Post by sandi66 on Jan 24, 2012 7:27:26 GMT -5
Deep Capture: exposing the crime of naked short selling
What Happened To Deep Capture?
• From “the corner of Wall and Broad with pitchforks and nooses”: My April, 2006 letter to the Wall Street Journal
• A Respectful Invitation to All Hoodlums, Cutpurses, Thugs and Assorted Miscreants Named Herein
• Memo to Barry Minkow and Sam Antar: Roll Early, Roll Often
• The Honorable Gill Freeman Throws Book at Barry Minkow, Nicks Paymaster Sam Antar. Plus, A Question for Whitney Tilson, Minkow Paymaster #2
• Today’s “If Only There Were a Pattern” Moment: Sam Antar Crony Barry Minkow Still a Crook. Who Knew?
• Truman Show Moments and Doublethink on the Road to Deep Capture
• Fortune Magazine Gets the Vapors Defending Goldman Sachs
What Happened To Deep Capture?
Posted: 23 Jan 2012 09:43 PM PST
On any other day, that might seem strange: Ali Nazerali Wants Own Past Sealed in Orwell’s Memory Hole
In October 2011, Ali Nazerali, a Canadian resident of Pakistani origin who has operated boiler rooms (according to regulators, though he was not charged) and whose business relationships drew the scrutiny of DeepCapture, went to court in British Columbia to obtain an injunction against the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution (the one regarding freedom of speech and press). In an ex parte proceeding (meaning that DeepCapture was not even notified of the proceedings, let alone allowed to present any argument), the Canadian court issued an injunction ordering that DeepCapture be disappeared like some recalcitrant Argentinian muckracker. Immediately and also without notification, US corporations Google, Bing, and GoDaddy complied with this foreign court’s order to disappear all trace of DeepCapture from existence.
However, in December, 2011 DeepCapture had its chance to speak in court in Canada. Once it had heard our side, the Court pulled its injunction, and found that Nazerali’s lawyers had misled the Court.
As famed Stoic philosopher Nicholas Cage put it in Con Air, “On any other day, that might seem strange.”
But this is, after all, the world of DeepCapture, where dogs and cats dance together and the fire rain falls. So now, the rest of the story….
Early in 2011 Mark Mitchell began a multipart story exploring the way that various elements of transnational Organized Crime, international terrorist financiers, and foreign intelligence services have entwined, infiltrated the global financial system, and are manipulating and destabilizing it.
Which sounds like a lot to swallow, I know, until one considers that on July 25, 2011, President Obama signed an Executive Order declaring a national emergency on pretty much precisely those grounds:
I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, find that the activities of significant transnational criminal organizations, such as those listed in the Annex to this order, have reached such scope and gravity that they threaten the stability of international political and economic systems. Such organizations are becoming increasingly sophisticated and dangerous to the United States; they are increasingly entrenched in the operations of foreign governments and the international financial system, thereby weakening democratic institutions, degrading the rule of law, and undermining economic markets. These organizations facilitate and aggravate violent civil conflicts and increasingly facilitate the activities of other dangerous persons. I therefore determine that significant transnational criminal organizations constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.
The US National Security Council immediately followed up with this statement:
“Transnational organized crime (TOC) poses a significant and growing threat to national and international security, with dire implications for public safety, public health, democratic institutions, and economic stability across the globe. Not only are criminal networks expanding, but they also are diversifying their activities, resulting in the convergence of threats that were once distinct and today have explosive and destabilizing effects…. The apparent growing nexus in some states among TOC [Transnational Organized Crime] groups and elements of government—including intelligence services—and high-level business figures represents a significant threat to economic growth and democratic institutions… As they expand, TOC networks may threaten stability and undermine free markets as they build alliances with political leaders, financial institutions, law enforcement, foreign intelligence, and security agencies.”
These statements from the White House and NSC are precisely on point with DeepCapture’s thesis. In fact, the Executive Order goes on to name four criminal networks which figure prominently in Deepcapture’s story.
We knew DeepCapture’s story would raise eyebrows, but we believed, and still believe, that it is important journalism concerning issues that clearly are of global concern and should be part of the public debate. And as journalists, we at DeepCapture are quite proud of having been so far ahead of the curve, and so shockingly far ahead of the US mainstream media, which (we contend) are (with rare exception) such lapdogs to corporate America, and especially to the financial system, that they would never have been able to put this story together even if all the relevant evidence was shoved up its nose (which it was). Deep Capture believes that it is not incidental that only the British journal The Economist has been able to cover this issue, with such recent stories as:
America’s dodgy financial plumbing: TOO A FAIL COUNT –The sheer number of unsettled trades is rattling regulators
Financialterrorism: THE WAR ON TERABYTES – Policymakers worry about attacks on America’s financial system
NAKED SHORT – SELLING: A not-so-short story
In September 2011 Altaf Nazerali, who, while not a central character in the story, is mentioned numerous times, contacted us raising concerns that certain statements regarding him were inaccurate. Mark looked back at his reporting and, in cases where he believed it was warranted, modified the story: While we believe that facts should be reported, we are never above taking another look at the story to make sure that we are as fair as possible. Good journalism stirs good debate. And we are responsible journalists.
Mark sought further contact with Nazerali in early September but heard nothing further.
Then without any warning to Deep Capture, Nazerali attempted to silence Deep Capture.
On October 18, 2011, without notice to Deep Capture, Mark, or Deep Capture’s internet hosts, Nazerali filed a lawsuit in Vancouver, Canada and appeared the same day before a judge seeking an injunction taking Deep Capture off the internet and seizing its domain name. Only Nazerali and his lawyer were in the courtroom when he asked for this injunction so the judge only heard one side of the story. Nazerali got his injunction.
Ali Nazerali delayed serving formal notice of this injunction on Deep Capture and its reporters. The first mailed service was made about 10 days after the injunction was made. The actual personal service did not occur for several weeks. Nazerali did not comply with Canadian law and promptly serve Deep Capture with copies of all of the affidavits and legal submissions he put before the judge on October 19, 2011 at his one-sided injunction application. That only came to our attention in late November. All of this had the effect of delaying Deep Capture’s ability to seek relief from the court.
However, Nazerali’s lawyers immediately sent notice of the Canadian court’s injunction against Deep Capture to Google, Bing, GoDaddy, and other internet companies demanding that they comply with it, and black out the DeepCapture site.
Amazingly (to me), these US companies complied, and blacked out Deep Capture. GoDaddy took down the site. Google and Bing both erased all of DeepCapture from the caches. In the most literal sense, we disappeared down Orwell’s Memory Hole.
On December 13, 2011 Deep Capture and Mark were able to appear before the British Columbia court . We presented our case through affidavits showing the basis for our reporting. We presented the judge with the governing Canadian law which places severe restrictions on pre-trial injunctions, limiting them to rare and special circumstances which do not apply to Deep Capture.
Ruling from the bench (i.e., immediately), the judge denied Mr. Nazerali’s request that the injunction be extended beyond December 13, 2011.
In addition, the judge expressly ruled that Ali Nazerali’s lawyers had misled the judge who heard Nazerali’s earlier argument on October 19, 2011.
At that point Deep Capture was free to return to the internet.
However, Ali Nazerali was not done. He had his lawyer send an e-mail to Rackspace citing to the original October 19, 2011 injunction order and asking that Rackspace refuse to host Deep Capture. He neglected to tell Rackspace that the British Columbia court had already refused to extend the injunction and that it had ceased to have any force. And he certainly did not tell Rackspace that the British Columbia court had criticized Nazerali’s submissions to the original judge on October 19, 2011, finding that Nazerali’s lawyer had misled the court.
Ali Nazerali wants to keep Deep Capture and its reporting away from the public. But why would Mr. Nazerali sue Deep Capture, a Utah company, in Canada? We can only speculate. As Gary Weiss (himself a shill for criminal elements, as has been widely documented within DeepCapture) noted in his blog almost immediately after the original injunction was issued, Canadian law provides far less protection for free speech than is guaranteed by the United States Constitution. In fact, Canadian defamation law differs in so many key respects from United States law that at least one federal court has held that Canadian defamation judgments are unenforceable against United States citizens.
In fact, one key difference is what is meant by “defamatory.” It is true that the Canadian court noted that Deep Capture’s reporting regarding Mr. Nazerali was “defamatory.” But, importantly, this does not mean that it was not true or that it was not fair reporting. It does not mean that such statements may not be published. And it does not mean that Mr. Nazerali is entitled to any damages. Rather, it simply means that the statements regarding Mr. Nazerali tended to harm his reputation.
“Carole took the cookies from the cookie jar” is defamatory under the law of British Columbia. Stating that Carole took the cookies tends to harm her reputation even if she did, in fact, take the cookies. Here Mr. Nazerali has been involved with certain individuals and cultivated certain relationships that may harm his reputation as such connections become known. But this does not mean that such relationships cannot, and should not, be fairly and freely reported.
Importantly, no court has held that Deep Capture’s reporting as to Mr. Nazerali was “actionably defamatory.” After the Canadian Court was given the chance to read Mark’s affidavit explaining the basis for his reporting, it denied Mr. Nazerali’s request for an extension of the injunction keeping Deep Capture away from the public on the basis that the claims and defenses should be heard and determined by a jury at a trial.
Most hilariously, I had an idea that seems to have worked. For years a Cone of Silence had surrounded Deep Capture: once the supine and obedient mainstream press could no longer speak for me, but had to confront me, in my own words, on this website, they revealed themselves for what they were: barroom bullies who, once called out, stick their faces back in their beers and pretend not to have heard. But during the time that DeepCapture was blacked out, the Cone of Silence surrounding Deep Capture finally lifted: parties that once made great circumlocutions to avoid mentioning us (lest they let readers evaluate the arguments and evidence for themselves) suddenly are pounding their chests. So I decided to let DeepCapture stay down for a few weeks, to give them a chance to strut about it: I am utterly confident that, now that Deep Capture is back online, they will return to muttering into their beers, as has been their practice lo these many years.
Deep Capture has been unavailable for a couple months. Now that we are back on-line you deserve to know what happened, especially since the facts should cause concern in everybody that appreciates the role a free press and free speech play in a free nation (and the offending story will be republished, in full, and with a great deal of new information that Nazerali’s legal jousting caused to come our way: thank you, Ali Nazerali).
The US mainstream media are apparently unconcerned by a foreign court’s injunction to black out a US website, and think unremarkable the alacrity with which Google, Bing, and GoDaddy would accede to such an order. Thus, Deep Capture was forced to tell the rest of this story (which, we maintain, is but a microcosm of the whole story of capture) in order to pursue our investigative reporting within our constitutional rights of free expression of speech and press.
After all, we are the red pill.
From “the corner of Wall and Broad with pitchforks and nooses”: My April, 2006 letter to the Wall Street Journal
Posted: 25 Sep 2011 09:50 PM PDT
Here’s the Naked Truth About Overstock.com
Gandhi said, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you. Then you win.” Holman Jenkins Jr.’s April 12 Business World column “Do Nudists Run Wall Street?” moves us to stage No. 3: It contains the normal amount of distortion I have come to expect from financial media, but as it also makes the first attempt to confront the right issue, it is a step forward. Bravo.
Mr. Jenkins claims that I “propound a theory” that Overstock’s “shares are grossly undervalued.” This is wrong: I have never lamented Overstock’s valuation nor connected it to the naked shorting issue. The “elaborate Webcasts . . . found at businessjive.com” cited by Mr. Jenkins never once mention Overstock. He provides no other citations, which is appropriate, as there are none. Last, the quote he attributes to me, “If I’m crazy, why am I running a public company?” is something I never said. I challenge Mr. Jenkins to produce this or any similar quote.
However, Mr. Jenkins correctly depicts me as a jihadi against naked shorting. I do believe blackguards have practiced “failure to deliver” (FTD) for profit, while incidentally destroying businesses and (probably) destabilizing our capital markets. I also think that if this nation ever grasps how its savings have been looted through this mechanism, a few million Americans are going to show up at the corner of Wall and Broad with pitchforks and nooses. Thus, financial journalists spin countless, “Just another CEO who’s mad at shorting” stories, of which Mr. Jenkins’s piece is an example.
Patrick M. Byrne
President
Overstock.com
Salt Lake City
A Respectful Invitation to All Hoodlums, Cutpurses, Thugs and Assorted Miscreants Named Herein
Posted: 16 Sep 2011 10:07 AM PDT
Mark Mitchell’s writings seem to be striking a nerve, at last. After months of no response but silence, in the last few weeks DeepCapture has suddenly been receiving all manner of Nasty-Grams and intimidating phone calls from various people and organizations mentioned in Mark’s work. The similarity of the threats would almost make one think there was a plan. In any case, I will lay out four ground rules here.
1) DeepCapture remains committed to the highest journalist standards. Any error in our work should be pointed out immediately, and we will rectify it .
2) DeepCapture is better than mainstream media, whose intellectual self-confidence, rigor, and integrity I described in my 2008 piece, “Carol Remond Tells a Joke She Doesn’t Get (DowJones)”:
“Before publishing the following critique of Carol Remond’s recent article on Copper River, I contacted Carol for comment. Unlike Joe Nocera and Floyd Norris (both of the New York Times), who have at least had the integrity to defend their work, however haplessly, Carol refused any on-the-record comment on this subject. Thus she joins that tradition of journalistic worthies which includes Bethany McLean, Herb Greenberg, and Roddy Boyd, who refuse to defend their work. They can critique, but not engage, opine, but not defend: the sophomores of intellectual discourse.“
Because DeepCapture is better, we are happy to engage, and self-confident enough in our work that we practice “right of response” journalism: We will publish, unedited, any response (of any reasonable length) by miscreants named in our stories. If Specially Designated Global Terrorists have spokesmen, we’ll publish them.
3) All goombas should understand that the day anything untoward occurs is the day that The Collected Works of Mark Mitchell 2008-2011 appears in the in-boxes of 41.7 million people.
4) Finally, Mark has been acting entirely at my direction. So all nastiness should be directed at me, not him.
Very respectfully,
Patrick Byrne
Editor-in-Chief
DeepCapture.com
Memo to Barry Minkow and Sam Antar: Roll Early, Roll Often
Posted: 24 Mar 2011 03:52 PM PDT
An email Sam Antar sent on May, 2010 puked out of my junk email folder today. Note that besides addressing it to me, the board of directors of Overstock, Overstock’s president Jonathan Johnson, and our colleague Kevin Moon (who counts IR among his many duties), Sam addressed it to various staff members of the SEC (messieurs Israel, Korb, Simpson, Fitzsimons, and Carnall).
Note that Sam also sent it to a number of financial writers with whom Sam is on good terms, and whose names will be known to regular readers of DeepCapture: Joe Nocera and Floyd Norris (both of New York Times), Roddy Boyd, and Gary Weiss, all of whom had an awful lot to say about me until I confronted them in the pages of this website, at which time they reverted to mumbling into their beers rather than engage DeepCapture in debate. Which is, I think, a good indication of how confident they truly were of their own research, argument, and prose: they talked big in the locker-room and at the weigh-in, but pissed themselves stepping onto the mat.
Being the nice guy I am, I answered Sam, albeit belatedly.
Sam’s email to me, and my reply, are below.
=========================================================================
From: Sam E. Antar [mailto:sam@whitecollarfraud.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 8:14 AM
To: Patrick Byrne; Board – Jonathan Johnson; Kevin Moon; Joseph Tabacco
Cc: ‘Israel, Kenneth D.’; ‘Korb, Norman J.’; ‘Caleb Newquist’; ‘Gary Weiss’; ‘Joe Nocera’; norris@nytimes.com; ‘Aaron Elstein’; ‘William K. Wolfrum’; ‘Felix Salmon’; ‘roddy boyd’; ‘Simpson, Richard’; ‘Fitzsimons, Brian’; ‘Carnall, Wayne’; ‘Corpfin-ENFLiaison’
Subject: Overstock.com Q2 2010 Conference Call
Importance: High
Dear Patrick Byrne and other persons from Overstock.com:
Overstock.com’s Q2 2010 conference call is scheduled for today at 3 PM ET. I will be calling in. I expect to be permitted to participate in said call and ask relevant questions about Overstock.com. As I recall, in 2005 you allowed a lay person named Phil Saunders AKA Easter Bunny to participate in the call.
Sam E. Antar
Web site: www.whitecollarfraud.com
Blog: www.whitecollarfraud.blogspot.com
=========================================================================
From: Patrick Byrne
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 2:59 PM
To: ‘Sam E. Antar’; Board – Jonathan Johnson; Kevin Moon; Joseph Tabacco
Cc: ‘Israel, Kenneth D.’; ‘Korb, Norman J.’; ‘Caleb Newquist’; ‘Gary Weiss’; ‘Joe Nocera’; norris@nytimes.com; ‘Aaron Elstein’; ‘William K. Wolfrum’; ‘Felix Salmon’; ‘roddy boyd’; ‘Simpson, Richard’; ‘Fitzsimons, Brian’; ‘Carnall, Wayne’; ‘Corpfin-ENFLiaison’
Subject: RE: Overstock.com Q2 2010 Conference Call
Dear Sam,
By odd coincidence, your email from last May popped out of our junk email filters today. I say “coincidence” because you have been on my mind of late, given the sudden return to prominence of your esteemed friend Barry Minkow, another felon who “reformed” himself and became, like you, the recipient of various “It takes one to know one” puff-pieces from the financial media. However, according to today’s WSJ,
“Barry Minkow Charged in Fraud Against Lennar: Federal prosecutors charged former fraud investigator Barry Minkow with conspiracy to commit securities fraud by allegedly disseminating false information in 2009 about home builder Lennar Corp., according to court documents filed Thursday in Miami federal court. The complaint charges that Mr. Minkow, along with a person identified as Conspirator A and others, conspired to ‘artificially manipulate and depress Lennar’s stock’ …. The charge against Mr. Minkow comes with a maximum prison term of five years. …. The criminal complaint also says that Mr. Minkow abused his relationship with federal law-enforcement officials and induced them to open up an investigation into Lennar…”
Shocked, am I. Shocked, I say. It turns out that Barry’s “reformation” was just another scam, and he actually remained a criminal all along? And his “It takes one to know one” shtick was just a cover he used for smear campaigns to move stock prices? And the financial media did not do their homework before writing their lotion-job profiles of him? And he gulled federal officials into going along for the ride?……….. No, that couldn’t possibly be. That’s just far too whacky a story.
So that is why unearthing your email today is so serendipitous, Sam. I’ve been thinking of writing you to ask your opinion on this matter. Could a man [] be a convicted felon, reposition himself as contrite and repentant, claim to the public to be using his skills as a swindler to ferret out crime, get the press and the federal government to buy into it, then conduct smear campaigns simply in order to manipulate stocks on someone else’s behalf? In your unique view, how plausible is that scenario, Sam? You seem like just the guy to ask, especially since DeepCapture’s technological forensics establish such good fellowship between Barry and you (and for that matter, Gary Weiss, whose email I note you included above).
While you’re at it, is there any chance you can explain why Barry Minkow gave sworn testimony that you wired him $100,000 “out of nowhere,” and then, wired him another $150,00 (see Minkow transcript, 10:39 to 10:46)? Especially as you are a bankrupt and hold yourself out as virtually penniless, this seems a little odd: Do you often wire people $250,000 for purposes they cannot define?
In December the Florida judge found that Barry actually did not do any research, but just smeared. Yet Barry also gave testimony that Whitney Tilson paid $40,000 to Barry. It seems odd that someone like Whitney would rely on research from Barry, especially as (per the judge) Barry’s research is phony. Any idea what that payment was for? Whitney Tilson has become oddly unresponsive to my emails.
Remember, Sam: Roll early, roll often. Oh, but you know that already.
With hopes of big things in your future, I remain,
Your friend,
Patrick M. Byrne
Journalist, DeepCapture.com
PS You may have been busy last week, Sam, and missed my two essays on these matters. Enjoy.
March 17: Today’s “If Only There Were a Pattern” Moment: Sam Antar Crony Barry Minkow Still a Crook. Who Knew?
March 17: The Honorable Gill Freeman Throws Book at Barry Minkow, Nicks Paymaster Sam Antar. Plus, A Question for Whitney Tilson, Minkow Paymaster #2
Today a May, 2010 email from Sam Antar puked out of my junk email folder. Note that, besides addressing it to me, the board of directors of Overstock, Overstock’s president Jonathan Johnson, and our colleague Kevin Moon (who counts IR among his many duties), Sam addressed it to various staff members of the SEC (messieurs Israel, Korb, Simpson, Fitzsimons, and Carnall).
Sam also sent it to a number of financial writers with whom Sam is on good terms, and whose names will be known to regular readers of DeepCapture: Joe Nocera and Floyd Norris (both of New York Times), William Wolfrum, Roddy Boyd, and Gary Weiss, all of whom had an awful lot to say about me, until I confronted them in the pages of this website, at which time they reverted to mumbling into their beers rather than continue (and thereby have to mention DeepCapture). Which is, I think, a good indication of how confident they truly are of their research, argument, and prose in the face of DeepCapture’s.
Being the nice guy I am, I answered Sam, albeit belatedly.
From: Sam E. Antar [mailto:sam@whitecollarfraud.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 8:14 AM
To: Patrick Byrne; Board – Jonathan Johnson; Kevin Moon; Joseph Tabacco
Cc: ‘Israel, Kenneth D.’; ‘Korb, Norman J.’; ‘Caleb Newquist’; ‘Gary Weiss’; ‘Joe Nocera’; norris@nytimes.com; ‘Aaron Elstein’; ‘William K. Wolfrum’; ‘Felix Salmon’; ‘roddy boyd’; ‘Simpson, Richard’; ‘Fitzsimons, Brian’; ‘Carnall, Wayne’; ‘Corpfin-ENFLiaison’
Subject: Overstock.com Q2 2010 Conference Call
Importance: High
Dear Patrick Byrne and other persons from Overstock.com:
Overstock.com’s Q2 2010 conference call is scheduled for today at 3 PM ET. I will be calling in. I expect to be permitted to participate in said call and ask relevant questions about Overstock.com. As I recall, in 2005 you allowed a lay person named Phil Saunders AKA Easter Bunny to participate in the call.
Sam E. Antar
Web site: www.whitecollarfraud.com
Blog: www.whitecollarfraud.blogspot.com
From: Patrick Byrne
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 2:59 PM
To: ‘Sam E. Antar’; Board – Jonathan Johnson; Kevin Moon; Joseph Tabacco
Cc: ‘Israel, Kenneth D.’; ‘Korb, Norman J.’; ‘Caleb Newquist’; ‘Gary Weiss’; ‘Joe Nocera’; norris@nytimes.com; ‘Aaron Elstein’; ‘William K. Wolfrum’; ‘Felix Salmon’; ‘roddy boyd’; ‘Simpson, Richard’; ‘Fitzsimons, Brian’; ‘Carnall, Wayne’; ‘Corpfin-ENFLiaison’
Subject: RE: Overstock.com Q2 2010 Conference Call
Dear Sam,
By odd coincidence, your email from last May popped out of our junk email filters today. I say “coincidence” because you have been on my mind of late, given the sudden return to prominence of your esteemed friend Barry Minkow, another felon who “reformed” himself and became, like you, the recipient of various “It takes one to know one” puff-pieces from the financial media. However, according to today’s WSJ,
“Barry Minkow Charged in Fraud Against Lennar: Federal prosecutors charged former fraud investigator Barry Minkow with conspiracy to commit securities fraud by allegedly disseminating false information in 2009 about home builder Lennar Corp., according to court documents filed Thursday in Miami federal court. The complaint charges that Mr. Minkow, along with a person identified as Conspirator A and others, conspired to ‘artificially manipulate and depress Lennar’s stock’ …. The charge against Mr. Minkow comes with a maximum prison term of five years. …. The criminal complaint also says that Mr. Minkow abused his relationship with federal law-enforcement officials and induced them to open up an investigation into Lennar…”
Shocked, am I. Shocked, I say. It turns out that Barry’s “reformation” was just another scam, and he actually remained a criminal all along? And his “It takes one to know one” shtick was just a cover he used for smear campaigns to move stock prices? And the financial media did not do their homework before writing their lotion-job profiles of him? And he gulled federal officials into going along for the ride?……….. No, that couldn’t possibly be. That’s just far too whacky a story.
So that is why unearthing your email today is so serendipitous, Sam. I’ve been thinking of writing you to ask your opinion on this matter. Could a man could be a convicted felon, reposition himself as contrite and repentant, claim to the public to be using his skills as a swindler to ferret out crime, get the press and the federal government to buy into it, then conduct smear campaigns simply in order to manipulate stocks on someone else’s behalf? In your unique view, how plausible is that scenario, Sam? You seem like just the guy to ask, especially since DeepCapture’s technological forensics establish such good fellowship between Barry and you (and for that matter, Gary Weiss, whose email I note you included above).
While you’re at it, is there any chance you can explain why Barry Minkow gave sworn testimony that you wired him $100,000 “out of nowhere,” and then, wired him another $150,00 (see Minkow transcript, 10:39 to 10:46)? Especially as you are a bankrupt and hold yourself out as virtually penniless, this seems a little odd: Do you often wire people $250,000 for purposes they cannot define?
In December the Florida judge found that Barry actually did not do any research, but just smeared. Yet Barry also gave testimony that Whitney Tilson paid $40,000 to Barry. It seems odd that someone like Whitney would rely on res
Today a May, 2010 email from Sam Antar puked out of my junk email folder. Note that, besides addressing it to me, the board of directors of Overstock, Overstock’s president Jonathan Johnson, and our colleague Kevin Moon (who counts IR among his many duties), Sam addressed it to various staff members of the SEC (messieurs Israel, Korb, Simpson, Fitzsimons, and Carnall).
Sam also sent it to a number of financial writers with whom Sam is on good terms, and whose names will be known to regular readers of DeepCapture: Joe Nocera and Floyd Norris (both of New York Times), William Wolfrum, Roddy Boyd, and Gary Weiss, all of whom had an awful lot to say about me, until I confronted them in the pages of this website, at which time they reverted to mumbling into their beers rather than continue (and thereby have to mention DeepCapture). Which is, I think, a good indication of how confident they truly are of their research, argument, and prose in the face of DeepCapture’s.
Being the nice guy I am, I answered Sam Antar today, albeit belatedly. Below I reproduce Sam’s email to me, and my reply.
From: Sam E. Antar [mailto:sam@whitecollarfraud.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 8:14 AM
To: Patrick Byrne; Board – Jonathan Johnson; Kevin Moon; Joseph Tabacco
Cc: ‘Israel, Kenneth D.’; ‘Korb, Norman J.’; ‘Caleb Newquist’; ‘Gary Weiss’; ‘Joe Nocera’; norris@nytimes.com; ‘Aaron Elstein’; ‘William K. Wolfrum’; ‘Felix Salmon’; ‘roddy boyd’; ‘Simpson, Richard’; ‘Fitzsimons, Brian’; ‘Carnall, Wayne’; ‘Corpfin-ENFLiaison’
Subject: Overstock.com Q2 2010 Conference Call
Importance: High
Dear Patrick Byrne and other persons from Overstock.com:
Overstock.com’s Q2 2010 conference call is scheduled for today at 3 PM ET. I will be calling in. I expect to be permitted to participate in said call and ask relevant questions about Overstock.com. As I recall, in 2005 you allowed a lay person named Phil Saunders AKA Easter Bunny to participate in the call.
Sam E. Antar
Web site: www.whitecollarfraud.com
Blog: www.whitecollarfraud.blogspot.com
From: Patrick Byrne
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 2:59 PM
To: ‘Sam E. Antar’; Board – Jonathan Johnson; Kevin Moon; Joseph Tabacco
Cc: ‘Israel, Kenneth D.’; ‘Korb, Norman J.’; ‘Caleb Newquist’; ‘Gary Weiss’; ‘Joe Nocera’; norris@nytimes.com; ‘Aaron Elstein’; ‘William K. Wolfrum’; ‘Felix Salmon’; ‘roddy boyd’; ‘Simpson, Richard’; ‘Fitzsimons, Brian’; ‘Carnall, Wayne’; ‘Corpfin-ENFLiaison’
Subject: RE: Overstock.com Q2 2010 Conference Call
Dear Sam,
By odd coincidence, your email from last May popped out of our junk email filters today. I say “coincidence” because you have been on my mind of late, given the sudden return to prominence of your esteemed friend Barry Minkow, another felon who “reformed” himself and became, like you, the recipient of various “It takes one to know one” puff-pieces from the financial media. However, according to today’s WSJ,
“Barry Minkow Charged in Fraud Against Lennar: Federal prosecutors charged former fraud investigator Barry Minkow with conspiracy to commit securities fraud by allegedly disseminating false information in 2009 about home builder Lennar Corp., according to court documents filed Thursday in Miami federal court. The complaint charges that Mr. Minkow, along with a person identified as Conspirator A and others, conspired to ‘artificially manipulate and depress Lennar’s stock’ …. The charge against Mr. Minkow comes with a maximum prison term of five years. …. The criminal complaint also says that Mr. Minkow abused his relationship with federal law-enforcement officials and induced them to open up an investigation into Lennar…”
Shocked, am I. Shocked, I say. It turns out that Barry’s “reformation” was just another scam, and he actually remained a criminal all along? And his “It takes one to know one” shtick was just a cover he used for smear campaigns to move stock prices? And the financial media did not do their homework before writing their lotion-job profiles of him? And he gulled federal officials into going along for the ride?……….. No, that couldn’t possibly be. That’s just far too whacky a story.
So that is why unearthing your email today is so serendipitous, Sam. I’ve been thinking of writing you to ask your opinion on this matter. Could a man could be a convicted felon, reposition himself as contrite and repentant, claim to the public to be using his skills as a swindler to ferret out crime, get the press and the federal government to buy into it, then conduct smear campaigns simply in order to manipulate stocks on someone else’s behalf? In your unique view, how plausible is that scenario, Sam? You seem like just the guy to ask, especially since DeepCapture’s technological forensics establish such good fellowship between Barry and you (and for that matter, Gary Weiss, whose email I note you included above).
While you’re at it, is there any chance you can explain why Barry Minkow gave sworn testimony that you wired him $100,000 “out of nowhere,” and then, wired him another $150,00 (see Minkow transcript, 10:39 to 10:46)? Especially as you are a bankrupt and hold yourself out as virtually penniless, this seems a little odd: Do you often wire people $250,000 for purposes they cannot define?
In December the Florida judge found that Barry actually did not do any research, but just smeared. Yet Barry also gave testimony that Whitney Tilson paid $40,000 to Barry. It seems odd that someone like Whitney would rely on research from Barry, especially as (per the judge) Barry’s research is phony. Any idea what that payment was for? Whitney Tilson has become oddly unresponsive to my emails.
Remember, Sam: Roll early, roll often. Oh, but you know that already.
With hopes of big things in your future, I remain,
Your friend,
Patrick M. Byrne
Journalist, DeepCapture.com
PS You may have been busy last week, Sam, and missed my two essays on these matters. Enjoy.
March 17: Today’s “If Only There Were a Pattern” Moment: Sam Antar Crony Barry Minkow Still a Crook. Who Knew?
March 17: The Honorable Gill Freeman Throws Book at Barry Minkow, Nicks Paymaster Sam Antar. Plus, A Question for Whitney Tilson, Minkow Paymaster #2
earch from Barry, especially as (per the judge) Barry’s research is phony. Any idea what that payment was for? Whitney Tilson has become oddly unresponsive to my emails.
Remember, Sam: Roll early, roll often. Oh, but you know that already.
With hopes of big things in your future, I remain,
Your friend,
Patrick M. Byrne
Journalist, DeepCapture.com
PS You may have been busy last week, Sam, and missed my two essays on these matters. Enjoy.
March 17: Today’s “If Only There Were a Pattern” Moment: Sam Antar Crony Barry Minkow Still a Crook. Who Knew?
March 17: The Honorable Gill Freeman Throws Book at Barry Minkow, Nicks Paymaster Sam Antar. Plus, A Question for Whitney Tilson, Minkow Paymaster #2
This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now
The Honorable Gill Freeman Throws Book at Barry Minkow, Nicks Paymaster Sam Antar. Plus, A Question for Whitney Tilson, Minkow Paymaster #2
Posted: 17 Mar 2011 09:12 PM PDT
Barry Minkow spent last week in plea negotiations regarding a federal indictment on which he is hoping to receive only 5 years, says his lawyer. (LA Weekly: Barry Minkow to plead guilty to insider trading). In December, 2010, a Florida judge threw her proverbial book at Barry Minkow, and it glanced off Sam Antar, who had been paid Barry’s paymaster to the tune of $250,000, Barry had testified. In addition, the judge found as a matter of fact that Sam Antar destroyed documents necessary for her trial. Minkow also gave sown testimony that well-known New York hedge fund manager Whitney Tilson paid him $40,000: more on this below.
Sam Antar, generally not short of opinion, has suddenly developed laryngitis.
Barry Minkow and Sam Antar are two of the most remarkable swindlers in recent American history, each guilty of frauds measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Two decades ago their names gave off the same foul stench that Bernie Madoff’s does today. So Deep Capture invites Whitney Tilson to explain why he would join legendarily convicted financial criminal Sam Antar in making payments to also-legendarily convicted financial criminal Barry Minkow, who now is pleading guilty to his 58th financial felony. (You know how to reach me, Whitney. DeepCapture will give you 250 words, with no editing. But we may provide commentary. )
What is more to the point of DeepCapture, however, is that until this latest turn of events, Barry Minkow and Sam Antar had, notwithstanding their prior convictions on massive financial crimes, successfully repositioned themselves within the US financial media as experts in crime-fighting (see 60 Minutes‘ 2006 puff-piece on Barry Minkow, “It Takes One to Know One“, and Fortune Magazine’s 2007 lotion-job on Sam Antar, “Takes One to Know One“). Barry and Sam used the imprimatur of the mainstream press to return to criminal behavior (which Barry has now acknowledged). The ease with and degree to which the New York financial media swallowed this remarkable bullshit will attest for a generation to the intellectual corruption and broad imbecility of broad swathes of the US financial media.
No, seriously. That really happened. Two convicted financial felons, the Madoff’s of their generation, made comebacks by gulling the financial press into writing lotion-job stories saying that they were now reformed and devoted to stopping crimes, not committing them. Here is UPI on Barry Minkow: “Barry Minkow: Cleaning up, reaching out.” Here is, again, Fortune Magazine from late 2007: “Takes one to know one -Sam Antar, the felonious former CFO of Crazy Eddie, is now teaching students and prosecutors how to spot fraud in public companies.” And then, it turns out, both used their new-found status as authorities to whom the press turned in order to resume their criminal activity, which again, as of yesterday, leaves Barry hoping for only a five year sentence, and his paymaster Sam Antar with laryngitis.
In the spirit of reconciliation and forgiveness, however, I will offer the US financial media one concession: your gullibility is understandable. In high school I had a history professor who brought an actual American Nazi to class, and let us argue with him. For many of my classmates debating the Nazi was like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall. I discovered that only if one can grasp the concept of “complete venality” can one defeat a scoundrel. Many people, however, are intellectually helpless against such people, because deep down they cannot grok the possibility that anyone can spin and lie and spin and lie and spin and lie and spin some more, then lie and lie on top of it.
I believe that the preceding accurately describes the mentality of some US journalists who gave these knuckleheads more credit than they should have. For others, however, giving credence to Sam Antar or Barry Minkow was simply an expression of an ideological commitment: those publications favor Wall Street over the United States, and they were willing to give credence to Barry and Sam’s work in order to further the agenda of Wall Street, which is more or less the purpose of their publications.
I know that is a lot to accept. So don’t trust me, trust a Florida state court judge, The Honorable Gill Freeman, who brought her hammer down on Barry Minkow. Judge Freeman’s entire opinion can be read here: Order Granting Lennar’s Motion for Sanctions–Dec 27 2010 (warning: It is so scathing one almost feels sorry for them. Or, well… maybe not.)
I cannot help resist quoting at length from it: as you read Judge Freeman’s words, please remember my description of the American Nazi.
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions and for entry of default and other relief against Defendants Barry Minkow and the Fraud Discovery Institute, Inc. for their willful and egregious litigation misconduct. The parties filed extensive papers in support and in opposition of the motion, and the Court held a two-day evidentiary hearing on August 26 and 27, 2010 at which time Mr. Minkow was examined by Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ counsel, as well as the Court.
Having carefully considered all the papers, the evidence filed by both parties, evidence introduced at the hearing, including Mr. Minkow’s testimony, and arguments of counsel, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs’ Motion be, and the same is hereby, GRANTED as set forth below, based on the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
With full knowledge of the rules and his obligations as a litigant in this Court, Mr. Minkow has withheld key documents, destroyed or discarded important evidence, concealed the identity of material witnesses, willfully violated court orders, and engaged in actions to cloud his misconduct. Minkow repeatedly intentionally misrepresented these matters to his own lawyers, in sworn affidavits filed with this Court, at depositions in this case, and at the evidentiary hearing itself, including in response to questions from this Court. Mr. Minkow was repeatedly impeached by his own documents, documents he never produced in this case as to material issues. The evidence clearly and convincingly established that Minkow has acted knowingly, unilaterally, and improperly in deciding what evidence is relevant and what information Lennar, the Court, and his lawyers should and should not know.
Minkow’s misconduct has been pervasive, intentional, and committed to gain unfair advantage over Plaintiffs and to deceive this Court. Lennar and its counsel spent numerous hours investigating Minkow’s activities in this litigation, and evidence which Plaintiffs have repeatedly requested has been discarded and/or irretrievably lost.
Plaintiffs’ right to fair process and trial has been severely and irrevocably compromised. No remedy short of default, together with full reimbursement of the attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection with Plaintiffs’ extensive and continuous efforts to obtain evidence and discovery, can restore Plaintiffs to “the position [it] would have occupied in the absence of [Minkow's] willfulness and bad faith.”
…
In its papers and at the evidentiary hearing, Lennar introduced substantial evidence that Minkow created and tendered false documents in this case.
…
Fact No.7: In this case, Minkow has been represented by three experienced, capable attorneys: Alvin Entin and Joshua Entin of Florida, and Michelle Baker of California. The Court finds that Minkow misled his attorneys multiple times on material issues.
…
Fact No.9: Minkow testified he could not recall whether he sent the letter to any person with whom he worked on the Lemlar investigation, including Tracy Coenen, Terry Gilbeau, Paul Palladino, Jeff Sachs, Sam Antar, or Shannon Boelter, or otherwise instruct any person to preserve documents in connection with this litigation. [emphasis added]
…
Fact No. 11: The evidence also showed that Tracy Coenen, Terry Gilbeau and Sam Antar deleted emails about Lennar they had exchanged with Minkow…
…
Fact No. 21: On October 7, 2009 Minkow submitted an affidavit swearing that he had produced all documents in his possession, custody, and control responsive to Lennar’s document demands and this Court’s June 15 and July 9, 2009 Orders. (Ex. 10 at”if”if 5-7; Ex. 8; Ex. 16; Ex. 20.)
Fact No. 22: These sworn statements in Minkow’s October 7, 2009 affidavit were false. At the time he represented that he had made a complete production, Minkow had possession, custody, or control of numerous documents responsive to Lennar’s document demands and this Court’s June 15 and July 9, 2009 Orders, including but not limited to, the following documents material to this case:
• a version of the November 30, 2008 engagement agreement between Minkow and Nicolas Marsch containing a six-page, 11-point “confidential proposal” (Ex. 202); .
• another version of the November 30, 2008 engagement agreement between Minkow and Nicolas Marsch containing materially different compensation terms (Ex. 200);
• numerous emails with Mr .. Marsch, Paul Palladino, Tracy Coenen, Sam Antar,Terry Gilbeau, Shannon Boelter, and other individuals involved in the Lennar investigation;
Fact No. 23: Minkow knew he had possession, custody, or control of these and other documents, but made the decision to withhold them.
…
Fact No. 25: At the August 26,2010 hearing, Minkow admitted that he withheld these documents and others but said it was “negligent” because, at the time he represented he had produced all responsive documents, Minkow was working “18 hours a day” filming a movie about his life and he was “swamped and overwhelmed.” The Court does not find this testimony credible and rejects this excuse.
Fact No. 26: On several subsequent occasions, when he was not filming a movie including as recently as August 11, 2010, Minkow continued to withhold documents and falsely represent that he had produced all documents in his possession, custody, or control responsive to Lennar’s document demands and this Court’s June 15 and July 9, 2009 Orders.
Fact No. 27: On each occasion, Minkow knew he had possession, custody, or control of such documents responsive to the Court’s Orders, but he–alone-made
the decision to withhold them.
Fact No. 28: Minkow’s year-long withholding of documents was not inadvertent, accidental, or negligent.
Fact No. 29: Minkow withheld documents he perceived to be harmful to his case. Among other things, the concealed documents demonstrate:
• that Minkow’s investigators questioned the accuracy of statements of fact he included in his report on Lennar;
• the perfunctory nature of Minkow research and investigation before he accused Lennar and its executives of operating like a ponzi scheme, giving its COO a disguised kickback, being a financial crime in progress, and other statements; and
• Minkow’s use of possibly illegal means to obtain personal, confidential information about Lennar, its executives, and others.
Fact No. 30: By withholding these documents, Minkow wilfully violated the Court’s June 15,2009 Order and the Court’s July 9, 2009 Order.
…
Fact No. 31: Minkow introduce~ no credible evidence to substantiate his assertion that he was unable to produce documents because his Hewlett Packard computer was stolen, crashed, and/or was hacked.
Fact No. 32: The evidence showed that in February 2010, Minkow was named as a defendant in another matter by a company called Medifast, Inc. … Lennar is not a party to that case.
Fact No. 33: In April and May 20 I 0, Medifast had· served Minkow with requests for documents in their case. On July 1, August 10,16, and 23,2010, Minkow produced more than 4,000 pages of documents to Medifast, including scores of emails. Among the documents produced to Medifast were documents that should have been, but were not, produced in this case despite this Court’s June 15 and July 9,2009 Orders.
Fact No. 34: When confronted at the evidentiary hearing with a document from the Medifast production, but not produced here, one that was responsive to Lennar’s document requests-Minkow testified, “I never even thought this had anything to do with it… What in the world would make me think I had to tum it over to Lennar?”
Fact No. 35: This testimony is not credible and, even if it were, demonstrates Minkow’s contemptuous disregard for the rules of litigation and his belief that he–not the Court-determines what is relevant.
Fact No. 36: The documents Minkow produced to Medifast-but not in this case-refute Minkow’s testimony that he was unable to produce emails in this case because his computer had been stolen, crashed, and/or hacked.
Fact No. 37: Lennar has incurred great expense to procure some evidence from third parties, and it is highly probable considerably more evidence that Minkow should have produced has been withheld, deemed irrelevant by Minkow himself, concealed and/or destroyed. Due to Minkow’s misconduct, neither Lennar nor the Court has any way of knowing the nature, extent, or volume of evidence that should have been produced but has been concealed and destroyed.
…
Fact No. 40: Minkow had represented that the Hewlett Packard computer on which he performed the vast majority of work related to his investigation of Lennar (and on which he had exchanged untold numbers of emails with Tracy Coenen, Terry Gilbeau, Paul Palladino, Jeff Sachs, Sam Antar, Shannon Boelter and others) had earlier been hacked, and likely was destroyed and/or discarded; after Minkow was added as a defendant in this case, after being served with a preservation letter, after being served with a Notice of Deposition Duces Tecum requiring the production of documents, and after Plaintiff had filed its first sanctions motion.
Fact No. 41: Minkow has not introduced any credible evidence that all information from the Hewlett Packard was copied, duplicated, stored, and preserved without the loss of discoverable evidence.
Fact No. 42: Minkow admitted that the transfer of his email archives from the Hewlett Packard to a new computer was “incomplete.”
Fact No. 43: On July 21,2010, the Court ordered Minkow to appear and provide testimony at an evidentiary hearing scheduled for August 4, 2010. The
Court allowed Minkow to appear in San Diego and provide testimony via videoconference.
Fact No. 44: Lennar made significant preparations to arrange the videoconference for the hearing on August 4.
Fact No. 45: On July 30,2010, Minkow agreed to voluntarily appear live in Miami at the evidentiary hearing scheduled for August 4, 2010.
Fact No. 46: Lennar relied on Minkow’s representation and Lennar’s counsel made significant preparations to attend and examine Minkow in person at the
hearing on August 4 in Miami.
Fact No. 47: On the morning of August 3, 2010, Minkow informed the Court that he would not attend the hearing scheduled for August 4, 2010 in person or via video conference from California. Minkow asserted that on August 2, 2010, while in Los Angeles awaiting a flight to Miami, he became ill and went to the emergency room at a Los Angeles hospital. Minkow represented that he was restricted from traveling to Florida for the hearing.
Fact No. 48: On August 4 and 10, 2010, the Court ordered Minkow to produce, among other things, evidence that he had been to the emergency room / hospital.
Fact No. 49: Ten days later, on August 20, 2010, Minkow submitted an affidavit wherein he admitted that he had not gone to the emergency room. Minkow had lied to Plaintiffs, the Court, and his own lawyers.
Fact No. 50: Minkow swore that he could not “recall” what he had said to his lawyers and his assistant the morning of August 3, 2010 because he was on pain medications. The Court does not find this testimony credible.
Fact No. 51: The Court finds that Minkow intentionally deceived Plaintiffs and the Court regarding the emergency room visit because he knew that such a claim would require this Court to postpone the August 4, 2010 hearing.
Fact No. 52: At the August 26,2010 hearing, Minkow testified that he “didn’t think it [whether he went to the emergency room] mattered. I had a doctor verifying I was ill, and I thought that is all that mattered.”
Fact No. 53: This testimony is not credible and demonstrates Minkow’s contemptuous disregard for the rules of litigation and his belief, again, that he-not the ermines what is relevant.
Fact No. 54: At the August 26, 2010 hearing, when Minkow was impeached by the fax header on his own doctor’s letter, Minkow testified for the first time that the assistant who picked him up in Los Angeles was not in San Diego, California, as he earlier had testified, but rather was in Orange County, California.
Fact No. 55: This testimony contradicts his affidavit ofless than a week earlier in which he swore that his assistant “drove to Los Angeles from San Diego, California.”
Fact No. 56: When confronted with his contradictory. affidavit, Mr. Minkow testified that the location of his assistant was “irrelevant.”
Fact No. 57: This testimony is not credible and demonstrates Minkow’s contemptuous disregard for the rules of litigation and his consistent belief that he, not the Court, determines what is relevant.
…
PERVASIVENESS OF MINKOW’S MISCONDUCT
Fact No. 95: Minkow’s withholding and destruction of evidence, concealment of witnesses, and false testimony constituted a fraud on the Court.
Fact No. 96: Minkow has displayed no regard for the Court’s Orders, his testimonial oaths, the administration of justice, or his obligations as a litigant.
Fact No. 97: Minkow had ample opportunity to correct his misconduct and avoid sanctions. Minkow chose not to do so.
Fact No. 98: Minkow has wrongfully acted as though it is his right, not that of the Court, to determine what documents are relevant, what issues are material, and what information the Plaintiffs, the Court, and even his own lawyers should and should not know.
Fact No. 99: Minkow has displayed no appreciation of, or remorse for, the burden and expense that his withholding and destruction of evidence, concealment of
witnesses, false testimony, and other misconduct have caused Plaintiffs and the Court.
Fact No. 100: The Court finds that the likelihood Minkow would comply with his discovery obligations or the Court’s Orders in the future is unlikely.
Remember what I said above about the American Nazi? How if someone lies and spins and lies and lies some more, they can actually keep going for a long time? When you catch them out in a lie, they often apologize, say they are sorry. Lots of them even cry (really, I see it every time I deal with sociopaths). They then continue with a new lie, a new spin, until you catch them again. They just keep going and going.
That is a pretty fair description of Judge Freeman’s description of Barry Minkow. Withhold evidence and lie about it by saying the evidence was destroyed; Destroy the evidence then lie about that; when confronted, say that your computer was hacked and that evidence i
Barry Minkow Master Mind of the ZZZZ Best Fraud
By gzfraud| 1 video
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JydqCyFsmS8&feature=player_detailpage#t=6s
Former white collar criminal Barry Minkow has uncovered hundreds of millions of dollars in fraud.
What Happened To Deep Capture?
• From “the corner of Wall and Broad with pitchforks and nooses”: My April, 2006 letter to the Wall Street Journal
• A Respectful Invitation to All Hoodlums, Cutpurses, Thugs and Assorted Miscreants Named Herein
• Memo to Barry Minkow and Sam Antar: Roll Early, Roll Often
• The Honorable Gill Freeman Throws Book at Barry Minkow, Nicks Paymaster Sam Antar. Plus, A Question for Whitney Tilson, Minkow Paymaster #2
• Today’s “If Only There Were a Pattern” Moment: Sam Antar Crony Barry Minkow Still a Crook. Who Knew?
• Truman Show Moments and Doublethink on the Road to Deep Capture
• Fortune Magazine Gets the Vapors Defending Goldman Sachs
What Happened To Deep Capture?
Posted: 23 Jan 2012 09:43 PM PST
On any other day, that might seem strange: Ali Nazerali Wants Own Past Sealed in Orwell’s Memory Hole
In October 2011, Ali Nazerali, a Canadian resident of Pakistani origin who has operated boiler rooms (according to regulators, though he was not charged) and whose business relationships drew the scrutiny of DeepCapture, went to court in British Columbia to obtain an injunction against the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution (the one regarding freedom of speech and press). In an ex parte proceeding (meaning that DeepCapture was not even notified of the proceedings, let alone allowed to present any argument), the Canadian court issued an injunction ordering that DeepCapture be disappeared like some recalcitrant Argentinian muckracker. Immediately and also without notification, US corporations Google, Bing, and GoDaddy complied with this foreign court’s order to disappear all trace of DeepCapture from existence.
However, in December, 2011 DeepCapture had its chance to speak in court in Canada. Once it had heard our side, the Court pulled its injunction, and found that Nazerali’s lawyers had misled the Court.
As famed Stoic philosopher Nicholas Cage put it in Con Air, “On any other day, that might seem strange.”
But this is, after all, the world of DeepCapture, where dogs and cats dance together and the fire rain falls. So now, the rest of the story….
Early in 2011 Mark Mitchell began a multipart story exploring the way that various elements of transnational Organized Crime, international terrorist financiers, and foreign intelligence services have entwined, infiltrated the global financial system, and are manipulating and destabilizing it.
Which sounds like a lot to swallow, I know, until one considers that on July 25, 2011, President Obama signed an Executive Order declaring a national emergency on pretty much precisely those grounds:
I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, find that the activities of significant transnational criminal organizations, such as those listed in the Annex to this order, have reached such scope and gravity that they threaten the stability of international political and economic systems. Such organizations are becoming increasingly sophisticated and dangerous to the United States; they are increasingly entrenched in the operations of foreign governments and the international financial system, thereby weakening democratic institutions, degrading the rule of law, and undermining economic markets. These organizations facilitate and aggravate violent civil conflicts and increasingly facilitate the activities of other dangerous persons. I therefore determine that significant transnational criminal organizations constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.
The US National Security Council immediately followed up with this statement:
“Transnational organized crime (TOC) poses a significant and growing threat to national and international security, with dire implications for public safety, public health, democratic institutions, and economic stability across the globe. Not only are criminal networks expanding, but they also are diversifying their activities, resulting in the convergence of threats that were once distinct and today have explosive and destabilizing effects…. The apparent growing nexus in some states among TOC [Transnational Organized Crime] groups and elements of government—including intelligence services—and high-level business figures represents a significant threat to economic growth and democratic institutions… As they expand, TOC networks may threaten stability and undermine free markets as they build alliances with political leaders, financial institutions, law enforcement, foreign intelligence, and security agencies.”
These statements from the White House and NSC are precisely on point with DeepCapture’s thesis. In fact, the Executive Order goes on to name four criminal networks which figure prominently in Deepcapture’s story.
We knew DeepCapture’s story would raise eyebrows, but we believed, and still believe, that it is important journalism concerning issues that clearly are of global concern and should be part of the public debate. And as journalists, we at DeepCapture are quite proud of having been so far ahead of the curve, and so shockingly far ahead of the US mainstream media, which (we contend) are (with rare exception) such lapdogs to corporate America, and especially to the financial system, that they would never have been able to put this story together even if all the relevant evidence was shoved up its nose (which it was). Deep Capture believes that it is not incidental that only the British journal The Economist has been able to cover this issue, with such recent stories as:
America’s dodgy financial plumbing: TOO A FAIL COUNT –The sheer number of unsettled trades is rattling regulators
Financialterrorism: THE WAR ON TERABYTES – Policymakers worry about attacks on America’s financial system
NAKED SHORT – SELLING: A not-so-short story
In September 2011 Altaf Nazerali, who, while not a central character in the story, is mentioned numerous times, contacted us raising concerns that certain statements regarding him were inaccurate. Mark looked back at his reporting and, in cases where he believed it was warranted, modified the story: While we believe that facts should be reported, we are never above taking another look at the story to make sure that we are as fair as possible. Good journalism stirs good debate. And we are responsible journalists.
Mark sought further contact with Nazerali in early September but heard nothing further.
Then without any warning to Deep Capture, Nazerali attempted to silence Deep Capture.
On October 18, 2011, without notice to Deep Capture, Mark, or Deep Capture’s internet hosts, Nazerali filed a lawsuit in Vancouver, Canada and appeared the same day before a judge seeking an injunction taking Deep Capture off the internet and seizing its domain name. Only Nazerali and his lawyer were in the courtroom when he asked for this injunction so the judge only heard one side of the story. Nazerali got his injunction.
Ali Nazerali delayed serving formal notice of this injunction on Deep Capture and its reporters. The first mailed service was made about 10 days after the injunction was made. The actual personal service did not occur for several weeks. Nazerali did not comply with Canadian law and promptly serve Deep Capture with copies of all of the affidavits and legal submissions he put before the judge on October 19, 2011 at his one-sided injunction application. That only came to our attention in late November. All of this had the effect of delaying Deep Capture’s ability to seek relief from the court.
However, Nazerali’s lawyers immediately sent notice of the Canadian court’s injunction against Deep Capture to Google, Bing, GoDaddy, and other internet companies demanding that they comply with it, and black out the DeepCapture site.
Amazingly (to me), these US companies complied, and blacked out Deep Capture. GoDaddy took down the site. Google and Bing both erased all of DeepCapture from the caches. In the most literal sense, we disappeared down Orwell’s Memory Hole.
On December 13, 2011 Deep Capture and Mark were able to appear before the British Columbia court . We presented our case through affidavits showing the basis for our reporting. We presented the judge with the governing Canadian law which places severe restrictions on pre-trial injunctions, limiting them to rare and special circumstances which do not apply to Deep Capture.
Ruling from the bench (i.e., immediately), the judge denied Mr. Nazerali’s request that the injunction be extended beyond December 13, 2011.
In addition, the judge expressly ruled that Ali Nazerali’s lawyers had misled the judge who heard Nazerali’s earlier argument on October 19, 2011.
At that point Deep Capture was free to return to the internet.
However, Ali Nazerali was not done. He had his lawyer send an e-mail to Rackspace citing to the original October 19, 2011 injunction order and asking that Rackspace refuse to host Deep Capture. He neglected to tell Rackspace that the British Columbia court had already refused to extend the injunction and that it had ceased to have any force. And he certainly did not tell Rackspace that the British Columbia court had criticized Nazerali’s submissions to the original judge on October 19, 2011, finding that Nazerali’s lawyer had misled the court.
Ali Nazerali wants to keep Deep Capture and its reporting away from the public. But why would Mr. Nazerali sue Deep Capture, a Utah company, in Canada? We can only speculate. As Gary Weiss (himself a shill for criminal elements, as has been widely documented within DeepCapture) noted in his blog almost immediately after the original injunction was issued, Canadian law provides far less protection for free speech than is guaranteed by the United States Constitution. In fact, Canadian defamation law differs in so many key respects from United States law that at least one federal court has held that Canadian defamation judgments are unenforceable against United States citizens.
In fact, one key difference is what is meant by “defamatory.” It is true that the Canadian court noted that Deep Capture’s reporting regarding Mr. Nazerali was “defamatory.” But, importantly, this does not mean that it was not true or that it was not fair reporting. It does not mean that such statements may not be published. And it does not mean that Mr. Nazerali is entitled to any damages. Rather, it simply means that the statements regarding Mr. Nazerali tended to harm his reputation.
“Carole took the cookies from the cookie jar” is defamatory under the law of British Columbia. Stating that Carole took the cookies tends to harm her reputation even if she did, in fact, take the cookies. Here Mr. Nazerali has been involved with certain individuals and cultivated certain relationships that may harm his reputation as such connections become known. But this does not mean that such relationships cannot, and should not, be fairly and freely reported.
Importantly, no court has held that Deep Capture’s reporting as to Mr. Nazerali was “actionably defamatory.” After the Canadian Court was given the chance to read Mark’s affidavit explaining the basis for his reporting, it denied Mr. Nazerali’s request for an extension of the injunction keeping Deep Capture away from the public on the basis that the claims and defenses should be heard and determined by a jury at a trial.
Most hilariously, I had an idea that seems to have worked. For years a Cone of Silence had surrounded Deep Capture: once the supine and obedient mainstream press could no longer speak for me, but had to confront me, in my own words, on this website, they revealed themselves for what they were: barroom bullies who, once called out, stick their faces back in their beers and pretend not to have heard. But during the time that DeepCapture was blacked out, the Cone of Silence surrounding Deep Capture finally lifted: parties that once made great circumlocutions to avoid mentioning us (lest they let readers evaluate the arguments and evidence for themselves) suddenly are pounding their chests. So I decided to let DeepCapture stay down for a few weeks, to give them a chance to strut about it: I am utterly confident that, now that Deep Capture is back online, they will return to muttering into their beers, as has been their practice lo these many years.
Deep Capture has been unavailable for a couple months. Now that we are back on-line you deserve to know what happened, especially since the facts should cause concern in everybody that appreciates the role a free press and free speech play in a free nation (and the offending story will be republished, in full, and with a great deal of new information that Nazerali’s legal jousting caused to come our way: thank you, Ali Nazerali).
The US mainstream media are apparently unconcerned by a foreign court’s injunction to black out a US website, and think unremarkable the alacrity with which Google, Bing, and GoDaddy would accede to such an order. Thus, Deep Capture was forced to tell the rest of this story (which, we maintain, is but a microcosm of the whole story of capture) in order to pursue our investigative reporting within our constitutional rights of free expression of speech and press.
After all, we are the red pill.
From “the corner of Wall and Broad with pitchforks and nooses”: My April, 2006 letter to the Wall Street Journal
Posted: 25 Sep 2011 09:50 PM PDT
Here’s the Naked Truth About Overstock.com
Gandhi said, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you. Then you win.” Holman Jenkins Jr.’s April 12 Business World column “Do Nudists Run Wall Street?” moves us to stage No. 3: It contains the normal amount of distortion I have come to expect from financial media, but as it also makes the first attempt to confront the right issue, it is a step forward. Bravo.
Mr. Jenkins claims that I “propound a theory” that Overstock’s “shares are grossly undervalued.” This is wrong: I have never lamented Overstock’s valuation nor connected it to the naked shorting issue. The “elaborate Webcasts . . . found at businessjive.com” cited by Mr. Jenkins never once mention Overstock. He provides no other citations, which is appropriate, as there are none. Last, the quote he attributes to me, “If I’m crazy, why am I running a public company?” is something I never said. I challenge Mr. Jenkins to produce this or any similar quote.
However, Mr. Jenkins correctly depicts me as a jihadi against naked shorting. I do believe blackguards have practiced “failure to deliver” (FTD) for profit, while incidentally destroying businesses and (probably) destabilizing our capital markets. I also think that if this nation ever grasps how its savings have been looted through this mechanism, a few million Americans are going to show up at the corner of Wall and Broad with pitchforks and nooses. Thus, financial journalists spin countless, “Just another CEO who’s mad at shorting” stories, of which Mr. Jenkins’s piece is an example.
Patrick M. Byrne
President
Overstock.com
Salt Lake City
A Respectful Invitation to All Hoodlums, Cutpurses, Thugs and Assorted Miscreants Named Herein
Posted: 16 Sep 2011 10:07 AM PDT
Mark Mitchell’s writings seem to be striking a nerve, at last. After months of no response but silence, in the last few weeks DeepCapture has suddenly been receiving all manner of Nasty-Grams and intimidating phone calls from various people and organizations mentioned in Mark’s work. The similarity of the threats would almost make one think there was a plan. In any case, I will lay out four ground rules here.
1) DeepCapture remains committed to the highest journalist standards. Any error in our work should be pointed out immediately, and we will rectify it .
2) DeepCapture is better than mainstream media, whose intellectual self-confidence, rigor, and integrity I described in my 2008 piece, “Carol Remond Tells a Joke She Doesn’t Get (DowJones)”:
“Before publishing the following critique of Carol Remond’s recent article on Copper River, I contacted Carol for comment. Unlike Joe Nocera and Floyd Norris (both of the New York Times), who have at least had the integrity to defend their work, however haplessly, Carol refused any on-the-record comment on this subject. Thus she joins that tradition of journalistic worthies which includes Bethany McLean, Herb Greenberg, and Roddy Boyd, who refuse to defend their work. They can critique, but not engage, opine, but not defend: the sophomores of intellectual discourse.“
Because DeepCapture is better, we are happy to engage, and self-confident enough in our work that we practice “right of response” journalism: We will publish, unedited, any response (of any reasonable length) by miscreants named in our stories. If Specially Designated Global Terrorists have spokesmen, we’ll publish them.
3) All goombas should understand that the day anything untoward occurs is the day that The Collected Works of Mark Mitchell 2008-2011 appears in the in-boxes of 41.7 million people.
4) Finally, Mark has been acting entirely at my direction. So all nastiness should be directed at me, not him.
Very respectfully,
Patrick Byrne
Editor-in-Chief
DeepCapture.com
Memo to Barry Minkow and Sam Antar: Roll Early, Roll Often
Posted: 24 Mar 2011 03:52 PM PDT
An email Sam Antar sent on May, 2010 puked out of my junk email folder today. Note that besides addressing it to me, the board of directors of Overstock, Overstock’s president Jonathan Johnson, and our colleague Kevin Moon (who counts IR among his many duties), Sam addressed it to various staff members of the SEC (messieurs Israel, Korb, Simpson, Fitzsimons, and Carnall).
Note that Sam also sent it to a number of financial writers with whom Sam is on good terms, and whose names will be known to regular readers of DeepCapture: Joe Nocera and Floyd Norris (both of New York Times), Roddy Boyd, and Gary Weiss, all of whom had an awful lot to say about me until I confronted them in the pages of this website, at which time they reverted to mumbling into their beers rather than engage DeepCapture in debate. Which is, I think, a good indication of how confident they truly were of their own research, argument, and prose: they talked big in the locker-room and at the weigh-in, but pissed themselves stepping onto the mat.
Being the nice guy I am, I answered Sam, albeit belatedly.
Sam’s email to me, and my reply, are below.
=========================================================================
From: Sam E. Antar [mailto:sam@whitecollarfraud.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 8:14 AM
To: Patrick Byrne; Board – Jonathan Johnson; Kevin Moon; Joseph Tabacco
Cc: ‘Israel, Kenneth D.’; ‘Korb, Norman J.’; ‘Caleb Newquist’; ‘Gary Weiss’; ‘Joe Nocera’; norris@nytimes.com; ‘Aaron Elstein’; ‘William K. Wolfrum’; ‘Felix Salmon’; ‘roddy boyd’; ‘Simpson, Richard’; ‘Fitzsimons, Brian’; ‘Carnall, Wayne’; ‘Corpfin-ENFLiaison’
Subject: Overstock.com Q2 2010 Conference Call
Importance: High
Dear Patrick Byrne and other persons from Overstock.com:
Overstock.com’s Q2 2010 conference call is scheduled for today at 3 PM ET. I will be calling in. I expect to be permitted to participate in said call and ask relevant questions about Overstock.com. As I recall, in 2005 you allowed a lay person named Phil Saunders AKA Easter Bunny to participate in the call.
Sam E. Antar
Web site: www.whitecollarfraud.com
Blog: www.whitecollarfraud.blogspot.com
=========================================================================
From: Patrick Byrne
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 2:59 PM
To: ‘Sam E. Antar’; Board – Jonathan Johnson; Kevin Moon; Joseph Tabacco
Cc: ‘Israel, Kenneth D.’; ‘Korb, Norman J.’; ‘Caleb Newquist’; ‘Gary Weiss’; ‘Joe Nocera’; norris@nytimes.com; ‘Aaron Elstein’; ‘William K. Wolfrum’; ‘Felix Salmon’; ‘roddy boyd’; ‘Simpson, Richard’; ‘Fitzsimons, Brian’; ‘Carnall, Wayne’; ‘Corpfin-ENFLiaison’
Subject: RE: Overstock.com Q2 2010 Conference Call
Dear Sam,
By odd coincidence, your email from last May popped out of our junk email filters today. I say “coincidence” because you have been on my mind of late, given the sudden return to prominence of your esteemed friend Barry Minkow, another felon who “reformed” himself and became, like you, the recipient of various “It takes one to know one” puff-pieces from the financial media. However, according to today’s WSJ,
“Barry Minkow Charged in Fraud Against Lennar: Federal prosecutors charged former fraud investigator Barry Minkow with conspiracy to commit securities fraud by allegedly disseminating false information in 2009 about home builder Lennar Corp., according to court documents filed Thursday in Miami federal court. The complaint charges that Mr. Minkow, along with a person identified as Conspirator A and others, conspired to ‘artificially manipulate and depress Lennar’s stock’ …. The charge against Mr. Minkow comes with a maximum prison term of five years. …. The criminal complaint also says that Mr. Minkow abused his relationship with federal law-enforcement officials and induced them to open up an investigation into Lennar…”
Shocked, am I. Shocked, I say. It turns out that Barry’s “reformation” was just another scam, and he actually remained a criminal all along? And his “It takes one to know one” shtick was just a cover he used for smear campaigns to move stock prices? And the financial media did not do their homework before writing their lotion-job profiles of him? And he gulled federal officials into going along for the ride?……….. No, that couldn’t possibly be. That’s just far too whacky a story.
So that is why unearthing your email today is so serendipitous, Sam. I’ve been thinking of writing you to ask your opinion on this matter. Could a man [] be a convicted felon, reposition himself as contrite and repentant, claim to the public to be using his skills as a swindler to ferret out crime, get the press and the federal government to buy into it, then conduct smear campaigns simply in order to manipulate stocks on someone else’s behalf? In your unique view, how plausible is that scenario, Sam? You seem like just the guy to ask, especially since DeepCapture’s technological forensics establish such good fellowship between Barry and you (and for that matter, Gary Weiss, whose email I note you included above).
While you’re at it, is there any chance you can explain why Barry Minkow gave sworn testimony that you wired him $100,000 “out of nowhere,” and then, wired him another $150,00 (see Minkow transcript, 10:39 to 10:46)? Especially as you are a bankrupt and hold yourself out as virtually penniless, this seems a little odd: Do you often wire people $250,000 for purposes they cannot define?
In December the Florida judge found that Barry actually did not do any research, but just smeared. Yet Barry also gave testimony that Whitney Tilson paid $40,000 to Barry. It seems odd that someone like Whitney would rely on research from Barry, especially as (per the judge) Barry’s research is phony. Any idea what that payment was for? Whitney Tilson has become oddly unresponsive to my emails.
Remember, Sam: Roll early, roll often. Oh, but you know that already.
With hopes of big things in your future, I remain,
Your friend,
Patrick M. Byrne
Journalist, DeepCapture.com
PS You may have been busy last week, Sam, and missed my two essays on these matters. Enjoy.
March 17: Today’s “If Only There Were a Pattern” Moment: Sam Antar Crony Barry Minkow Still a Crook. Who Knew?
March 17: The Honorable Gill Freeman Throws Book at Barry Minkow, Nicks Paymaster Sam Antar. Plus, A Question for Whitney Tilson, Minkow Paymaster #2
Today a May, 2010 email from Sam Antar puked out of my junk email folder. Note that, besides addressing it to me, the board of directors of Overstock, Overstock’s president Jonathan Johnson, and our colleague Kevin Moon (who counts IR among his many duties), Sam addressed it to various staff members of the SEC (messieurs Israel, Korb, Simpson, Fitzsimons, and Carnall).
Sam also sent it to a number of financial writers with whom Sam is on good terms, and whose names will be known to regular readers of DeepCapture: Joe Nocera and Floyd Norris (both of New York Times), William Wolfrum, Roddy Boyd, and Gary Weiss, all of whom had an awful lot to say about me, until I confronted them in the pages of this website, at which time they reverted to mumbling into their beers rather than continue (and thereby have to mention DeepCapture). Which is, I think, a good indication of how confident they truly are of their research, argument, and prose in the face of DeepCapture’s.
Being the nice guy I am, I answered Sam, albeit belatedly.
From: Sam E. Antar [mailto:sam@whitecollarfraud.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 8:14 AM
To: Patrick Byrne; Board – Jonathan Johnson; Kevin Moon; Joseph Tabacco
Cc: ‘Israel, Kenneth D.’; ‘Korb, Norman J.’; ‘Caleb Newquist’; ‘Gary Weiss’; ‘Joe Nocera’; norris@nytimes.com; ‘Aaron Elstein’; ‘William K. Wolfrum’; ‘Felix Salmon’; ‘roddy boyd’; ‘Simpson, Richard’; ‘Fitzsimons, Brian’; ‘Carnall, Wayne’; ‘Corpfin-ENFLiaison’
Subject: Overstock.com Q2 2010 Conference Call
Importance: High
Dear Patrick Byrne and other persons from Overstock.com:
Overstock.com’s Q2 2010 conference call is scheduled for today at 3 PM ET. I will be calling in. I expect to be permitted to participate in said call and ask relevant questions about Overstock.com. As I recall, in 2005 you allowed a lay person named Phil Saunders AKA Easter Bunny to participate in the call.
Sam E. Antar
Web site: www.whitecollarfraud.com
Blog: www.whitecollarfraud.blogspot.com
From: Patrick Byrne
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 2:59 PM
To: ‘Sam E. Antar’; Board – Jonathan Johnson; Kevin Moon; Joseph Tabacco
Cc: ‘Israel, Kenneth D.’; ‘Korb, Norman J.’; ‘Caleb Newquist’; ‘Gary Weiss’; ‘Joe Nocera’; norris@nytimes.com; ‘Aaron Elstein’; ‘William K. Wolfrum’; ‘Felix Salmon’; ‘roddy boyd’; ‘Simpson, Richard’; ‘Fitzsimons, Brian’; ‘Carnall, Wayne’; ‘Corpfin-ENFLiaison’
Subject: RE: Overstock.com Q2 2010 Conference Call
Dear Sam,
By odd coincidence, your email from last May popped out of our junk email filters today. I say “coincidence” because you have been on my mind of late, given the sudden return to prominence of your esteemed friend Barry Minkow, another felon who “reformed” himself and became, like you, the recipient of various “It takes one to know one” puff-pieces from the financial media. However, according to today’s WSJ,
“Barry Minkow Charged in Fraud Against Lennar: Federal prosecutors charged former fraud investigator Barry Minkow with conspiracy to commit securities fraud by allegedly disseminating false information in 2009 about home builder Lennar Corp., according to court documents filed Thursday in Miami federal court. The complaint charges that Mr. Minkow, along with a person identified as Conspirator A and others, conspired to ‘artificially manipulate and depress Lennar’s stock’ …. The charge against Mr. Minkow comes with a maximum prison term of five years. …. The criminal complaint also says that Mr. Minkow abused his relationship with federal law-enforcement officials and induced them to open up an investigation into Lennar…”
Shocked, am I. Shocked, I say. It turns out that Barry’s “reformation” was just another scam, and he actually remained a criminal all along? And his “It takes one to know one” shtick was just a cover he used for smear campaigns to move stock prices? And the financial media did not do their homework before writing their lotion-job profiles of him? And he gulled federal officials into going along for the ride?……….. No, that couldn’t possibly be. That’s just far too whacky a story.
So that is why unearthing your email today is so serendipitous, Sam. I’ve been thinking of writing you to ask your opinion on this matter. Could a man could be a convicted felon, reposition himself as contrite and repentant, claim to the public to be using his skills as a swindler to ferret out crime, get the press and the federal government to buy into it, then conduct smear campaigns simply in order to manipulate stocks on someone else’s behalf? In your unique view, how plausible is that scenario, Sam? You seem like just the guy to ask, especially since DeepCapture’s technological forensics establish such good fellowship between Barry and you (and for that matter, Gary Weiss, whose email I note you included above).
While you’re at it, is there any chance you can explain why Barry Minkow gave sworn testimony that you wired him $100,000 “out of nowhere,” and then, wired him another $150,00 (see Minkow transcript, 10:39 to 10:46)? Especially as you are a bankrupt and hold yourself out as virtually penniless, this seems a little odd: Do you often wire people $250,000 for purposes they cannot define?
In December the Florida judge found that Barry actually did not do any research, but just smeared. Yet Barry also gave testimony that Whitney Tilson paid $40,000 to Barry. It seems odd that someone like Whitney would rely on res
Today a May, 2010 email from Sam Antar puked out of my junk email folder. Note that, besides addressing it to me, the board of directors of Overstock, Overstock’s president Jonathan Johnson, and our colleague Kevin Moon (who counts IR among his many duties), Sam addressed it to various staff members of the SEC (messieurs Israel, Korb, Simpson, Fitzsimons, and Carnall).
Sam also sent it to a number of financial writers with whom Sam is on good terms, and whose names will be known to regular readers of DeepCapture: Joe Nocera and Floyd Norris (both of New York Times), William Wolfrum, Roddy Boyd, and Gary Weiss, all of whom had an awful lot to say about me, until I confronted them in the pages of this website, at which time they reverted to mumbling into their beers rather than continue (and thereby have to mention DeepCapture). Which is, I think, a good indication of how confident they truly are of their research, argument, and prose in the face of DeepCapture’s.
Being the nice guy I am, I answered Sam Antar today, albeit belatedly. Below I reproduce Sam’s email to me, and my reply.
From: Sam E. Antar [mailto:sam@whitecollarfraud.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 8:14 AM
To: Patrick Byrne; Board – Jonathan Johnson; Kevin Moon; Joseph Tabacco
Cc: ‘Israel, Kenneth D.’; ‘Korb, Norman J.’; ‘Caleb Newquist’; ‘Gary Weiss’; ‘Joe Nocera’; norris@nytimes.com; ‘Aaron Elstein’; ‘William K. Wolfrum’; ‘Felix Salmon’; ‘roddy boyd’; ‘Simpson, Richard’; ‘Fitzsimons, Brian’; ‘Carnall, Wayne’; ‘Corpfin-ENFLiaison’
Subject: Overstock.com Q2 2010 Conference Call
Importance: High
Dear Patrick Byrne and other persons from Overstock.com:
Overstock.com’s Q2 2010 conference call is scheduled for today at 3 PM ET. I will be calling in. I expect to be permitted to participate in said call and ask relevant questions about Overstock.com. As I recall, in 2005 you allowed a lay person named Phil Saunders AKA Easter Bunny to participate in the call.
Sam E. Antar
Web site: www.whitecollarfraud.com
Blog: www.whitecollarfraud.blogspot.com
From: Patrick Byrne
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 2:59 PM
To: ‘Sam E. Antar’; Board – Jonathan Johnson; Kevin Moon; Joseph Tabacco
Cc: ‘Israel, Kenneth D.’; ‘Korb, Norman J.’; ‘Caleb Newquist’; ‘Gary Weiss’; ‘Joe Nocera’; norris@nytimes.com; ‘Aaron Elstein’; ‘William K. Wolfrum’; ‘Felix Salmon’; ‘roddy boyd’; ‘Simpson, Richard’; ‘Fitzsimons, Brian’; ‘Carnall, Wayne’; ‘Corpfin-ENFLiaison’
Subject: RE: Overstock.com Q2 2010 Conference Call
Dear Sam,
By odd coincidence, your email from last May popped out of our junk email filters today. I say “coincidence” because you have been on my mind of late, given the sudden return to prominence of your esteemed friend Barry Minkow, another felon who “reformed” himself and became, like you, the recipient of various “It takes one to know one” puff-pieces from the financial media. However, according to today’s WSJ,
“Barry Minkow Charged in Fraud Against Lennar: Federal prosecutors charged former fraud investigator Barry Minkow with conspiracy to commit securities fraud by allegedly disseminating false information in 2009 about home builder Lennar Corp., according to court documents filed Thursday in Miami federal court. The complaint charges that Mr. Minkow, along with a person identified as Conspirator A and others, conspired to ‘artificially manipulate and depress Lennar’s stock’ …. The charge against Mr. Minkow comes with a maximum prison term of five years. …. The criminal complaint also says that Mr. Minkow abused his relationship with federal law-enforcement officials and induced them to open up an investigation into Lennar…”
Shocked, am I. Shocked, I say. It turns out that Barry’s “reformation” was just another scam, and he actually remained a criminal all along? And his “It takes one to know one” shtick was just a cover he used for smear campaigns to move stock prices? And the financial media did not do their homework before writing their lotion-job profiles of him? And he gulled federal officials into going along for the ride?……….. No, that couldn’t possibly be. That’s just far too whacky a story.
So that is why unearthing your email today is so serendipitous, Sam. I’ve been thinking of writing you to ask your opinion on this matter. Could a man could be a convicted felon, reposition himself as contrite and repentant, claim to the public to be using his skills as a swindler to ferret out crime, get the press and the federal government to buy into it, then conduct smear campaigns simply in order to manipulate stocks on someone else’s behalf? In your unique view, how plausible is that scenario, Sam? You seem like just the guy to ask, especially since DeepCapture’s technological forensics establish such good fellowship between Barry and you (and for that matter, Gary Weiss, whose email I note you included above).
While you’re at it, is there any chance you can explain why Barry Minkow gave sworn testimony that you wired him $100,000 “out of nowhere,” and then, wired him another $150,00 (see Minkow transcript, 10:39 to 10:46)? Especially as you are a bankrupt and hold yourself out as virtually penniless, this seems a little odd: Do you often wire people $250,000 for purposes they cannot define?
In December the Florida judge found that Barry actually did not do any research, but just smeared. Yet Barry also gave testimony that Whitney Tilson paid $40,000 to Barry. It seems odd that someone like Whitney would rely on research from Barry, especially as (per the judge) Barry’s research is phony. Any idea what that payment was for? Whitney Tilson has become oddly unresponsive to my emails.
Remember, Sam: Roll early, roll often. Oh, but you know that already.
With hopes of big things in your future, I remain,
Your friend,
Patrick M. Byrne
Journalist, DeepCapture.com
PS You may have been busy last week, Sam, and missed my two essays on these matters. Enjoy.
March 17: Today’s “If Only There Were a Pattern” Moment: Sam Antar Crony Barry Minkow Still a Crook. Who Knew?
March 17: The Honorable Gill Freeman Throws Book at Barry Minkow, Nicks Paymaster Sam Antar. Plus, A Question for Whitney Tilson, Minkow Paymaster #2
earch from Barry, especially as (per the judge) Barry’s research is phony. Any idea what that payment was for? Whitney Tilson has become oddly unresponsive to my emails.
Remember, Sam: Roll early, roll often. Oh, but you know that already.
With hopes of big things in your future, I remain,
Your friend,
Patrick M. Byrne
Journalist, DeepCapture.com
PS You may have been busy last week, Sam, and missed my two essays on these matters. Enjoy.
March 17: Today’s “If Only There Were a Pattern” Moment: Sam Antar Crony Barry Minkow Still a Crook. Who Knew?
March 17: The Honorable Gill Freeman Throws Book at Barry Minkow, Nicks Paymaster Sam Antar. Plus, A Question for Whitney Tilson, Minkow Paymaster #2
This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now
The Honorable Gill Freeman Throws Book at Barry Minkow, Nicks Paymaster Sam Antar. Plus, A Question for Whitney Tilson, Minkow Paymaster #2
Posted: 17 Mar 2011 09:12 PM PDT
Barry Minkow spent last week in plea negotiations regarding a federal indictment on which he is hoping to receive only 5 years, says his lawyer. (LA Weekly: Barry Minkow to plead guilty to insider trading). In December, 2010, a Florida judge threw her proverbial book at Barry Minkow, and it glanced off Sam Antar, who had been paid Barry’s paymaster to the tune of $250,000, Barry had testified. In addition, the judge found as a matter of fact that Sam Antar destroyed documents necessary for her trial. Minkow also gave sown testimony that well-known New York hedge fund manager Whitney Tilson paid him $40,000: more on this below.
Sam Antar, generally not short of opinion, has suddenly developed laryngitis.
Barry Minkow and Sam Antar are two of the most remarkable swindlers in recent American history, each guilty of frauds measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Two decades ago their names gave off the same foul stench that Bernie Madoff’s does today. So Deep Capture invites Whitney Tilson to explain why he would join legendarily convicted financial criminal Sam Antar in making payments to also-legendarily convicted financial criminal Barry Minkow, who now is pleading guilty to his 58th financial felony. (You know how to reach me, Whitney. DeepCapture will give you 250 words, with no editing. But we may provide commentary. )
What is more to the point of DeepCapture, however, is that until this latest turn of events, Barry Minkow and Sam Antar had, notwithstanding their prior convictions on massive financial crimes, successfully repositioned themselves within the US financial media as experts in crime-fighting (see 60 Minutes‘ 2006 puff-piece on Barry Minkow, “It Takes One to Know One“, and Fortune Magazine’s 2007 lotion-job on Sam Antar, “Takes One to Know One“). Barry and Sam used the imprimatur of the mainstream press to return to criminal behavior (which Barry has now acknowledged). The ease with and degree to which the New York financial media swallowed this remarkable bullshit will attest for a generation to the intellectual corruption and broad imbecility of broad swathes of the US financial media.
No, seriously. That really happened. Two convicted financial felons, the Madoff’s of their generation, made comebacks by gulling the financial press into writing lotion-job stories saying that they were now reformed and devoted to stopping crimes, not committing them. Here is UPI on Barry Minkow: “Barry Minkow: Cleaning up, reaching out.” Here is, again, Fortune Magazine from late 2007: “Takes one to know one -Sam Antar, the felonious former CFO of Crazy Eddie, is now teaching students and prosecutors how to spot fraud in public companies.” And then, it turns out, both used their new-found status as authorities to whom the press turned in order to resume their criminal activity, which again, as of yesterday, leaves Barry hoping for only a five year sentence, and his paymaster Sam Antar with laryngitis.
In the spirit of reconciliation and forgiveness, however, I will offer the US financial media one concession: your gullibility is understandable. In high school I had a history professor who brought an actual American Nazi to class, and let us argue with him. For many of my classmates debating the Nazi was like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall. I discovered that only if one can grasp the concept of “complete venality” can one defeat a scoundrel. Many people, however, are intellectually helpless against such people, because deep down they cannot grok the possibility that anyone can spin and lie and spin and lie and spin and lie and spin some more, then lie and lie on top of it.
I believe that the preceding accurately describes the mentality of some US journalists who gave these knuckleheads more credit than they should have. For others, however, giving credence to Sam Antar or Barry Minkow was simply an expression of an ideological commitment: those publications favor Wall Street over the United States, and they were willing to give credence to Barry and Sam’s work in order to further the agenda of Wall Street, which is more or less the purpose of their publications.
I know that is a lot to accept. So don’t trust me, trust a Florida state court judge, The Honorable Gill Freeman, who brought her hammer down on Barry Minkow. Judge Freeman’s entire opinion can be read here: Order Granting Lennar’s Motion for Sanctions–Dec 27 2010 (warning: It is so scathing one almost feels sorry for them. Or, well… maybe not.)
I cannot help resist quoting at length from it: as you read Judge Freeman’s words, please remember my description of the American Nazi.
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions and for entry of default and other relief against Defendants Barry Minkow and the Fraud Discovery Institute, Inc. for their willful and egregious litigation misconduct. The parties filed extensive papers in support and in opposition of the motion, and the Court held a two-day evidentiary hearing on August 26 and 27, 2010 at which time Mr. Minkow was examined by Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ counsel, as well as the Court.
Having carefully considered all the papers, the evidence filed by both parties, evidence introduced at the hearing, including Mr. Minkow’s testimony, and arguments of counsel, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs’ Motion be, and the same is hereby, GRANTED as set forth below, based on the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
With full knowledge of the rules and his obligations as a litigant in this Court, Mr. Minkow has withheld key documents, destroyed or discarded important evidence, concealed the identity of material witnesses, willfully violated court orders, and engaged in actions to cloud his misconduct. Minkow repeatedly intentionally misrepresented these matters to his own lawyers, in sworn affidavits filed with this Court, at depositions in this case, and at the evidentiary hearing itself, including in response to questions from this Court. Mr. Minkow was repeatedly impeached by his own documents, documents he never produced in this case as to material issues. The evidence clearly and convincingly established that Minkow has acted knowingly, unilaterally, and improperly in deciding what evidence is relevant and what information Lennar, the Court, and his lawyers should and should not know.
Minkow’s misconduct has been pervasive, intentional, and committed to gain unfair advantage over Plaintiffs and to deceive this Court. Lennar and its counsel spent numerous hours investigating Minkow’s activities in this litigation, and evidence which Plaintiffs have repeatedly requested has been discarded and/or irretrievably lost.
Plaintiffs’ right to fair process and trial has been severely and irrevocably compromised. No remedy short of default, together with full reimbursement of the attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection with Plaintiffs’ extensive and continuous efforts to obtain evidence and discovery, can restore Plaintiffs to “the position [it] would have occupied in the absence of [Minkow's] willfulness and bad faith.”
…
In its papers and at the evidentiary hearing, Lennar introduced substantial evidence that Minkow created and tendered false documents in this case.
…
Fact No.7: In this case, Minkow has been represented by three experienced, capable attorneys: Alvin Entin and Joshua Entin of Florida, and Michelle Baker of California. The Court finds that Minkow misled his attorneys multiple times on material issues.
…
Fact No.9: Minkow testified he could not recall whether he sent the letter to any person with whom he worked on the Lemlar investigation, including Tracy Coenen, Terry Gilbeau, Paul Palladino, Jeff Sachs, Sam Antar, or Shannon Boelter, or otherwise instruct any person to preserve documents in connection with this litigation. [emphasis added]
…
Fact No. 11: The evidence also showed that Tracy Coenen, Terry Gilbeau and Sam Antar deleted emails about Lennar they had exchanged with Minkow…
…
Fact No. 21: On October 7, 2009 Minkow submitted an affidavit swearing that he had produced all documents in his possession, custody, and control responsive to Lennar’s document demands and this Court’s June 15 and July 9, 2009 Orders. (Ex. 10 at”if”if 5-7; Ex. 8; Ex. 16; Ex. 20.)
Fact No. 22: These sworn statements in Minkow’s October 7, 2009 affidavit were false. At the time he represented that he had made a complete production, Minkow had possession, custody, or control of numerous documents responsive to Lennar’s document demands and this Court’s June 15 and July 9, 2009 Orders, including but not limited to, the following documents material to this case:
• a version of the November 30, 2008 engagement agreement between Minkow and Nicolas Marsch containing a six-page, 11-point “confidential proposal” (Ex. 202); .
• another version of the November 30, 2008 engagement agreement between Minkow and Nicolas Marsch containing materially different compensation terms (Ex. 200);
• numerous emails with Mr .. Marsch, Paul Palladino, Tracy Coenen, Sam Antar,Terry Gilbeau, Shannon Boelter, and other individuals involved in the Lennar investigation;
Fact No. 23: Minkow knew he had possession, custody, or control of these and other documents, but made the decision to withhold them.
…
Fact No. 25: At the August 26,2010 hearing, Minkow admitted that he withheld these documents and others but said it was “negligent” because, at the time he represented he had produced all responsive documents, Minkow was working “18 hours a day” filming a movie about his life and he was “swamped and overwhelmed.” The Court does not find this testimony credible and rejects this excuse.
Fact No. 26: On several subsequent occasions, when he was not filming a movie including as recently as August 11, 2010, Minkow continued to withhold documents and falsely represent that he had produced all documents in his possession, custody, or control responsive to Lennar’s document demands and this Court’s June 15 and July 9, 2009 Orders.
Fact No. 27: On each occasion, Minkow knew he had possession, custody, or control of such documents responsive to the Court’s Orders, but he–alone-made
the decision to withhold them.
Fact No. 28: Minkow’s year-long withholding of documents was not inadvertent, accidental, or negligent.
Fact No. 29: Minkow withheld documents he perceived to be harmful to his case. Among other things, the concealed documents demonstrate:
• that Minkow’s investigators questioned the accuracy of statements of fact he included in his report on Lennar;
• the perfunctory nature of Minkow research and investigation before he accused Lennar and its executives of operating like a ponzi scheme, giving its COO a disguised kickback, being a financial crime in progress, and other statements; and
• Minkow’s use of possibly illegal means to obtain personal, confidential information about Lennar, its executives, and others.
Fact No. 30: By withholding these documents, Minkow wilfully violated the Court’s June 15,2009 Order and the Court’s July 9, 2009 Order.
…
Fact No. 31: Minkow introduce~ no credible evidence to substantiate his assertion that he was unable to produce documents because his Hewlett Packard computer was stolen, crashed, and/or was hacked.
Fact No. 32: The evidence showed that in February 2010, Minkow was named as a defendant in another matter by a company called Medifast, Inc. … Lennar is not a party to that case.
Fact No. 33: In April and May 20 I 0, Medifast had· served Minkow with requests for documents in their case. On July 1, August 10,16, and 23,2010, Minkow produced more than 4,000 pages of documents to Medifast, including scores of emails. Among the documents produced to Medifast were documents that should have been, but were not, produced in this case despite this Court’s June 15 and July 9,2009 Orders.
Fact No. 34: When confronted at the evidentiary hearing with a document from the Medifast production, but not produced here, one that was responsive to Lennar’s document requests-Minkow testified, “I never even thought this had anything to do with it… What in the world would make me think I had to tum it over to Lennar?”
Fact No. 35: This testimony is not credible and, even if it were, demonstrates Minkow’s contemptuous disregard for the rules of litigation and his belief that he–not the Court-determines what is relevant.
Fact No. 36: The documents Minkow produced to Medifast-but not in this case-refute Minkow’s testimony that he was unable to produce emails in this case because his computer had been stolen, crashed, and/or hacked.
Fact No. 37: Lennar has incurred great expense to procure some evidence from third parties, and it is highly probable considerably more evidence that Minkow should have produced has been withheld, deemed irrelevant by Minkow himself, concealed and/or destroyed. Due to Minkow’s misconduct, neither Lennar nor the Court has any way of knowing the nature, extent, or volume of evidence that should have been produced but has been concealed and destroyed.
…
Fact No. 40: Minkow had represented that the Hewlett Packard computer on which he performed the vast majority of work related to his investigation of Lennar (and on which he had exchanged untold numbers of emails with Tracy Coenen, Terry Gilbeau, Paul Palladino, Jeff Sachs, Sam Antar, Shannon Boelter and others) had earlier been hacked, and likely was destroyed and/or discarded; after Minkow was added as a defendant in this case, after being served with a preservation letter, after being served with a Notice of Deposition Duces Tecum requiring the production of documents, and after Plaintiff had filed its first sanctions motion.
Fact No. 41: Minkow has not introduced any credible evidence that all information from the Hewlett Packard was copied, duplicated, stored, and preserved without the loss of discoverable evidence.
Fact No. 42: Minkow admitted that the transfer of his email archives from the Hewlett Packard to a new computer was “incomplete.”
Fact No. 43: On July 21,2010, the Court ordered Minkow to appear and provide testimony at an evidentiary hearing scheduled for August 4, 2010. The
Court allowed Minkow to appear in San Diego and provide testimony via videoconference.
Fact No. 44: Lennar made significant preparations to arrange the videoconference for the hearing on August 4.
Fact No. 45: On July 30,2010, Minkow agreed to voluntarily appear live in Miami at the evidentiary hearing scheduled for August 4, 2010.
Fact No. 46: Lennar relied on Minkow’s representation and Lennar’s counsel made significant preparations to attend and examine Minkow in person at the
hearing on August 4 in Miami.
Fact No. 47: On the morning of August 3, 2010, Minkow informed the Court that he would not attend the hearing scheduled for August 4, 2010 in person or via video conference from California. Minkow asserted that on August 2, 2010, while in Los Angeles awaiting a flight to Miami, he became ill and went to the emergency room at a Los Angeles hospital. Minkow represented that he was restricted from traveling to Florida for the hearing.
Fact No. 48: On August 4 and 10, 2010, the Court ordered Minkow to produce, among other things, evidence that he had been to the emergency room / hospital.
Fact No. 49: Ten days later, on August 20, 2010, Minkow submitted an affidavit wherein he admitted that he had not gone to the emergency room. Minkow had lied to Plaintiffs, the Court, and his own lawyers.
Fact No. 50: Minkow swore that he could not “recall” what he had said to his lawyers and his assistant the morning of August 3, 2010 because he was on pain medications. The Court does not find this testimony credible.
Fact No. 51: The Court finds that Minkow intentionally deceived Plaintiffs and the Court regarding the emergency room visit because he knew that such a claim would require this Court to postpone the August 4, 2010 hearing.
Fact No. 52: At the August 26,2010 hearing, Minkow testified that he “didn’t think it [whether he went to the emergency room] mattered. I had a doctor verifying I was ill, and I thought that is all that mattered.”
Fact No. 53: This testimony is not credible and demonstrates Minkow’s contemptuous disregard for the rules of litigation and his belief, again, that he-not the ermines what is relevant.
Fact No. 54: At the August 26, 2010 hearing, when Minkow was impeached by the fax header on his own doctor’s letter, Minkow testified for the first time that the assistant who picked him up in Los Angeles was not in San Diego, California, as he earlier had testified, but rather was in Orange County, California.
Fact No. 55: This testimony contradicts his affidavit ofless than a week earlier in which he swore that his assistant “drove to Los Angeles from San Diego, California.”
Fact No. 56: When confronted with his contradictory. affidavit, Mr. Minkow testified that the location of his assistant was “irrelevant.”
Fact No. 57: This testimony is not credible and demonstrates Minkow’s contemptuous disregard for the rules of litigation and his consistent belief that he, not the Court, determines what is relevant.
…
PERVASIVENESS OF MINKOW’S MISCONDUCT
Fact No. 95: Minkow’s withholding and destruction of evidence, concealment of witnesses, and false testimony constituted a fraud on the Court.
Fact No. 96: Minkow has displayed no regard for the Court’s Orders, his testimonial oaths, the administration of justice, or his obligations as a litigant.
Fact No. 97: Minkow had ample opportunity to correct his misconduct and avoid sanctions. Minkow chose not to do so.
Fact No. 98: Minkow has wrongfully acted as though it is his right, not that of the Court, to determine what documents are relevant, what issues are material, and what information the Plaintiffs, the Court, and even his own lawyers should and should not know.
Fact No. 99: Minkow has displayed no appreciation of, or remorse for, the burden and expense that his withholding and destruction of evidence, concealment of
witnesses, false testimony, and other misconduct have caused Plaintiffs and the Court.
Fact No. 100: The Court finds that the likelihood Minkow would comply with his discovery obligations or the Court’s Orders in the future is unlikely.
Remember what I said above about the American Nazi? How if someone lies and spins and lies and lies some more, they can actually keep going for a long time? When you catch them out in a lie, they often apologize, say they are sorry. Lots of them even cry (really, I see it every time I deal with sociopaths). They then continue with a new lie, a new spin, until you catch them again. They just keep going and going.
That is a pretty fair description of Judge Freeman’s description of Barry Minkow. Withhold evidence and lie about it by saying the evidence was destroyed; Destroy the evidence then lie about that; when confronted, say that your computer was hacked and that evidence i
Barry Minkow Master Mind of the ZZZZ Best Fraud
By gzfraud| 1 video
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JydqCyFsmS8&feature=player_detailpage#t=6s
Former white collar criminal Barry Minkow has uncovered hundreds of millions of dollars in fraud.