Martha Guilty On all 4 Counts

[MDM4AU 332]

Foxnews reports Martha Stewart Guilty on all four counts. Will spend a min. 16 months to max. 16 years in Federal Pen.

Foxnews.com

[Grumps 3,704]

Does anyone else think this is ridiculous???

#1 If your stock broker calls you and says that the owner of a company for which you own stock is dumping all of his shares what would you do? I'd sell in a heartbeat.

#2 She avoided a loss of $51,000. That is pocket change for her. Think about how much cost has been associated with the trial. That makes the $51,000 seem like nothing.

#3 Is society or anyone better off if Martha Stewart goes to prison?

#4 Does anyone really think that she will ever do any jail time?

I personally think they should have asked her to pay a fine and be done with it.

[MDM4AU 332]

#4 Does anyone really think that she will ever do any jail time?

By federal law she has to serve time. The judge has no authority to waive her jail time. It is figured by some computer program the government came up with. SHe will have to serve approxiately 16-18 months minimum. It will not be in a prison with bars. If the sentence, in these types of cases, is less than 3 years the guilty will spend their time in a type of "dorm." It won't be the "Hollywood" style prison she spends time in.

This is what some of the news stations are saying. The bottom line is she will spend time "locked up."

[Grumps 3,704]

I still think that her $$$$$ will keep this from happening. Maybe the old spend-the-rest-of-my-life-appealing trick. We'll let all of the lawyers get richer while she continues to get punished for answering the phone and saying "sure, sell". to avoid a $51,000 loss.

[AUesquire 1]

Hey, what's wrong with the lawyers getting rich? Don't answer that.

Seriously, she WILL appeal it to death.

[Tigermike 3,027]

Is it just me, or does it seem that the jury may have been a little jealous and wanted to "get her" because she was rich and successful?

Stewart juror: Celebrity pals were `insult'

03/06/04

LARRY NEUMEISTER

The Associated Press

NEW YORK - The one juror who spoke publicly Friday about how the jury made up its mind in the Martha Stewart trial called the guilty verdict a victory for "the average guy."

Chappell Hartridge, a 47-year-old computer technician at an insurance company, said he hopes the verdict sends a message to corporations that "they have to abide by the rules and no one's above the law."

"Maybe it's a victory for the little guy who loses money in the markets because of these types of transactions, the people who lose money in 401(k) plans," Hartridge said.

"Maybe it might give the average guy a little more confident feeling that (he) can invest in the market and everything will be on the up and up."

Stewart was convicted Friday on four charges of conspiracy, making false statements and obstruction of justice. Her ex-stockbroker, Peter Bacanovic, also was found guilty in the stock scandal.

Hartridge and the other 11 jurors - four men and eight women - deliberated over three days before reaching the verdict.

Hartridge said the appearance at the trial of Stewart's celebrity pals like Rosie O'Donnell and Bill Cosby may have backfired.

"If anything, we may have taken it a little as an insult," he said. "Is that supposed to sway our opinion?"

Some of the testimony about the way she ran her business left the impression, at least on him, that she thought she was "above everyone."

He also said her background as a stockbroker worked against her because the jury believed she should have known what she was doing was illegal.

Hartridge said jurors were especially swayed by testimony from Stewart's personal assistant, Ann Armstrong.

Armstrong testified that Stewart altered the log of a message that Bacanovic left her on the day Stewart sold her Imclone stock.

The original message read: "Peter Bacanovic thinks ImClone is going to start trading downward."

Armstrong testified Stewart saw the message about a month later and replaced it with the words: "Peter Bacanovic re imclone." She later changed it back.

During the six-week trial, the jurors were referred to by numbers instead of names because the judge wanted to make sure no one discovered their identities and tried to influence them. After the verdicts were delivered, she gave them permission to speak about the deliberations.

Hartridge said it was impossible to avoid references to the case during the six-week trial. "You see it on the front pages. You see it on the subway," he said.

He said he went to work and "was threatened, `Don't come back to work if you convict her.'"

"I took it as a joke," he said with a chuckle.

LINK

[Guest AuNuma1]

We can probably expect a lot more of this kind of stuff now that Martha is likely headed to the slammer...can't wait to see what all SNL does to her.

[CCTAU 3,326]

First Martha. Who's next?

Are U.S. senators

real 'inside traders'?

Study shows stock portfolios outperform market by 12%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: March 9, 2004

1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – While Martha Stewart is facing jail time for her role in dumping stock just before a government action would decrease its value, U.S. senators have an uncanny knack for doing this on a regular basis – with impunity from the securities laws they write.

A study of U.S. senators' personal stock portfolios has found they outperformed the market by an average of 12 percent a year in the five years to 1998.

"The results clearly support the notion that members of the Senate trade with a substantial informational advantage over ordinary investors," said Alan Ziobrowski of the Robinson College of Business at Georgia State University, who wrote the report.

His findings were based on 6,000 financial disclosure filings and are due to be published in the Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis.

"The results suggest senators knew when to buy their common stocks and when to sell," concluded Ziobrowski.

First-time senators did especially well, with their stocks outperforming by 20 percent a year on average. There was no difference in performance between Democrats and Republicans.

A separate study in 2000, covering 66,465 U.S. households from 1991 to 1996 showed the average household's portfolio underperformed the market by 1.44 percent a year.

Corporate insiders (defined as senior executives) usually outperform by about 5 percent.

Thus, it would seem the real insiders are elected officials who not only have access to information that could impact companies, but also the ability to shape that information.

Paralleling the Stewart case, the study shows it's all a matter of timing for the politicians.

Most stocks bought by senators showed little movement before the purchase, but after purchase they outperformed the market by 28.6 percent on average the following calendar year.

Returns on sell transactions are equally intriguing. Stocks sold by senators performed in line with the market the year following the sale. When adjusted by the size of stocks, total portfolio returns outperformed by 12 percent a year on average.

But don't try to emulate your senator's stock transactions for your own advantage. Under their own rules, they are not required to disclose their transactions until the middle of the following year. So, therefore, there's no way you can mimic what they're doing.

LINK