When you’re right, you’re right.

What seems to bother critics of AntiSocialMedia.net more than anything else is their inability to disprove the things written here.

That’s because AntiSocialMedia.net deals in facts. Period.

Often, having made my case, I’ll take the additional step of drawing conclusions based on the facts. It’s never easy leaving the comfort of what I know to be true for what I suspect is true — particularly when reputations are involved. Yet, with a single (quickly rectified) exception, every conclusion extrapolated here has proven accurate.

And, in at least one case, my conclusions have proven much more accurate than even I could have anticipated.
To learn more about that case, let us return to June of 2007.

At that time, I concluded that convicted stock manipulator Sam Antar and securities class action litigator Howard Sirota were working in concert with convicted stock manipulator Barry Minkow’s Fraud Discovery Institute (FDI) to manipulate the share price of USANA, a public company.

You can review my reasoning (which, I urge you to keep in mind, Sam Antar characterized as being “filled with deception, innuendo, deflection, insensitivity, and arrogance”) here.

Many things have happened since the post was published, most notably the deposition of Minkow, whom USANA is suing for reasons that I expect will soon appear obvious. You may access the deposition transcript, in two parts, here and here.

In his deposition, Minkow confirms that to say he and Sam Antar were “doing business together” was the understatement of the fiscal year.

Minkow states, under oath, the following:
At some point in the past two or three years, Sam Antar came to be a “spiritual advisor” to Minkow. But unlike a traditional spiritual advisor, Antar didn’t ask for money…he was handing it out.

According to Minkow, in mid-2006, Antar sent him, unsolicited and with no strings attached: $100,000. This was Antar’s way of saying: “Thank you…you’ve been an example for me that you can come back from failure.”

Shortly thereafter, and by pure coincidence, Minkow decided to use Antar’s money to finance FDI’s attack on USANA, which was published and delivered to the SEC on February 20, 2007 (precisely the same day as Minkow’s second book was published), but not before Minkow established a short position in USANA stock, as well as investing in put options (both of which gain value as a stock loses value).

Minkow says that in total, Antar’s support for FDI has exceeded $250,000.

Additionally, Minkow disclosed two payments totaling $40,000 by hedge fund manager (and frequent Herb Greenberg advisor) Whitney Tilson, and $10,000 by Anthony Bruan, owner of Cactus Capital.

Remember Howard Sirota? Bruan is a long-time Sirota law client, dating back to some high-profile scrapes with the securities laws in 2001.

Sam Antar is also a long-time client of Howard Sirota’s law practice.

For those of you keeping score at home, that means at least $260,000 – nearly 90% – of the disclosed $300,000 used to finance FDI’s attack on USANA, came from associates of Howard Sirota, who makes a living leading shareholder lawsuits against public companies, à la Milberg Weiss.

Here’s where things get strange…
Consulting public records, I discovered that on February 27, 2007 (seven days after FDI’s USANA report was released), the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance issued a warrant for unpaid taxes against Sam E. Antar, in the amount of $473.15.

A bankruptcy attorney I consulted with on this issue cautioned that from time to time these warrants are filed erroneously. Hoping to rule out that possibility, I conducted a deeper search and discovered that unpaid taxes are nothing new to Sam Antar. Indeed, between 1987 and 2007, Antar amassed over $333,000 in tax liens, warrants and judgments on the city, state and federal levels, in addition to just under $60,000 in judgments and liens by private creditors in 1992 and 1993.

None of these debts was discharged by Antar’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing in 1998.

My point being, Sam’s history suggests this most recent – and nearly one year later, unsatisfied – tax warrant was not the result of an error.

And yet, from Minkow’s deposition, we’re supposed to believe that someone who can’t pay a $500 tax bill is in a position to give Minkow gifts totaling at least $250,000 – motivated by nothing more than the spirit of fraud fighting?

As noted in my earlier post on this topic, Howard Sirota was caught bashing (though in an unusually civil manner, to his credit) USANA stock on Yahoo Finance under the screen name StanleySargoy. In his first such post, dated April 14, 2007, Sirota declares (and Minkow’s deposition later confirms) that Sirota was shorting USANA stock, in addition to being long USANA put options.

Interestingly, five trading days later, USANA appeared on the Reg SHO Threshold Securities list for the first time.

Whether or not Sirota’s short position was a legitimate one, this post to Yahoo Finance by StanleySargoy in 2003 shows Sirota’s clear understanding of the relationship between public perception of a company and its share price, and of the value of using the media and other venues to spread negative information specifically for the purpose of lowering share price.

Based on these facts, I am led to conclude:

  1. Sam Antar’s $250,000 “gift” wasn’t a gift, but the cost of a commissioned, negative report on USANA, intended to adversely impact USANA’s share price.
  2. The money Antar gave Minkow wasn’t Antar’s at all. I suspect it belonged to someone else using Antar as an intermediary.
  3. In addition to shorting USANA, Sirota likely intended to lead one of the (several) class action suits brought against the company in the months following release of Minkow’s report. That he did not do so just might be a consequence of his having been identified as StanleySargoy in this blog.
  4. Finally, but likely most importantly, is my belief that this is a clear case of illegal stock manipulation.

If this sounds implausible, please remember that it is precisely the sort of activity Sirota’s counterparts at the law firm of Milberg Weiss are accused of engaging in. To learn more, you may either read this 105 page indictment of Milberg Weiss, or (as I would recommend) invest a few minutes watching an excellent presentation explaining how this sort of thing is happening on a broader scale than you could possibly imagine.

Finding the laugh in slaughter, or, Orwell’s that ends well

Nobody aspires to have “enemies.” I suspect, even the super-villainous would probably prefer to go about their villainy unopposed.

But just as the Yin and the Yang are opposite ends of the same stick, when one acquires a new friend, one often acquires that friend’s enemies, too.

Over the past month, it has become evident that AntiSocialMedia.net, which rarely boasts enough traffic to register on any scale, has acquired the least likely set of enemies: the leadership of Wikipedia (the ninth most popular website on the earth).

I’ll admit, it’s not easy finding the Zen in being on my side of such a grossly unfair fight.

To understand how unfair, I offer some perspective:

  • It takes AntiSocialMedia.net about one week to log as many unique visitors as Wikipedia logs in less than one minute.
  • Googling “AntiSocialMedia.net” returns 2,327 results.
  • Googling “Wikipedia.org” returns 43,100,000 results (7,000,000 more than you get by googling “Google.com”).
  • Of the three most frequently-cited sources of Wikipedia criticism (AntiSocialMedia.net, Wikipedia Review and Encyclopedia Dramatica), AntiSocialMedia.net is the smallest, the most obscure, most infrequently updated, most understaffed, and the only one not focused exclusively on “Wikipedia criticism.”

Given these extreme imbalances, how strange that Wikipedia would make AntiSocialMedia.net, the focus of its epic “BADSITES” initiative.

What’s “BADSITES,” you ask?

“BADSITES” apparently beat out “UNGOODSITES” as the shorthand name assigned to the month old (and counting) effort by the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) to officially forbid any reference to AntiSocialMeida.net on Wikipedia, under penalty of immediate banning.

To understand how extreme that move is, keep in mind the fact that Wikipedia currently endorses mentions of, and links to, websites that advocate pedophilia, racism, and related moral deprivation. Yet, the one website soon to be stricken as a matter of official Wikipedia, and which ArbCom member Fred Bauder claims “displays moral depravity,” is the one you’re reading now.

There have literally been scores, and likely more, of instances where the mere questioning of the validity of the claims against AntiSocialMedia.net results in immediate banning and removal of the comment.

If there is Zen to be found in these atrocities, it’s the de facto confirmation of the existence of “thoughtcrime” on Wikipedia.

Here’s a perfect example, engineered by me specifically to demonstrate this point.

For a month, a carefully managed discussion of the issues surrounding BADSITES has been taking place on a half-dozen sufficiently cloistered corners of Wikipedia. This is where naive and well-meaning editors go to die.

One week ago, User:Greenstick Break (previously created by me) jumped into the middle of one of these conversations to ask Fred Bauder what should have been the obvious question.

(Note: this is actually a two-fer, in that Fred’s comment nicely confirms one of the central theses of this site, as well as the searing dishonesty of Gary Weiss/Mantanmoreland.)

Fred Bauder: “…For example, one claim is that Matamoreland (sic) uses sockpuppets. Well, he did, when he first started editing two years ago. And he got caught, was warned, AND QUIT USING SOCKPUPPETS…”

Greenstick Break: “Now help me out here, Fred. You just confirmed that WordBomb was correct when he said Mantanmoreland was using socks. In another venue you confirmed that WordBomb was correct when he said Mantanmoreland had a [conflict of interest] problem. Whether or not you think the User:SlimVirgin/ User:Sweet Blue Water connection + User:jayjg oversight issue is a problem, I think it’s generally understood that WordBomb got those facts right, too.
Yet WordBomb is the one that’s banned and whose site cannot be named???
Will somebody PLEASE show me what WordBomb got so wrong as to justify all this?”

It took less than four minutes from the time that comment was posted until the time ArbCom member Jpgordon had removed it and banned Greenstick Break, claiming (impossibly), that he had managed to squeeze a completed CheckUser search in there, as well.

Greenstick Break mounted a tepid defense, partly for show and partly to force Jpgordon to actually consult CheckUser (as you’ll see, that was a necessary part of this plan).

About 45 minutes later, while Jpgordon remained actively editing, I created User:Fjse44 via precisely the same connection, IP address and browser (with all cookies intact) that I had used when editing as Greenstick Break just moments before.

I wanted it to be very easy for Jpgordon or any other CheckUser to know, if they cared at all, that Greenstick Break and Fjse44 belonged to the same banned user.

The only thing that made Fjse44 different from Greenstick Break was sentiment, as I used the account (for the greater good and while holding my nose) to respond dismissively to a perfectly logical comment by Dan Tobias on the same page as Greenstick Break’s.

*Dan T.*: “One should note that The New York Times linked to ASM when it was relevant to a controversy they were covering. But I guess we’re so much more mature, sophisticated, and tasteful in our editorial judgment than they are.”

Fjse44: “The New York Times gets to set its content policies as we do ours. Apples/oranges.”

Ten days later, the pro-BADSITES comment remains in place, and pro-BADSITES commenter Fjse44 remains a Wikipedian in good standing (though that will likely change soon, now that Fjse44 is tied to WordBomb).

The take home lesson here is that under otherwise identical circumstances, Jpgordon banned one user based entirely on his opinion.

That is thoughtcrime.

Normally, this lack of judgment would land even an ArbCom member in hot water. But by now, any sentient observer of the process has seen enough to know that when it comes to AntiSocialMedia.net, the rules have been officially suspended.

Here’s a beautiful example of Wikipedia’s new thoughtcrime paradigm.

It’s a portion of an exchange between the uncommonly gutsy User:G-Dett (whom I’m reticent to praise for fear of what might befall her) and User:Ryulong, shortly after the latter banned User:Onomato as a WordBomb sockpuppet, based on nothing more than his having made some minor changes to the Wikipedia article on Patrick Byrne.

G-Dett : “Would it be fair to say that Wikipedia’s current working definition of a WordBomb sockpuppet is anyone whose edits focus (either wholly or in part) on naked-short-selling -related articles, and who opposes User:Mantanmoreland and User:Samiharris?”

Ryūlóng: “They would be common traits as far as I know.”

G-Dett : “Of course they’re common traits; my question was whether they’re enough for a positive ID.”

Ryūlóng: “I would say so.”

Thoughtcrime. You may not like it, but at least it’s out in the open now.

Having laid that foundation, allow me to return to my initial point: that there’s an enormous disconnect between what’s been published on AntiSocialMedia.net so far, and the severity of Wikipedia leadership’s response to it.

I believe the reason these efforts are aimed against AntiSocialMedia.net, as opposed to the other, more obvious targets, is that I alone possess the past Wikipedia database dumps which, through analysis of what has since been covertly removed, provide unambiguous roadmaps of disturbing behavior at the highest levels of Wikipedia leadership.

I believe their primary concern – and the motive for such Orwellian behavior – is not for what I have published, but for what they know, based on the data in my possession, I potentially could publish.

Nobody aspires to have “enemies,” particularly when ambushed by a brass knuckle-wielding band of them. But if there is Zen to be found in the experience, it’s realizing that the subjects of my efforts – my self appointed “enemies” – appear to place a higher value upon my work than even I do.

My email must be broken

It’s been one year since the launch of AntiSocialMedia.net, and what better way to start another year than asking those who’ve publicly assailed the accuracy of our reporting to offer suggestions on how to improve?Over two days I’ve sent email to this blog’s harshest critics, asking each to favor me with a specific instance of inaccuracy on these pages.

Below, you can see a reproduction of the email I sent on the left, and the response, when applicable on the right.

Albert Kidd (aka ScipioAfricanus)
The most persistent critic of AntiSocialMedia.net is Albert Kidd, whose blog boasts roughly ten times more content than the site it purports to deconstruct.Kidd’s reply arrived quickly, but was only a “reply” in the technical sense, as you’ll read:
From: Judd Bagley
To: ScipioAfricanus
Date: Sep 11, 2007

Albert,I’m tying up some loose ends and am looking for your help. your most recent piece, you include:“…most of [AntiSocialMedia.net’s] major findings are simply wrong.”

I’m hoping you can take a few minutes and outline which major findings you feel are “simply wrong,” and where you’re able, please also include the truth as you see it.

Do me a favor and please try to be fairly specific.

From: ScipioAfricanus
To: Judd Bagley
Date: Sep 11, 2007

The weiss=mantanmoreland theory seems to have a problem.No interest in debating it as it’s not my problem, regardless of what you imagine.

I’ll leave it to you to figure out why or dismiss it as you see fit.

Seth Jayson
While Fool.com writer Seth Jayson has been rather liberal with his criticism of AntiSocialMedia.net, it’s the sort of multipurpose criticism that leaves me unconvinced that he’s ever actually read any of it.But just in case, I asked Seth for some advice.
From: Judd Bagley
To: Seth Jayson
Date: Sep 11, 2007

Sorry to bother you, Seth.I just had a quick question…I noticed that in May, you compared the record of accuracy on AntiSocialMedia.net to “batting 0.000.”

I would really appreciate it if you might help me out by pointing to some specific examples of inaccuracy on AntiSocialMedia.net.

I suppose if you really think ASM is 100% wrong, this won’t take you too long.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to reading your insights.

From: Seth Jayson
To: Judd Bagley
Date: n/a

(No reply)

Sam Antar
The only person who might know the content of AntiSocialMedia.net better than me is Sam Antar, who admits to essentially loitering here during the day. Because Sam has likely memorized ASM by now, I felt he would be eager to get specific on some of his many criticisms.
From: Judd Bagley
To: Sam Antar
Date: Sep 11, 2007

Sam,I’m working on a new post for ASM and need your help, please.I noted in a recent post on your own blog you said, referring to ASM:

“vile and malicious false accusations, threats, and smears that he has posted on antisocialmedia.net”

I would really appreciate it if you would show me some specific vile and malicious false accusations, threats, and smears that you’ve encountered. If there are too many, just tell me your favorites. Have fun with it!

From: Sam Antar
To: Judd Bagley
Date: n/a

(No reply)

Chris Faille
In addition to being Senior Financial Correspondent for HedgeWorld.com, Chris Faille writes a blog of his own.Recently, Faille mashed the two up by blogging about a past HedgeWorld column. In his blog, Faille made reference to AntiSocialMedia.net’s “demonstrably false assertions.”
From: Judd Bagley
To: Chris Faille
Date: Sep 11, 2007

I’m most interested to know what the “demonstrably false assertions” on AntiSocialMedia.net that you make reference to are.You’d be doing me a huge favor as a writer if you’d be specific and show me how you might have done things differently.

I hope this is not a big inconvenience for you, but then again, having made the claim months ago, you’ve probably got the information handy anyway. So I trust it won’t be a real burden.

From: Chris Faille
To: Judd Bagley
Date: n/a

(No reply)

Zac Bissonnette
It might surprise Zac to learn that he was the inspiration for this project.In June, Zac emailed me, asking that I list some of the untruths I’ve accused Albert Kidd of knowingly publishing in his blog. My response was quite specific and filled a page; it might have been much longer, given the time.I incorrectly presumed critics of my work – Zac in particular – might appreciate the same opportunity.
From: Judd Bagley
To: Zac Bissonnette
Date: Sep 11, 2007

Hello Zac. Hope you’re well.You’ve been fairly critical of AntiSocialMedia.net, as is your right.

I’m wondering if you might help me out by pointing to some specific instances of inaccurate reporting on the site, and maybe a little about why you feel that way.Thanks for your time and I look forward to receiving your insights.

From: Zac Bissonnette
To: Judd Bagley
Date: n/a

(No reply)

Gary Weiss
AntiSocialMedia.net’s most vocal critics is Gary Weiss.But you probably knew that.Recently things took an interesting turn when Senior Wikipedia Arbitration Committee member Fred Bauder endorsed the central claim of AntiSocialMedia.net: that Gary Weiss is a deeply conflicted editor of Wikipedia.This, by extension, means Gary was some explaining to do for all the times he called me a liar for saying as much.

With that in mind, I sent the following to Gary.

From: Judd Bagley
To: Gary Weiss
Date: Sep 11, 2007

Good day to you, sir.I’m tying up some loose ends and wanted to give you a chance to elaborate on something from Mitchell’s piece in the NY Times a few months ago:

“Beyond calling the accusations “lies,” Mr. Weiss hasn’t addressed most of the details of [AntiSocialMedia.net’s] “findings,” though he denied having edited Wikipedia entries under a pseudonym.”

Now it would appear, based on the recent statement of Fred Bauder, that you have in fact edited Wikipedia under a pseudonym…or two.

Will you comment on that apparent contradiction?

And on the general topic of calling AntiSocialMedia.net’s findings “lies,” might you indulge me by listing some specific lies as you see them, including, specifically, how the truth differs from what appears on ASM?

From: Gary Weiss
To: Judd Bagley
Date: n/a

(No reply)

NOTE: Weiss has confirmed having received and read my email to him, based on the following, which recently appeared – and then swiftly disappeared – from his blog:

“In preparation for another lie-a-gram, Bagley recently emailed myself and other critics (such as this one) to plead what oh what have I said that wasn’t true?”

UsuallyReasonable
The link in Weiss’s fleeting acknowledgement of receipt of my email above points to a message board post by the pseudonymous blogger and frequent fool.com message board poster “UsuallyReasonable” (“UR” for short).Like Seth Jayson, I feel it’s unlikely that UR has ever actually read AntiSocialMedia.net, though he is a studious reader of ASM criticism sites. Despite what he believes, I have never posted to any fool.com discussion board, and had never interacted with him in any way until I sent him the following…
From: Judd Bagley
To: UsuallyReasonable
Date: Sep 11, 2007

I’ve not corresponded with you in the past, to my knowledge, but it’s been pointed out to me several times that you’re especially critical of the accuracy of the content on my blog, AntiSocialMedia.net.I’m wondering if you might help me out by pointing to some specific instances of inaccuracy, and whatever commentary you might deem beneficial.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to receiving your insights.

From: UsuallyReasonable
To: Judd Bagley
Date: n/a

(No reply)

NOTE: While he has not yet replied to me, UsuallyReasonable posted this non-response to a certain stock message board:

“If, as I believe, Bagley was both TeachMeSomething and pbyrnepatriot, he has participated on this very board, has read my posts, and almost undoubtedly still has access. Given that, to mis-render my opinion of him as questioning the accuracy of his blog is disingenous to a fault. The unctuous nature of the e-mail, overflowing with kindness and the desire to do right, simply heightens its falsity…

“But I am willing to fire where obvious targets present themselves, and should I receive any further communication, intimidating or otherwise, from Judd “Anal-Cranial Inversion” Bagley, his profile will be raised.”

As I stated above, and reiterate now, I have never once posted on any fool.com message board, nor directed anybody else to do so. If that’s what’s keeping UR from replying, I hope he will reconsider.

But wait, there’s more.Last week, Wikipedia took unprecedented steps to keep me (or any who might agree with me) from accessing the encyclopedia that “anyone can edit.”

Specifically, MediaWiki Foundation employee David Gerard blocked every computer on my employer’s network from accessing Wikipedia.

Because it’s impossible to justify such a sweeping and ostensibly permanent block for the sake of one non-vandal, Gerard instead claimed it was to thwart “commercial spamming.”

As if on cue, Hu12 jumped to attention, saying “They’ve been very naughty” and promising to rid Wikipedia of inappropriate links to Overstock.com.

Over the next five minutes, the hard-working Hu12 managed to eradicate a total of four links, added over the course of six months by four separate editors.

For those unfamiliar with the problem of Wikipedia spam, let’s just say four links falls so short of the threshold of “spam” as to not be worth mentioning.

To put a finer point on it, Gary Weiss added double that many references to his own book, each of which remains to this day.

Perplexed, I emailed Hu12 to learn more.

From: Judd Bagley
To: Hu12
Date: Sep 4, 2007

On the Overstock.com spamming issue…was this the extent of the problem, or might there have been other instances that you didn’t personally delete?
From: Hu12
To: Judd Bagley
Date: n/a

(No reply)

Apparently realizing the indefensibility of the “corporate spammer” accusation, David Gerard upped the ante by claiming to have found “a pile of obvious overstock.com socks” using the company’s IP range.If that were true, Gerard would have then blocked some of those “obvious socks.” But because it’s not true, he did not.

Curious, I emailed Gerard to learn more.

From: Judd Bagley
To: David Gerard
Date: Sep 4, 2007

You refer to “a pile of obvious overstock.com socks.” Can you point me toward a few of them?
From: David Gerard
To: Judd Bagley
Date: n/a

(No reply)

A few days later, I encountered debate on Wikipedia over the newsworthiness of AntiSocialMedia.net’s recent revelations of gross abuses by administrators at the highest levels.The rudderless Phil Sandifer objected, stating AntiSocialMedia.net is filled with “some deeply unseemly things about a number of editors.”

In response, I created and posted the following table, listing all Wikipedia editors named on these pages, the claim made about them, and any confirmation of that claim.

I also left a column for Sandifer to note any applicable unseemliness.

Of course that column remains unchanged.

Editor Claim Reality Unseemliness
Mantanmoreland has a COI problem Fred Bauder confirms

(please insert unseemliness here)

Lastexit Mantanmoreland sock Fred Bauder confirms

(please insert unseemliness here)

Tomstoner Mantanmoreland sock Fred Bauder confirms

(please insert unseemliness here)

Fred Bauder exists Fred Bauder confirms

(please insert unseemliness here)

Sweet Blue Water SlimVirgin sockpuppet SlimVirgin confirms

(please insert unseemliness here)

Jayjg oversighted embarrassing SlimVirgin edits recovered diffs confirm

(please insert unseemliness here)

FloNight exists FloNight confirms

(please insert unseemliness here)

Cla68 Proposed the article on Gary Weiss for deletion nobody denies

(please insert unseemliness here)

Jimbo Wales Deleted the record of the Gary Weiss deletion debate Jimbo admits

(please insert unseemliness here)

SlimVirgin Has a name in real life unconfirmed

(please insert unseemliness here)

WordBomb is upset about most of these things his blog confirms

(please insert unseemliness here)

David Gerard offered three responses.

To justify yet another unprecedented move, Gerard noted:

“Favourite open proxy of Judd Bagley/overstock.com, actively (and almost exclusively) used by them.”

As this record of anon edits (of which none is mine) attests, it most certainly is an actively used IP, but hardly exclusive to me, and never by Overstock.com.

More to the point, the now blocked IP is the exact opposite of an open proxy, in that only paying subscribers may access it.

Wanting to help Gerard do the right thing, I sent him the following email:

From: Judd Bagley
To: David Gerard
Date: Sep 12, 2007

Mr. Gerard,Based in part on what I see here, it appears that you’re unclear on the definition of an “open proxy” web server.Because this might prove embarrassing to someone in your position, I suggest you read this Wikipedia article on the topic.

Judd Bagley

ps: I’m concerned my email is broken. Would you kindly confirm receipt of this message with a quick reply in the affirmative?

From: David Gerard
To: Judd Bagley
Date: n/a

(No reply)

Over the space of one week, I’ve asked nine people to help me understand why they’ve taken what I see as irresponsible positions.Of those, only one has managed anything resembling a reply, however feeble.

Obviously, something is broken.

Is it my email, or those on the receiving end?

Because my email seems to be working for everybody else, I’m going to say the problem is limited to the above nine people and their inability to defend their shameful actions.

The Skinny on SlimVirgin’s Sockpuppetry

In theory, two things should keep Wikipedia from descending into utter thug rule: transparency and accountability.

Transparency is a result of the extensive record of all editors and their contributions. The delete function, limited to administrators, retains a copy of deleted edits for other administrators to review, in addition to leaving a record of the deletion having taken place, and an explanation of the nature of the deletion. Thus, a check is maintained even on those in positions of authority.

Accountability is a product of standards of behavior that are born of the community and equally applied to all.

That’s the theory. What follows is the practice.
Oversight: the Nuclear Option
On June 25, 2006, Wikipedia introduced a tool known as “Oversight,” which made it possible to permanently delete edits while leaving no record of having done so. Oversight was necessary, it was argued, in three extreme cases:

  1. Removal of nonpublic personal information such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public.
  2. Removal of potentially libelous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the subject has specifically asked for the information to be expunged from the history, the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision.
  3. Removal of copyright infringement on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel.

In other words, the theory of Oversight was that its use would be limited to cases where retaining the offending material in any capacity represented a threat large enough to justify the transparency lost as a result of stealthily eliminating it.

Among the first group of administrators to be granted Oversight was then-Arbitration Committee member JayJG, who is often found operating in close association with fellow administrator SlimVirgin.

CheckUser: License to Kill
JayJG is among an equally small group of administrators granted CheckUser authority, allowing him to see which IP addresses a given editor has been assigned while logged in.

CheckUsers often play judge, jury and executioner of Wikipedia editors accused sockpuppetry.

It is my contention that since their arrival at Wikipedia, JayJG and SlimVirgin have engaged in gross and ongoing policy violations allowing them to systematically silence dissenting voices, and then abusively employ their administrative tools for the purpose of covering up their own violations.

Given the opaque manner in which JayJG, in particular, has applied Oversight and CheckUser, this would normally be impossible to prove. Fortunately, the license under which Wikipedia content is created requires liberal documentation of, and access to, every edit. Compliance with that license is achieved in part through regular “database dumps,” which anybody may download and apply as they wish, contingent upon their further compliance with the license.Serendipitously, in the days immediately prior to the institution of Oversight, I happened to download a full Wikipedia database dump. Recently, I’ve endured the oddly cumbersome process of expanding and formatting that archive, for the specific purpose of identifying oversight edits and assessing their aptness, given the WikiMedia Foundation’s own criteria.

I’ve concluded, without regard for motive, that JayJG and SlimVirgin have consistently made a mockery of both the spirit and letter of Wikipedia policy, and then misused the tools entrusted them in order to hide their misdeeds.

What follows is the first of many such examples I’ve identified.

Below you’ll see two tables, one showing the edit history of the Wikipedia article on Pierre Salinger as it appears today (on the left) and the other showing the article’s actual edit history, with missing edits in red.

Pierre Salinger edit history:   Pierre Salinger edit history:
As seen today   Actual

Date Editor   Date Editor
2/9/2005 16:53 SNIyer1   2/9/2005 16:53 SNIyer1
1/27/2005 10:40 Sc147   1/31/2005 0:14 SlimVirgin
12/27/2004 16:13 66.243.56.33   1/31/2005 0:04 SlimVirgin
11/22/2004 0:18 Neutrality   1/27/2005 10:40 Sc147
11/7/2004 13:43 CanisRufus   12/27/2004 16:13 66.243.56.33
11/4/2004 19:32 Formeruser-81   11/22/2004 0:18 Neutrality
11/4/2004 19:31 Formeruser-81   11/7/2004 13:43 CanisRufus
11/4/2004 19:27 Formeruser-81   11/5/2004 18:35 SlimVirgin
11/2/2004 0:14 Formeruser-81   11/5/2004 2:56 Slimv
11/2/2004 0:12 Formeruser-81   11/5/2004 2:53 Slimv
11/2/2004 0:10 Formeruser-81   11/4/2004 19:32 Formeruser-81
11/2/2004 0:10 Formeruser-81   11/4/2004 19:31 Formeruser-81
11/2/2004 0:07 Formeruser-81   11/4/2004 19:27 Formeruser-81
11/2/2004 0:05 Formeruser-81   11/3/2004 19:54 Slimv
11/2/2004 0:02 Formeruser-81   11/3/2004 19:45 Slimv
11/1/2004 20:03 Formeruser-81   11/2/2004 0:14 Formeruser-81
11/1/2004 20:02 Formeruser-81   11/2/2004 0:12 Formeruser-81
11/1/2004 20:00 Formeruser-81   11/2/2004 0:10 Formeruser-81
11/1/2004 19:55 Formeruser-81   11/2/2004 0:10 Formeruser-81
11/1/2004 19:54 Formeruser-81   11/2/2004 0:07 Formeruser-81
11/1/2004 19:53 Formeruser-81   11/2/2004 0:05 Formeruser-81
11/1/2004 19:49 Formeruser-81   11/2/2004 0:02 Formeruser-81
11/1/2004 19:49 Formeruser-81   11/1/2004 20:42 Slimv
11/1/2004 14:33 Formeruser-81   11/1/2004 20:27 Slimv
10/30/2004 1:16 Robotje   11/1/2004 20:03 Formeruser-81
      11/1/2004 20:02 Formeruser-81
      11/1/2004 20:00 Formeruser-81
      11/1/2004 19:55 Formeruser-81
      11/1/2004 19:54 Formeruser-81
      11/1/2004 19:53 Formeruser-81
      11/1/2004 19:49 Formeruser-81
      11/1/2004 19:49 Formeruser-81
      11/1/2004 14:33 Formeruser-81
      11/1/2004 1:04 70.64.24.120
      10/30/2004 1:16 Robotje


Slimv has long been acknowledged as the first screen name used by SlimVirgin. Additionally, her IP address, while dynamic, is known by Slim-watchers to have consistently started with the octets 70 and 64. For these reasons and others to follow (primarily, the substance of edits made, including the first by 70.64.24.120, recreated here), I claim that the same person made the oversighted edits above, attributed to Slimv, SlimVirgin, and 70.64.24.120.

Between 11/1/2004 and 4/29/2005, a total of four edits were made by 70.64.24.120…each of them later removed by oversight. Referring to my database dump, I have recreated those edits and found them to be very instructive.

Before moving on to examine the second and third edits of 70.64.24.120, some background…

On January 5, 2005, User:Leifern made a substantial edit to the Wikipedia article on Palestine, commenting: “this was such a redundant mess to other topics, I drastically cleaned out”.

A few hours later, User:Sweet Blue Water opted to revert Leifern’s work.

In response, Leifern posted the following to Sweet Blue Water’s talk page:

Next time you revert someone’s edits, leave an explanation in the discussion area. –[[User:Leifern|Leifern]] 13:27, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

Two days later, a reply (since oversighted) was posted on Leifern’s talk page, reading:

I did leave a reason for the edit. You had deleted a large amount of information, without explanation, calling it a “clean up,” but without explaining why you chose to delete what you deleted. [[User:70.64.24.120|70.64.24.120]] 03:14, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As you can see, Sweet Blue Water forgot to log in before making that reply; as a result, it’s attributed to IP address 70.64.24.120, which, as demonstrated earlier, belonged to SlimVirgin at the time.

From this, we can conclude that Sweet Blue Water is a sockpuppet of SlimVirgin.

The question then becomes one of abuse.

Of the 13 content articles edited by Sweet Blue Water, SlimVirgin edited nine, of which five edit pairs were made on the same day, and in one case, within a span of just ten minutes.

On another occasion, Sweet Blue Water was used to give the appearance of more support than really existed for a particular article’s featured status nomination: an article in which SlimVirgin was heavily invested as en editor.

Links to five instances of apparently abusive sockpuppetry can be found below.

date ID article abuse
12/29/04 7:55 SlimVirgin Tsunami Tag team/3RR
12/29/04 8:06 Sweet Blue Water Tsunami Tag team/3RR
1/3/05 19:23 SlimVirgin Featured article candidates/Sept. 11, 2001 attacks Voting
1/3/05 6:50 Sweet Blue Water Featured article candidates/Sept. 11, 2001 attacks Voting
1/4/05 1:48 SlimVirgin September 11, 2001 attacks Tag team
1/5/05 8:21 Sweet Blue Water September 11, 2001 attacks Tag team
1/5/05 23:23 SlimVirgin Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks Tag team
1/5/05 8:28 Sweet Blue Water Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks Tag team
12/27/04 20:55 SlimVirgin British English Tag team
12/28/04 08:26 Sweet Blue Water British English Tag team

Good-bye accountability.

Of course the larger issue here appears to be that of abuse of Oversight authority.

The permanent deletion of all four edits made by 70.64.24.120 was not:

1. Removal of nonpublic personal information,
2. Removal of potentially libelous information, or
3. Removal of copyright infringement on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel.

…but instead to eliminate embarrassing evidence of SlimVirgin’s abusive sockpuppetry.

Good-bye, transparency.

If transparency and accountability are what will ensure Wikipedia’s enduring success, these and comparable abuses by SlimVirgin and JayJG (to be examined here in future posts), are certain to ensure Wikipedia’s eventual failure.

Piling absurdity upon absurdity

As any engineer will attest, the key to an enduring structure is a solid foundation. Builders who choose not to worry about foundation issues will deliver a product that’s worthless at best, and a dangerous liability at worst.

Likewise, arguments crafted without a foundation amount to something ranging from worthless to dangerous.

In both cases, the motives of those responsible must be questioned.

Observers of one Yahoo stock message board were recently treated to the equivalent of a foundation-free high-rise project. It started with a post by New York attorney Howard Sirota, who demanded:

No More Anti-Semitism on this Board!
I just did a search for “Jew” on this Message Board.
There are 428 posts containing the word “Jew.”
That means that this board is infested with anti-semites, which is intolerable.

Sirota went on to claim that some admittedly inappropriate comments made to this blog (which were immediately removed once brought to my attention) were symptomatic of a further anti-Semitic infestation.

In his blog, Gary Weiss reflected on Sirota’s assessment saying:

The subject is a disturbing one — the tendency of the Baloney Brigade anti-short-selling lunatics to use anti-Semitic stereotypes and imagery.

And with that, a set of flimsy and transparent walls were hastily erected.

Sam Antar also chimed in, insisting that the unnoticed words of one commenter somehow equate to the endorsement of the board of directors of my employer.

“The Audit Committee…has a simple choice: wheather (sic) they choose to be associated with such vile ugliness from their inaction in fully enforcing the company’s Code of Business Conduct and Ethics or to take swift action to prevent further vile acts…”

And with that, a particularly leaky and incompetent roof was put in dropped in place and the mass was dubbed a house.

Looking at their work, Gary Weiss and Sam Antar would have the world believe that they’re responsible for creating something great.

But one thing is absent: a foundation, which Howard Sirota neglected to build, rendering the contributions of both Weiss and Antar worthless.

Let’s start with Weiss, who built his claim of anti-Semitism on the part of opponents of illegal market manipulation entirely upon Sirota’s assertion that one company’s stock message board was infested with anti-Semites. This claim, in turn, was based upon Sirota’s observation that the word “Jew” appeared in 428 of the tens of thousands of messages posted there over more than five years.

For the sake of argument, and in deference to Mr. Sirota, who is Jewish and undoubtedly better at recognizing anti-Semitism than a non-Jew, let us assume that this is a reliable metric of a message board’s level of bigotry.

Weiss takes the argument one step further and announces that in addition to being quantitative, this metric is also qualitative, in that from it, blameworthiness can also be assigned. Specifically, Weiss feels the blame for 428 tainted message board posts fall squarely at the feet of all opponents of illegal naked short selling.

Let’s take a closer look at the numbers to gauge the integrity of this line of reasoning.

A search for posts including the word “Jew,” conducted two days after Sirota’s, returned 442 such messages. The authors of these posts were then divided up based on their attitude toward illegal naked shorting (with a third category comprised of those who, like Mr. Sirota, have made no statements on the topic).

The result is very instructive.

  • Those in favor of illegal naked short selling authored 323 messages, or 73% of the total.
  • Those most likely to be opposed to illegal naked short selling authored 96 messages, or 22% of the total.
  • Those without a discernible position on the issue of illegal naked short selling authored 23, or 5% of the total.

But wait, there’s more!

Among those authors in favor of illegal naked short selling, one stands out far above the rest: Lamborghini751, who personally authored 131 messages deemed anti-Semitic by Howard Sirota.

That’s one-third of all of them.

The best part: Lamborghini751 is Gary Weiss (as demonstrated here).

In other words, if Sirota’s method of assessing message board bigotry is accurate, the biggest culprit is Gary Weiss himself, thereby invalidating everything Weiss has written on the topic, whether as himself, as Lamborghini751, or as the blogger Mediacrity.

On the other hand, if Sirota’s method is not accurate, then the entire basis for Weiss’s claim of anti-Semitism being endemic to opponents of naked shorting is flawed, again invalidating everything Weiss has written on the topic.

Now let’s look at Sam Antar.

What Sammy apparently forgot to tell Sirota (a longtime Antar family friend) is that thanks to the Dissembler Sorting Algorithm, it’s possible to determine when multiple Yahoo message board aliases are tied to the same account. In the case of Mr. Sirota, it was quickly discovered that he is behind not only the username hsirota, but also StanleySargoy.

Sirota created StanleySargoy in 1999 and used the account very occasionally to either promote or demote companies primarily in the pharma and biotech space, until 2005.

Then in April of this year, StanleySargoy was called out of retirement and into active combat duty. The target: Usana, a company under heavy short seller attack by convicted felon Barry Minkow and his so-called Fraud Discovery Institute, which just days before had issued an internally authored study accusing Usana of serious fraud.

Oh yeah…Minkow is shorting Usana.

StanleySargoy (who says he hails from San Francisco) has since become one of the more active and negative posters to Yahoo’s Usana message board.

What interest would Sirota have in Usana?

You may recall a March column by Herb Greenberg entitled What Two Crooks Told me Over Lunch, in which Greenberg details his no-reason-given meal with Sam Antar and Barry Minkow.

We can surmise that Antar and Minkow do business together.

Thanks to the actions of StanleySargoy, it appears Sirota and Minkow are doing business together.

By the transitive property, a little common sense, and some educated observation, it now appears Sirota and Antar are also doing business together.

Finally, let’s take a quick look at Howard Sirota.

Sirota’s first demand that certain comments be removed from this site was sent early Friday, June 8. The offending comments were posted June 7. Server logs confirm that, prior to their removal, only Sam Antar (whose IP address is very well known) saw all three.

In that time, no other visitor managed to see more than any one of the offending comments. Thus, assuming he’s even been to AntiSocialMedia.net, Howard Sirota’s complaint — which he likely didn’t write — dealt mostly, if not entirely, with content he likely never saw.

You might want to stand clear, Howard…with no foundation, this flimsy house that Gary and Sam built is in the process of coming down just like all the others.

DTCC caught covering-up

There has been much speculation as to the root of Gary Weiss’s abiding interest in the personalities voicing their objections to the practice of illegal naked short securities trading.

In February of this year, some felt that question was answered in the form of a minor yet tremendously significant incident from which it could be fairly deduced that Weiss was, on the morning of January 19, 2007, using a computer on the network of the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC).

The basis of that deduction is explained in detail here.

Given the enormous value of the financial assets over which the DTCC is steward, and the high level of security that must necessarily mediate access to the organization’s premises, much less data networks, one can immediately rule out any scenario in which Weiss might have been using that computer in anything other than a sanctioned capacity.

Over four days, DTCC Spokesman Stuart Goldstein ignored two emailed requests for comment on this situation. When he finally did respond to a third request received by a staffer over the phone, it was in the form of a blank email. A quick request to re-send the missing content was denied, and five repeat requests over the space of one week were ignored.

Then, in one of the strangest turns of events observed in this saga to date, on February 9, 2007, Goldstein’s reply was delivered, unprompted, by New York Post reporter Roddy Boyd.

From: Boyd, Roddy
Date: Feb 09 2007 - 1:03pm
Subject:

judd,
I spoke to corp comm at DTCC and they told me, on the record, that weiss is not, nor has he ever, been employed or used by DTCC in any capacity, formally or informally. They categorically reject it and tell me that none of them have any recollection of ever talking to him, meeting with him or having any dealings with him.
categorically rejects it.
thats a big hump for a real reporter to get over.

let me put this politely:
As an investigative reporter, laughably per PB, you really, really are a much better PR person.

Lest its meaning be lost on anybody, please carefully re-read and reflect on the sweeping significance of Mr. Boyd’s second sentence:

They categorically reject it and tell me that none of them have any recollection of ever talking to [Gary Weiss], meeting with him or having any dealings with him.

Now, please carefully read and consider the meaning of the following:

In recent weeks, a confidential source has delivered to AntiSocialMedia.net multiple emails, all pre-dating Mr. Boyd’s DTCC proxy denials, in which Gary Weiss refers to active consultations between himself and unnamed DTCC officials on a specific media-related matter.

These emails make no reference to the basis (whether paid or otherwise) of the relationship, but given the extreme lengths to which DTCC leadership has gone to deny so much as a conversation with Weiss, this development is suggestive of what can only be interpreted as unmitigated deception at the highest levels within that organization.

In February, Weiss called claims of a relationship between himself and the DTCC “absolute crap.”

Wishing to rule out the possibility that Roddy Boyd delivered anything but an accurate reflection of the DTCC’s position, earlier this week Stuart Goldstein was asked to affirm the accuracy of Boyd’s statement, as well as to comment on the existence of unspecified evidence that Gary R. Weiss has or has had a professional relationship with the DTCC.

Goldstein’s pithy reply consisted of three words:

From: Stuart Goldstein
date: May 23, 2007 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: Request for comment

Send your evidence.

Because the nature of the evidence does nothing to change the facts at hand, and in order to honor commitments of confidentiality made to sources, Goldstein’s request was not honored.

An additional request for comment has been ignored by Goldstein.

Given the length to which Goldstein has gone to obscure the truth in this matter, and the length to which Weiss regularly goes to specifically malign critics of the DTCC’s defense of illegal and abusive stock trade settlement failures, a disturbing picture of that organization’s policy of defamatory, surrogate-driven, scorched-earth public relations is beginning to emerge.

Update: 5/31/2007
An alert reader brings to our attention an earlier incident appearing to confirm Goldstein’s lax regard for truth when confronted with questions relating to the DTCC’s role in empowering illegal market manipulation by crooked stock lenders.

The following originally appeared here on May 11, 2004.

FinancialWire received a confidential email between a reporter and Stuart Z. Goldstein, Managing Director of Corporate Communications for the Depository Trust and Clearing Corp. in which Goldstein was represented as denying that a lawsuit filed by Nanopierce Technologies exists.

The chief spokesperson for the DTCC, whose board of directors represent a who’s who of financial entities, including Lehman Brothers, Citigroup / Solomon Smith Barney’s Corporate Investment Bank, and Morgan Stanley, was quoted as stating that the “lawsuit” did not exist and was simply “charges being leveled by internet crackpots.”

FinancialWire sent Goldstein a scanned copy of the actual court filing, which occurred April 29 at 12:15 p.m., and asked Goldstein if he or the DTCC still denied its existence or had any comments. No response was received.

It would be strange, but not unreasonable, had Goldstein himself not yet heard of the lawsuit when asked. But if that were the case, the proper response would be to explain as much. Instead, Goldstein was dismissive and insulting: the general embodiment of his employer.

But beyond Goldstein’s obviously striking social shortcomings, these are the mannerisms of an organization with something dark to hide, but utterly lacking in accountability.

What is that dark thing?

We know that it includes records of billions upon billions of dollars of failed stock trades (the one thing the DTCC is tasked with completing successfully). Some allege that beyond the records, there is also proof that elements within the DTCC are profiting wildly from this fraud.

Given what I’ve seen, I’m inclined to believe it’s true.

Paid bashers: cracking the code.

Third Point, LLC is a hedge fund run by Daniel Loeb, also known on stock message boards as “Mr. Pink.”

Michelle McDonough (formerly Michelle Sarian), is a convicted felon who has spent one year in prison for securities fraud. Today, as before going to prison, McDonough has a company called Magic Consulting.

Floyd Schneider is a prolific message board poster, whose many pseudonyms can typically be found repeating the same drumbeat of fraud and executive incompetence. Schneider’s posts frequently encourage shareholders to file SEC complaints and/or join shareholder lawsuits.

Yolanda Holtzee is also a prolific message board poster, most notably as Ms. Mint Green, who holds herself out at a close associate of Daniel Loeb/Mr. Pink. Holtzee is also frequently found to be encouraging shareholders to complain to the SEC and participate in shareholder lawsuits.

Roddy Boyd is a reporter for the New York Post and frequent online supporter and offline apologist of Floyd Schneider and Yolanda Holtzee.

AntiSocialMedia.net has learned that Third Point has, on multiple occasions, engaged Michelle McDonough to generate support for SEC investigations and/or class action lawsuits brought by shareholders against companies in which Third Point has substantial short interests. (Daniel Loeb refused to comment on the nature of his relationship with Michelle McDonough.)

McDonough, in turn, frequently engages Floyd Schneider and Yolanda Holtzee (among others) to foment and feign support for such shareholder actions on stock message boards. (McDonough refused to comment on the nature of her relationship with Schneider and Holtzee.)

Roddy Boyd has been asked on two occasions to comment on his relationship with McDonough. The resulting exchanges, via email with Judd Bagley, proceeded as follows:

Judd Bagley: “…What do you know about a woman named Michelle McDonough?”

Roddy Boyd: “re Michelle M: nothing. Should I? google has about 1mm entries for that name.”

Judd Bagley: “She used to go by the name Michelle Sarian. Today she runs “Magic Consulting.” I think she did a year in prison back in 2001.”

Roddy Boyd: “re sarian or mcdonough…youre concern, not mine.”

The second, more recent, exchange proceeded as follows:

Judd Bagley: “While I’ve got you…you recently denied knowing Michelle McDonough (formerly Sarian). Is that still your position?”

Roddy Boyd: “sorry judd, im not talking to you about anything else, period. if youre not comfortable with me asking the questions-fine. but im not anwering yours.”

That’s right…Roddy Boyd, a reporter, essentially twice gave me a reply of “no comment” when asked about any relationship he may have with Michelle McDonough.

This is a vastly complicated topic, which ASM, with the help of many, will spend the foreseeable future unraveling.

Loeb, McDonough, Holtzee, Schneider, and Boyd are again encouraged to contact me with any relevant comments they may have on this topic as we continue to explore it.

How not to respond to a subpoena by the SEC

Take a trip with me, back to early 2006.

On January 7, Jordan Goldstein, general counsel of TheStreet.com, pronounced that company co-founder Jim Cramer had never sold a single share of TSCM stock.

Exactly one month later, Jim Cramer announces, via the adoption of a rule 10b5-1 plan, his intention to exercise 150,000 stock options over the course of one year.

In the announcement, the plan’s purpose is expressed as being:

“…designed to avoid any real or perceived conflict of interest in connection with the trading of company securities. The program is established at a time when the executive does not have material inside information.

“…It is Mr. Cramer’s intention to provide an orderly liquidation of these options through this plan, which provides for the sale of approximately 12,500 shares on a monthly basis.”

cramer-tscm-sales1.gifSuch an orderly liquidation, as outlined in the plan, would have looked like the chart to the right (click to enlarge).

cramer-tscm-sales2.gifIn reality, the record reflects a very different selling pattern by Mr. Cramer; one which looks like the chart to the left (click to enlarge).

You’ll note that 112,500 (exactly 75%) of the options expected to be exercised in an orderly manner over the course of 12 months were actually exercised within two weeks.

What could account for such a deviation from Cramer’s 10b5-1 plan?

A little historical context might add some clarity.

What was not mentioned in the 10b5-1 plan was the fact that just days beforehand, Jim Cramer had received a subpoena by the SEC…something that might be considered by some to be material inside information.

cramer-tscm-sales3.gifThat subpoena would not be disclosed by Cramer until February 27, by which time 100,000 options had already been exercised. Adding this information to Cramer’s TSCM selling chart would tend to raise serious questions relating to insider trading on Cramer’s part, and the low regard Cramer would appear to have for his company’s investors.

NOTE: Thanks to Evren Karpak and another un-named supporter of market reform for their time in handling key portions of the research on this topic.

Wall Street versus America versus my better judgement

A friend who’s been following this blog for the past few months paid me a striking compliment recently. She said I am “the anti-Gary Weiss.”

As she explained, that’s not to say I’m necessarily anti-Gary Weiss, but that where Gary is in all things the Yang, I am the Yin, thus maintaining balance in the universe.

When I asked her for an example, she pointed to our respective approaches to Amazon book reviews.

Where Gary has dedicated an enormous amount of energy toward inventing dozens of over-the-top raving reviews of his own books, I only review media I’ve legitimately purchased and consumed, and on the one occasion I’ve had to light-heartedly comment on something I had in fact written, I clearly disclosed that I was the author.

I suspect that is what left me so bothered by the accusation leveled by Gary’s minion-for-hire ScipioAfricanus that I had panned Gary’s book when, as he wrote, “the evidence seems to indicate that he has never even read the book.”

Evidence? What evidence might that be?

wsva-review.jpgTo put a fork in that entire line of (il)logic, I offered this visual restatement of my initial Amazon review (click to enlarge).

Upon further reflection, I remembered that if I’ve learned anything about Gary Weiss over the past year, it’s that his sketchy relationship with Truth always provides solid content for this blog. And so with that in mind, I decided to not just re-read, but to study Gary’s book and report to you, my loyal readers, anything exceptional I might find therein.

Consider this exception #1.

On page 33 (of the hardcover version), Weiss holds up the trading history of Genesis Intermedia (GENI) as indicative of the excesses of a stock promoter known as The Waaco Kid.

Unfortunately, a brief consultation with the truth reveals that the company in question was actually Genesis International Financial Services (GIFS).

To be fair, both companies’ names share the same first word…kind of like General Electric and General Motors, which are so similar as to nearly be interchangeable. Both companies…generally…make…things…’n stuff.

ge_logo.jpg
gm-logo.jpg

Much like network hardware maker Cisco and foodservice product distributor Sysco.

.logo_cisco.gifsysco_logo.jpg

After all, both try to make things get from one place to another. Cisco moves bits of data, while Sysco moves cases of Vegeline non-stick cooking spray. They are identical, for all practical purposes.

Oh man. Is it obvious I’m lingering here to avoid getting back to the book?

Yolanda Holtzee’s House of Mirrors: Part One

Before reading what follows, it’s important to know that Yahoo! message board aliases ymh_ymh_ymh, ursa_of_245_park_avenue, ursa_383_madison_avenue, and ursa_minor_245 all belong to Yolanda Holtzee. You can read more on these relationships here.

According to a Wall Street Journal story dated April 18, 2006 (reprinted here, one week later):

In 1998, hoping to make more cash, [Holtzee] began managing money, she says, for a handful of wealthy individuals. She says she stopped taking in new investors in 2000 and won’t disclose her firm’s assets under management or its performance.

Ms. Holtzee refers to her company, Alcap LLC, as an “investment club” and says she employs two traders in Connecticut and a compliance officer.

Holtzee’s first apparent mention of the fund appears to come in January of 2002.

11-Jan-02
Yolanda, as ursa_of_245_park_avenue, first mentions the fund, which she called ALCAP, LLP. Here she explains what that name means.

26-Jan-02
Two weeks later, ursa_of_245_park_avenue hints as to her fund’s performance

Heebner’s returns are not as good as mine by any stretch of the imagination

In a subsequent post, Holtzee continues:

It’s not a hedge fund, per se. It’s a private investment partnership called ALCAP, LLP aka Casino Ursa.

30-Jan-02
Here Yolanda, as ymh_ymh_ymh, offers insights into the holdings of “Casino Ursa aka ALCAP,” also noting:

Ursa does a great job making Marc and his boys much Richer.

14-May-02
Here ymh_ymh_ymh discloses the cost of a new trading account at Casino Ursa (ALCAP, LLP)…or is she promoting trading accounts at Bear Stearns?

…Who’s ready to dump SCH, ET, and AMTD and trade up to my boys and girls at BSC? 500K minimum on a trading account, kids. Casino Ursa ain’t cheap but it’s worth the price.

24-May-02
Following much confusion by her fellow posters over several seemingly contradictory statements by Holtzee about the nature of ALCAP, ymh_ymh_ymh offers this explanation:

It’s a trust fund, LLP type and it is known as the holding company, ALCAP. No listing for it. Small and private.

9-Jun-02
Yet two weeks later, Yolanda, as ursa_383_madison_avenue, goes out of her way to suggest that she actually works for Bear Stearns.

…Yes, my firm, took many dogs public and our clients got those shares at offer price. Our clients sold those dogs in late 1999/2000 for the most part and we shorted the living hell out of them and made some very nice money taking them downhill skiing. Our clients are not naive. Our brokers are the world’s best. My firm’s trading within 10% of an all time high. My firm is the might Bear Stearns (BSC:NYSE)…Our clients are happy. Our brokers are happy. Our price chart is BEAUTIFUL. We are the mighty Bear Stearns (BSC: NYSE). BSC stands for Breakfast of Super Champions. For more on my firm, please view my YHOO profile.

ursa_383_madison_avenue’s user profile, static since May 15, 2002, lists as her profession “Hedge Fund Manager.”

14-Nov-02
Five months later, ymh_ymh_ymh says she’s back in the hedge fund business.

I co-manage a hedge fund called ALCAP. We’re offshore, not registered.

At this point, it’s unclear whether Holtzee’s ALCAP is a hedge fund, a trust fund, or an investment club, and why Bear Stearns continues entering the picture.

But much more interesting is the question of what role billionaire Marc Rich plays in this fund.

Recall the above comment from January 30, 2002, in which Holtzee commented: “Ursa does a great job making Marc and his boys much Richer.”

Now compare that comment with the remnants of a comment made by Yolanda as ursa_minor_245 on a since-deleted thread, dated August 28, 2000, and captured by another poster here a few months later.

by: ursa_minor_245
(F/Zug, Switzerland)
8/28/00 3:16 pm
Msg: 9274 of 11531
…For the record, and the 5th time at least: I don’t work for BSC and I have never worked for BSC. I don’t want to work for BSC or ANY hype house. They don’t pay enough. I serve Marc Rich, the best trader that ever lived, Baar none. You make as much money as you want serving him. No rules…just go for it.

Subsequent comments by Holtzee make it clear that she is in fact referring to fugitive billionaire Marc Rich, who at that point had yet to be pardoned by President Clinton.

If true, this admission of directly engaging in commerce with an expatriate fugitive whose indictment on tax fraud in 1983 was called the “biggest in history” is shocking.

Furthermore, the possibility that the shadowy ALCAP/Casino Ursa/Bear Cub Capital Management, which, depending on when you ask the question, is either a trust or a hedge fund or an investment club organized as an LLC or LLP, that either is or is not affiliated with Bear Stearns, might have served as one of Marc Rich’s notoriously numerous offshore money laundering or campaign finance law-skirting vehicles should be investigated.

The next installment of Yolanda Holtzee’s House of Mirrors will examine Holtzee’s more contemporary online stock commenting activities, and the role Marc Rich and others might play in influencing her rather malleable attitude toward certain companies’ share values.