Martha vs. the mob

[RS Davis]

[glow=red,2,300]Ilana Mercer Wrote:[/glow]Judging from the power-to-the-proletariat statements members of the jury issued after the trial of Martha Stewart and Peter Bacanovic, this jury was guided more by the spirit of Madame Defarge than Lady Justice. Missing only were the blood-thirsty character's knitting needles, although the jurors might as well have been knitting – they certainly did not grasp that Martha had not committed the non-crime of insider trading.

Chappell Hartridge, the juror who heralded this miscarriage of justice as a victory for the "little guy," followed up with yet another statement that ought to constitute grounds for an appeal: "We all knew in our hearts that the sale was based on Sam's actions." The perception that Ms. Stewart had been charged with insider trading – that she sold the fateful 3,928 ImClone shares after being tipped by insider and former ImClone CEO, Sam Waksal – clearly tainted the jury's verdict.

Ms. Stewart, however, had not been accused of insider trading. The government had not charged her with acting on information received from ImClone's Sam Waksal about the FDA's (demented) decision to refuse a Biologics Licensing Application for Waksal's promising cancer drug, Erbitux. It was not for lack of trying, mind you, but rather for a lack of evidence – while the government's case rested on an insider-trading investigation, the probe failed to prove that Ms. Stewart received material nonpublic information, or that Peter Bacanovic, her Merrill Lynch stockbroker, gave her such information. Furthermore, Ms. Stewart was not an "insider" in this instance – she sold the shares of a company to whose shareholders she had no fiduciary duty.

- Rick

[whatever]

Yeah, that's insane. How can anyone think that's fair?

Here's a question: How much of a factor do you think it was that she's a woman accused of those "crimes"?

[RS Davis]

whatever said:

Yeah, that's insane. How can anyone think that's fair?

Here's a question: How much of a factor do you think it was that she's a woman accused of those "crimes"?

I don't know about the woman part, but I think they believed they could get away with this travesty because of the public perception of Martha Stewart. They were probably right.

- Rick

[Dr Snootch]

RS said:

I don't know about the woman part, but I think they believed they could get away with this travesty because of the public perception of Martha Stewart. They were probably right.

- Rick

I think both the Democrats and Republicans wanted someone to go down for corporate crimes, makes Bush look tough on his pals. It just wasn't going to be a heavy GOP contributor. I got laid off from IBM because of the Enron debacle, and I'm still waiting for Lay or Fastow to go down for that one.

[outgirl]

I just saw a poll that had 80% of the respondents saying that Martha was guilty and should serve time. WTF? Why does anyone even care about Martha. They didnt care this much about Enron or any of those guys. Poor Martha. If she wasnt such a bitch, do you think it would've been easier for her.

[RS Davis]

outgirl said:

I just saw a poll that had 80% of the respondents saying that Martha was guilty and should serve time. WTF? Why does anyone even care about Martha. They didnt care this much about Enron or any of those guys. Poor Martha. If she wasnt such a bitch, do you think it would've been easier for her.

I'll bet 80% of those respondents also think Martha was convicted of insider trading.

Interesting footnote: It seems old Ken Lay might have been telling the truth the whole time - the investigation seems to be uncovering that it was the management tier just below him where all the shenanigans were going on.

- Rick

[dr snootch]

RS said:

Interesting footnote: It seems old Ken Lay might have been telling the truth the whole time - the investigation seems to be uncovering that it was the management tier just below him where all the shenanigans were going on.

- Rick

Still, it's his job to know what's going on. You can't be higher up than the people committing the crime and feign ignorance, that only works if you're lower on the food chain than the criminal.

I think the whole lot of them should go down, if for no other reason than dereliction of fiduciary duty for letting something this big happen without their knowledge.

[RS Davis]

dr said:

Still, it's his job to know what's going on. You can't be higher up than the people committing the crime and feign ignorance, that only works if you're lower on the food chain than the criminal.

I think the whole lot of them should go down, if for no other reason than dereliction of fiduciary duty for letting something this big happen without their knowledge.

I see a civil suit as a more appropriate response to that, though. Just with Kenny.

- Rick

[dr snootch]

RS said:

I see a civil suit as a more appropriate response to that, though. Just with Kenny.

- Rick

What if the jury had the option of making the individual defendant's assets liable as well, in cases of gross negligence such as this, rather than just putting the company's assets on the line?

[RS Davis]

dr said:

What if the jury had the option of making the individual defendant's assets liable as well, in cases of gross negligence such as this, rather than just putting the company's assets on the line?

I have no problem with that, but I still think if there is no evidence of willful criminality, negligence should be confined to civil courts. I have no problem with the jury making individuals financially liable for criminal acts, though, and think it should be used in many more instances than it actually is.

- Rick

[dr snootch]

Agreed