Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Martha Stewart -- Scourge or Scapegoat -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: yard_man who wrote (129)	3/9/2004 12:07:17 PM
From: EL KABONG!!!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 165

Hello tippet, I couldn't disagree more ... if she is a crook for that -- then so are folks who noticed way above average volume in the stock and sold, guessing that Erbitux had been denied. Third parties, who may have perceived something amiss in the Imclone stock market that day committed no crime whatsoever. It is not criminal to make an educated guess one way or the other based on stock price and volume moves. In fact, it happens every day, albeit on a much smaller scale. It's called trading. You have a common misunderstanding regarding the definition of "insider trading". The specific law does not require a "smoking gun" type of evidence. The law deals with the state of mind and the intentions of the accused seller. Proving "state of mind" and "intentions" beyond a reasonable doubt to 12 jurors (and alternates) is a risky and dangerous ploy for the prosecutors, and that is why they ultimately decided not to press their luck and file insider trading charges as a criminal case. The government can (and may) decide to file civil charges of insider trading through the SEC at a later date. Given their success in the criminal trial, I would imagine that even as we exchange posts on the topic, somewhere in the federal government, some important lawyerly type is now making that decision. But where are the other folks who received a tip that day -- do you really believe, if she recieved the tip -- no one else was called. She's a notch on someone's gun ...no one above the law?? spare me. Undoubtedly, there were likely others who received the "tip". But those folks apparently didn't lie to the investigators. For one, I remember an early news article that alleged the ex-husband of one of Martha's friends or acquaintances passed the tip on to him (a dentist if I recall correctly) and he may or may not have sold on the tip. (I think the newspaper article alleged that he did sell. The tip was that the Waksals were selling their shares, not that Erbatux did not receive approval.) Given that publicly there have been no announcements regarding that gentleman (at least that I know of), one can only presume that he cooperated with the authorities, and he may or may not have had to make restitution. Perhaps his case is still pending. Or it's even possible that he committed no crime at all, following your definition of what constitutes insider trading in the Martha Stewart case. If you have not lied in your adult life -- you are a RARE individual, Kerry. I don't think so. Among my close friends, I can't think of anyone that may be prone to lying. And I'm not talking about any little "white lies", such as passively agreeing with someone to avoid a confrontation, or not commenting negatively on another persons not-so-natty attire when asked for a compliment on same. KJC