After what was proved beyond a reasonable doubt in the AP trial:
* Extortion and conspiracy to extort;
* Securities fraud and conspiracy to commit securities fraud;
* Racketeering and conspiracy to violate RICO;
* Use of chat sites and message boards in aid of the schemes in order to manipulate public opinion and thereby stock market price activity (wire fraud);
* Obstruction of justice via destruction of material evidence (chat logs); and, not least
* Guilty pleas by hedge fund managers, who conspired with AP (remember in my litigation Bentley had $117 million of Ponzi scheme proceeds on deposit with Southwest Securities that he used to trade against TP clients/members - never disclosed of course);
it is nothing short of astounding that anyone here would claim that there is no such thing as manipulation of these public media in order to affect stock prices, for personal gain, whether that be short or long. Considering the sums we have seen there for the criminal taking by manipulating public opinion, in the AP case, mine against berber/Moor/Rea/Trading Places and others, then again, maybe no one should be surprised, for there is a great deal at stake here.
What is the solution? How to prevent and restrain further violations by these same interests and other would-be like-minded individuals and entities? Severe civil and criminal penalties would seem to be one answer: (1) hit them where it hurts, in their livelihood; and (2) take away their physical freedom, remove them from civilized society because this kind of sociopathic conduct is certainly not civilized. And when I say sociopath it's because I know the absolute glee many of these cretins take in deceiving and defrauding the public (they know exactly what they are doing, nothing "technical" about these crimes); it's not just the serried millions they extort, but also delusions of grandeur and superiority complexes. They're saying to themselves and their co-conspirators: "I am smarter than everyone else, bunch of fools, losers and suckers." I've heard those statements first-hand, and the preceding version is about the most "polite" form I ever heard.
But it seems to me there must be another remedy and I don't have all the answers or even one. There are reasons for the anti-SLAPP statutes: as those of you who've followed my litigation have witnessed. By speaking out as I have against some mighty criminals, I've faced broad retaliation, in the form of: (1) attempts to silence me through these boards; (2) malicious prosecution under color of state tax law; (3) countless instances of defamation in public and in Court pleadings, designed not only to destroy my litigation standing but also any standing I might later have in any legal career (having destroyed my past, attempt to destroy not only my present, but additionally my future); and (4) outright threats, some in writing, explicit and implicit, others more subtle, such as for example those that to me with my experience so far were crystal clear this past week-end. So, the ability to post anonymously I feel needs to be respected for whistleblowers, but at the same time we have seen so many dishonest posters employ multiple ghost aliases to mislead the public that maybe it's time to require some kind of registration on the Internet if you want to post publicly, in order hopefully to prevent the use of multiple aliases and also so that if misconduct takes place then those aliases can easily be traced if a Court orders disclosure (perhaps under seal).
I know a lot of you would say well any kind of even basic registration is Orwellian. As I said this is a very difficult and delicate balancing issue: how to preserve the right to post anonymously without fear of retaliation and at the same time restrain and prevent criminal abuse of the Internet's anonymity by those who have no respect for the law? For example, have some of you noticed that the criminal spam conviction in Virginia would probably have been completely impossible if the defendant hadn't used credit cards in his own name to pay for his ISP, traced back to his P.O. Box?
Now yes sometimes people speak in newspapers without giving their names in public, not for attribution, but someone knows who these people are and their motivation, checks them out, and that's the newspaper and its staff reporters, so there is not total anonymity, no one expects to send anonymous untraceable Hotmail or Yahoo e-mails to NYT or WSJ and then have that result in a front-page story, now do they. But on the Net, too often there is no checking at all, no responsibilioty or accountability. Now I wonder how many of you would defend the ability to knock on doors in neighborhoods and wear pantyhose over your head like any two-bit mugger, then make your statements? But that's exactly what is happening all over the place on the Internet. In fact, not long ago on Yahoo someone called me a lunatic for actually disclosing my name! It's gotten completely out of hand, because in my book if you want to be credible at all then you state your name, something about yourself (on the Internet OK obviously maybe not your address, telephone and social security number).
It reminds me of what Chris Rea, alleged racketeer and Texas federal court defendant said to Gretchen Morgenson of the New York Times almost five years ago, when asked about his apparent multiple personality "disorder," using legions of aliases to provide a false impression of support for his securities recommendations:
"I think they're real people...none of those names are interested in speaking to you."
Hedge funds had people in the A@P private room. Yet the claim is that they didn't work together? Give me a break. They were just "observing." and nobody destroyed logs either. |
