View Full Version : Impressive... Martha gets the Bars
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/16/business/16CND-MART.html?hp
Five months in prison, two years probation and a $30,000 fine. I don't recall the exact amount she was said to have profitted from her "insider trades", but five months in prison for Martha could be a fairly stiff mental price for her to pay, given the cloth she is cut from.
I'm just glad to see a *celebrity* get behind bars for something that they did wrong. Almost never happens. Shit, OJ is still playing golf (I wonder how many courses he thinks he has to search in order to find Nicole's killer).
Of course, Martha's crime is not comparable, and so her joint will probably be one of those minimum security, country-club prisons complete with lesbian massage tables and a Hobby Lobby Express on the premises.
I have to say that I don't freakin' care about Martha Stewart. Popular news media has this way of latching onto the exploits or misadventures of a particular celebrity. They seem to just LOVE it when they're having an awful life. Look at Courtney Love. Why do they constantly put her on TV and in print? She has zero talent for anything, she's ugly, she's stupid, she's a drug addict... just a total loser in every way. Hell, there are millions of people in the US who are just like her. Why don't they get any press?
Martha Stewart is just another pinheaded celebrity who is constantly getting more attention than she deserves.
What I do find amusing is that apparently the thread, "NewsFlash looks impressive" is related to it. :lol:
her savings is a relative thing
she had 3928 shares (of ImClone) which she sold @58, it eventually bottomed at 5 during the scandal, but since everyone has been prosecuted ImClone has had it's cancer drug approved by the FDA and today is selling at 78 or so.
did she save or lose?
she's pretty savvy, she probably picked some up at 5! ;)
the scandal drove her companie's stock from in the 40's to a low of 5, but i see today it's gone up to 11, so it's all relative you see.
All very true Luca. I guess I was more looking from the perspective of celebrities having double-standards applied to their behavior. However, you are correct in your assessment of media dickheads who favor misery and suffering of all types above all else, as that's what their advertisers like.
Maybe we should root for a prominent male anchor to get caught wearing women's underwear at the do-good fundraiser event of the year. I can see the headlines now: "Fair, Balanced and bikini-waxed; anchor caught in bathroom exposé!"
:D
Finally, someone with lots of money is subject to justice. Its about frigging time.
Of course, Martha's crime is not comparable, and so her joint will probably be one of those minimum security, country-club prisons complete with lesbian massage tables and a Hobby Lobby Express on the premises.
This is a pretty interesting topic. I don't think Martha Stewart should just get to chill in a country-club prison, but it's totally wrong to throw people commiting crimes like Martha's into a general population prison with people who committed violent crimes. Alot of prisons for people serving sentences under a year are very mixed, and I'd guess that the general population in them wouldn't really take to a rich executive. And if you want to consider race and gender. . . Yeah its deffinatly wrong to put people like Martha Stewart in a real prison.
Perhaps they should create a special little prison thats not very comfortable, but minimum security for money/fraud crimes.
Yes, I do agree that it's good that a famous person is actually being forced to serve prison time for crimes they committed! Gasp! While I hate the media frenzy over this subject, I do think it sets an important precedent. At the same time, I bet that a lesser-known person convicted of the same crime would have been more likely to be sentenced to greater than the minimum sentence. I heard that she could have been sentenced to between 5 and 16 months in prison. She is getting five, hopefully enough to teach her a lesson (that's still a long time to be cooped up in an uncomfortable cell, regardless of how nice it is relative to other prisons). But what if this was someone else? You think they would have gotten 8, 12, 16 even?
Yes, I do agree that it's good that a famous person is actually being forced to serve prison time for crimes they committed! Gasp! While I hate the media frenzy over this subject, I do think it sets an important precedent. At the same time, I bet that a lesser-known person convicted of the same crime would have been more likely to be sentenced to greater than the minimum sentence. I heard that she could have been sentenced to between 5 and 16 months in prison. She is getting five, hopefully enough to teach her a lesson (that's still a long time to be cooped up in an uncomfortable cell, regardless of how nice it is relative to other prisons). But what if this was someone else? You think they would have gotten 8, 12, 16 even?
geez luca, what i don't understand is why there are always hordes of people who don't understand why stories like this get a lot of play. it's lost dreams and found dreams in america! (van's the man)
it sells papers and when 20/20 does an interview these people, folks watch it in droves!
americans love to see the mighty fall.....and yes, rise again.
it's our culture.
xionja: there should be *more* attention paid to categorizing criminal types and separating them as appropriate. I think basically, unless you're a rapist, killer or attempted murderer, you shouldn't be in a "standard prison".
By the same token, I don't think any prison anywhere should have tennis courts, driving ranges, cushy television rooms, etc. The idea is to SIT in solitude and read, sleep or just ponder your situation, and perhaps speak with others so that you might learn from their screw-ups too.
psmith2.0
2004-07-16, 17:03
Good post, moogs. I tend to agree. There are indeed degrees of shitheadedness. A Martha Stewart simply doesn't belong in with female gang members who know 7 ways to remove your eye with a razor blade.
:err:
Nothing good could ever come from that other than the secret guilty pleasure some might enjoy of hearing of a particularly unctuous celebrity receiving a much-deserved ass-beating of a lifetime (and in the case of a Star Jones or James Lipton, I'd be all for it).
I doubt, anyway, she'll get housed in with general population.
But no matter what your crime OR who you are, prison should NOT be a comfy, cozy snap by any stretch. At absolute BEST, it should be dreadfully restrictive and boring. At worst - for the baddest among us - it should be a long, hard day of physical toil and sweat, leaving one tired to engage in any extracuricular nonsense once lights go out.
:)
While I don't think Martha deserves a pass and an easy ride, I don't think she deserves the 25-life corn-holing that those Enron guys are due.
:mad:
At worst, Martha should have 5 months to wear really ratty, ugly prison clothes and maybe lots of alone/down time to think about stuff.
Thing is, she's only going to come out of this more popular and more powerful. America loves a good "fall on your ass" story. BUT, even more than that, we're infinitely forgiving and will give ANYONE - especially a beloved, sanitary and non-threatening figure like a Martha Stewart - a second, third, fourth or fifth chance.
If Robert Downey, Jr. is still making movies and still the critic's darling, then Martha has NOTHING to worry about.
:)
Um, anyone else think it's a load of bullshit that she was convicted of lying about a crime the .gov admitted she didn't commit?
:confused:
aggiemacster
2004-07-17, 11:01
Um, anyone else think it's a load of bullshit that she was convicted of lying about a crime the .gov admitted she didn't commit?
:confused:
I agree, I don't think she was guilty of the crime she was convicted. The government did NOT try on insider trading but of lying about insider trading. How can you try someone about lying of a crime that you haven't been proven guilty of? Anyways, there is also the case of an overzealous investigator that commited perjury by changing one of the pieces of evidences to make Martha look guilty. There will be an appeals case and I wish her the best of luck. The jury and the government totally messed up on this one. And I think thats one of the reasons she was given a lesser sentence.
I agree, I don't think she was guilty of the crime she was convicted. The government did NOT try on insider trading but of lying about insider trading. How can you try someone about lying of a crime that you haven't been proven guilty of? Because she was under oath when she told that lie. It's a simple case of perjury.
aggiemacster
2004-07-18, 05:35
Because she was under oath when she told that lie. It's a simple case of perjury.
there's a flaw in the logic. don't you need to be proven lying about a crime to be guilty of perjury? if the government wants to prove perjury, they have to first prove that what she said under oath was a lie (vis a vis a guilty verdict on committing insider trading). see, its really not that simple. plus, there is no guarantee that she lied considering that you have a secret service agent changing evidence and himself committing perjury. and then there is that juror in the case who will also now be tried for perjury for God knows what. see. not that simple.
She was not tried or convicted for perjury, but for obstruction of justice. That's lying to Federal Officers, in this case, and not being under oath when she did it. The thing that bothers me is that she is charged with obstructing a case that they admitted she didn't commit.
I get that she lied to the investigators, but obstruction charges are only brought when a prosecutor fucked up the case and needs to save face.
there's a flaw in the logic. don't you need to be proven lying about a crime to be guilty of perjury? if the government wants to prove perjury, they have to first prove that what she said under oath was a lie (vis a vis a guilty verdict on committing insider trading). see, its really not that simple. plus, there is no guarantee that she lied considering that you have a secret service agent changing evidence and himself committing perjury. and then there is that juror in the case who will also now be tried for perjury for God knows what. see. not that simple.
Perjury is the act of lying under oath, in this case to procure the conviction/acquittal of a defendant (punishable by a maximum 14 years' imprisonment in the ACT). That doesn't mean that the lie has to be about an essential piece of evidence — it can be about anything, so long as the intent was there.
It's quite possible to be perfectly innocent of a crime, and still commit perjury in an attempt to save yourself. The two crimes are completely logically and factually separate.
What's more, anyone stupid enough to lie to the police when innocent rather than rely on the privilege against self-incrimination deserves to go to gaol.
Trick Fall
2004-07-18, 11:30
I think Martha's penalty was about fair for the crime committed, but don't you think it's a little weird that she's already been tried, convicted and sentenced yet Ken Lay is just now getting indicted? I think Martha was a big ole smokescreen to get people to stop thinking about the real corporate criminals like Enron and Worldcom.
Luca, you may not think Courtney is talented, but plenty of people do. Sure she's a mess and prolly not a good human, but she also played one of the greatest rock and roll shows I've ever seen. A truly transcendent concert that bridged the gap between audience and fan in a way that no other band I've seen has and I've seen plenty.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.