Strike a deal with the one person who has actually committed a crime (Faneuil). Then come up with a new prosecutorial ploy to try Stewart for lying and covering up a non- crime.
If everyone is innocent until proven guilty, is it not her right to plead innocence?
If this trial gets a conviction, does this mean that whenever anyone is under investigation, they cannot plead innocent for fear of being charged with this new crime?
The prosecutors in this case are out to make names for themselves. I for one hope their new names are mud.
Try this chart, sorry the prior link did not work.
When viewing the link above, please note that IMCL reopened in EH trading yesterday at 48, falling back to the 44's and now rebounding this morning in premarket to 46 and change.
First of all, let me say that I would hope you would get busted for securities fraud, for the example you illustrated, if done in real life is genuine securities fraud.
That being said I understand your example.
Now if you don't mind my pointing out a REAL example and not a fabrication as to the reason why some investors DON'T USE STOPS ON BIOTECHS. The trading action in IMCL yesterday is a perfect example of what I have been beating my fingertips against this keyboard trying to explain to those that doubt Stewart's reasoning for not placing a physical stop on IMCL.
Look at this chart and you will see why someone long on this kind of a stock would not use a stop. Yesterday if you had a stop in on your 4k shares of IMCL at 34, a stop placed while the stock was at 40, never really dreaming it would drop that fast before you could adjust your stop, you would have gotten filled, lost your shares, only to see the stock rise right back to where it was BUT HIGHER. Needless to say you'd be ticked off in a major way.
THIS is a prime example of why some of us don't use stops on very volatile, high beta stocks.
Yes, I do know why people use verbal stops and since reality as we know it is something I can control, I prepared an example for you today using IMCL. Say someone like me starts a rumor that IMCL did not get FDA approval AFTER already putting in my limit buy, while you on the other hand are on the phone with your inside source roaring like a lion under water because you, just like me, KNOW that the approval was granted. When asked by the Feds why I placed my order, I just say I thought there was a good chance they would not get the approval while you have to explain all the phone records with your broker.
That's just an example and I hope you enjoyed it.
"BTW her $1B empire is shrinking rapidly...well less than 50% (hey I'd take it). But it ain't going to buy her freedom.."
Not so fast. If she could just get a briefcase full of campaign cash to one of those hunting trips with Justice Scalia and Vice President Cheney it might.
<< she is scared? she built a $1 billion company and she is scared? I don't think so. I think she felt she can cover up her grounds because she has the money and the lawyers to help her. I think she believes she can tackle any problem... because, and this is good point on Martha, she is tenacious business woman and she knows how to get results.. but she is scared?? I don't think so. >>
You must have missed the Barbara Wawa interview where she said she was scared....
Tenacious people do bad things and get put in jail all the time. BTW her $1B empire is shrinking rapidly...well less than 50% (hey I'd take it). But it ain't going to buy her freedom..
Have you read the indictment? It's clear that Brancovic acted illegally and committed purgery and obstruction to cover up. It's also clear that Stewart conspired to assist him in the conspiracy to obstruct justice. Forget the sale she engaged in consiracy after the fact.
she is scared? she built a $1 billion company and she is scared? I don't think so. I think she felt she can cover up her grounds because she has the money and the lawyers to help her. I think she believes she can tackle any problem... because, and this is good point on Martha, she is tenacious business woman and she knows how to get results.. but she is scared?? I don't think so.
Ed..I think the government scared this 62 year old woman to the core and she reacted impulsively. She may be tough and arrogant, but she is not beyond being frightened by the government. I don't know that any of us are, even if we haven't done anything wrong. It is still a very intimidating and frightening process.