Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: gofaster on March 04, 2005, 03:15:33 PM
-
About Martha Stewart's home confinement:
For the next five months, Stewart must wear an electronic anklet so authorities can track her every move. But she is allowed to receive her $900,000 salary again and can leave home for up to 48 hours a week to work, shop or run other approved errands.
I could really run up a big score flying Aces High all day, 7 days a week, for 5 months.
-
The whole thing was a farce. Martha should not have been jailed. I cannot believe the SEC persued this case, I cannot believe a federal agent purgered himself as an "expert" witness. I cannot believe that Martha was then sentanced to 5 months for purgery herself and the rest of the case was dropped. Hundreds of thousands of dollars in court and government fees over a $30,000 stock sale. All because it the government and the people love a witch hunt... and Martha made an ideal witch. There hasn't been this much uproar since that evil leona helmsly got locked up.
-
Mini D, if you tried the stuff she did, they would throw your butt in jail for 10 years.
-
I'm going to type this very slowly and carefully as to not cause myself any injury or pain...
I agree with Mini D.
-
i do hate it when they spend more money punishing the criminal than the criminal stole in the first place...
more evidence for the cat o' nine solution ive been pushing...do it in a stock market in stewarts case, and stop people from even thinking of it...
-
with that thinking 99% of shop lifting cases should be blown off.
-
Originally posted by vorticon
more evidence for the cat o' nine solution ive been pushing...do it in a stock market in stewarts case, and stop people from even thinking of it...
With or without partial nudity? Because, you know, precedent would be set and I can think of some ladies who have been very, very naughty and need to be punished. Oh yes, they've been very bad little girls.... very bad... yes, that's it... yes... you dirty girls you...
-
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Shares of Martha Stewart's company declined on Friday afternoon, reversing course after a more than 9 percent increase in early trade following the lifestyle trendsetter's release from prison.
Martha Stewart is no longer chief executive of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. (MSO.N: Quote, Profile, Research) , a company whose fortunes have been closely linked to its founder, but she remains one of the most famous businesswomen in the United States.
Shares in the company doubled in the five months that she was behind bars, in part on investor optimism that business would improve after Stewart's legal woes were resolved.
The stock, which has been extremely volatile over the past year, was down 92 cents, or 2.7 percent, to $33.03 on the New York Stock Exchange, after touching as high as $37 earlier in the day. Shares climbed to a more than five-year high of $37.45 in February.
My shares were doing fine 'till she got out. Send her back to prison.
-
Originally posted by vorticon
i do hate it when they spend more money punishing the criminal that the criminal stole in the first place...
Except in this case, she wasn't punished for committing the crime. She was punished for trying to conceal the fact that she committed a crime. The actual crime itself was dismissed.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I agree with Mini D.
Ditto.
-
Is her daughter still single? I need a sugar-momma to finance my various hobbies. :D
-
sandman is right.
isn't that what daddy says to his son? "i'm not punishing you for breaking the window , i'm punishing you for lying about breaking it".
she saved more than 30k, it was over 100K she saved by selling before the stock dropped.
-
Agree with MiniD too.
I never understood how they could charge her with lying about a crime, when they couldn't prove that a crime had even taken place. Doesn't make much sense to me.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Agree with MiniD too.
I never understood how they could charge her with lying about a crime, when they couldn't prove that a crime had even taken place. Doesn't make much sense to me.
plea bargain
-
Originally posted by john9001
she saved more than 30k, it was over 100K she saved by selling before the stock dropped.
The actual number was $51,000.
And she was convicted... there wasn't a plea bargin. She's still apealing the verdict (something you can't do if you cop a plea).
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Except in this case, she wasn't punished for committing the crime. She was punished for trying to conceal the fact that she committed a crime. The actual crime itself was dismissed.
Thats just a bunch of paperwork lol
-
I really dont care about her but I found this interesting...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050307/480/nyma10203071958
She wasnt wearing her electronic ankle braclet at the meeting she went to today. I know they said they turn it off when she is allowed to leave her house but I didnt think she could remove it without setting it off.
-
Mini Johnson is right.
-
I dont think she shoulda been jailed either.
She shoulda been executed.
Naaa She shoulda been sentanced to eating all her meals at white castle for a year.
But least shes back in the kitchen where she belongs.
though she should be there without the TV show and for free
Some tough punishment though eh?
900K for sitting around the house for all but 48 hours per week.
-
I agree with Sandman...
I can't control who he agrees with.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Naaa She shoulda been sentanced to eating all her meals at white castle for a year.
Heh, I saw her on Conan O'Brien once, when he presented her with a microwave burrito and a 40 of malt liquor. She was a sport, and had a bite and a drink! :D