SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Microcap & Penny Stocks : PanAmerican BanCorp (PABN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Roger Bodine who wrote (40029)7/29/1999 10:46:00 AM
From: JOEY  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 43774
 
I saw this on another thread and thought it was interesting.

Companies Hire Private Eyes
To Unmask Online Detractors
By REBECCA BUCKMAN
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Jeffrey R. Bedser does some of his best work at home, at about 2 a.m., when he logs on to the Internet pretending to be a woman.

The clean-cut father of young twins isn't sampling X-rated Web sites. He's putting in overtime as head of the new Internet-crimes group of International Business Research Inc., a corporate-investigations company based in Princeton, N.J.

With undercover operations on the Web, he smokes out angry ex-employees or stock-fraud suspects. One of his favorite tricks: using a female alias to strike up late-night e-mail correspondence.

"We've never yet used sexual innuendo," says Mr. Bedser, a 31-year-old former corporate-security manager for two big pharmaceutical companies. But "there has been occasional flirting."

With an explosion of online corporate chat by investors, more companies are hiring private eyes to track down people posting anonymous messages they don't like. Though the freewheeling banter is frequently off-base, companies fret that investors may believe -- or trade stock on -- what they see posted on a Web site or a stock-message board.

Once a company learns the identity of a detractor, it can try to find grounds to sue the person. If it's an employee, he or she can be disciplined. In cases of possible stock manipulation, companies can refer messages and the identity of the author to stock regulators.

Unmasking some of its online detractors, HealthSouth Corp., a Birmingham, Ala., provider of rehabilitation services, has filed lawsuits against some, with allegations including defamation.

'Hot Stuff'

To help round up cybersuspects, IBR and rivals Kroll Associates and DSFX LLC, based in Falls Church, Va., have all formed special groups to tackle Web-related assignments. "This is hot stuff," says Michael Cherkasky, president of New York-based Kroll Associates, one of the largest investigation firms.

Before the Internet, these corporate sleuths mostly performed "due diligence" checks on acquisition targets or investigated embarrassing internal thefts. Now, tactics are more high-tech. Mr. Bedser and his staff of three, including two fresh Princeton University graduates, routinely correspond via e-mail with suspected stock manipulators using fake names. They also sift through reams of e-mail messages for clues to a suspect's occupation or geographic location.

Want to receive an e-mail alert when Heard on the Net columns are published? See the E-Mail Setup page4 for details on how to subscribe.

Mr. Bedser's group was once on the trail of someone suspected of issuing threats to a chief executive on a Yahoo! Inc. stock-message board. After striking up an online conversation, the investigators (posing as a friendly young woman named Terry) suggested the suspect click to a separate home page to see a snapshot of Terry.

It was a trap. The amateur-looking page had family photos -- including one of a smiling woman wearing shorts, said to be Terry. Staking out the site, IBR watched as the visitor clicked on, then followed his electronic tracks back to a local Internet-service provider in Miami.

IBR identified another target by playing chess. FutureLink Distribution Corp. had hired the company to unmask "ZeroBid," who had posted message-board accusations that the software-leasing company, based in Irvine, Calif., could be fraudulently promoting its stock through a "pump-n-dump" scheme.

IBR staffers noticed that ZeroBid left a message on the Raging Bull stock-discussion Web site, saying, "This board is dead. I'm going over to play chess on Yahoo." They tracked ZeroBid down at the chess site and, using assumed names, challenged him to matches for several weeks. "We tried to make him think we were worse than we were, so we could get tips" and play longer, IBR's Mr. Bedser says.

ZeroBid eventually mentioned his nickname and his employer, a Rhode Island brokerage. IBR matched the nickname to a list of the firm's employees. FutureLink passed on ZeroBid's postings to securities regulators. The matter is pending.

FutureLink says it launched its hunt for ZeroBid after that name appeared on hundreds of negative notes on a message board. Cameron Chell, FutureLink's chairman, says he believes ZeroBid was trying to drive down the price of his company's stock.

Some of the postings, however, included unflattering facts that investors might find relevant: Mr. Chell, for instance, was fined $25,000 by the Alberta Stock Exchange last year and settled allegations that, as a Canadian stockbroker, he made unauthorized and unsuitable transactions for clients. Those included selling clients securities of a company of which he was president and chairman without fully disclosing his involvement.

'Conspiracy Theories'

Mr. Chell confirms those details, but says ZeroBid went too far by accusing him of "all these conspiracy theories."

In e-mail messages and in a phone interview, the man IBR identified as ZeroBid declined to give his real name and denied trying to manipulate FutureLink's stock or ever owning it. He said he just stumbled across FutureLink's annual report in a Securities and Exchange Commission database, noticed information about Mr. Chell's past and decided to post some of it on the Internet. ""I was just goofing around," he said. He didn't know he'd been investigated by a private eye, but says he "figured they probably would" try to uncover his identity.

Some investigation companies aren't comfortable with all the covert cat-and-mouse tactics. Jay Dawdy, head of the corporate division of New York's Beau Dietl & Associates, says his company shies away from "any sort of complex sting, or creating identities" on the Web. "It's all evolving as far as privacy."

It's unclear whether tactics private investigators use to coax identities from people online could constitute an invasion of privacy, say lawyers who specialize in Internet issues. The SEC, for example, doesn't conduct undercover Internet operations, says John Reed Stark, chief of the agency's Office of Internet Enforcement.

Adds Joseph Grundfest, a professor of business and law at Stanford University's law school, "It's not against the law to say bad things about a company's stock and management and strategy."

Often, private detectives use covert methods to track suspects because they don't have the luxury of using criminal subpoenas and search warrants, as law-enforcement agents do. In April, such legal muscle helped the Federal Bureau of Investigation crack a notorious Web hoax, involving PairGain Technologies Inc., in a matter of days. Under subpoena, Internet service providers quickly released records that led the FBI to a PairGain employee, who has since pleaded guilty to fraud charges. The employee had sent the company's stock soaring by posting a bogus but authentic-looking news report saying PairGain was being bought by an Israeli company.

Private investigators are "hamstrung because at some point there's information they can't get," says Chris Painter, the assistant U.S. attorney from Los Angeles who prosecuted the PairGain case.

But many suspects don't cover their tracks very well, investigators say. IBR once helped a large pharmaceutical company find a Canadian pharmacist, using the name PharmaFool, who had criticized one of the company's new anti-inflammatory drugs on a message board.

Once it found him, the drug company ended up leaving PharmaFool alone after discovering he wasn't a competitor or an insider, as it had suspected. The man IBR believes to be PharmaFool didn't return calls for comment.

IBR's big break in the case? The man used the same PharmaFool screen name on another message board, where his public "personal profile" also included his town, his favorite hockey team and his real name.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
URL for this Article:
interactive.wsj.com.

Hyperlinks in this Article:
(1) interactive.wsj.com.
(2) interactive.wsj.com.
(3) interactive.wsj.com.
(4) interactive.wsj.com.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



To: Roger Bodine who wrote (40029)7/29/1999 12:33:00 PM
From: jhild  Respond to of 43774
 
Hey Roger, you can't vote in the truth here on this thread. Nor does your vote negate my opinions.

If you have such an appetite for voting, there is always this great voting booth called the market. From the looks of things, your slate of candidates is not exactly setting the world on fire. But go ahead keep voting with as many votes as you think you can afford.



To: Roger Bodine who wrote (40029)7/29/1999 8:10:00 PM
From: ColleenB  Respond to of 43774
 
Roger,

I'm still ROTFLMAO over this post of yours..... a straight shooter, hooboy, now that's a good one



To: Roger Bodine who wrote (40029)7/31/1999 9:05:00 AM
From: ColleenB  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 43774
 
it seems obvious to everyone else on this thread that PC speaks straight

Roger, this is pitiful if indeed this is true. Let me show you just how straight the man speaks...

The man proclaims that there are still 1.1Billion shares Authorized even though he has in his possession a document that John Schmitz submitted to the SEC on March 23rd which states that there are 1.75Billion shares Authorized.

Authorized: 1.1 billion Outstanding: 820 Million (approx) See web site and call Transfer Agent for exact figures) Float: 300 million (approx)
ragingbull.com

I point out to PCM that he is in violation of SEC regulations/rules by spreading falsehoods. He pulls a clever maneuver and posts....

She happens to be wrong, but that is not news to anyone. The information I posted is from authoritative sources and is current as far as anyone knows. Also, I qualified it and referred the reader to the transfer agent for the most up-to-date information. I have not violated any rules
ragingbull.com

Did you catch how he qualifies his statement? as far as anyone knows. Does this person sound like they're shooting straight to you? Sounds like forked tongue to me. He further attempts to distance himself from providing erroneous information by mentioning that he referred the questioner to the TA, knowing full well that the TA is not current. PCM has the documents in his possession, why not be forthcoming with ALL the information?

After returning from Boca, PCM makes this statement about the PPM...
It was a private (not public) placement prepared for two people. It was never intended to be released to the public (and has not been released to the public by the SEC or by the company). The names of those two individuals will remain private (as they should be, it being a private placement and all). #reply-10305754

An investor asks....Did I read here that the private placement was not supposed to become public knowledge? #reply-10462728

and here's the straight shooters response...A private placement is private, and it is not public. That's what makes it legal -- it cannot be public. #reply-10462945

Well, PCM is technically correct, however, he did NOT answer the question that was asked. IMO, he was deliberately misleading the questioner to draw the wrong conclusion. A PPM is an offering that is not made available to the public so that they too may be able to take advantage of cheap shares, this is no way dictates that it is to be kept a secret from the investing community, public knowledge.

ROGER, SHALL I FIND MORE SUCH EXAMPLES FOR YOU TO SEE JUST HOW STRAIGHT THIS POSTER SPEAKS?

Here's a post that is NOTHING but HYPE, (straight shooters don't hype, they post facts that can be backed up)....

I don't think it is going to be three years before we qualify for NASDAQ. Call it a hunch or whatever. I think the company has somethings up its sleeves it has not even hinted at (such as the Teachdaq acquisition) that may propel us to NASDAQ much sooner. ragingbull.com



To: Roger Bodine who wrote (40029)8/2/1999 5:29:00 PM
From: ColleenB  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 43774
 
it seems obvious to everyone else on this thread that PC speaks straight

Well, sorry to break this to you Roger, but I have yet another example of PCM violating your faith in his being a straight shooter. And the violation happened just this morning.

In this post he still passes off the old information regarding the share count. He does not acknowledge that the PPM/Form D is in direct conflict with the numbers that he quotes. And, this from a man who spouts that one should always rely upon the "authorative source". I don't know why he continues to promote the numbers on the company website which predate the numbers that John Schmitz submitted to the SEC in March, unless, it's for the purpose to mislead others. Can you think of another reason?

ragingbull.com

I have pointed out to him that he is in direct violation of SEC regulations on numerous occasions, here is one such incidence...

PCM, you really ought to update this post to show the proper number of shares out. If you do not do so, I will conclude that you are purposely misleading new investors, something the SEC highly frown upon. Shame, shame, shame.

b.To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or....

law.uc.edu

ragingbull.com

well, if you look at the post he submitted to new shareholders after this last time I pointed out that he was in direct violation of SEC regulations, he added a small disclaimer at the very bottom of the post. In order to find it you really have to scroll down through a lot of information. So, Roger, does this person really appear to be a straight shooter to you?



To: Roger Bodine who wrote (40029)8/2/1999 6:04:00 PM
From: PCModem  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 43774
 
"Care to put it to a vote on this thread???"

Roger the validity of my opinions and of what I quote as "fact" can be established based on known facts.

My opinions are based on the information that is available. The information I post is based on information that is available. Someone may read the same information and have a different opinion. If it is a valid opinion it should be defensible based on the information available.

Occasionaly someone may have an "opinion" which is contrary to the facts, but is based on a hunch, a gut feeling or some intuition -- such "opinions" are not opinions at all. They are hunches, gut feelings and intuitions. They cannot be defended by the information since they are in contradiction to it. Therefore, based on the definition of "opinion" such are not opinions at all.

My opinions, the information I provide and any hunches I may have are not a matter of a vote. They are either correct or incorrect. In either case the facts make the determination.

Thank you for your sincere expression of support. I appreciate the gesture! A lot! But a vote is not the way to go.

Right now there is a conflict among certain people regarding the number of authorized shares. I am aware that there are two different "published" numbers. I choose to believe at this time that one of those numbers is the most accurate. Others choose to believe that a different number is the most accurate. I do not think that thinking either of those numbers is the most accurate is a violation of the Rules of the SEC.

Unfortunately there is a person who is attempting to practice law and to give me legal warnings and advice. Personally I don't think she is qualified to do so.

But like the song says, "Fools rush in where angles fear to tread."

Anyone whose posts have been removed on several occasions because they violate the terms of use and who then defends them anyway cannot be expected to comprehend such things.

PCM

GO PABN!!!