Page 1 of 1
Martha Stewart
Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 1:31 pm
by bfez1
I think it's a pretty fair sentence, after all she didn't kill anyone.
Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 1:35 pm
by TexasStooge
I think 5 months is enough to fix her little red wagon...or is it?
We'll just wait & see.
Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 1:38 pm
by VanceWxMan
money talks..

if that was a regular joe they would have given the full sentence.
Aaron
Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 1:41 pm
by Brent
NO! She should have gotten about a year, maybe a little more in a PRISON, not a Minimum security jail.

Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 1:44 pm
by yoda
Hmm.. well it was interesting to say the least... Martha SHOULD JUST SAY THANK YOU Judge and walk away.. but NO she has to appeal... getting 5 months instead of up to 40 (was it that high..?) is fine by me in my book.... but she should have gotten more..

Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 1:51 pm
by JQ Public
I say no b/c i thought she deserved less. There are bigger fish to fry such as Kenneth Lay of Enron and the Tyco CEO. There are others. If they get anything less than what she does I think it'll be a real injustice. She's already lost her namesake from the company and all her shows and a couple homes...not to mention humiliation. How many of you wouldn't have done smthg if you knew your stock was going to go under?
Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 1:51 pm
by Guest
I think her sentence is fair. I'm just glad she didn't get off scott-free.
...Jennifer...
Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 1:56 pm
by GalvestonDuck
JQ Public wrote:I say no b/c i thought she deserved less. There are bigger fish to fry such as Kenneth Lay of Enron and the Tyco CEO. There are others. If they get anything less than what she does I think it'll be a real injustice. She's already lost her namesake from the company and all her shows and a couple homes...not to mention humiliation. How many of you wouldn't have done smthg if you knew your stock was going to go under?
I don't think Ken Lay knew what was going on with Andrew Fastow and Jeff Skilling. I honestly think (until I hear more proof than just guilt by association) he's not guilty of wrongdoing.
Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 2:07 pm
by JQ Public
Everything goes through the big wigs...nothing happens without their approval. Even if he dind't know he should have some input...especially on fudging documents etc. I still don't know what Enron does...they sure fooled me.
Martha's "wrongdoing" had nothing to do with her company...her company was doing honest business.
Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 2:13 pm
by GalvestonDuck
True, but Ken Lay didn't go back to being CEO until August 2001 after dupe-head Skilling had to bow out.
Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 2:38 pm
by vbhoutex
GalvestonDuck wrote:JQ Public wrote:I say no b/c i thought she deserved less. There are bigger fish to fry such as Kenneth Lay of Enron and the Tyco CEO. There are others. If they get anything less than what she does I think it'll be a real injustice. She's already lost her namesake from the company and all her shows and a couple homes...not to mention humiliation. How many of you wouldn't have done smthg if you knew your stock was going to go under?
I don't think Ken Lay knew what was going on with Andrew Fastow and Jeff Skilling. I honestly think (until I hear more proof than just guilt by association) he's not guilty of wrongdoing.
If indeed you are right GD(and I can't disagree at this point)then he truly has to be one of the WORST CEO'S THIS PLANET HAS EVER SEEN!!! And come to think of it, with the assumption that he really did nothing wrong, he has indeed proven my allegation.
Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 7:53 pm
by Pburgh
Well I wish you didn't have to serve any time at all!! Afterall, I pay for that prison time. I think they should hit this kind of crime where it hurts - in the pocketbook. I'm not talking about $250,000. I'm saying they should be fined millions and millions of dollars!!!!! For her crime I'd say $50,000 million would be good.
Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 9:24 pm
by streetsoldier
Pburgh, that sounds like a VERY good idea...have the court divest Stewart of all of her holdings, her business, and all but one of her homes (she has 6 to choose from) in "real and punitive damages"; it would be interesting to see if she can "make it" as a normal, low-to-mid income citizen again.
Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 9:42 pm
by WEATHER53
It reminds me a bit about Clarence Thomas' signature comment.
The amount of money she benefitted from amounts to about a person making $30,000 benefitting in the realm of $30-$50. Now, no arguement with if you break the law you break the law but it is most odd that all the resources that were musted happened to be against one of the, if not the, most successful business Women in America. The number of men of her business and social stature that have not benefitted from inside stock info is probably zero.