Martha Stewart

[fabrizio]

.

[christineesq]

I love to see examples of men threatened by a woman!

You boys should have realized long ago what a sham this whole thing was.

From Martha's corner,

Christine

[gspiker]

Christine,

It has nothing really to do with feeling threatened, or even the whole thing being a sham (I have no idea if it was or not...I haven't been following it too closely...but a unbiased witness seemed to say that it isn't).

The problem is that Martha is just the latest in a rash of people charged with abuse of information/position type crimes to get off with no punishment. In many cases, the evidence against these people were very strong. The problem is that the laws are full of loop holes, the punishment for conviction very weak and the arm of the enforcement agency is very underfunded.

US citizens were kind of promised that much of this had been fixed after the Boesky/Milken incidents - where they got off very lightly for mammoth insider trading and fraud activities (and where Milken in specific helped destroy the already weak economy of the time). But of course there was no real changes made.

Given the current administration I wouldn't expect any tougher rules or more rigorous punishment for these kinds of acts, no matter how much we would all like to see it.

G

[christineesq]

Considering that SO many are not completely familiar with the facts and issues in the case, but certainly are VERY willing to comment negatively about it, I'm puzzled that of all people, traders feel free to comment about this case in such a fashion.

I suspect that there's just a little more to these comments than thinly veiled concern about 'abuse of information' at play here. If abuse of information was really such a concern, why is it that there are so few that are familiar with the case other than just the cute media one-liners they hear? Where was all this concern over the fact that only one person was charged with this when others did the same exact thing with much more money at stake and weren't charged?

So with all the loopholes and underfunding, they went after someone against whom they really didn't have a good case. AND they didn't get the people they could have.

I'd say that's a sham!

Christine

[Gavishti]

I am not a fan of Martha Stewart. The information I have on her case is just what fell in my lap, I didn't seek it out. Whether she is guilty or not I don't have a clue.

All that being said, it is pretty obvious that her trial is politically motivated. There are many that committed far worse than what she is charged with and the government is not even pursuing them.

Now, let's get back to making money.

[gspiker]

Hi,

Considering that SO many are not completely familiar with the facts and issues in the case, but certainly are VERY willing to comment negatively about it, I'm puzzled that of all people, traders feel free to comment about this case in such a fashion.

In celeb. cases everyone has an opinion and very few have any facts. Hmmm...come to think about it, this seems to apply to almost everything ;-)

All that being said, it is pretty obvious that her trial is politically motivated. There are many that committed far worse than what she is charged with and the government is not even pursuing them.

That's because we have a legal system, and not a justice system. Anyone who has touched the system for long knows this. Truth and justice have very little place in the courtrooms, it is too surrounded by politics, abitrary and outdated rules and proceedures and judges and attourneys who really just come in to get a paycheck. Sad, even understandable in some ways, but true.

Garth