Alright, Mr. O’Brien won’t be around until tomorrow and I would rather get this cleaned up right now. I have responded both to the administrator of the site the original charge against me was levied and to others that have kindly sent me their correspondence. My correspondence with the administrator of that site has been posted in the comments section of the blog written about me. I had sent a preliminary response into Mr. O’Brien which he has now received and which I might post in addition tomorrow, although I would hope that something that involving does not need to occur in order to clear this problem up.
I will try to be as formal as possible in my response and cover every base just in case there is somebody who wishes to here the real situation that went on with Gary Weiss. I am, after all, the only person who knows the reality of the situation. Weiss’s book was announced for publication in January and the New York Post wrote a glowing preliminary review of it. After reading that article in the Post, I decided to write a response – much like a ‘letter to the editor’ – to the review and post it on theSanityCheck.com website.
After posting it I decided the best course of action would be to next post it as a reply to a blog on Weiss’s own site so that I could relay my comments directly to him, upon the suggestion of a commenter to my original post. I did so, as the site Antisocialmedia.net has rightly pointed out. I then did commit myself to a few days of back and forth communication with Weiss my comments were never posted in full and always cut up so that they could be put out of context. I complained to Weiss about this several times during the process of the conversation.
The conversation in total has been deleted from www.Gary-Weiss.com, where it was originally posted in the comments section of his blog. The conversation took place over seven months ago now, which is probably why. The replies I sent into Weiss for the comment section were falsified through the elimination of the bulk of what I said, and then responded to with an air of contempt by Weiss. Weiss took out every answer I sent in to him which he had requested and posted only cut up versions of my letters.
However let me make it clear that Weiss admitted to doing this during the conversation, and as far as I recall my complaints that this was occurring were posted throughout that conversation. I continued on with this fairly private conversation posted on a very rarely read blog by a fairly unknown poster –Weiss – not because I was trying to convince him of something. I realized early on by his erasing of my main bulk of evidence for him that he wasn’t interested in being convinced. I continued on the conversation because I wanted to try and open an honest dialogue with Mr. Weiss about the issue. Although his postings were not ethical in my opinion, he did receive and read my full posts himself and I took what I could from his responses in terms of research for the book I have written about this issue.
Both Weiss and I were fully involved in the conversation for several days, I remember that my late night posts (when I return home for the night from wherever it is I go) would not go up til morning, always followed by Weiss’s response. Weiss also complained that the length of some of my responses were too long for the program, and that it also contributed to how my comments were posted. As most who have read my writing in the past will know, I tend to be heavy on the introduction before I get to my point, and quite often the wordy introduction would be the only thing posted, cut off mid-word. So I must say, for the start of the conversation I do believe that is probably what happened. However I began to make sure my posts did not exceed the programs maximum length, which is approximately when Weiss merely cut and pasted sections of my work that did not follow the original context of what I said.
In more informal dialogue with others I have previously annotated some of my feelings, which I have been asked to clarify. I would like to share the following quotation from the article in which the charges were made against me:
“Gary Weiss is James Cummins and Frank Guss.
While there is evidence to suggest that a young writer named James Cummins does exist and may have collaborated on the referenced project, he had no part in this interaction. Instead, Gary gravely mislead his readers by propping up an overly-gracious strawman to publicly flay with the help of others, including at least one poster who was in fact also Gary Weiss.
The effect of the Haloscan auto-complete bug is limited to individual machines, such that the only reason it might affect either James Cummins or Frank Guss would be if they all posted from the computer used by Gary Weiss. Indeed, that appears to he what happened, though it was Gary acting as the other two at the time.
Gary Weiss has done his readers and patrons a tremendous disservice for which he should apologize, reveal what role the real James Cummins played in this ruse (if any), and commit to a more honest use of social media moving forward.”
I will respond to this closing of the article in full. I do exist, not that anyone doubts that at all, and I did not just collaborate on the project – I wrote it. My coauthor is the eyes and ears out in the community, she is the architect of the idea for the project and continues to push herself closer to everything she can in this issue. She has launched her own FOIA campaigns, exposed corrupt reporters and created evidence that has been brought up time and time again in this debate. The writing of the book was my job, creating the outline and finding 95% of the evidence for the writing was my job, and the marketing of this book is my job. It is like most coauthor relationships, we have designated positions in the project and the book has gotten great responses from major publishers thus far.
The writer of this article is incorrect, I did participate in this conversation and I have now written a full account as to the actual reality of the situation. I appreciate that others out there are putting their full efforts into the detective work needed to expose this issue, however I have been complaining about Weiss’s methods in this conversation for seven months now and have already written that section of my book about it. This article skews the truth about the issue, a truth that had already been expressed to several people a long time ago.
Gary Weiss did set up a straw-man by falsifying the content of my interaction with him. However I do not know if Gary Weiss posted in collusion with himself against me. As far as the cookies used on the site, I have a shredder on my computer which eliminates all cookies, and I have been known to put the site URL of the blog I am posting on in the URL slot, the place where I originally found the site from or my own site in the past. It was probably me not wanting my site attached to the blog postings; this is often what I do when replying to bashers or agitators so that they cannot follow me into my own domain. I think that is more than fair to say or do. I love using my real name here in this debate, that I can hand out my home phone number and address for mailings however I don’t like getting harassing phone calls at my home, I have received some despite my efforts and I took great pains to make sure they were dealt with appropriately.
Following the comment on the original site on which the charges were levied I quickly posted a note saying my response had been sent into sanity check in the early afternoon. It was, and the reply email I received was to that email so it definitely got there. I will also respond in this letter to the further comments that were posted on sanity check after the posting of the original article levying the charges:
“Patchie, give me James Cummins' contact info and, sure, I'll ask him myself. But something tells me if I did that, no one here would believe me. Did not Cummins write a guest blog here? Did not Cummins brag here that he's writing his own book on naked shorting called the Midas Touch "that will blow the Weiss book out of the water!"? Seems to reason the guy would be hanging around here. Seems to reason if Gary Weiss were fabricating his words he'd be furious and let everyone here know it. At least he'd have told Bobo. Or at least you'd assume Bobo would have asked. Nah, why search for the truth when you can take the innuendo route as an excuse to call your "adversaries" "chump" and "scumbag." So, James, we know you are reading this. Help us all be InTheKnow on what really happened here.” - (Poster Jeff Mitchell)
I have never bragged about the book I wrote, it is a manuscript that I believe in but I have never compared it to any of the other great literature on the subject out there, or to Weiss’s book. If I am wrong on this please send me the quote, because as far as I know I’ve tried to share all the information from the book with others over the last year instead of holding anything secret. Was I furious? Seven months ago I was frustrated that someone would be so inconsiderate. Long over it now, although I still find it highly unethical.
Bob O’Brien and David Patch respectively should not be criticized the way they have been in this comment. They are both rigorous in their research and most likely both either could have heard about it through the grapevine a long time ago. Both have spoken to me in the past about questions they had, that dialogue has already been opened. And although I was not reading this string of comments, my coauthor follows this site fairly carefully and called me early morning yesterday to let me know. I read Bob’s articles here and the other blogs, but rarely venture into the comment section unless I have something to say.
A further comment:
“Buddy at least your posts make it to the board not like that weasel Gary Weiss who cuts, pastes and deletes posts before they ever hit his blog!” – (poster InTheKnow)
Here is a secondary opinion on how Weiss treats posts on his blog, very similar to my experience. That is about all I have to say on this issue. I have responded to every single item within it for those who are interested. Any questions, feel free to respond here. However I do hope this misunderstanding is now cleared up.
This is an addendum to this primary post in this thread. Since the original insinuations were made about the seven month old conversation between myself and Weiss I have entered a correspondence with antisocialmedia.net that I will not print in full. It covers all parts of the emails that were not explicitely stated as off the record:
From: "Auntie Socialmedia" <antisocialmedia@gmail.com>To: in_fusion_productions@hotmail.comSubject: guest blogDate: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 18:43:20 -0600
Mr. Cummins,I am the admin at antisocialmedia.net. Thank you for your comment. The last thing we want to do is implicate an innocent person either directly or indirectly, and want to give you an opportunity to explain what some are interpreting as cooperation with Gary Weiss on a very strange situation. I emailed Bob O'Brien asking for a copy of the guest blog you said you sent him but he insists nothing has arrived from you. You might try re-sending to him, and please copy me at this address so I can post it as well.
Also, did you complete the book? If you'd like, I'll post a link to it on Amazon if it's up there, or to another site if you have sample chapters available for download.Thank you,admin
antisocialmedia.net
Cummins' Reply email:
Haven't heard from Bob since so I don't know what's up there. Maybe the response is not good enough for the blog. Either way, we can talk one on one here. My book is done but we are looking for a publisher to pick it up. Had a few offers from smaller presses, but we are really trying for something bigger if at all possible and have decided to take our time finding a home for the manuscript. I have a few other books out there too, so the waiting game is a game I've learned to play well. I may consider putting up a sample chapter too, we'll see how things go.
I like your style of investigation, it is always within the smallest nooks and crannies that the truth in this problem pops up. It's how I've discovered a lot of things myself. However no, Mr. Weiss and I have little to do with one another. I reviewed his book respectfully and then had a bit of a tussle with him on his website over a bit of time. Did not spend a lot of time on it, just brought the site up every so often to see if my reply was up and if someone had responded. Very sporatic. Then again, sporatic for me is about every half hour. I sometimes have a bit too much time on my hands.
The goal of talking to Weiss was merely to open a dialogue with him. It had nothing to do with 'proving' anything, he was a figure of interest and I wanted to speak with him. I did that, he got my replies through the site and posted his own, though it had some repercussions. Weiss did not post my full postings, choosing instead to post only an abridged version of comments which he would take time to pick apart out of context. By the end he was stripping very small portions of what I said in lengthy responses, and ignoring the rest.
I had sent him 'other stories' of horrified investors that he had never heard before, but he would only post those that he could refute. He took great offense to my request he not use tu quoquo or ad hominem arguments for some reason, and that's when things really got wacked out on his end of things. In terms of posting anyways.
So in a sense you are partially right, Weiss did set himself a public target from clippings of what I had said, although he says at several times in the dialogue that he had done so (vaguely). However the dialogue was not something created by myself for public consumption. It was research for my book done in the only place I could get ahold of the typically elusive Weiss. He received my full responses and read them, he was the only person who needed to in the end. His postings told me a lot about who he was and where he stood.
That's about as much as I can recall from the situation, it was seven months ago afterall and I have had thousands of such interactions with other people since. I reviewed my notes of the situation to make sure I didn't miss anything, although it really was a very trivial point along the way to an extensive body of research.
Other than that there are some other things I could clear up, I'm not sure I've ever said my book would 'blow Weiss's out of the water'. I've never bragged about a book, I just wrote one. In fact, I've tried quite hard to publish my findings on the Internet before hand because I really don't believe in keeping secrets. What is interesting to me about this scenario is that I am one of the very few people in this anti-naked short thing that actually uses his real name every time, his real home telephone number and address, and will speak to anyone on either side of the issue who finds the time to write or call. I'm a clean slate here, and I'm an open book. It is actually kind of humorous that I would be considered the opposite of that I have tried to be based on a seven month old conversation that was the result of my practice of openness.
I'll try to see of Bob has received my letter, but I won't pester him to put it up. He runs a good ship over there and I wouldn't pressure him for anything. He has enough concerns of his own nowadays. Thanks for taking the time to investigate, let me know if you have any additional questions.
James Cummins
From: "Auntie Socialmedia" <antisocialmedia@gmail.com>To: in_fusion_productions@hotmail.comSubject: followupDate: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:06:45 -0600
Mr. Cummins,
Thank you very much for your response. As you may have seen, it was a little long so I moved it to another page, leaving what I feel was most relevant on the main page, together with a link to the full text.
Before I get to my point, let me point out that
this was never supposed to be about you, James. In fact, it should have been clear
from the beginning that we considered you a victim of Gary Weiss' seemingly
irresponsible blogging. And that may yet be the case, but to many it's becoming
a tougher sell.
Let me ask you a few follow-up questions which I hope you'll
answer directly, and with your permission I may publish to the blog.
1. Did Gary Weiss alter your comments to his blog?
2. Early
in your exchange, Weiss says: Mr. Cummins, you may want to come back
and continue your thoughts, as Haloscan has apparently cut off your comment at
the beginning of your point 3.
After which you say:Man I really wish this thing would stop
cutting off my responses, I did have more.
Are you now claiming it was not Haloscan but Gary Weiss who truncated your
comments?
3. Beginning
at 10:53pm on Feb 2, you posted a 900 word response in three sections over the
course of three minutes. Clearly this was pre-written. Did Gary Weiss alter any
of those comments and if so, considering you had access to an original with
which to strike a comparison, why didn't you object? Further, why would you
continue posting under those circumstances?
4. What portion of your book was written by you versus your co-author?
5. Where do you live currently (not for publication, just my own curiosity)?
Thanks James. Hopefully we can get this all cleared up.
Cummins' reply:
CLEARED FOR PUBLICATION
1. Weiss did not add anything into my responses, however he did alter the form and therefore presentation of content to my posts. The parts of my responses he cut out were often central to my arguments, leaving my information piecemeal. The title of your article is poignant more than you’d suspect. Some of the most drastic cuts from my correspondence concerned my use of argument rules –ad Hominem, tu quoquo, red herring and the like – which he took offense to for some reason and deleted. Then of course he used them against Bob as a bit of a jab at my opinions, so your title is presciently ironic.
Let me also add that your take on the possibility of Weiss playing all the parts in the conversation is also ironic, because at the time I was accused of being Bob O’Brien by most of those who read it originally. For about a week I could not convince anyone on the other side that I was not Bob O’Brien, evidenced by the secondary conversation I was having on the Overstock Yahoo page at the same time as the Gary-Weiss.com thing was going on. In fact, any time I post anywhere I usually get accused of being Bob O’Brien under a new pseudonym. Of course the charge is always ludicrous.
2. I believe that at first Haloscan may have left my responses cut off, but I did purposely make sure that this would not happen again due to my writing over the maximum lenghth allowed for each post. It was at about this point that my comments were abridged through Weiss's editing and my comments continued to be cut off at strange places. I can only speak with certainty about the selective abridgement of later comments, as I do not have access to the original thread. Access to this thread would yield more detailed results. If you would like these results, please forward the original thread, although I would to stop rehashing this long past scenario sooner rather than later.
The core of my arguments, through the abridgements he made, was removed after I submitted them.
3. Right now I do not have a full copy in front of me and for some reason on my computer it says the comment list was erased, although my coauthor tells me it isn't. Either way, I do believe that the section you are talking about was the mid-point and without having the section in front of me I cannot comment on the first part of your question. I did voice objections throughout the conversation, in answer to the second part of your questions. Most were stricken in Weiss’s editing. In answer to the third part of your question, and I believe I have said this in every response I have given thus far, the conversation was not meant for public consumption. It was a correspondence between a reviewer and an author, myself being the reviewer. I was contacting him in order to open a dialogue from which I would research my book. It is not unlike another dozen or so dialogues I have opened on the net, and by no means the most recent. He read my full responses and answered in whatever way he wished. What happened to my responses in the public forum may have been frustrating, but the goal was not for me to publish a conversation, it was to have one. Between us such a conversation was had. That he used my posts unethically after reading them and during his responses was of concern to me, but the more important thing in writing this book is to get answers and gather evidence. I am not in the business of convincing people on the other side who don’t want to be convinced. I am neutral in my arguments and take all things into account, saving my strong opinions for the book and backing them only with evidence. I have posted under far worse conditions, as many have. I have posted on Overstock's Yahoo board and received far more significant insults as I gathered the dialogue for my research. Not everyone is nice in this issue, some are unethical, yet the research must be done. If I did not talk at length with people on the other side, well then, I would not be able to double check that my ideas are factual and not biased. The byproducts of such conversations in this issue, such as the unethical abridging of my comments before publication, are something I am willing to endure for the sake of the manuscript. That, quite honestly, is my own business and right. Besides, that conversation was a fairly trivial aside to other research I was doing at the time. As I have said before, this was typical of many conversations I have done during my research and was a very long time ago.
What I am more interested in today is that this situation has caused a stir, any stir at all. Of everything I have done within this issue, it seems of very little interest, at least to me. So let me take a moment to explain what I mean here, as I always do try to share the information I have gathered. My coauthor was the person who first discovered Carol Remond’s suspicious foreknowledge and position in the short game. I was the one, along with my coauthor, who first issued the FOIA against the SEC for withholding evidence from the 9-11 Report in regards to issues directly related to naked short selling, a case taken up by the Washington Legal Foundation. I published on the inner workings of the SEC on FinancialWire, I published the first guest blog on Sanity Check- the review of Weiss's book that seems to be the start of this whole mess. These are things of significance in my mind. The people I have interviewed have shared significant evidence with me. However my stance has always been neutral, as any writer needs to be in order to continue on with their career.
In any review of my thoughts on a situation with Gary Weiss however, I must disclaim what I learned from my encounter with him. Mr. Weiss believes that naked short selling is a problem but does not rank high enough on the list of problems he sees in the stock market to merit debate – so much so that he has outright stopped any discussion of it. He thinks that this debate is sucking life away from the fight against bigger problems, and has written as such in his new book. When he attacks someone else or defends himself, and this I have elicited from him personally many times, he is defending his idea of what the real problems of the world are. Is he nice about it? Well… no, but he in my opinion he is not nearly in the same league as the other problems groups like NCANS face.
This is in contrast to others much more sinister. I have spoken to some bashers who are truly only in this for the money. They are riding out the drops in price on their IRAs and really don't care about what you have to say. They claim it is the nature of the beast; they are not part of any conspiracy, just taking advantage of it to make money. There are others who have been fooled into honestly believing that the NCANS movement is a group of penny stock swindlers, and who are trying to make a difference themselves. These are few and far between to be sure, but they are there.
I have also spent the time to sketch profiles of the actual perpetrators. They are typically criminals with allegiances to other nations, and who find safe haven in foreign nations in order to escape the repercussions of their actions. Latin America, Eastern Europe, Canada, China, Mexico, Germany – these people are spread out over the world. These people are in it for the power and wealth, something more than money. They are building illegal fortunes to fund their excessive lifestyles. Some are also using naked short selling as a method of economic warfare against America.
In my educated opinion, I do not believe that Gary Weiss is even a minor threat in comparison to these other problems. At most I think he is an older writer who has become cranky, hardened by the world and staunchly opinionated, but I have never doubted that his heart is in the right place. His book was written on how stock market fraud is a severe and ignored problem; it’s just that he seems to have missed the boat on naked short selling. This is largely because he does not have the connections that people on this side of the issue do, and has been resistant to evidence that is not gathered in the form of personal case study. I may be in the minority on this one, but that’s what I have gathered and I have seen all the evidence there is out there. I usually stand out in this regard, I am not really in the ‘good and evil’ camp of this issue: and let me state this clearly, I will not be bullied into participating in a witch hunt in regards to this particular correspondence which occurred seven months ago. I will provide the truth of the situation at hand, but I will not proceed any further than I already have. That being said, I must admit that Weiss’s actions have crossed into negligent abuse in my opinion since he began publishing on naked short selling. A final point though: the blog we conversed on was meant to be an informal place for him to shoot off his ideas, and I of all people know the value of allowing professional writers informality in their non-official correspondence. I don’t like how he treated the conversation, but I am not out to lynch anyone and I understand both sides of the situation. There is value in disagreeing without being disagreeable.
4. Our division of labor is as such: the idea to do a book related to naked short selling in the first place was thought up by my coauthor after corresponding with a whistle blower, she brought me on board the project at that time. There was supposed to be a third author, an ex-officer of the SEC, but in the end it was just the two of us. There was nothing written when I was contracted. I received no monetary compensations through the contract. I have not ever had a share of stock in my position or under my control; that of course includes any stock I have written about. The contract states that we have equal ownership to the copyright and equal rights to compensation from the publication. I have discussed this arrangement on Sanity Check in their forums. After being contracted I researched, outlined and wrote the book, which was then sent to my coauthor for approval. Additional drafts met with my coauthor's editorial approval and were integrated with additional field research done by my coauthor. All literary research, interviewing, article research, research assembly and archiving is done by myself. All field research and investigations done in person have been done by my coauthor. This is nothing beyond a typical relationship on such a project, not out of the ordinary in any sense. I know this from the experience of co-writing other manuscripts, and from my career as a professional ghostwriter. I have written 25 books since I became a professional writer six years ago, when I was first paid for my writing at the age of 18. I have carved a significant career as a freelancer, working with high profile celebrities and businessmen on manuscripts. I have signed my clients, myself and my coauthors to many different literary agents, and worked as a chief speech writer in the last Federal election. I have also worked as an Editor-in-Chief in the newspaper industry. We have received excellent responses from the publishing industry so far in terms of the book on this subject, which has been entitled The Midas Touch: Counterfeit Stocks, Naked Short Selling and Selling America Short. The book has already been read by several people in the anti-naked short selling camp.
Cummins' secondary reply:
On 9/12/06, In Fusion <in_fusion_productions@hotmail.com> wrote:
ON THE RECORD
I have found a way to review the site in which the original postings were made, and would only point one thing out. When I started sectioning my responses they were put in order with the word 'continued...' afterwards. As the postings move on, notice how they begin to state 'continued...' but do not show anything that follows. Often my only argument or evidence at all was in the sections that were supposed to follow but never did. Eventually it got worse, and my comments were just completely annotated.
James
From: "Auntie Socialmedia" <antisocialmedia@gmail.com>To: "In Fusion" <in_fusion_productions@hotmail.com>Subject: Re: Answers to your questionsDate: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:48:46 -0600
James,
Are you able to appreciate how strange this all looks to me and (based on feedback) a lot of other people? Stranger still is your apparent defense of Gary Weiss who at worst appears to have invented you and at best appears to have edited your words to benefit his argument and make you appear rather weak-minded. Your insistence on not condemning Weiss in the strongest terms doesn't sit well with me, I'll be honest.
I am neutral in this debate. I am here to write a book, and to participate in finding evidence of naked short selling - that is my position, which does not include condemning anybody. You are basically saying here that you are concerned because you feel my language should be stronger. I will take your point under consideration, however I feel that I have voiced my frustrations with a long since past situation. I have spent many hours providing you with fully detailed answers, responded to every point you have made and taken time away from other projects to deal with your concerns. I now feel that your questions are becoming circular, which belies your bias towards me. If you are looking to take down others using my name and not my words, of which you have plenty, then you are no better than Weiss. You are wrong on your beliefs about the seven month old conversation that was not relevant for debate at the time, I have proven that about as far as I am willing to go. I believe you are mistaken by going after such a trivial figure in Weiss with such zeal, but that is your right though and I am not interferring with it. There are a lot of bigger targets out there which deserve your attention more than Weiss. You are also preaching to the choir about corrupt reporters, I have gone further than most in finding out who these people are. Such evidence is within my book, which as I said previously, has been read by others. I am not able to appreciate that the situation looks strange at all. I have fully explained it to you. If you ignore those responses, then there is nothing left for me to do here.
Let me repeat very clearly, I will not be a part of a witch hunt for figures I have evidence are not priorities. I was among the first to go after Weiss over half a year ago, and have since moved onto more relevant topics. At the time my frustrations with his selective editing were voiced to anyone who would listen, I dealt with that situation personally a long time ago. You are rehashing a dead issue here. If you want to learn the truth about Weiss on your own, be my guest. I will not be subject to further bandwagoning arguments. If you wish to correspond in the future, please do so with something more than insinuations about my chosen neutrality.