And in other celebrity news...

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » June 4, 2003, 12:45 pm

http://money.cnn.com/2003/06/04/news/co ... tm?cnn=yes

Anyone other than me find it more than a little ironic that in trying to cheat and make a couple thousand dollars (I saw on MSNBC last night they said she made $47 000 and in the CNN link they mention $229 000) she cost herself millions? This whole situation makes me laugh.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 4, 2003, 2:04 pm

there's no end to people's greed. even multi, multi millionaires.

the fucking sad part is the guy that used to be CEO of that company. I mean, how fucking stupid do you think you are selling all your shares like a day before making the announcment that is guaranteed to send your stock plunging? does he have rocks in his fucking head? people get all stupid when it comes to money; it's pretty hilarious.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » June 4, 2003, 4:03 pm

I read today that the plea talks with Martha broke down after she repeatedly refused to accept a deal that had even a remote possibility of any jail time. People will find this out, and fry her with an *oh she thinks she's too good* frying pan.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » June 4, 2003, 4:13 pm

It would make my day to see her go to jail. Not to mention all the SNL skits sure to come from that as well.

How to pretty up your cell.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » June 4, 2003, 4:28 pm

Gangsta Bitch Cuisine by Martha "East Coast" Stewart

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » June 4, 2003, 7:25 pm

Not pro (or con for that matter) Martha Stewart, but there are some questioning the validity of the charges against her. Apparently a lot of people were dumping stock that day. By the time she dumped her shares news agencies were actively reporting the stock going down and it had already lost several dollars.

http://www.cato.org/research/articles/r ... 21024.html

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » June 4, 2003, 7:55 pm

The thing that got me was the allegation by the one Wallstreet Journal correspondent (Charles Gaspari or something like that) that was Martha's broker was the same broker used by the CEO of the company. Immediately after the CEO dumped all his stock, the broker contacts Martha and says "the CEO did this". If that allegation is true, she used information that the public was not privvy too and could not obtain through any research channels. If thats true, she deserves whatever else happens to her.

That she was supposedly negotiating plea bargains says something to me as well.

If she does get off, wonder who she'll be suing?

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » June 4, 2003, 8:52 pm

Martha should observe another famous lady... and make sure all the witnesses die...

On Whitewater, the other scandal that dogged much of their time in the White House, she is dismissive.

"Whitewater never seemed real because it wasn't," she remarks about the complicated land deal saga.

No charges were ever laid against the Clintons, though the independent counsel's final report questioned her truthfulness

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » June 4, 2003, 9:44 pm

...and here you can see, I have taken simple pebbles from the Yard to make this...

...next week--cooking for a dinner party while in solitary...

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » June 4, 2003, 10:53 pm

Add to the fact that she is an ex stock broker, so she 100% knows what insider trading is.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » June 5, 2003, 12:34 am

Add to the fact that she is an ex stock broker, so she 100% knows what insider trading is.

If the article I linked is correct, that isn't quite as easy as you would think it would be.

Strictly speaking, the United States has no specific laws against insider trading either. The standard code of ethics for stock analysts, "The AIMR Standards of Practice Handbook," points out that "no statutory definition of insider trading exists in the United States." All we have is theories spun by the SEC and the courts.

Interesting to have something be illegal but not actually have a clear definition of what it is.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » June 5, 2003, 1:06 am

Another article, dives a bit deeper into the legalities of insider trading.

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1032

Interesting stuff.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » June 5, 2003, 9:39 am

I admit that I didn't read the entire thread first off:

From what I have seen, she was not charged with insider trading. That is not a Criminal Offence.

The insider trading was mentioned as possibly being brought onto her as a Civil Offence.

In American law (sic), the Criminal Trial always takes place first.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » June 5, 2003, 10:02 am

Everything you need to know about insider trading and the stock market in general can be learned through watching Wallstreet, Boiler Room, and Trading Places.

If Martha has seen any one of the above movies, she has no excuse.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 5, 2003, 4:02 pm

Insider trading is definitely a felony. The securities commision are just taking her court civilly as well to block her from ever running a corporation in the US again.

The feds seem to have a pretty strong case on her, otherwise they wouldn't risk looking bad by indicting her and losing. She was definitely up to some pretty shady things according to what I was watching in teh TV. They have evidence that she, her broker and that ImClone guy altered their phone logs after the story broke etc. etc. Although after OJ I find it difficult to under-estimate the power of celebrities and the kind of attornies they can hire.

Unfortunately insider trading and the other charges on her won't be enough to tarnish her image unless she actually winds up going to prison. It's pretty white collar and most of her fans (bored closet feminists that like to make dried flower centerpieces) probably think it's cool that she's busying herself in man things like screwing people to get ahead in the stock market.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » June 5, 2003, 4:28 pm

http://www.marthatalks.com

Burke · Post by **Burke** » June 5, 2003, 5:57 pm

Interesting to have something be illegal but not actually have a clear definition of what it is.

We have lots of that. Check out our obscenity laws sometime.

VeeshanVault

And in other celebrity news...

And in other celebrity news...

Another famous lady... got off...