Comments on: Mother Jones Argues “Because Mommie Says So”, Then Censors Dissent http://www.deepcapture.com/mother-jones-because-mommie-says-so-then-censors-dissent/ Investigating naked short selling, economic warfare, and the financial crisis Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:02:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Mother Jones Argues Because Mommie Says So Then Censors Dissent | Shed Kits http://www.deepcapture.com/mother-jones-because-mommie-says-so-then-censors-dissent/comment-page-1/#comment-168639 Mother Jones Argues Because Mommie Says So Then Censors Dissent | Shed Kits Wed, 27 May 2009 02:02:20 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=564#comment-168639 [...] Mother Jones Argues Because Mommie Says So Then Censors Dissent Posted by root 21 hours ago (http://www.deepcapture.com) The article under the surface reeked of catfight and prominent nails appears less the share price go up and his collateralization requirements go through the roof then of fortune and the upstanding folks at hedge fund copper river management powered by wo Discuss  |  Bury |  News | mother jones argues because mommie says so then censors dissent [...] [...] Mother Jones Argues Because Mommie Says So Then Censors Dissent Posted by root 21 hours ago (http://www.deepcapture.com) The article under the surface reeked of catfight and prominent nails appears less the share price go up and his collateralization requirements go through the roof then of fortune and the upstanding folks at hedge fund copper river management powered by wo Discuss  |  Bury |  News | mother jones argues because mommie says so then censors dissent [...]

]]> By: Greg Bacon http://www.deepcapture.com/mother-jones-because-mommie-says-so-then-censors-dissent/comment-page-1/#comment-143890 Greg Bacon Wed, 21 Jan 2009 11:05:25 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=564#comment-143890 25 years ago, MJ was one helluva muckraker mag, taking on everything and sparing no one. These days, they seem more interrested in running safe stories that pretend to be investigating something, but never looking too deeply into what they're investigating. They've become more enamored of the money aspect of MJ as a marketing tool, than as an actual outfit digging deep into the dirt. More's the shame, as we already have enough of those rags polluting the MSM. 25 years ago, MJ was one helluva muckraker mag, taking on everything and sparing no one.

These days, they seem more interrested in running safe stories that pretend to be investigating something, but never looking too deeply into what they’re investigating.

They’ve become more enamored of the money aspect of MJ as a marketing tool, than as an actual outfit digging deep into the dirt.

More’s the shame, as we already have enough of those rags polluting the MSM.

]]> By: RMR http://www.deepcapture.com/mother-jones-because-mommie-says-so-then-censors-dissent/comment-page-1/#comment-143880 RMR Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:55:49 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=564#comment-143880 slightly dated, but predictive. if you today try to find out about the Foundation for National Progress, operators of Mother Jones, on their own site, you're told nothing about who they are, but redirected to their fund raising pitch. discovered at: http://www.questionsquestions.net/feldman/feldman05.html ALTERNATIVE MEDIA CENSORSHIP: SPONSORED BY CIA's FORD FOUNDATION? Part 5: MOTHER JONES / Foundation for National Progress Like FAIR/COUNTERSPIN/IPA, MOTHER JONES/Foundation for National Progress received a lot of money from Public Affairs TV Inc. Executive Director Bill Moyers' Schumann Foundation in the 1990s. In 1995, for instance, MOTHER JONES/Foundation for National Progress was given a $500,000 grant by Moyers' Schumann Foundation "to support MOTHER JONES magazine." A second grant of $150,000 was given to MOTHER JONES/Foundation for National Progress in 1996 "to support the hiring of a new senior editor at MOTHER JONES magazine." And an additional grant of $100,000 was given to MOTHER JONES/Foundation for National Progress in 1997 "to promote money in politics investigation by MOTHER JONES magazine." As Rick Edmunds noted in a recent essay on the internet (entitled "Getting Behind the Media: What are the subtle tradeoffs of foundation support for journalism?"): "Though it is often buried in the fine print of the masthead...many journals of opinion are themselves nonprofit, the better to attract foundation funding. That is true of MOTHER JONES." MOTHER JONES magazine claims to be a non-profit "Foundation for National Progress." Yet MOTHER JONES magazine took in nearly $6 million in annual revenues in 2000, including $822,358 from the sale of advertising space and $176,140 from renting out its subscriber list. From this gross income of $6 million in 2000, MOTHER JONES/Foundation for National Progess then paid out the following salaries to its top alternative media executives: 1. MOTHER JONES magazine Editor-in-Chief Roger Cohn was paid an annual salary of $144,670; 2. MOTHER JONES magazine Publisher and Foundation for National Progress Board President Jay Haris--a former general manager of the Washington Post Company's NEWSWEEK magazine's Pacifica operations--was paid an annual salary of $144,379; 3. MOTHER JONES magazine Director of Sales & Marketing Eric Weiss was paid an annual salary of $105,004; 4. MOTHER JONES magazine Creative Director Jane Palecek was paid an annual salary of $88,197; 5. Foundation for National Progress Secretary/Treasurer and CEO Joan Catherine Braun was paid an annual salary of $85,453; 6. MOTHER JONES magazine Editor Eric Bates was paid an annual salary of $74,716; and 7. MOTHER JONES magazine Advertising Manager Eileen Ellis was paid an annual salary of $67,233; and 8. MOTHER JONES Art Director Caroline Joy was paid an annual salary of $61,187. MOTHER JONES/Foundation for National Progress also spent $247,000 on fund-raising in 2000; and its board of directors included Anita Roddick of the Body Shop, Kadima Foundation CHair Chara Schreyer, HKH Foundation director Harriet Barlow and MOTHER JONES magazine founder Adam Hochschild. Hochschild also has set up the Adam Hochschild Charitable Trust/Sequoia Fund, whose stated tax-exempt purpose is to "promote the charitable literary and educational purposes of Foundation for National Progress." According to its 2000 report, the Adam Hochschild Charitable Trust/Sequoia Fund apparently did this by contributing $2.4 million worth of stock to MOTHER JONES/Foundation for National Progress. As a result, $1,176,617 worth of Wal Mart Stores stock (19,082 shares) was apparently owned by MOTHER JONES/Foundation for National Progress in 2001. Besides receiving money from Bill Moyers' Schumann Foundation and the Hochschild Charitable Trust/Sequoia Fund of one its own board members, another interesting connection to the world of Establishment foundations exists at MOTHER JONES magazine. In 1997, the wife of MOTHER JONES/Foundation for National Progress board member Adam Hochschild--University of California-Berkeley Professor of Sociology Arlie Russell Hochschild--was given a $3 million grant by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation "to establish a Center for Working Families" at UC-Berkeley, which she now directs. Among the Establishment folks who presently sit on the board of trustees of the Sloan Foundation which funds UC-Berkeley Professor Arlie Russell Hochschild's center is former Secretary of the Air Force Sheila Widnall--who presently represents MIT on the board of trustess of the Pentagon's weapons research think-tank: the Institute for Defense Analyses (www.ida.org). Other members of the Sloan Foundation board include former chairmen of the General Motors, JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley corporate boards and two other MIT professors. In 1991, the wife of MOTHER JONES/Foundation for National Progress board member Hochschild also was apparently given a grant by the Ford Foundation. So it's probably not likely that many muckraking articles about either the Ford Foundation's historic relationship to the CIA, Bill Moyers' Schumann Foundation and Public Affairs TV Inc., the Sloan Foundation, the Institute for Defense Analyses, MIT or UC-Berkeley--or on what evidence has been dug up by 9/11 conspiracy journalists and researchers--will be published much by the MOTHER JONES magazine alternative media gatekeepers/censors. to part 6... Posted by:history lessonJanuary 20, 2009 6:40:07 PMRespond ^ slightly dated, but predictive.
if you today try to find out about the Foundation for National Progress, operators of Mother Jones, on their own site, you’re told nothing about who they are, but redirected to their fund raising pitch.
discovered at: http://www.questionsquestions.net/feldman/feldman05.html

ALTERNATIVE MEDIA CENSORSHIP:
SPONSORED BY CIA’s FORD FOUNDATION?

Part 5:

MOTHER JONES / Foundation for National Progress

Like FAIR/COUNTERSPIN/IPA, MOTHER JONES/Foundation for National Progress received a lot of money from Public Affairs TV Inc. Executive Director Bill Moyers’ Schumann Foundation in the 1990s. In 1995, for instance, MOTHER JONES/Foundation for National Progress was given a $500,000 grant by Moyers’ Schumann Foundation “to support MOTHER JONES magazine.” A second grant of $150,000 was given to MOTHER JONES/Foundation for National Progress in 1996 “to support the hiring of a new senior editor at MOTHER JONES magazine.” And an additional grant of $100,000 was given to MOTHER JONES/Foundation for National Progress in 1997 “to promote money in politics investigation by MOTHER JONES magazine.” As Rick Edmunds noted in a recent essay on the internet (entitled “Getting Behind the Media: What are the subtle tradeoffs of foundation support for journalism?”): “Though it is often buried in the fine print of the masthead…many journals of opinion are themselves nonprofit, the better to attract foundation funding. That is true of MOTHER JONES.”

MOTHER JONES magazine claims to be a non-profit “Foundation for National Progress.” Yet MOTHER JONES magazine took in nearly $6 million in annual revenues in 2000, including $822,358 from the sale of advertising space and $176,140 from renting out its subscriber list. From this gross income of $6 million in 2000, MOTHER JONES/Foundation for National Progess then paid out the following salaries to its top alternative media executives:

1. MOTHER JONES magazine Editor-in-Chief Roger Cohn was paid an annual salary of $144,670;

2. MOTHER JONES magazine Publisher and Foundation for National Progress Board President Jay Haris–a former general manager of the Washington Post Company’s NEWSWEEK magazine’s Pacifica operations–was paid an annual salary of $144,379;

3. MOTHER JONES magazine Director of Sales & Marketing Eric Weiss was paid an annual salary of $105,004;

4. MOTHER JONES magazine Creative Director Jane Palecek was paid an annual salary of $88,197;

5. Foundation for National Progress Secretary/Treasurer and CEO Joan Catherine Braun was paid an annual salary of $85,453;

6. MOTHER JONES magazine Editor Eric Bates was paid an annual salary of $74,716; and

7. MOTHER JONES magazine Advertising Manager Eileen Ellis was paid an annual salary of $67,233; and

8. MOTHER JONES Art Director Caroline Joy was paid an annual salary of $61,187.

MOTHER JONES/Foundation for National Progress also spent $247,000 on fund-raising in 2000; and its board of directors included Anita Roddick of the Body Shop, Kadima Foundation CHair Chara Schreyer, HKH Foundation director Harriet Barlow and MOTHER JONES magazine founder Adam Hochschild. Hochschild also has set up the Adam Hochschild Charitable Trust/Sequoia Fund, whose stated tax-exempt purpose is to “promote the charitable literary and educational purposes of Foundation for National Progress.” According to its 2000 report, the Adam Hochschild Charitable Trust/Sequoia Fund apparently did this by contributing $2.4 million worth of stock to MOTHER JONES/Foundation for National Progress. As a result, $1,176,617 worth of Wal Mart Stores stock (19,082 shares) was apparently owned by MOTHER JONES/Foundation for National Progress in 2001.

Besides receiving money from Bill Moyers’ Schumann Foundation and the Hochschild Charitable Trust/Sequoia Fund of one its own board members, another interesting connection to the world of Establishment foundations exists at MOTHER JONES magazine. In 1997, the wife of MOTHER JONES/Foundation for National Progress board member Adam Hochschild–University of California-Berkeley Professor of Sociology Arlie Russell Hochschild–was given a $3 million grant by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation “to establish a Center for Working Families” at UC-Berkeley, which she now directs. Among the Establishment folks who presently sit on the board of trustees of the Sloan Foundation which funds UC-Berkeley Professor Arlie Russell Hochschild’s center is former Secretary of the Air Force Sheila Widnall–who presently represents MIT on the board of trustess of the Pentagon’s weapons research think-tank: the Institute for Defense Analyses (www.ida.org). Other members of the Sloan Foundation board include former chairmen of the General Motors, JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley corporate boards and two other MIT professors. In 1991, the wife of MOTHER JONES/Foundation for National Progress board member Hochschild also was apparently given a grant by the Ford Foundation.

So it’s probably not likely that many muckraking articles about either the Ford Foundation’s historic relationship to the CIA, Bill Moyers’ Schumann Foundation and Public Affairs TV Inc., the Sloan Foundation, the Institute for Defense Analyses, MIT or UC-Berkeley–or on what evidence has been dug up by 9/11 conspiracy journalists and researchers–will be published much by the MOTHER JONES magazine alternative media gatekeepers/censors.

to part 6…

Posted by:history lessonJanuary 20, 2009 6:40:07 PMRespond ^

]]> By: iStandUp http://www.deepcapture.com/mother-jones-because-mommie-says-so-then-censors-dissent/comment-page-1/#comment-143815 iStandUp Tue, 20 Jan 2009 02:20:04 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=564#comment-143815 Fears of Madoff-style Scandal As Florida Fund Manager Goes Missing www.buzzle.com/articles/246514.html Fears of Madoff-style Scandal As Florida Fund Manager Goes Missing

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/246514.html

]]> By: davidn http://www.deepcapture.com/mother-jones-because-mommie-says-so-then-censors-dissent/comment-page-1/#comment-143808 davidn Tue, 20 Jan 2009 00:11:07 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=564#comment-143808 Cellar boxing is the term industry people use. Did you coin it originally? Once a stock gets in the cellar, they can't let it ever climb out. Cellar boxing is the term industry people use. Did you coin it originally?

Once a stock gets in the cellar, they can’t let it ever climb out.

]]> By: davidn http://www.deepcapture.com/mother-jones-because-mommie-says-so-then-censors-dissent/comment-page-1/#comment-143807 davidn Tue, 20 Jan 2009 00:09:11 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=564#comment-143807 Naked shorting of government bonds may be the story that has legs with the media. Catch this one: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45472 People understand what it means for a brokerage to borrow someone's money at government interest rates and lie and tell them they are actually buying a government bond. The investor thinks he's investing in Uncle Sam when really he or she's lending to some house of cards Wallstreet firm. Naked shorting of government bonds may be the story that has legs with the media. Catch this one:

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45472

People understand what it means for a brokerage to borrow someone’s money at government interest rates and lie and tell them they are actually buying a government bond.

The investor thinks he’s investing in Uncle Sam when really he or she’s lending to some house of cards Wallstreet firm.

]]> By: Dr. Jim DeCosta http://www.deepcapture.com/mother-jones-because-mommie-says-so-then-censors-dissent/comment-page-1/#comment-143806 Dr. Jim DeCosta Mon, 19 Jan 2009 23:44:37 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=564#comment-143806 Sean, in re: your question about ponzi schemes if the Madoffs of the world did no trades then the SIPC aspect would get interesting. What I worry more about is how the SIPC does not cover loaned shares and if the NSCC's SBP is cranking out gazillions of bogus "loans" through its self-replenishing nature then the insolvency of a huge clearing firm might get crazy. But isn't this what might be expected of a "house of cards" associated with this little "industry within an industry" we refer to as abusive naked short selling? Sean, in re: your question about ponzi schemes if the Madoffs of the world did no trades then the SIPC aspect would get interesting. What I worry more about is how the SIPC does not cover loaned shares and if the NSCC’s SBP is cranking out gazillions of bogus “loans” through its self-replenishing nature then the insolvency of a huge clearing firm might get crazy. But isn’t this what might be expected of a “house of cards” associated with this little “industry within an industry” we refer to as abusive naked short selling?

]]> By: Dr. Jim DeCosta http://www.deepcapture.com/mother-jones-because-mommie-says-so-then-censors-dissent/comment-page-1/#comment-143805 Dr. Jim DeCosta Mon, 19 Jan 2009 23:31:05 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=564#comment-143805 Another sign/symptom of a corrupt system is the idiosyncrasy associated with the "ultimate paradox" which is the ability of the seller of nonexistent shares to access the funds of the investor despite their refusal to deliver that which they sold. What's one reason they don't deliver these "shares"? It's because they don't exist. In what other business besides Wall Street can you refuse to deliver that which you sell and still keep the investor's money? Crimes as obvious and heinous as this cannot be committed in the light of day. They need the lack of transparency that Wall Street, the DTCC and hedge funds are obsessed with. Another sign/symptom of a corrupt system is the idiosyncrasy associated with the “ultimate paradox” which is the ability of the seller of nonexistent shares to access the funds of the investor despite their refusal to deliver that which they sold. What’s one reason they don’t deliver these “shares”? It’s because they don’t exist. In what other business besides Wall Street can you refuse to deliver that which you sell and still keep the investor’s money?

Crimes as obvious and heinous as this cannot be committed in the light of day. They need the lack of transparency that Wall Street, the DTCC and hedge funds are obsessed with.

]]> By: Dr. Jim DeCosta http://www.deepcapture.com/mother-jones-because-mommie-says-so-then-censors-dissent/comment-page-1/#comment-143804 Dr. Jim DeCosta Mon, 19 Jan 2009 23:23:25 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=564#comment-143804 david n, Where did you get that term “cellar boxing”. I haven’t written about “cellar boxing” in years. I’ve probably studied 30 or 40 of these scenarios with the bid/offer being 0.000 to 0.001 or bid 0.001 offered at 0.002. Your observation is bang on. There are some really interesting phenomena that go on with these. What do you technically have in a market with 0.000 bid and 0.001 offer? You technically have an “order imbalance” of buy orders dwarfing sell orders because anybody wanting to sell hasn’t got a bid to hit. What do truly bona fide MMs do in these scenarios? They naked short sell into this “order imbalance”. Wiping out 98% of a company’s share price is a piece of cake but naked short sellers can and do misdiagnose good companies as scams and they have trouble knocking the company out of its misery while going for the Jugular because smart investors with more expertise in the business that the corporation under attack is in might be buying shares at 1% of book value. Truly bona fide MMs, however, sell a moderate amount of shares at the offer and then allow the share price to find its natural equilibrium level up higher. They WANT TO sell shares at higher levels than lower levels. Crooks with astronomically large preexisting naked short positions don’t have that luxury. They have to “cap” the share price with a “blanket” of selling because their collateralization requirements will go ballistic if they don’t. It’s funny but when “bear raids” mature the activities of MMs sometimes take on a bit of legitimacy. Don’t get me wrong it’s still fraud plain and simple. The collateralization requirements do get volatile when one uptick represents a 100% gain. When a company gets “cellar boxed” you can expect a few things. Firstly, there’s going to be a ton of “painting the tape” at the end of each trading session by both the “good guys” and the “bad guys” in different directions. Secondly, the “bad guys” are going to do everything in their power to get the company “delisted” by the SEC. Thankfully, the corruption at the SEC has been highlighted so much lately with the Aguirre and other cases that perhaps nobody is left at the SEC with the cajones to initiate an administrative proceeding at the request of some hedge fund crony. Another thing that you’re going to see is management getting a ton of calls from strangers that want to do massive financings “because they love the company so much” even though they probably don’t have a clue as to what business the company is in. These are the shorts coming as wolves in sheep’s clothing. Remember if there are a “gang” of corrupt MMs and hedge funds attacking if just one of them “jumps ship” and covers then they all might be toast. One of the ironies we see in “cellar boxing” is the ability of the securities fraudsters to convert a normally share price buoying buy order into a share price depressing “securities entitlements” instantaneously with the naked short sale. With a clearance and settlement system based upon mere CVP both buy and sell orders can be share price depressing. That’s a pleasant thought. If the foundation of a clearance and settlement system is corrupt as it is with a clearance and settlement system based on merely “collateralization versus payment” (CVP) and not “delivery versus payment” (DVP) then the entire market system it supports will also be corrupt and you’ll see signs and symptoms of this corruption periodically like the insanity associated with BOTH buy and sell orders depressing share prices. david n,
Where did you get that term “cellar boxing”. I haven’t written about “cellar boxing” in years. I’ve probably studied 30 or 40 of these scenarios with the bid/offer being 0.000 to 0.001 or bid 0.001 offered at 0.002. Your observation is bang on. There are some really interesting phenomena that go on with these. What do you technically have in a market with 0.000 bid and 0.001 offer? You technically have an “order imbalance” of buy orders dwarfing sell orders because anybody wanting to sell hasn’t got a bid to hit. What do truly bona fide MMs do in these scenarios? They naked short sell into this “order imbalance”.

Wiping out 98% of a company’s share price is a piece of cake but naked short sellers can and do misdiagnose good companies as scams and they have trouble knocking the company out of its misery while going for the Jugular because smart investors with more expertise in the business that the corporation under attack is in might be buying shares at 1% of book value.

Truly bona fide MMs, however, sell a moderate amount of shares at the offer and then allow the share price to find its natural equilibrium level up higher. They WANT TO sell shares at higher levels than lower levels. Crooks with astronomically large preexisting naked short positions don’t have that luxury. They have to “cap” the share price with a “blanket” of selling because their collateralization requirements will go ballistic if they don’t.

It’s funny but when “bear raids” mature the activities of MMs sometimes take on a bit of legitimacy. Don’t get me wrong it’s still fraud plain and simple. The collateralization requirements do get volatile when one uptick represents a 100% gain. When a company gets “cellar boxed” you can expect a few things. Firstly, there’s going to be a ton of “painting the tape” at the end of each trading session by both the “good guys” and the “bad guys” in different directions. Secondly, the “bad guys” are going to do everything in their power to get the company “delisted” by the SEC. Thankfully, the corruption at the SEC has been highlighted so much lately with the Aguirre and other cases that perhaps nobody is left at the SEC with the cajones to initiate an administrative proceeding at the request of some hedge fund crony.

Another thing that you’re going to see is management getting a ton of calls from strangers that want to do massive financings “because they love the company so much” even though they probably don’t have a clue as to what business the company is in. These are the shorts coming as wolves in sheep’s clothing. Remember if there are a “gang” of corrupt MMs and hedge funds attacking if just one of them “jumps ship” and covers then they all might be toast.

One of the ironies we see in “cellar boxing” is the ability of the securities fraudsters to convert a normally share price buoying buy order into a share price depressing “securities entitlements” instantaneously with the naked short sale. With a clearance and settlement system based upon mere CVP both buy and sell orders can be share price depressing. That’s a pleasant thought.

If the foundation of a clearance and settlement system is corrupt as it is with a clearance and settlement system based on merely “collateralization versus payment” (CVP) and not “delivery versus payment” (DVP) then the entire market system it supports will also be corrupt and you’ll see signs and symptoms of this corruption periodically like the insanity associated with BOTH buy and sell orders depressing share prices.

]]> By: davidn http://www.deepcapture.com/mother-jones-because-mommie-says-so-then-censors-dissent/comment-page-1/#comment-143803 davidn Mon, 19 Jan 2009 22:04:57 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=564#comment-143803 Dr. DeCosta, you will see this with stocks that get cellar boxed: Bid: $.001 Ask: $.002 If the company suddenly does something good, they continue to sell infinitely at $.002 because to let it go up to $.002 bid doubles their collateral requirement over night. It's cheaper to keep selling into every bid. Dr. DeCosta, you will see this with stocks that get cellar boxed:

Bid: $.001
Ask: $.002

If the company suddenly does something good, they continue to sell infinitely at $.002 because to let it go up to $.002 bid doubles their collateral requirement over night. It’s cheaper to keep selling into every bid.

]]> By: Reporter101 http://www.deepcapture.com/mother-jones-because-mommie-says-so-then-censors-dissent/comment-page-1/#comment-143801 Reporter101 Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:23:57 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=564#comment-143801 Sean, Judging by the way these fund managers are either under indictment, under suspicion, on the run or faking their deaths it would not surprise me in the least. Great observation. I did notice where our most astute SEC officials are spitting out Ponzi scheme's right and left since Madoff case and yes, many were reported years ago to no avail. R101 Sean,
Judging by the way these fund managers are either under indictment, under suspicion, on the run or faking their deaths it would not surprise me in the least. Great observation. I did notice where our most astute SEC officials are spitting out Ponzi scheme’s right and left since Madoff case and yes, many were reported years ago to no avail.

R101

]]> By: Sean http://www.deepcapture.com/mother-jones-because-mommie-says-so-then-censors-dissent/comment-page-1/#comment-143800 Sean Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:01:58 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=564#comment-143800 Just a thought..A lot of larger Hedge Funds (Citadel amongst others) have stopped withdrawals/redemptions from their funds until some future date March 2009 ect. But what if ALL Hedge Funds (or MOST) were Ponzi shemes and could not afford to pay their customers. Interesting thought huh?Now you know why they fought tooth and nail not to be registered. Dr. Decosta any comments on this thought? Just a thought..A lot of larger Hedge Funds (Citadel amongst others) have stopped withdrawals/redemptions from their funds until some future date March 2009 ect. But what if ALL Hedge Funds (or MOST) were Ponzi shemes and could not afford to pay their customers. Interesting thought huh?Now you know why they fought tooth and nail not to be registered. Dr. Decosta any comments on this thought?

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.deepcapture.com/mother-jones-because-mommie-says-so-then-censors-dissent/comment-page-1/#comment-143798 Anonymous Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:05:36 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=564#comment-143798 Here is the article Scott. As shocking as it is, this was found in discovery in Fairfax suit. Bethany McLean: your benefit of the doubt is hereby revoked December 16th, 2008 by Judd Bagley There’s no sense denying it: reporters depend on sources, and in the mind of most business journalists, a connected hedge fund manager will always prove a more valuable source than even the CEO of a public company. Hence, as I’ve reminded my fellow market reformers time and time again, it is not necessarily a sign of corruption that some business journalists — Bethany McLean included — regularly toe the hedge fund line. However, as I’ve very recently learned — at least in the case of Bethany McLean — I was wrong. What changed my mind? Christmas. Rather, the early Christmas that arrived for me in the form of about 1,000 pages of discovery just unsealed in the Fairfax Financial (NYSE:FFH) vs. SAC Capital, et al, lawsuit, in which Fairfax claims a conspiracy (or “Enterprise” as it is termed in the suit) involving multiple short-selling hedge funds, financial analysts and business journalists intent on destroying the company for monetary gain. Included in this mass of documents are hundreds of emails and instant message transcripts between hedge fund managers, their operatives and such “journalists” as Bethany McLean, Herb Greenberg, and Roddy Boyd. Almost without exception, each of these is immensely useful in understanding how these folks all relate to each other. But among them all, the most revealing — to say nothing of damning — are those between Bethany McLean, then of Fortune, and the upstanding folks at hedge fund Copper River Management. The emails appear below in blue, with my comments in black. From: Marc Cohodes Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2006 3:21:12 PM To: Bethany McLean Subject: ffh FFH is the Canadian Enron and it could even be worse…We are sending you stufff.. I suggest since [Copper River employee and former SEC attorney Richard] Sauer is on the East Coast (for now) that you 2 meet, and soon… there is an “enterprise” here and he can lay it out clear as day. It bears noting that, according to filings in the Fairfax suit, the various participants in the attack on Fairfax stock referred to their effort collectively as “the Enterprise”. Whether or not this is what Cohodes was alluding to when using the term — which might not otherwise belong within quote marks in this context — is not clear, but certainly suggestive. From: Bethany McLean Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2006 3:48:43 PM To: Marc Cohodes Subject: Re: ffh Makes sense. Send me whatever you can think of - the more documents the better! Without Cohodes offering a bit of proof to back his Enron/Fairfax comparison, McLean finds it “makes sense” and commits to move ahead. From: Marc Cohodes Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2006 3:51:37 PM To: Bethany McLean Subject: Re: ffh don’t you worry…where do you want the stuff fed-exed to… I would set up a time for Sauer to come and see ya.. His code name is “Lavaman”… Cohodes then forwards this exchange to employee Rick Sauer, who schedules a meeting between himself and an unusually eager McLean, set for one week thence. The outcome of that process was McLean’s scathing March 6, 2007 Fortune piece: The inside story of a Wall Street battle royal. How can I be certain that this particular story was the direct result of the Cohodes’s efforts? The answer to that question is where the situation becomes particularly disturbing…sufficient to leave me feeling physically ill, and prepared to officially add Bethany McLean to the short but distinguished list of truly captured and corrupt journalists. From: Marc Cohodes Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 9:51 AM To: Bethany McLean Subject: ffh you hear anything there??? the stock is up 45 points since your piece and I dont understand it… Of note: on March 5, 2007 FFH closed at $190.09, and on March 21, 2007, FFH closed at $234.53, a difference of $44.43. From: Bethany McLean Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:51:57 AM To: Marc Cohodes Subject: Re: ffh I’m getting the same question from other people. No, I don’t have a clue. I’m worried they’ve gotten the SEC or the Southern District to take them seriously - the Spyro [Contogouris] stuff makes you realize anything is possible - and they’re leaking the news to shareholders ahead of time. What do you think? A day later, Cohodes icily responds with nothing more than his cell phone number. From: Marc Cohodes Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 5:12 PM To: Bethany McLean Subject: Re: ffh 415-350-88** Based on McLean’s reply, we can presume she followed Cohodes’s tacit demand, and that the conversation was less than pleasant. From: Bethany McLean Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 6:12:48 PM To: Marc Cohodes Subject: Re: ffh Sorry to be a little bad-tempered. This FFH story almost killed me, so I hate hearing that it was pointless. Maybe it’ll be a long, slow thing.. I suspect the emails you’ve just read are the real reason Bethany McLean made a sudden departure from the world of business journalism earlier this year. As for me, it’s been nearly 24 hours since I first encountered this exchange, and yet I still cannot read it without feeling like I’ve just taken a blow to the solar plexus. Seeing proof that both a hedge fund manager and an ostensibly reputable business writer viewed the sacred institution of journalism as a means of wrecking a company, and that they both also felt disappointment when their efforts proved insufficient, with the “journalist” finding solace in the prospect that the company’s eventual destruction might simply be a “long, slow thing” literally leaves me breathless. Stay tuned for still more of the explosive revelations found within the reams and reams of discovery in this case. Here is the article Scott. As shocking as it is, this was found in discovery in Fairfax suit.

Bethany McLean: your benefit of the doubt is hereby revoked
December 16th, 2008 by Judd Bagley

There’s no sense denying it: reporters depend on sources, and in the mind of most business journalists, a connected hedge fund manager will always prove a more valuable source than even the CEO of a public company.

Hence, as I’ve reminded my fellow market reformers time and time again, it is not necessarily a sign of corruption that some business journalists — Bethany McLean included — regularly toe the hedge fund line.

However, as I’ve very recently learned — at least in the case of Bethany McLean — I was wrong.

What changed my mind?

Christmas.

Rather, the early Christmas that arrived for me in the form of about 1,000 pages of discovery just unsealed in the Fairfax Financial (NYSE:FFH) vs. SAC Capital, et al, lawsuit, in which Fairfax claims a conspiracy (or “Enterprise” as it is termed in the suit) involving multiple short-selling hedge funds, financial analysts and business journalists intent on destroying the company for monetary gain.

Included in this mass of documents are hundreds of emails and instant message transcripts between hedge fund managers, their operatives and such “journalists” as Bethany McLean, Herb Greenberg, and Roddy Boyd.

Almost without exception, each of these is immensely useful in understanding how these folks all relate to each other. But among them all, the most revealing — to say nothing of damning — are those between Bethany McLean, then of Fortune, and the upstanding folks at hedge fund Copper River Management.

The emails appear below in blue, with my comments in black.

From: Marc Cohodes
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2006 3:21:12 PM
To: Bethany McLean
Subject: ffh

FFH is the Canadian Enron and it could even be worse…We are sending you stufff.. I suggest since [Copper River employee and former SEC attorney Richard] Sauer is on the East Coast (for now) that you 2 meet, and soon… there is an “enterprise” here and he can lay it out clear as day.

It bears noting that, according to filings in the Fairfax suit, the various participants in the attack on Fairfax stock referred to their effort collectively as “the Enterprise”. Whether or not this is what Cohodes was alluding to when using the term — which might not otherwise belong within quote marks in this context — is not clear, but certainly suggestive.

From: Bethany McLean
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2006 3:48:43 PM
To: Marc Cohodes
Subject: Re: ffh

Makes sense. Send me whatever you can think of – the more documents the better!

Without Cohodes offering a bit of proof to back his Enron/Fairfax comparison, McLean finds it “makes sense” and commits to move ahead.

From: Marc Cohodes
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2006 3:51:37 PM
To: Bethany McLean
Subject: Re: ffh

don’t you worry…where do you want the stuff fed-exed to… I would set up a time for Sauer to come and see ya.. His code name is “Lavaman”…

Cohodes then forwards this exchange to employee Rick Sauer, who schedules a meeting between himself and an unusually eager McLean, set for one week thence.

The outcome of that process was McLean’s scathing March 6, 2007 Fortune piece: The inside story of a Wall Street battle royal.

How can I be certain that this particular story was the direct result of the Cohodes’s efforts? The answer to that question is where the situation becomes particularly disturbing…sufficient to leave me feeling physically ill, and prepared to officially add Bethany McLean to the short but distinguished list of truly captured and corrupt journalists.

From: Marc Cohodes
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 9:51 AM
To: Bethany McLean
Subject: ffh

you hear anything there??? the stock is up 45 points since your piece and I dont understand it…

Of note: on March 5, 2007 FFH closed at $190.09, and on March 21, 2007, FFH closed at $234.53, a difference of $44.43.

From: Bethany McLean
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:51:57 AM
To: Marc Cohodes
Subject: Re: ffh

I’m getting the same question from other people. No, I don’t have a clue. I’m worried they’ve gotten the SEC or the Southern District to take them seriously – the Spyro [Contogouris] stuff makes you realize anything is possible – and they’re leaking the news to shareholders ahead of time. What do you think?

A day later, Cohodes icily responds with nothing more than his cell phone number.

From: Marc Cohodes
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 5:12 PM
To: Bethany McLean
Subject: Re: ffh

415-350-88**

Based on McLean’s reply, we can presume she followed Cohodes’s tacit demand, and that the conversation was less than pleasant.

From: Bethany McLean
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 6:12:48 PM
To: Marc Cohodes
Subject: Re: ffh

Sorry to be a little bad-tempered. This FFH story almost killed me, so I hate hearing that it was pointless. Maybe it’ll be a long, slow thing..

I suspect the emails you’ve just read are the real reason Bethany McLean made a sudden departure from the world of business journalism earlier this year.

As for me, it’s been nearly 24 hours since I first encountered this exchange, and yet I still cannot read it without feeling like I’ve just taken a blow to the solar plexus.

Seeing proof that both a hedge fund manager and an ostensibly reputable business writer viewed the sacred institution of journalism as a means of wrecking a company, and that they both also felt disappointment when their efforts proved insufficient, with the “journalist” finding solace in the prospect that the company’s eventual destruction might simply be a “long, slow thing” literally leaves me breathless.

Stay tuned for still more of the explosive revelations found within the reams and reams of discovery in this case.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.deepcapture.com/mother-jones-because-mommie-says-so-then-censors-dissent/comment-page-1/#comment-143797 Anonymous Mon, 19 Jan 2009 19:59:21 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=564#comment-143797 Scott, "P.S. Saw Bethany Mclean on the Daily Show. We simply cannot question her integrity because she is the business reporter that exposed the Enron scandal. She works for VF now." Just food for thought Scott. Did you read the emails between Bethany McLean and Hedge Fund Cronies that were exposed via Fairfax discovery ? Its all in Deep Capture. Bethany McLean did indeed expose Enron I give her that. Ever thought about what her Shortie friends made betting against Enron when it was exposed ? I have no problem with Crooks being exposed. I do have problems when journalist do Hatchet JOB articles on companies singled out by and directed by Hedgefunds who have bets (short/naked short) against those companies in hopes their shares will drop so they reap million upon millions of dollars. Scott,
“P.S. Saw Bethany Mclean on the Daily Show. We simply cannot question her integrity because she is the business reporter that exposed the Enron scandal. She works for VF now.”

Just food for thought Scott. Did you read the emails between Bethany McLean and Hedge Fund Cronies that were exposed via Fairfax discovery ? Its all in Deep Capture.
Bethany McLean did indeed expose Enron I give her that. Ever thought about what her Shortie friends made betting against Enron when it was exposed ? I have no problem with Crooks being exposed. I do have problems when journalist do Hatchet JOB articles on companies singled out by and directed by Hedgefunds who have bets (short/naked short) against those companies in hopes their shares will drop so they reap million upon millions of dollars.

]]> By: Scott http://www.deepcapture.com/mother-jones-because-mommie-says-so-then-censors-dissent/comment-page-1/#comment-143795 Scott Mon, 19 Jan 2009 19:36:31 +0000 http://www.deepcapture.com/?p=564#comment-143795 I just wanted to say that it is important to consider adopting another phrase to describe the systemic issue which leads to the lack of integrity and corruption of which you are reporting so that critics like MJ cannot refer to the alleged perpetrators as the "mafia". I understand that Deep Capture itself is a phrase to describe this issue but really it is that America has a "Fascist Business Model". Patrick et al please keep up the expose should it cause one individuals conscience to be awoken that is enough if not: God sees all.(for the all the athiests out there the 'void' sees it all as well) America this is your wake up call the Emperor isn't wearing a skin tight transparent D & G body suit. P.S. Saw Bethany Mclean on the Daily Show. We simply cannot question her integrity because she is the business reporter that exposed the Enron scandal. She works for VF now. I just wanted to say that it is important to consider adopting another phrase to describe the systemic issue which leads to the lack of integrity and corruption of which you are reporting so that critics like MJ cannot refer to the alleged perpetrators as the “mafia”. I understand that Deep Capture itself is a phrase to describe this issue but really it is that America has a “Fascist Business Model”. Patrick et al please keep up the expose should it cause one individuals conscience to be awoken that is enough if not: God sees all.(for the all the athiests out there the ‘void’ sees it all as well) America this is your wake up call the Emperor isn’t wearing a skin tight transparent D & G body suit.

P.S. Saw Bethany Mclean on the Daily Show. We simply cannot question her integrity because she is the business reporter that exposed the Enron scandal. She works for VF now.

]]>