Downhome Posted March 5, 2004 Report Posted March 5, 2004 It's just now being talked about on the news, and that's all I know really. I just thought I'd get this started if any of you care. She could go to jail for 20+ years. It's her first time, but seeing how they are getting tough on people charged with such things, she could be in a load of hell. Her charges are two counts of false statements, one of conspiracy, one obstruction of justice. Sincererely, ...Downhome...
bob_barron Posted March 5, 2004 Report Posted March 5, 2004 NEW YORK - Martha Stewart (news - web sites) was convicted Friday of obstructing justice and lying to the government about a superbly timed stock sale, a devastating verdict that probably means prison for the woman who epitomizes meticulous homemaking and gracious living. (from the AP btw)
Downhome Posted March 5, 2004 Author Report Posted March 5, 2004 I wonder if K-Mart will cut ties with her name brand.
Guest thebigjig Posted March 5, 2004 Report Posted March 5, 2004 This is great! Perhaps now the message has been sent to the greedy corporate fucks that think they can get away with it
EdwardKnoxII Posted March 5, 2004 Report Posted March 5, 2004 http://money.netscape.cnn.com/story.jsp?fl.../1500189553.htm Verdict Is Reached in Martha Stewart Case By ERIN McCLAM NEW YORK (AP) - The jury reached a verdict Friday in the trial of homemaking icon Martha Stewart, who is accused of obstructing justice and lying to the government about a superbly timed stock sale, a law enforcement source has told The Associated Press. Shares of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia jumped in early afternoon trading as word spread of a verdict, with investors apparently betting that she would be acquitted. The stock jumped $1.63, or 12 percent, to $15.66 within a half hour of the reports. Her company, which announced its earnings Thursday, swung to a profit in the fourth quarter, but took a loss for the year. Many analysts believe the future of the company hinges on the trial, since her public image is tied so closely to the company's marketing. The verdict came on the third day of deliberations in the case. It was not immediately known when it would be announced. Extra security was seen outside the Manhattan federal courthouse where the trial was being held. Earlier Friday, the judge in the case ruled that jurors have sufficient evidence to decide whether Stewart's former stockbroker, Peter Bacanovic, committed perjury. The testimony of Stewart's assistant, Ann Armstrong, and a telephone message log she kept are enough to meet the high standards of evidence to convict a defendant of perjury, U.S. District Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum said. Bacanovic is accused of lying under oath about a message he left for Stewart on Dec. 27, 2001, the day she sold ImClone Systems stock. Bacanovic told the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2002 that the message simply relayed ImClone's stock price. But Stewart's assistant recorded the message as: ``Peter Bacanovic thinks ImClone is going to start trading downward.'' To convict a defendant of perjury, jurors must rely on the testimony of two witness or on one witness whose story is supported by a document. A focus on Bacanovic in the jury's notes shows only that they are considering the charges against him - not which way the jury may be leaning. And it by no means indicates they are focusing more on him than on the counts against Stewart, who is charged with lying to investigators about her ImClone sale on Dec. 27, 2001. Stewart and Bacanovic say they had agreed earlier to sell the stock when its price fell below $60 per share. The jury still must decide on other legal questions, including whether Bacanovic intentionally gave false testimony about the message. Bacanovic lawyer Richard Strassberg strongly objected to the ruling, saying the judge was essentially allowing jurors to reach a perjury conviction based on one witness' testimony.
EdwardKnoxII Posted March 5, 2004 Report Posted March 5, 2004 I bet old Martha can do wonders with her jail cell. You know new paint here, some flowers, etc. And I bet she'll be REALLY popular with the other women in jail.
Guest OctoberBlood Posted March 5, 2004 Report Posted March 5, 2004 Yes! The Court finally ignores money~! Haha, this is funny.
Downhome Posted March 5, 2004 Author Report Posted March 5, 2004 Am I the only one who just about instantly thought, "Saturday Night Live"?
haVoc Posted March 5, 2004 Report Posted March 5, 2004 No way will she get the full 20 years. I'll be shocked if they give her 5 years.
Jobber of the Week Posted March 5, 2004 Report Posted March 5, 2004 Who the hell honestly gives a flip? How many guys from Enron still haven't gotten what they've deserved? The only reason anyone actually cares about this more than the other ones is because Martha Stewart is a prominent figure in the Ladies Home Journal circles. Give me a damn break.
C Dubya 04 Posted March 5, 2004 Report Posted March 5, 2004 What??? This is America. We don't convict our celeberties of crimes.
Guest Danny Dubya v 2.0 Posted March 5, 2004 Report Posted March 5, 2004 Yeah, whatever, this is just horrible and devastating for Martha, et cetera. Hope she thoroughly enjoys white-collar prison where the only punishment she'll receive is the lack of her once-lavish lifestyle, without the actual toughness of common prisons.
Ripper Posted March 5, 2004 Report Posted March 5, 2004 Thats such bullshit. I bet she gets more years than everyone at Enron combined too. Lets make an example out of Martha...and give the Enron guys 6 months.
snuffbox Posted March 5, 2004 Report Posted March 5, 2004 Thats such bullshit. I bet she gets more years than everyone at Enron combined too. Lets make an example out of Martha...and give the Enron guys 6 months. Trivia question - What president does Martha Stewart not have ties to?
Guest thebigjig Posted March 5, 2004 Report Posted March 5, 2004 I'd of course rather see Ken Lay go down, but if it's gotta be Martha to send the message, then Martha it is I bet she gets 10, probation in 5... which is justifiable for what she did Lay however deserves 50 years
Ripper Posted March 5, 2004 Report Posted March 5, 2004 I'd of course rather see Ken Lay go down, but if it's gotta be Martha to send the message, then Martha it is I bet she gets 10, probation in 5... which is justifiable for what she did Lay however deserves 50 years What message? That if you screw over god knows how many people for a couple of billion but have the right political connections, you can get a slap on the wrist. But if you are famous...*shakes fist*. If Martha was a white guy, she wouldn't have been convicted. the jury is ~RACIST!
snuffbox Posted March 5, 2004 Report Posted March 5, 2004 I'd of course rather see Ken Lay go down, but if it's gotta be Martha to send the message, then Martha it is I bet she gets 10, probation in 5... which is justifiable for what she did Lay however deserves 50 years Whats the lesson to learn? Rip families of for billions and ruin lives, but buddy up to Bush & Co = wrist slappage at worst. Make dainty lil bullshit, rip investors off for far less, dont buddy up to Bush & Co = Guilty in court, but we'll see what happens. Im sure it will be worse than the nothing that Enron etc guys get(and that guy that Clinton was paid to pardon as well).
Highland Posted March 5, 2004 Report Posted March 5, 2004 (edited) She'll get a very large fine and I doubt she'll serve a day of her sentence in prison. And yes, Kenneth Lay and the rest of the Enron cronies should be rotting in prison right now, but having ties to the current White House administration does have its privileges. Edited March 5, 2004 by Naibus
Guest thebigjig Posted March 5, 2004 Report Posted March 5, 2004 I'd of course rather see Ken Lay go down, but if it's gotta be Martha to send the message, then Martha it is I bet she gets 10, probation in 5... which is justifiable for what she did Lay however deserves 50 years What message? That if you screw over god knows how many people for a couple of billion but have the right political connections, you can get a slap on the wrist. But if you are famous...*shakes fist*. If Martha was a white guy, she wouldn't have been convicted. the jury is ~RACIST! Didnt she take all of that risk over something like ten thousand dollars?? Insane... I just want someone to go down for this shit and not get away with it... and if it's gotta be 5 years, then 5 years is better than no punishment at all
snuffbox Posted March 5, 2004 Report Posted March 5, 2004 She'll get a very large fine and I doubt she'll serve a day of her sentence in prison. And yes, Kenneth Lay and the rest of the Enron cronies should be rotting in prison right now, but having ties to the current White House administration does have its privileges. Its too bad Bush doesnt consider people that have destroyed so many American people/families to be 'evildoers'.
Guest thebigjig Posted March 5, 2004 Report Posted March 5, 2004 She'll get a very large fine and I doubt she'll serve a day of her sentence in prison. And yes, Kenneth Lay and the rest of the Enron cronies should be rotting in prison right now, but having ties to the current White House administration does have its privileges. Its too bad Bush doesnt consider people that have destroyed so many American people/families to be 'evildoers'. I'll never forget when the Enron thing broke, and Bush said the bastards should get "about ten years" I fucking almost put my foot through the tv
NoCalMike Posted March 5, 2004 Report Posted March 5, 2004 I doubt she ends up going to jail. Also No would should be cheering yet until worse offenders start getting out away.
sfaJack Posted March 5, 2004 Report Posted March 5, 2004 You guys all seem to be forgetting that while Enron blew up during Bush's administration, they rose to prominence and made the majority of their money on Clinton's watch. But I guess it's easier to say OMGEVILREPUBLICANNS~!!!111!!!11 in an election year.
Guest thebigjig Posted March 5, 2004 Report Posted March 5, 2004 You guys all seem to be forgetting that while Enron blew up during Bush's administration, they rose to prominence and made the majority of their money on Clinton's watch. But I guess it's easier to say OMGEVILREPUBLICANNS~!!!111!!!11 in an election year. Your argument is null and void... no one knew this shit was going on then Thats why the whistleblowers got so much attention. It could also be argued that everyone was making money under Clinton, you know, because we had the best economy in our history
snuffbox Posted March 5, 2004 Report Posted March 5, 2004 You guys all seem to be forgetting that while Enron blew up during Bush's administration, they rose to prominence and made the majority of their money on Clinton's watch. But I guess it's easier to say OMGEVILREPUBLICANNS~!!!111!!!11 in an election year. Your argument is null and void... no one knew this shit was going on then Thats why the whistleblowers got so much attention. It could also be argued that everyone was making money under Clinton, you know, because we had the best economy in our history meh...'omglolthisandthatandwhateverelselol!!' is fast becoming the right's best and only "arguement" around here
Ripper Posted March 5, 2004 Report Posted March 5, 2004 You guys all seem to be forgetting that while Enron blew up during Bush's administration, they rose to prominence and made the majority of their money on Clinton's watch. But I guess it's easier to say OMGEVILREPUBLICANNS~!!!111!!!11 in an election year. They got CAUGHT IN WRONG DOING during the Bush's term. They were given slaps on the wrist during Bush term. They have ties to Bushs administration. It all points to one thing... ITS CLINTONS FAULT!!
sfaJack Posted March 5, 2004 Report Posted March 5, 2004 Your argument is null and void... no one knew this shit was going on then Thats why the whistleblowers got so much attention. Uh, duh? Obviously no one knew it was going on. Otherwise, wouldn't it have been stopped? The question you should be asking is why wasn't it detected/uncovered earlier? It could also be argued that everyone was making money under Clinton, you know, because we had the best economy in our history I suppose. But then you could also argue that maybe the economy was so great under Clinton because it was full of fraud and was really just "on paper," it'd carry about as much weight as your argument. The number of corporate scandals that have come to light and the sheer amount of personal bankruptcies filed over the last few years would lend at least some credence to THAT theory, instead of wide-eyed speculation on your part. Enron isn't some grand Republican conspiracy though like some liberals are making it out to be. Completing the case against Fastow, Skilling, and Lay will take some time; their high-priced lawyers will protect them well. If the feds rush this case and screw up any of the damning evidence, they'll walk.
sfaJack Posted March 5, 2004 Report Posted March 5, 2004 meh...'omglolthisandthatandwhateverelselol!!' is fast becoming the right's best and only "arguement" around here Thanks, "duder." We like to keep it simple for you.
Guest El Satanico Posted March 5, 2004 Report Posted March 5, 2004 3 years suspended sentence and a large fine.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now