Re: Re: Author frustration.

From: Jim Strain ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 01/16/05-07:46:31 AM Z
Message-id: <010901c4fbd2$014d8ce0$0200a8c0@your939tqgi62r>

George: Without attempting to get into a big debate, what was odd about
Martha's conviction is that it was ***NOT*** for insider trading, e.g.,
using Sam's tip and profiting (or not losing). She was not convicted of
tippee liability. Instead she was convicted of perjury because she lied
about what turned out not to be tippee liability. I still do not believe
that, but for her celebrity, she would have done time. No denying she
committed perjury. Jim

----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Author frustration.

> Before this gets our of hand lets be real clear about what actually
> happened. Martha Stewart was a licensed stock broker who, for years, made
> a substantial living selling stock. Sam Waxel (sp?) owned a drug company
> and Stewart owned stock in that company. When Sam received information
> from the FDA that a drug was not approved he knew his stock would tank and
> he had his broker sell his daughters stock, and his as well, the day
> before the news became public. His broker told Stewart and she sold her
> stock as well. Both knew that the buyers of their sold stock would lose a
> substantial amount of money the next day. Stewart then lied to
> investigators about the transaction. She got 15 months and Sam got a
> number of years in prison. He got the big sentence and she got the small
> sentence. So much for Mark v's Martha.
> George
>> From: Jim Strain <>
>> Date: 2005/01/15 Sat PM 03:01:55 GMT
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: Author frustration.
>> Judy: I was on the list in the early days and do remember. With any
>> luck,
>> we're getting better. On your other point, Matt or Martha, but for her
>> fame, I do not believe she would be in jail. Too bad when her "crime" is
>> lying about something that turned out not to be criminal. Jim
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Judy Seigel" <>
>> To: <>
>> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 4:23 PM
>> Subject: Re: Author frustration.
>> >
>> > On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Jim Strain wrote:
>> >
>> >> Odd. I had pretty good experiences with Mike. Quick responses and
>> >> pretty quick publication no my two articles. Jim
>> >
>> > I had a quick response too -- a savage attack for my daring to suggest
>> > in
>> > a most adorable (and in fact complimentary) letter to the editor that
>> > there were errors in Phil Davis's article(s) on gum printing. Tho in
>> > the
>> > next breath he invited me to write an article on the topic myself.
>> > However, this, too was laced with insults, while calling *me*
>> > "reflexively
>> > nasty." I couldn't help observing that so far as I knew, up to that
>> > moment, I'd never seen an article by a woman in the publication, except
>> > maybe one on retouching. And so it went -- too bad he's not famouser: I
>> > could publish the file & make some ripples, if not dough. But that may
>> > be
>> > one reason he's not famouser-- too often shot himself in the foot.
>> >
>> > What's not as clear to a lot of folks as it might be is that in many
>> > (if
>> > not most) respects, men & women live in two different worlds. You
>> > might
>> > not even believe that this very list, in the early days, was much the
>> > same.
>> >
>> > How many people think Martha Stewart would have gone to jail if she
>> > were
>> > Matt Stewart?
>> >
>> > Judy
>> >
Received on Sun Jan 16 07:48:26 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 02/01/05-09:28:08 AM Z CST