Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [bafuture] Judge drops Martha Stewart fraud charge

Expand Messages
  • Kevin Keck
    The reason no jury would convict is the evidence is all either circumstantial or based on one, self-incriminated witness, and it s clear the SEC went on a
    Message 1 of 5 , Feb 27, 2004
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      The reason no jury would convict is the evidence is
      all either circumstantial or based on one,
      self-incriminated witness, and it's clear the SEC went
      on a witch-hunt.

      Besides all of which, she's still facing up to 20
      years in prison for the remaining four charges, and an
      obscene amount of financial damage was done to her and
      her company long before the government actually filed
      charges, nevermind the trial.

      Meanwhile, the SEC *still* hasn't filed charges
      against any of Waksal's relatives besides his father
      Jack, or anyone else who was tipped, and Waksal has
      thus far only gotten a slap on the wrist:

      http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2003-30.htm

      Why is everyone so content to let the SEC selectively
      prosecute (or persecute) one super-celebrity
      scapegoat, with great fanfare, why letting so many
      clearly guilty parties go unpunished? The SEC is
      supposed to be keeping public companies and their
      officers and investors honest, not staging
      high-profile trials as cover for the much more
      pervasive criminality going repeatedly unprosecuted!


      Summary of others not charged (from
      http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1568/5_35/108197406/print.jhtml):

      "Stewart was not the only investor connected to Waksal
      who joined the selling mob that day. She just received
      the most scrutiny. There was Martha's friend, Mariana
      Pasternak, who was on vacation with her when all this
      happened and whose ex-husband coincidentally sold more
      than 10,000 shares of ImClone that day. He wasn't
      charged with insider trading. Then there were the two
      unnamed friends of Waksal described by The New York
      Times: One sold $600,000 of ImClone stock on December
      27, while another sold ImClone stock worth $30 million
      on December 27 and 28. Phone records show the sales
      took place "almost immediately" after contact between
      Waksal and the sellers. The government has refused to
      identify these anonymous investors and so far has
      declined to indict or sue them for insider trading.

      "Finally, there were Waksal's daughter, Aliza Waksal,
      a 29-year-old actress, and his octogenarian father,
      Jack Waksal. On December 27, Sam Waksal telephoned
      Aliza at the ski resort where she was vacationing and
      told her to sell all her ImClone shares (40,000 for
      $2.5 million). Before government investigators
      questioned Aliza, Waksal told her to conceal their
      conversations, using the cover story that she needed
      the proceeds to buy an apartment (which she didn't do
      until seven months later, spending $1.4 million to buy
      it from her daddy's development company). After
      talking to his son, Jack Waksal sold more than 136,000
      shares on December 27 and 28 for more than $8 million.
      Jack Waksal also lied to the government, denying that
      he spoke to Sam Waksal prior to selling his ImClone
      stock. This was before prosecutors produced phone
      records showing that calls between them all had taken
      place before the trades were made. Neither Aliza
      Waksal nor her grandfather has been indicted or sued
      for insider trading or lying to the government."



      --- bigwhiskey@... wrote:
      >
      >
      > *Please note, the sender's email address has not
      > been verified.
      >
      >
      >
      > Hah!!
      >
      > Remember the New Years predictions I made?????
      >
      > I told ya the devious deva was gonna get off!!
      >
      > The judge admitted she lied but no jury would
      > convict.
      >
      > How'd I know...
      > talk to any brain-dead law student in the local
      > area.
      > Then look at how any law gets written up
      > especially regarding finance.
      >
      > Again, I ask: is Economics is all ideas, backed by
      > law without any Real technology...is there a limit
      > to what you can get away with in a pseudoscience of
      > Finance?
      >
      > joschka fischer
      >
      > Loopholes, loopholes, loopholes
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ********************
      >
      > If you are having trouble with any of the links in
      > this message, or if the URL's are not appearing as
      > links, please follow the instructions at the bottom
      > of this email.
      >
      > Title: Judge drops Martha Stewart fraud charge
      >
      >
      > Copy and paste the following into your Web browser
      > to access the sent link:
      >
      http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&etMailToID=1116585260&pt=Y
      >
      >
      > Copy and paste the following into your Web browser
      > to SAVE THIS link:
      >
      http://www.savethis.clickability.com/st/saveThisPopupApp?clickMap=saveFromET&partnerID=1757&etMailToID=1116585260&pt=Y
      >
      >
      > Copy and paste the following into your Web browser
      > to forward this link:
      >
      http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=forward&etMailToID=1116585260&partnerID=1757&pt=Y
      >
      >
      >
      > ********************
      >
      >
      > Email pages from any Web site you visit - add the
      > EMAIL THIS button to your browser, copy and paste
      > the following into your Web browser:
      >
      http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=browserButtons&pt=Y"
      >
      >
      > *********************
      >
      >
      >
      > Instructions:
      > -----------------------------------------
      > If your e-mail program doesn't recognize Web
      > addresses:
      > 1. With your mouse, highlight the Web Address above.
      > Be sure to highlight the entire Web address, even if
      > it spans more than one line in your email.
      > 2. Select Copy from the Edit menu at the top of your
      > screen.
      > 3. Launch your Web browser.
      > 4. Paste the address into your Web browser by
      > selecting Paste from the Edit menu.
      > 5. Click Go or press Enter or Return on your
      > keyboard.
      >
      > ********************
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been
      > removed]
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      > bafuture-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      >
    • SHARON BARRINGTON
      Kevin I agree with you 100% on this one. Why is she the only one they are going after? As to your question - why is everyone letting this happen? There have
      Message 2 of 5 , Feb 28, 2004
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Kevin

        I agree with you 100% on this one. Why is she the only one they
        are going after?

        As to your question - why is everyone letting this happen? There
        have been tons of articles/radio&TV conversations on this issue and how its
        not fair to go after
        Martha Stewart and not all the others.

        Maybe Martha is not as well connected as the others and had no one to
        cover her back when the law came knocking........

        I also think we the people are so overwhelmed with issues, news of the day
        and week, nothing gets resolved. I am learning for myself that I have
        to pick just one issue and focus on it to feel like I am getting anything
        done.


        Sharon
      • Joschka Fisher
        Greetings from joschka fischer... Ak ya!! but READ THIS INDICTMENT!!! http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/mstewart/usmspb10504sind.html She isn t the ONLY one
        Message 3 of 5 , Mar 1, 2004
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Greetings from joschka fischer...

          Ak ya!! but READ THIS INDICTMENT!!!
          http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/mstewart/usmspb10504sind.html

          She isn't the ONLY one and she IS at the CENTER point
          of the 'piggybacking' et al.


          Innocent my foot! Look at how much she controls and
          is in the know! Bocanovic and her go back quite a
          ways and knew what could and couldn't be done.

          The information is illegally disclosed about the
          sale...the "trail" is the problem. Need I remind you
          wall street just lost to a record settlement despite
          the fact they 'ACCIDENTALLY DELETED ALL THE EMAILS'
          <GIGGLE> UHHYUH!

          Either way the most serious charge is dropped and
          would have cost her 10 years. Let's see how she
          manages on the others..or better yet how the
          prosecution manages.

          joschka fischer
          ===========



          --- SHARON BARRINGTON <sharon.barrington@...>
          a écrit : > Kevin
          >
          > I agree with you 100% on this one. Why is she the
          > only one they
          > are going after?
          >
          > As to your question - why is everyone letting this
          > happen? There
          > have been tons of articles/radio&TV conversations on
          > this issue and how its
          > not fair to go after
          > Martha Stewart and not all the others.
          >
          > Maybe Martha is not as well connected as the others
          > and had no one to
          > cover her back when the law came knocking........
          >
          > I also think we the people are so overwhelmed with
          > issues, news of the day
          > and week, nothing gets resolved. I am learning for
          > myself that I have
          > to pick just one issue and focus on it to feel like
          > I am getting anything
          > done.
          >
          >
          > Sharon
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          > bafuture-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          >
          >






          Yahoo! Mail : votre e-mail personnel et gratuit qui vous suit partout !
          Créez votre Yahoo! Mail sur http://fr.benefits.yahoo.com/

          Dialoguez en direct avec vos amis grâce à Yahoo! Messenger !Téléchargez Yahoo! Messenger sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com
        • Joschka Fisher
          Joschka Fischer respondes: ( Original paragraph by Mr. Kleck below! ) No! The reason no jury would convict is if you make a public statement of innocence and
          Message 4 of 5 , Mar 5, 2004
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Joschka Fischer respondes: ( Original paragraph by Mr.
            Kleck below! )

            No!

            The reason no jury would convict is if you make a
            public statement of innocence and it proves
            otherwise...can I separately indeit on grounds you
            were making false statements to improve your company's
            stock which you are the CEO and Board Chairman?

            It put's a hell of a dent on freedom of speech,
            miranda etc. yet gives the Devious Deva or anyone else
            the right to make statements, in public that are
            duplicitous yet when questioned on whether one was
            making those statements as "chairman" or as "Martha
            Stewart"....well...

            All Wall Street and businesses everywhere were
            watching that one!!

            Circumstantial indicates indirect evidence from
            cirumstances... This is a direct evidence of a public
            statement...the question is of in which capacity?

            Should the indictment have said "M. Stewart" in
            capacity of...,

            Still ..there is the ambiguity.

            Note NYTimes indicates the jury is asking big
            questions about the charge thrown out now in relation
            to the current charges.

            Below is the original paragraph I'm responding to.




            --- Kevin Keck <keck@...> a écrit : > The
            reason no jury would convict is the evidence is
            > all either circumstantial or based on one,
            > self-incriminated witness, and it's clear the SEC
            > went
            > on a witch-hunt.
            >
            > Besides all of which, she's still facing up to 20
            > years in prison for the remaining four charges, and
            > an
            > obscene amount of financial damage was done to her
            > and
            > her company long before the government actually
            > filed
            > charges, nevermind the trial.
            >
            > Meanwhile, the SEC *still* hasn't filed charges
            > against any of Waksal's relatives besides his father
            > Jack, or anyone else who was tipped, and Waksal has
            > thus far only gotten a slap on the wrist:
            >
            > http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2003-30.htm
            >
            > Why is everyone so content to let the SEC
            > selectively
            > prosecute (or persecute) one super-celebrity
            > scapegoat, with great fanfare, why letting so many
            > clearly guilty parties go unpunished? The SEC is
            > supposed to be keeping public companies and their
            > officers and investors honest, not staging
            > high-profile trials as cover for the much more
            > pervasive criminality going repeatedly unprosecuted!
            >
            >
            > Summary of others not charged (from
            >
            http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1568/5_35/108197406/print.jhtml):
            >
            > "Stewart was not the only investor connected to
            > Waksal
            > who joined the selling mob that day. She just
            > received
            > the most scrutiny. There was Martha's friend,
            > Mariana
            > Pasternak, who was on vacation with her when all
            > this
            > happened and whose ex-husband coincidentally sold
            > more
            > than 10,000 shares of ImClone that day. He wasn't
            > charged with insider trading. Then there were the
            > two
            > unnamed friends of Waksal described by The New York
            > Times: One sold $600,000 of ImClone stock on
            > December
            > 27, while another sold ImClone stock worth $30
            > million
            > on December 27 and 28. Phone records show the sales
            > took place "almost immediately" after contact
            > between
            > Waksal and the sellers. The government has refused
            > to
            > identify these anonymous investors and so far has
            > declined to indict or sue them for insider trading.
            >
            > "Finally, there were Waksal's daughter, Aliza
            > Waksal,
            > a 29-year-old actress, and his octogenarian father,
            > Jack Waksal. On December 27, Sam Waksal telephoned
            > Aliza at the ski resort where she was vacationing
            > and
            > told her to sell all her ImClone shares (40,000 for
            > $2.5 million). Before government investigators
            > questioned Aliza, Waksal told her to conceal their
            > conversations, using the cover story that she needed
            > the proceeds to buy an apartment (which she didn't
            > do
            > until seven months later, spending $1.4 million to
            > buy
            > it from her daddy's development company). After
            > talking to his son, Jack Waksal sold more than
            > 136,000
            > shares on December 27 and 28 for more than $8
            > million.
            > Jack Waksal also lied to the government, denying
            > that
            > he spoke to Sam Waksal prior to selling his ImClone
            > stock. This was before prosecutors produced phone
            > records showing that calls between them all had
            > taken
            > place before the trades were made. Neither Aliza
            > Waksal nor her grandfather has been indicted or sued
            > for insider trading or lying to the government."
            >
            >
            >
            > --- bigwhiskey@... wrote:
            > >
            > >
            > > *Please note, the sender's email address has not
            > > been verified.
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > Hah!!
            > >
            > > Remember the New Years predictions I made?????
            > >
            > > I told ya the devious deva was gonna get off!!
            > >
            > > The judge admitted she lied but no jury would
            > > convict.
            > >
            > > How'd I know...
            > > talk to any brain-dead law student in the local
            > > area.
            > > Then look at how any law gets written up
            > > especially regarding finance.
            > >
            > > Again, I ask: is Economics is all ideas, backed by
            > > law without any Real technology...is there a limit
            > > to what you can get away with in a pseudoscience
            > of
            > > Finance?
            > >
            > > joschka fischer
            > >
            > > Loopholes, loopholes, loopholes
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > ********************
            > >
            > > If you are having trouble with any of the links in
            > > this message, or if the URL's are not appearing as
            > > links, please follow the instructions at the
            > bottom
            > > of this email.
            > >
            > > Title: Judge drops Martha Stewart fraud charge
            > >
            > >
            > > Copy and paste the following into your Web browser
            > > to access the sent link:
            > >
            >
            http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&etMailToID=1116585260&pt=Y
            > >
            > >
            > > Copy and paste the following into your Web browser
            > > to SAVE THIS link:
            > >
            >
            http://www.savethis.clickability.com/st/saveThisPopupApp?clickMap=saveFromET&partnerID=1757&etMailToID=1116585260&pt=Y
            > >
            > >
            > > Copy and paste the following into your Web browser
            > > to forward this link:
            > >
            >
            http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=forward&etMailToID=1116585260&partnerID=1757&pt=Y
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > ********************
            > >
            > >
            > > Email pages from any Web site you visit - add the
            > > EMAIL THIS button to your browser, copy and paste
            > > the following into your Web browser:
            > >
            >
            http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=browserButtons&pt=Y"
            > >
            > >
            > > *********************
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > Instructions:
            > > -----------------------------------------
            > > If your e-mail program doesn't recognize Web
            > > addresses:
            > > 1. With your mouse, highlight the Web Address
            > above.
            > > Be sure to highlight the entire Web address, even
            > if
            > > it spans more than one line in your email.
            > > 2. Select Copy from the Edit menu at the top of
            > your
            > > screen.
            > > 3. Launch your Web browser.
            > > 4. Paste the address into your Web browser by
            > > selecting Paste from the Edit menu.
            > > 5. Click Go or press Enter or Return on your
            > > keyboard.
            > >
            > > ********************
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
            > > removed]
            > >
            >
            === message truncated ===






            Yahoo! Mail : votre e-mail personnel et gratuit qui vous suit partout !
            Créez votre Yahoo! Mail sur http://fr.benefits.yahoo.com/

            Dialoguez en direct avec vos amis grâce à Yahoo! Messenger !Téléchargez Yahoo! Messenger sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.