Thank you martha stewart

Discussion in 'Trading' started by doji, Feb 12, 2004.

  1. Cheese


    Vengeance, the voice of the aimless masses, speaks.

    As the tragedy of 9/11 shows bad things happen to good people because they are caused by bad people. Get yourself the right way round Wrongway.

    The court threw out the insider trading charge against Martha so she is right to be appealing because anything she said should not have been a matter for any other charges at all.
    #21     Mar 7, 2004
  2. pspr


    You're absolutely right Cheese. I'm no Martha Stewart fan but here are a few comments I made on another thread about this miscarriage of justice.

    #22     Mar 7, 2004
  3. Turok


    >Martha did no more than make some excuses about
    >some piddling alleged insider trading which was dropped
    >by the court any way.

    I am continually amazed by the people who don't know shit about this case and yet want to make uninformed statements. Disagreeing is fine, but at least get your fact straight before forming the only happened a few days ago after all so the details are easy to find.

    There were no "insider trading" charges dropped. Martha was never charged with "insider trading" (the SEC may yet do this). It was a securities fraud charge that was dropped and the security she was charged with manipulating wasn't even ImClone.

    She was convicted of lying about something that IS illegal and she was not convicted about something in the charges that were dropped.

    #23     Mar 7, 2004
  4. Yes, isn't it amazing that some of the most vocal people on these threads have no idea what they are talking about!

    Cheese, do you always talk out of your ass before finding out that you have no idea what Martha Stewart was actually charged with? I mean seriously, get your FACTS straight.

    And as far as lying about things to the Feds, I guess these same people would say that it was ok for former Michigan basketball star, Chris Webber to lie to a Grand Jury, too.

    #24     Mar 7, 2004
  5. Cheese


    "..most vocal people on these threads have no idea what they are talking about.." such as most notably yourself waggie945.

    Get a life!

    Martha was found 'guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice and two counts of making false statements' .. all subsidiary charges which should have been erased. Period.
    #25     Mar 7, 2004
  6. Cheese,

    I actually do not agree with your generalizations about ET'rs. I may not know what I am talking about, but I find waggies contributions to the various threads rather informative and have learned a few things from him.

    Lets say you get a lesser sentence by cooperating and turning in a colleague that you knew was part of the fraud you were involved in. Ok your a rat fink but you did not want the jail you cooperated....I know this is not the same scenario.....but I am curious to your comments about these situations as to compare fairness and justice, and our system here in America? Also note investigative techniques can also hinge on deal making and convictions....

    Also, I would like to ask you what you think about a defense purposely created for the eventual appeals process to other words preparing a defense for the appeal and not the answer to the charges.....

    The technicalities of our justice system cannot be clear. Our enforcement officers have trouble with this daily.....And no I am not a fan of LA law or the other shows dramatizing these problems in our system.

    I happen to work with trial attorneys and without going into detail about me, I just want to say none of us have no idea about what is going on with Martha....not even me....

    I just want to say arrogance played a major role...(re-read the threads, thats all I have ever said, no one is above the law)

    Michael B.

    #26     Mar 7, 2004
  7. Turok


    >Martha was found 'guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of
    >justice and two counts of making false statements'
    >.. all subsidiary charges which should have been
    >erased. Period.

    Would you mind explaining what you mean by "erased" and "subsidiary"?

    Do you mean they should have been dropped *because* the other charge against her was dropped?

    #27     Mar 7, 2004
  8. wrongway


    You are an idiot!
    You compare 9-11 to this idiotic bitch going to prison.
    The facts are that she lied, and crossed the line and for that she will pay. I will not detour you from your opinion as she will need a penpal for sure. And yes, what goes around-comes around! Bad things do happen to bad people and its a relief to have it happen to someone so deserving. My heart goes to those who have lost from the 9-11 tragedy or to any other undeserving victims.
    #28     Mar 7, 2004
  9. Martha was convinced whereas the big thiefs are covered up ... by the gov institution itself: guess that they need sometimes to make "examples" to show they are suing insiders to hide that they are not suing others.

    Subject: S7-16-97

    Date: 8/13/98 6:49 PM

    You have gotten to being kidding!!!!

    I have contacted the SEC numerous times and continue as a matter of courtesy
    e:mail the agency regarding the recent contacts that I have made. Mr Arthur
    Levitt Chairman of the SEC has at various times chastised the CPAs for not
    doing enough to uncover fraud. That is some joke when you consider the role
    that the SEC has played in covering-up a major stock market manipulation case.
    Remember, it was the SEC who supported the brokerage industry by allowing them
    to monitor and dispose of consumer complaints. The SEC went so far under Shad
    as to state, in their friend of the stockbrokerage industry brief in the
    McMahon v. Shearson case that went before the US Supreme Court in 1987, that
    the SEC monitors arbitration cases. In my case the SEC covered-up a stock
    market manipulation case.. It was Ira Sorkin, former Northeast SEC
    administrator, who confessed to the press in 1986 that self-regulation never
    worked. It was he who refused to investigate my case because he considered the
    fact that Merrill Lynch had performed their own extensive internal
    investigation. (I have an SEC internal memorandum that supports the statement
    Sorkin made to Shad). They certainly did. They got rid of their workpapers
    that supported earnings projections that were 100% off the mark and not
    corrected until the end of the 11th month of the corporate calendar year.

    I have made a copy of the e:mail that I have forwarded to various interested
    news groups and organizations.

    [see the rest on the site it's too long]
    #29     Mar 13, 2004