A Summary of the Tony Robbins Divorce

The Tony Robbins Divorce was finalized in 1997, ending the 14-year marriage between Tony Robbins and Becky Robbins – the couple was wed in 1984. Tony Robbins married Becky Robbins at the age of 24 – although the couple had no children together, Tony Robbins acted as a father for the 3 children belonging to Becky Robbins from a former marriage. Tony Robbins is considered to be amongst the most recognized, iconic, and esteemed motivational speakers in the world; he has authored countless publications and resources with regard to self-help and self-empowerment – furthermore, attendance to his seminars are widely-sought after. As a result, the prospect of the Tony Robbins divorce retained the potential to affect his career as something of a ‘guru’; speculations were set forth that his divorce from his wife of 14 years would be problematic.

How Tony Robbins Broke the News of his Divorce

The details surrounding the Tony Robbins divorce were primarily kept from the press; neither Tony Robbins nor Becky Robbins issued comments with regard to any or all possible reasoning for the Tony Robbins divorce. While in many cases, the celebrity status enjoyed by an icon such as Tony Robbins may be viewed as being without a downside, the reliance on Tony Robbins from his millions of clients created the potential for a backlash; as a result, it is assumed that both Becky Robbins and Tony Robbins settled outside of court:

In the event that a couple mutually decides to file for divorce in an uncontested fashion, which means that the couple has both agreed to the terms of the divorce settlement, as well as to the reasoning for the ultimate dissolution of the marriage, the specific details of the divorce settlement are not released to the public record

Did Tony Robbins Acknowledge the Dissolution of his Marriage?

With regard to his clients – both existing in private and public domains – he explained that he had felt as though he and Becky Robbins had undergone individual changes with regard to their union. He added that within his teachings, he advocates for a strong and action-based lifestyle in which an individual is prompted to live a powerful and meaningful lifestyle, citing that his marriage no longer provided him with that sentiment. Closing his statement, he maintained that he was by no means without flaw, and the Tony Robbins divorce stood to prove that – despite the initial shock of the announcement of the Tony Robbins divorce, the bulk of his clients and fans remain loyal to him and his seminars to this day.

Developments Following the Tony Robbins Divorce

The State of California requires a 6-month long waiting period subsequent to the submission of the divorce petition. Within this time, a variety of options are available to the couples facing divorce, which range from possible reconciliation to separation; only until the divorce is finalized within the State of California was either Tony Robbins or Becky Robbins permitted to remarry:

Subsequent to the Tony Robbins Divorce, Tony Robbins married Sage Robbins in 2001; the couple remains married as of April of 2011

A Summary of the Events Leading Up to the Michael C. Hall Divorce

In 2008, Michael C. Hall and Jennifer Carpenter had filed for divorce; as a result of their celebrity status, the couple refrained from releasing the possible catalysts for the undertaking of the divorce process within the State of California – however, media sources have only released possible speculation for the causes of the divorce:

The Michael C. Hall Divorce settlement occurred at the close of December of 2010

The couple met on the set of the television program ‘Dexter’, within which both Michael C. Hall and Jennifer Carpenter star; despite the Michael C. Hall Divorce, the couple has stated that they will continue to perform on ‘Dexter’ and the show will continue as planned

Michael C. Hall and Jennifer Carpenter do not have any children

The Michael C. Hall Divorce in the State of California

The divorce laws applicable to the State of California undertake the following stipulations with regard to filing for divorce. In the case of the Michael C. Hall Divorce, the probability of the enactment of a prenuptial agreement is quite high; as per a large part of celebrity marriages taking place subsequent to one or both of the couples reaching a certain point of celebrity – these types of agreements are commonly undertaken. However, regardless of any or all expressed agreements existing in tandem with the divorce proceedings taking place within the Michael C. Hall Divorce, the couple will be required to adhere to the following parameters with regard to the dissolution of marriage:

The Determination of Fault

Reports released in news sources depicted the Michael C. Hall Divorce as occurring in an amicable and agreeable fashion; reports have shown both the couple to remain on amicable terms in addition to their respective willingness to continue working with one another – the determination of fault has not been released.

The Prenuptial Agreement in the Michael C. Hall Divorce

A prenuptial agreement is a formulated agreement furnished by one or both partners of a marriage that serves as a preemptive, preventative measure with regard to the prospect of the dissolution of the marriage taking place; with regard to the divorce laws enacted within the State of California, a ‘no-fault’ divorce taking place will result in the even split of ‘community property’ – this is defined as any assets that were attained subsequent to the marriage. However, in the case of the Michael C. Hall Divorce, in addition to a variety of celebrities, the receipt of any salary subsequent to marriage will result in its determination as community – or shared – property.

Michael C. Hall Divorce Waiting Period

The State of California requires a 6-month long waiting period subsequent to the submission of the divorce petition. Within this time, a variety of options are available to the couples facing divorce, which range from possible reconciliation to separation. Reports released from various media sources expressed that the couple had been separated for a substantial period of time even prior to filing for divorce; however, neither Michael C. Hall nor Jennifer Carpenter will be permitted to remarry until the Michael C. Hall Divorce is finalized.

A Summary of the Shaq Divorce

The Shaq Divorce, which involved the marriage of basketball superstar Shaquille O’Neal and his wife Shaunie O’Neal, was finalized in 2010, ending a 5-year marriage forged in 2002. The couple maintained custody over a total of 6 children; both Shaquille O’Neal and Shaunie O’Neal shared 4 natural children, while each of them arrived into the relationship with one child from previous relationships:

The Shaq Divorce was amongst the most tumultuous to have taken place within the realm of celebrity divorces, due to the fact that while the couple have filed for divorce in 2007, it was recanted only months following. Furthermore, the couple’s unwillingness to file the Shaq Divorce outside of a court resigned them to be subject to a variety of terms of the Shaq divorce to be released

Although there existed various speculation with regard to the reasons for the divorce were cited as irreconcilable differences with regard to the strain of marriage in conjunction to what Shaunie O’Neal cited as Shaquille O’Neal’s celebrity status

The Shaq Divorce in the State of Florida

Within the State of Florida – in tandem with a contested divorce – the court will retain the authorization to determine the terms of a divorce settlement; as was the case with the Shaq Divorce, the divorce settlement included the following procedures:

The Determination of Fault in the Shaq Divorce

In the event that a couple mutually decides to file for divorce in an uncontested fashion – which means that the couple has both agreed to the terms of the divorce settlement, as well as to the reasoning for the ultimate dissolution of the marriage – the specific details of the divorce settlement are not released to the public record; however both Shaquille O’Neal and Shaunie O’Neal were unable to settle the Shaq Divorce outside of court, and as a result, certain details of the Shaq Divorce settlement became available on public record.

Challenge in the Shaq Divorce

The challenge facilitated Shaquille O’Neal was set forth in order to determine the surmise and itemization of the collective assets in possession of both himself and Shaunie O’Neal; these details latent within the Shaq Divorce challenge were comprised of the petition set forth by Shaunie O’Neal with regard from the spousal support, division of assets, and custody from which she had petitioned from Shaquille O’Neal.

The Finalization of the Shaq Divorce

The finalization of the Shaq divorce required a decision by a trial judge, which was set forth by the presiding judge overseeing the trial. Upon the dissolution of the marriage between Shaquille O’Neal and Shaunie O’Neal expressed the following in conjunction with the petitions filed:

Although none of the definitive details were released with regard to the monies, assets, and prenuptial agreement, Shaquille O’Neal’s estimated value at the time of the Shaq divorce included a $20 million annual salary, $10 million worth of wages earned from endorsements, a home estimated at $32 million in Miami, Florida, as well as any communal property in possession of the couple

Overview of the Steven Spielberg Divorce

The Steven Spielberg Divorce marked the dissolution of the marriage between film director Steven Spielberg and actor Amy Irving; the Steven Spielberg Divorce was finalized in 1989, which ended the 4-yearlong marriage – the couple was wed in 1985:

The Parties Involved in the Steven Spielberg Divorce

The identification of Steven Spielberg – both at the time of the Steven Spielberg divorce, as well as within modernity – as being amongst the most influential and successful film directors of the 20th century created a media feeding frenzy surrounding the coverage of the Steven Spielberg divorce settlement; Steven Spielberg is responsible for timeless films such as The Indiana Jones Series, Jaws, E.T., as well as The Back to the Future Series – this is just to name a few. Amy Irving also earned her celebrity status within the media as a result of her film career including Yentl and Carrie.

2 Shocking Facts within the Steven Spielberg Divorce Settlement

Within the exploration of the Steven Spielberg divorce settlement, 2 primary details thrust the proceedings into the public media without regard of the celebrity statuses of both Steven Spielberg and Amy Irving:

The Steven Spielberg divorce settlement is considered to be amongst the most expensive within the history of the United States; due to the fact that Steven Spielberg’s net worth was estimated to exceed $1 billion at the time of the finalization of the divorce, Amy Irving was reported to have received anywhere between $95 million and $105 million upon walking away from the Steven Spielberg divorce

Secondly, the Steven Spielberg gained notoriety due to the fact that Steven Spielberg penned a prenuptial agreement on a napkin in lieu of drafting an official contract under the counsel of an attorney; although the ad-hoc prenuptial agreement expressed the limitations to what Amy Irving would be entitled upon the dissolution of marriage, the presiding judge dismissed the validity of the makeshift agreement

The Terms of the Steven Spielberg Divorce Settlement

An uncontested divorce is one in which both parties have reached a mutual agreement with regard to the reasons behind filing for divorce, as well as the placement of fault in conjunction to the breakdown of the marriage. In the case of the Steven Spielberg Divorce, both Steven Spielberg and Amy Irving opted to file for a divorce uncontested – or unchallenged – in nature, which retained the classification of the reason for the Steven Spielberg Divorce as a result, a bulk of celebrity couples undertaking divorce proceedings opt to either settle outside of court or file for divorce in an uncontested fashion in order to avoid potential media coverage and publicity. However, subsequent to the ruling of the presiding judge, the following judicial review was set forth with regard to the terms of the Steven Spielberg Divorce settlement:

Due to the dismissal of the prenuptial agreement presented and drafted by Steven Spielberg on a napkin, Amy Irving was entitled to half of the couple’s combined, earned assets accrued during the time of their marriage; within the State of California, this is known as ‘Community Property’

Overview of the Ted Danson Divorce

The Ted Danson Divorce marked the dissolution of the marriage between actor Ted Danson and Casey Coates; the Ted Danson Divorce was finalized in 1993, which ended the nearly-16 year marriage, which took place on July 30th, 1977. Akin to traditional divorce proceedings – meaning, those undertaken by non-celebrity couples – the nature of the divorce settlement can range from amicable to scandalous; unfortunately, the Ted Danson Divorce from Casey Coates was classified as the latter. Not only was the Ted Danson Divorce considered to be amongst the most discussed, but it is considered to be amongst the costliest divorces to ever have taken place in Hollywood:

The Parties Involved in the Ted Danson Divorce

Ted Danson gained his celebrity status as a result of his role on the sitcom Cheers, which is considered to be amongst the top-rated and most popular television programs to ever have aired; Ted Danson’s beloved character ‘Sam’, who was the bartender of the fictitious drinking establishment ‘Cheers’, thrust him into international fame and celebrity. Ted Danson met Casey Coates in 1976 – prior to his rise to fame; Casey Coates was employed as a fashion designer.

The Controversy of the Ted Danson Divorce

The controversy arose as Casey Coates suffered a stroke in 1979 upon birthing the couple’s first child; subsequent to Coates’ stroke, Ted Danson took a sabbatical from acting in order to tend to his ailing wife; however, the stroke left Casey Coates debilitated, and the couple adopted a daughter years later. In 1992, rumors of an extramarital affair with fellow actor Whoopie Goldberg on the set of the film ‘Made in America’ – in which both Danson and Goldberg were featured; however, the rumors were soon validated, leading the Ted Danson Divorce finalized in 1993.

The Terms of the Ted Danson Divorce Settlement

The Ted Danson Divorce was filed as ‘uncontested’ with regard to the placement of fault; an uncontested divorce is one in which both parties have reached a mutual agreement with regard to the reasons behind filing for divorce, as well as the placement of fault in conjunction to the breakdown of the marriage. A divorce settlement will typically include 3 primary facets with regard to the terms and conditions set forth by the presiding court official who was responsible for determining spousal support – in the form of alimony, child custody – and subsequent child support payments, and the division of assets. However, due to Ted Danson’s infidelity, reports were released showing that he had agreed to an uncontested divorce in lieu of the details of his affair being released; the terms of the settlement took place as follows:

Casey Coates walked away from the Ted Danson Divorce with upwards of $30 million, in addition to an undisclosed settlement with regard to supplemental assets in possession of the former couple, as well as custody of the former-couple’s 2 children

The nature of the uncontested settlement allowed for few details to be released with regard to additional undertakings and events within the marriage

The Latest Crime That Could Land Lindsay Lohan in Jail

Actress Lindsay Lohan’s participation in an alleged jewelry theft occurring on February 9th, 2011 could land Lindsay Lohan in jail if she is found guilty. In the Lindsay Lohan Court appearance, she rejected a plea deal in a offered by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Keith Schwartz offering Lohan between 60 to 90 days in jail upon pleading guilty to the alleged jewelry theft, a new trial before a Grand Jury in Los Angeles County will begin on April 22nd, 2011 – a guilty verdict within the Lindsay Lohan Court appearance and Grand Jury Trial is expected to result in jail time:

The Details of the Crime

On February 9th, 2011, Lindsay Lohan and a friend – who would later be named to be her stylist – entered the Los Angeles jewelry store ‘Kamofie & Co.’. The store’s surveillance footage shows Lohan admiring a necklace valued at $2,500 and subsequently obtaining it without paying:

The staff of Kamofie & Co. maintains that Lindsay Lohan obtained the necklace without any prior consent expressed to her that she would be able to do so without payment – this is a charge of theft

However, Lindsay Lohan maintains that the store allowed her to borrow the necklace upon the promise that her stylist would return it promptly

Yet, this claim is not only disputed by the staff of the jewelry store, but Lindsay Lohan’s stylist failed to return the necklace at the date on which she had allegedly promised to do so

The April 22nd, 2011 Lindsay Lohan Court Appearance

The Lindsay Lohan Court hearing scheduled for April 22nd, 2011 will be overseen by a new judge and grand jury; although Lindsay Lohan was offered a plea deal allowing her to remain incarcerated for a period between 60 and 90 days offered by a March 22nd, 2011 Lindsay Lohan court appearance, she rejected it. The reasons stated for this rejection are considered to be rooted within Lindsay Lohan’s refusal to submit a guilty plea for the alleged theft of the necklace:

Judge Schwartz showed neither consideration nor favoritism with regard to her celebrity within the Lindsay Lohan court appearance, reaffirming that she was required to adhere to legislation akin to every other citizen of the United States of America; during the Lindsay Lohan court appearance, he affirmed that another slip-up would result in her expedited return to prison without hesitation

A Summary of the Events Leading Up to the Paul McCartney Divorce

In 2008, the Paul McCartney Divorce was finalized, which symbolized the termination of the marriage of Paul McCartney and Heather Mills; the couple had been married since 2002. Paul McCartney was married once before his marriage to Heather Mills; his late wife Linda McCartney had died from breast cancer in 1998. While the couple attempted to refrain from releasing the possible catalysts for the undertaking of the Paul McCartney divorce, various expressions of dissatisfaction surfaced both from Mills, as well as from Paul McCartney:

Paul McCartney is considered to be amongst the most influential musicians in history with regard to his membership in the seminal music group, The Beatles; in addition, Paul McCartney is considered to be amongst the most valuable human being son Earth, with an estimated value ranging from $135 million to $400 million

Heather Mills is a former model who lost one of her legs in the midst of her modeling career; however, she continued to model despite her tragic accident

The couple birthed a daughter in 2003, named Beatrice McCartney; Paul McCartney and his late wife Linda birthed a daughter named Stella

The Paul McCartney Divorce Before the Royal Courts of Justice in the United Kingdom

The Paul McCartney divorce was considered to be amongst one of the most publicized and expensive divorce not only in the history of the United Kingdom, but also within the collective world. Within the Paul McCartney divorce settlement, various statements reflecting the couple’s growing dissatisfaction for one another was made public, in addition to attacks and defaming remarks set forth by Heather Mills:

Within the Paul McCartney divorce, statements released by Heather Mills included such allegations of substance abuse and mania exuded by Paul McCartney; in one report, she referred to him as ‘boring’ and ‘old’

Paul McCartney – upon the finalization of the Paul McCartney divorce – explained that he finally experienced as sense of ‘peace’ subsequent his divorce from Heather Mills

The Prenuptial Agreement in the Paul McCartney Divorce

A prenuptial agreement did not exist within the Paul McCartney divorce, which is a formulated agreement furnished by one or both partners of a marriage that serves as a preemptive, preventative measure with regard to the prospect of the dissolution of the marriage taking place. With regard to the divorce laws enacted within the United Kingdom, the female spouse within a marriage is entitled to half of the entirety of the net worth belonging to the male spouse. This statute exists in contrast of the divorce statutes applicable in the United States, which may include a ‘no-fault’ divorce taking place resulting in the even split of ‘community property’ – a legal classification defined as assets attained subsequent to the marriage in a collective fashion:

The spousal support settlement within the Paul McCartney was considered to be amongst the largest in history, in which Heather Mills walked away with $50 million

There were contrasting claims set forth by the legal teams of Paul McCartney and Heather Mills with regard to Paul McCartney’s net worth – Paul McCartney maintained that his net worth was $125 million, while Mills maintained that his net worth was upwards of $400 million

A Criminal History Fit to Put Lindsay Lohan in Jail

Even prior to her February 9th, 2011 arrest for the alleged theft of jewelry, actress Lindsay Lohan has found herself in a variety of compromising legal situations; in conjunction with a number of criminal charges aimed at Lohan – ranging from driving while intoxicated to the possession of narcotics. The following is a profile of additional crimes charged to Lohan almost resulting in the placement of Lindsay Lohan in Jail:

May 2007

Subsequent to a drunk-driving arrest, the arresting officers find cocaine in the possession of Lindsay Lohan

July 2007

Lindsay Lohan satisfies the required substance abuse counseling mandated by the court in the ‘Promises’ rehabilitation center – the conditions of her release require that she wear a monitoring bracelet regulating the consumption of drugs or alcohol

Late-July 2007

Lindsay Lohan is arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol only a mere 10 days after her completion of her rehabilitation program – upon her arrest, the arresting officers discover cocaine in her possession

August 2007

Prior to an impending trial and the possibility of the placement of Lindsay Lohan in jail, a judge allows Lindsay Lohan to attend another rehabilitation facility in Utah, which is called ‘Cirque Lodge’

November 2007

The hearing for Lindsay Lohan’s drunk-driving and drug possession charges takes place in Los Angeles, California – the judge orders a ruling placing Lindsay Lohan in jail for 24-hours, 10 days of court-ordered community service, court-ordered probation for 3-years’ time, and the mandatory wearing of an alcohol and substance monitoring system

Late-November 2007

Due to overcrowding in the Los Angeles County prison, all non-violent offenders are allowed relocation or conditional release – in conjunction with the verdict, upwards of 80 minutes were considered to amount to the time spent by Lindsay Lohan in jail

January 2008

While in attendance at a private function hosted by 22-year old socialite Masha Markova, Markova’s prized fur coat was discovered to have gone missing; the fur coat was valued at an estimated $11,000. Markova, along with many of her guests, had suspected Lindsay Lohan to be the perpetrator of this theft; days later, the fur coat was returned anonymously to Markova – charges were never filed.

June 2009

While participating in photography shoot for the cover of ‘Elle UK’, one of the United Kingdom’s most prominent fashion magazines, Lindsay Lohan was allowed the opportunity to wear almost $400k worth of jewelry from fashion designer Christian Dior. After the shoot, the set director had noticed that two diamond earrings worn by Lindsay Lohan had gone missing; rumors and allegations alleging that Lindsay Lohan was responsible for this left were set forth, but Lindsay Lohan was never formally charged

May 2010

Upon a mandatory bench warrant set forth by the Los Angeles County Court with regard to the review Lindsay Lohan’s past criminal convictions, Lohan’s presence was required in the hearing; however, at the time of the hearing, Lindsay Lohan was not present – investigations revealed that Lindsay Lohan was in Cannes, France at the Internationally-renowned film festival:

Reports and rumors expressing that Lindsay Lohan was indulging in alcohol and parties began to surface; upon question by the court as to why she had failed to report to her hearing, Lohan alleged that her passport had been stolen and she was unable to board a flight back to California

Upon her failure to appear before the court, an arrest warrant was set forth that would mandate the placement of Lindsay Lohan in jail; however, she obtained a temporary passport – and upon her return to California – she posted $100k bond in lieu of incarceration

At her second trial resulting from the bench warrant issued by the Los Angeles Court, Lindsay Lohan was mandated by the court to wear an alcohol monitoring device regulating her consumption of alcohol; the Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor (SCRAM) alerts authorities if any trace of alcohol appears in the wearers bodily system

June 2010

While at a party following the ‘MTV Movie Awards’, Lindsay Lohan’s SCRAM monitor was triggered and she was subsequently issued an additional bench warrant for arrest by the court; although this warrant would have placed Lindsay Lohan in jail, she furnished a $200k bond in order to avoid incarceration.

July 2010

Upon her appearance before Judge Marsha Revel and the Los Angeles Superior Court, Lohan is mandated to attend a rehabilitation facility.

September 2010

Lindsay Lohan fails a drug test and is ordered to attend another rehabilitation facility until the close of October 2010

Overview of the Marie Osmond Divorce

The Marie Osmond Divorce marked the dissolution of the marriage between Marie Osmond and Brian Blosil; the Marie Osmond Divorce was finalized in 2007, which ended the 20-yearlong marriage, which took place in 1986:

Although the case of the Marie Osmond Divorce, which was considered by various media outlets as a celebrity, the impact of the dissolution of a union is thought to be universal; amongst the events and undertakings within a divorce proceeding, a divorce has the potential to elicit heightened emotions, such as sadness and loss

Furthermore, the reasoning for the breakdown of a marriage – regardless of the degree of celebrity status – will typically provide a legal framework for the terms and conditions latent within a divorce settlement.

Background of the Marie Osmond Divorce

Marie Osmond is perhaps most commonly recognized for her participation in the eponymously-named television shows in which and her family – the Osmonds – were featured as stars. While the television program ‘The Osmonds’ propelled Marie Osmond into the realm of celebrity, her 1976 variety show – ‘Donny and Marie’ starring both herself and her brother Donny Osmond solidified her status as a celebrity. In addition, Marie Osmond also enjoyed a career as a country music singer spanning from the 1970s to the 1980s:

Following a prior divorce taking place in 1985, Marie Osmond and Brian Blosil married in 1986; the couple shares 2 natural children and 5 adopted children

Although the couple separated within 1998, both Marie Osmond and Brian Blosil had managed to reconcile their difference and preserve their respective union in lieu of a Marie Osmond divorce

The Plea of ‘No Contest’ within the Marie Osmond Divorce

The Marie Osmond divorce settlement was publicized as an amicable one; both Marie Osmond and Brian Blosil maintained that although they felt the utmost respect for one another, the couple’s marriage had reached a point of irreconcilable differences – as a result, the couple underwent the filing for the Marie Osmond divorce under within an uncontested nature:

An uncontested divorce is one in which both parties have reached a mutual agreement with regard to the reasons behind filing for divorce, as well as the placement of fault in conjunction to the breakdown of the marriage

In the case of the Marie Osmond Divorce, both Marie Osmond and Brian Blosil opted to file for a divorce uncontested – or unchallenged – in nature, which retained the classification of the reason for the Marie Osmond Divorce as a result, a bulk of celebrity couples undertaking divorce proceedings opt to either settle outside of court or file for divorce in an uncontested fashion in order to avoid potential media coverage and publicity

The Terms of the Marie Osmond Divorce Settlement

A divorce settlement will typically include 3 primary facets with regard to the terms and conditions set forth by the presiding court official who was responsible for determining spousal support – in the form of alimony, child custody – and subsequent child support payments, and the division of assets. However, the Marie Osmond divorce settlement was kept under wraps and the details were not released to the public.

Background of the Martha Stewart Insider Trading Arrest

Taking place in 2004, the Martha Stewart Insider trading hearing was one of the most prominent and notorious of its kind within the realm of celebrity involvement with securities fraud, in which the beloved television personality and home décor expert was made aware of unauthorized and privileged information with regards to an investment in which she had made under the counsel of her friend Sam Waskal – Sam Waskal was the owner of the company whose shares Martha Stweart had purchased.

The Details of the Martha Stewart Insider Trading Charges

Sam Waskal owned the ‘ImClone pharmaceutical company who had been planning on releasing a revolutionary drug to treat cancer; due to the fact that the drug was considered to be highly-anticipated, Martha Stewart – who was in ownership of 4,000 shares – anticipated a large return. However, Sam Waskal had discovered that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – the regulatory body maintained by the Federal Government – was not going to allow for the release of the drug:

Presumably, the drug did not meet the FDA’s regulatory standards for medication. Subsequent to learning this, Sam Waskal conveyed this information to Martha Stewart, who quickly sold her ImClone shares in the fear of a huge financial loss as a result of the rejection being released

However, the information furnished to Martha Stewart was considered to be not only unavailable to the general public, but is indicative of potential increases or decreases with regard to that company’s stocks – insider trading is classified as privileged individuals party to information involving the trade and exchange of stocks outside of the knowledge of the general populace

Martha Stewart Insider Trading Sentencing

Subsequent to her trial, the following punitive recourse was sentenced with regard to Martha Stewart and her criminal activity:

Martha Stewart was incarcerated from October of 2008 to March of 2005

She was mandated to undergo a 2-year probationary period within which she would be subject to supervision

Martha Stewart would be unable to serve as either Chief Financial Officer (CFO) or Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of any publically-traded company for a period of 5-years’ time

The Notion of Celebrity within the Martha Stewart Insider Trading Arrest

The Martha Stewart Insider Trading trial – akin to the vast expanse of celebrity hearings – run the risk for heightened notoriety for both the presiding judge – as well as for the legal venue – there exists supplemental considerations that are undertaken within any celebrity trial. Due to the fact that the public eye will be fixated on a celebrity trial, much like that public was during the Martha Stewart Insider Trading, the legal obligation of a judge is to exact justice in accordance to the precepts upon which the United States’ legal system was founded – in an unbiased and objective fashion:

Due to the fact that celebrities typically possess higher earnings and greater fortunes than individuals considered to account for the median members of society, the implementation of financial recourse – in the form of fines or fees – is considered by many legal professionals to be subject to inefficiency with regard to punitive recourse; within the Martha Stewart Insider Trading trial, many individuals suspected that the enforcement of a median monetary payment furnished by Martha Stewart would neither affect her finances nor serve as an effective punishment

However, since justice must be exacted in an objective fashion, other individuals claimed that prejudiced enacted with regard to the sentencing of celebrities – in the form of fines or fees that exceed those that would be exacted onto the median citizen of the United States – would be equally ineffective