Martha Stewart - guilty or not?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2004
Martha Stewart - guilty or not?
13
Sun, 03-07-2004 - 11:53am

Martha Stewart - guilty or not?



  • She is guilty, jail time is fair
  • She is guilty, but jail time is too much
  • She is not guilty, all should be forgotten


You will be able to change your vote.


Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Sun, 03-07-2004 - 1:04pm

Welcome


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Sun, 03-07-2004 - 1:21pm

>"who was drunk, speeding & ran a stop sign and killed a man"<


Link to article about sentence..........


http://www.keloland.com/NewsDetail9.cfm?Id=22,29923


Our link.........


http://messageboards.ivillage.com/iv-elinthenews/message.asp?webtag=iv-elinthenews&msg=5305.1

cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Sun, 03-07-2004 - 6:22pm

Thank you for the links!


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 03-08-2004 - 8:07pm
I dont see why people dont feel jail time is good punishment for Martha Stewart.

I am sick of hearing her hollywood friends say "what she did didn't hurt anyone." That goes to prove how incredibly ignorant they are. All of the people that bough her shares of stock in Imclone that she sold were hurt pretty badly, wouldn't you agree????

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Tue, 03-09-2004 - 10:39am

I think the problem is still the fact that the primary reason they are going after her is because of her celebrity status.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 03-10-2004 - 8:59pm
That is a pretty pathetic sentence.

I think it should have been a mandatory 10 years.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 03-10-2004 - 9:01pm
I think that this was done to show that no matter if you are a very big fish or a small fish, if you break the law, there are consequences....if that is the message that is received as a result, then it will be a good thing.

If this was done purely because she is a celebrity (which is possible) then it is not entirely the right message to send out.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Thu, 03-11-2004 - 7:51am

I think that this was done to show that no matter if you are a very big fish or a small fish, if you break the law, there are consequences....if that is the message that is received as a result, then it will be a good thing.


Martha Stewart isn't the "big fish" in this scenario, Haliburton, Enron, those are the "big fish" that these guys can't ever seem to get any results against.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 03-12-2004 - 10:02am
The COO of Enron is going to go to jail (most likely), making him the second or third executive to head that route....I wish that the government could actually get something useful on Ken Lay, but they have been unable to thus far.

Haliburton does need to clean up their act, but they have not cooked the books. One of the reasons why they are in the mess that they are in is because they are larger than any other company in the world, and in fact larger than all of their competitors combined in the field that they specialize in (I heard this on CNBC one evening, but wouldnt even know where to look to back this up).

The head of Tyco is going to probably see some jail time. The heads of Adelphia will probably go to jail, the head of Worldcomm, (Bernie Evers I think it is) is going to most likely see some jail time....so it looks like the Dept of Justice is at leat trying to get some things done, but with the way the laws are written, it is difficult to do more than they currently are.

I think we need an overhaul on corporate regulations, holding executive officers personally accountable (meaning in situations such as Enron, Imclone, Adelphia, Worldcomm, etc) they personal assets are not safe from being attached in the event of a guilty verdict. (I hope you understand what I am trying to say with this)

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Fri, 03-12-2004 - 10:21am

Things are being done, my DH is currently working on putting this in place in his co. from an IT perspective.

Securities and Exchange Commission | Mar 12, 2004

SEC Votes To Adopt Additional 8-K Requirements and To Propose Amendments to Form 20-F and Fund Manager Disclosure Requirements

Washington, D.C. - The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission voted to publish for comment proposed amendments to Form 20-F, to adopt additional reporting requirements on Form 8-K and to publish for comment proposed disclosure requirements for portfolio managers of mutual funds and other registered management investment companies......


More..............


http://www.sarbanes-oxley.com/displaythread.php?message_id=3044&forum=news


http://www.sarbanes-oxley.com/


http://www.accountancyage.com/News/1136494

cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

Pages