|
|
|
What happened to the insider trading accusation?. Turns out she was
never even charged with that. Feds do this all the time. They
claim they are investigating you over something they know is bogus, in
the hopes of getting you flustered and catching you in a lie. It's
legal but it smells of entrapment.
|
| |
| |
: What happened to the insider trading accusation?. Turns out she was
: never even charged with that. Feds do this all the time. They
: claim they are investigating you over something they know is bogus, in
: the hopes of getting you flustered and catching you in a lie. It's
: legal but it smells of entrapment.
sorry to be off in my reply but when did the murder happen?
--
"I say to our enemies: We are coming. God may have mercy on you, but we won't."
-- John McCain
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 19:54:33 -0700, Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
<> wrote:
What happened to the insider trading accusation?. Turns out she was
never even charged with that. Feds do this all the time. They
claim they are investigating you over something they know is bogus, in
the hopes of getting you flustered and catching you in a lie. It's
legal but it smells of entrapment.
You are not giving an accurate description of the charges. She was
convicted of concocting a conspiracy with broker Bacanovic to lie to
and mislead the federal investigators. Now some of the defense
shysters, I've seen discussing the case on TV, say that there is
nothing wrong with that. But at least they come out and say it.
RHR
|
| |
| |
Mke wrote:
: What happened to the insider trading accusation?. Turns out she was
: never even charged with that. Feds do this all the time. They
: claim they are investigating you over something they know is bogus, in
: the hopes of getting you flustered and catching you in a lie. It's
: legal but it smells of entrapment.
sorry to be off in my reply but when did the murder happen?
Never. He's whining over the accident Mrs. Bush had when she was 19 and
accidentally killed her boyfriend.
Both were in seperate vehicles, he, in a cageless, seatbelt-less 1963 Jeep,
and the car she was in broadsided his jeep.
Both were guilty of negligence.
The only possible charge could have been reckless operation.
to be murder, it must be premeditated.
this was a sad case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
|
| |
| |
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
What happened to the insider trading accusation?. Turns out she was
never even charged with that. Feds do this all the time. They
claim they are investigating you over something they know is bogus, in
the hopes of getting you flustered and catching you in a lie. It's
legal but it smells of entrapment.
Rule #1........If you don't want to be facing a jury, keep your damn mouth
shut.
You have the right to remain silent.
You have the right to an attorney.
You have to right to have an attorney present before "any and all" questions
are asked.
However, it is the prosecutor who must do all the talking to win the case.
If there is one doubt, the decision must be unanimously "INNOCENT".
"Inncent until PROVEN guilty".
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 21:45:56 -0600, "Richard" <anonymous@127.000>
wrote:
Mke wrote:
Never. He's whining over the accident Mrs. Bush had when she was 19 and
accidentally killed her boyfriend.
Both were in seperate vehicles, he, in a cageless, seatbelt-less 1963 Jeep,
and the car she was in broadsided his jeep.
Both were guilty of negligence.
He was not in a jeep, you shameless liar. It was a regular car. And
you forgot to mention that laura ran a stop sign. The victim did
nothing wrong. It was all laura's fault.
|
| |
| |
On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 03:41:05 GMT, Sam <sammy@nospammy.com> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 19:54:33 -0700, Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
<> wrote:
You are not giving an accurate description of the charges. She was
convicted of concocting a conspiracy with broker Bacanovic to lie to
and mislead the federal investigators. Now some of the defense
shysters, I've seen discussing the case on TV, say that there is
nothing wrong with that. But at least they come out and say it.
RHR
What you call a conspiracy, others call constructing a defense.
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 21:49:25 -0600, "Richard" <anonymous@127.000>
wrote:
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
Rule #1........If you don't want to be facing a jury, keep your damn mouth
shut.
You have the right to remain silent.
You have the right to an attorney.
You have to right to have an attorney present before "any and all" questions
are asked.
That's exactly right. You should never talk to the cops without a
lawyer and even with a lawyer it may be best to say nothing. The cops
want you to "cooperate" but you're really just sticking your neck in
the noose.
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 22:27:10 -0500, "Mke" <Noaddy@homail.com> wrote:
: What happened to the insider trading accusation?. Turns out she was
: never even charged with that. Feds do this all the time. They
: claim they are investigating you over something they know is bogus, in
: the hopes of getting you flustered and catching you in a lie. It's
: legal but it smells of entrapment.
sorry to be off in my reply but when did the murder happen?\
In 1963, the trollop ran a stop sign in front of witnesses and killed
her FORMER boy friend. No charges filed.
|
| |
| |
On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 01:26:03 -0700, Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
<> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 03:41:05 GMT, Sam <sammy@nospammy.com> wrote:
What you call a conspiracy, others call constructing a defense.
Do you believe that those who consciously deceive authorities should
be treated differently than those who make it clear that they won't
cooperate with them? In my daily existence, I certainly am more
pissed off at those people who treat me in the former manner.
RHR
|
| |
| |
What happened to the insider trading accusation?. Turns out she was
never even charged with that. Feds do this all the time. They
claim they are investigating you over something they know is bogus, in
the hopes of getting you flustered and catching you in a lie. It's
legal but it smells of entrapment.
Martha's mistake was giving a statement.
If she had taken the 5th amendment, she'd
be free today. Now? Well, let's just say
she dug her own grave with her tongue.
GM
|
| |
| |
goldenmike4393@yahoo.com (goldenmike4393@yahoo.com) wrote in message news:<b1e2b6b.0403060930.3963b15a@posting.google.com>...
What happened to the insider trading accusation?. Turns out she was
never even charged with that. Feds do this all the time. They
claim they are investigating you over something they know is bogus, in
the hopes of getting you flustered and catching you in a lie. It's
legal but it smells of entrapment.
Martha's mistake was giving a statement.
If she had taken the 5th amendment, she'd
be free today. Now? Well, let's just say
she dug her own grave with her tongue.
GM
Dear ignoramus:
The Fifth amendment is protection against statements that could
criminally indict you. It does not apply to civil suits. The SEC
investigation was of a civil insider trading charge, in fact they
still have exactly that charge pending against her.
That's precisely why the SEC subpeonas people in insider trading cases
under the civil statutes. If it is a case egregious enough to qualify
for a criminal charge, they refer it to the U.S. Attorney's office for
prosecution, the SEC doesn't handle criminal indictments.
I guess you never quite figured out why they were unable to force OJ
to testify in the criminal case, but could in the civil suit.
Bo Raxo
|
| |
| |
Bo Raxo wrote:
Martha's mistake was giving a statement.
If she had taken the 5th amendment, she'd
be free today. Now? Well, let's just say
she dug her own grave with her tongue.
GM
Dear ignoramus:
The Fifth amendment is protection against statements that could
criminally indict you. It does not apply to civil suits. The SEC
investigation was of a civil insider trading charge, in fact they
still have exactly that charge pending against her.
That's precisely why the SEC subpeonas people in insider trading cases
under the civil statutes. If it is a case egregious enough to qualify
for a criminal charge, they refer it to the U.S. Attorney's office for
prosecution, the SEC doesn't handle criminal indictments.
I guess you never quite figured out why they were unable to force OJ
to testify in the criminal case, but could in the civil suit.
Bo Raxo
Bo:
Your "wisdom" doesn't seem to be the prevailing opinion.
A number of legal experts have been interviewed who
say Martha's main mistake was not taking the fifth when
first being investigated by the government.
Luk
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 00:29:36 GMT, Luk <luknhard@earthlink.net> wrote:
Bo:
Your "wisdom" doesn't seem to be the prevailing opinion.
A number of legal experts have been interviewed who
say Martha's main mistake was not taking the fifth when
first being investigated by the government.
Luk
Was that also Sam Waksal's mistake? Would he been out of jail now if
he took the fifth? He did the same sort of thing as Martha, just on a
much bigger scale. Her lies were meant to fend off a civil suit by
the SEC. The civil suit would have been bad for her business so she
gambled and lost. I heard one of the pundits, Lawrence O'Donnell,
this morning saying it shouldn't be illegal to lie to federal
investigators if you are not under oath. What do you think about
that?
RHR
|
| |
| |
RHR <RHR@nospammy.com> wrote in message news:<d6oj405uou53eme1b15sh7gi4e2b44nq4v@4ax.com>...
On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 01:26:03 -0700, Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
<> wrote:
Do you believe that those who consciously deceive authorities should
be treated differently than those who make it clear that they won't
cooperate with them? In my daily existence, I certainly am more
pissed off at those people who treat me in the former manner.
RHR
My point is the cops had no business even investigating martha since
they had no insider trading case against her and they knew it.
|
| |
| |
goldenmike4393@yahoo.com (goldenmike4393@yahoo.com) wrote in message news:<b1e2b6b.0403060930.3963b15a@posting.google.com>...
What happened to the insider trading accusation?. Turns out she was
never even charged with that. Feds do this all the time. They
claim they are investigating you over something they know is bogus, in
the hopes of getting you flustered and catching you in a lie. It's
legal but it smells of entrapment.
Martha's mistake was giving a statement.
If she had taken the 5th amendment, she'd
be free today. Now? Well, let's just say
she dug her own grave with her tongue.
GM
I agree completely with that but that was not my issue. The cops had
no business investigating her in the first place and were simply
trying to scare her into a lie.
|
| |
| |
On 7 Mar 2004 18:25:54 -0800, xeton2001@yahoo.com (Laura Bush murdered
her boy friend) wrote:
My point is the cops had no business even investigating martha since
they had no insider trading case against her and they knew it.
How do you know? Even Merrill-Lynch thought the trade was suspicious.
Maybe the lying stuff was open and shut so they tried that first.
Some people have said that some sort of insider trading civil case
will also be filed against her.
Also, the guy Laura Bush killed was an acquaintance, not her
boyfriend.
RHR
|
| |
| |
RHR <RHR@nospammy.com> wrote in message news:<81nn405j0d51dk02f08u7tvbp42er89ugd@4ax.com>...
On 7 Mar 2004 18:25:54 -0800, xeton2001@yahoo.com (Laura Bush murdered
her boy friend) wrote:
How do you know? Even Merrill-Lynch thought the trade was suspicious.
Maybe the lying stuff was open and shut so they tried that first.
Some people have said that some sort of insider trading civil case
will also be filed against her.
Forget the insider trading. For one thing martha is NOT an insider of
Imclone. She just acted on a rumor and investors do that all the
time.
|
| |
| |
Sam wrote:
You are not giving an accurate description of the charges. She was
convicted of concocting a conspiracy with broker Bacanovic to lie to
and mislead the federal investigators.
More or less correct. However, if the statements made to
the investigators WERE lies, then the insider trading
accusation would have been proved.
|
| |
| |
Bo Raxo wrote:
Martha's mistake was giving a statement.
If she had taken the 5th amendment, she'd
be free today. Now? Well, let's just say
she dug her own grave with her tongue.
GM
Bo:
Your "wisdom" doesn't seem to be the prevailing opinion.
A number of legal experts have been interviewed who
say Martha's main mistake was not taking the fifth when
first being investigated by the government.
Luk
Find me a cite for that.
Martha did take the fifth every chance she got. Tauzin sent her a letter
asking her to come before his Congressional committee. Her response was
that she wouldn't do so voluntarily, and if a subpeona was issued she would
show up and take the fifth. Show me where one legal expert says she could
have taken the fifth and refused to answer questions by SEC investogaters.
You're thinking of the subsequent obstruction investigation. THEN she could
have taken the fifth, but this was not when she was "first being
investigated", which was a civil SEC probe that the fifth amendment wouldn't
exempt her from.
|
| |
| |
You're thinking of the subsequent obstruction investigation. THEN she
could
have taken the fifth, but this was not when she was "first being
investigated", which was a civil SEC probe that the fifth amendment
wouldn't
exempt her from.
Civil or criminal proceeding doesn't really make a difference. She was
entitled to the fifth and didn't take it.
|
| |
| |
"Bo Raxo" <invasions_r_us@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in
news:6_b3c.29054$aT1.3764@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
Find me a cite for that.
I don't have a text cite but every televised panel discussion on the Martha
Stewert case I've seen has made this very point that if Martha had simply
refused to say anything to invistigators she would not have been convicted.
Mike
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 13:07:32 GMT, Mike Ward <m@d.w> wrote:
I don't have a text cite but every televised panel discussion on the Martha
Stewert case I've seen has made this very point that if Martha had simply
refused to say anything to invistigators she would not have been convicted.
A fine reference you give. By the way, one of the talking heads I
saw babbling about the case on TV was Henry Blodget. You believe
anything he says? Next you will be quoting Alan Dershowitz as the
embodiment of truth. Nobody has answered my question, "Would Sam
Waksal be out of jail if he refused to talk to investigators?".
What's the difference?
RHR
|
| |
| |
"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote in message news:<404CA01D.128AF92@sprintmail.com>...
Sam wrote:
More or less correct. However, if the statements made to
the investigators WERE lies, then the insider trading
accusation would have been proved.
HUH???? Take a course in elementary logic and get back with us.
|
| |
| |
RHR <RHR@nospammy.com> wrote in
news:02ir4010cmkdbe9bb1bj5k31muje63va5l@4ax.com:
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 13:07:32 GMT, Mike Ward <m@d.w> wrote:
A fine reference you give. By the way, one of the talking heads I
saw babbling about the case on TV was Henry Blodget. You believe
anything he says? Next you will be quoting Alan Dershowitz as the
embodiment of truth. Nobody has answered my question, "Would Sam
Waksal be out of jail if he refused to talk to investigators?".
Of course. Because he would have been charged with insider trading.
Stewart was not charged with insider trading.
If she had just kept her mouth shut she could not have be charged with
lying to investigators nor could she have been charged with making false
statements in an effort to influence the value of her own stock (this was
the prosecutions novel interpretation that allowed them to press securities
fraud charges, the charge that was dismissed.) And since the conspiracy
charge stemmed from the prosecutions claim that she had conspired with her
broker to create a stop loss order after the fact she would not have been
chraged with conspiracy if she had simply never mentioned the stop loss
order.
In short, if Stewart never said anything to the investigators they would
not have had anything to charge her with.
Mike
What's the difference?
RHR
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 18:00:01 GMT, Mike Ward <m@d.w> wrote:
Nobody has answered my question, "Would Sam
Of course. Because he would have been charged with insider trading.
Stewart was not charged with insider trading.
?? Waksal plead guilty to insider trading. Who knows whether
Stewart would also have been charge with it or not? The Feds may have
brought criminal charges on that had she not made some obvious lies
which gave them something easier to prove.
RHR
|
| |
| |
RHR <RHR@nospammy.com> wrote in
news:c1hs409uvlchct8vpto52aufpdr1k0toic@4ax.com:
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 18:00:01 GMT, Mike Ward <m@d.w> wrote:
?? Waksal plead guilty to insider trading. Who knows whether
Stewart would also have been charge with it or not? The Feds may have
brought criminal charges on that had she not made some obvious lies
which gave them something easier to prove.
RHR
No. If they'd had an insider trading case they would have brought it. The
fact that they brought the securities fraud charge against her shows that
they were not afraid to bring a charge just because it was difficult to
prove. (That was the charge that was thrown out by the judge.)
Mike
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 22:44:49 GMT, Mike Ward <m@d.w> wrote:
RHR <RHR@nospammy.com> wrote in
news:c1hs409uvlchct8vpto52aufpdr1k0toic@4ax.com:
No. If they'd had an insider trading case they would have brought it. The
fact that they brought the securities fraud charge against her shows that
they were not afraid to bring a charge just because it was difficult to
prove. (That was the charge that was thrown out by the judge.)
Mike
You really think that is the only explanation for the prosecution's
actions? Are you a prosecutor so you know how exactly all of them
think? Maybe the charge that was thrown out, was an experiment, to
see how far it would get. Why did Waksal plead guilty instead of
trying to lie out of it like Stewart? Nobody has answered my
question on whether the law that punishes people who lie to law
enforcement, when they are not under oath, should be repealed?
RHR
|
| |
| |
RHR <RHR@nospammy.com> wrote in
news:pfjs409s2ttsi7dor5s1bh758b8kggit5t@4ax.com:
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 22:44:49 GMT, Mike Ward <m@d.w> wrote:
You really think that is the only explanation for the prosecution's
actions?
It is the best explination.
Are you a prosecutor so you know how exactly all of them
think? Maybe the charge that was thrown out, was an experiment, to
see how far it would get. Why did Waksal plead guilty instead of
trying to lie out of it like Stewart?
Because he WAS guilty and the Feds had enough evidence to prove it.
Nobody has answered my
question on whether the law that punishes people who lie to law
enforcement, when they are not under oath, should be repealed?
That's a interesting question, and I don't know the answer for it.
Certainly it is desirable to discourage people from lying to investigators,
but it does seem a bit unfair since police are allowed to lie to suspects
when they interigate them in order to get them to confess.
Mike
|
| |
| |
Mike Ward <m@d.w> wrote in message news:<BCn3c.178603$hR.3305524@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
Stewart was not charged with insider trading.
If she had just kept her mouth shut she could not have be charged with
lying to investigators nor could she have been charged with making false
statements in an effort to influence the value of her own stock (this was
the prosecutions novel interpretation that allowed them to press securities
fraud charges, the charge that was dismissed.) And since the conspiracy
charge stemmed from the prosecutions claim that she had conspired with her
broker to create a stop loss order after the fact she would not have been
chraged with conspiracy if she had simply never mentioned the stop loss
order.
In short, if Stewart never said anything to the investigators they would
not have had anything to charge her with.
Mike
And that's why you should never talk to the cops. Martha prolly
thought she was too smart to be trapped by them.
|
| |
| |
RHR wrote:
Nobody has answered my
question on whether the law that punishes people who lie to law
enforcement, when they are not under oath, should be repealed?
The Martha Stewart situation has demonstrated
a serious problem.
Martha's answers to investigators were not
recorded. The questions that were put to her
are unknown. The prosecution presented
only rough notes, made after the fact, about
what Martha said to investigators.
The problem is obvious. The government can indict
people and then write the evidence to convict
them. There should be an oath administered
and recordings taken, if such interviews are to be
used to imprison our citizens.
Luk
|
| |
| |
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend <> wrote in message news:<js2j40585mijqhiqqs10ktghl82bf2bdt6@4ax.com>...
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 22:27:10 -0500, "Mke" <Noaddy@homail.com> wrote:
In 1963, the trollop ran a stop sign in front of witnesses and killed
her FORMER boy friend. No charges filed.
Link: http://www.oaoa.com/news/nw050400b.htm
|
| |
| |
n Wed, 10 Mar 2004 02:21:56 GMT, Luk <luknhard@earthlink.net> wrote:
The Martha Stewart situation has demonstrated
a serious problem.
Martha's answers to investigators were not
recorded. The questions that were put to her
are unknown. The prosecution presented
only rough notes, made after the fact, about
what Martha said to investigators.
The problem is obvious. The government can indict
people and then write the evidence to convict
them. There should be an oath administered
and recordings taken, if such interviews are to be
used to imprison our citizens.
A less paranoid and more sensible interpretation, than the one above,
of the Stewart case appeared tonight on the website
http://smartmoney.com. Here it is:
Common Sense
Martha to Employees: Drop Dead
By James B. Stewart
March 9, 2004
I WAS DISMAYED but not surprised to read that employees of Martha
Stewart Living Omnimedia (MSO) wept after receiving the news that
Martha Stewart had been convicted on all counts. I feel sorry for
them, a devoted group of people to be sure. But their tears, in my
view, are entirely misdirected. If I were an MSO employee, I'd be
furious with Stewart for putting us through this entirely unnecessary
and self-destructive ordeal.
Let me stress that I'm not one of the many people who seem to be
taking a populist pleasure at the sight of the mighty fallen. I never
knew Martha Stewart personally (no relation, by the way), but I took
her advice and installed an outdoor shower at my house in upstate New
York (see my column of June 10, 2003). I've vicariously followed her
renovations of houses in Connecticut, Long Island, New York, and her
purchase (and recent sale) of a modernist glass-walled apartment in
New York City. She seemed to have unerring taste and a genuine delight
in everyday living that she brought to the masses. I'll miss her
presence in the public realm. As for her broker, I knew him slightly.
We had several dinners together. I liked him.
A curiosity of the Stewart case is that it was pretty obvious to me
more than a year ago that Stewart and her broker were lying about the
ImClone (IMCL) trade in question. I have been making that point in
this column since I first wrote about it in the summer of 2002. The
$60 stop-loss alibi never made any sense, for reasons that I've
previously elaborated on.
Yet Stewart stubbornly persisted in this far-fetched version of events
she communicated to SEC investigators, prosecutors and the world at
large. This had a pronounced impact on shares of her company, which
rose sharply after she asserted the existence of the stop-loss order
in The Wall Street Journal.
Which brings me to the securities-fraud charge that was dismissed by
the presiding judge, Miriam Cedarbaum. While the charge was widely
assailed as "novel" and "overreaching" by the prosecutors, and many
editorial writers insisted that Stewart had a right to defend herself,
I beg to differ. As the chief executive of a public corporation,
Stewart was held to higher standards than other potential defendants,
and this would be true whether or not she was a celebrity who embodied
the company's brand. Securities fraud is generally defined as a false
statement intended to influence the purchase or sale of securities,
and by making such statements illegal, the law curbs absolute freedom
of speech. There was nothing fundamentally different between Stewart
lying about her stock trade and Royal Dutch/Shell Group (RD, SC)
misstating its oil reserves both have the potential to mislead
investors.
Even so, Stewart was free to assert her innocence, and would never
have been prosecuted for securities fraud if that's all she did. But
Stewart's statements went way beyond mere declarations of innocence.
She made specific representations of facts intended to exonerate her.
I remember being shocked to see her claims about the $60 stop-loss
order in The Wall Street Journal, because potential criminal
defendants, especially in the business world, almost never make
factual contentions, wisely confining themselves to vague assertions
of innocence.
It's true that Stewart's case is unusual because the false statement
the reasons for her sale of ImClone stock involved a different
company from MSO. But Stewart's falsehood went directly to the
well-being of her company, since it implied that she would face no
civil or criminal penalties that would threaten her tenure at the
helm. Investors who relied on Stewart's version of the facts have
every right to feel misled and betrayed.
And then, after making her false claims, Stewart fell silent. She
stopped reiterating the $60 story, presumably on the (belated) advice
of her lawyers. She easily could have corrected the record even then,
told the truth, ended the investigation and accepted the slap on the
wrist that would no doubt have been her punishment. For reasons I find
incomprehensible, she didn't. I remember listening angrily to an MSO
investor conference in which the chief financial officer said he
couldn't make meaningful projections because of the "lack of
visibility" into Stewart's sale of the ImClone shares. At the same
moment he was complaining about this lack of visibility, Stewart, then
still the company's chief executive, was standing a few feet away. Why
not ask her? She had perfect "visibility" into just what had happened
that day.
And of course, Stewart remained silent throughout her trial, which is
her Constitutional right. While there has been much speculation about
that legal strategy, the reason seems obvious to me: For Stewart to
repeat the $60 story on the witness stand would have constituted
perjury.
In the end, MSO shareholders and employees have no one to blame but
Stewart herself for consistently putting her own selfish interests
above theirs. The case should have been settled in a way that
preserved the company's future. Stewart made sure it wasn't. And
that's why I'd be angry.
Incidentally, the fact that the judge dismissed the securities-fraud
count from the criminal indictment hardly means that Stewart is out of
the woods. She still faces civil SEC charges, which may well be the
best forum in which to resolve this contentious matter.
Meanwhile, what about Stewart's company? I was amazed that some
investors were evidently throwing money at the stock in the minutes
after news spread that the jury had reached a verdict, but before the
verdict was announced. As I've said before, I wouldn't trust my money
with anything Stewart was involved with until she tells the truth. But
that doesn't mean I think her company ought to fail. Martha Stewart
Living faces some hard choices and an uncertain future. Given their
spineless leadership of recent months, the company may well need new
management and a new board.
Still, if I were Judge Cedarbaum, I'd try to fit the punis
|
| |
| |
The following excerpt from James B. Stewart's article, on
smartmoney.com, of July 16, 2002, shows that Martha was not a victim
of entrapment.
Let's look at the Martha Stewart case for a moment, since the doyenne
of stylish living has so loudly proclaimed her innocence. The Wall
Street Journal reported that Stewart, a close friend of Waksal, sold
her entire ImClone stake of 3,928 shares on Dec. 27, 2001, the day
before the company announced that the Food and Drug Administration had
rejected its all-important cancer drug. That's the same day that
Waksal's relatives dumped their stock and exactly one day after Waksal
himself learned the FDA would refuse to review the company's
cancer-drug application.
Stewart's lawyer denied that Stewart had any information about the
FDA's decision or engaged in insider trading. Rather, he told the
Journal that this was a routine stop-loss order to her broker to sell
the stock at $60 a share, an order placed "more than a month" before
the sale.
But then the Journal reported that Stewart's broker is telling a
different story: that the stop-loss order was placed sometime in
mid-December. Moreover, the order was oral and was never entered into
Merrill Lynch's computer system, so there are no account records to
support either version.
Maybe this is just innocent confusion. Merrill Lynch has suspended the
broker and his assistant pending further investigation and has
indicated that the firm doesn't believe a stop-loss order ever
existed. Records of the day's trading in ImClone shares also show that
the stock dropped below $60 well before Stewart's sell order was
executed, casting further doubt on the existence of such an order.
My advice to Stewart and her broker is to get their stories straight
and, above all, tell the truth. As the recent Arthur Andersen
conviction vividly demonstrates, the cover-up can be worse than the
crime. (Waksal, meanwhile, was charged with perjury as well as insider
trading.)
In any event, whether or not Stewart placed the order to sell at $60
in late November or mid-December, she certainly had exquisite timing.
ImClone shares did drop below $60 on Dec. 27, closing that day at just
over $58, down more than $5 from the previous day's close on heavy
selling by members of Waksal's family. Of course, the real plunge came
on news of the FDA's action, on Dec. 31, when the stock plunged to
just over $43 a share.
But Dec. 27 wasn't the only day ImClone shares fell below $60. ImClone
first rose above $60 on Oct. 22. By Oct. 25 it was at nearly $63, but
it dropped all the way back to $56 on Oct. 30. It pierced $60 again
the next day, then dipped below it again on Nov. 1, 9 and 12. Had
Stewart entered her stop-loss order at any point before Nov. 12, the
trade would have been executed then at the latest. So the window for
her to have entered a stop-loss order consistent with her explanation | | |
