Martha Stewart Quits Company Board

[rodbarnett]

NEW YORK (AP) - Martha Stewart resigned Monday from the board and as chief creative officer of the media empire she built, a little more than a week after she was convicted of lying to investigators related to a 2001 stock sale.

The self-made queen of domestic arts _whose name has been stamped on magazines, TV shows and household products - will remain affiliated with Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. (MSO) in a new non-executive role of founding editorial director.

In that role, Stewart, 62, will continue to provide creative inspiration for new product design and development; pen two pending books, "Homekeeping" and "Baking"; and provide input on the continuing evolution of the company and its brand and strategic issues. She will report to chief executive officer Sharon Patrick.

Stewart, who is the company's largest shareholder, had been expected to relinquish her board seat, but possibly keep some creative non-officer role. Had she not stepped down, her departure from the board and any executive position would likely have been forced by the Securities and Exchange Commission, given that she is a convicted felon.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040315/D81AVNDO0.html

[Lindacooks]

1. I feel bad for Martha

and flame away if you must.

But her 'crime' (which the judge dismissed for lack of evidence, btw) is small potatoes compared to the big fish, including Chimpy himself and Ken Lay. Let's see, what's the difference here?

A. Martha is female
B. Martha is a Democrat
C. Martha has contributed money to Democrats

[FlaGranny]

3. Martha is really small potatoes and an easy target.

Everyone gets riled up about corporate crime raking in billions so they target a Democrat who, at most, obtained an extra $30 THOUSAND - not MILLION and not BILLION dollars. That's supposed to satisfy us so we forget about the really bad criminals. The government has wasted money on a relatively insignificant crime (if there actually was one) that would have been better spent on going after the professional corporate B* buddy mafioso gangsters.

[AP]

5. There was a crime. Thus the conviction.

She took advantage of connections to get $30,000 from people she didn't know. It may not be insider trading, but it probably will still be prosecuted by the SEC.

She also wasted the time of investigators by lying to them.

You have to discourage both behaviours -- exploiting the markets and lying to the feds.

[ozone_man]

10. That's the way I see it.

She's not a big criminal by Wall Street standards, but she broke the law, and at a time when a lot of small investors have been burned by WS shysters. Should it be considered differently than someone holding up a 7-11? It's time to put these white collar criminals behind bars.

Now let's go get some fish 100 times bigger like Ken Lay.

[AP]

4. The judge didn't dismiss her crime. She was convicted of four charges

relating to her trying to claim that she had a preexisting order to sell the stock when it hit $60.

You can't lie to the federales when they're trying to investigate SEC violations.

I can appreciate feeling bad because her crime is RELATIVELY worse than the crimes of people who never get caught and/or charged.

But the badness I feel isn't that she DID get convicted, but that others don't.

I'm glad that she has set a bar though against which people will measure Ken Lay. Ie, people should now think, "Lay did something 10,000 times worse, so he should suffer 10,000 times more.

[0007]

6. Martha is a liar, Martha is a thief - Sorry, I can't feel bad.

When a person gets greedy they usually trip somewhere down the line.

Leona Hemsley is another female that comes to mind.

Sorry Lindacooks - if 'ya have time read this link

http://www.tanosborn.com/contributors/

[Piperay]

7. So do I

I like Martha and I enjoyed her show, which is now off the air. :argh:

[President Jesus]

2. follow the cash

Martha Stewart's campaign contributions

Gee...does this have anything to do with selective prosecution?

...although, what's up with the 'Danny' Burton support? Weird.

[CO Liberal]

8. Now That She's a Convicted Felon...

...perhaps she can get a spot on the boards of Smith & Wesson or the NRA.

:-)

[tishaLA]

9. I'm an unabashed fan of Ms. Stewart

I think it's terrible that this has befallen her, whether it was deserved or not. Numberous legal scholars have pointed out that her prosecution is a perversion of prosecutorial discretion and that the law she violated in the lying to federal prosecutors charges is a badly constructed law because it punishes both helpful and harmful witnesses.

I think the jurors had better shut their mouths, though, or their statements about making 401(k)s safe again, their comments about insider trading, and their comments about the little guy vs. the big guy will help Ms. Stewart with an appeal. But then again, I think that would be a good thing.

Oh. And of course it is completely wrong to lump in Ms. Stewart with Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia, etc. They may or may not be guilty of many things, but their crimes, if they committed them, involved their companies, while Ms. Stewart's, if she committed them, had nothing to do with a company, but with her interaction with federal officials. Hell, the feds couldn't even get an insider trading charge criminally, so they think they might be able to get it in civil proceedings where they need a lower standard of proof. It's just a backdoor way to try to nail her, IMHO.

[AP]

11. There was no insider trading charge because she's not an insider to

the company whose stock she sold. She wasn't an employee and she wasn't on the board. She didn't fit within the definition of insider according to that statute.

However, she does fit within the definition of SEC violatins (incurring fines and not jail time) of which she has been charged and will be tried. That's why she has been charged with the violations. It's not, as you suggest, because they don't have the goods on her for criminal insider trading. It's because they're charging her with the crimes the definition of which she fits in. Your argument is the equivalent of saying, the government is overreaching becuase they didn't charge her with kidnapping and murder. They didn't charge her with kidnapping and murder because what she does doesn't fit withing the definition of those charges.

Furthermore, you mischaracterize the difference bewtween civil and criminal charges. Civil charges aren't the lamer version of criminal charges. Criminal charges take away your freedom, so courts demand that the state proves its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

With civil charges, only your money is at stake, and courts don't want to make it next to impossible to get your money back. For example, consider Bill Janklow. The burden of proof for his cirminal charge, which sent him to jail, was that he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. But when the victim's family sues him to get money for the death, they just need to prove with a preponderance of the evidence that he committed the tort for which he's sued.

However, you need to check the SEC statutes. Even though only Martha's money is at stake, it may still be the case, since it is still a criminal charge brought by the government (rather than a civil charge) it may be that the SEC still needs to prove it's ase beyond a reasonable doubt.

If private parties sued Martha for the money the lost from buying her stocks, then they'd only need to prove that conversion (or whatever tort they chose) took place with a preponderance of the evidence --- and who could complain about? If more than half the evidence proved that someone took YOUR money, don't you think you should at least get your money back, even if it's not enough evidence to put them in jail? If all the evidence showed that someone stole from you and the person is going to jail, don't you think you should DEFINITELY be able to sue in civil court to get your money back?

I also challenge your argument about "numberous legal scholars." There are lots of republican law professors who don't think any financial crime, especially fradulent activities where rich people act like risk of loss is for the little guy and guaranteed wealth is for the rich, who will complain. I wonder if these are the 'scholars' you're citing. Also, I don't understand how a helpful witness can be one who lies to you.

Furthermore. all those quotes from the former jurors are right on! Why do you disagree with them? They really hit the nail on the head, if you ask me.

Remember how Putnam was shifting risk on to their investors, while ensuring profits for their managers investing in their funds by letting exploit the loophole that allowed them to trade afterhours with insider information? Well that's exactly what was going on with Martha. See the pattern? Risk of loss is for the little guy. Guaranteed profits are for the insiders. It's absolutely right that this is being punished.