Take 5 With Patrick - Essays on Unrelated Subjects

By the way, I am not imagining myself a munificent Santa Claus here: I am just trying to do a nice thing for folks who visit. Feel free to post a link to this page anywhere else around the Internet (I know there are sites and blogs devoted to searching for shopping specials and various deals). However, if you folks seem to like this, I will make a habit if including these coupons in my blogs.

In any case, here goes nothing: If you want the $10 off $100 coupon, good until Monday night, please click here.

Your most humble servant,

Patrick

UPDATE: For those to whom this is new, to use the coupon you just click on the link above. It takes you to Overstock, you shop, and then when you checkout you will find the coupon deducted from your order. If you have more than one coupon in your account, our checkout process will apply the one that gives you the biggest discount on the order. So for example, if you are a Club O member you receive a 5% discount. If you order $105 worth of stuff, this coupon will drop it to $95. If you order $300 worth of stuff, you will get a $300 X 5% = $15 discount.Last edited by patrickbyrne on Sat Jul 28, 2007 8:05 pm; edited 3 times in total

By the way, I put that notice up of the show about my friend because the producer called that day to say it was going to be on. Evidently it got bumped. She wrote me this weekend:

“There was a scheduling change at ESPN because of a WNBA game so the new air date is Friday the 31st at 7:30pm (ET) on ESPN2.”

So I hope you tune in this Friday.

Patrick

PS There is a profound irony in the fact of its being bumped for a WNBA game. Somewhere, good-naturedly, Brian is laughing until tears roll down his face. As was his style.

Your recent article stated, “Patrick M. Byrne, founder and chief executive of the beleaguered online retailer Overstock.com, has for years been accused of anonymously resorting to the Internet to do battle with his company’s critics. In an interview, Mr. Byrne said that he never hides his true identity and always signs his name when he posts under his online handle, ‘Hannibal’ (the Carthaginian conqueror, not the celluloid serial killer).”

Please tell me on what basis you make the claims:

1)”Patrick M. Byrne, founder and chief executive of the beleaguered online retailer Overstock.com, has for years been accused of anonymously resorting to the Internet to do battle with his company’s critics.” That is, I understand many have criticized my appearance on the Internet, but I am not aware of having been “for years …accused of anonymously resorting to the Internet to do battle with [my] critics.” Please provide a citation for such accusations.

2) Please provide a citation for this claim: “Mr. Byrne said that he never hides his true identity and always signs his name when he posts under his online handle, ‘Hannibal’”. Is it your claim that I used the words “always” and “never” in some message board post (and if so, please cite that post), or is it your claim that I stated this in our interview? I know for a fact that the claim is false as regards our interview, and believe it to be false with regard to any online posting, but I stand ready to be corrected.

Respectfully,
Patrick M. Byrne

So in short, Wings, your reading is correct. Stone’s English does have only a small imprecision in it. Because the blackguards think they’re Philadelphia lawyers they jumped up and down in the space Stone’s imprecision created, and when I went to seal it up, they used that as an opportunity simply to reverse their allegation.

So for the record, for any stranger, or reporter, who wanders in here:

I have, in fact, never hid my identify when posting online. I have always posted as myself, or as Hannibal. I have only used the name “Hannibal” at Fool, InvestorVillage, and Overstock itself, after extensively making it clear that Hannibal was I. I have posted on other people’s blogs a few times, generally consumer information and shopping blogs, but always identifying myself. The only possible exception to the preceding statements is this: in 1999-2000, I posted as Hannibal a few times on F—-ed company.com, looking for inventory to liquidate, and while I think I did reveal my identity there, it hardly mattered anyway because we were a tiny upstart of whom almost no one had ever heard, and I do not have a record of those posts.

One would think that would be as simple and clear an assertion no one could misread it. Let’s watch.

By the way, thank you for taking the time to tease this analysis out, Wings. Send me an email and I’ll hook you up with a coupon.

Respectfully,

Patrick

PS As long as we are talking about these guys, I’ll give you a taste of who they really are. The other day one of the blackguards threatened me and a friend by posting our personal information on the Internet (and in the case of my friend, that of his wife and children as well). Personally I am indifferent because I am 10 feet tall, bulletproof and invisible, but I don’t think blackguards should be threatening children. Who did the threatening? A fellow named Sam Antar, a convicted felon who reduced his own time in jail by ratting on family members. Some guy. What does he do when he is not threatening children? He goes on CNBC to be fetted by the likes of Herb Greenberg. This may seem strange until you start to get what is going on down the rabbit hole: CNBC (and much of our financial news industry, for that matter) is more or less a 24 hour infomercial where Herb & Cronies hawk whatever cookware sets, Total Gyms, or stock and bonds they are instructed to hawk by a few hedge funds. But the cronies are growing silent because they are starting to realize the game is up. Herb is in too deep to stop, so he has been tasked with creating another crony with whom he can then quote back-and-forth. They cannot even find a Chanos to make denials (given how shifty Chanos looked in the recent Bloomberg expose on naked shorting http://images.overstock.com/f/102/3117/8h/www.overstock.com/07-0313Bloom_PhantomShares_NSS.wmv). So they are having to dig pretty deep, and the best they could do is come up with a convicted felon, relative-ratting, and now, child-threatening, Sam Antar.

By the way, we are going to win. We are building a great company, we are getting discovery in our two lawsuits, the information dam is cracking and this scandal is moving into the mainstream (I get more and more calls each week, do radio interviews, etc). If the NYT thought that Jason Blair episode was a problem, I cannot wait until real reporters start looking into these cozy relationships.

“Of course with them saying that you have ‘admitted’ having made postings on the Internet under anonymous pseudonyms which is not even implied in the original article, you have to wonder if sneaky imprecations are beyond their mental capabilities to grasp.”

Not beyond their mental capabilities. They are just practitioners of the Big Lie. Lie over and over and over about something like that, and readers get disoriented, confusing hard facts with balderdash.

It is nice to meet a gentleman such as yourself here. Take care.

PatrickLast edited by patrickbyrne on Sat Jul 28, 2007 2:22 pm; edited 1 time in total

The bad news is that that station is going to be CNBC, a group that has been at the heart of the spinning of this story in what appears to have been a deliberate attempt to prevent word of it from reaching the public. But who knows, maybe tomorrow night they will redeem themselves.

I have an idea. I volunteer to go on CNBC Fast Money tomorrow night and make sure it is not a whitewash. CNBC has had me on a dozen times or more, so they cannot have objections to it in principle. Yet even though I represent one side of the debate, I bet they will refuse to have me on to discuss it, because it will interfere with their plans to spin it.

If they do have me on (without doing the normal shout-him-down routine), I will give them credit for it (and not even bring any signs or affidavits). If, even though I have become synonymous with this issue, they refuse, it will make my larger point for me.

In any case, they know where to reach me.

Patrick

An Illinois law professor named “Christine Hurt” apparently decided to take an independent look into the Mitzvah and discovered… that things are not quite as they are being portrayed in the financial media. She has to make the obligatory swipes about my “tilting at windmills” (that’s OK, I’m used to it, and besides, where I come from we believe in Quixotic quests). And she succumbs to the normal tendency to assume that this is all about Overstock, (after all, what CEO ever does anything out of patriotism or an internal moral code?) That’s OK though.

Expect one of two things to happen:

Professor Hurt will continue following and writing about these developments with independent eye, in which case she will be widely denounced as a lunatic fringe academic, crazy crazy crazy, etc.

Or some hedge fund (linked to a notorious, now banned-from-the-markets-for-life short-biased financier) will show up and make a huge donation to her college of law (as happened with one other group that began digging into this story from outside the confines of the Party Line). And she will be asked to go silent.

I have suddenly come to appreciate the value of tenure in our society.

Your humble servant,

Patrick

http://www.theconglomerate.org/2007/07/overstockcom-v-.html

Overstock.com v. Gradient (and the Rest of the World)
Posted by Christine Hurt
While the blogosphere (even here) has been debating the propriety (and legality) of the CEO of a publicly-held corporation to anonymously tout his company and denigrate a potential acquisition target, I’ve been following a story that sounds different, but has some commonalities. Overstock.com (and several shareholders) sued Gradient Analytics, Inc. and Rocker Partners for shorting Overstock shares, publishing false negative analyst reports, then profiting as the share price drops. The actual causes of action are libel, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and various other California statutes. Many in the financial community pooh-poohed this as another example of CEO Patrick Byrne’s tilting at windmills, but so far a California court says there is something to it. Yes, Byrne seems to be paranoid about Wall Street, but that doesn’t mean someone isn’t out to get him!

In the lawsuit, Overstock alleges (and has affidavits from Gradient employees supporting the allegations) that Rocker Partners approached Gradient Analytics about creating reports about Overstock.com. Apparently, much of Gradient’s business model centered around customers subscribing for tens of thousands of dollars a year and getting the opportunity to request negative reports on companies of their choice. Gradient even touted to potential customers how much a negative report on Gradient could cause the share price of a company to drop. At the request of Rocker Partners, Gradient published no fewer than 24 reports in a six-month period, and Gradient was able to approve and request changes to those reports before their release. Neither Rocker Partners nor Gradient deny the reports or the fact that Rocker was short selling Overstock shares. Their defense is that the reports are free speech. Under California law, they moved to dismiss the suit under California’s anti-SLAPP law. This motion was denied by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court (2007 WL 1545611, May 30, 2007). (I will discuss the “free speech” aspects of the case in a different post.) In the opinion, the court stated that the plaintiffs in all probability would prevail on the merits, given what was in the pleadings, and stated “The malice is in the very business model and practices that preordain negative reports and provides probative evidence that Gradient acted in reckless disregard of the truth in making the false statements and implications that it did.” All of the legal documents are collected at Overstock.com’s investor relations hub here.

And yes, Byrne has been railing against short sellers for years as the share price of Overstock.com has declined, and most of written off those (somewhat bizarre) rants. Indeed, Byrne has also filed a lawsuit against major Wall Street investment banks for being part of a vast short-selling conspiracy against his company. The short-selling conspiracy story does make one shake one’s head, though; Overstock.com has been on the naked short-selling watch list for over 500 days. For some reason, this company is not only sold short more than any other company, it is sold short for pure speculation, with the bettors skirting the law not to actually borrow the shares they are shorting. In any given day, more shares of Overstock.com are shorted than are in the public float. Whether that mystery will ever be resolved to uncover illegal machinations remains to be seen; however, this very discrete and particular case against Gradient and Rocker Partners seems to have some teeth.

Securities Regulation

TrackBacks (0)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/38673/20075268

Links to weblogs that reference Overstock.com v. Gradient (and the Rest of the World):

Comments (4)

1. Posted by anonymous on July 17, 2007 @ 11:12 | Permalink

Ms. Hunt,

Judging by your blog post, it looks like you read only one court document. That’s problematic for the following reason. The law requires that the court assume that the overstock claims are true *at this point* so that they can assess whether or not the Anti-SLAPP law applies. The court has not yet examined the veracity of those claims. In fact, the overstock claims are based entirely on the declaration of one disgruntled, fired ex-Gradient employee. That same ex-employee has been completely discredited by several journalists. He will be discredited at trial too, if the case ever goes to trial. You should read some of the other court documents to get a more balanced view of the issue.

2. Posted by Patrick Byrne on July 17, 2007 @ 19:45 | Permalink

Professor Hurt,

Congratulations on a cohesive summary of the situation. I respectfully warn you, though, if you keep at it you will see articles appearing about “paranoid rants” being written by a UICL law professor.

One aspect of this affair that has been eye-opening for me has been the realization of how “captured” are various social institutions.

First and foremost of these is, of course, the SEC. For example, the practices described in our lawsuit have long been widely known on Wall Street, and our allegations seem to be widely regarded to be true by the “smart money”. Years and years ago, long before Overstock existed, this type of behavior was explained to me in a “this is how the game is played” kind of way. Several of the most prominent figures on Wall Street today have encouraged me in this fight, saying things like, “I’ve watched these jerks do this for years, it is about time someone stood up to them.” It is not a tough problem to solve. It is, however, a tough problem to solve without seeing about two dozen rich guys get their heads handed to them in court. The SEC lacks the will to do that. They can take on Martha Stewart over a few tens of thousands of dollars, but they cannot stand up to the toughest hedge funds on Wall Street.

Regulatory capture is nothing to be surprised about, I know, but the capture of the industry of financial journalism is especially disheartening. I have dealt with dozens of journalists over the years, and have generally found them to be honest, intelligent, and fair. In fact, for years I told people that the common perception of journalists was way off the mark in that way. However, when it comes to reporters on the Wall Street beat, what I have found has amazed me, in that they will not even consider data that is coming out of academia, based on Freedom of Information Act requests of our government, that indicate the problems in our settlement system are deep. The hedge fund friends who feed them their stories tell them to ignore it, so they dutifully ignore it, even though there are now some serious, heavyweight economists who are saying, “Houston, we have a problem.”

I should make clear that I do not think my claim about financial journalists is a universal truth. There are several good ones, notably Gretchen Morgenson at NYT, who has written compellingly of an SEC whistleblower named Aguirre who has given compelling testimony about the SEC’s capture by Wall Street figures with “juice”, as his superior once described someone Aguirre was investigating. Gary Matsumoto and Bob Drummond at Bloomberg have done explosive articles on the naked shorting controversy, as has Liz Moyers at Forbes, while her colleague there, Nathan Vardi, has written of the involvement of Russian OC in these matters. But by and large, the financial press has shown itself the lapdog of the financial industry. The Wall Street Journal is to Wall Street as Sports Illustrated is to sports, Fortune is People Magazine for capitalists, and The New York Post financial columns are for folks who move their lips when they read People.

This explains the anonymous post that precedes mine. What has actually happened is that certain miscreants committed acts A, and we filed a lawsuit alleging that A occurred. Their Motion to Demur had to state not-A, but because they did not even want A out there in the public mind, their pet reporters have written about the case as being about something else entirely, X, to the point that they would not even describe the contents of the affidavits at issue. That the 5 or 6 reporters who have so studiously insisted that is is about X are the same small crew of 5 or 6 who have spent their careers writing hatchet jobs on the same companies that those miscreants have shorted, is, I am sure, entirely coincidental. It just one of those coincidences that happens over and over with complete predictability.

The problem for them all is that the wig is beginning to slip. The trial judge in Marin decided on all counts, 8-0, that this suit is not about X, it is about A. The California AG weighed in with an amicus agreeing that this case is not about X, it is about A. The California Court of Appeals decided 3-0 that it is not about X, it is about A, and denied their motion to reconsider the question. So the problem for them has become, how do they keep the wig in place? A slew of hedge fund choagies from the NYT, NYP, Fortune, and WSJ (Nocera, Roddy Boyd, and the Minions of Kansas) wrote stories about how crazy and paranoid were my rants, but unfortunately for them, a small subset of the evidence from which I drew my beliefs has been examined by a trial judge, an AG, and three jurists of an appellate court, who have all said, “Yep, they’re probably going to win.”

The anonymous post on your site is a fine example of what I mean. Returning from it to the real world for a moment, what we have is a series of people who worked for a company who realized it was crooked. Three of them came forward and said to their boss, “We cannot do this anymore. This business model is completely illegal. This has to stop.” A few days later they were fired. They brought their information to me, I investigated and found more employees with the same story, and I started a lawsuit. Of course, Roddy Boyd and the other cronies dutifully play their role by saying that they are all just disgruntled ex-employees: that is the stuff about, “That same ex-employee has been completely discredited by several journalists” (the insistence that “the overstock claims are based entirely on the declaration of one disgruntled, fired ex-Gradient employee” is just another of those false claims they numbly repeat with mantra-fervor in the hope that will make it true, but a quick check of the documents you linked to on our site will dispel their claim).

Believe it or not, someday soon the Law & Economics, Public Choice, and CLS folks are all going to find a huge area of agreement: behind the scenes, powerful interests have jacked the controls of our society to a degree that only the most paranoid imagined. This case against Gradient, Rocker et. al, and our other against the prime brokers, are going to provide windows into that world.

So when in your writings you notice simple, obvious things like the CA Court of Appeals rejects their arguments 3-0, please expect to find yourself denounced as a paranoid as well, with great energy, by the same handful of reporters (Herb, Roddy, Bethany, etc.) who write story after story on every other company (e.g., CROX shoes, Taser, Take-Two, etc.) that David Rocker and his friends short.

Always, I am sure, coincidentally.

Regards,
Patrick Byrne

The similarity between those acts, and my practice of writing on message boards posts that steer clear of Overstock’s stock price (and explicitly disclaim any opinion on this subject), and instead discuss a massive criminal conspiracy to defraud our nation’s capital markets that may end in 1929-style systemic failure, would be a similarity that may be lost on you. It was lost on me, too, especially given that I post in a way that is anything but anonymous (signing most of them “Patrick Byrne”, “Patrick”, “Patrick Byrne, CEO”, using either a user-name “Hannibal” which I initially forewarned and frequently reiterate is myself, or else, simply posting as “Patrick Byrne” on a message board called, “Take 5 With Patrick”). In short, given that Mackey’s posts touted his own stock anonymously, while my posts which avoid mention of the subject, discuss social issues beyond Overstock, and can only with great selective effort be read without understanding the identify of their author, one would think that any attempt at equating the two would be a superficiality too extreme even for the mass media to maintain.

Yet once again, The New York Times has not let me down.

New York Times reporter Brad Stone contacted me late last week for comment on the Mackey affair. The questions he emailed to me included,

In conversation with me Mr. Stone attempted the same gambit, trying to draw me out on the “extreme temptation” to which I was, apparently, succumbing, in daring to step outside the mass corporate media to raise public awareness of any issue that threatens our country. I requested (and he indicated acceptance) that he should not put words in my mouth, that I do not see exercising my duty as a citizen as an example of a “temptation” whose allure was too strong to withstand. As I wrote to him:

“You became a journalist: would you have characterized this as having caved in to some ‘temptation’ that was too ‘extreme’ to withstand? Then why describe in such terms another’s decision to take part in the public discourse? ”

On the general history of my postings and my identification therein, this is what I wrote him:

I continued with a number of posts representing a fair sample of my posts. Some were signed, “Patrick Byrne, CEO, Overstock.com”, some were signed just, “Patrick”.

One would have thought that this answer was comprehensive and well-documented enough to be incapable of misrepresentation. But, once again, the New York Times reminds us once again of their agenda. Note this from today’s story:

While the New York Times asserts that I am “a high-profile figure[] who tried to exploit the anonymity of the Internet to promote their companies and combat enemies under false pretenses,” they have not done anything so tacky as adduce evidence to support this claim.

They adduce no evidence that I have “tried to exploit the anonymity of the Internet” (which is right and appropriate, because it is a lie).

Their attempt to characterize my efforts to bring public attention to a financial crime that may someday cause our nation’s capital markets to implode as an example of “promote their companies and combat enemies under false pretenses.” Again, they have done nothign so tacky as adducing evidence to support such these claims, no evidence that I have tried to “promote” Overstock, and no evidence of false pretenses. In fact, I would say that these are the most content-less allegations I have seen in awhile, going beyond what the normal hedge fund choagies do on their blogs (they at least have the grace to try to spin and lie about what I say, rather than simply fabricating allegations and hoping their brand carries the day, as the New York Times appears to be doing).

Of course, they have a special problem to deal with: my claim, that our country is facing a financial scandal of epic proportions, is a claim that is being confirmed in reports and statements by Bloomberg, Forbes, SEC Chairman Cox, Commissioner Atkins, and numerous economists and analysts. How do they handle that one? They resort to a play right out of Choagie Playbook - 1st edition, which insists that no coverage be given to this scandal I am trying to expose, and instead characterize it only as an effort of mine to “combat enemies.”

How long do they think they can keep the wig from slipping by just piling up misstatement upon lie upon fabrication?

Here is the funny part: I don’t think Mr. Stone (whom I dealt with in his previous incarnation as a Newsweek reporter) is a bad reporter. But The New York Times has published a bad story. Myself, I see a strong editorial hand in this story. In fact, what is really going on is that the newspaper industry, which once had a monopoly on setting the Party Line, is now a buggy whip business. The average age of a newspaper reader is in his 50’s, and essentially no one under 30 subscribes to newspapers. New forms of journalism are fresher, more accurate, and waste less of the reader’s time kowtowing to the Establishment and its various corruptions, than does the mass media. Like all monopolies before it, it will fight to hold onto its monopoly. The naked shorting issue has developed under their noses with their full awareness, and in deference to the masters they serve they have kept quiet about it. With the facts finally and clearly lining up against them they have no resort but simply to stack their credibility chips as high as they can in an effort to steal the pot. This effort of The New York Times is noteworthy in that regard for its shamelessness, if not its originality.

Incidentally, I love that they are doing this. I love putting my credibility on the line against The New York Times (and Wall Street Journal for that matter). Time and the facts are on my side.

Your humble servant,
Patrick

PS Note that Mr. Stone summarized the above lengthy exposition with these words, “Byrne said that he never hides his true identity and always signs his name when he posts under his online handle, ‘Hannibal’”. As you can see from the email above, this is a flat misstatement. It has not, however, kept one of the hedge fund choagies from writing today, counting up the times I did not sign things “Hannibal,” but instead, “Patrick,” “Patrick Byrne,” and so on. The beat goes on: lie about what is said, and then disappear down a rat hole of “analysis” of those stretched and fabricated statements. it’s just another of the things I love about this story: it is a compendium of the flailing that occurs when the wig begins to slip on a degenerate Establishment.

It is almost a tautological truth to note that an executive of a public company is in some sense a public figure (more accurately, the company is a public figure and the executive is a component of that). Anonymous posting by public figures is especially distasteful to me: put differently, I think that when a person decides to become a public figure he is relinquishing his ability to take part in public discourse without identifying himself, simply as a matter of etiquette, not law. The only exception I would suggest to this principle is if it concerned a subject well divorced from that area in which he is a public figure (e.g., if Henry Kissinger were into model airplanes, then I think there would be nothing wrong with him being on message boards about model airplanes without identifying himself).

All that said, there is nothing about being a public figure compels one to surrender one’s 1st amendment rights.

2) What do I think of Mackey?

From what has been reported, he sounds pretty crummy: he bashed a competitor, their stock and management, and touted his own, all anonymously. That violates every principle I articulated below.

Incidentally, it may be neither here nor there for your story, but in case you are interested, there is a Yahoo poster who uses the names “netmargin15” and “can_i_use_this_alias” who both pumps Amazon and bashes Overstock. The first is the smart sock-puppet, the second is the basher. I know:

• He or she is an Amazon employee.
• He or she is of a rank high enough to have access to Amazon’s VPN service.
• He or she displays a very high level of business knowledge, commensurate in my experience with a senior executive.

As a journalist, I cannot reveal my source for this information. But you can also ping this person through Yahoo.

3) When it comes to my online activities:
a. What have I done?
b. Where?
c. What names?
d. Why?

In the very early days of the company (1999-2000?, well before we went public) I used to go to a website called F___ckedcompany.com, seeking information on businesses that might be looking to liquidate their inventory. Eventually I posted a couple-few times under the name “Hannibal” suggesting that if anyone had inventory to liquidate to please contact me.

Incidentally, I chose “Hannibal” as an allusion to the Carthaginian general (one of history’s great underdogs, in my view), and not to the cannibal of modern fiction. However, given that our business model at the time was liquidating the inventories of failing dot-coms, the irony was not lost. I believe I did reveal my real name, but I am not sure.

I have not been back in 5 or 6 years.

I have read some bashers claim that my posts are hard to find there, and that I must have caused them to be removed. I have no idea if my posts are hard to find (as I said, I think there were just a few), but I have had nothing to do with it either way: the assertion is pure fabrication.

A couple years ago I started posting on Fool.com. I continued using “Hannibal” (and added “100” because of some requirement of Fool) but revealed who I was right away, signed my postings, and generally made sure that it was common knowledge to everyone on the board that Hannibal100 = Patrick Byrne. I was there for other reasons than to discuss our stock. Of course, I disclaimed any attempt to encourage anyone to buy our stock, any opinion on our stock, etc.

In time, the discourse on Fool was hijacked by the same people who hijacked Yahoo, using the same methods (clogging, non sequitors, sock-puppeting, etc.) A site called “InvestorVillage” started up. Some people there asked openly if I would switch. So I did.

Somewhere in there Overstock created an auction site, and in it, an auction message board. My original name on auctions was “Hannibal” but anyone who checked my user page would see that Hannibal was Patrick Byrne, and in addition, it was widely known (that is, everyone who communicated with me on the auction message board knew they were communicating with the CEO). In time, however, I created an area on our auction message board called “Take 5 With Patrick”. I noticed that I could post there and others would repost them in the other places, so I gradually narrowed my posting to our own site. Also, most of my posts there generally started as small columns added to our marketing emails that go out to 10 million people, with my name on them (again, I was doing anything but trying to be anonymous).

In recent weeks, we have created a small blog area as well within Omuse, a nascent social networking area of our site, but so far all I have done is move my posts over from the other places.

Other than that, I have twice, I think, posted on some shopping blogs, using my real name to answer some question about our site, or customer service (I offered free Club O memberships to anyone who wrote me within a few days: I got 1,000 requests). On both of these shopping/customer service blogs I used my real name.

I have not posted anywhere else under any other name.

Here are some examples:

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=23887352&sort=whole&vstest=search_042607_linkdefault

Author: Hannibal100
Number: of 13190

Subject: Watch 60 Minutes Tonight Please! Date: 3/26/06 1:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll
Report this Post | Recommend it!

Recommendations: 23
Dear Fools,

For all who have not gotten the word, please watch 60 Minutes tonight. I believe that it does not even mention “Overstock.com.” However, the facts it presents and the story it tells are well known to me, as are the witnesses who will appear on camera. I expect the piece will tell precisely the story of which I became aware in the autumn of 2004.

If my behavior has seemed a little strange since then, perhaps it will appear a bit more explicable if you watch this and reflect on the wider market ramifications of the behavior described. Ask yourself as you watch it, “These guys are making money from someone: whose money is being siphoned off?

Yours,

Patrick

PS Remember the story you see tonight is itself just a chunk of the issue of the looting of the savings of Americans. But how do you get someone to eat an elephant? One bite at a time.

http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=3532&mn=155&pt=msg&mid=146514

Msg: 155 of 8668 7/22/2006 2:47:31 PM Recs: 26 Sentiment: Not Disclosed

By: Hannibal Send PM Profile Ignore Recommend Add To Favorites

Posted as a reply to msg 77 by ostkprtnr

Re: Any chance Patrick will start posting here?
Hi.

This is Patrick.

Probably not a great idea for me to post often. I want to respond substantively to folks’ points (both good and bad), but the more substantive it is, the more there is a Reg FD issue.

That is a shame, because I sure would like to level the playing field for you guys. I try to keep it as level as possible by being scrupulous about FD. As much as I wish I could answer some of the questions you post here, I am pretty sure that this would not count as fair and public disclosure.

Still, I will be watching: folks always email me the best posts, so I’ll be reading those. And maybe I will answer the occasional question that presents no Reg FD issue. I may have to do that on my auctions board. Or else, I might occasionally post a link to something public that answers a question someone raises.

Good luck.

Your humble servant,

Patrick

PS It is nice to see that a certain Guy With much time on his hands and who could not Get With the program over here at investorvillage has now Gone Wholly mad.

Hours go by without anyone posting on Yahoo. He tries a couple of his old tricks, but there is no one to clog, all sane people having fled to investorvillage. After silence, silence, silence, he suddenly goes back and posts half-a-dozen clogs, and then when there is still no response, he writes:

Much better since the scam artists left (Not rated) 7 minutes ago

Too many people were getting suckered by low life, scum sucking, penny stock pumping grifters and it’s good to see that Yahoo has forced them all to leave.

They were unable to continue to clog the boards and stifle discussion under the new message board formats and as a result engaged in a hasty retreat to Guyana.
Rate it: 1 star + unrated 5 stars &&&

http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=3532&mn=171&pt=msg&mid=148713

By: Hannibal Send PM Profile Ignore Recommend Add To Favorites

Posted as a reply to msg 164 by Biopharmer

Re: Any chance Patrick will start posting here?
Actually, I have always used as my nom de guerre “Hannibal” after Hannibal of Carthage. The Romans were 10 and 0 until they went and screwed with the wrong guy, who through a series of brilliant tactical and strategic moves took them 2 falls for 3. He didn’t just think outside the box, he didn’t care where the box was (end-running the Romans by crossing the Alps on elephants? I bet that was not one the Romans had anticipated.)

Yes, he lost in the end to Scipio Africanus, fled to Syria and when the Romans caught up with him 10 years later, drank poison. But he fought the good fight.

I am also aware of the George Peppard and Anthony Hopkins versions. Nothing wrong with those. One has to set one’s sights high.

Patrick
< EOM >

Joined: 24 Sep 2004
Posts: 62 Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 9:34 am Post subject: My Favorite Zen Story
________________________________________
Dear Honored Guest,

In a remote village in Japan there lived a Zen master named Hakuin. He was known for his devotion to the pure and simple life of a monk.

One day, a beautiful, unmarried girl in the village fish market was found to be with child. As it was a conservative village, the family was furious. The girl refused to say who the father was, but after much pressure, she finally admitted that the father was the master Hakuin.

In great anger the family confronted the master, criticizing him for taking advantage of the trust he had been shown. They asked him, “How could you have betrayed our trust so badly?” Hakuin’s only response was to say calmly, “Is that so?”

Hakuin’s reputation was destroyed, but he did not appear to mind. When the baby was born it was brought to Hakuin. He took great care of the child, though he now had to beg to survive. The villagers would scorn him, saying, “We will never forget that you betrayed our trust, you miserable monk.” Each time, Hakuin would reply calmly, “Is that so?”

Several years later, the young mother finally confessed the truth: the baby’s father was not Hakuin, but another young man from the village who had not been willing to accept his obligation, so she had accused the monk knowing that he would do the right thing.

The villagers went to Hakuin to request the return of the child, saying, “We are so sorry, how could we ever have believed this of you?”

Relinquishing back to the family the child who had become his own, Hakuin said gently, “Is that so?”

Respectfully submitted,
Patrick M. Byrne
Overstock.com

http://forums.auctions.overstock.com/viewtopic.php?t=13594&sid=470ff7669d1b065c059828614c4c689e

Dear Honored Guest,

Worldstock is special in a way that can best be explained with a few stories.

Worldstock launched in September, 2001. In Peru, we found a small co-op of artisans making leather-and-wood furniture, and asked them to make ten Ottomans for us: we sold out in a day. Then they half-filled a container: again, we quickly sold out. When we wrote about placing larger orders, we received this reply:

“The artisans literally wept tears of joy and danced in the streets yesterday when queried about their ability to produce these orders. They promised to do what was necessary — work night and day — to make all that was ordered as soon as possible, and more if things continued to sell for you. While many had expressed their sadness at the events of September 11, and to say they were united in solidarity with the USA against terrorism (which many of them have faced years before us), no one had mentioned work. Silently, they had feared that the repercussions of the terrorist attack would harm our economy, and that since they were producing ‘gift’ items, no one would be thinking of buying them. How would they feed their children? they worried. How would they pay tuition for their schools? How would they pay the rent? Could they pay their workers? Or should they fire them now? Should they wait to visit the doctor or buy medicine, not knowing if they’d have any income to pay for it next week? I just wanted you to know that your success with our products means food, schooling, medicine and hope for dozens of families in Peru. On behalf of a lot of happy artisans, thank you.”

Now we get one container every two months from them, and their small co-op has mushroomed into a federation of hundreds of wood-and leather-workers earning good livings. Similarly, in Nepal Worldstock has been able employ metal working artisans who would otherwise be out of work have lost business due to a Maoist insurgency. In a village near Chiang Mai, Thailand, a small family business employs artisans to make us handmade furniture. In total, thousands of artisans in 35 countries are working to offer you their quality handicrafts in our Worldstock department. We abide by principles of fair trade. A detailed explanation of the history and principles of Worldstock can be found here, but the short version is, we are trying to double or triple the income of less fortunate people around the world, while offering you exotic products at a fraction of the price at which you would find them in expensive boutiques.

Respectfully submitted,
Patrick M. Byrne
Overstock.com

In one post I even reposted all my posts from the past:

http://forums.auctions.overstock.com/viewtopic.php?t=15460&sid=470ff7669d1b065c059828614c4c689e

3. Why do I post?

I assume these are of less interest to you, but there are simple cases where I am just giving my take on things, or discussing a new program at Overstock (auctions, Worldstock, etc.), or in one case, mourning the passing of a friend, Milton Friedman:

http://forums.auctions.overstock.com/viewtopic.php?t=15908&sid=470ff7669d1b065c059828614c4c689e

However, for the more controversial posts, I give two explanations:

1) I am a big admirer of Reg FD. From my time on Wall Street (years ago as an analyst, now as a CEO), I can tell you that the gestalt of Wall Street is that corporate executives get behind closed doors and are expected to cough up information that gives Wall Street elites an information asymmetry versus the ordinary investor. I think that is wrong, and think FD is one of the best regs to come along in decades. Because of this, I think that executives going into a public forum that really is open to the public, and communicating with the public directly, could be healthy for the capital markets. That said, while I go on message boards to discuss what I see as a financial scandal of enourmous consequences for our cotunry, I have made it a point not to discuss anything material about Overstock (and in general, I stay away from discussing Overstock qua Overstock, though I may discuss the scandal in ways that touch upon Overstock).

2) The second reason for why I do it is this: I have for two years thought that we are approaching a calamity in our capital markets caused by unsettled trades: these have accumulated to the point that they represent a massive latent derivative risk to which no one wants to admit. I think that if it is not addressed it will become a national disaster (the Economist noted late last year that new capital formation, the best measure of the health of an economy, has dropped in this country from 57% of global IPO capital formation to 16% over 7 years, as I recall). I have tried to stop this before it is too late. The Establishment has elements which have reaped billions by exploiting this crack, and they do not want to see it sealed. Those same deep financial interests have captured the regulatory body that oversees our capital markets (the SEC), and much of our financial press as well: CNBC, Barron’s, and the Wall Street Journal. Barron’s is nothing but marketing literature for a few hedge funds. They meet any attempt to expose this scandal by saying, “Oh, that is just some CEO who is mad about his stock” (though I started this nwhile the stock was going up, and have done everything I can to divorce it from me, Overstock our share price, etc.) Thus, I turned to the Web. If Rathergate (i.e., Dan Rather versus the bloggers) was the Concord of the 2.0 Revolution, then I believe this scandal is going to be its Yorktown, for the financial press will be shown to have not simply ignored a scandal, not simply turned a bling eye to it, but to have actively taken part in the cover-up.

This post from a couple months ago says it all.

Respectfully,

Patrick

http://forums.auctions.overstock.com/viewtopic.php?t=17296&sid=470ff7669d1b065c059828614c4c689e

Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 1:03 am Post subject: Gotterdammerung of the American mainstream media
________________________________________
Ha ha - this is a great one. An all-time classic from Joe Nocera, New York Times.

Below you will find an email Joe Nocera sent me asking for my “reaction” to some odd claims he wanted to include in his weekly column. Alas, he sent the email Friday afternoon at 12:11 PM his time (note the “10:11 AM” time stamp of our email system, which is in Salt Lake City, that is to say, Rocky Mountain Time) and, as I was in Texas this afternoon in a meeting, I missed the window of a few hours that I theoretically had been offered to respond before Joe’s deadline for his weekly column. Congratulations are due Joe, who has crossed a line never previously crossed (not even by Carol!) by those engaged in their desperate efforts to keep the wig in place.

=======================================================
—–Original Message—–
From: Joe Nocera [mailto:XXXXX]
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 10:11 AM
To: Patrick Byrne
Subject: david rocker

patrick– David Rocker made a speech a couple of weeks ago in which he said, among other things, that your lawsuit was nothing mroe (sic) than an effort to silence critics. He also said that Gradient did its first report about Overstock a year before Rocker Partners even became a client. And he said that Mr. Anafantis (sp?) has been discredited with the SEC’s “no action” letter. Your reaction?

–
Joe Nocera
XXXX
YYYY
nocera@nytimes.com
==================================================

Had Joe actually abided by the principles of Ethics in Journalism 101, I would pointed out the numerous flaws in his attempt to whitewash the criminal activity of his friend Rocker with a “Free speech in America is very important” spin. Remember, from the start Rocker’s lawyers have tried to spin his illegal activity as being about free speech, and this is how the argument has been met by the adults who have examined it:

1) On 8 counts versus 0, the trial judge in Marin Country sided with us and against Rocker’s claim that this suit was about free speech. In fact, the judge said in the courtroom that after his initial review of the evidence there was a “high likelihood” that we would win the suit. Rocker appealed.

2) The California Attorney General appeared out of nowhere and filed an amicus with the appellate court supporting our side and against Rocker’s attempt to spin this as about free speech.

3) The appellate court recently heard Rocker’s arguments. This Law.com article gives a good sense of how the appellate court responded to the hysterical attempts by Rocker’s lawyers to spin his illegal conduct as being about free speech. www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1176282246984

The Law.com article captures one judge’s reaction nicely: “Justice Ignazio Ruvolo indicated there was evidence even ‘at this stage of the proceedings’ that could substantiate Overstock.com’s claims.” Somehow Joe missed that.

I’d also have pointed out that Rocker does not seem to think “Free speech in America is very important” when someone criticizes Rocker: Rocker famously sued some message board posters a few years back for daring to criticize him and his unethical behavior (incidentally, that case got laughed out of town). Free speech doesn’t seem to be that important to Rocker, Joe.

In the face of these facts, Joe blithely asserts that “The facts are not on Mr. Byrne’s side” without mentioning that the trial court, the California attorney general, and the appellate judge have indicated exactly the opposite, even at this extremely early stage.

Joe notes without question that, “Mr. Rocker wasn’t even a client of Gradient when it began writing its tough-minded reports on Overstock,” neglecting to mention that ex-employees of Gradient assert that the firm had a relationship with Rocker even before he formally became a client.

Joe writes about his friend Rocker “But you know how lawsuits are: a year and a half later, the thing has barely gotten started” without mentioning that we have been most eager to move forward, but that his friend Rocker has stalled and delayed at every opportunity, rejecting the appellate court’s offer to rule without delay for a hearing: there was even one article where an attorney for the miscreants promised to appeal the appellate court ruling. That is, Joe bemoans the fact that “the thing has barely gotten started” while conveniently neglecting to mention that it is his friend Rocker who is doing everything he
can to keep it from getting started.

And so on and so forth.

Is anyone else noticing that something seems to be going on this week? First, after a year of criticizing me for my decision to issue a press release celebrating my receipt of a subpoena from the SEC, the shills are now trying to make a case that I should have sent out a second press release when I received another addressed to me as a person, though it was a small fraction as long as the first, covered sub-issues of the first, as well as issues related to a broader investigation that is not about me or Overstock at all. As though there is a world of difference between a subpoena addressed to our corporate lawyer asking for our CEO’s materials, and one addressed to me at our corporate address: I hate to disappoint, but that distinction is such a fine one it did not occur to me it was worthy of a second press release. The funny part is how it still has not dawnede on the miscreants that a fair bit of the material being requested by the SEC concerns them, not me or Overstock.

What would have made them so angry this week? Perhaps they are mad that last Sunday, at an event hosted by The Economist (a publication with infinitely more credibility than Joe, Roddy, Herb, Gary etc. could ever aspire to), the bad guys lost control of the narrative?

http://www.cultureproject.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=49

http://cultureproject.org/video2/archivepages/hedge2.html

I think these fellows better hope that the scandal whose lid they are trying so desperately to secure never blows off, because if it does, in the aftermath not only with their journalism come under examination, but more importantly, the publications which have blithely published it will be seen to have been part of the cover-up. Which is entirely right and approrpiate. And then that will be the end of it.

Can anyone doubt at this point that we are witnessing the Gotterdammerung of the American mainstream media?

Patrick

=============================================

Hi Sam,

Thanks for demonstrating your sanity with that lucid, cogent analysis. Tell me, why is it “reporting” when the New York Times does it, but “stalking” if I do it? I missed that part of the first amendment.

Patrick

——————————————————————————–
From: Sam E. Antar [mailto:sam@whitecollarfraud.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 12:23 AM
To: Board - Jonathan Johnson; Clay Corbus; Joseph Tabacco; Patrick Byrne
Cc: RicciardiW@SEC.gov; mckeanw@SEC.gov; camposr@SEC.gov; IsraelK@SEC.gov; korbn@SEC.gov; new-york@adl.org; san-francisco@adl.org; simpsonr@SEC.gov; mckeanw@SEC.gov
Subject: White Collar Fraud Blog: Patrick Byrne, CEO of Overstock.com, Continues his Ugly Campaign of Menace

To the Board of Directors, Audit Committee, and CEO of Overstock.com

You are on notice as to the CEO Patrick Byrne’s continued violations of Overstock.com’s Code of Business Conduct and Ethics.

http://www.whitecollarfraud.com/files/26805346.pdf

You are respectfully reminded of your duties regarding Overstock.com’s Code of Business Conduct and Ethics.

Please refer to my blog for additional information.

Title: Patrick Byrne, CEO of Overstock.com, Continues his Ugly Campaign of Menace

Link here: http://whitecollarfraud.blogspot.com/2007/07/patrick-byrne-ceo-of-overstockcom.html

Respectfully,

Sam E. Antar (former Crazy Eddie CFO & convicted felon)

Cc: Walter G. Ricciardi (Securities and Exchange Commission)

Cc: Roel C. Campos (Securities and Exchange Commission)

Cc: Kenneth Israel (Securities and Exchange Commission)

Cc: William McKean (Securities and Exchange Commission)

Cc: Norman Korb (Securities and Exchange Commission)

Cc: Richard Simpson (Securities and Exchange Commission)

Cc: New York Anti-Defamation League

Cc: San Francisco Anti-Defamation League

E-Mail: sam@whitecollarfraud.com

Web Site: www.whitecollarfraud.com

Blog: www.whitecollarfraud.blogspot.com

Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this electronic mail is confidential information intended only for the use of the entity or individual to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, retransmission, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received the message in error, please notify me immediately by reply transmission. Thank you.

Sunday, July 08, 2007
Patrick Byrne, CEO of Overstock.com, Continues his Ugly Campaign of Menace

Patrick Byrne has been carrying out his personal vendettas through a smear campaign of lies, distortions, false accusations, innuendos, threats, blackmail, and anti-Semitism on his antsocialmedia.net smear web site, internet message boards, blogs, and Overstock.com’s web site. In particular, Patrick Byrne has used his antisocialmedia.net smear web site, administered by his henchman, Judd Bagley, Director of Communications at Overstock.com, and the InvestorVillage Overstock.com message board to carry out his campaign to silence and discredit his critics by continual harassment, intimidation, and smears.

Judd Bagley has colluded with other persons such as Evren Karpak (a contributor to antisocialmedia.net and Overstock.com shareholder) to intimidate critics with threats, blackmail, and smears. In addition, Judd Bagley has colluded with the delusional Edward Manfredonia (an overt anti-Semite and Judd Bagley’s admitted advisor), to use anti-Semitism, false accusations, innuendo and smears to harass critics of Patrick Byrne. Judd Bagley’s, Evren Karpak’s, and Edward Manfredonia’s efforts have received the encouragement, endorsement, and support of Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne.

Many journalists and bloggers have followed Patrick Byrne’s self styled “Jihad” of harassment, intimidation, threats, blackmail, and smears against his critics on the internet and else where. I have written extensively about about Patrick Byrne’s “Jihad” against critics in this blog. I have pursued Patrick Byrne and his cronies with “deposition style questions” on InvestorVillage only to get kicked off as Patrick Byrne orchestrated a campaign to silence me.

Other journalists, bloggers, independent financial analysts, and I have documented Patrick Byrne’s vendettas against his critics and deceptive statements regarding Overstock.com’s financial disclosures. These efforts have resulted in a combination of intimidation, harassment, threats, blackmail, litigation, smears, anti-Semitic comments, false accusations, and innuendos directed at people who dare to expose Patrick Byrne’s activities. The Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating Overstock.com, Patrick Byrne, and others for possible violations of securities laws.

Patrick Byrne’s vile and malicious smear campaign against his critics is a violation of Overstock.com’s Code of Business Conduct and Ethics. Patrick Byrne’s vile and malicious actions are in effect waivers or implicit waivers from Overstock.com’s Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and are required by the company to be disclosed in Form 8-K to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Apparently, Overstock.com has not complied with that requirement.

Baby steps have been taken by Overstock.com’s Board to reign in Patrick Byrne, since the appointment of Joseph J. Tabacco to Overstock.com’s Board of Directors on June 6, 2007. However, make no mistake about it, Patrick Byrne is a tyrant and a bully CEO unable to handle exposure of his deceptions and smears. His vile efforts in concert with others to deflect from his evil actions still continue.

I call on the following independent members of Overstock.com’s Board of Directors, Allison H. Abraham, Clay Corbus, and Joseph J. Tabacco to take steps to fire Patrick Byrne and his Director of Communications, Judd Bagley. Overstock.com General Counsel Jonathan Johnson who has apparently stood idly by as Patrick Byrne and Judd Bagley have engaged in rampant acts in violation of Overstock.com’s Code of Business Conduct and Ethics should be fired, too. Do the independent Board members wish to be associated with the vile and malicious smears and anti-Semitism used by Patrick Byrne, Judd Bagley and their cronies to silence critics? Do they approve of the actions of their evil CEO, Patrick Byrne? So far, their efforts have been piece meal and inadequate to rein him in.

If Overstock.com, Patrick Byrne, Judd Bagley believe that my actions constitute libel, then sue me. I welcome the subpoena power that comes from discovery that goes both ways. Truth is always a defense.

Under pressure as a result of the fallout from his activities Patrick Byrne is now consolidating his smear campaign against critics on Overstock.com’s web site

Retreating from the fallout he has received resulting from his posts on internet message boards in furtherance of his vendettas against critics, Patrick Byrne will no longer be posting any new messages on them. However, he apparently will continue to smear his critics by posting on his home turf, Overstock.com’s web site.

On July 6, 2007, in a bitter and rambling response (message number 8555) to a post on InvestorVillage by his antisocialmedia.net smear web site contributor and Overstock.com shareholder, Evren Karpak, a defiant Patrick Byrne sounded somewhat delusional about the inquiries that he received from his own Board of Directors and the Securities and Exchange Commission into his activities and the activities of his cronies acting in concert with him on stock message boards.

For example, Patrick Byrne wrote:

Re: Hannibal has left the building

….And no, this decision was completely my own. As always, the bad guys display their total misunderstanding of reality: no one has brought the least pressure on me about my posting here (well, other than by a certain polite and proper government official, who politely and properly asked me why I post on message boards: I politely noted that the first amendment applies to me, too). And no, no one on this end cares a whit about the lengthy posts and laughable emails sent over and over to the board of directors in a fashion so laughable they dispel any doubt as to the clownishness of their author. They are serious people, they know the system is corrupt, and the incessant deposition-style posts and emails from a “hobbyist” (coupled with the cronyism from guys like Herb) are just additional proof of what I have been saying. As if further proof were needed at this point….

Note: Bold print and italics added by me.

However, Patrick Byrne has minimized and belittled the impact my activities and other persons to stop his ugly actions by our alerting his Board of Directors and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Patrick Byrne claims that “no one on this end cares a whit about the lengthy posts and laughable emails sent over and over to the board of directors in a fashion so laughable they dispel any doubt as to the clownishness of their author.” We must ask, is Patrick Byrne lying or does Overstock.com’s Board of Directors consider his vendettas against his critics a joke? In his post, Patrick Byrne claimed that he was in San Francisco. Two outside directors, Joseph J. Tabacco Jr, and Clay Corbus have their offices there. Did Patrick Byrne meet Mr. Tabacco and Mr. Corbus in San Francisco?

Patrick Byrne claims that Overstock.com’s Board of Directors does not care about information related to his open violation of the company’s Code of Business Conduct and Ethics. Apparently either Patrick Byrne is a liar or Overstock.com’s Board of Directors believes that his violations of Overstock.com’s Code of Business Conduct and ethics is a joke. Examine the timeline below, for evidence that Overstock.com’s Board of Director and management, once confronted with the vile and malicious acts of Patrick Byrne and his cronies, took certain minimal actions to contain some of the damage to Overstock.com.

May 15, 2007:

Acting on a suggestion by an anonymous reader known to me as Philosifur, about potential Sarbanes-Oxley issues, I obtained a copy of Overstock.com’s Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and made it available for download in my blog post entitled, “Overstock.com: A Copy of its Code of Business Conduct and Ethics.” Note: Overstock.com’s Code of Business Conduct and Ethics is not published on Overstock.com’s web site and can only be obtained by writing a letter to the company. It’s a wonder that Patrick Byrne uses Overstock.com’s web site to smear his critics while his company does not post its Code of Business Conduct and Ethics there.

May 16, 2007:

I questioned Patrick Byrne about his failure to comply with Overstock.com’s Code of Business Conduct and Ethics in a blog post entitled, “To Patrick Byrne, CEO of Overstock.com - Did you comply with the Company’s Code of Business Conduct and Ethics.”

May 17, 2007:

I asked additional questions to Patrick Byrne about his failure to comply with Overstock.com’s Code of Business Conduct and Ethics in a blog post entitled, “To Patrick Byrne, CEO of Overstock.com: More Questions about the Company’s Code of Business Conduct and Ethics.”

Around May 28, 2007:

The delusional Edward Manfredonia’s posts containing anti-Semitic remarks, false accusations, and smears are deleted from antisocialmedia.net. See my blog post from June 8, 2007, entitled, “Open Letter to the Audit Committee of Overstock.com: About how Patrick Byrne’s vindictive smear campaign uses threats and anti-Semitism,” and June 18, 2007, entitled, “Who is Judd Bagley trying to fool about the use of anti-Semitism to attack critics of his boss, Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne?” To download a copy of the delusional Edward Manfredonia’s anti-Semitic comments, false accusations, and smears on antisocialmedia.net, click here.

May 28, 2007:

After creating an account using the alias Hannibal on Overstock.com’s Omuse web site, Patrick Byrne copies his posts on InvestorVillage to Overstock.com’s web site. His comments contain threats, smears, and links to antisocialmedia.net

May 30, 2007:

My blog post entitled, “Open Letter to the Audit Committee of Overstock.com: The Company’s Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and actions of Patrick Byrne and others,” discussed the responsibilities and duties of Overstock.com’s Audit Committee regarding violations of Overstock.com’s Code of Business Conduct and Ethics. I sent an e-mail containing a link to my blog post to Overstock.com’s Board of Directors.

June 3, 2007:

My blog post entitled, “Memo to Judd Bagley: Director of Communications at Overstock.com - About Threats on AntiSocialMedia.net,” asked Judd Bagley why he has permitted a threat to “hurt” investigative reporter, blogger, and Byrne critic Gary Weiss by a reader identified as alpineanalytics to continue to remain posted on antisocialmedia.net from September 10, 2006. The comment said:

alpineanalytics wrote:

“Gary Weiss is PATHETIC…his books suck …he is a weasel. In fact, there are quite a few people out there that are going to make an example out of him. He should be looking over his shoulders more carefully when he wants to engage in disrespectful behavior with people that will hurt him…economically, emotionally, and probably physically. Hey Gary…Louie P and Benny S. say hi…you $cumbag.”

Posted 10 Sep 2006 at 8:36 am

Note: Bold print and italics added by me.

I sent an e-mail containing a link to my blog post to Overstock.com’s Board of Directors.

June 4, 2007:

In a blog item entitled, “Open Letter to the Audit Committee of Overstock.com: Patrick Byrne denies using private eyes,” I discussed certain deceptive statements by Patrick Byrne relating to his denial of using private investigators.

June 6, 2007:

Joseph J. Tabacco joined Overstock.com’s Board of Directors.

June 6, 2007:

In an apparent act of retaliation by Patrick Byrne and Judd Bagley, new anti-Semitic remarks and smears are posted on antisocialmedia.net by Edward Manfredonia. According to Judd Bagley, Edward Manfredonia’s comments which were time stamped and submitted on June 6, 2006 at 5:25 AM were not posted until June 7, 2007 which indicates that Judd Bagley had his moderation feature for comments enabled. Therefore, Judd Bagley apparently reviewed Edward Manfredonia’s new anti-Semitic remarks and smears before publishing them.

June 7, 2007:

I alerted attorney Howard Sirota about Edward Manfredonia’s anti-Semitic remarks and smears on antisocialmedia.net.

June 8, 2007:

Howard Sirota wrote an e-mail to new board member, Joseph J. Tabacco Jr:

Dear Joe,

While I think you’ll end up regretting your decision to join the Board of Overstock.com, that’s really your own business.

I’m sure that you are unaware that someone named Edward Manfredonia is posting anti-semitic comments on www.antisocialmedia.net run by Judd Bagley, who works for Overstock.com.

Now you are on actual notice of the anti-semitic website run by an employee of the public company of which you are a Director. I expect you to make inquiry and take immediate corrective action.

If not, the ADL and I will do it for you.

This is NOT about any short-selling controversy. I have no position in OSTK.

This is about anti-semitism, which I won’t countenance. Neither would the Joe Tabacco I knew.

Make it stop!

Regards,

Howard

Note: Bold print and italics added by me.

June 8, 2007 (next):

Joseph J. Tabacco Jr. replied to Howard Sirota’s e-mail:

Thanks Howard, I will look into this, you are correct this is not something obviously that I had been aware of.

Note: Bold print and italics added by me.

June 8, 2007 (next):

Edward Manfredonia’s latest anti-Semitic comments and smears are removed from antisocialmedia.net.

June 8, 2007 (next):

I post a blog item entitled, “Open Letter to the Audit Committee of Overstock.com: About how Patrick Byrne’s vindictive smear campaign uses threats and anti-Semitism,” I discussed the publishing of physical threats, anti-Semitic comments and smears on antisocialmedia.net.

June 8, 2007 (next):

Howard Sirota posted a comment on the Yahoo Overstock.com message board deploring anti-Semitic comments on that board.

June 8, 2007 (next):

I forward a link to my blog post entitled, “Open Letter to the Audit Committee of Overstock.com: About how Patrick Byrne’s vindictive smear campaign uses threats and anti-Semitism,” in an e-mail addressed to: Howard Sirota and Cc’d to Joseph J. Tabacco Jr, Michael Callahan (Yahoo General Counsel), the New York Anti-Defamation League, and the San Francisco Anti-Defamation League. That e-mail discussed the use of anti-Semitism by Patrick Byrne.

June 11, 2007:

In a blog post entitled, “Piling absurdity upon absurdity,” Judd Bagley posted poor lies, excuses, and deflection about the publishing of Edward Manfredonia’s anti-Semitic comments on antisocialmedia.net. He belittled Howard Sirota for posting a message on Yahoo deploring anti-Semitism.

June 12, 2007:

Evren Karpak, a contributor to antisocialmedia.net and an Overstock.com shareholder, carries out part of the threat in a comment published on antisocialmedia.net by alias alpineanalytics to “hurt” Gary Weiss “economically.” In a post (message number 8042) on InvestorVillage, Evren Karpak stated that he had written letters to three of Gary Weiss’s publishers: Forbes, SeekingAlpha.com, and Salon.com in an effort to have them discontinue business ties with Mr. Weiss.

June 12, 2007 (next):

Judd Bagley had posted a recommendation to Evren Karpak’s post on InvestorVillage where he carries out a threat to “hurt” Gary Weiss economically by contacting his publishers. That post on InvestorVillage still remains published.

June 14, 2007:

Judd Bagley attempts to silence blogger and antisocialmedia.net critic Scipio Africanus through blackmail. Judd Bagley sent the following e-mail to blogger, Scipio Africanus:

From: Judd Bagley To: scipioafricanus_iv@yahoo.com Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 11:51:26 PM Subject: just thought I’d ask…

I thought I should tell you that I’ve have known your real identity for a while now.

Up until last week, it appeared that you’d grown tired of o-smear and all the games (which would make “outting” you unnecessary) but lately it appears that’s not the case.

I don’t want to cause anybody unnecessary harm, but I’m beyond tired of the lies.

If you choose to continue as you have been, I will write about you on AntiSocialMedia.net. In doing so, my goal is not to intimidate, but to let you own your words; under those circumstances, I think the lies will take care of themselves.

Having said that, I’m also very much aware of the impact this co