| | Register
Who is Bob O'Brien?
Sanity Check Archive
Click Here to see Bob's Old Sanity Check articles.
About our Blogs

Blogs found on this website represent the opinion of the author. For more information please visit our terms of use.
Funny Bunny
Looking for something a little lighter?
Catch Bob's more irreverent and amusing pieces in his Funny Bunny Blog.

When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?”

Location: Blogs Bob O'Brien's Sanity Check Blog    
Posted by:   bobo 2/26/2006 5:01 PM

(NOTE: Alan Newman has a great new article in this week's Crosscurrents that makes many of the same observations as the Bunny, albeit not nearly as sarcastically. I'd advise everyone to check it out.)

--------------

I was reading the Biovail complaint (an absolute must read and available for perusal here), and was struck with a sort of Bunny “moment of clarity.” What I have been referring to as a media “cone of silence” has a well-established and far more obvious term of art:

Cover-up.

When the S&L crisis was in full roar, and thrifts were failing like mad, and billions and billions of US taxpayer-insured deposits were being thrown into the crapper like so much used Kleenex, the press was absolutely silent, and our regulators almost unanimously declared that there was no problem, and even our elected officials got involved in silencing critics, demonizing the one regulator who claimed there was a problem.

That was  a cover-up.

In Watergate, when news started breaking that the administration had been up to shenanigans and no good, there was almost universal silence from the media – all except for a pair of young, rebellious journalists at the Washington Post.

That was a cover-up – a failed one.

As I read the Biovail complaint, and I reflected on the hundreds and hundreds of emails that have been sent to elected officials, regulators, members of the press, etc., and further reflected on my now 1-year old description of a stock manipulation scheme’s anatomy (on the OSTK conference call), and thought about the complete lack of any meaningful mainstream coverage in any US publication (Euromoney did a wonderful piece on the topic about a year ago, but they are based out of Europe – and they were quite clear that the DTCC tried to silence them), and considered the censorship of FinancialWire (and bullying by the DTCC to constrain that news outlet's voice), the word “cover-up” just kept popping into my head, over and over.

Then, I tried to fit in all the pieces. The SEC abruptly, and with no explanation, drops demanding discovery in their subpoenas to Herb and Carol. CNBC attacks the Biovail lawyer like he was pushing crack in a schoolyard. The NY Times devotes several thousand words to what a rat bastard Byrne and the EB are, with no new information. Dateline abruptly changes their special on naked short selling and runs B roll footage instead. The NASAA forum receives zero coverage, except for an erroneous piece by Carol, and an ever more erroneous piece from the DTCC. We are assured again and again, without actually being told any hard data, that all is well. Any data we receive that shows that isn’t the case is pooh pooed away. All prior FTDs from before January are grandfathered by the SEC, with no explanation or comments solicited, and the reason given is that the Commission wanted to avoid volatility. Demands for basic, reasonable transparency in the system are stonewalled. Senate hearings are shelved. No discussion of the matter takes place in any mainstream publications, except for Time Magazine, which is greeted with silence. Disinformation blogs spring up to attack anyone involved in exposing the crisis, and leading members of the effort are personally attacked on a regular basis.

Sure seems like this has all of the elements of a cover-up to me.

Isn’t that troubling to anyone?

Why is it that the larger the disaster, the larger the cover-up effort? And why does it seem that there is such uniformity to this cover-up?

What element is missing here that were present in the classic, large scale cover-ups of all time? I maintain all the pieces are here – huge stakes at risk if the information goes mainstream, media silence or mockery, reassurances that all is well when it clearly isn’t, selective filtration of data, secrecy for no good reason from government…

All the elements of a cover-up exist.

Comments?
Copyright ©2006 Bob O'Brien
Permalink  |  Trackback
Comments (72)
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By Anon on 2/26/2006 5:17 PM
Seems to be going fine to me.
Marin on Weds, biovail adding great great detail, proof, and fuel to the fire with their bombshell that correlates with Pat's suit and then some.

More progress at this point than I'd hoped for.
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By bobo on 2/26/2006 5:19 PM
Right. But we all know that Rocker is going to appeal any negative verdict on Wed, in order to stall another few months - that is as predictable as more ugly articles about Biovail, Byrne and the Easter Bunny.

My point is that nogody uses the cover-up word for what is clearly a cover-up.

Odd, that.
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By PhantomCertificates on 2/26/2006 7:32 PM
The funny thing is that this whole deal about hiding the truth reminds me of a news article about google cooperating with the Chinese government allowing filtering of web site materials. The only difference is that this is in the U.S., and it's the financial press. Kind of makes you go ... hmmmm
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By AWS on 2/26/2006 7:33 PM
Bobo-

Dude- Tell me why I should not believe that you are majorly long Alcoa shares?
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By bobo on 2/26/2006 7:38 PM
AWS: Put down the bottle. What the hell are you talking about?

I don't own a single share of Alcoa.
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By browntrout on 2/26/2006 7:54 PM
Bobo- Alcoa=tin-foil hats
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By Anon on 2/26/2006 5:31 PM
It won't be a mainstream story until more companies, especially ones with clout, chime in, and some legal action progresses to discovery.

It won't be a story until its a story.

Or a Woodward & Bernstein finally step up.

Their's another angle coming that was already news broken by the Seattle paper last year. I think those reporters moved on to other jobs since, but that paper is still on the case -- small biotech stocks (the most vulnerable stocks known to man or hedgefund manager) being manipulated with help from illegal input to hedgies from drug trial doctors.
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By jersey_devil on 2/26/2006 5:33 PM
COVER-UP! Of course there is and has been for a long time. The question is is it ending? I believe it is not because it is the right thing to do but so many lights are shining on it that exposure can't be stopped. Sure there will be spins and twists but I do believe that the long process has started. It appears that with all that is starting to break on the FTD and general hedgefund fraud front that they are about to become an endangered species. With that in mind I am thinking about setting up a fund to assist these guys and their friends(tainted media types). The fund will be called "Save the Financial Whales and Friends". Proceeds will be distributed to hire people to write to them if they are in prison. Letter topics will be: Remember the Golden Rule, Life after Foreclosure, Regaining My Sexual Identity, Life after Divorce, Is Bubba the Boogieman?, Tricks on How to Pick Up the Soap, etc. Other funds will be allocated to establish a prison rape hotline answered by a recording saying "What's Up Doc?", counseling for their families on how to live on 10,000 a year and is cardboard the best shelter material. Also the fund will mail DVD's to them. Titles like "That Cwazy Wabbit" , "Counting Rabbits in Your Sleep" , "Dirty Bunnies I Have Slept With" and "Bobo Cottontail" will be sent. Whadda ya think?
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By dave on 2/26/2006 5:36 PM
It's a cover up that isn't working. They can't stop internet word of mouth (please, everyone that is reading this, make a point to link to http://www.thesanitycheck.com whenever you get a chance - even consider putting it in the signature line of your outgoing emails).

Most investors have heard about Refco and most will hear about this latest lawsuit.

Unfortunately, our message is still a bit complicated and confusing.

A friend mentioned that she saw a talk show talking about us, but when I dug in, it turned out she had heard them talking about shorting and why it was good for the economy. She walked away from it thinking that we had "sour grapes" and didn't understand the benefits of shorting.

As this becomes public, they are going to try and reposition this as something that is good for us, like broccoli.

I bet the disinformation campaign is going to focus on how shorting is good for the economy (they'll drop the word naked), because it roots out bad companies and creates liquidity (sell side, anyway).

We have to stay on message about settlement failures. Shorting confuses people, but they understand delivery at a gut level. At a gut level, they know what it means to pay for something and to not receive it and at a gut level, they are going to be furious to find out their own brokerage has been lying to them with misleading statements and confirmation slips.

It really is "share counterfeiting" and it really dilutes the currency of a company the same way ordinary counterfeiting dilutes the value of a nation's currency.

If we talk about how foreign offshore hedge funds counterfeit shares in public companies, driving companies out of business and employees out of work while stealing from investors, they are going to be mad.

If they find out that their own brokerages and financial media were in on the scam, they are going to be furious.

If they find out that their votes are routinely discarded, the are going to get out the pitchforks.
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By Anon on 2/26/2006 5:45 PM
On the share # issue, Pat needs to find some way to get his message to the mainstream on just what you wrote.

The shares out of OSTK are not what they seem.

I think the SEC might be working on that very issue if I read between the lines on Pat's message board mentionings of this issue, and his presentations on it.

Wanna bet he's done a Ross Perot style presentation to the SEC on his Wash. visits?

The SF office of the SEC seems to also be on board. Mum is the word while they investigate, no blog updates from those folks!
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By dave on 2/26/2006 8:10 PM
That's cover up technique number 5.

5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nut," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot," and of course, "rumor monger." You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned.
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By bobo on 2/26/2006 8:03 PM
Ahhh. Very amusing. Yes.

I also chuckle at the tin-foil hat description - particularly funny when you don't want to address the real issues. If I had a dime for every time I was called a loon by some helpful NSS apologist I could buy a tuscan villa with the cash. I believe that the S&L regulator was also called nuts on a daily basis by the media and the apologists for the thrift industry, and even by the administration. They also claimed he was a grifter (fiddling his expense accounts), had a hidden agenda (presumably to persecute the poor, honest S&Ls who were victims of his wrath), and was an imbecile. Ed Gray - the only guy in the country who was willing to go on record saying that the S&L business was robbing the banking system blind, as a small network of thieves systematically abused the new regulations to enrich themselves.

The media was very helpful, running story after story about what a loon Ed was, how shifty he was, what a bizarre, eccentric, bumbling, angry man he was.

The Keating 5 - a group of Congressmen that pressured the regulators to leave the poor S&L's alone - were instrumental in costing the America taxpayer hundreds of billions.

Gray's successor at the regulator was a yes man who pretended nothing was wrong, compounding the problem no end.

There are no new ideas. None. This was all done before, about 20 years ago. The bad guys in that are still around, and are likely playing in this as well. Same press. Same elected officials. Same names on Wall Street.

Alcoa.

Very amusing. Thank you for that...
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By bobo on 2/26/2006 8:40 PM
And the bashers have a new agenda - some are pretending to be on "our" side, and then go into long racial or religious rants. Obviously the agenda is to make us look nuts. Can't wait for another "Who's Bob O'Brien" piece.

They are somewhat in a bind now. The information is out there, and the more visibility that this issue receives, the harder it is to confront reasonable questions with "you're all nuts."

It isn't washing, guys. At all. Nobody is fooled.
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By rtway1 on 2/26/2006 8:53 PM
Your absolutely right Catspell. Got to keep the pressure on, eventually the smallest pebble has to come out of your shoe because the pain ain,t worth it. If there is one thing that pols understand is when they loose votes and donations. Send them a letter and tell them you and YOUR FAMILY will give money and votes to those who stand up for us, and direct them to this site. I personally can,t tell the difference between either party, but I am willing to listen to all, even independents.
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By rtway1 on 2/26/2006 9:01 PM
If every company that is on the REG. SHO. list were to post a message on their investor relations page to go this web site I think it would help show more unity and that they care about their furure. After all O,Brien and Byrne did all the work for them. The more exposure the better.
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By dave on 2/26/2006 10:29 PM
I tried posting links to all the SRO companies a while back and Yahoo detected them as spam and automatically deleted them.

Let's each post http://www.thesanitycheck.com to five SRO companies right now while we think of it. Don't just post the link or it will be censored. You have to be more creative:

the sanity check DOT com (all one word)
th esan itycheck DOT com (remove spaces)
the_sanity_check_DOT_com (remove underlines)

etc.

as RB and Yahoo will notice if too many copies of the same link or same text content appear.

Companies are listed here:

http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/aspx/regsho.aspx
http://www.nyse.com/Frameset.html?displayPage=/threshold/
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By dave on 2/26/2006 10:31 PM
HWH, I was thinking about the concept of settling shorts by forming an uber brokerage.

Is that what is driving mergers, acquisition of Refco's assets, etc.

Imagine that you owned a brokerage that was net short SRO stocks. One obvious solution is to buy a brokerage that is net long. That negates your obligation without causing a run.

Recent x-clearing bankruptcies:

Adler Coleman Clearing
MJK Clearing
Refco Clearing (in process)

http://www.sipc.org/media/release10jun04.cfm
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By Mississipibluffs on 2/26/2006 10:30 PM
rtway1 wrote "It wasn't too long ago Ross Perot almost broke up the good old boys club."

As I recall just as his campaign was gathering some steam Ross suddenly found other interests to pursue. Did anyone believe his stated reason?

Finding a bloody horse's head in bed with you when you wake up one morning is so 20th Century.

As another poster noted -- there's a great deal of money at stake.
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By n-tres-ted on 2/26/2006 10:26 PM
Let's review the fundamental principles of the two party founders: Alexander Hamilton the industrialist & Thomas Jefferson the agrarian championof the common man.

Power to the people v power to the Federal Government.

Little has changed fundamentally:

Republican theology:
-small educated populous & concentration of wealth, cheap labor, with power residing in Washington D.C.

Democratic Theology:
-education for the masses, opportunity for all, upward mobility, power in the states of the constituents.

Food for thought...hwh

hwh, the two political parties have realigned since Hamilton and Jefferson. And I respectfully suggest that you should update your analysis of political/economic views of the two parties presently. Having said that, I will otherwise stick to the subject of how to overcome and correct this NSS outrage.
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By bobo on 2/26/2006 10:39 PM
Let's keep the politics off this thread. This is not a partisan issue - it is a market fraud issue. Appreciate it -I really don't want to have to start putting political stuff into doggerel.

The bashers on the boards are now pretending to be NCANS members or pro-Thesanitycheck and then go into anti-semitic rants and the like. Let's not forget that the level of our adversaries here is as base as one could get. No doubt a lot of this is to provide fodder for some article claiming that the site promotes hate - which will also backfire on the turds, as everyone comes here to see what the fuss is all albout.
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By Republicrat on 2/27/2006 7:43 AM

If you are going to get political here at least get the facts right. The Democrats spent plenty of time in power. The ghettos are still here. Wages are crap. The education system has turned into a brainwashing mill. I can go on and on but I will leave it with the election of Democrat Jon Corzine (who made millions working at Goldman Sachs) to the New Jersey Senate where he left midterm to become NJ Governor and recently nominated his buddy from Goldman “I didn’t see nuthin ask my lawyer” Abelow, ex DTCC employee for a new position he created. I was told he was giving teenagers a hundred bucks a day to go campaign for him. Who knows who else’s vote he bought. I’d like to hear Corzine’s take on the manipulation. Both sides suck period (.)

“Democratic Theology:-education for the masses, opportunity for all, upward mobility, power in the states of the constituents.”

HAH!!
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By SAC O $HIT on 2/27/2006 7:44 AM

I know this has been posted but for all who missed it. Follow the link to the full article.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_29/b3842001_mz001.htm

"The Most Powerful Trader on Wall Street You've Never Heard Of

Meet Steve Cohen. Even his enemies admit he's the best stock trader around, routinely trouncing the market with his $4 billion hedge fund. Just how does he do it?

A gunmetal-gray BMW 745 Li sedan slips out of Steven A. Cohen's 14-acre walled estate. The chauffeured car races along the winding backcountry hills of ultrawealthy Greenwich, Conn. At around 8 a.m., it powers into the parking lot of SAC Capital Advisors. Cohen quickly emerges and darts into the front entrance of his gleaming steel and terra-cotta-slabbed Stamford (Conn.) headquarters. His driver swings the car around to the back and parks in a space with a simple reserved sign amid a sea of testosterone-exuding cars belonging to his traders: Mercedes S600s, Lexus sport-utility vehicles, and Porsche Carrera 4s. Cohen will soon be sitting at what one trader calls "command central" -- his desk with its numerous screens, perched in the midst of a football field-length trading floor. In the next few hours he is likely to earn several million dollars."
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By ghost writer on 2/27/2006 7:45 AM

All this hoopla over criminal manipulation of shares that are “legally short. Biovail has 159.42 Million shares outstanding. Could that be enough to satisfy that long list of greedy Gradient clients in the lawsuit list or did they have to start shorting ghost shares too?
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By stormchaser on 2/27/2006 7:49 AM
bobo...as long as our corrupt government politicans get their share of the "proceeds " there will be no reform...It will take a spectacular revelation to fully out this monumental fraud being perpetrated by OUR OWN GOVERNMENT agains its citizens..may God help us.........
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By WickedWorld on 2/27/2006 7:50 AM
FWIW, Herb is slated to be on cnbc between 12-2pm today.
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By pinkice on 2/27/2006 7:54 AM
bobo, patrick, BVF - keep up the great work! cover-up, the make-up could not be pancaked on any heavier then what the shorters/media are doing, in fact its on so heavy that it has started to drip off and the sweat is showing - once that happens, no return - can't reapply new makeup over old and look better.

seriously, what start-up company would want to go public. between sarbanes- oxely and being potentially listed on the Reg SHO listing and dealing with NSS, these are truly public company killers. a CEO/president has to spend his/her time dealing with these issues and has little time left-over for running the business. the incentive IMHO because of the crookness of the market is to stay private and retain the huge returns privately. with hedgies/broker dealers controlling the market, the retail investor is at a big disadvanatge as well as the entrprenuer. let's kill/control the capital markets so a few on the street can be immensely wealthy while the masses get ripped off. the hedgies and tutes don't really want to work, they want to live off others, like leeches, God forbid they have to actually be creative/entreprenurial to do a real day's work. may the make-up come off all of them.

my hat is off to you bobo, Patrick, and now BVF.
Re: When the SEC "Backs Off" By rvac106 on 2/27/2006 8:06 AM
WASHINGTON, Feb 27 (Reuters) - The head of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Monday responded to reports that the agency had subpoenaed two journalists for information in a stock manipulation investigation, saying the issuance of a subpoena is highly unusual.

"Until the appearance of media reports this weekend, neither the Chairman of the SEC, the General Counsel, the Office of Public Affairs, nor any Commissioner was apprised of or consulted in connection with a decision to take such an extraordinary step," SEC Chairman Christopher Cox said in a statement.

"The sensitive issues that such a subpoena raises are of sufficient importance that they should, and will be, considered and decided by the Commission before this matter proceeds further," Cox said.

According to news reports over the weekend, the SEC issued subpoenas on Feb. 7 to columnists from two Dow Jones & Co. (DJ.N: Quote, Profile, Research) publications, asking for telephone records, e-mails and other documents related to online retailer Overstock.com Inc. (OSTK.O: Quote, Profile, Research)

The SEC's investigation involves accusations by Overstock.com that stock-research firm Gradient Analytics Inc. negatively adjusted research after a hedge fund betting against the stock requested a change.

So, instead of congratulating his legal arm for taking the initiative (long delayed) of issuing subpoena's, Cox's first reaction is to assuage the Wall Street crowd by "BACKING OFF?"

Hmmmm. These guys better be careful. One can back up so quickly, that one falls over one's own feet. Perhaps they think we're no longer watching? That'd be wrong.

RVAC
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By dexter on 2/27/2006 8:42 AM
In other words, the honest investigators in the trenches at the SEC issued the subpoenas and certain hedgie friendly executives at the SEC killed it as soon as they realized it was happening.

"Hey, Dexter, I appreciate your nose to the grindstone and all, but you must know that you're not supposed to investigate share counterfeiting. I'll let you off this time because you are a new hire, but in the future, be smart."
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By n-tres-ted on 2/27/2006 8:43 AM
Neither Overstock.com nor Biovail has alleged NSS tactics by the defendants in their respective complaints. I assume that is because the witnesses/affiants have no knowledge of NSS being used by the defendants. If that is the case, then what significance do those suits have for our concerns about NSS. Even if each plaintiff proves the case and wins, still no effect on curing the NSS problem. TIA
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By Joseph Avenius on 2/27/2006 9:07 AM
Was looking for the "It's not so bad..." blog, and making upa package to send out & could not find it, didn't see it in th archives. Can you direct me to it?
avenius@yahoo.com
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By AWS on 2/27/2006 9:13 AM
Bobo-

Good morning.

You're not not a looney. You're very bright. You're probably right about abusive hedge fund practices hurting lots of little companies. You're at least getting the powers that be to examine the system in constructive ways. You're tolerant of folks with less-spiffy wristwatches.

But still...back in California in 1849, the boys who did the best were the purveyors of pans, picks 'n shovels for those with big dreams. You're selling lots of foil hats, whether you like it or not. Alcoa-dude. I picture villagers with torches...running around the town looking for Frankenstein's monster. There he is, boys! Greenberg the Poop-eater! Get him!"

Not that what I'd like matters even a smidge, here...I wish the paranoia about the financial press would be toned down. It is a favorite topic of the foilies, and to be honest, beneath someone of intellegence such as you, Mr. O'Brien.

If I were interviewing for Greenberg's job, I had better have good access to active short-sellers. It should not surprise anyone in the least that the timing of his "negative" pieces coincides with short positions being put on. On CNBC you get these mutual fund managers touting their longs...and nobody complains though the situation is analogous. Mom & Pop are flat or long the shares anyhow. Guys like me hoping to buy cheaper are screwed, but have no leg upon which to stand in court because ours is an opportunity cost. And nobody feels sorry for the short hedge funds - because they're big bad boys.

Being mad at Herb reminds me of ribbon damages. Before I was a monster...MONSTER BSD with a 19 comma salary, 5 castles near the Riviera, and didn't give folks like rtway1 the time of day...you know, the good ole days, I was a paralegal at a NYC law firm and at a 1st-tier investment bank. [for those continuing to keep score at home...$15k-24k/yr plus OT] Wall St. firms get sued all the time by disgruntled "investors" of all flavors. The Milberg-Weiss machinery was in operation back then, so of course, the class-action securities fraud claims were commonplace. [Any thoughts on these REAL cockroaches, Bob?] Typically some company, say a utility, was accused of knowing about some big expensive problem on June 1st (stock at $40/shr) but didn't tell people about it until December 1st...whereupon the stock fell 25%. The ribbon argument goes - everyone who bought the stock between the time management "knew" and the time they "told", and held through the "told", was damaged by $10/share..per victim. Mil-Weiss then comes up with a class of, say, 10k victims at an average position of 1000 shares...or $100mm in damages that can be viewed visually on a chart, if one immediately drops the trading price from June-Dec by the $10/share and compares it to the actual price graph. Of course, Mil-Weiss settles out of court for expenses plus $100k (call it $400,000 - not $100mm). They take their $300k plus 30% of the remaining $100k, leaving $7 (not per share) for each victim to spend at Wendy's.

Longs, in companies like OSTK see themselves (and others) hurt in this way too. "Herbie said my stock sucks" and it fell $3/share, so that pig owes me 3-grand and everyone on the Yahoo board too! They think they have a ribbon case, and lots of like-minded posters fuel that belief. They believe the courts will back them up because they have the brokerage statements to prove their losses.

Folks - grow up. Toss off the foil beanie. Herb and the legal system don't owe you squat.

So Bobo...you fuel the hatred to garner eyeballs and build strength for your movement. You don't correct misconceptions (what good would that do?) and you paint pictures with doggie-doo to make it all nice and funny. Picks n' pans. This isn't surprising, but I think your message should be cleaner and less paranoid. It might not be as entertaining, but giggles won't help you and your squad in the courts.

What journalists have to put up with...just to make a not-so-great living.

Show me $$ for untrue stories in the major press (not research outfits) from the miscreants and then we might have some common ground. Till then, I'm with Herb...as you would have known by now anyhow.

[OK...foilies...let 'er rip.]
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By media bias on 2/27/2006 9:17 AM

If you don’t like the slanted reporting in the NY Times here is a site you can send your comments to. It used to be just political but it seems to have branched out into other areas.

http://www.timeswatch.org/
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By Patchie on 2/27/2006 9:29 AM
AWS...

A little longwinded there don't you think?

1. What the SEC did against Herb and Carol came from much more than just the say so of Patrick Byrne. For some time now Herb and gang have denied that Gradient was under investigation. I have to believe that they have something that would have prompted this move.
2. The Biovail lawsuit speaks louder than teh Overstock lawsuit because it provides some data as insight. The fact that Jesse Eisinger is listed as calling the company about an investigation before the company knew, and that tip came from the defendants should lead you to question things just a bit. Did you read the lawsuit?
3. We are all protected under the Constitution. You, I, and the reporters. The question is, can we hide behind the constitution where we may be involved in a crime?

You should notice that the SEC did not say that they have NEVER done this before, they only state they use it as a matter of last resort. Before you take out the old Red White and Blue and wave it from the building tops consider what Constitutional rights may have been violated against many of us by this orchestration of fraud and consider the irony that our rights mean less than Herb's to the press.
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By angry investor on 2/27/2006 9:31 AM
<"Until the appearance of media reports this weekend, neither the Chairman of the SEC, the General Counsel, the Office of Public Affairs, nor any Commissioner was apprised of or consulted in connection with a decision to take such an extraordinary step," SEC Chairman Christopher Cox said in a statement...>

that short contracts never fulfull their stated legal obligation in the contract because both sides of trade or trade obligation are not completed leading to possible gutting of assets prices of U.S companies...
that this can happen if all trade clearance & settlement are not documented for investing public...
THIS IS WHERE SOME EXTRAORDINARY STEPS ARE NEEDED COMMISIONER COX.
let's get to it Cox. Let's get some fiducirary duty for U.S investors.
My 401k & IRA future retirement moneys are at risk. All transaction info must be shone to investors. No loophole delays, no press coverups. Stop keep investors in the dark. If this continues, U.S. markets won't be model for rest of the world.

If our media has been bought off by govt/corporated controllers, then we must find global sources. everytime some powerful mouth starts spouting about media being hijacked by "the left", we must insert our concern about independent information on economy & investments. the business conflicts of interest are enormous.
how can we have independent coverage of markets when the media must depend on sources of income from corporate advertisers?
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By AWS on 2/27/2006 9:42 AM
Patchie-

Thanks for the reply, and as always, I appreciate the tenor and content of your posts.

From what I've seen/read I just have not seen anything which strikes of crossing the line by HG. There is just too much that is consistent with him just doing his job for me to infer otherwise. Believe me, I like a good conspiracy as much as the next guy. Makes amazingly good press. Just wish it were there. But we'll just have to see what unfolds now, won't we? Can't imagine any paper trail still being there at this stage of the game, can you?
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By bobo on 2/27/2006 9:48 AM
Nterested - this is about stock manipulation, and naked short selling is a tool of stock manipulators. Refer to the top of the screen for a description of the Sanity Check's focus - maybe that will clear some things up.

AWS. Bullshit, in a nutshell. I am getting a bit tired of every other post trying to paint us as looney villagers on a witch hunt. I've been civil with you and entertained opposing views with honesty, however entertaining repeated thinly veiled pejorative slams are not part of the deal. That starts smacking of agenda, and not understanding or debate. Fair warning, OK? Read my latest blog for more on this.
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By AWS on 2/27/2006 10:07 AM
//
AWS. Bullshit, in a nutshell. I am getting a bit tired of every other post trying to paint us as looney villagers on a witch hunt. I've been civil with you and entertained opposing views with honesty, however entertaining repeated thinly veiled pejorative slams are not part of the deal. That starts smacking of agenda, and not understanding or debate. Fair warning, OK? Read my latest blog for more on this.//

Bob. Knock it down a notch. You have been very civil, and my observations are not part of any agenda. I meant what I said about the efforts to clean up that which is bad. My evidential hurdle is just higher. My comments on Herb are just my opinion. I want PB to go into court with an airtight case...not a flimsy one. That's my agenda.

I don't take kindly to being painted as one justifying the rape of the girl in the slinky cocktail dress either. I still think Grandma is more at risk from the pumping of worthless companies. I understand the intent of your comment but it twists my point horribly.

NSS manipulation is the key issue of your site. Does the evidence only point to this as the cause of [say] PB not getting delivery of shares for months. I happen to think that this has not been sufficiently proved and pulling other weak tidbits (IMHO - Greenberg pieces) to support the charges is a stretch.

Sorry to clog. I just don't smell cover-up yet...but I'm not privy to Rocker's bank account info. He and Vickrey probably are slime and abuse the system to their advantage. Clean that up and I'll cheer.
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By Settle The Trades on 2/27/2006 10:22 AM

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 14
Amendment 14 - Citizenship rights

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By bobo on 2/27/2006 10:33 AM
Settle the Trades:

Is Carol a US citizen? Is she a US resident? Does she even have a green card? I don't know, but I think it is worth asking if that is the basis for her defense...
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By Settle The Trades on 2/27/2006 11:15 AM

Am I not being deprived of my property by having bought shares of a company of which there were only supposed to be a finite amount available, and of which I agreed upon a purchase price based upon that representation, and the value of my shares relying on that premise, and then having come to find out that I have been defrauded of my property by having somebody else rob me by selling phantom shares in the same company causing the value of my shares to become extremely devalued if not completely worthless.

Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By bobo on 2/27/2006 11:50 AM
You are being deprived of your property. Congratulations. You get it.

The only people arguing that this is good are those making money from the practice.
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By hwh on 2/27/2006 12:09 PM
Bobo:

The most effective tactic to date has been silence! Not allowing them a moment to breathe is the best strategy. As a wise man once said," I don't care what they say, as long as they spell my name right!"...hwh
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By settle the trades on 2/27/2006 1:06 PM
Well then why no class action suit brought on behalf of all the stockholders of all the companies that are being shorted naked?
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By bobo on 2/27/2006 2:37 PM
Against whom?
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By Niel Storts on 2/27/2006 2:59 PM
Great job, "Bob". Thank you again.
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By settle the trades on 2/27/2006 3:10 PM
Sue whoever listed them on the reg sho list.
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By settle the trades on 2/27/2006 3:25 PM
How about 50,000 investors each going pro se for individual jury trials.
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By settle the trades on 2/28/2006 2:01 AM
All you need to do is write one brief and everybody can use it as a prototype and plug in their own name, their stock position and pay a filing fee in the court in their state..
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By A fat man named Douglas on 2/26/2006 8:11 PM
From the latest Jeff Matthews blog comments - want to bet he deletes this?

padawancowboy said...

Jeff,

You may have noticed that Ram Partners is mentioned in the Biovail complaint. Care to comment?

http://nakedshorts.typepad.com/nakedshorts/files/Biovail.pdf

"66. Maris undertook such actions because (a)he hoped to be credited and compensated by Banc of America Securities with bringing in or maintaining lucrative hedge fund business, including from, among others, S.A.C., Itros Capital, SuttonBrook Capital, Ram partners, and Ziff Brothers Investments, all of whom he understood were shorting Biovil; (b) these and similar short-selling hedge funds shared with him material non-public information they had secured by excercising their substantial financial leverage that he could use to make his recommendations appear more prescient; and (c) he understood that Biovail was about to be the subject of a concerted short attack by these and other powerful hedge funds and saw enlisting in this assault as an opportunity to repeat his career-making performances with Elan and further solidify his self-proclaimed title of "The Howard Stern of Wall Street."

~ pc
2/26/2006 10:53 PM
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By hwh on 2/26/2006 8:36 PM
Ever since the Latin-American debt crisis the U.S. Government has held a contingency plan to "nationalize" the money center banks, effectively creating an UBER BANC. This lends credibility to the concept bouncing around about a "Global Settlement Plan" for the billions of Transactional Failures in the system right now! I would envision an "acceptable" unemployment rate of 15-30% as witnessed in countries with such systems in place

Geoge Soros & the like are waging political & financial war to create such a socialistic society.nQuestion is: Are the apathetic masses in a position to prevent the conversion from capitalism to socialism(rhetorical)!

They take away our 1st, 2nd, & 5th amendment rights and we have a socialistic dictatorship. Let's review the fundamental principles of the two party founders: Alexander Hamilton the industrialist & Thomas Jefferson the agrarian championof the common man.

Power to the people v power to the Federal Government.

Little has changed fundamentally:

Republican theology:
-small educated populous & concentration of wealth, cheap labor, with power residing in Washington D.C.

Democratic Theology:
-education for the masses, opportunity for all, upward mobility, power in the states of the constituents.

Food for thought...hwh
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By rtway1 on 2/26/2006 8:23 PM
Aws, do you have another life other than watching and listening to every move concerning OSTK and the bunny. You make it so self evident that you have a vested interest in this company, and it ain,t on the long end. We know what you are doing and it don,t work. Get some sleep and try having a good night,s rest for your busy day tommorrow of doing the same thing again, and again, and again. Tokoyo Rose was more amusing.
Re: rtway: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By captspell on 2/26/2006 8:37 PM
Good post. I came to the same conclusion. I wrote to many Dems. saying get on board. I wrote to many Reps. saying get on board. Neither one jumped on trying to bash the other party which is very very unusual. After the NASAA forum I wrote to all the major media financial people and layed it out for them. Why don't you do an article on this ? Was ignored by most and maliened by some. Conclusion- too much money coming into both parties and the media and the deal is hard wired. I think that they were surprised that bobo, bryne,burrell etc. figured it out and actually posted how the deal is done. There is a lot of light on the subject at the moment. I'm waiting for one, just one really big name to roll over and it will happen. Got to keep the heat on. It is obvious that they are in a panic at the moment. Bashers on the NFI mb are 4x the norm at least. Why, one might ask. Getting nervous? you bet they are.
13 coverup techniques By coverup on 2/26/2006 5:57 PM
The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition party.

1. Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.

2. Wax indignant. "How dare you?"

3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors."

4. Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.

5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nut," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot," and of course, "rumor monger." You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned.

6. Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money.

7. Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.

8. Dismiss the charges as "old news."

9. Come half-clean. This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hang-out route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken.

10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.

11. Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. For example: We have a completely free press. If they know of evidence that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City bombing they would have reported it. They haven't reported it, so there was no prior knowledge by the BATF. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press that would report it.

12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely.

13. Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or reporting a distraction.
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By browntrout on 2/26/2006 5:59 PM
Anon- I am sure the SEC already has had all of the info that Patrick Byrne is now discovering and talking about. The real question is why didn't they do anything prior to this? Exposure from Byrne is at least making them start to do something but pulling your subpoenas after a few weeks is not sending any message other than there is no big hurry to do anything in the future or ever.
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By InTheKnow on 2/26/2006 6:02 PM
When the naked shorters put that bird flu virus company out of busines and all those naked shorting scumbags get the flu and croak then maybe the coverup will end!
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By Anon on 2/26/2006 6:04 PM
trout,

some personnel aren't the same old same old there. Some turnover lately. Progress sometimes takes turnover, like our govt overall.

Is this Wall Street Revolution going to be due to a changing of the guard, or will it require legal brute force? Both could be in the mix.
Re: When Does “Coverage” Become “Cover-up?” By Tar-Baby didn't say a word on 2/26/2006 6:06 PM

I am sickened after reading the lawsuit and seeing the amateurish way that this group of racketeers operated in plain view, killing the entrepreneur, innovator, inventor, scientist, medical researcher, etc. as well as robbing us of billions of dollars of our hard earned dollars, while aided and abetted by a complicit press. I have to once again thank the Easter Bunny and Patrick and Melnyk and Mary and David and Bud and Mark and Jim and all the thousands of other “little people” who wouldn’t let them get away with it. You all did a wonderful mitzvah.