Saturday, March 06, 2004
Martha
I picked up the paper on my way to work today. It's a beautiful Saturday, and unfortunately I've got a major project kinda due on Monday. But I had to write about this...
Marthat Stewart has been found guilty on four charges filed by the SEC: making false statements (2), conspiracy, and obstruction of justice... The ellipsis is on purpose - it's the gasp that escaped from my mouth when I removed the newspaper from its plastic bag - "Stewart Convicted". Holy Hell in a hand basket!! Newspaper headlines haven't caused me to suck air like that since Arnold became our governor.
The funny thing is that she was never charged with insider trading, because it wasn't clear that an actual insider trading crime was committed. Instead she was charged with secuirites fraud, along with the other previously stated charges. But wait a minute! The crimes with which she was actually charged stemmed from Martha's supposed insider trading. They're kinda like the mold on that block of cheddar cheese hiding in the back of your refridgerator. But if the cheese never existed, then the mold has no place to grow. No cheese - no mold. You dig?
The securities fraud charge is another mind-boggling concoction. The SEC states she declared her innocence of insider trading to booster the shares of her own firm. So what you're telling me is that by declaring her innocence she was commiting another crime - securities fraud? I don't get it. Wouldn't anybody, even the guilty, declare their innocence? This charge didn't stick due to the lack of evidence and that it just doesn't make fucking sense.
All this hubbub was built on the foundation that Martha was involved with insider trading. The SEC's meat and potatoes were taken away, so now they're feeding on the crumbs left behind - false statements, conspiracy, yada, yada. And the sad thing is they have succeeded. I say sad, because any of us can fall victim to this type of bullshit. The general public is laughing at the nerdy straight-A kid for getting caught supposedly cheating on her math test. But we need to look past the main character in this story and start paying attention to the plot. There is no justice served to anyone when the government continues to file charges contingent on crimes for which one has not been convicted or even charged, as in Martha's case. Civil liberties for all are violated. Martha Stewart is going to prison for covering up a crime with which she was never charged. Someone please show me the logic in that! If you can't prove a crime was committed, then how can you prove she covered it up?
Now the SEC is pursuing a civil suit - an insider trading civil suit. They're continuing a civil suit for a crime with which they did not charge her. Ummm, okay... Other civil suits are following: civil suits related to securities fraud - you know, the charge that was thrown out of court, because it was totally bogus. Ummm, I'm getting confused. Civil suits associated with criminal charges where the defendant was found innocent, as in OJ, or never charged, as in Martha Stewart, seem to be analogous to a dog chasing its tail. Don't get me wrong - I think OJ is as guilty as the smile on a car salesman, but how can he be sued over a crime for which he was found innocent? Isn't this similar to being tried twice for the same crime? The difference is that the second time, you don't face imprisonment - you face losing a shit load of money. So in Martha's case, how can she be sued for a crime that was never charged?
I'm not an advocate for Martha. I don't have much interest in projects that require a lot of time for creating just one tree ornament - I'm busy, yo. To be honest, I'm not sure what I would have done in Martha's case. If my stock broker called me up regarding his observing the selling of large amounts of stock by the CEO of a company in which I'm investing, yeah, I would probably say sell - if the CEO and his family are jumping ship, then I better do the same. (I should note here that Martha sold her stock before calling up the CEO, Waksal.) I'm not so sure how that's insider trading - to me, it's being smart and using good judgement. If I see someone indoors with an umbrella, or someone tells me they saw someone with an umbrella, I'm gonna assume its raining and bring my umbrella with me when I go outside. If I'm at the race tracks, and I here that the horse on which I'm about to bet is not feeling so hot, you're damn skippity straight I'm betting on another horse.
I'm not an advocate for corporations screwing over the little people, nor am I an advocate of white collar crime. I'm an advocate of civil liberties. Go ahead hate Martha, because she's a snobby hobnobbing socialite. But if you condone the conviction of Martha, then you condone the violation of your civil rights.
Marthat Stewart has been found guilty on four charges filed by the SEC: making false statements (2), conspiracy, and obstruction of justice... The ellipsis is on purpose - it's the gasp that escaped from my mouth when I removed the newspaper from its plastic bag - "Stewart Convicted". Holy Hell in a hand basket!! Newspaper headlines haven't caused me to suck air like that since Arnold became our governor.
The funny thing is that she was never charged with insider trading, because it wasn't clear that an actual insider trading crime was committed. Instead she was charged with secuirites fraud, along with the other previously stated charges. But wait a minute! The crimes with which she was actually charged stemmed from Martha's supposed insider trading. They're kinda like the mold on that block of cheddar cheese hiding in the back of your refridgerator. But if the cheese never existed, then the mold has no place to grow. No cheese - no mold. You dig?
The securities fraud charge is another mind-boggling concoction. The SEC states she declared her innocence of insider trading to booster the shares of her own firm. So what you're telling me is that by declaring her innocence she was commiting another crime - securities fraud? I don't get it. Wouldn't anybody, even the guilty, declare their innocence? This charge didn't stick due to the lack of evidence and that it just doesn't make fucking sense.
All this hubbub was built on the foundation that Martha was involved with insider trading. The SEC's meat and potatoes were taken away, so now they're feeding on the crumbs left behind - false statements, conspiracy, yada, yada. And the sad thing is they have succeeded. I say sad, because any of us can fall victim to this type of bullshit. The general public is laughing at the nerdy straight-A kid for getting caught supposedly cheating on her math test. But we need to look past the main character in this story and start paying attention to the plot. There is no justice served to anyone when the government continues to file charges contingent on crimes for which one has not been convicted or even charged, as in Martha's case. Civil liberties for all are violated. Martha Stewart is going to prison for covering up a crime with which she was never charged. Someone please show me the logic in that! If you can't prove a crime was committed, then how can you prove she covered it up?
Now the SEC is pursuing a civil suit - an insider trading civil suit. They're continuing a civil suit for a crime with which they did not charge her. Ummm, okay... Other civil suits are following: civil suits related to securities fraud - you know, the charge that was thrown out of court, because it was totally bogus. Ummm, I'm getting confused. Civil suits associated with criminal charges where the defendant was found innocent, as in OJ, or never charged, as in Martha Stewart, seem to be analogous to a dog chasing its tail. Don't get me wrong - I think OJ is as guilty as the smile on a car salesman, but how can he be sued over a crime for which he was found innocent? Isn't this similar to being tried twice for the same crime? The difference is that the second time, you don't face imprisonment - you face losing a shit load of money. So in Martha's case, how can she be sued for a crime that was never charged?
I'm not an advocate for Martha. I don't have much interest in projects that require a lot of time for creating just one tree ornament - I'm busy, yo. To be honest, I'm not sure what I would have done in Martha's case. If my stock broker called me up regarding his observing the selling of large amounts of stock by the CEO of a company in which I'm investing, yeah, I would probably say sell - if the CEO and his family are jumping ship, then I better do the same. (I should note here that Martha sold her stock before calling up the CEO, Waksal.) I'm not so sure how that's insider trading - to me, it's being smart and using good judgement. If I see someone indoors with an umbrella, or someone tells me they saw someone with an umbrella, I'm gonna assume its raining and bring my umbrella with me when I go outside. If I'm at the race tracks, and I here that the horse on which I'm about to bet is not feeling so hot, you're damn skippity straight I'm betting on another horse.
I'm not an advocate for corporations screwing over the little people, nor am I an advocate of white collar crime. I'm an advocate of civil liberties. Go ahead hate Martha, because she's a snobby hobnobbing socialite. But if you condone the conviction of Martha, then you condone the violation of your civil rights.
