Martha Stewart Guilty!

Avatar for catwoman1977
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-28-2003
Martha Stewart Guilty!
83
Fri, 03-05-2004 - 3:11pm

WOW!  I guess I'm surprised Martha Stewart was found guilty on all four counts.  I figured she'd get a slap on the wrist, at most.   Anyone think she'll do jail time?   Is this a *good thing* ?  


Cat    :)


Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

  
 <

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-27-2004
Sat, 03-06-2004 - 2:58pm
Project mars is no joke, although i agree with the gov. lying and how more money should be spent on medical research. there should also be moneyspet on exploration, which without we could not grow or evolve as a scociety. Was it a joke to explore in the time before we knew the world was not Flat? besides the topic is martha stewarts verdict, not govermant spending.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-06-2004
Sat, 03-06-2004 - 3:52pm
In my opinion, it is hard to feel bad for Martha. She showed absolutely no remorse for her actions or any signs of innocence.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-06-2004
Sat, 03-06-2004 - 4:46pm
I agree with you panipan...i did not follow much of the trial either..but feel that she was taken over the coals....the enron guy got nothing...and he ruined other peoples lives...i think it is very unfair...she only hurt herself and her business...and i think they are just making an example of her cause she is a woman!!!!
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-14-2004
Sat, 03-06-2004 - 5:24pm
Happy2beamom, Oprah didn't lie to the government and then try to cover it up. These are two totally different issues. If Martha Stewart had admitted that she got the inside tip and sold her shares according to that information, she probably would have been fined and no trial would have taken place. Everyone keeps saying, why would she risk all her success and fortune on a mere $51,000 or so loss? That's just a drop in the bucket to her. The fact is is that she did risk it by lying and trying to cover it up and now she has to pay the price. The fact is that there were a lot of shareholders who DID lose money on Imclone who didn't have the benefit of someone calling them ahead of time and warning them that they should sell. Maybe that amount was not a drop in the bucket for them. She lied and got caught. She is a former stockbroker who knows the rules and I think that's what sticks in my mind the most.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Sat, 03-06-2004 - 5:44pm

Stewart gets just deserts as investors' trust betrayed.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040306/RREGULY06/TPBusiness/Columnists


The first lesson from the Martha Stewart verdict is that the markets are not always right. Shares of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. climbed before the mid-afternoon shocker, when the jury found her guilty on four criminal counts, including lying and obstruction of justice. The second is that "smart people do stupid things," as the government's lead prosecutor said.


The third, and most important, is that the Department of Justice can no longer be accused of the nasty and frivolous pursuit simply because it needed a big kill in the headline war with New York State Attorney-General Eliot Spitzer. The case against America's design diva was strong from the onset and could not be ignored. Martha was not a long shot; Justice knew the consequences of a Martha victory and they would have been dire for its image.


Newspapers around the world will be stuffed today with comment pieces about poor Martha. Her crime, they will say, was insignificant. It was born of a $228,000 (U.S.) ImClone stock trade in late 2001 that saved her $50,000 in potential losses -- the equivalent of cab fare. Executives who may have looted hundreds of millions of dollars from their companies run around free or face lesser punishment (Ms. Stewart could go to prison for 20 years, five years for each count). Ms. Stewart did not actually loot Martha Stewart Living. There was no hint of dubious accounting or siphoning money to finance a lavish lifestyle.


And if that's not enough to convince you that nailing Ms. Stewart was mean-spirited, think about all the jobs she has created, all the bathrooms and bedrooms in middle America that she made pretty at a reasonable price. She's a true entrepreneur, a woman, almost a senior citizen too. Shame -- shame! -- on the Justice Department.


Still, Justice's sin would have been far greater had it bowed to media pressure and not brought a case against her. Wrong era, wrong defendant.


Ms. Stewart picked the worst time to lie, maybe the worst time since the Second World War, about the circumstances surrounding her ImClone trade. Since the stock market bubble burst in 2000, exposing a multitude of sins -- from overly bullish research designed to attract investment banking deals to accounting sleaze designed to inflate profits -- Corporate America has been on trial. The people, that is, investors, wanted blood because they had been ripped off. Capitalism was supposed to be a fair game, not one rigged in favour of corporate insiders. "I don't think they could have avoided prosecuting Martha Stewart under the corporate clean-up climate," says Len Brooks, ethics professor at the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto.


Along came Sarbanes-Oxley, the corporate clean-up legislation that, among other things, said directors shouldn't all be the CEO's golfing buddies. Along came Eliot Spitzer. He went after tainted research and illegal mutual fund trading schemes. The Securities and Exchange Commission, under new management, woke up from its long slumber. So did the Justice department. This was the beauty of American capitalism. Problems arose and were fixed in a hurry, before investors decided the stock markets were a fools' game only (compare this to Canadian capitalism, where governments, regulators and law enforcers almost never turn market health into a national cause, but that's another story.) Ms. Stewart glided into this maelstrom and didn't glide out. The charge of securities fraud was tossed out. But the others stuck. Simply put, she lied and the jurors nailed her for it. Her behaviour was all the more surprising because Ms. Stewart was not just a design genius. By the time she made the disastrous ImClone trade, she had been the CEO of a big New York Stock Exchange company for two years. She is a former stockbroker and, until 2002, an NYSE board member. She knew the rules of the game and knew the consequences if she broke them and got caught.


Ms. Stewart denied her ImClone sale was triggered by the knowledge that former ImClone CEO Sam Waskal, her friend, was dumping the stock in anticipation of bad news. Nonetheless, it appears she knew through Merrill Lynch, her broker, that Merrill clients were dumping ImClone. The trading activity of any brokerage client, named or unnamed, is supposed to be confidential. Once she traded on that information, she was in trouble. Concealing the truth about the trade multiplied the danger by a factor of 10, as it did for her broker Peter Bacanovic, who was also convicted yesterday.


Some of Ms. Stewart's many defenders say Justice turned her into a showcase because she was a celebrity. Another way of looking at it is that the government couldn't ignore her just because she was a celebrity. If it had, it would have been slaughtered by the rabble for unequal treatment -- one law for the rich, another for the poor. The Justice department did the right thing.


Ms. Stewart could have stopped the scandal before it exploded and wrecked her career. She could have admitted to a mistake, paid a fine and got on with her life. Instead, arrogance made her think she was beyond reproach. Don't feel sorry for her. Feel sorry for her shareholders, who have seen their Martha Stewart Living stock go from a high of $34 to just above $16 before yesterday's verdict. The shares closed at $10.86.


Ms. Stewart didn't go down for breach of fiduciary duty to her shareholders. But she's guilty of that too. In trying to protect herself, she sent the investors who finance her fame and her fortune to slaughter. Ms. Stewart may go to prison for a year or two. If so, she gets off easy.


cl-Libraone~



Edited 3/6/2004 6:36:38 PM ET by cl-libraone

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-05-2004
Sat, 03-06-2004 - 6:27pm
Martha's going to the Big House. It's a Good Thing.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-06-2004
Sat, 03-06-2004 - 8:08pm
I agree that she was treated more harshly as a successful woman. I have heard on the news that the board members of Enron and Worldcom may not even be found guilty because the laws they have been charged under are so complicated it may be difficult for the average person to understand what they have done wrong. So Martha is made an example of as a warning to any other women who might dare to become rich and powerful, while the male boardmembers of Enron and Worldcom, who cost people jobs and who cost tax payers millions may walk free!
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-27-2004
Sat, 03-06-2004 - 11:48pm
I do think she was judged more harshly before the trial because of her status as a woman with power who is not always so nice to everyone working with her! What about the Enron dudes who bilked thousands out of their pensions and life savings??? Martha Stewart committed a crime (at least it seems like it if she got a fair trial), but hers did not really affect as many as the Enron and WorldCom scandals. I've never really thought much about her before, but after this came out and her TV movie was on, I just felt like she was being judged much more harshly because she was a woman with power (if a man does the same things to get power, he is just "a good businessman" - I'm sure Bill Gates has stepped on many toes!!!!! But then again, he wasn't on trial.).

However, celebrities and executives being rightfully convicted of crimes and treated the same way is the right thing to do. I don't want to sound like I am absolving Martha Stewart just because she is a woman and make the same type of arguments that some made when OJ was on trial, but what bothers me is the zeal with which she was gone after. Granted, if she did wrong, then she deserves punishment, but what about the Enron, WorldCom and Tyco executives??? What time are they doing?


Edited 3/7/2004 12:23:32 AM ET by soccermama87

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-07-2004
Sun, 03-07-2004 - 12:38am
You know i really have tried not to follow this.I feel the womans human what ever happened she did on reflex action wrong or right how many of us unmistakingly have made the wrong choices?Marthas problem is shes rich and people are jealous of regular folks let alone the very rich.From what i`ve read about her she created her empire.It`s only human to always fight for every single last dime!!!!Jail time is ludicrist!!!
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-07-2004
Sun, 03-07-2004 - 5:27pm
I agree, I thought she wouldn't be charged guilty on all 4 either. Greed is never good, she had so much but had to have more. We all can learn something from this I think.

She alienated alot of women with her airs of perfection.

None of us are perfect and our famous personalities have clay feet... :-)

Trisha

Pages