http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2006 by the authors Tue, 6 Jan 2004 19:09:16 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/01/06/125931.php#comment-35517 yes, the charges seem to be quite farremoved from any actual crime, and appear to be quite vindictive 35517@blogcritics.org Tue, 6 Jan 2004 19:09:16 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/01/06/125931.php#comment-35485 I really think she's being made an example. She was not indicted for insider tradeing, but she's been indicted for giving a reason for selling the stock that investigators don't believe? If they don't believe it, get her indicted for insider trading! Her broker may have broken the law, but he's been given a deal. A grand jury refused to indict Martha for insider trading. Now they're trying to get her for obstruction of justice, I think, for lying [as they believe] about why she sold her stock when she did. How did that obstruct justice? Her friend Waskal is in jail and she wasn't indicted for insider trading. So where's the obstruction of justice? She was also accused -- but I can't remember if she was charged -- of deliberately trying to inflate the stock of her own company simply by declaring her innocence of the initial charges filed. Now a denial of an accusation can be construed as stock price manipulation? Doesn't a defendant have the right to publicly proclaim his or her innocence without worrying about those words being the cause of another criminal charge? Yikes! 35485@blogcritics.org Tue, 6 Jan 2004 16:52:53 EST