Is Martha Stewart--

going to have to wear one of those orange jumpsuits they give to people in jail?

Martha Stewart will probably either go to a minimum security facility where inmates get to wear their own clothing, or will be confined to her home using the monitoring bracelets they have now (why should people pay for her incarceration in prison when she is capable of supporting herself?). Either way, I'm not too worried about this, it's not like I think "It's a darn good thing Martha is off the street, she's a menace to society!"

Martha Stewart made a stupid mistake and was made an example of. I have no doubt there are many people out there with tons of money invested in various stocks who do the same thing every day. Just because Martha is a successful businesswoman, people seem to have it in for her. I really don't understand it - wait, no, I do, some people just can't stand to see a woman succeed through her own hard work in this society.

Some of us don't like seeing rich people fleecing 1000's of people of their money and getting off scot free every time.

It's funny, though, her magazine and product sales have picked up recently.

I feel bad for Martha. If someone told you reliably that a company you owned a bunch of stock in was about to tank and you should sell, what would you do? Seems to me any sane person would sell. If this is supposed to be criminal then it seems to me the real crime was commited by the person who passed the information along, not the person who acted on it to avoid losing $40,000. How much do you think it cost the government to prosecute her? A hell of a lot more than $40k. And who do you think gets to pay for it? We do. She didn't fleece anyone. Meanwhile someone like Ken Lay, who cost thousands of people their retirement and life savings, is going scott free.

Has anyone ever read the book about her? Would SO make you never want to feel sorry for her.

I think there are a lot of people out there who think "Ah what a lovely homemaker, she made a mistake". She is a professional stock broker. She knew what she was doing. Here is an Associated Press recap of the whole thing.

Martha Stewart is not a lovely homemaker, she is a hard-working businesswoman who has managed and built her career from virtually nothing. She grew up poor in a family with something like 10 kids, she married pretty well (I think), then divorced, and has clawed her way to the top of a successful business empire.

Is she a shark or a bitch? Maybe, probably, who knows, who cares? The same hard work and business acumen exhibited by a woman who gets called a bitch makes a man "aggressive."

Did Martha Stewart do something wrong, by current law standards? Yes, she did. Do I believe other people do the same thing every day without getting dinged for it? Yes, yes, I do.

You seem to miss that many men do get dinged for it. She was caught. She was put on trial. Not because she is a woman, but because she screwed up. Many men get the same, in fact I would hazard that at least 90% of similar cases are against men. I remember some from companies I watch (nvidia, intel) where men were fired and prosecuted for insider trading. It does happen. It doesn't happen as often to someone as high profile as Martha, sure. However, it isn't a gender issue. She screwed up, she pays the consequences. We shouldn't let her off because she is a woman any more than we should prosecute her just because she is a woman.

Treat her equal.

I think Martha should be less of a concern than other people/companies who are doing a whole lot more harm than she did. Yes, she did a bad thing and yes she should pay. BUT where is all the uproar over Haliburton? They sure deserve more press then they are getting. Martha, IMHO is a sacraficial lamb. There are many more doing worse who arent being pointed out.

She is a famous person. A household name. So the media focus on her. It happens all the time. If it was instead Gene Hackman, do you think it would be magically different? Do you think that then, because it was a male famous person, the press would suddenly and miraculously not talk about him whom everyone knows but talk about the unknown people involved instead? Independant of who was more at fault? You know the headlines would all be about him, not the others.

The famous person gets the attention. Right or wrong.

I wish Ken Lay and people like him got life for all the hurt he has caused people. He has certainly caused a lot more damage than Martha Stewart ever will.

Martha Stewart's whole empire seems to be based on material riches, though. Her magazines are all about having the perfect expensive home and all these perfect gifts and things. It's all about money. She's appealing to readers and viewers who's main interest seems to be wanting to be rich and famous and 'perfect'. So, this person who is promoting this awful materialistic stuff gets caught with her hand in the cookie jar.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for her obviously.

Just a thought here, but how about the guy that bought that stock and lost his ass soon as he did, Nobody seems to care about him? Is funny they say she would of lost 40,000 but instead she lost millions, not to smart i dont think. Just my opinion. I really dont care about martha, she made the mistake and just got caught.

Personally, I'm glad she was found guilty, and I'm hoping for jail time. Why? Because it's nice to see sometimes money and celebrity doesn't get you a get-out-of-jail free card.

After all, as I read more than once, if she had just said "why yes, me broker did call me to tell me that .. he wasn't supposed to?" She would have just got a small fine and a slap on the wrist, but noooooooooo. She went with 'Who me? No way! Not Guilty!" and hoped her position would make her invulnerable.

What I don't understand is why she would take such a risk for $40,000. I mean come on that should be chump change for someone like her. She's either an idiot or completely ignorant of the law...

-Code

I'm not saying I really like Martha Stewart, but I respect her hard work. I'm sensitive to people running down a single woman who is successful seemingly just because she doesn't fit the mold of what people seem to expect of women. I know it's not always the case, but I've just listened to one too many Martha Stewart jokes.

And actually, I subscribed to her magazine for about three years, it's not -all- about riches and materialistic stuff. I picked up some decent recipe, housekeeping and gardening tips there. (I learned how to make an effective grow light from Martha Stewart!) It's got a lot of practical advice and a lot of do-it-yourself crafty stuff (which I don't do much of, I must admit). I don't subscribe anymore because I don't have much time to read magazines now that I'm playing in SL.

I do love it when Martha brings her mom on her daytime TV show to demonstrate some technique; her mom is so obviously not high class or fancy.

Wow I intended this to be kind of a joke thread. lol
I mean, you know, really rich person wearing that funny outfit? ......oh well

Okay then, I guess I should comment...

There seems to be a couple of misconceptions here. The problem (and what she was convicted for) isn't the $40,000. She wasn't found guilty on that (it's very hard to prove in court)--what she was found guilty on was LYING to the wrong people. She was basically offered a chance to admit she was lying in exchange for something like probation only, but still refused to admit it. So now it's turned into this. But she defintely wasn't ignorant of the law, that would be an outrageous statement to make. (Not that someone did here.)

She was at one time worth something like a billion US$, so obviously she's uh... "well off". Putting that in perspective, the $40,000 we're talking about is nothing to her. It's like one of us going and stealing a ream of paper from work. So yeah, not thinking she'd be caught for it, that's why she just agreed to break this law. After all what's the big deal, it's just $40,000...right? But again...that's not why she's in big trouble now.

I don't think this has anything to do with what she looks like or that she's a woman. If this had been an ugly, old white guy the result would still have been similar (if not worse--the jurors actually felt sorry for her, so I hear).

I think the reason she lied and *continued* to lie after being given the chance to come clean is that she felt (mistakenly) that she was able to get away with it. And after all, admitting to a lie would ruin her perfect reputation, right? Too bad now it's hurt even worse.

If we want to take Halliburton down, that's fine. But let's make sure we take down the other corporations who are doing the same shady things they are. Halliburton keeps getting singled out for political reasons, although Cheney hasn't been part of the company for years now. Not gonna bite further onto this topic though; it's a total hijack topic.

I don't hate Martha Stewart, I'm really completely indifferent about her. Yeah, people who bash her because they are jealous or she is "too successful" (who cares?) are morons, but I don't think this has anything to do with that. She lied to federal investigators...repeatedly. Oops

BTW, didn't Clinton tell a lie under very similar circumstances?

People don't bash her because she's wealthy, people bash her because her public image is just too sickeningly sweet and 'perfect'.

Nobody's that perfect and nice and we all know it. So yeah, there is some deep dark satisfaction in seeing the proof.

I'm just glad that another rich person/celebrity who thought she could get away with breaking the law because of her status and wealth was found guilty.

Aren't we all sick and tired of these people thinking they can get away with anything?? !#@$@#@#$!!!

If Martha does go to the Big House, I'm sure she will have the most tastefully appointed cell on the tier.

The jury found her guilty on all 4 counts. Maybe its just a case of the little people making sure the fat cats get punished and are held accountable for their misdeeds. Lets hold that thought until the general elections in November.

WHAT?!

There is no such thing as too trivial or silly for the General Discussions Off Topic! Viva la inanity!

I agree with the rest of your post.

Don't give a hoot about Martha or Haliburton as such. Both situations are the types of crimes that USUALLY go undetected. For that reason it's good to have some high profile companies and individuals "made examples of".

Insider trading is like running a stop sign. Most people don't get caught. It's far from a victimless crime though. When you know a stock is going down the tubes in a few days and sell off, some poor sucker ends up buying your shares and is stuck with a major and sudden loss. If they could catch something approaching 100 percent of all violators, then slapping a small fine on them might be sufficient, the fine, offsetting any potential profit would deter the crime. As it is, the deterrent is not the certainty of being caught, but the severe penalty that MAY be imposed for those few that ARE caught. Martha was offered 2 chances to get out without jail time and she turned them down. Most people probably would have not. What's a $200K fine to someone with her money? Federal prosecutors don't take kindly to people who have been caught red handed turning down their deals. It doesn't look good on their resume.

Haliburton by the way has already paid fines, it faces more fines, and may lose some or all of its federal contracts. They were the darling of the Pentagon all through the 90's (hint hint), and like Enron, Worldcom and others, a lot of mischievous behavior suddenly started coming before the courts starting around 2000 (nother hint).

Like I've said before I don't care who takes credit. What's not happening though is fixing fundamental flaws in government accounting. This has been known, and going on, with no remedies in sight for years...

http://www.yvwiiusdinvnohii.net/news/bia2bill.htm

Vote for smaller government. If they can't manage what we give them, give them less until they are forced to budget more carefully. It's the only way this country will avoid bankruptcy.

I haven't TRIED to follow this story, but it's hard to miss lately. There were originally FIVE counts, and she was let off on the most severe one. My understanding is that she was let off for the worst part involving the actual crime, but is being held responsible for lying to and being uncooperative with federal investigators. The message being: "We offered you a generous deal. You should have taken it."

Bush's Insider Connections Preceded Huge Profit On Stock Deal

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/030904A.shtml

hmmmmmmmm