Groovepusher Sly Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 How many years should she get? Her stock down to $10.00. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia shares plunged $3.17 or 22.59% to finish at $10.86 on Friday. Read more. Sly Whasineva ehaiz, ehissgot ta be Funky! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fantasticsound Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 I'm wondering if federal sentencing guidelines give them the option to suspend her sentence. If so, I wouldn't be surprised if she ends up paying a huge fine and gets sentenced to, say, a 5 year suspended sentence. (Which really means she gets off with an expensive slap on the wrist.) Otherwise.... that Martha Stewart - Living (In Prison) photoshop job might be more accurate than we thought. It's easiest to find me on Facebook. Neil Bergman Soundclick fntstcsnd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeebus Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 In the next special issue of Martha Stewart Living (Behind Bars): 1. Out Damn Spot, Out! How to remove blood stains. 2. How to accessorize orange jumpsuits. 3. How to decorate 4x6 rooms 4. How to cook for 300 of your closest friends 5. How to bake a cake with a concealed file. 6. and much, much more! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super 8 Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 Originally posted by Groovepusher Sly: Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia shares plunged $3.17 or 22.59% to finish at $10.86 on Friday. DAMMIT! I just bought $20,000 worth of her stock!!! What was I thinking!?!?!? Super 8 Hear my stuff here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djwayne Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 I hope that wasn't the $20,000 you were gonna send me !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Living' in the shadow, of someone else's dream.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Keelan Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 What am I missing? She was excused on the stock fraud charge but gets convicted for lying about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pseudonym Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 CNN is all over this, like stink on s**t. Looks like someone wants to use poor Martha, maybe the Passion "thing" is wearing-off, we need more people to crucify!!! She looked so delicious as a young turkey cooker and dinner table maker, they're really getting into this thing, poor, poor Martha. Can I marry you're "hot" daughter, the one that hates you? I'm pathetic too WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fantasticsound Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 They only dropped a charge of deceiving investors in her company by making statements that the ImClone sale was proper. The charges were dropped, not because she's innocent, only that they couldn't make the case. The gov't tried to say her lies constituted a fraud to prop up her own stock price. The judge was wary of saying that, even if she did lie, that it was to protect her stock price, so she (the judge) dropped that charge. The charges she was convicted of, Bob, have to do with her sale of ImClone and lying to FBI investigators about it. It's easiest to find me on Facebook. Neil Bergman Soundclick fntstcsnd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Winger Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 Originally posted by fantasticsound: I'm wondering if federal sentencing guidelines give them the option to suspend her sentence. If so, I wouldn't be surprised if she ends up paying a huge fine and gets sentenced to, say, a 5 year suspended sentence. (Which really means she gets off with an expensive slap on the wrist.) Otherwise.... that Martha Stewart - Living (In Prison) photoshop job might be more accurate than we thought. Max she can get is about 20 years I think, although that won't happen. I think the Judge has the option to reduce her sentence to about 12 months. It's possible that he could suspend all or, more likely, just part of it. If not, as you say, we'll all be hearing: "And now to the craft portion of my show. I want to show you how to make this wonderful Christmas ornament from just a few strips of cloth and a license plate." "I don't know anything about music. In my line, you don't have to." -Elvis Presley (1935-1977) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super 8 Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 Originally posted by djwayne: I hope that wasn't the $20,000 you were gonna send me !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Ummm....ahhhhh... You better sit down. Super 8 Hear my stuff here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dak Lander Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 A couple of things here. If the thing doesn't get overturned on appeal the judge has a set policy for determining the sentence. The parameters are such that the policy dictates 20 years and that means 16 years served. However, the judge may decide that all or part of the charges could be combined. If that's the case and it's determined that all charges, in effect were one actual violation the sentence could be as low as 16 months served. If that's the case it would be in a white collar type facility. No bars & etc. Basically a farm where there are dorms, no privacy, phones & etc. (3 or 4 calls a month). Basically sentence under 3 years will probably net that & not a jail cell. That being said, it's come out that one of the jurors made a statement to the press to the effect that they, the jurors, were upset and felt they weren't respected when Martha didn't take the stand in her own defense. That, from what I've heard, is an open door to winning an appeal so I wouldn't lock her up yet. Our Joint "When you come slam bang up against trouble, it never looks half as bad if you face up to it." The Duke... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nawledge Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 they need to get off marthas d_ck, how many other friends did this guy tell to dump the stock, how many politicians,,,, let me say it right now. LET MARTHA GO LET MARTHA GO LET MARTHA GO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerJay Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 I'm willing to bet that she won't see a day in jail. Between appeals and lax sentencing for white collar criminality, she'll just have a couple of years to get over her slapped wrist. I doubt that her golf game will suffer all that much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techristian Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 A few Martha Stewart Cartoons for YOU ALL ! Is this just a case of middle class people "Getting EVEN "??? I mean what did she do besides take the advise of her broker? Dan http://teachmedrums.com TEACHMEDRUMS.COM My Music Videos RED PILL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Johnny B Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 If they got Martha, it won't be long before Halibuton's Dick Cheny, Enron's Ken Lay and George Bush all follow suit...i.e GET CONVICTED! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fantasticsound Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 Originally posted by daklander: ...That being said, it's come out that one of the jurors made a statement to the press to the effect that they, the jurors, were upset and felt they weren't respected when Martha didn't take the stand in her own defense. That, from what I've heard, is an open door to winning an appeal so I wouldn't lock her up yet.I doubt that would be grounds for a retrial. A jury has every right to give weight to a defendant's refusal to take the stand. It's common knowledge that there are few reasons not to defend yourself on the record. One is if you come off as unbelievable, another is that your lawyer refused to put you on the stand because they know you'd have to lie (perjury) or incriminate yourself by answering truthfully, or simply look guilty because of ancillary actions that, while they only reveal your character or integrity, make it easier for people to believe you're guilty of the crime. So, in essence, Martha's lawyer kept her off the stand because A) She's guilty. B) She's done something else so wrong it could persuade a jury to believe not quite iron-clad evidence. Not good for Martha. It's easiest to find me on Facebook. Neil Bergman Soundclick fntstcsnd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigknuckles Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 It would seem to be blatant insider trading, yet that was not one of the charges? Come on. Part of the defense argument was: These people are so rich and successful that they are obviously too smart to make such stupid mistakes. That's one of the most arrogant things I've ever heard. The other bit about it only being a few thousand shares (worth a quarter mil) is also supremely arrogant. Maybe the judge will have a sense of humor and sentence her to personally clean all the NYSE restrooms for the next 20 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valkyrie Sound Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 Originally posted by fantasticsound: I doubt that would be grounds for a retrial. A jury has every right to give weight to a defendant's refusal to take the stand. .[/QB]Actually, legally... the jury MUST NOT consider the fact that the defendant did not take the stand. The burden of proof in any case is up to the other side. It's part of the "innocent until proven guilty" mandate. A defendant in any case is never required to "defend" themselves at all.... 100% of the burden of proof is on the other side. Valky Valkyrie Sound: http://www.vsoundinc.com Now at TSUTAYA USA: http://www.tsutayausa.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fantasticsound Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 Oops! My bad. Of some solace to a defendant who elects not to testify is a cautionary jury instruction given by the trial judge: "Every defendant has the absolute right not to testify. When you decide the case, you must not consider the fact that he did not testify. It must not affect your verdict in any way." (People v. Hampton, 394 Mich 437, 438 (1975). It's easiest to find me on Facebook. Neil Bergman Soundclick fntstcsnd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 Originally posted by pigknuckles: Maybe the judge will have a sense of humor and sentence her to personally clean all the NYSE restrooms for the next 20 years.Or better yet, clean all the NYC restrooms for the next 20 years! A bunch of loud, obnoxious music I USED to make with friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dak Lander Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Thanks fer having my back Valky. From what I've heard it's going to be a snap cinch to win the appeal because of that stupid juror's remarks. The boob should have kept his/her mouth shut until the appeal process was over. So much for wanting your 15 seconds of fame... Our Joint "When you come slam bang up against trouble, it never looks half as bad if you face up to it." The Duke... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.