Snooze Button Dreams: Here's why

March 30, 2004

Here's why

A lot of people just don't quite understand what the big deal is. I mean, if you break the law you go to jail, right? Well, here's the best way I've found to explain it:

WEEEE-OOOOOOO WEEEEE-OOOOOO (that's a siren, y'all)
A State trooper with the lights on and siren blaring is in your rear view, letting you know that you're screwed now. You pull over to the side, heart a bit a-flutter and sharing confused and slightly frightened glances with your passenger. The trooper walks up to your window with one hand on his gun and the other holding his shoulder mike. He leans in menacingly, never taking his hand off of his weapon.

Trooper: Do you have any idea how fast you were going?

You: I'm sorry, officer. I thought I was going the speed limit.

Trooper: And just where did you get the idea of what the speed limit was?

You: Um, from the road signs?

Trooper: ARE YOU SURE?! I think that your passenger there told you what the speed limit was. I don't think you saw the sign at all!

You: Please, officer. I really saw the sign. It said "Speed" on top and then it had a big "55" in the middle and it said "Limit" on the bottom. I swear!

Trooper: You're under arrest.

You: For what? I wasn't speeding!

Trooper: Because you lied about seeing the speed limit sign.

You were cruising along, not breaking any laws. The cops stopped you without cause and started interrogating you as if you had broken a law. You really were told about the speed limit from your friend but you panicked or were intimidated or freaked by the situation or whatever and you said you saw the speed limit sign. Even though you didn't speed and there was no reason for you to be pulled over you are now going to prison for lying about where you got the information that you used while not breaking the law in the first place. The kicker is that you were allowed to get the information from the sign or your friend so there was no reason to get flustered over it in the first place.

That is why the whole Martha Stewart thing irks me. There was no crime until the feds germinated one.

Posted by Jim | Permalink

Comments

I totally agree, but I haven't even been able to get my diehard conservative mother to understand this 'cause she's too busy hating Martha for, you know, being Martha. It's frustrating.

Reason magazine "on dead tree" had a good article about eight months ago on this. I couldn't find that online, but I notice today they have this one.

Posted by: ilyka at March 30, 2004 01:10 PM

Well I just dont like her. Thats my reason.

Posted by: pylorns at March 30, 2004 01:28 PM

Hell, I don't like her either. Doesn't make it any easier to swallow.

Posted by: Jim at March 30, 2004 01:46 PM

Well said, Jim. Too many people are blinded by the "joke factor" of Martha going to jail, without seeming to realize what a horrible precedent is being set.

Posted by: dave at March 30, 2004 02:04 PM

I love her. But I wholly understand why a lot of people don't. Seems like the anti-Martha sentiment more than anything is what was driving the prosecutor and jury.

Posted by: Venomous Kate at March 30, 2004 03:19 PM

Quite right, Kate. Read that link that Ilyka posted. It's all about how the jury convicted based on how they felt about Martha.

Posted by: Jim at March 30, 2004 03:24 PM

From what I've read on the matter, I agree. If you want to send her to jail for being Martha Stewart, then at least that's what it should say on the charge sheet.

Of course, then it would get kicked out on appeal, probably with damages awarded. Which is fine by me.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at March 31, 2004 03:46 AM

In full disclosure, I think Martha Stewart is the Anti-Christ.

Jim, keep in mind the serious charge against her (securities fraud, that is, insider trading) was dropped. She was convicted for conspiracy, obstruction of justice and two counts of making false statements. The obstruction of justice stems from her modifying her call records--which was testified to by an eyewitness.

I suppose your next argument would be if she hadn't been arrested on (what you feel are) trumped-up charges, she wouldn't have had to obstruct justice. Of course, I'll just claim she must've had a guilty conscience about *something* otherwise...it'll turn into an endless loop, and I'll not touch on that. I'll talk about why the charges were brought, even tho I'm not a lawyer.

I confess insider trading, like art, is difficult to define, but you kinda know it when you see it. When your stockbroker is involved, though, it can get a little grey, but sometimes it can't. It gets grey because you pay him to advise you on when to buy and when to sell, and that's supposed to come from research you don't have time to do yourself. Fair enough.

But there are rules on how you can conduct that research, and acting on information that is supposed to be privy to only a few (it doesn't matter how you got that information) is against the rules...and the law. I don't know what the rules are concerning the FDA releasing the info to Imclone, so I can't comment on the legality of that, but the CEO of Imclone certainly knew that information would cause his stock to drop. When he started calling up people (doesn't matter who) and letting them know the drug was not approved *before* the official announcement was when insider trading laws were broken. The broker should not have passed on that info (neither to Martha nor to anyone else) and he probably should have contacted the SEC, under the law.

I think had Martha not done the things she was convicted of doing (changing her story, changing her phone logs), she would have been home free, and I suspect a jury would have seen that--I certainly would have. The article ilkya linked tries to sway my opinion, and it fails. Martha's own actions only convince me further she did something wrong.

Posted by: Victor at March 31, 2004 11:16 AM

I think you missed my major point. Martha was not and could not have been guilty of selling her stock based on any information no matter how she got it so long as she herself did not break a law in order to get the information. This is why all of the serious crimes she was originally accused of were either not pursued or were thrown out. There simply was no wrongdoing on her part in selling the stock.

What that means is she was convicted of conspiracy to commit a lawful act, obstruction of justice in pursuit of a non-crime and two counts of making false statements about a legal act.

Posted by: Jim at March 31, 2004 11:28 AM

Jim, I concede any charges about insider-trading migh have been difficult to prove. Maybe Martha knew, maybe she didn't--but her actions afterward certainly imply she knew something was fishy. Otherwise, why would she have done them?

Panic? Maybe. Stupidity? Certainly. But if she had not done anything other than confess her innocence (and I mean only that) I think she would have been scott-free.

Obstruction of justice is obstruction of justice, whether or not a crime was committed in the first place. Start acting in a suspicious manner during an investigation (like, change your story), and a prosecutor will be on that like a pit bull on a steak. Had she just played dumb from day one, I doubt the case would have gone to trial. Instead, she played stupid.

Talk to any cop or judge. More people convict themselves than any prosecutor.

Posted by: Victor at March 31, 2004 12:04 PM

Wrong word in there: But if she had not done anything other than profess her innocence ...

Posted by: Victor at March 31, 2004 01:31 PM

Not difficult to prove. Impossible to prove. Impossible to have been commited. Martha did not occupy a position to which that offense can be attributed. The only way she could possibly have been guilty of improperly benefiting from insider information would have been if she herself went out and acquired the information illegally. It is not illegal for an investor to act on information that is given to them, no matter who gives it to them or what their relationship is.

But how many people know that? The "street definition" that everybody knows is that using information that isn't in the public sphere makes you an inside trader. I'd put dollars to donuts that Martha didn't have any better grasp on it than that. So when the SEC came in accusing her of insider trading she panicked, just like anybody else would have. It's the freaking SEC! They know what they're doing, right? They wouldn't be coming after somebody who hadn't committed any crime, right?

Well in this case they definitely knew what they were doing and they came after somebody until she committed a crime.

Posted by: Jim at March 31, 2004 02:07 PM

Jim, I can see we're not going to convince each other, so on your last word let's agree to disagree, eh?

: extends hand and offers to buy the next round :

Posted by: Victor at March 31, 2004 02:15 PM

I can always go for a beer. I'll even give you that all would have been pie and apple cider for Martha if she'd just kept her yap shut.

How's that for magnanimous? ;-)

Posted by: Jim at March 31, 2004 02:34 PM

Thanks, Jim. That was basically my entire point.

That is so magnanimous I feel I should give you my first-born male child in return. I am not worthy of your magnanimosity.

Posted by: Victor at March 31, 2004 02:42 PM

I appreciate the offer but I'll have to decline. I just went over this with Ryan yesterday...you see, the upkeep on firstborns is way higher than the sales literature leads you to believe. Even if I got one for free it would be cost prohibitive to maintain. Since I've already got one the novelty factor wouldn't be there to compensate for the excessive costs. But thanks for the offer!

Posted by: Jim at March 31, 2004 02:54 PM

Posted by: handmade painting at May 27, 2008 12:30 AM

Posted by: ·Òë¹«Ë¾ at March 10, 2009 01:45 PM

gaming blog
Top1gaming forum
Gaming
2Moons
9Dragons
Age of Conan
Aion
Angels Online
Anarchy Online
ArchLord
Cabal
City of Hero
City of Villains
Conquer Online
Dofus
Dragonica
Dream of Mirror Online
Dreamland Online
Eve Online
EverQuest
EverQuest II
Final Fantasy XI
Fly for fun
Gaia online
GodsWar Online
Guild Wars
Holic Online
Knight online
Lineage II
Lord of the Rings Online
Mabinogi Online
Maple Story
Myth War II Online
Perfect World
Ragnarok Online 2
Rappelz
Rohan Online
Runes Of Magic
RF Online
Runescape
Scions of Fate
Second Life
shaiya
Silkroad Online
Star Wars Galaxies
Tales of Pirates
Voyage century Online
Warhammer Online
Wonderland Online
World of Warcraft
Zu Online
gaming blog
Top1gaming forum
Parasite Eve cosplay
World of Warcraft cosplay
Ah! My Goddess Cosplay
Tomb Raider cosplay
Death Note Amane Misa cosplay
kipi Amane Misa cosplay
Yuna cosplay
Tekken 5 cosplay
Dead Or Alive cosplay
Tenjho Tenge cosplay
Dragon Ball cosplay
Gundam Seed cosplay
Gurren cosplay
Kiddy Grade cosplay
Gintama Sarutobi Ayame cosplay
Al Azif cosplay
Ranka Lee cosplay
Final Fantasy X Lulu cosplay
Cardcaptor Sakura cosplay
D.Gray-Man cosplay
Shakugan No Shana cosplay
Shoujo Kakumei Utena cosplay
cosplay
CD KEY

Posted by: baidu at July 28, 2009 02:22 AM

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/20107