Re: 5/31/05 - 6/1/05 - [NCANS] Does the WSJ Plan to Out Bob O'Brien?
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
The WSJ Continues To Follow The Big Story
Is it Deep Throat? The breakdown of the financial system, as evidenced by the growing outcry against naked short selling and the flagrant flouting of the rules by the privileged, the rich, the "above the law"? Iraq continuing to claim lives, the rule of law abandoned?
Nope.
It's all about who's Bob O'Brien.
A month later, and I am still getting long email threads from the reporter there who is convinced that I am a sinister figure whose tendrils of influence make the markets dance to the tune of my choosing.
Am I making this up?
No. In today's exchange, which I agreed to keep confidential until the article breaks, among other things the WSJ admits in a very frank, obvious way to having obtained NCANS's banking records - a violation of federal law. Or if not having obtained them, of having viewed them - same difference. And that's just for starters.
Now, one might wonder aloud as to why the WSJ is up to these sorts of hijinks. I do. I wonder aloud why a prominent billionaire investor emailed me intuiting that he knew my real name a month ago, shortly after this reporter came on the scene and started digging. I wonder as to whether the WSJ's info network is so full of leaks that this guy, as well as presumably his network, can know the reporter's information virtually in real time - or whether the info is going the other way. I am filled with wonder at it all. And I ask him point blank to please clarify these points for me, as it simply confirms my fear for my safety due to people going to extraordinary, even felonious lengths, to figure out who I am.
I agreed to keep our exchanges private, which I have. I haven't committed felonies to obtain info, I haven't violated attorney client privelege, I haven't broken federal banking laws. So far I have behaved in what can only be described as an honorable fashion with a counterparty who has some explaining to do.
Now, I know, at the end of the day, that the WSJ will claim to have not known or understood that private banking records are illegally obtained if they are being forwarded to reporters. They will claim that journalistic privilege should insulate them from the repurcussions of what, to my untutored eye, appear to be egregious legal violations - that in fact journalistic privilege allows a reporter to obtain, use, and participate in violations of federal banking laws, etc.
The question is, do any of you not understand the difference? Is there some part that is unclear in this? If you received NCANS' banking records, would you have difficulty with this judgement call? How about attorney client priveleged communications? Would you have a hard time with that? Or would you figure that it's all good, to "get the story" - even if there is no story to really get?
People have been skeptical about my concerns over my personal safety. I can relate to that. It all seems a little far fetched, doesn't it? Then again, when you look at what has gone on in just the last week, which I promise you will become abundantly clear when I publish the email exchanges, perhaps my concerns will have seemed overly liberal. One thing is sure - an explanation is due.
Can't wait for the next installment.
# posted by bob obrien @ 7:04 PM 4 comments
=====
Wait until the WSJ article breaks
by: topangan90065 05/31/05 11:14 pm
Msg: 310225 of 310781
Wait until the WSJ article breaks and you have a chance to read it before you make any sweeping pronouncements or reflexively take sides.
Don't go out on any limbs pre-emptively defending what may well turn out to be indefensible. Watch out for egg on your face.
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: Wait until the WSJ article breaks
by: ncansd3
Long-Term Sentiment: Strong Buy 06/01/05 12:17 am
Msg: 310245 of 310781
Good advice.
Do you think that it is acceptable for the WSJ to use banking records from an attorney trust account to cite where the deposits are coming from?
How would you frame the explanation for that, and how would it be OK - I'm curious, what would the sentence read like?
Sounds like you guys figured out that the damage control part of this may exceed what you hoped to accomplish in the first place. Funny that. It's happened before. Either your people are too stupid and lazy, or I'm really smart or wildly lucky. I'll go with the former.
So help us all understand - under what circumstances would it be acceptable for a reporter to use Federally protected banking records to establish who has donated to NCANS - and how many people's privacy has that feloniously destroyed - just for starters?
You guys are going to be up late on this one. That is more than an oops. And he did it in a different dialog as well, also in writing. So no "it was a lucky guess". And then there's Mr. C's multiple emails to posters on this board, myself included, using the name the reporter believes is mine, and bragging, as is his way, of being privvy to knowing who I am.
Wanna explain that away? Let's see, we have banking records stolen and leaked, people bragging about knowing things that are unknowable but identical to what the reporter believes is true, other provable violations of yet more federal laws which I will make known in time....hey, I guess as long as he writes a good 1200 words, it's all OK, huh?
You wanna know what they have? I'll tell you. A guy who knows a guy who knows a guy who works on the periphery of NFI. I'm closer to Rocker and Cohodes and Mick Jagger than NFI. And he knows it - that's why we haven't seen the article yet. And oh, a lawsuit against a company for repayment of a loan - years ago, and apparently because the company didn't pay it back voluntarily, from what I can divulge. Gasp. Why, that's...that's....nothing. A big fat nothing. And we all know it. And I suspect he does too. No I'm a securities violator. No I'm connected to the company. No the sites, or I, have violated anything but the patience of wealthy criminals. I kid you not, that's what he's got, and I have the emails to prove it. I could publish them right now, and we could all have a chuckle, but I promised not to, and I am good for my word.
So I'll go with my violations of federal law trump your six degrees of separation innuendo. And I'll just bet the WSJ counsel want to have a little chit chat sooner rather than later about sources and the like for our intrepid reporter. Call it a hunch.
I do that a lot. Have hunches.
Nighty night.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 310225 by topangan90065
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Latest Sanity Check
by: ncansd3
Long-Term Sentiment: Strong Buy 06/01/05 01:04 am
Msg: 310258 of 310781
Note how many ID's have come out to clog away the latest Sanity Check discussion?
Isn't that something.
And I didn't catch the column yet. Maybe a little hiatus while the legal team considers what they've landed in? No column this week? Huh. It can't be that a minor blog could stop the WSJ dead in its tracks...could it?
Always a hoot hanging out.
Here's the short url for the latest blog entry:
tinyurl.com/drvju
Never a dull moment for the forces of good against the forces of darkness. Notice Topangan couldn't get off the boards fast enough, either.
Didn't answer any of my questions.
A surprise? Hardly.
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: Latest Sanity Check
by: tommytoyz 06/01/05 01:22 am
Msg: 310263 of 310781
The fact that the WSJ reporter admitted in writing that he had obtained the banking records of NCANS, supposedly the trust account handled by the SAn Diego attorney, opens him wide open to litigation if he uses it in any way.
It also begs the question, who ordered the break-in? Someone broke the banking laws and the WSJ reporter probably knows who.
Perhaps this opens the hunt in reverse. Now WE want to know some names and we have a damn good reason for it - violation of banking and privacy laws. I too donated and my name is probably on that list. Anyone who donated has a legal course of action now against that WSJ reporter and the one ordering the theft.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 310258 by ncansd3
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: Dirty's Commentary Questions.
by: stnkeychz 06/01/05 09:20 am
Msg: 310294 of 310781
Two questions:
What bank records? Somes records are readily available from a credit check, or by using any of several internet services.
Why on earth are you willing to keep an interaction with a reporter who you believe means you no good (or actually wants to harm you) confidential? Why connect with him/her at all?
Posted as a reply to: Msg 310219 by aokgriz
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: Dirty's Commentary Questions.
by: ncansd3
Long-Term Sentiment: Strong Buy 06/01/05 10:48 am
Msg: 310331 of 310781
The bank records in question are the details of the attorney trust account admisnistered by the attorney who keeps the books for NCANS. The reporter's written admission includes the account information of the party sending the money, the account number of the sending party, the amount, the sending bank.
I do know the difference. That is the illegal variant. If I know, dontcha think he should? I am actually going to post a series of open questions for our intrepid reporter on the blog in a few minutes. Perhaps you will get a flavor for the types of questions I have been asked, and some of the tactics used, by reading between the lines there. Then we can all meet back for a nice chat.
And I am simply keeping my word, on the email confidentiality front. People still do that, occasionally. And I'm not sure how you don't have an interaction from a guy at the WSJ who says he is doing a profile on you, with or without your cooperation.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 310294 by stnkeychz
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
My email to Jesse - Sanity Check
by: ncansd3
Long-Term Sentiment: Strong Buy 06/01/05 12:36 pm
Msg: 310391 of 310781
Go to NCANS.net to see the latest Sanity Check - my email to Jesse from this morning. We can all meet back here once some digestion takes place, and discuss it.
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
My Profile of Jesse Eisinger of the Wall Street Journal
It seems like a good idea, actually - why not profile an ex-Thestreet.com writer who now works for a major pub, plays poker with hedge fund guys, and has invested a month of his time in profiling me, against my wishes? In fact, it will give him an opportunity to comment on the tactics employed during his little journey of pseudo-discovery, and provide a fun basis for any action brought against him. So why not, I say? Here's the complete text of an email sent to him a few minutes ago. I have agreed to keep his emails private up until this point - I would say that now, all communications will be aired, as this seems bigger than just me anymore. There's some pretty significant legal and ethical questions that come into play, and I think that's a more interesting story.
The following was emailed to Jesse a few minutes ago. I will post any responses I receive. It mirrors a format we used in our interactions, and contains data that can be inferred by the reader to be accurate. I agreed to keep Jesse's emails confidential, and will, up until now, but I think that this has gotten large enough to merit further visibility on any subsequent communications.
Jesse:
Your list of questions to me yesterday, and the information contained therein, got me thinking about what a fascinating story profiling a reporter for the WSJ might be. I should alert you that this list of questions will be going up on the blog, as I am hopeful that others can further refine my stumbling attempts at gaining clarity into how the investigative reporting process works. You will note many are eerily similar to your list of questions. I apologize in advance – there are no new ideas. I do hope that you won’t mind being the topic of a profile. I can assure you that only the most positive intent is at heart, and apologize if some of the questions are tough ethical/legal ones.
1) Where did you first get the idea of profiling Bob O’Brien? From whom, specifically?
2) Do you know, or have you ever met, David Rocker, of Rocker Partners? If so, when was the last time the two of you interacted? Was Bob O’Brien, NFI, NCANS, or your investigative report of me ever discussed?
3) Do you know, or have you ever met, Marc Cohodes, of Rocker Partners? If so, when was the last time the two of you interacted? Was Bob O’Brien, NFI, NCANS, or your investigative report of me ever discussed?
4) Do you know, or have you ever met, Herb Greenberg of CBSMarketwatch? If so, when was the last time the two of you interacted? Was Bob O’Brien, NFI, NCANS, or your investigative report of me ever discussed?
5) Do you know, or have you ever met, Mark Cuban? If so, when was the last time the two of you interacted? Was Bob O’Brien, NFI, NCANS, or your investigative report of me ever discussed?
6) Do you know, or have you ever met, Tyler Burke? If so, when was the last time the two of you interacted? Was Bob O’Brien, NFI, NCANS, or your investigative report of me ever discussed?
7) Would it be acceptable for me to obtain attorney/client privileged information about you and your connections? I am doing a profile, so the journalistic protections afforded you should be in effect. If not, why would that be unacceptable? Would you consider LexisNexis and your credit report to be OK to get without your permission, or to be passed them by third parties? If not, why not? Did that not happen in your investigation of Bob O’Brien?
8) Would it be acceptable for me to obtain your banking records, as well as the banking records of the other subjects of my profile, including hedge funds I suspect you may be linked to – someone might just pass them to me, and I can’t reveal my sources – you know how that goes? I know they are federally protected, but I am doing a profile. If not, why would that be unacceptable? Did that happen in your investigation of Bob O’Brien? Please explain, for the record, how you obtained the account information of NCANS, to the level of detail that includes dates of donations, accounts money came from, the names of the donators, etc. Please further explain how that is not a violation of the donors’ privacy, Federal law, and the attorney client privilege, given that it is an attorney’s trust account?
9) Would it be acceptable for me to obtain your telephone records, as well as the telephone records of those I suspect you may be affiliated with, in order to contact every person you have called over the last 90 days, and ask questions pertaining to my profiling of collusive connections between hedge funds and reporters, specifically you? I know those are federally protected, but I am doing a profile. If that would not be acceptable, why not? Did you, or someone passing information to you, not do exactly that in your profile of Bob O’Brien? Given that some numbers called were limited to one or two people, we can pretty much link that – so would it be OK to do so in your case? If unacceptable, why?
10) Would it be acceptable for “Bob “O’Brien” to physically visit your aged relatives, and their neighbors, in order to get some depth on you? Let them know that I am doing a profile on you and the connection to hedge funds, and further send the message that I am willing to travel to drive my point home? Would that be an invasion of your privacy, do you think, or acceptable? If unacceptable, why, exactly, given that you did so in Bob O’Brien’s case? Would trespassing on private property be acceptable to gain access to these folks – you know, going into a guard gated community where they live, in violation of the laws against doing so. Would that be OK? If not, why not?
11) Can you offer an explanation as to how Mr. Cuban had access to your information, or at least your speculation of Bob’s real name, within a few days of your beginning your profile? He came out and used it in an email exchange, so it was known. How did that happen, do you think?
12) Can you speculate as to what lengths hedge funds with hundreds of millions in the balance will go to in order to silence their critics? Do you think they would break Federal banking laws? Federal communications laws? Federal privacy laws? If they would do so, are there any reasons for you to believe that they wouldn’t break other Federal laws?
13) Given that we are talking about Federal lawbreakers here, can you help me understand how having what you presume to be my real identity in the hands of these fellows, which would appear to be highly likely given some of the email exchanges, would not pose a clear and present danger to me, if correct? You have been advised of the danger, and have first hand experience with the lengths they will go to, and yet have shown no interest in my safety or the safety of those around me. Would you please help me understand why I should feel any compunctions about any privacy or safety concerns you might have as objections?
14) Given that colleagues of yours at Barron's like Alpert were outraged at Mr. Cohodes' publicly available address being posted on the message boards, do you think his sense of outrage will be far greater over the types of invasions I have described, or do you believe that outrage will be selectively reserved for friends and cronies? Could you help me understand the difference in response we can expect?
Sorry the list is so long, and I probably will have more questions as this develops – but yours was longer, so I figure you can return the favor. I appreciate your answering these, to help with my profile, and to give the folks at home better visibility as to what passes for journalistic ethics and acceptable boundaries for members of the media.
# posted by bob obrien @ 9:18 AM 4 comments
=====
DDD keeping his word
by: topangan90065 06/01/05 12:46 pm
Msg: 310399 of 310781
That certainly was an interesting little detail: "I promised I wouldn't reveal the E-mail exchange until the article breaks." Couldn't it just as well mean "I do not intend to reveal any more than I have to to you, until the article breaks and you know it anyway"?
Bear in mind that everything you know about this situation is what DDD has told you about it, only. There has not yet been any article whatsoever, and unless and until there is one, neither you nor he knows what it will contain, actionable or not.
Since there has been no article, there have been no illegal disclosures yet. Rest assured that WSJ has a legal department skilled in interpreting the privacy laws of the United States.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 310362 by traderdan9890
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: DDD keeping his word
by: ncansd3
Long-Term Sentiment: Strong Buy 06/01/05 12:52 pm
Msg: 310411 of 310781
I have the emails, dolt. You break the law when you illegally obtain information. I have proof information was illegally obtained. Whether or not they publish it is immaterial at this point. I also have emails that put our favorite billionaire with info about my presumed real name a month ago, legitimizing that the information was being circulated in circles that could wish me harm.
You got your work cut out for you, son. Always do the hostile exchanges in writing. That's why I do them that way.
Let me know if you ever need some PR help. Yours sucks so far.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 310399 by topangan90065
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Sanity Check-14 Questions-DDD
by: harryofanguslane
Long-Term Sentiment: Strong Buy 06/01/05 01:29 pm
Msg: 310437 of 310781
D3,
I hope that you are grossly paranoid to the nth degree.
If not, we have a mighty, mighty big problem since your questions imply that a WSJ columnist is guilty of serial lawbreaking, to say nothing of being unbelievably unethical.
And then there's the issue of whether he works for Dw Jones or the Hedge Funds.
Folks, the genie is out of the bottle. 3D or his "tormenters" will soon be hanging,slowly twisting in the breeze (to seal a phrase from the Watergate Era).
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: Sanity Check-14 Questions-DDD
by: ncansd3
Long-Term Sentiment: Strong Buy 06/01/05 02:04 pm
Msg: 310459 of 310781
You tell me. Obtaining bank records - through whatever means - of an attorney trust account. Obtaining telephone records. Obtaining attorney client privileged information. Physically visiting with neighbors and relatives of the suspected guy (this is hearsay).
I would suggest that anyone with a brain can rapidly figure out that this is not the behavior of a good guy.
Again, I ask very clear, concise questions of Mr. Eisinger - he has the opportunity to respond to my questions fully and completely. When I publish my email exchanges with him, you will see that my questions mirror his, but take it to the next level of asking which felonies he considers to be acceptable, and how much risking of my life is reasonable to him. So far there has been no response.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 310437 by harryofanguslane
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: As a donor to NCANS
by: topangan90065 06/01/05 06:04 pm
Msg: 310606 of 310781
>"We don't need the article to even be published. What we need is that email from DDD as proof."
Ah, but don't you remember that DDD has "given his word" that the E-mail thread will not be released until the article appears?
What on earth could have motivated DDD to consent to give his word of honor about something like THAT?
Posted as a reply to: Msg 310603 by guessyour2000
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: As a donor to NCANS
by: ncansd3
Long-Term Sentiment: Strong Buy 06/01/05 07:22 pm
Msg: 310625 of 310781
I said it wouldn't be published. If someone wants to use it in a criminal matter who am I to stand in the way? They would just have to agree not to distribute it or publish it.
FWIW, the email exchanges up until a few minutes ago were along the lines of "hey, let's be friends, we can have drinks, it's not going to be a negative, etc."
One of the attorneys I know just got a call wherein the tone was more along the lines of "either you confirm his piece or he'll flame you."
So my instinct all along that he wasn't in search of a new friend may have been correct, despite the numerous assurances that I had it all wrong.
Now, that's hearsay, but interesting nonetheless. I think it would be a very good idea to have the editors at the WSJ sent the content of my blog as an email indicating that there appears to be something very badly wrong going on over there, and that their legal staff better have a fine tooth comb out if or whenever Jesse runs his "profile". So please folks, once again, let's all email the latest sanity check with a few words indicating that if these questions are based in fact, the WSJ has bought themselves a problem. I will be happy to turn over those emails to the WSJ legal department as well, if they have any questions. Being a reporter is not a license to break laws and terrorize, at least last time I checked, so it would be in all of our best interests if that was halted sooner rather than later. Oh, and at the point I start getting "you better, or else" types of messages I tend to dig in.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 310606 by topangan90065
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: As a donor to NCANS
by: tulip_bulb_merchant (125/M/Maastricht, The Netherla) 06/01/05 08:07 pm
Msg: 310638 of 310781
Bobo:
Take a sedative. You are being far too reactionary.
"Either you confirm his piece or he'll flame you."
LOL. You may need to double up on the paranoid-schitzo medicine while you are at it.
"So please folks, once again, let's all email the latest sanity check with a few words indicating that if these questions are based in fact, the WSJ has bought themselves a problem."
In other words, I'm scared that someone will start making baseless accusations about me, just as I have done about others for two years now.
"Being a reporter is not a license to break laws and terrorize, at least last time I checked, so it would be in all of our best interests if that was halted sooner rather than later."
I hear that sound of the world's tiniest little violin playing. "Woe is me."
How absurd Bobo. What have you got to hide? That's the real story here. And once your identity is revealed, what will the world learn about you? Who will come forward to reveal your past dirty, dirty deeds?
Posted as a reply to: Msg 310625 by ncansd3
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: As a donor to NCANS
by: ncansd3
Long-Term Sentiment: Strong Buy 06/01/05 08:30 pm
Msg: 310645 of 310781
So, which federal laws against revealing bank records are you in favor of breaking? Should those that do so be prosecuted? If not, why not?
Which laws against illegally obtaining phone records would you suggest are OK to break? Interstate makes it federal, BTW.
Which part of attorney client privilege should the WSJ be allowed to breach? NCANS has an attorney trust account set up which is by definition protected by that attorney client privelege.
Try to stay on track here, OK? Any libelous accusations will likely be "he knows a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy" idiocy, although the latest bit about having sued a company that didn't pay a debt obligation was interesting - what that has to do with naked short selling, or NCANS, or NFI, or really anything is lost on me, but hey, go figure, when you have lemons, you make lemonade.
So which felonies are OK in your book, and which ones should the WSJ be OK with, or at least the WSJ's counsel?
You sure don't seem to want people contacting him.
Maybe we are on the right track with that.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 310638 by tulip_bulb_merchant
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Sent to WSJ
by: tommytoyz 06/01/05 09:27 pm
Msg: 310666 of 310781
Sent to bellow recipients :
b.grueskin@wsj.com
j.heller@wsj.com
t.cullen@wsj.com
Dear Sirs :
I am outraged that Jesse Eisinger has obtained banking records, which include my name, without authorization. National Coalition Against Naked Short Selling - or NCANS is a non profit organization and Jesse Eisinger has no business conducting illegal activity and violating various privacy and banking laws. IF he as interested in the financials of NCANS, he can simply ask.
The authorities have already been contacted on this gross violation of the law and if any article appears with any of the ill gotten information and names, there will be a civil action from me as well. I've heard from other NCANS members, whose names Jesse Eisinger has obtained from these bank records, that they will start a civil action because of this in any case.
Jesse Eisinger needs to elucidate how he got his hands on these bank records and why he even hangs on to them.
All of the above has been admitted in writing by Jesse Eisinger. IF you want proof, I'll send you copies of his emails dated May 31 and June 01. Violating the law is not tolerated in the search for a story, especially when the privacy of other parties get violated in the process.
I expect a response to this email.
Sincerely,
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Send, or not? Comment, or copy? RVAC
by: rvac106 (M/austin, tx)
Long-Term Sentiment: Buy 06/01/05 10:27 pm
Msg: 310685 of 310781
Joe.Stern@dowjones.com
chief "ethics" officer (and legal counsel to) Dow Jones
As a subscriber to the Wall Street Journal print edition, it concerns me greatly that a number of your journalists have apparently taken on the personal burden of trying to destroy a company in which I am a stockholder.
In April, of 2004, Jonathan Weil released an article detailing a number of recycled pieces of news regarding Novastar Financial, which, to the untrained eye, was designed to inflame an already aggravated situation in the stock market which effected the entire real estate sector of the stock market, and increase the results of an intense short attack on the stock of NFI. His article was directly responsible, and was the catalyst for, a number of Class Action Law suits, which have been limping along since. This article was also apparently the catalyst for an SEC 'inquiry,' which, as you may or may not know, has not been followed up on since.
You employ another journalist, Herb Greenberg, who writes for your online publication, Marketwatch. This writer has written over 30 articles about this little Midwestern MREIT, in the space of about 3 years. Many, many of these articles contained journalistic machinations which had little or nothing to do with NFI, and some of them, complete and unjustifiable mistakes regarding information that even the slowest investor could disprove by viewing one or two company documents. Who was suing who, how can they continue to pay the dividend, are they issuing new stock to pay the dividend, etc? To date, none of his assumptions have proven out, nor have any of his dire predictions of NFI’s demise materialized.
As to the present, and the reason for this message, it has been brought to my attention that yet another of your writers, Jesse Eisinger, has been actively pursuing information on another NFI investor, who has been instrumental in educating fellow shareholders on scenarios involving a hedge fund, known to have been holding on to a large short position in NFI, and possible share price manipulation, involving Fails to Deliver on large numbers of shares traded, possible collusion by SRO entities in the Wall Street world, and the involvement of many trading brokerage houses on the Street. This investor, who goes by the pseudonym ‘Bob O’Brien,’ was also one of the forces behind the establishment of a group called NCANS, which raised money from its’ volunteer members to place a number of advertisements in the Washington Post, which was seen, read, and appreciated by many more people than just those that read the Yahoo message boards. Mr. Eisinger has apparently overstepped his journalistic bounds in his approach to getting information about this ‘mysterious’ anonymous investor. In e mail exchanges, Mr. Eisinger has revealed information in his possession that appears to be illegally obtained. Mr. O’Brien is not a lawbreaker, nor is he the object of any lawsuit, that we know of. He is just an investor, who, having been pushed, is pushing back. Whether Mr. Eisinger objects to Mr. O’Brien’s tactics, or not, does not in any way justify breaking the law to ‘uncover’ Mr. O’Brien’s true identity. Does it?
I direct you to Mr. O’Brien’s web site, which has been chronicling his e mail exchanges with Mr. Eisinger. I urge you to look carefully at the information contained there, and take exceptional care to ascertain whether Mr. Eisinger is within the law, as regards Mr. O’Brien’s constitutional rights in this situation.
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: Send, or not? Comment, or copy? RVA
by: ncansd3
Long-Term Sentiment: Strong Buy 06/02/05 12:02 am
Msg: 310727 of 310781
I would add that copies of emails in which Mr. Eisinger cites very granular banking info regarding NCANS deposits are available if they wish to email me.
What is actually funniest to me is that through all of this, the reporter hasn't considered that he might have found a guy who contributes to NCANS and has used his cash to help the cause - but is someone different than me. Someone who actually has been very helpful with things like procuring anonymous cell phones and the like, but is no more Bob O'Brien than the Granny he went to terrorize. Oh well, I'm sure it will all make great theater, and the attorneys are likely to have a ball with it. Like I said in the beginning - they require a Bob O'Brien at all costs, and it really doesn't matter much whether he is the genuine article or not at the end of the day.
And I'm not telling - not going to do it. Kind of pisses everyone off, I can tell. Sorry guys. But I'm quite sure you have the right guy - keep on keeping on - he sounds like a bad 'un to me. Very mysterious. I was told a sandwich shop was involved. One shudders to think what goes on there. And a boat. I think it's named the James Davidson. It is all unclear at present. Or maybe the sandwiches are subs - those are marine sounding.
Actually, I do kind of wish it was me. Not that it isn't. Or is. Or may be. Or not.
But what I do know is that violating federal laws is a no no last time I checked - and if what they discovered was a big donor to the cause - I hope it was worth someone going to jail over. That's what happens when you violate federal law, I think - I haven't done any federal lawbreaking, so couldn't tell you.
So what do we have at the end of all of this? People who can easily be shown to do anything it takes to get their way, regardless of the law, and who aren't bright enough to get that they are holding nothing. Capital N. Nada. Which they will ultimately find out, as do most who have nothing, over time. In the meanwhile, I think maybe this will be a good mechanism to launch the fiction book - it's about a corrupt, criminally linked hedge fund who sets out to crush a company as part of its serial killing mechanism, who uses the press to do its dirty work and considers itself above the law due to its political contacts, and decides to go after a guy that creates a website that exposes their scheme and creates considerable difficulty for them. I even have a corrupt reporter or two in it. Sort of wrote itself. I think it's a good read. Fast, and believe it or not, has a few similarities to real life.
Have to figure out how to get it out there. I suspect now is the time.
Oh well, good night all. Thanks for all the FBI and WSJ complaints - they will follow up, and they don't just poo poo this sort of thing when it involves attorney trust accounts and feloniously obtained bank records.
We shall see what the day brings.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 310685 by rvac106
finance.messages.yahoo.com
===== |
