Did Martha violate house arrest?
U.S. Probation Dept. looking into attendance at dinner, New York Post reports.
April 24, 2005: 5:22 PM EDT
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The U.S. Probation Department is investigating whether Martha Stewart violated the terms of her house arrest when she attended a Time magazine dinner last week, The New York Post reported Sunday.

"We're going to do some investigating to see if this event was directly related to her employment," Chris Stanton, chief federal probation officer for the Southern District of New York, told the Post.

Stanton's office, the Post said, had originally approved Stewart's request to go to the event, which celebrated Time's 100 Most Influential People issue, a list that included Stewart.
Investigators, the Post said, will want to review the nature of the event and the program and compare it to Stewart's written request to attend.

The affair included a 90-minute cocktail party; many celebrities were in attendance. Stanton told the Post that Stewart's attendance must have a "specific and concrete" link to her employment and added that going to a high-profile party simply for publicity or to be seen is "not good enough" justification.

Stewart was sentenced last July to five months in prison, five months of home detention and two years of probation following her conviction a year ago on criminal charges related to a personal stock sale.

Stewart, 63, completed her prison term early last month and has been mostly confined to her Bedford, N.Y. home ever since. She's allowed to leave her property for up to 48 hours per week for select reasons, including for work.

Earlier this month Stewart was denied a request (http:///2005/04/11/news/newsmakers/martha_sentence/index.htm) to be freed from home confinement four months before her scheduled August release. Alternatively, Stewart had asked that terms of her detention be relaxed, including the removal of an electronic monitoring device from her ankle.

In a statement to The Post, Martha Stewart spokeswoman Elizabeth Estroff said "when Time Magazine recognizes Martha Stewart, MSLO's founder, as one of the 100 most influential people in the world, our company benefits from that honor. Having Martha present at industry events where she is honored and recognized for her achievements -- whether or not they hand out awards -- is valuable to us."

Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?shownav=true&symb=MSLO) (Research (http://cnnfn.investor.reuters.com/Reports.aspx?ticker=MSLO)), the media and merchandising company, has been struggling from steep advertising losses and other revenue shortfalls in the wake of its founder's legal woes.

The company's shares have fallen 45 percent, to about $20.40, after reaching a 52-week high in late February.

Why did they approve her request? Who the heck cares anyway? Geez, my ex was under house arrest and was out smoking crack and there was no investigation. I'm so glad petty stuff like this is all the government has to worry about!

I agree this is pretty petty, but I also think that if it were anyone else then it would be a violation. I think most violations they violate the average person on is petty as well. I think that treating her just like they do the average parolee is reasonable. On the other hand I think the fact she was allowed to go to any work related dinner party was more then what most parolees would be allowed to do. I think most would have been told no since alcohol would be served

MONEY TALKS b>s> WALKS

If she was anybody other than Martha Stewart this would of little concern.

With that said, Martha needs to 'remember' that she certainly isn't 'just anybody' else and that because of this she will be treated - differently - (for better or for worse).

If any old 'joe-schmo' would have done something similar they would have been told to "Dont' do this again" type of thing. It would have been nothing public. BUT because Martha is who she is, and because every step (or misstep) is in the public's eye, the BOP is not going to want to appear weak. I would expect for them to clamp down on her a little tighter.

We shall see.

It's kinda hard to define what is or is not work-related when your job title is Celebrity, I would think

I think they are tring to make an example out of her, you know. She is in the publics eye and I am sure some how this was work related.

I say dang give her a break. People who have done much worse have been given more slack.

ONE

I say dang give her a break. People who have done much worse have been given more slack.

ONE
I agree that others have done much worse and given more slack, but if they dont keep a tight hold on Martha then their will be people screaming favortism. In the end no matter how they manage her parole their will always be an issue. Its really a no win situation.

Probation inquiry over Martha Stewart gala appearance
By Tom Leonard in New York
(Filed: 26/04/2005)

Martha Stewart, the American domestic guru, is being investigated by probation officers over claims that she may have violated the conditions of her release from prison by going to a celebrity gala.

The US probation department said that it was trying to establish whether a dinner she attended in New York to celebrate Time magazine's "100 Most Influential People" was directly related to her employment.



If not, Stewart, one of this year's 100, may be deemed to have broken the terms of her release and could be sent back to prison where she has served a five-month sentence for lying about a share deal.

The Time party was billed as a "celebration" rather than an awards ceremony. Fellow guests included the actress Nicole Kidman and the American television presenter Barbara Walters.

Stewart, 63, is running her company from her 153-acre estate in New York state, where she is under house arrest and must wear an electronic ankle bracelet. She can leave her home for 48 hours a week but can only attend social functions with a "specific and concrete" link to her employment, said Chris Stanton, the chief federal probation officer for southern New York. Amid reports that Stewart has regularly been seen out at social functions in New York, Mr Stanton said that his inquiry into her diary engagements was so far limited to the Time party but "may lead to others". His department wanted to determine the exact nature of the event and consider how Stewart described it in her written request to attend.

The penalty for breaking her confinement terms varied, he said. "It could be as minor as a reprimand or it might be that her supervised released is revoked and the judge could send her back to prison."

A spokesman for her company said it inevitably benefited from the honour bestowed by Time. She said: "Having Martha present at industry events where she is honoured and recognised for her achievements, whether or not they hand out awards, is valuable to us."

Stewart left the dinner soon after proposing a toast to people who had influenced her career. Her departure prompted the comedian Jon Stewart, unrelated, to tease her in his after-dinner speech later. "Did Martha leave?," he asked his audience. "Oh gosh, do you have to be home at a certain time? Is that how it works?" Stewart will have to endure the jibes until August when her home confinement ends.

Then she must remain under a less restrictive "supervised release" for a year and seven months.

Puh-leez!! I'm still shocked that she went to prison. How do you go to prison for lying about something you are never charged with? That's like getting pulled over for speeding, but instead of getting a speeding ticket, you get in trouble for saying "No, officer, honestly, I wasn't speeding."
But, one of the gov't witnesses lied on the stand, and that's ok? Sheesh.

Puh-leez!! I'm still shocked that she went to prison. How do you go to prison for lying about something you are never charged with? That's like getting pulled over for speeding, but instead of getting a speeding ticket, you get in trouble for saying "No, officer, honestly, I wasn't speeding."
But, one of the gov't witnesses lied on the stand, and that's ok? Sheesh.
I agree. It is actually legal for the government/police/prosecution to lie if it helps incriminate somebody.

As home detention ends, a full plate awaits Stewart

Her Tv shows and other projects could represent a comeback that attests to a US love for the underdog. By Ron Scherer (/cgi-bin/encryptmail.pl?ID=D2EFEEA0D3E3E8E5F2E5F2) | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
NEW YORK - Wednesday, one of the most famous bracelets in history is expected to come off Martha Stewart's ankle.
As the electronic watchdog is removed, it will mark the end of her five months - and three weeks extra for minor violations - of home confinement in Bedford, N.Y. But it will also signal the start of a new round of Martha-mania.
Next month, Ms. Stewart will have two new shows on national television. Another television network will air the docudrama "Martha: Behind Bars." Subscribers to satellite radio will be able to tune in to the Martha channel. She's also found time to work on a book on baking, which is due out in November, as well as "Martha's Rules," a primer on starting a business, due out in October. These will share space on bookshelves with a book written by a fan, "Let's Get Martha," a critique of her trial. And in between a visit or two with her parole officer, she will have new DVDs for sale, a new line of furniture at Kmart, and a media empire to run - of course unofficially, since she's no longer allowed to be an officer of the company with her name on the door.
Yes, Stewart has come back, hotter than a banana flambé. In fact, her rise is more proof that America loves an underdog, a comeback artist. The country is full of individuals who have run into trouble with the law and bounced back: Oliver North, now a commentator; G. Gordon Liddy, the Watergate burglar who is now a talk-show host; and Michael Milken, the former financier-turned-businessman philanthropist.
"America is always willing to give people a second chance," says Leslie Jose Zigel, an entertainment lawyer at the law firm Greenberg Traurig in Miami. "The Martha Stewart story is very compelling: Here is a very astute businesswoman who took on the major media."He adds, "She's given a sense of pride among women in the home and domestic arena."
But like many powerful people, Stewart also developed her share of enemies. The New York Post, for example, trailed Stewart and took pictures that appear to show her violating the terms of her supervised release. In an editorial, the newspaper wrote, "... this prima donna seems to think her status entitles her to be treated more leniently than other convicts. It doesn't."
For these transgressions, apparently, her lawyer released a statement that she had agreed to the additional three weeks of home confinement.
"People tend to violate supervised release all the time," says John Wortmann Jr., a former federal prosecutor who is now a partner at Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham in Boston. Repeated violations, he says, risk a return to jail, possibly for as much as one to two years. "As there are more violations, judges tend to get frustrated," he says.
As Stewart's home confinement ends, many media-watchers believe Stewart is about to become even more successful than before she was convicted of lying to federal agents.
"By the time this happened, the whole Martha Stewart style was beginning to show its age," says Robert Thompson, director of the study of popular television at Syracuse University in New York. "What is strange is her being elevated beyond her fan base to world-class celebrity, thanks to a trial and conviction, and brought to a place in our culture that is much bigger than before."
Indeed, Stewart's version of "The Apprentice" could be even more successful than the one in which Donald Trump is boss, says Jay Whitehead, publisher of HRO Today Magazine, a human-resources publication. "Martha has a natural media personality to start with, and she will be just better to watch," says Mr. Whitehead, who will be writing a column called "Martha-nomics" in The Washington Times. He also notes, "More women watch television than men except for sports."
Stewart's risk is viewer fatigue. Of course, it wouldn't be the first time that a TV show has disappeared after a fast start. Whatever happened, for example, to "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire"?
While the same might happen to Stewart's show, media-watcher Tamara Conniff, coexecutive editor of Billboard magazine, points to a public fascination with the media mogul's life. "The courts made an example of her," she says, "but in a weird kind of way made her, from the public perception, the underdog."