Mr. Weiss:
There are numerous reasons why the SEC decided to go informal with Mackey and waited 14 months plus to do so with Byrne:
1. Cox hates bad press. There has been too much media coverage on Mackey for him to ignore it.
2. The Fort Worth SEC office has a rookie in charge who is former DOJ and former USAF. Rose Romero fears no one.
3. Mackey doesn't have 2 US Senators protecting his freedom of speech.
Why your colleagues in the media haven't picked up on this is beyond me. Perhaps they also need a wake up call.
A couple of interesting points about the claim about an alleged Amazon employee.
If true, Overstock would have a legitimate beef against Amazon. The fact that they have waited until now to reveal it underscores that ASM is purely a PR vehicle. Instead of attacking hedge funds or competitors that might fit into the purported ASM mission statement, they've used ASM as an attack vessel against individuals for revenge and to squelch critics. Maybe it would work if their underlying assumptions were correct.
My guess is that the silly journalist disclaimer is more of a hedge aginst revealing the methods used rather than who the source is. Not much doubt about who. There is pretty clear evidence of "netmargin15" being engaged by "unpronouncable_cymbal" and we should all know who that was. The slippery slope there is exactly what slimy and/or illegal methods were used to obtain the data. I hope authorities do probe that issue and get to the bottom of it. Much of the data needed to do that can be found here:
http://o-smear.blogspot.com
Seems like a CEO can trash the SEC and accuse Israeli mobsters of funding short-sellers and call hedge funds "criminals" and call reporters "crooked", but if a CEO calls his own haircut "cute" without using his name, well, the SEC is on the case!
Here's is my purely speculative guess on what went on behind the scenes in Brynes world:
Byrne to lawyers: 'Get me out of this mess I created for myself'
Lawyers to Bryne (after another good hurl into the waste basket): 'Ok. If you call yourself a journalist, you enter into a murky area of developing law regarding internet speech, blogging, and the definition of a 'journalist'.'
Byrne: 'Great. I'm a journalist now, fully protected by shield laws across the land. Aren't I special.'
BOD: The unmistakable sound of snoring.
So now Byrne wants to do a Rock/Paper test to see which categorization wins the day - is he a private employee of a public firm constrained in his speech by Company Policy and Regulation? Or his he a freewheeling freelance journalist with 1st Amendment protection to speak on matters associated with his employer with absolute immunity?
Here, I think, the rock of journalism (which I can't say with a straight face in this case) is trumped by the paper of private employee of a public firm. I am relying chiefly on the fact that no court has ever afforded 1st Amendment protection to the speech of a private employee of a Company regarding matters pertaining to said firm.
So I am betting 231 years of precedence will bear this out. You never know though....
The legal wrangling over whether a blogger is a journalist or not may come to a close if pending Federal legislation is passed which extends the definition of a journalist to blogger (it may have already passed, I'm not sure). However, Mr Bryne is not a blogger, unless he wants to claim antisocialmedia.net as his own (that would be precious). As far as I am aware, people like Bryne (and me) who post on message boards and blogs are not journalists by any legal definition. What other published writings of Byrne's that may qualify him as a 'journalist' I don't know, but I assume that purchased ads in newspapers doesn't count.
Whatever the outcome, this one is a jewel in the thorny crown of the Overstock saga.
I don't think this is a carefully thought-out legal strategem, but rather the fantasy of a CEO with diminishing options.
Case Study #3: John H Beebe, CEO of Perihelion Global, Inc. (Pink Sheets: PHGI)
Mr. Beebe attempted to create two boards on iHub: one about his stock, the other entitled "Stock Manipulators" to attack those he claims are bashing PHGI. iHub, which has a one board per stock philosophy, deleted these boards (the official board being moderated by a paid stock promoter, but that's another story). Beebe then launched a tirade threatening to sue iHub. He also vows to go all the way to the Supreme Court to protect what he claims is his First Amendment right to speak on a message board in a capacity separate and apart from his role as CEO of PHGI. Anyone who gets in his way will have to deal with his primary legal counsel who he says used to head the DoJ's "Strike Force."
For a more detailed synopsis, see: http://siliconinvestor.advfn.com...?
msgid=23702992
Jeff Matthews is as contradictory as Byrne.I mean surely he knows and Byrne knows that Patrick Byrne's brother runs a hedge fund that even
Warren Buffett was an investor in.
Believe me Jeff - in wanting to protect the persecuted hedge funds and offshore accounts and activities that hedge funds thrive on you have a friend in Patrick and his brother and his dad Jack.Warren might even put in a plug for you too.
Also Chris was ICTS International Israeli penny stock,(incorporated in the U.S. of course),an Israeli mafia operation or just retired Likud Party members in search of international employment ? Would the results of 9/11 not be the same regardless of an Israeli mafia or Likud Party affiliation ?
Commenting by HaloScan
