Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
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.

Sure it was material, but the question is whether it is or should be actionable under 10b-5.

ETA:

I seems to me under the government's theory that nearly public statement made by an insider could give rise to liability, whether or not it is connected with the insider's company? And how does Reg FD play into this. Do you file an 8-K for every potentially material statement made by an insider outside his or her home/office?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Well, you've lost on that issue. Twice. At least.

At least is right. I would be willing to bet that the first Prez Bush had an indescretion or two at some point in his marriage.

Wasn't there a rumor during the Clinton Gennifer Flowers scandal that the elder Bush had a girlfriend named Jennifer? I remember that because one was Gennifer with a G and the other was Jennifer with a J.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Not Me
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.

Dissent. The "How are your wife and my kids?" version of this joke relates to a primal fear of illegitimacy --- that your scarce resources are being expended for the preservation of someone else's genetic line. The "Does your mom still suck dick?" version of this joke is quite different and doesn't have anything to do with sexism or misogyny; it relates to an ancient "It's possible I'm your dad" joke, combined with the "I can't say I fucked and dominated you, because that would mean I'm gay, so I'll say I did the next best thing" rationalization. In this instance, the woman's involvement in the joke is peripheral to the male-male conflict.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Sure it was material, but the question is whether it is or should be actionable under 10b-5.

I agree that it should not be actionable. However, if that is the case, they filed motions to dismiss on that charge and the judge let the charge stand. It seems to me that by blocking the expert testimony, it is just a backdoor way to dismiss the charge. If the judge thinks that the charge is not properly brought under the statute, he should have dismissed it when they filed their motion for dismissal.

But maybe Bilmore is right and the issue is that the jury should determine this and having expert testimony is unlikely to be helpful to the jury.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me
I would be willing to bet that the first Prez Bush had an indescretion or two at some point in his marriage.

Wasn't there a deal between Bush and Clinton before the general election not to raise each other's affairs?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub

I seems to me under the government's theory that nearly public statement made by an insider could give rise to liability, whether or not it is connected with the insider's company? And how does Reg FD play into this. Do you file an 8-K for every potentially material statement made by an insider outside his or her home/office?

On first question, why? It extends only so far as statements about yourself or your company that might materially affect the company's value. If an important person within a company makes a false statement that leads investors to believe that person will remain with the company, thereby providing value, the approach applies. Implicit in her "i'm innocent" statements was a statement that "martha stewart living is alive and well."

Can't she satisfy Reg. FD by ensuring broad dissemination? Just don't talk between 9:30 and 4.

As for presenting testimony on reasonable investors, i'm no securities lawyer. How is this usually done? If through experts, then I submit someone at the USA office screwed up bigtime.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Dissent. The "How are your wife and my kids?" version of this joke relates to a primal fear of illegitimacy --- that your scarce resources are being expended for the preservation of someone else's genetic line.

We weren't talking about fucking someone's wife. I know what that is about. We were talking about saying that you fucked his mother. That has nothing to do with him being illegitimate because he is already born when you fucked his mother unless you are way older than him and fucked his mother before he was born. Geeez.

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
The "Does your mom still suck dick?"
version of this joke is quite different and doesn't have anything to do with sexism or misogyny; it relates to an ancient "It's possible I'm your dad" joke, combined with the "I can't say I fucked and dominated you, because that would mean I'm gay, so I'll say I did the next best thing" rationalization. In this instance, the woman's involvement in the joke is peripheral to the male-male conflict.

I think the fact that you having sex with (oral or otherwise) his mother is way to engage in conflict and dominate another male is sexist and misogynist. As I said before, the reason that it is sexist and misogynistic is because the male you are in conflict with is supposedly somehow harmed or dominated by your act of sex with his mother. The idea that you dominate or harm another male by having sex with a female relative is sexist and misogynistic (and alive and well in the teachings of islam).

[bilmore]

Oh, it's getting more and more convoluted.

http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.j...usRenderType=6

(Sheep?)

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
As for presenting testimony on reasonable investors, i'm no securities lawyer. How is this usually done? If through experts, then I submit someone at the USA office screwed up bigtime.

That is what I am saying - how is this usually done? It would seem to me that there has to be some way to get evidence in to show what a reasonable investor would think of the statements that form the basis of the charge.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Not Me
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?

Fuck, I've created a monster. Ever been through an expert (Daubert in Fed terms) hearing? Like 99% of everything else in law, the judge can find precedent to support her in any decision. If she believed in the validity of the charge, the experts would get in.

From a "reading the judge" perspective, this indicates she isn't fond of the securitiies fraud charge. What basis she used to do what she did is for law schoolers to debate.

Now, some might say - as Bilmore did - the Govt didn't need the experts anyway. Maybe true, but because the prosecution offered the experts, the judge knew that barring them was a hand grenade in the Govt's case. Simply put, she's subtly damning the govt's case with a monkeywrech which will pass muster on appeal. Judges do it every day of the week.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Ever been through an expert (Daubert in Fed terms) hearing? Like 99% of everything else in law, the judge can find precedent to support her in any decision. If she believed in the validity of the charge, the experts would get in.

I understand Daubert, but what I don't understand is if the judge doesn't believe in the validity of the charge, why didn't the judge just dismiss the charge then when the defense filed motions to dismiss.

That makes no sense to me. Why rule that the charge could go forward if the judge doesn't believe in the validity of the charge?

I also would like to know how is it that the DOJ usually enters testimony on what a reasonable investor thinks? Do they parade a bunch of investors into the courtroom?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
Oh, it's getting more and more convoluted.

http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.j...usRenderType=6

(Sheep?)

Though prevalent in the wilds of MN, fluency in Swedish is less common on this board*. Translate, please.


* the link, at least what I've pulled up, appears to be a newstory written in Swedish or some language involving umlauts. Let's not do a Slave now, ok?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Simply put, she's subtly damning the govt's case with a monkeywrech which will pass muster on appeal.

Of course it will. Unless the government finds a way to appeal an acquital.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Though prevalent in the wilds of MN, fluency in Swedish is less common on this board*. Translate, please.


* the link, at least what I've pulled up, appears to be a newstory written in Swedish or some language involving umlauts. Let's not do a Slave now, ok?

Oh, shoot, sorry. Sometimes I let my smutskastning get ahead of my nrodkvorik. I'll try to find the translated page.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Of course it will. Unless the government finds a way to appeal an acquital.

Good point and I will show my ignorance of criminal procedure by asking, is there anything like an interlocutory appeal in the criminal realm?