Skip to main content

Why Jonathan Johnson is the Right Choice for President of

The more that I think about it, I believe that former Vice President of Corporate Affairs and Legal, Jonathan E. Johnson III, is just the right man to take over Patrick Byrne’s role as President of (NASDAQ: OSTK). Patrick Byrne retains the title of Chief Executive Officer.

Role as babysitter for the 40-year-old CEO of a public company

According to’s press release, it was Jonathan Johnson’s early role to provide “adult supervision” as babysitter for his boss Patrick Byrne, the immature, lying, delusional, and paranoid CEO of Jonathan Johnson joined in 2002 and Patrick Byrne was a tender 40 years old when Johnson began babysitting the CEO of a public company. Jonathan Johnson provided key feedback to Patrick Byrne in shaping’s policy of blaming others for’s management failures through litigation rather than make money through innovation. He is the key legal advisor for Byrne's relentless and despicable smear campaign against critics of the company. Litigation rather than make money through innovation

The perennially profitless retailer has bought lawsuits against critics such as independent research firm Gradient Analytics and short seller Copper River Management (formerly Rocker Partners) blaming them for’s continual business foul ups. has never turned an annual profit and has reported an accumulated deficit of $254 million since its inception in 1997.’s only two reported quarterly profits ever (Q4 2002 and Q4 2004) were overstated as a result of an intentional revenue accounting error in violation of GAAP that was uncovered by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Lies to

Despite the SEC’s finding that’s revenue accounting was not reported in compliance with GAAP from inception until Q3 2007, Johnson went on to falsely claim to that such revenues were reported in compliance with GAAP. When failed to disclose in its Q1 2008 earnings release that the company compared Q1 2008 GAAP revenues to Q1 2007 non-GAAP revenues and as a result overstated its growth, it was Jonathan Johnson who lied to and falsely claimed that Q1 2007’s revenues were reported in compliance with GAAP. See excerpts from article below:

"In its earnings release, failed to disclose that it compared first-quarter 2008 revenues reported on a GAAP basis to first-quarter 2007 revenues that were reported on a non-GAAP basis," Antar wrote on his White Collar Fraud blog.

For those who don't speak accountantese, "non-GAAP" basically refers to non-standard accounting practices, and the difference between GAAP and non-GAAP numbers is often substantial.

"Sam is just wrong," says Jonathan Johnson, senior vice president of legal at Overstock. "They're both GAAP numbers . . . I can't read his blog because it's so full of lies."

Note: Bold print and italics added by me.

However,’s Q4 2007 8-K report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, clearly contradicted Jonathan E. Johnson’s claim to regarding the company’s reported Q1 2008 and Q1 2007 revenues that “They’re both GAAP numbers….”

From the company’s inception through the third quarter of 2007, we have recorded revenue based on product ship date. In the fourth quarter of 2007, in response to an accounting comment from the staff of the SEC, we retrospectively changed our policy to recognize revenue based on estimated product delivery date. We have recorded the cumulative effect of this change in the fourth quarter of 2007.

Note: Bold print and italics added by me.

In a previous blog post, I detailed how misled the SEC about the materiality of its revenue accounting error and as a result, the company wrongfully used a one-time cumulative adjustment to correct previous revenues in Q4 2007 rather than restate such revenues from inception. Therefore, never corrected Q1 2007 reported revenues to conform with GAAP since the company never restated such revenues. As an attorney and new President of, Jonathan Johnson should study Rule 10b-5, which expressly makes it “unlawful for any person….to make any untrue statement of a material fact.”

Stock sales coinciding with lie to

After Jonathan Johnson lied to, he dumped shares and pocketed almost $1 million in gross proceeds. The day after the article was published, Jonathan Johnson pocketed $699,000 from dumping shares and on the next day, Johnson pocketed another $258,000 from dumping even more shares. In addition, Jonathan Johnson has received a raise in salary to $225,000 per year as a result of his promotion to President of

If you ever wondered why CEO is a habitual liar who blames a Sith Lord and critics for the company’s woes, perhaps you should look no further than his babysitter, Jonathan Johnson. He fits in perfectly with's culture of lies and deceit.

To be continued….

Written by:

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

Note: For additional information about, please read Gary Weiss and Tracy Coenen's blogs.

Disclosure: Not long or short

Additional information: Index to all White Collar Fraud blog posts.

Popular Posts

Did a Clever SEC Bait Goldman Sachs into Compounding Its Legal Problems With the "Kiss of Death" Message?

Updated: At 3:48 AM ET 04/20/2010 on bottom

The Kiss of Death

In filing its lawsuit against Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) on a Friday, the Securities and Exchange Commission sent what I call the "kiss of death" message to the embattled company. In other words, the SEC wanted to stick it to Goldman Sachs and Fabrice Tourre, the Executive Director of Goldman Sachs International, who is also a defendant in the complaint. While the SEC as a practice does inform target companies and individuals of an impending enforcement action, it does not always tell them exactly when such an action will be filed.

Apparently, the SEC filed its lawsuit without giving Goldman Sachs the heads up that it was planning to file it that day. Business Insider observed that Goldman Sachs was clearly unprepared to respond to the complaint as news of the lawsuit dominated the headlines all day. Goldman issued a short denial around noon and issued an extensive denial late in the afternoon, after most people had … CEO Patrick Byrne Sleeps With a Gun

In numerous blog posts in the past, and in widespread media coverage, evidence has accumulated for years that CEO (NASDAQ: OSTK) Patrick Byrne has shown signs of being mentally unbalanced and paranoid.

Byrne has blamed his company's financial woes on an unnamed "Sith Lord." He hired paid goons to stalk his real and imagined adversaries and to write lengthy conspiracy theories on the Internet. Byrne has close ties with Bo Gritz. The Anti-Defamation League lists Bo Gritz as a far-right extremist with “extensive connections to both white supremacists and anti-government groups and leaders.”

Patrick Byrne's infamous temper tantrums when he doesn’t get want he wants are well documented too. He made obscene and misogynistic comments to a female reporter. He suggested that she gave “blowjobs” to Goldman Sachs traders. He suggested that a male reporter “Sucks It Likes He’s Paying the Rent.” An independent research analyst was told that “You deserve to be whippe…

Nature's Sunshine Products, Willbros Group, Cal Dive International, and BSQUARE Violate S.E.C. Rules on Calculating EBITDA

Nature’s Sunshine Products (NASDAQ: NATR), Willbros Group (NYSE: WG), Cal Dive International (NYSE: DVR), and BSQUARE (NASDAQ: BSQR) have recently issued earnings reports which include a calculation of EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization) that apparently does not comply with Securities and Exchange Commission interpretations for Regulation G governing such non-GAAP financial measures. In each case, their erroneous EBITDA calculations have enabled them to significantly distort their financial performance by erroneously reporting a positive EBITDA, when they should have reported a negative EBITDA in the latest quarter.

How EBITDA is supposed to be calculated under Regulation G

According to the S.E.C. Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations, EBITDA is defined under Regulation G as net income (not operating income) before net interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization. See below:

Question 103.01Question: Exchange Act Release No. 47226 describes E…

InterOil, John Thomas Financial, and Clarion Finanz: Anatomy of a Stock Market Manipulation Scheme

In this blog post, I will provide evidence of what I believe is a stock market manipulation scheme involving InterOil (NYSE: IOC), John Thomas Financial, and Clarion Finanz AG. I believe that InterOil with the assistance of Clarion Finanz concealed John Thomas Financial’s involvement in helping it raise $95 million through a private placement of convertible debt securities.

Clarion Finanz acted as a buffer between InterOil and John Thomas Financial to help InterOil hide John Thomas Financial's role in raising funds. Afterwards, InterOil filed false and misleading reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission in an effort to conceal John Thomas Financial’s role in helping the company raise $95 million in convertible debt.

Carl Caserta, who in 1991 was barred by the Securities and Exchange Commission from “association with any broker, dealer, or investment advisor” played a role in helping InterOil use John Thomas Financial to obtain funds from investors. InterOil, John Thoma…

Class Action Complaint against Amedisys uses Sarbanes-Oxley Act Corporate Governance Provisions to Battle Alleged Corporate Malfeasance

Updated at bottom of article

Last week, Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP filed a class action lawsuit against Amedisys (NASDAQ: AMED) charging the company, its CEO William F. Borne and its CFO Dale E. Redman with securities fraud.  In the next few days, Bernstein Liebhard LLP and Finkelstein Thompson LLP filed similar class action lawsuits against the company. The lawsuits allege that Amedisys abused Medicare's reimbursement system for at-home therapy care based on a compelling analysis of company revenues in an April 27 Wall Street Journal article.

In addition, the lawsuits innovatively utilize a provision under Section 406 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 which provides a back-door way for investors to force ethical corporate governance and sue public companies for malfeasance. That provision requires Senior Financial Officers, such as the CEO and CFO of public companies, to abide by a strict code of ethics which broadly defines corporate malfeasance and effectively makes…