Monday, July 23, 2007

Did Patrick Byrne, CEO of, Deliver a Trojan Horse to the Securities and Exchange Commission?

In the Crazy Eddie fraud investigation they called it the Trojan horse diversion. My uncle Sam M. Antar (Eddie Antar's father) and his sons Mitchell and Allen, sent two former Crazy Eddie employees to lie to the Securities and Exchange Commission and cover-up their crimes in an attempt to make Eddie Antar and I take the fall. The Securities and Exchange Commission and later, the Justice Department, thought that they delivered the goods on the Crazy Eddie frauds on a silver platter. They thought the information was a gift. They were wrong. The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department quickly learned about witnesses bearing false gifts.

Is a similar attempt being made by Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne? Did Patrick Byrne send a Trojan horse to the Securities and Exchange Commission in an attempt to take them off his trail?

In previous posts on this blog, I have detailed the vile and malicious smear campaign directed by Patrick Byrne and carried out by Judd Bagley and his cronies targeting Byrne's critics and just about anyone who stands in his way. Patrick Byrne's arsenal of fear seems to have no bounds. In posts on this blog, I have detailed the use of threats, blackmail, anti-Semitism, harassment, intimidation, smears, false accusations, deceptions, and lies carried out by Patrick Byrne and his cronies.

Another tool in Patrick Byrne's arsenal of fear is to bog down his perceived enemies such as Gradient Analytics (an independent research firm) and Rocker Patrners (a short seller) in costly litigation. Is Patrick Byrne attempting to send a message that critical thought about and his actions is off limits and will be met with severe retaliation?

As detailed in his blog, Patrick Byrne can be extremely ruthless as he vents out his vile baseless hatred on his perceived enemies. According to a Fortune Magazine article entitled, "Phantom Menace" by written by Bethany McLean:

Even in that successful year, there were signs that Byrne was remarkably thin-skinned. In the fall of 2004, I wrote a FORTUNE story titled "Is Overstock the Next Amazon?" After the piece came out, Byrne sent me an e-mail saying "Fair. And balanced." Two days later he wrote another e-mail: "I actually thought it was crap.... So, why exactly did you become a reporter? Giving Goldman traders blowjobs didn't work out?" Around that same time, after Gradient released another report questioning board members' independence, Byrne wrote to Vickrey: "Donn, you make a living toadying to bully hedge funds ... you deserve to be whipped, f--d, and driven from the land."

Note: Bold print, italics, and underlines added by me. has sued Gradient Analytics and Rocker Partners alleging that Rocker had colluded with Gradient to write research reports disparaging in an effort to drive down its stock price. Gradient had written research reports critical of’s accounting policies, financial disclosures, corporate governance, and other issues. Rocker Partners is one of hundreds of customers who subscribed to Gradient's reports. and Patrick Byrne claim that they have three former Gradient Analytics employees who can nail Gradient, Rocker Partners, and others. Demetrios Antifantis, Robert Ballash, and Darryl Smith, all former Gradient employees, have signed sworn affidavits alleging wrongdoing by Gradient and Rocker. Patrick Byrne claims that he has other witnesses, too.

According a recent comment posted by Patrick Byrne in the Conglomerate blog:

….what we have is a series of people who worked for a company who realized it was crooked. Three of them came forward and said to their boss, "We cannot do this anymore. This business model is completely illegal. This has to stop." A few days later they were fired. They brought their information to me, I investigated and found more employees with the same story, and I started a lawsuit.

Note: Bold print and italics added by me.

According to a New York Post article entitled, “Affidavit Questions May Sap Overstock Case,” by Roddy Boyd, Demetrios Anifantis has claimed that he was fired after he asked questions about Rocker Partner’s influence on Gradient Analytic’s reports.

In another article entitled, “3 ex-workers of Gradient quizzed on Overstock,” by Karen Gullo and Demian McLean in the Deseret News, Robert Ballash and Darryl Smith have claimed that they were fired shortly after they asked questions about Rocker’s relationship with Gradient.

Gradient Analytics has alleged that Demetrios Anifantis, Robert Ballash, and Darryl Smith were fired for cause. According to the New York Post article, referred to above, Gradient Analytics claims that Mr. Antifantis had e-mailed their client list to his personal e-mail account. The Deseret News article, above, says that Demetrios Anifantis does not deny taking such work home. Gradient Analytics claims that Robert Ballash was fired for his collusion with Mr. Anifantis and that Darryl Smith was fired for poor performance.

Demetrios Anifantis and Robert Ballash were both fired on November 12, 2004. Darryl Smith was fired about a year earlier in October 2003. Mr. Anifantis had applied for unemployment benefits and his repeated requests for unemployment benefits were denied. He filed multiple appeals and they were denied. Did Robert Ballash and Darryl Smith ever file a request for unemployment benefits and receive such benefits after being fired by Gradient? If Ballash and Smith like Anifantis did not receive unemployment benefits, it can be inferred that they were fired for cause.

Were any of the allegations that Antifantis made in his later sworn affidavit disclosed by him to hearing officers during his repeated attempts to obtain employment benefits? If Anifantis had information about wrongdoing by Gradient, wouldn't he want to use it to counter charges that he was fired for cause?

If Anifantis did allege any wrongdoing by Gradient in his efforts to counter Gradient’s claims of firing him for cause, evidently the hearing officers at unemployment did not believe him.

According to the New York Post article, referred to above, in the months prior to being fired, Demetrios Anifantis and Robert Ballash sent e-mails back and forth joking about being fired. After sending a stern message to his supervisor, Ballash wrote Antifantis saying, “Hopefully they will fire me.” Did that e-mail message discuss any allegations of wrongdoing by Gradient?

Did any of those e-mails sent between Antifantis and Ballash discuss any wrongdoing by Gradient that appeared in their later affidavits? If such e-mails never discussed their allegations of wrongdoing by Gradient as alleged in their later affidavits, a person may reasonably ask if both Antifantis and Ballash concocted a story to get back at Gradient for firing them.

Patrick Byrne had been complaining about Gradient's research reports. Did Anifantis, Ballash, and Smith attempt to sell him a bill of goods?

Sometime between November 2004 and August 2005, the former Gradient employees made contact with Patrick Byrne. According to Bethany McLean's Fortune Magazine article (above):

That winter Byrne's worldview seemed to get darker. Instead of simply lashing out at critics, he implied that they were corrupt. For instance, on Feb. 15 he identified "Camelback, Greenberg, and other journalists" as people who "seem to go out and trash companies David Rocker is short.... How do I know this? Someone close (remarkably close!) to a guy mentioned above described it all to me, right down to the number of times per week phone calls are made amongst Donn [Vickrey], Herb [Greenberg, of Dow Jones Marketwatch], and David Rocker.... I am by no means suggesting that the remarkable coincidence of these journalists' attacks with Rocker's short positions means that they are on the take: There are many possible explanations for the coincidence (including, for example, that they could all be right, I COULD be a crook, and they all figured it out at the same time.)" Journalist Greenberg by that point had written a number of skeptical stories about Overstock. Byrne told Greenberg that one explanation for his skepticism could be that "you are on the take, and get paid off somewhere in order to do hatchet-jobs-to-order."

Note: Bold print and italics added by me.

If Demetrios Anifantis had never mentioned any of his allegations in his later affidavit during his attempts to gain unemployment benfits, even after being in contact with Patrick Byrne, a person can reasonably ask if Anifantis was attempting to sell Byrne a bill of goods. Did Demetrios Anifantis and Patrick Byrne discuss the status of Antifantis's claims for unemployment benefits? Hopefully, one day the full record of conversations between Byrne and Anifantis will be made public.

On January 28, 2005, things got really strange at's earnings conference call. According to Bethany McLean's Fortune Magazine article (above):

Then...came the first truly weird moment. That was the conference call held at 8:30 A.M. on Jan. 28 to discuss its year-end results. At the end of the Q&A, a guy who gave his name as Bob O'Brien came on the line. "You, probably, the name is not familiar," he began. He went on to say, "I think I can explain what is going on with your stock and basically why so many people are saying mean things about you," and proceeded to outline a plot of what he called "criminal manipulation, allusions, fraud, libel"--and something called "naked shorting." At the end of O'Brien's speech, Byrne said, "I buy toasters and sell toasters ... I don't know any of the stuff you are talking about."

Everything about Bob O'Brien's performance was odd. First, you don't often hear outsiders spouting off about conspiracy theories on company conference calls. Second, Byrne and O'Brien seemed not to know each other....And third, Bob O'Brien's name is not actually Bob O'Brien. He claims he has to remain anonymous because of threats to his safety. The New York Post has published a story saying it believes he is one Phillip Saunders, a small-business man who would be utterly uninteresting were it not for his cloak of anonymity and his baroque theories....

A critical part of the conspiracy O'Brien outlined is something called "naked shorting,"....

Note: Bold print and italics added by me.

During the conference call, Patrick Byrne implied that the Securities and Exchange Commission is a "captured regulator." Afterwards, it was discovered that Patrick Byrne had orchestated Saunder's aka O'Brien's weird staged appearance during the conference call. Byrne later admitted to having been in contact with Saunders aka O'Brien since October 2004.

On August 9, 2005, both Robert Ballash and Darryl Smith signed sworn affidavits alleging wrongdoing by Gradient. Did Demetrios Anifantis also sign a sworn affidavit on August 9, the same day that Robert Ballash and Darryl Smith signed their sworn affidavits? We don’t know. Demetrios Anifantis signed his “Restated and Revised” sworn affidavit on September 1, 2005.

On August 11, 2005, sued Gradient Analytics and Rocker Partners charging that they were in collusion to write disparaging research reports about the company. Patrick Byrne was armed with at least two or maybe three sworn affidavits by former Gradient employees.

On August 12, 2005, Patrick Byrne spoke about a vast financial conspiracy involving a person he identified as the “Sith Lord” in his widely mocked and infamous webcast. Mr. Byrne to this day has not identified who is the so-called “Sith Lord.” Many people believe that the so-called Sith Lord is a delusional paranoid fantasty created in Patrick Byrne’s mind.

In an article in the The Register entitled, "The Bizarre World of Patrick Byrne's Overstock," Ashlee Vance wrote about Byrne's behavior:

Take Overstock, whose CEO Patrick Byrne has held calls with financial analysts in which he delved into his sexuality and experiences with cocaine, in the midst of a tirade on how a cabal led by a "Sith Lord" was out to destroy his company.

Note: Bold print and italics added by me.

Bethany McLean wrote in her Fortune Magazine article (above):

Byrne's behavior has been so over the top that it would be tempting to dismiss it as a paranoid fantasy. Can you imagine the CEO of another company making a conference call like Byrne's without being sent packing by his directors?

Note: Bold print and italics added by me.

According to a Dow Jones News Wire article entitled, “Overstock Faces SEC Probe, Details Short-Selling Lawsuit,” (subscription required) by Carol S. Remond, Patrick Byrne had disclosed at the conference call that the Securities and Exchange Commission had begun an informal inquiry of about six months earlier in February 2005: President Patrick Byrne said in a conference call Friday that the Securities and Exchange Commission began an informal inquiry into the company in February…..

Mr. Byrne said in the conference call that the SEC was pushed into starting an inquiry into his company. He didn't give details about the nature of the inquiry or say whether it is still ongoing.

Note: Bold print and italics added by me.

During the August 12, 2005 conference call, Patrick Byrne had claimed that he was the victim of a Securities and Exchange Commission inquiry pushed by short sellers and others who had targeted him and his company:

And I’ll just fill in a couple of more squares. Well, the SEC, I’ve told you that there were pushed to start an informal investigation on me back in, I think it started in February and the DOJ….

Note: Bold print and italics added by me.

It is apparent from Byrne's remarks that the Securities and Exchange Commission started an inquiry of in February 2005 (six months prior to’s law suit against Gradient Analytics and Rocker Partners). He knew that that the SEC was on his trail. Did the SEC suspect accounting irregularities by Gradient’s reports had questioned’s accounting policies and financial disclosures. Did attempt to retaliate against Gradient for its independent research by filing its law suit? Was's law suit against Gradient a desparate attempt by Patrick Byrne to throw the SEC off his trail?

On August 29, 2005, Patrick Byrne brought his campaign of deflection and smears to the Motley Fool message board (subscription only) for In his first message posted on the Motely Fool message board Patrick Byrne wrote:

I can COMPLETELY understand why some would look at my behavior and think it whacko: it is not as though the possibility never occurs to me before I do something weird.

Note: Bold print, italics, and underlines added by me.

On September 1, 2005, Demetrios Anifantis signed a “Restated and Revised” sworn declaration alleging wrongdoing by Gradient Analytics and Rocker Partners. Why was his sworn affidavit revised? Where are the other copies? had leaked Anifantis’s earlier affidavit to the press. Certain publications after reading affidavits found major inconsistencies. Only Anifantis’s “restated and revised” affidavit can be found on’s web site. Did the earlier affidavit contain mistakes that would hurt Anifantis’s credibility?

On September 26, 2005, Roddy Boyd had written in his New York Post article, referred to above, that:

The affidavits of three ex-employees of research firm Gradient Analytics that are the centerpiece of's legal battle with short sellers may be tainted beyond effective use for the embattled Internet firm.

Note: Bold print and italics added by me.

On October 28, 2005, The Deseret News article (above) disclosed that Anifantis, Ballash, and Smith were questioned by the Securities and Exchange Commission about their allegations against Gradient and Rocker contained in their sworn affidavits. Shortly thereafter, the Securities and Exchange Commission began a probe of Gradient Analytics.

On February 7, 2006, the Securities and Exchange Commission subpoenaed three financial journalists who Patrick Byrne had accused as being in collusion with short sellers to drive down’s stock price. The three journalists who received subpoenas were Herb Greenberg (CNBC contributor, Wall Street Journal and MarketWatch columnist) Carol Remond (Dow Jones News Wire writer) and Jim Cramer (CNBC Contributor and co-founder of All of the three financial journalists have been the subject of intimidation, harassment, disparaging attacks, smears, and ridicule by Patrick Byrne and his cronies.

Three days later, on February 10, 2006, before the news of the subpoenas had become public, Patrick Byrne sent the an e-mail taunting Herb Greenberg. In his blog, Herb Greenberg wrote:

....On Feb. 10 of last year, three days after the SEC subpoenaed several members of the press in connection with the investigation -- but weeks before I ever made my subpoena public -- I received this email from Overstock (ostk) CEO Patrick Byrne:

Dear Herb,

I write in the spirit of our little sideline chats of the past. If you are not open to this, let me know.

I am just sitting here with a glass of wine in my hands, reflecting on what a really bad week you and your friends have had. The last two days in particular will likely prove to have been life-ruining events for certain people. As I take a sip, I find myself curious: do you guys know? Are you sitting somewhere, blithely oblivious, still chuckling about Whacky Patty, and all that? Or do you understand now that this is going to end badly for you? The signs are that you guys do understand, as some of your cronies are starting to make desperate-seeming mistakes. Do you understand what is happening in your world? How do you rationalize it? How do you tell yourselves it will work out? Do you ask yourself if you should have done something differently? I don't suppose you would tell me what it feels like: even were you in a panic, you'd probably write something like, 'Anything you say Patrick!' But you guys cannot be completely oblivious about the meetings that are going on, the questions that are being asked, the documents being drafted, the stories that are being told, the people who are listening. Someday people will be asking you what it felt like, to be where you fellows are now, and I am mildly curious to know: I hope you record the thoughts for posterity, if only as a cautionary tale. And if you would care to send me a letter, I would keep it private if you so desire.

Who knows, I might even be in a position to do you a favor someday.

Call anytime.


Note: Bold print, italics, and underlines added by me.

Despite the above taunting e-mail sent to Herb Greenberg before his SEC subpoena was made public, Patrick Byrne claimed that he had "not orchestrated the SEC investigation." According to a Boston Globe article entitled, "Overstock not behind SEC probe of Journalists, "Byrne acknowledged speaking to SEC officials about the probe, but dismissed the notion that the subpoenas were related to a lawsuit Overstock filed in August against hedge fund Rocker Partners and research firm Gradient Analytics.

The Securities and Exchange Commission later dropped their subpoenas of the three financial journalists.

On May 9, 2006, the Securities and Exchange Commission began a formal investigation of They subpoenaed a broad range of documents. According to’s 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission:

On May 9, 2006 the Company issued a press release regarding its receipt of a subpoena from the Securities and Exchange Commission, Salt Lake City District Office. The subpoena requests a broad range of documents, including, among other documents, all documents relating to the Company’s accounting policies, the Company’s targets, projections or estimates related to financial performance, the Company’s recent restatement of its financial statements, the filing of its complaint against Gradient Analytics, Inc., the development and implementation of certain new technology systems and disclosures of progress and problems with those systems, communications with and regarding investment analysts, communications regarding shareholders who did not receive the Company’s proxy statement in April 2006, communications with certain shareholders, and communications regarding short selling, naked short selling, purchases and sales of Company stock, obtaining paper certificates, and stock loan or borrow of Company shares.

Note: Bold print and italics added by me.

The information requested by the Securities and Exchange Commission in its subpoena to involved many of the same issues about its accounting policies and financial disclosures raised in Gradient's reports.

In a press release issued by, Patrick Byrne claimed:

I may be the first CEO in history to celebrate receiving an SEC subpoena. Some of the requests suggest the whispering of the blackguards, but I remain unconcerned about their hokum.

Note: Bold print and italics added by me.

While Patrick Byrne claimed to have celebrated receiving the SEC subpoena, he was clearly suspicious of the SEC’s intentions when he claimed that “Some of the requests suggest the whispering of the blackguards.”

Patrick Byrne had previously claimed during the infamous August 12, 2005 Sith Lord conference call that the SEC was targeting him at the behest of certain short sellers. However, his later statements imply that he and are not the targets of the Securities and Exchange Commission investigation.’s web site ambiguously and deceptively states:

The SEC is conducting an investigation on….

Note: Bold print, italics, and underlines added by me.

A more appropriate disclosure would be, “The SEC is conducting an investigation of”

On May 10, 2006, an embittered Patrick Byrne upset over the dissent and criticism by other message board participants to his smears and diversion campaign on the Motley Fool message boards, posts his last message there.

On May 17, 2006, Patrick Byrne received a separate subpoena from the Securities and Exchange Commission. However, he failed to disclose his subpoena until almost a year later on May 9, 2007, in’s 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. He made no press release celebrating his receipt of a separate subpoena unlike his celebration of the initial subpoena that had received.

On June 28, 2006, Demetrios Anifantis testified in a Senate hearing regarding his allegations of wrongdoing by Gradient Analytics but fails to mention Rocker Partners.

However, Herb Greenberg noted in a blog post entitled, “More Questions about a Key Witness,” that:

How independent is Anifantis? Did he write and/or edit his own testimony? If not, who did? For a clue, look no further than a copy of the transcript he provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee, a copy of which I’ve obtained. Scroll down the “file” menu at the top of the “Word” document to “properties.” Click on “summary.” It says the author of the report is “mgriffin.” Company: “Overstock.”

Who is “mgriffin”? Hard to say, for sure, but one attorney representing Overstock is Mark Griffin, the former director of the Utah Securities division. Why is “mgriffin” of “Overstock” named as author of the report?

Note: Bold print and italics added by me.

Did Patrick Byrne attempt to throw the Securities and Exchange Commission off his trail? Why would and not Anifantis’s attorney help prepare him for such testimony? Was Anifantis coached by

In an update to his blog post, Herb Greenberg wrote:

Update: Dow Jones out with a report quoting Byrne as saying Griffin is a lawyer who represented Anifantis and joined Overstock last week as its new general counsel. Oh, really? Why, then, didn't Byrne didn't tell me that last night? (Ah, forgot, he had to go to bed.) Further questions include: Who is paying Anifantis' legal bills? Why does the "Word" document mention Overstock as the company? Did Griffin provide his services free? If so, why? Has Anifantis received any compensation from Overstock? Did Griffin provide any of his services to Anifantis while he was employed by Overstock? If so, is that a conflict? If not, why not.

Note: Bold print and italics added by me.

While Mark Griffin was not's General Counsel, he was hired by to handle its litigation. Apparently, in a highly unusual move, hired Demetrios Anifantis’s attorney, Mark Griffin to conduct litigation after Anifantis provided them with sworn affidavits alleging wrongdoing by Gradient.

On July 22, 2006, Patrick Byrne started posting messages on InvestorVillage’s message board. His Director of Communications, Judd Bagley, hired by Patrick Byrne in August 2006, joined in the fight, too. Patrick Byrne's intentions were made loud and clear by him:

I'm not even winded, but my opponents have just gotten a small taste of what is in store for them. I plan on doing these guys slow.

Note: Bold print, italics, and underlines added by me.

From September 8, 2006 to January 2, 2007, Judd Bagley (Director of Communications at anonymously administered the smear web site on behalf of Patrick Byrne. Using the anonymous smear web site as a platform, Judd Bagley ruthlessly attacked Patrick Byrne’s critics and permitted physical threats to be posted there directed at Byrne’s perceived enemies. Simultaneously, Judd Bagley posted anonymous messages on InvestorVillage using the alias antisocialmedia and others in support of his boss, Patrick Byrne.

Note: For additional information regarding Patrick Byrne, Judd Bagley, and other person's acting in collusion with them on the internet, please visit the O-Smear blog.

On January 2, 2007, New York Post reporter, Roddy Boyd exposed Judd Bagley’s activities. After, his exposure by Roddy Boyd, Judd Bagley continued to post on InvestorVillage operating as a tag team with Patrick Byrne under his new alias De Daumier-Smith. In addition, Judd Bagley continued to administer the web site on behalf of Patrick Byrne. This time, Judd Bagley had identified himself as posting under De Daumier-Smith and now claimed that his use that alias to support his boss Patrick Byrne was part of his activities relating to the smear web site.

On InvestorVillage, Judd Bagley defined Patrick Byrne’s smear campaign of deflection, writing “…this fight is about public perception.” Judd Bagley had used the term “public perception” many times to define Patrick Byrne’s battle against critics. Judd Bagley, using his alias De Daumier-Smith on InvestorVillage, wrote the following about another favorite Byrne target:

….we now have the first independent confirmation of the role of the DTCC in this public perception battle.

Note: Bold print and italics added by me.

On February 14, 2007, the Securities and Exchange Commission dropped its investigation of Gradient but continued its investigation of and Patrick Byrne.

The Securities and Exchange Commission probably took sworn depositions of Anifantis, Ballash, Smith and other witnesses that Patrick Byrne claims to allege wrongdoing by Gradient and Rocker. We can be quite sure that the Securities and Exchange Commission took depositions of other Gradient personnel and persons who worked for Rocker Partners. In addition, the Securities and Exchange Commission probably subpoenaed and carefully examined thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, or even over a million documents provided by, Gradient Analytics, Rocker Partners, and others before dropping its probe of Gradient. However, despite its dropping of its investigation of Gradient, the Securities and Exchange Commission investigation of still continues.

Did the SEC believe the allegations of Demetrios Anifantis, Robert Ballash, and Darryl Smith? Did the SEC believe the allegations of possibly other witnesses? It appears that the SEC did not find any allegations of witnesses of wrongdoing by Gradient and Rocker credible.

On March 9, 2007, released its 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006. It has been noted on this blog and award winning forensic accounting expert Tracy Coenen’s Fraudfiles Blog that’s inventory reserves quadrupled from 6.1% of total inventory to 24.5%. Later, in its 10-Q for the first quarter of fiscal year 2007, inventory reserves leaped again from 24.5% of total inventory to 28%. Was over 25% of’s inventory junk or is the company’s being over-reaching in its reserves because of the continuing SEC investigation?

In that same 10-Q released on May 9, 2007, as stated above, finally disclosed after almost an entire year that Patrick Byrne had received a separate subpoena from the Securities and Exchange Commission. We need to ask, why did wait a year to disclose Patrick Byrne's subpoena and why did they choose to disclose it then?

A day after Patrick Byrne’s separate subpoena was disclosed in’s 10-Q, Mr. Byrne claimed that he was not the target of a Securities and Exchange Commission probe. Previously, on August 12, 2005 (above) Patrick Byrne had claimed that the SEC was “pushed to start an informal investigation” of him. Despite the fact that the SEC began a formal investigation of on May 9, 2006 and the fact that he received a separate subpoena on May 17, 2006 which went undisclosed for almost an entire year, Patrick Byrne claimed:

Here is the punch-line: as a matter of law I must tread carefully here, but I can say that the heart of the investigation is not, I would suggest, Overstock-centric, but rather, concerns itself with a strange set of relationships among ….. Well, let me just say that the irony here is just delicious.

Note: Bold print and italics added by me.

Instead of providing straight honest answers to questions about the delay in reporting his subpoena, Patrick Byrne and his crony Judd Bagley (Director of Communications at attacked journalists and others who raised such questions. Both Patrick Byrne (using his alias Hannibal) and Judd Bagley (using his alias De Daumier-Smith) operating as a tag team went to the InvestorVillage message boards and posted a flurry of messages in an effort to deflect criticism and inquiry about the year late disclosure of his subpoena.

Recently, both Patrick Byrne and Judd Bagley have claimed that they will stop posting on internet message boards. Anti-Semitic comments, physical threats, smears, and false accusations directed at Patrick Byrne’s critics by people commenting on’s web site have been grudgingly deleted. However, many smears posted on by’s Director of Communications, Judd Bagley remain published on the smear web site.

Patrick Byrne continues to use’s web site to smear his critics and parts of his campaign to intimidate and harass critics seem to be going underground. Certain small baby steps taken by Patrick Byrne and his cronies seem to be the result of pressure by newly appointed Board member Joseph J. Tabacco. Is worried about the possibility that a Wells Notice may be coming from the Securities and Exchange Commission? is still pushing forward its litigation against Gradient Analytics and Rocker Partners despite the Securities and Exchange Commission finding of no wrongdoing by them. Unless Gradient and Rocker succeed in getting the case dismissed on appeal, the discovery process will soon begin. While Patrick Byrne appears hopeful he should understand that discovery is a two way street. Gradient and Rocker have already provided discovery to the SEC only to be cleared of any wrongdoing. Now, Patrick Byrne will have to face his perceived enemies in a witness chair.

Written by,

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

Other bloggers covering

Gary Weiss

Jeff Matthews

Floyd Norris

No comments: