinion.

Still, aside from all of that, this has become a sensational media feeding frenzy and that is why it is so popular -- and through association the government has done something positive also.

[wdlove]

Originally posted by Dale Sorel:
"Only little people pay taxes..."

If we don't stand behind President Bush and vote for him in November, our taxes will be going up!

[wolfen]

In a world of e-trading, brokerless transactions, and alternative international investment opportunities, New York is trying to re-establish its markets and the stock-trading industry as a cut above the rest. This reputation and integrity cannot be undermined publicly. You must understand that every slam against the stock markets reduces their appeal. They didn't need a commercial OJ on their hands.

Going after Martha was a statement. Whether successful or no, NY is struggling to assure the world that "Hey, we don't put up with criminal activity among our own! If you invest with us, we'll do things right. Everyone has a fair chance, here."

That's what I think. I won't argue about its effectiveness, but I think going after such high profile cases only makes the city and that industry look better.


wolfen

[TheJoshu]

I always thought it would've been best if she had actually testified on her own behalf.

It keeps getting me -- only $50,000 in gains for all this. Wow.

[Ratm]

hahhahahaha

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by iWrite:
You cannot deny, however, the conservative legal atmosphere, you know? It's very prevalent right now -- what I call "The Ashcroft Atmosphere."

Anyway, this was an easy conviction and it makes people feel good to squash someone who is seen as imperious, too successful, a rich bitch, etc.

If she had led her life the way Oprah Winfrey does none of this would ever have happened. Oprah has been so magnaminous and made it a point to align herself with the average person and to give so much back to the communities she has lived in. Martha Stewart has not. Both are billionaires but the differences are overwhelming. A "kinder and gentler" Martha would have kept her in the positive in the court of public opinion.
.

If Martha hadn't purposely and knowingly broke the law this wouldn't have happened.

I would have hoped she would have been charged no matter WHO was in office.

[iWrite]

I certainly don't have all of the information.

I agree with what Wolfen said, though, but Wolfen, remember that this was never "about" insider trading -- remember? She wasn't charged with insider trading.

This case was about prosecuting Martha Stewart for LYING and covering up evidence.

So, you have to disregard the issue about insider trading -- she wasn't charged with that crime -- only with obstruction of justice and other crimes.

SUPPOSEDLY.



QUESTION: Why DIDN'T the government charge her with insider trading?

???

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by iWrite:
QUESTION: Why DIDN'T the government charge her with insider trading?

???

Because she didn't give money to Bush.

Oh wait..