Is Martha Stewart the worst investor of all time? (1 Viewer)

[Ted Lee]

i hear ya michael. but, i think the gov't is only gonna "hit her hard" to prove a point. just like in the ryder case, they're gonna go full-tilt to make an example.

as far as popularity goes, i doubt this case will have much impact on her - unless she ends up doing hard time - but even then i doubt it will be lasting.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Quote:

Yes, and the point is that "we will come down with our full weight on anyone who lies to us". It's a point these offices have made many times before and will undoubtedly make again.
M.

 

[Danny R]

William Saffire had a good editorial on the issue yesterday, and believes that because of the trumped down charges she should Fight It, Martha

 

[Michael Reuben]

Safire understands this indictment better than most journalists. The point on which I'd disagree is the suggestion that the charges are somehow unusual. The government has taken a similar approach in many other cases; they just didn't have as high a profile. And contrary to Safire's suggestion, section 1001 charges are not so easy to get dismissed.

M.

 

[Jay Heyl]

I think Safire's conclusion is also wrong. The message here isn't for executives not to explain their side to investors. The message is to not speak to federal investigators until you are legally compelled to do so.

 

[Michael Reuben]

I was reminded of this thread today when I came across this column by James Cramer. Cramer makes the same point I was trying to make above, but he does a much better job.
M.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Ok, that article was really something. I'm concluding that:

1. If I'm ever questioned by anyone in authority, I should just shut up no matter what, or at least until I have an order to do otherwise. This explains why a lot of people near crime scenes say, "But I didn't see a thing!"

Sorry, I'm not trying to get sarcastic, but if Martha really did have that stop-order going and told the feds that, she'd still be up the creek without a paddle, just because she told the truth from the beginning? Yuck!

2. They're skipping prosecuting for the big bucks suits and concentrating on a measly $40 - 200K? How much money is coming out of our tax dollars to pay for this, and how much are they going to collect from her? Oh, and let us not forget any prison costs.

And I have to comment on her getting a jury of her peers. If that cannot be acheived, then aren't her basic rights being violated? How do they get around that? (This is coming from someone who has never been to court - but you knew that).

Glenn

 

[D. Scott MacDonald]

And I have to comment on her getting a jury of her peers. If that cannot be acheived, then aren't her basic rights being violated? How do they get around that? (This is coming from someone who has never been to court - but you knew that).

You will never get a jury of your true peers. For example, I am a white software developer, married, church going, who lives in a middle class neighborhood. If I were accused of a crime, would my rights get violated because not every juror fits these same qualifications? You could argue that if I had a true juror of my "peers" that it would not be a fair trial at all as all would be biased towards me (how could a person just like me do anything wrong?). In Martha's case, there simply aren't enough billionaire female CEOs who bake and decorate to fill a jury (and would it make for a more fair trial if there were?).