Re: 8/19-23/05 Who's Bob O'Brien/The Easter Bunny Redux; Today’s NY Post – Much ado about The Easter Bunny
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Today’s NY Post – Much ado about The Easter Bunny
Today's New York Post article was interesting to me, in the sense that it spent a lot of time focusing on the pressing question of Who's Bob O'Brien, and zero on whether it is even possible, just possible, that Dr. Byrne is correct in his allegations about a conspiracy of hedge funds, the media, class action suits, billionaire financiers, and shadowy master minds.
Tut tut. There will be none of that.
Who cares about a wide reaching scheme that threatens the entire US financial system?
Nope. Of what interest is that sort of nonsense? Who wants to know how it is possible that Byrne/friends/loyal institutions could own virtually all of the legitimately issued shares of his company, leaving the huge short interest with no shares with which to cover, and yet the company can trade millions of shares per day? Who cares that Byrne has affidavits placing the defendants in an illegal scheme (if the allegations are to be believed)? Who cares that OSTK hs been on the Reg SHO list for over 6 months, with only a break of a few weeks in the middle, and yet nobody from any regulator will explain how that is possible without the law being egregiously violated every day?
Instead, we have the speculation that a guy by the name of Phillip Saunders is Bob O'Brien.
For the Record: My attorneys advised me several years ago not to reveal my name. Concerns about my safety have escalated since then with the naked shorting topic and several ominous posts and events, and that advice has not changed. So as always, I will neither confirm nor deny my identity. Everyone will just have to keep speculating.
Unless of course the current object of the press’ attention turns out to be a 300-pound Samoan lad. Or I do. Or Bob does. Then, those that have met me/him/us/them will chime in to say it isn't me/us/them and we’ll all be back at square one. See, this is already getting confusing...
Let's examine the trip down the rabbit hole the Post takes in getting to the identity they speculate might be "O'Brien - AKA the Easter Bunny".
About four months ago, a document went up onto the NCANS site with the name psaunders on the document somewhere – that got the whole psaunders thing going - they assumed that the name on the document loaded up on the NCANS website was my/Bob's name - odd, that, given that so many other names have been on docs and associated items at the sites - but still, why not? Seems reasonable as anything else we'll see. And they concoted a timeline that convinced them that it had to be psaunders due to the speed with which the document was edited - things like the telephone and instant messengering are apparently unknown in the hedge fund world. They then assumed that my nom de plume's residence was accurately described as Vegas. Why? Well, uh...because I’d said so. I also said that the site was headquartered at Cheetah's. And many thought that was true in an earlier article, as well. Apparently I’m a liar about much, but honest about my address. Baffled yet?
So then they set out to profile all the people in Vegas (I presume) with that last name (wonder if they considered middle initials used as first names or skipped that fairly common item) and came up with our lucky lad as one of the list of possibles.
So one has to ask what evidence there is that psaunders isn’t a mistaken lead, or a guy who helps with the web stuff, or merely a contributor? They could have asked NCANS and we would have told them that there was at least one psaunders in San Diego who is a card carrying member. Or that there have been other psaunders' who have been involved in the site. Apparently they wanted this to be the correct one, the perfidious Bob O’Brien himself, and poof, made it so. Really, I get the impression that anyone would have done the trick - the machine requires its food.
Could this have anything to do with the Rocker Partners lawsuit, and wanting to have a thread to pull, a guy to name, someplace to start? Nah. That would be way too obvious, given the timing, and the, what, 4 or 5 articles in 8 days the reporter has written on a topic he's never chimed in on before in his life.
One nit to pick, in the article Boyd refers to speaking to O'Brien, and then articulates that "The Post" believes that Saunders is he, and then uses Saunders and O'Brien interchangeably when discussing comments and attributions. That is confusing - it appears that he never actually spoke with Saunders, only has a belief, and yet attributes statements to Saunders as though by using the declarative, he can force theory to become fact. From a journalistic standpoint it seems unprofessional - did he speak with Saunders or not? Are my statements being attributed to Saunders, and if so, absent anything but a theory, why? If he never spoke with Saunders, why does he refer to me as one and the same, absent proof? It just seems rhetorically slothful. You can read a poster's similar view here .
Now, one could wonder aloud why the WSJ has published at least 3 “Who’s Bob O’Brien” articles, not counting the latest Barron’s article, and yet decided not to publish this exact same story, but rather let the Post scoop them. One could also inquire why my identity is so interesting, and yet the message of systematic stock manipulation and naked short selling isn’t. I guess the SEC and DTCC keeping the level of fails secret to protect hedge funds and the US economy from unknown damage isn’t sexy enough, but speculations as to my real name are? Some businessman's possible association with NCANS is gripping, but a coordinated scheme to manipulate a public company isn't news. Got it. Seems like a lot of effort to out a pseudonym, but what do I know?
So what does it all mean? I chose the name Bob O’Brien in honor of the CNBC commentator, but hell, I’m flexible. Half the bashers are convinced I’m James Dale Davidson, so maybe some permutation of all three names now? Phillip Dale O’Brien? Bob Phillip Davidson?
For the record, there are a number of inaccuracies in the article - the first is that I never indicated that I lived or had properties in California (he could have spoken with Saunders, who could have indicated that he did, but I didn't). I indicated that I was in the Oregon/Nevada/California region, but wouldn't narrow it down further. That could have been an honest miscommunication, so we'll just say it was an open issue. I have certainly made my share of oopses, so I can't throw the first stone.
I am curious as to how they got emails alleged to have come from me. That is curious. Very curious. I can't think of any legal way to get them.
I looked at the site for the Lycaon Group, and there is no phone number, just an email, so I'm not sure where all that came from - maybe Brett is one of the webmasters or contributors for NCANS, or the guy that the Lycaon Group site was farmed out to (FWIW, I did NOT create nor contract for the Lycaon Group's website, thus that connection is erroneous), and the phone number is on the registration form - odd that NFI-info would be based in the BVI and masked by a a german registrar, but presumably the same people did Lycaon and went to none of that effort. Could it be that Lycaon was farmed out to one of the content contributors for NCANS, who didn't particularly care if his identity as a contributor was know? Not in the Byzantine world of the ever-more-convoluted conspiracy theorists. It all has to be much more complicated than that. Why is unknown, at present.
The whole Lycaon Group/Brett Kelts thing sounds like a red herring, at least in the sense that I'm not sure why Phillip made it to being Bob O'Brien and yet Brett didn't. Apparently they both are connected with the same company, presumably could use the same computers or somesuch, so if they/he is/are anything more than a contributor to NCANS it wasn't clear exactly how.
But at the end of the day one has to again wonder why any of these speculations are news of any sort.
Let's say none of it is true. Or all of it. Or some of it. How is anything changed? It isn't.
One thing of note is that the Post acknowledges that I have safety concerns, and everyone that reads this blog knows that I have been the lucky recipient of ominous messages, and yet there was no hesitation in publishing an article speculating as to my identity. I wonder what the reaction will be if the businessman's car blows up, or if he's hit crossing the street? Apparently that is a non-issue compared to the importance of breaking this stop-the-presses story.
So we got a column that covered a possible O'Brien sighting, and yet nothing to cover the implications if Dr. Byrne is correct in his allegations. That to me is odd in the extreme. We have the CEO of a major corporation going public with his contention that there is a coordinated manipulation in his stock that encompasses key players in the financial press, that he cannot get a straight answer as to how many shares of stock are circulating for his company, that there is a Master Mind directing a web of colluding hedge funds to systematically violate the law and destroy companies for profit, and yet what is the story?
A full page speculating as to whose shirts I wear. If it weren't so funny I would be crying.
So there you have it. This week’s tabloid-installment of the “Who’s Bob O’Brien” non-story. Stay tuned for the next episode of this soap opera – maybe I’ll get treated to a two-page centerfold with my shirt off in the WSJ next year, with a story about some woman claiming to have fathered Bob O’Brien’s alien child (whose spilt milk bottle left a clear outline of the Madonna, if you kind of squint…).
=====
Friday, August 19, 2005
Who's Bob O'Brien/The Easter Bunny Redux
[UPDATE] The reporter, Roddy Boyd, was kind enough to email me and give me a head's up that the article will run Tuesday. I pointed out that I hoped he had contacted all the players in the drama, as that would be basic diligence. I also pointed out that I found the timing wildly coincidental as it sure appeared that this was being done for no other reason than to provide Rocker's attorneys with a pretense to build their case around, given that the WSJ and NY Times have walked away from the story - The Post is not exactly first string of NY papers, thus it was "if you can't get anyone else to run with it" territory. It is not lost on me that one of the defendants in Byrne's suit is on record admitting to having invested over 100 hours trying to identify me - how fortuitous for him that this reporter is willing to do the heavy lifting developing the identical story as Eisinger and Carol, and publish it when they wouldn't. I further pointed out that nobody had covered the threatening posts directed at me, and I found it odd that nobody seemed interested in factoring that into the wisdom of running an expose on speculations as to "my" identity. Apparently none of that matters, as this reporter is pursuing this as though I was deep throat, and the threats to my legal and literal existence are outweighed by the public's pressing need to know. I actually am somewhat amused by it all, as it is so patently transparent - this was a non-story over 100 days ago, and yet suddenly a reporter who has NEVER commented on NFI, NCANS, OSTK, or any of the issues involved, has issued forth 3 articles in one week on OSTK and naked shorting - two of which are "Byrne's crazy" pieces, and one of which is on its face a balanced story on naked shorting by a market maker - which leaves out that the market maker got a wrist slap fine, and the victim company got pummeled and now trades at 17 cents. So anyone expecting a balanced article is delusional, IMO, but I'm always willing to be surprised. Folks that want to share their support of Mr. Boyd's agenda should email him and his editors at the Post and share with them your admiration for their ethic and their integrity. RBoyd@NYpost.com - the business editor is dcolarusso@nypost.com and the most respected columnist there is Christopher Byron - cbyron@nypost.com [END OF AMMENDMENT]
For those of you who live for the every twist and turn of my life experience, this will seem like deja vu.
I spoke with a reporter for the NY Post at great length over the course of several days about naked short selling, the uber-conspiracy theory involving the Master Mind, why nobody is talking about the FTD situation, the honesty of reporters and hedge funds, etc.
Imagine my surprise today when he asked me to call, and the topic turned out to be....what else?
Who's Bob O'Brien.
Now, I can appreciate that the whole world is waiting with baited breath for information about whose shirts I wear, whether I favor red or white wine, what my views are on rising gas prices and lowered hemlines (not in favor of either). But it did strike me as curious that this same gentleman of letters has written two not-particularly-flattering pieces about Dr. Byrne in just the last week, and is now revisiting the time-worn path trodden by Jesse Eisinger, and after Jesse, Carol. The curiosity came from the fact that the only folks that seem to care are those three, and David Rocker's attorneys (per his press release indicating that he was going to counter-sue [odd, as I'm not suing him] me, on some as-yet-to-be disclosed theory).
Call me overly cynical for a furry creature whose mission is to deliver chocolaty treats to the young ones once a year. But I wonder about someone resurrecting a story whose appeal by now has all the news value of last month's TV Guide.
Could it be that this is a transparent attempt to create an article for the attorneys to cite and wave over their heads, proclaiming that they intend to sue this person because as august a publication as the New York Post declares that it must be true?
Why, that would not only be transparent given the timing, but pretty despicable, in my opinion.
For those that haven't followed the whole saga, one can go back to June and read "The WSJ/Jesse Eisinger Email Exchange" for the identical story.
It really is the same story. Exactly. Same names, same boat, same friend of a friend of a guy who works with NFI on some peripheral tax issues. And here it is again, given fresh wings by the Post.
Now, I can appreciate how annoying it must be to have an anonymous board poster and commentator poking fun, and messing up your game. That has to just righteously piss people off. Especially given how vocal I've been about the Naked Short Selling issue since February - in the off chance that you happen to be using that as an illegal manipulative technique, I'd bet that you'd try virtually anything to keep me quiet. I get it. The Easter Bunny (TEB) is making it difficult to do business as usual on Wall Street, giving stock manipulation a bad name. Check.
But doesn't it seem just a wee bit odd as to the timing?
A little convenient, if you will?
One of the elements of the discussion that stopped me in my tracks, though, was a curious bit of circular logic that I'll share with everyone - it was so odd as to be surrealistic, and the reporter knew it as much as I did.
He indicated that he had determined based upon comparing "my" voice and another supposed TEB appearance, that I was his "suspect".
Huh.
I pointed out that on the Q1 2005 conference call, there was a guy by the same name who called in and asked a question, who sounded like he was late 40's, chain smoked, and was from the Midwest. So if I was that guy (under this theory) how did he account for that? Tut tut, the experts at the NY Post had determined that on that call I had used powerful digital technology to modify my voice, presumably in real time. Really, I wondered? Powerful digital voice modifying technology that would work real time, and make me sound completely different, give me a Midwestern accent, different word choice and syntax, etc.? Either that, or I'd had someone else call in, pretending to be me, for reasons that remain a mystery, as no reason was cited (I asked how he knew that wasn't the real guy, and I was a "fake", but there was no response). I also wondered how they had compared my voice, given that at no time was I told that I was being recorded, and that to do so against my knowledge was illegal* (I was travelling this week in an all party consent state, which is where the calls were from, thus requiring my permission), but passed on raising the issue - who wants to be rude?
And I had something else stumping me. Being fair-minded, I paused, and thought, "that must be some technology". So I asked two obvious questions:
1) How did he know that I wasn't using that powerful digital voice altering technology now, and on all my calls?
2) What was that powerful digital voice altering technology?
He didn't really have a response to that, either. In fact, at that point it seemed like he might have dropped hot coffee in his lap, because he couldn't get off the phone fast enough. I did appreciate his last statement, something along the lines of "Jeff Matthews doesn't know anything about naked shorting and you don't know anything about powerful digital voice modification technology" - an apparent tip of the hat to Jeff's landmark CNBC statement, and its having become synonymous to Wall Street insiders as "telling a tall tale" or "spinning a yarn" or "bald-faced lying through your teeth in a patently transparent manner". That alone made the call for me, as unfair that I believe it is that poor Jeff's clearly sincere words were so badly misinterpreted by so many - it was a little funny when he said it.
My point is that I actually don't have the equivalent voice modification expertise as Jeff claims to have with the ways of Wall Street - I haven't spent the last 25 years engaged in digital voice modification technology development, so I don't know the latest and greatest.
I thought it was cool that Stephen Hawking could hit a screen with his nose and create speech (I think that's how he does it, remembering a somewhat fumbled romantic attempt during "A brief history of time" on PBS - what does that say about my love life?), and I once had a cab driver from the Ukraine who was not only angry about something unintelligible, but also had a device that he held up to his larynx that croaked out words in an oddly monotone and robotic fashion, albeit with a heavy Slavic accent, which was also more than a little disconcerting - but I digress.
Being as I'm a curious guy, does anyone know of any powerful digital voice altering technology that can alter the tone, pitch, timbre, syntax, word choice, pacing and accent, on a phone call? I mean we've all seen the hokey movie where the guy in the dark room pretends to be someone else, and selects sentences (pre-recorded) to trick the gullible rube/protagonist/villain. But this is powerful digital voice altering technology that we are talking, available for use on phones (all phones? Some phones? Special phones?), that works on the fly, and is available to me, TEB. I don't travel with a trailer full of super-computers, so I presume that it must operate on some sort of a PC base, or as part of a handset - dunno.
I know it must exist, as the reporter assured me that he was an honest man, and presumably had a skilled team of technologically-savvy wire heads pointing skyward and proclaiming "Eureka, he's using the Z-57 hyper voice module, running through an oscillating confabulation engine, and ported in through a giga-nano drive on an SGI workstation), or some such.
So anyone know what that is?
The other thing that I told him about, that had occurred since the Eisinger interview/trespassing citation, and subsequent to the Remond hand-off, was that I had been the object of threatening posts by a presumed ex-felon with terrorist connections (read about it in June's "Bad Moon Rising"), along with other threatening posts that weren't particularly noteworthy - it's hard to top the ex-con/terrorist money-launderer/stinger missile procurer angle (I'll see your terrorist, and raise you with a serial killer/rapist...?).
We'd previously discussed the fact that many of the relevant pieces of the Byrne story had been curiously omitted from every negative article that had emanated from the supposedly un-biased press, and he assured me that his piece had contained them, but been cut for space reasons (another amazing coincidence). I bet him a dollar that any piece about me wouldn't contain any mention of those threats ("you are under surveillance") - call it a hunch. I plan to collect my dollar and put it towards my defense fund, also called the "Texas lawyers think it's their birthday, New Years and Mardi Gras due to all the discovery that it will enable them to perform in order to mount an affirmative defense" fund. I find it refreshing that these hedges (because my theory is that all the names on Byrne's list could be part of the proof) are willing to stand up and be counted, and welcome the fresh antiseptic of sunshine into their affairs, their banking records, their trades, their phone records, their emails, their offshore funds, their relationships, their contractors, their tax matters, etc. to allow them to clear their good names from the shadow of the lawsuit's allegations. We live in a marvelous world, and I, the Easter Bunny, am proud to be a part of it.
Now, I don't want to hear any of the cracks about the NY Post being for folks that move their lips when they read People Magazine. In my mind it is a credible publication, and I am absolutely positive that the reason the same story hasn't run in the WSJ by Jesse or the NY Times is because of their restrictive belief that the identity of an anonymous shareholder advocate isn't any sort of interesting news to anyone. I applaud the NY Post for tackling not only the hard hitting issues about Dr. Byrne (does he really think that certain analysts should be "whipped, f--ed and driven from the land"? Does he really think that some female reporters might enjoy a Lewinsky-esque rapport with their superiors?) but now has further defined the cutting edge of responsible, relevant journalism by tackling the "Who's Bob O'Brien" story. It's kind of what the Post is known for, isn't it?
So one more time round the track. Bob/TEB/Psaunders is a bad bad man, he is a friend of a friend of a guy who does something for NFI as a contractor, he has a boat, he lives in Vegas (or doesn't), he thinks there is something bad going on in the markets, and he thinks that Dr. Byrne's theory has a lot of merit. Apparently he also has started or been involved in (that was unclear) a bunch of companies with a penchant for the use of initials in their names, has never been involved in any sort of market-related business or activity, and had to sue someone to collect some money he'd lent. That is the Eisinger story, that is the Carol story, and that is the Post's story.
As to whether any of it is true, or relevant to me and my identity, I will say what I said when Jesse repeated it verbatim - I don't comment on identity-related issues, and will neither confirm nor deny any of it as germane nor accurate about me. The Easter Bunny apparently wields enormous power, and can make billionaires dance to his bidding, pulls the strings on politicians, and is single-handedly responsible for (insert whatever you think I'm responsible for here).
So this isn't about the thinnest of pretenses to create a media slam against me and NFI, using innuendo and guesses, and to provide the alleged perpetrators with a foil to use to convince a hopefully (for them) dim judge to allow what is plainly a SLAPP suit. Far from it. No, friends, this is a quest for truth of the most noble sort, and is to be commended on its face for its integrity and its sincerity.
Anyone else want to bet me on the threats not making it into the final cut? I could sort of use the money for the fund.....
* Calls that cross state lines become complicated legal issues especially when one state is a one party consent state and the other state is an all party consent state. What has happened is that you didn't violate the law in the one party consent state and violated the law in the all party consent state. Moreover, since the call went across a state line, the federal laws would certainly apply. - source = pimall.com
bobosrevenge.blogspot.com |
