Martha The Scapegoat

[DominO123]

What are you talking about? Is this about "destroying" for you? My, my, my...

Oh, OK! I forgot, there is even words that are not "right" for you. So OK! let change the word destroy with a better one... are words as well not at the level of your standards... ?

[Anonymouse]

Oh, OK! I forgot, there is even words that are not "right" for you. So OK! let change the word destroy with a better one... are words as well not at the level of your standards... ?

I guess I'm below the standards of your words.

[America-Hye]

Publicizing this whole Martha Stewart affair is a election-year ploy by the Bush

Administration, to channel public attention away from Ken Lay and the Enron debacle, et al. This case does not warrant the attention it is getting. It is being broadcasted to deflect attention from the President's numerous close buddies who have broken the law.

[Anonymouse]

Publicizing this whole Martha Stewart affair is a election-year ploy by the Bush

Administration, to channel public attention away from Ken Lay and the Enron debacle, et al. This case does not warrant the attention it is getting. It is being broadcasted to deflect attention from the President's numerous close buddies who have broken the law.

Bingo, that's one of the reasons this distraction was blown out to be something it really isn't.

[Armat]

You both are wrong.Any celebrity on her status or less who gets in trouble is big news.It is just news business operating as what it is specially becouse of her popularity.While you can speculate endless dark,secretive reasons why so much press coverege ,one only needs to understand American pop colture.

News is news which works on its own Inertia.

[America-Hye]

Hey Armat,

 

Then why have the other trials of the close buddies of Bush been buried by the media?

[DominO123]

Hey Armat,

 

Then why have the other trials of the close buddies of Bush been buried by the media?

You don't get it do you? If others do s.t, it does not excuses her.

 

Anon, I'm not surprised at your reply.

[America-Hye]

Hey Domino,

 

We are not discussing that she should be excused, but that there is a media circus surrounding this trial that is being encouraged by the conservatives. Why does Fox News spend so much tiem on this? It is because Martha has supported the Democrats with big bucks. Who will they go after next, Soros?

[Anonymouse]

You both are wrong.Any celebrity on her status or less who gets in trouble is big news.It is just news business operating as what it is specially becouse of her popularity.While you can speculate endless dark,secretive reasons why so much press coverege ,one only needs to understand American pop colture.

News is news which works on its own Inertia.

You have yet to address anything relating to the case or much less the law, aside from appealing to your idea of what things should be.

[angel4hope]

here are my two cents-- yah she broke the law, but i dont understand how people can critisize her without considering everything ele going on- besides-- did u guys know that her net profit for her stupid actions was only 40 thousand dollars? yah she was stupid for cheating, but alotta people do this in the business- some get caught and others dont- but it is very plausible that this may be just a big propogated event to take attention away from politics- come awn naw- u really think our government hold some holy sanction or holy grounds? id beg to differ- they cheat lie and steal from their people much like other governments- greed and corruption feed upon one another-- just my opinion-- no penilizations please

[vava]

GREED! angel jan - it's just greed - for 40K, she risked her entire fortune. Don't you find that sad? You'd think she'd have just paid up.

 

And yes - others cheat & lie! That's the point. They should all be rounded up & punished. Why let these crooks go free just cause others are getting away with it?!! I say we lock'em all up together....

[gurgen]

here are my two cents-- yah she broke the law, but i dont understand how people can critisize her without considering everything ele going on- besides-- did u guys know that her net profit for her stupid actions was only 40 thousand dollars? yah she was stupid for cheating, but alotta people do this in the business- some get caught and others dont- but it is very plausible that this may be just a big propogated event to take attention away from politics- come awn naw- u really think our government hold some holy sanction or holy grounds? id beg to differ- they cheat lie and steal from their people much like other governments- greed and corruption feed upon one another-- just my opinion-- no penilizations please

Are are completely right Angel jan, some people just feel the need to believe they live in Paradise so they can look away from the bad things and lessen their worries.

[Anonymouse]

here are my two cents-- yah she broke the law

This is the problem angel jan, just what is the law? What law did she break? Insider trading? No such thing was defined during the trial. No such thing was proven. It is not a statute law, it is entirely a creation of beaurocrats. It is a vague and undefined term designed to prove everything and nothing. Her profit was hardly anything for her to lie and "fight" the system. Any reasonable person schooled on law and motive would immediately see the fishy nature of this 'crime'. Things don't match like Alice in Wonderland.

Edited March 15, 2004 by Anonymouse

[hyebruin]

hey this reminds me of a stand up comedian making fun of this whole martha scandal by drawing an analogy between the rich and the poor and saying how with poor people it would be the equivalent of a k-mart employee letting their friends and relatives in on an upcoming sale so they'd save their $$ and take advantage of the sale!! ~~her whole act was funny! she was pretendin to be on the phone and passing on the inside info ~~ so how is that criminal??

 

i'm not a lawyer so i don't know if she actually broke the law but it does seem kind of 'unfair'...so what?? she was smart enough to use the info to her advantage! (well maybe not so smart now looking at hindsight..the mess that she's in)...but come on! give her a break! when you're that big you've gotta have big and powerful friends and connections!!! it's not like she went on t.v. and said or did something to influence the stock price!! she was just 'looking out' for her best interest!!

[Azat]

Bruin jan, that is just it... It is illegal to use information that is not available to the public for your benefit in the stock markets. It's known as "Insider trading"

 

Now I do have to agree with you on that fact that she is getting screwed over it. Are you telling me that there are no employees of a company who give "insider" information to their relatives? Or if a company like fidelity or some other mutual fund company finds insider information they do not pull the trigger(buy or sell) until the information is public. Please if you do believe that then you are living in a fantasy world.

 

She is totally being screwed over a 60K seal...

[GuitARA]

I just want to reiterate what has already been said about this entire case as just a diversion tactic. Martha was the scapegoat, the gov't knew that there was some dislike of her amongst the public. The gov't staged a 'lynching' and the public faithfully showed up to watch her hang

 

 

I'm sorry if this offends anyone but the US (general) public is just flat out ... DUMB.

 

 

EDIT: Sorry Azat, I completely rewrote my post, I was basically echoing what you' all have been saying.

 

I'm glad you agree, though.

Edited March 15, 2004 by GuitARA

[Azat]

You are 100% right in the fact that she was not charged for insider trading but rather for lying to the court. Had she kept her mouth shut when they started the investigation should would be golden now, but at that time she got on TV and news and started making false statements in order to keep the price of her companies stock up.

 

The real sad statement is that her net gain was sub 60K, but you have Enron and Tyco and WorldCom and and Adelphia and few others who screwed investors and employees for billions.

 

BTW, now that her show is off the air, can you please call your local cable distributor and ask them to show "Cooking with PowerTools by Azat".

[angel4hope]

This is the problem angel jan, just what is the law? What law did she break? Insider trading? No such thing was defined during the trial. No such thing was proven. It is not a statute law, it is entirely a creation of beaurocrats. It is a vague and undefined term designed to prove everything and nothing. Her profit was hardly anything for her to lie and "fight" the system. Any reasonable person schooled on law and motive would immediately see the fishy nature of this 'crime'. Things don't match like Alice in Wonderland.

okie yo comprendo buddy- youre very right- ive been puzzled abut the whole idea of insider trading- i have ye to see it classified as one thing or another or even put in to terms f law(s) the whole stockmarket thingie is just a load of maneur- serious!! everyone cheats and lies- in their terms odf "insider trading" its just that some are caught and som arent-

[Anonymouse]

Convicted for Fearing Conviction

 

By Ilana Mercer

 

[Posted March 17, 2004]

 

It was assistant broker Douglas Faneuil's word against Martha Stewart's. The word of a liar and a "man" who referred to himself cloyingly as "baby" ("Baby put Ms. Martha in her place!!!"), against that of a mensch who, over the years, has delivered on her promises to countless satisfied customers.

 

But first came Sam. ImClone CEO Sam Waksal instructed Merrill Lynch stockbroker Peter Bacanovic (also Ms. Stewart's broker) to sell all the company shares in his Merrill Lynch account. The Food and Drug Administration had refused a Biologics Licensing Application for ImClone's promising cancer drug, Erbitux. And yes, in contravention of insider trading laws, Mr. Waksal was acting on information which was 24 hours shy of being made public.

 

It is worth noting that the number of shares Mr. Waksal and his family sold through Merrill Lynch was a mere two percent of their holdings. On that fateful day, over seven million ImClone shares, other than those owned by the Waksal family, changed hands. It was thus incumbent on the jury to consider that even if Ms. Stewart was aware of the Waksal sale, she probably considered it unremarkable.

 

Then again, it was also incumbent on the jury to consider Douglas Faneuil's motives. The defense referred to Faneuil deservingly as "the living definition of reasonable doubt," and his assertion that he had provided insider information to Ms. Stewart was the only evidence against her the government possessed. Yet this lout's say-so prevailed over the word of a lady who has, single-handedly and honestly, built a billion-dollar-business.

 

Mr. Faneuil, Peter Bacanovic's former assistant, saved his own skin by agreeing to testify against Ms. Stewart and Mr. Bacanovic. He alleged that Mr. Bacanovic instructed him to pass on the news of the Waksal sale to Ms. Stewart, pursuant to which she, or so the government alleged (but could not prove), sold her shares immediately. In response to this charge, Ms. Stewart informed the government she had a standing agreement with Mr. Bacanovic to sell her ImClone stock if it fell below $60. The jury, however, failed to consider not only Mr. Faneuil's motives but also the mores of this self-confessed druggie. What mattered to them were his humble Brooklyn abode and equally modest earnings. In their minds—such as they were—he was one of them, pitted against the patricians in the dock.

 

Indeed, the jurors' post-trial populist posturing alone ought to constitute grounds for appeal. One juror, Chappell Hartridge, heralded this miscarriage of justice as a victory for the "little guy." (I wonder if he or the government would have dared to send a similar message to Oprah Winfrey.) He asserted, "We all knew in our hearts that the sale was based on Sam's actions." In other words, the jury believed Ms. Stewart was on trial for selling her 3,928 ImClone shares after being tipped by Sam Waksal.

 

In fairness to the jury, however, not even former Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Harvey Pitt understands how the blood sport of securities laws applied to Ms. Stewart's "case" (not at all). Mr. Pitt told Chris Matthews, apropos Ms. Stewart, "If you know that you're getting information you're not entitled to, the fact that you didn't ask for it doesn't mean that you can then go out and trade on it."

 

This is as good a description as any of the information socialism undergirding securities laws. But, contra Mr. Pitt, the government didn't charge Ms. Stewart with insider trading, although it was not for lack of trying, but, rather, for lack of evidence. While the state's case began with an insider trading investigation, it failed to prove that Ms. Stewart received—or Mr. Bacanovic imparted—insider information. The message she got from him via her assistant was commonplace. It was, simply, "Peter Bacanovic thinks ImClone is going to start trading downward."

 

The crucial fact is that Ms. Stewart was never, in any legal sense, an ImClone "insider." Hers was a private sale—she sold the shares of a company to whose shareholders she had no fiduciary duty. Mr. Bacanovic, on the other hand, was contractually bound by Merrill Lynch's confidentiality and privacy policies to refrain from divulging such information to her. If he did indeed tell her that Sam Waksal was selling his ImClone stock, and this was contrary to Merrill Lynch's policies, Bacanovic was in breach of his obligation to the company. Bear in mind, though, that a company's rules about insider trading are informed by federal and State securities laws. If insider trading were not criminalized by the government, it is entirely possible—even probable—that Sam Waksal would have been more than pleased to authorize the release of the information to his long-time friend Ms. Stewart (or done so personally).

 

When it became apparent to U.S. Attorney David N. Kelley that he could not charge Ms. Stewart with insider trading, he used the unrehearsed interviews she had given law-enforcement officers—interviews not subject to Fifth Amendment protections—to charge her with conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and lying to investigators about a matter that was never a crime.

 

This entrapment was easily facilitated under the unconstitutional Section 1001 of Title 18 in the United States Code. This makes it an offense to make "a materially false" statement to a federal official—even when one is not under oath. (It is perfectly acceptable, however, for said official to bait and bully a private citizen into fibbing.) Section 1001 neatly accommodates a plethora of due-process violations.

 

Having laid the trap, the FBI and the Department of Justice failed to have on hand even as much as a court reporter. Tape recordings or accurate transcripts of the interviews conducted with Ms. Stewart were unavailable at trial. Ill-served by lawyers that allowed these impromptu interviews, Ms. Stewart did not insist on being apprised of her rights, not least of which was to remain silent. There was insufficient proof as to whether any mistakes she made during her interviews were made innocently or "knowingly and willfully," as the prosecution alleged. Nonetheless, the United States Attorney's apparatchiks flagrantly imputed criminal intent to Ms. Stewart.

 

Having failed to make a case of insider trading, the Department of "Justice," unabashed, then charged Ms. Stewart with the most novel of securities fraud violations. Early in this sad saga, congressional investigators began leaking to the media that she had traded on insider information from Sam Waksal. She dared to respond with a public denial. The government then asserted that this proved Ms. Stewart had committed securities fraud because she had allegedly issued her denial with the intention of buoying the stock price of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia (Count Nine of the indictment).

 

Therefore, having first been stripped of her right to the Fifth Amendment, the government sought to punish her for her exercise of the First. While the presiding judge, Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, was more amused than aggravated by this legal overreach, she did dismiss Count Nine.

 

It is all too apparent to libertarians that Ms. Stewart and Mr. Bacanovic are innocents whose activities, entirely licit in natural law, the state has criminalized. Worse still, the state has failed to prove even this naturally unlawful case. When the government alleges a crime has been committed, the onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (1) that a crime actually occurred (2) that there was criminal intent (mens rea). These burdens were not met, but the show trial went ahead regardless.

 

The entrapment of Ms. Stewart and Mr. Bacanovic conjures the ubiquitous scene in the movies where the suspect bolts and the cop gives chase. Cop hauls suspect in for questioning, only to discover he has the wrong man.

 

"If you are innocent, why did you run?" the detective demands. To which the suspect replies, "I was afraid."

 

The cop has no choice but to release him. In truth-is-scarier-than-fiction America, however, Martha Stewart and Peter Bacanovic were not released. They were prosecuted and convicted for the "crime" of . . . running.

 

-----

 

Ilana Mercer is a columnist for WorldNetDaily.com. Her new book is "Broad Sides: One Woman's Clash With A Corrupt Culture." E-mail her. Her Mises.org archive. Comment on this article on the blog.

[Armat]

Anon

The amount of energy you wasted on this thread (worthless)fraction of it could have been utilized by you to write a letter of protest to the british ambassador but nooooooooooo you are too concern about a freakin billionare who got cought WHATEVER she did!!! Get over it.

Edited March 19, 2004 by Armat

[Anonymouse]

Hahaha, it just infuriates you that I did that huh? Moreover, I'm sure it perturbs you that I remain adamant, despite your beliefs, due to the fact that there was no evidence against her of inside trading, and if the prosecution couldn't present any, what makes you sure you can?