Martha Stewart

Quote from ArchAngel:

They supposedly have phone records that show that after she got the news from her broker about Waksal and family dumping Imclone stock (which is considered insider info) she immediately called Waksal on his cellphone. They've got both her and his phone records that show they talked at length immedately afterward and then immediately following that she called her broker again and miraculously the "stop order" was executed.

Concluding that what she covered up was NOT illegal because she wasn't charged with it (lying to federal investigators by itself being a crime notwithstanding) is wrong. Al Capone was sent to jail for tax fraud, not all the other things he did. Were the other things not illegal because he wasn't charged with them? Of course not. Prosecutors just decided they had a better case on the tax charges. Supposedly that's what was decided here.
More...

That's completely inaccurate. They don't "supposedly" have anything - the insider trading charges were dropped like a hot potato. The records you talk about aren't even there - they show she did not talk before she sold her shares, they show she didn't even talk afterwards (she left a voicemail), and they even show he didn't call her back. In other words, the exact opposite of what you claim!

As for your second comment, what a bizarre piece of logic. A charge against someone is dropped, so that makes them guilty, because Al Capone wasn't charged with murder? Has it ever occured to you that Al Capone was the rare exception, and that the overwhelming balance of probabilities in this case is that the charges were dropped because there is no evidence to support them? Without evidence that Waksal told Stewart the FDA decision, the government don't have a leg to stand on. Believe me, if there was such evidence, I would be the first to say it's a cut and dry case. But over a year after the charge, they haven't come up with a shred of evidence - if there were any, you can bet your bottom dollar it would have been leaked all over the media by now.
 
Quote from dgabriel:

Feds don't think they can sustain that charge in court and that it would undermine the prosecution of the other charges.

My facts aren't wrong. Read my post carefully.
More...

OK I apologise, you didn't say she actually spoke to him. However you implied that the phonecall was evidence of guilt - yet the fact remains that she made the call to Waksal after the share sale. How does that fit the "insider trading" theory?

The FDA decision was a huge rumour widely known in the market which had impacted Imclone stock way before Stewart made her sale. Then her broker mentioned that Waksal was selling. Either she sold immediately, or gave a "verbal stop loss", or just discussed selling if it puked below $60 - in all three cases no crime is committed. She even sold pretty much the low of the day, just over a dollar below her claimed "verbal stop loss" of $60. how exactly does that look like insider trading to you?

And what makes you say that the insider charges would harm the other charges? How does that follow? Surely it would bolster the other charges significantly, since both the obstruction and stock fraud charges rely mostly on proving that insider trading did in fact occur.
 
Quote from Cutten:


And what makes you say that the insider charges would harm the other charges? How does that follow? Surely it would bolster the other charges significantly, since both the obstruction and stock fraud charges rely mostly on proving that insider trading did in fact occur.
More...

If the Feds are not prosecuting that charge specifically, they feel they have less than a good chance of proving it. If there is not a good case to be made on one charge of several, and the jury thinks that a charge is gratuitous and ill founded, they may develop an inclination to acquit - or at least raise the threshold of reasonable doubt in their own minds - on the other charges that are bundled with it.
 
As a trader, when the stock moves afterhours, I still like to see it happen even though I know I don't trade it. So what if she made all those calls. Perhaps she was just concerned about her friend. Also, if I read news that some CEO is selling stock on the fly or my broker tells me that, I don't assume it is inside information. CEOs sell all the time, and it might be public information if the CEO announces it to the world.

Also, there is a mosaic theory that applies to inside information. If there are rumors that Coke might cut a deal with McDonalds, and if I see the Coke CEO having lunch with McD but I don't hear the conversation, that I can trade on my presumption that the deal is going on, and that is not inside information.

Perhaps the broker ASSUMED that the CEO was selling, and passed that rumor to Steward. First of all, it is hard to tell if this is not so, because we don't have the exact conversation records am I wrong? How many times do we call a top with conviction. It doesn't mean that it is inside information if he doesn't know for sure.

Even if it can be proven that the broker is at fault, showing that Steward knew this is further tenuous.

For that reason, the inside trading charge is rightfully dropped. And if Steward gets convicted, I for one would not feel free to say a single word to prosecuters. Can you imagine if all CEOs and public figures fear talking to prosecuters without their lawyers because anything they say (even saying they are innocent) may be a crime that puts them in jail for 30 years even if they are charged (although not in this case) for something that is less damaging?
 
I probably showed my ignorance in the facts. But I feel strongly against putting someone in prison for 30 years for the little she did. (lying. I am assuming no insider trading, and her version of her stop order is true except that she panicked.) That would be like life for her. Now, Enron is a different issue. The $$$ at stake is magnitudes more, and I can see the people who are hurting and crying.
 
Quote from waggie945:

Whether it is Rudolf Gulianni prosecuting Mike Milken at Drexel or a young up and coming prosecutor going after Martha Stewart, one cannot take such things likely for this is how careers are built. Just ask Rudy!

Specific Counts Against Martha Stewart:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2093610/sidebar/2092803/

Timeline of Events:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2093610/sidebar/2092840/
More...

Good links waggie. Blodget's analysis is first rate and completely demolishes the prosecution case.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2091480/entry/2091484/
 
Quote from Turok:

But your take on what evidence they say they have is WAY off and your comment about lying to investigators is just amazing.

Lie in the course of a law enforcement investigation whether the outcome of the investigation reveals ANYTHING illegal and you are exposing yourself to valid charges.

JB
More...

So if the FBI ask my favourite colour and I say green whereas in truth it's blue, then I am committing a crime? I put it to you that you don't understand the law relating to obstruction of justice. If you aren't under oath and aren't giving sworn testimony, then lying alone is not sufficient to establish criminal behaviour - it must be intentional deception to cover up a previous crime.

As for the "evidence they say they have", please enlighten me as to how "WAY off" I am, citing specific examples. Secondly, let us know why what the prosecution says, as opposed to what it actually presents in court, matters one jot. Last time I checked, people in America could not be sent to jail based on what the prosecution says - there are little niceties such as being able to question the prosecution, and having to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Read the Blodget article (linked to in my previous post above) and let me know how you get on trying to rebut its conclusions.

Finally, I notice you don't make any comment on whether Stewart is actually guilty of the insider trading or stock conspiracy charges, or whether it is legitimate to even charge her with such offences.
 
Seems perverse to be prosecuted for voicing one's constitutional right of being innocent until proven guilty. The consequences of such a legal claim are derivative; this smacks of prosecutorial misconduct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top