Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Judge effectively blows out Martha Stewart stock fraud charge...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111328,00.html

Now, for anyone who wants to get hypertechnical, the Judge didn't actually throw out the charge, but this ruling effectively tells the prosecutor "Hey, drop this silly charge" and makes it nearly impossible for the prosecution to get a conviction on the charge.

Not to get hypertechnical, but what is the basis for the judge's ruling? According to the story you posted, "[t]he ruling blocks testimony on "whether a reasonable investor would have considered the statements important in making an investment decision," the judge said."

Why is the judge not allowing that testimony in? In hypertechnical legal terms not just because the judge doesn't want the case in his courtroom.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Yet another thing we have in common. (I build bridges here. Board civility is the watchword.)

3. But what is strange is married men on fashion board claim to have had sex with my mom.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Yet another thing we have in common. (I build bridges here. Board civility is the watchword.)

Who tells their parents when they sleep with married people? Especially when you are in your early 20's and the dude is in his 50's but looks older?

[Atticus Grinch]

Ten ways to rationalize the publication of infidelity rumors. {Slate}

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
3. But what is strange is married men on fashion board claim to have had sex with my mom.

It is not strange, but it is incredibly sexist and misogynistic. Supposedly, you as a man are degraded if your mother has sex. It is very islamic-like concept.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
Not to get hypertechnical, but what is the basis for the judge's ruling? According to the story you posted, "[t]he ruling blocks testimony on "whether a reasonable investor would have considered the statements important in making an investment decision," the judge said."

Why is the judge not allowing that testimony in? In hypertechnical legal terms not just because the judge doesn't want the case in his courtroom.

This is a very, very novel application of the securities laws. Essentially what the government is alleging is that Martha's statement in regards to her Imclone shares were misleading to the company of which she is an insider (i.e., a different company). The federal securities laws prohibit material mistatements or ommissions in connection with the sale of a security. A statement is material if a reasonable investor would have wanted to know the information in making an investment decisions. So if Martha had been an insider of Imclone, the charge may have been appropriate. But the government is trying to bootstrap her statements regarding Imclone to her role as an executive of MSI.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me

Why is the judge not allowing that testimony in? In hypertechnical legal terms not just because the judge doesn't want the case in his courtroom.

CNN reports that it was expert testimony that wasn't being let in. The experts were wall st. analysts, and they were to testify as to whether Stewart's denials caused them to change their ratings/valuations of her company.

So, I read that to mean the evidence was likely excluded on a two possible grounds.

1) Daubert
2) Relevance to teh charge
3) relevance to the specific fact sought to be proven

Clearly it's relevant,lso long as the charge stands. If the charge were that weak, the judge would have dismissed it. So, I see it that the judge dismissed these analysts' testimony on Daubert grounds, or on specific relevance: that they do not represent and cannot testify about the "reasonable" investor because they are analysts, not every-day investors.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
But the government is trying to bootstrap her statements regarding Imclone to her role as an executive of MSI.

I agree it's novel, but given how precipitously her company's stock declined after she was indicted (or when it was rumored she would be), her involvement (if any) in the matter was material to a lot of investors.

If Warren Buffet falsely denied an arrest that could send him to jail for years, I could see the materiality of that to investors in his company. Martha Stewart, while no Buffet, certainly is runs a company whose fortunes are closely associated with her image and work.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Ten ways to rationalize the publication of infidelity rumors. {Slate}

It is #8 for me:

8) It's a story about electability. Anything that's believed about Kerry, even if it's untrue, affects his electability. He is not a person. He is the public's perception of a person. A rumor is a component of that perception.

I won't vote for men who cheat on their wives and neither will quite a few other women.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Clearly it's relevant,lso long as the charge stands. If the charge were that weak, the judge would have dismissed it. So, I see it that the judge dismissed these analysts' testimony on Daubert grounds, or on specific relevance: that they do not represent and cannot testify about the "reasonable" investor because they are analysts, not every-day investors.

I think it was, this is the question the jury must decide themselves, and the expert testimony would not be helpful to that effort. Sort of like trying a defamation case, where the defendant called someone a thief, and getting experts to opine whether hearing one called a thief would affect your opinion of that person. It's something the jurors don't need "expert" help with.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
Who tells their parents when they sleep with married people? Especially when you are in your early 20's and the dude is in his 50's but looks older?

According to this:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/sneed...s-sneed13.html

The Kerry infidelity rumors were purvasive before the time period of this latest intern rumor and, in 2000, Gore didn't select him because of those rumors. Sounds like there will be legs to the story one way or another.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
If Warren Buffet falsely denied an arrest that could send him to jail for years, I could see the materiality of that to investors in his company. Martha Stewart, while no Buffet, certainly is runs a company whose fortunes are closely associated with her image and work.

I do find it . . . ironic? . . . that the government, so eager to protect MSL shareholders, knocked the price down by 40% by going after her.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me

I won't vote for men who cheat on their wives and neither will quite a few other women.

Well, you've lost on that issue. Twice. At least.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Sounds like there will be legs to the story one way or another.

Legs? Yawn.

Call me when there's breasts to this story.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So, I see it that the judge dismissed these analysts' testimony on Daubert grounds, or on specific relevance: that they do not represent and cannot testify about the "reasonable" investor because they are analysts, not every-day investors.

I agree that it is likely to have been Daubert since it is expert testimony here. However, how else does one get in evidence to show what a reasonable investor would think? Do you parade a bunch of reasonable investors into the courtroom and let them testify to what they thought?