MSO: Halted & Guilty

>I think if you read the article linked in my previous post on
>this subject, you will see that the AG did indeed petition
>the Supreme Court to grant an injunction and would not
>have done so had it not been a legal alternative under
>Kalifornia law.

You are absolutely correct and nothing I have said conflicts with the above. The petition has been filed and Lockyer argued his best for an emergency ruling. SO FAR his arguments have not been convincing enough to overule the jurisdiction of the lower courts and so the wheels turn at the lower level and the system is working as designed.

>The fact of the matter is that it is the mayor violating
>the law who should be taking the matter through the
>courts before he decides to just violate the law.

And on that we agree.

JB
 
Martha made her false statements during an investigation conducted by professional investigators, probably under oath. This is not some bozo cop pulling you over at 1:00 AM.

At the time she and they thought she had committed illegal insider trading. They had records of her trades within days of her selling. She then started the coverup and got the others to go along with her story.

Once again, boys and girls, when you are an officer of a public company you are restricted from exercising your "free speech" rights in any manner you may see fit. How many investors were induced to purchase her stock based on these statements of her innocence. The SEC is going to pursue this.

Watch this charge pop up again with Ken Lay. He is on video several times touting Enron at $40 as a "great buy" after he was warned there was a major problem in accounting.

SteveD
 
>Once again, boys and girls, when you are an officer of a
>public company you are restricted from exercising your
>"free speech" rights in any manner you may se

Steve, if you are referring to the fraud charges that were dropped, I don't agree that they were valid charges (and neither did the judge). I agree with the your free speech statement above, but I believe that simply proclaiming innocence should ALWAYS be protected by free speech.

If a defended goes to the stand and is asked one question "Are you innocent" and answers yes and is later convicted, are we able to get a perjury charge to stick? -- hardly. Equally, Martha's public "I'm innocent" statements (from which the fraud charges stemmed) should not result in charges even once a conviction is achieved.

JB
 
I understand what you are saying. The Feds were approaching it from the standpoint not of Martha proclaiming her innocence but Martha, President and majority shareholder of a public company totally intertwined with her as a person.

If you ever watch Gates or Dell being interviewed. They are super careful in what and the way they say anything.

We are in an era of successful people running very public company that they founded. This brings a unique set of circumstances to the forefront. She is President, CEO, Founder of a NYSE company named after her. Who else has this? She is the company.

I feel very sorry for the woman. She got terrible advice from a complete idiot attorney. Defense attorneys are the slime buckets of the law. They risk nothing while posturing for the cameras. We had Rusty Hardin here in Houston. Dared the Feds to try Arthur Andersen with him as the "cowboy" defense attorney. It was a very quick trial also. Obstruction of justice and the firm is out of business. Boom!! God, what a clown.

SteveD
 
All the discussion and twisted logic are meaningless. The issue is black and white.

She lie, she got caught, she is going to jail, and that is a good thing.
 
I am a trader ...my logic is entwined.....thank you very much.

Michael B.



Quote from Atheist:

All the discussion and twisted logic are meaningless. The issue is black and white.

She lie, she got caught, she is going to jail, and that is a good thing.
More...
 
I haven't read this entire thread, but after giving it some reflection, I feel bad for her, though I agree with the verdict. Here's why and certainly this is conjecture on my part. But it seems reasonable.

Her broker called her. He told her Waksal was desperately trying to sell ALL his stock. The broker doesn't know why, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that it can't be good. She OK's the sale of her shares. She had no way of knowing that the FDA had ruled against Erbitux and she certainly didn't know that IMCL was going to get whacked the next day. Maybe she had an inkling, but if the news were less severe IMCL might only have gotten whacked for a few bucks. At the time who knew?

Now she and her broker know that this is not kosher, but he's a friend and he just stuck his neck out to do right by his client.

So the Fed's come calling. Do you hang him out to dry?

Tough call. We know what she did and she's going to prison for it. In all likelihood if she had sold him out and paid some restitution the Feds would have let her go.

But he went above and beyond to take care of you, wouldn't you try and do the same?

Maybe this is a naive interpretation of events, but so much of the criticism of her assumes SHE KNEW that Erbitux had been rejected and that IMCL was going to get the pasting it got. I highly doubt that.
 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4468819/

But here's the depressing reality: Martha could have avoided this entire mess if she had simply fessed up to begin with, federal investigators say. Had she admitted wrongdoing in early 2002, she could have gotten off with a $200,000 fine and no jail time. And NEWSWEEK has learned that the Feds gave Martha another opportunity to avoid prison. Federal prosecutors offered Martha a deal last April to cop to one count of making a false statement, say several sources familiar with the offer. She would have received probation and continued working at her company, they say. But Martha refused to plead guilty to a felony, and a defense source says the Feds couldn't guarantee she'd stay out of jail
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top