PDA

View Full Version : Martha Stewart Convicted of All Counts



BigBadBrian
03-05-2004, 05:16 PM
Martha Stewart Convicted of All Counts


Mar 5, 3:31 PM (ET)


NEW YORK (AP) - Martha Stewart was convicted Friday of obstructing justice and lying to the government about a superbly timed stock sale - a devastating verdict that probably means prison for the woman who epitomizes meticulous homemaking and gracious living.

Stewart was found guilty of conspiracy, making false statements and obstruction of justice. The charges carry up to 20 years in prison at sentencing June 17, but she will most certainly get much less than that under federal sentencing guidelines.

Her ex-stockbroker, Peter Bacanovic, 41, was convicted of conspiracy, perjury, making a false statement and obstruction of justice, but was acquitted of making a false document.

Stewart grimaced upon hearing the verdict, and her eyes widened.



"I am obviously distressed by the jury's verdict but I continue to take comfort in knowing that I have done nothing wrong," Stewart said in a statement on her Web site. "I will appeal the verdict and continue to fight to clear my name. I believe in the fairness of the judicial system and remain confident that I will ultimately prevail."

The jury of eight women and four men reached the verdicts on the third day of deliberations in the case.

Trading in her company, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, was halted after the verdict. Earlier the stock shot up on word of a verdict.

The charges centered on why Stewart dumped about $228,000 worth of ImClone Systems stock on Dec. 27, 2001, just a day before it was announced that the Food and Drug Administration had rejected ImClone's application for approval of a cancer drug. The announcement sent ImClone's stock plummeting.

Stewart and Bacanovic claimed they had a standing agreement to sell when the price fell below $60. But the government contended that was a phony cover story and that Stewart sold because she was tipped by her broker that ImClone CEO Sam Waksal was frantically trying to dump his own holdings.



Waksal later admitted selling his stock based on advance word of the FDA decision. He is serving seven years in prison for insider trading.

Stewart, who averted more than $51,000 in losses by selling when she did, was not charged with insider trading; instead, she and her broker were accused of lying about the transaction and altering records to support the alleged cover story.

The government now may press to have her removed from the board of her company. She stepped down as chief executive after being indicted last summer but remains as chief creative officer.

The verdict jeopardizes the media empire that Stewart carefully built over the years in becoming the nation's premier homemaker - an image she put forth by way of magazines, TV programs and everything from cookie cutters and garlic presses to bedsheets and pillows. Martketing experts have said that the company is so closely tied to her name and face that the effect could be devastating.

Stewart was easily the most recognizable face in the government crackdown on corporate crime that began with the collapse of Enron in 2001. Stewart's supporters claim she was being targeted because of her celebrity status.


The government's star witness was Douglas Faneuil, a former Merrill Lynch & Co. (MTDB) assistant who said he passed the tip about Waksal to Stewart on orders from his boss, Bacanovic. Faneuil said that when he told Bacanovic about a flurry of selling by the Waksal family that morning, Bacanovic blurted: "Oh my God, get Martha on the phone."

He also said Bacanovic pressured him to lie about the transaction.

Prosecutors further contended Bacanovic doctored a worksheet of Stewart's portfolio after the fact by making the notation "(at)60" next to her ImClone stock. A forensics expert with the Secret Service testified that the mark was made in a different ink.

In addition, Stewart's personal assistant testified Stewart altered a computer log of a Dec. 27, 2001, message from Bacanovic, then immediately told her to restore the log to its original wording.

Also, a longtime Stewart friend, Mariana Pasternak, testified Stewart confided that she had known the Waksals were selling. Pasternak said Stewart added: "Isn't it nice to have brokers who tell you those things?"



But Pasternak admitted on cross-examination that the remark may have been something she herself thought, not something Stewart said.

In closing arguments, prosecutor Michael Schachter said the story about the arrangement to sell ImClone at $60 was "phony,""silly" and "simply an after-the-fact cover story." He said Stewart and her broker "left behind a trail of evidence exposing the truth about Martha Stewart's sale and exposing the lies they would tell."

For its part, the defense tried to discredit Faneuil as an admitted drug user and a liar. When the scandal broke, he initially backed up his boss, but later pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor, saying he had received an extra week of vacation and a free airline ticket for keeping his mouth shut.

Stewart did not testify, and her lawyers called only one witness during a defense that lasted less than an hour.

In closing arguments, defense attorney Robert Morvillo said that the conspiracy as outlined by the government was too sloppy to be true. He urged the jury to let Stewart get back to "improving the quality of life for all of us."

"If you do that," he said, echoing Stewart's slogan, "it's a good thing."

Stewart could have faced even more prison time, but the judge threw out the most serious charge - a securities fraud count that alleged she deceived investors in her own company when she publicly declared her innocence in the scandal. The judge had referred to the charge as "novel."

At times, the trial seemed more fodder for gossip columns than the financial pages. Stewart's arrival each day was chronicled by a barrage of photographers and camera crews, with the tabloids taking careful note of her expensive handbags and stylish heels. Celebrities Rosie O'Donnell, Bill Cosby and Brian Dennehy all showed up in court in support of Stewart.

Stewart had a reputation before the trial as a ruthless businesswoman, and in court she was portrayed as rude, insulting, demanding and cheap. According to testimony, she once threatened to take her business elsewhere because she did not like her brokerage's telephone hold music.

BigBadBrian
03-05-2004, 05:29 PM
Please close. Already a thread on this in Non-DLR.

FORD
03-05-2004, 05:50 PM
Nah, I'm leaving it open. Because this IS a very political topic.....

Who's the bigger criminal - Martha Stewart or Ken Lay? Why, out of all the corporate criminals who have done far worse, is she the only one convicted?

Could it be that the Billionaire power structure (BCE and their friends) fear a woman getting as rich and powerful as Martha did?

Think I'm bullshitting? Don't forget they tried to take Oprah down too? And there's no disputing it was Texans behind that one. Of course, she was even more of a threat, being a black woman.

Until I see Ken Lay dragged off to Leavenworth in an orange jumpsuit, nobody will convince me otherwise. But I'd love to hear some alternative theories.....

(For the record I've never been able to stomach more than 5 minutes of either Oprah's or Martha's TV shows, but that's beside the point)

knuckleboner
03-05-2004, 06:11 PM
FORD, from what i've read, the government's still building its case against lay.

the difference is, it's really difficult to get personal, criminal convictions for acts of corporate fraud. however, i'm guessing they will at some point.

martha stewart was accused of violating laws as an individual. for her obstruction of justice and trading on insider information.

the oprah case was different, in that it was a civil lawsuit, involving no government action, that was appropriately thrown out of court.

FORD
03-05-2004, 06:19 PM
I'm not saying Martha was innocent. I 'm just saying if she were a male Republican BCE contributor, the whole thing probably would have been swept under some very expensive carpet.

John Ashcroft
03-05-2004, 08:04 PM
Bullshit. The press was all over Martha before she blamed the whole thing on... You guessed it... A Republican conspiracy to defame her. Then, and only then did the talking liberal heads in the press realize they made a mistake by going after one of their own.

Oh, and Ken Lay spent many more visits to the White House under the Clinton administration than the Bush one.

Va Beach VH Fan
03-05-2004, 08:12 PM
Not to defend 'ol Martha, because she did break the law, plain and simple...

But the fact of the matter is that this horseshit occurs hundreds, if not thousands of times a day, and she was just incredibly unlucky to get caught doing it...

Dr. Love
03-05-2004, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Oh, and Ken Lay spent many more visits to the White House under the Clinton administration than the Bush one.


Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Trying to support one position by pointing out the faults in another is an illogical but often-used liberal tactic. Thanks for pointing that out once again, Sesh. :cool:

Seshmeister
03-05-2004, 10:11 PM
Was it not because they needed a big name prosecuted after all the shit that's been going down in corporate America?

The thing that strikes me about this is that $50k is an irrelevant amount of money to her, but then the rich tend to be greedy. That's how they get rich in the first place.

Cheers!

:gulp:

BigBadBrian
03-06-2004, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by Dr. Love
“ Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Oh, and Ken Lay spent many more visits to the White House under the Clinton administration than the Bush one. ”



“ Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Trying to support one position by pointing out the faults in another is an illogical but often-used liberal tactic. Thanks for pointing that out once again, Sesh. ”




Nice try doc, but this is the same case and same situation, not a different one like I was pointing out to our resident Scotsman. JA was merely pointing out that Democratic hands are dirty in the ENRON case as well as the "BCE."

BigBadBrian
03-06-2004, 07:50 AM
Originally posted by Seshmeister
Was it not because they needed a big name prosecuted after all the shit that's been going down in corporate America?

The thing that strikes me about this is that $50k is an irrelevant amount of money to her, but then the rich tend to be greedy. That's how they get rich in the first place.

Cheers!

:gulp:

"The point is, ladies and gentleman, is that greed -- for lack of a better word -- is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms -- greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge -- has marked the upward surge of mankind. And Greed -- you mark my words -- will not only save Teldar Paper but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA."

- Gordon Gecko (Michael Douglas), WALLSTREET

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/images/michaeldouglasgreed.jpg

Dr. Love
03-06-2004, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Nice try doc, but this is the same case and same situation, not a different one like I was pointing out to our resident Scotsman. JA was merely pointing out that Democratic hands are dirty in the ENRON case as well as the "BCE."

I see no difference.

Doesn't matter, though. It's not like it doesn't happen quite often anyway.

John Ashcroft
03-06-2004, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by FORD
Who's the bigger criminal - Martha Stewart or Ken Lay? Why, out of all the corporate criminals who have done far worse, is she the only one convicted?

Until I see Ken Lay dragged off to Leavenworth in an orange jumpsuit, nobody will convince me otherwise. But I'd love to hear some alternative theories.....


Add to that this:


Originally posted by FORD
I'm not saying Martha was innocent. I 'm just saying if she were a male Republican BCE contributor, the whole thing probably would have been swept under some very expensive carpet.

Indicating that no Democrat would ever engage in corruption. So's I's says:


Originally posted by the one and only John Ashcroft

Oh, and Ken Lay spent many more visits to the White House under the Clinton administration than the Bush one.

I know you Texans do everything a little slower down there (that include's thinking), but I don't mind helping you along from time to time Doc. ;)