Hope Martha enjoys prison

Neil · Post by **Neil** » 3/5/2004, 2:22 pm

Martha Stewart was found guilty of all charges today.........prison is most likely.

I never thought it would happen......alls I thought would happen would be a fine 'n some shit related.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA beyotch!

Bandalero · Post by **Bandalero** » 3/5/2004, 2:32 pm

thank god, send her to the chair, that;ll teach her. :mrgreen:

starvingeyes · Post by **starvingeyes** » 3/5/2004, 2:32 pm

actually, it's not fuckin' funny at all.

this is another travesty of so called "justice". the woman is completely innocent of any and all crimes.

Bandalero · Post by **Bandalero** » 3/5/2004, 2:40 pm

explain

starvingeyes · Post by **starvingeyes** » 3/5/2004, 3:43 pm

what did she actually do to harm somebody else? nothing!

she had a connection within the company that allowed her to avoid losing some $40 000 dollars. why should it be illegal for her to use that connection? i mean, seriously, all the other stock holders were going to lose their money anyway, right? why not let the few people who can save themselves do it? it doesn't hurt anybody.

all insider trading laws do, or at least, did in this instance, is make sure that everybody goes down with the ship, which is ridiculous. really, if you have a hundred people on a boat and only enough lifeboats for 15, why not save those 15? the other 85 are going to die no matter what, so why not try to minimize the harm as much as possible?

deniedjunkie · Post by **deniedjunkie** » 3/5/2004, 3:48 pm

the alchemist wrote:what did she actually do to harm somebody else? nothing!

she had a connection within the company that allowed her to avoid losing some $40 000 dollars. why should it be illegal for her to use that connection? i mean, seriously, all the other stock holders were going to lose their money anyway, right? why not let the few people who can save themselves do it? it doesn't hurt anybody.

all insider trading laws do, or at least, did in this instance, is make sure that everybody goes down with the ship, which is ridiculous. really, if you have a hundred people on a boat and only enough lifeboats for 15, why not save those 15? the other 85 are going to die no matter what, so why not try to minimize the harm as much as possible?

that does nothing to explain her innocince

Solidarity 9-6347 · Post by **Solidarity 9-6347** » 3/5/2004, 3:52 pm

what are you talking about? he's saying that the charges are rediculous because the insider trading laws are invalid in his opinion. he's saying that she's innocent because she never should have been convicted in the first place

Post by **xjsb125** » 3/5/2004, 4:05 pm

the alchemist wrote: i mean, seriously, all the other stock holders were going to lose their money anyway, right? why not let the few people who can save themselves do it? it doesn't hurt anybody.

Exactly. Let the people who are rich keep thier money. It's entirely fair that she should be able to sell all her stock off and lose a drop of ant piss in the wind financially, and let the folks at the end of the chain who had no idea they were going to lose there money get the shaft. Good thinking. :thumbs:

doug · Post by **doug** » 3/5/2004, 4:05 pm

Reno & Neil, why are insider trading laws good?

starvingeyes · Post by **starvingeyes** » 3/5/2004, 4:11 pm

xjsb125 wrote:Exactly. Let the people who are rich keep thier money. It's entirely fair that she should be able to sell all her stock off and lose a drop of ant piss in the wind financially, and let the folks at the end of the chain who had no idea they were going to lose there money get the shaft. Good thinking.

i'm not even going to bother. please, <i>try harder</i>.

doug, do you want this one? i'm tired.

Post by **xjsb125** » 3/5/2004, 4:18 pm

No. I want you to sell me on why its fair to let people who are at the source of information sell off their securities and keep afloat, when other people who might not be able to afford that loss will take a that hit. I'll be open minded enough to listen to what you have to say, and if you show me good logic I'll change my point of view.

starvingeyes · Post by **starvingeyes** » 3/5/2004, 4:20 pm

the alchemist wrote:what did she actually do to harm somebody else? nothing!

she had a connection within the company that allowed her to avoid losing some $40 000 dollars. why should it be illegal for her to use that connection? i mean, seriously, all the other stock holders were going to lose their money anyway, right? why not let the few people who can save themselves do it? it doesn't hurt anybody.

all insider trading laws do, or at least, did in this instance, is make sure that everybody goes down with the ship, which is ridiculous. really, if you have a hundred people on a boat and only enough lifeboats for 15, why not save those 15? the other 85 are going to die no matter what, so why not try to minimize the harm as much as possible?

read it again.

Post by **xjsb125** » 3/5/2004, 4:32 pm

I agree that she didn't directly harm anyone. She did violate a law. Yes, insider trading laws do insure that everyone goes down with the ship. $40k in stock is nothing for her. Look at it from the point of view from someone who could have money tied up in a security as part of their retirement, or extra income they need to get by. Even if Martha had lost the 40, she would have been able to continue on living the good life. But if Jim the janitor lost a thousand or two thousand dollars that he was depending on for retirement, or whatever, could he have just carried on like it was no big deal? Martha broke the law, now she will pay the price.

starvingeyes · Post by **starvingeyes** » 3/5/2004, 4:39 pm

what does that have to do with anything?

a. the law sucks
b. jim the janitor was going to lose his money whether or not martha stewart did. jim the janitor has nothing to gain from martha stewart losing her money. jim the janitor does not lose anything if martha stewart does not lose her money.

in other words, martha stewart has NO effect on jim the janitor.

insider trading laws are born out of envy. jim the janitor has no useful skills. he is jealous of martha stewart because she is successful, due to her vast array of useful skills, which are in high demand. jim the janitor doesn't think it's "fair" that he should lose his money and martha should keep hers.

but the fact remains that either way, jim the janitor is fucked. the only thing he gains from martha losing her money is the pathetic satisfaction that he took her down with him.

that is disgusting. it is disgusting that there is a <i>law</i> on the books which substantiate that kind of pathetic, child like mentality.

we're talking about people's lives here. who gives a shit if martha didn't bring enough gum for everyone?

Post by **xjsb125** » 3/5/2004, 5:13 pm

It's fine if you think the law sucks. And yes, we are talking about people's lives here. Again, that is why the law is in place. To keep everything fair for the lives of those who could be affected by a company's financial whims. Insider trading makes a whole lot of sense. Who wouldn't want to keep from losing their money, no matter how insignificant the amount? And if you are all about saving as many as possible, why wouldn't you let the whole world know that some shit is going down, dump your stocks? Laws created out of envy? Possible. I wasn't there when they were written so I can't say. I understand what you are saying, I just don't agree with it, and agree that you probably dont agree with what I'm saying.

starvingeyes · Post by **starvingeyes** » 3/5/2004, 5:25 pm

ok, we need to cut the crap. i am going to give you an itemized list of things to adress.

1. who is the victim in the crime martha stewart committed?
2. what action did martha stewart personally take to harm this person?
3. what harm befell this person as a direct result of something martha stewart did?

please keep in mind that martha stewart had nothing to do with the collapse of the company. that was your friends, the government, via the FDA.

Post by **xjsb125** » 3/5/2004, 5:44 pm

Point well made. I'll take the time to research the laws and reformulate my opinion.

Edit:
Ok, after doing some minimal research here is what I am finding out: The insider trading laws are designed to maintain market integrity. The legal wording is found here http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-7881.htm and it sucks to read. But I think the main point it made was about destroying market integrity for investors. People with access to inside information making false statements or reports for issuers who give out said information, feel pressured to do so, so that they can continue to receive the inside information. The charge on securities fraud agains Martha was dropped. She was found guilty of charges of conspiracy to obstruct justice, make false statements, and commit perjury; 2 counts of making false statements, and obstruction of justice. Oh, and the company didn't crumble financially, their stock just decreased in price greatly, and the drug that was originally rejected and caused the falling stock value was approved last month.

closeyoureyes · Post by **closeyoureyes** » 3/5/2004, 6:25 pm

i feel bad for her. please dont crucify me for compassion.

Bandalero · Post by **Bandalero** » 3/5/2004, 7:10 pm

the alchemist wrote:what did she actually do to harm somebody else? nothing!

she had a connection within the company that allowed her to avoid losing some $40 000 dollars. why should it be illegal for her to use that connection? i mean, seriously, all the other stock holders were going to lose their money anyway, right? why not let the few people who can save themselves do it? it doesn't hurt anybody.

all insider trading laws do, or at least, did in this instance, is make sure that everybody goes down with the ship, which is ridiculous. really, if you have a hundred people on a boat and only enough lifeboats for 15, why not save those 15? the other 85 are going to die no matter what, so why not try to minimize the harm as much as possible?

first off she wasn't found guilty of insider trading, she was found guilty of lying about it and obstructing justice.

ALL shareholders have three major rights:

1. The right to vote in matters concerning the corporation.
2. The right to SHARE in distribution of earnings.
3. The right to SHARE in assets on liquidation.

martha and the select few in the know, aren't sharing in the distribution of earnings. they are lining their pockets for their own gain, and leading all other investors to the slaughter house. when you invest in a company, your taking a risk, and it doesn't matter if you only have 1 share in the company or $40,000 worth of stock in the company, you should know as an investor that if this company hits a financial burden, your out you money. not someone, not just the people who own 1 share, eveybody. if you share in the distribution of assets and earnings, then you also share the buredn the company creates as well. going into the market you should know this, martha knew it, the guy with 1 share knew it, everyone should know it. just because your you, you cannot back out of your obligation to share in the burden.

lying in court undermines the absolute basis of the judicial system. blah blah blah, blah blah, bla blah blah. i know you don't want to hear this stuff, so moving on.....

to obstruction. this is a federal case, as in it costs federal money to try this bitch. trying to uncover all these lies and unethical issues that little mrs. homestead kept trying to keep secret, cost taxpayer money. it's wasted funds. since she was being a bitch about this, she should spend time in jail, and should not be allowed to hold any stake in a public corporation ever again. that's just if i were running things, in case you haven't noticed, i dislike rich snobs who think they can get their way all the time. (see sports bitching thread)

but lets not get carried away by opinion, the truth is she tried to undermine all the checks and balances that are in place to keep corruption to a minimun. no one was really hurt by her actions. but her actions are still wrong.

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 3/5/2004, 8:09 pm

What Martha Stewart did is the equivalent of me selling you a house and a friend of mine blowing it up before you move in.