Alleged Collusion 102
In a series of blogs posted on Marketwatch.com good old herb Greenberg has accused former Woodbury Kessler Attorney Mark Griffin of Collusion. Why? Because Herb allegedly received a document from Gradient PR genius Karen Hinton in which the sworn statement made before the Senate Judiciary Committee by Demetrios Anifantis had been vetted by Attorney Mark Griffin who is now the General Counsel for Overstock.com. Greenberg making the accusations that Griffin somehow altered the testimony of Anifantis without ever providing supportive evidence (Ref: Blogs Questioning a star witness' credibility, More questions about a key witness, Alleged Collusion 101, and Of Merge, cockroaches, McCarthyism)
Now in the allegations by Greenberg, in which a subsequent WSJ article was erected, in which Greenberg was co-author, the allegations of impropriety run deep. “Collusion” between witness and attorney is a sworn testimony is the charges yet, Greenberg provides no evidence to support his claims. In fact, as can be seen in the various blogs by Greenberg, the alleged journalist never actually provides any supportive evidence that anything stated was in fact false.
So what of this accusation of Collusion?
Well, if you dig deeper into the story, it appears that Greenberg received the tip, and a copy of the document between Anifantis and Griffin from Karen Hinton of Gradient Analytics. Greenberg has already been subpoenaed by the SEC over his relationship with Gradient and potential participation in a short and distort scheme. The subpoenas later being retracted by the SEC after the financial press acted in concert attacking the efforts of freedom of the press and free speech.
But what about this Gradient Greenberg relationship? How independent is a member of the financial media when they become the mouth piece to the analysts under SEC investigation? How independant can they be when the SEC is looking at them as well regarding this relationship?
Greenberg claims he has every right to speak him mind in “commentary” and feels it is his right to challenge everybody he sees fit. So why is it when the tables are turned Greenberg feels the spotlight shined on him is in violation of his rights?
The blogs presented by Greenberg, and the later co-authoring of a WSJ article, are in bad taste when you consider the open investigation against Gradient and the open SEC position on a re-issue of the subpoena against Greenberg. How could Greenberg create a blog addressing possible collusion when he himself has been part of an equally or more disturbing activity? Being the mouthpiece to the accused!
Any individual, speaking before Congress under penalty of perjury, would do themselves good to have their testimony vetted for accuracy before an attorney to insure compliance is met. That is what witness Anifantis did. Greenberg, however, used his public access through Marketwatch.com and the WSJ to create a controversy spearheaded by the defendant Anifantis claimed committed fraud, Gradient Analytics.
With the allegations of Collusion published throughout the Greenberg blogs and WSJ one can only wonder how deep the collusion goes between the financial press and the defendants. With a responsibility for objectivity, how can such objectivity be evaluated when Herb Greenberg continues to tout the Gradient Analytics party line?
The only remaining question that remains, where are the editors of the WSJ and Marketwatch .com that allow Herb Greenberg to use his access to the public to solve an axe he has to grind. If Herb wants the truth to come out, these agencies owe it to the investing public to let full discovery prove who is right and who is wrong. But to allow somebody like Greenberg to make repeated and unfounded accusations in such a public forum is inexcusable.
For the record, Greenberg was repeatedly asked to state exactly what in the witness testimony was Questionable, inaccurate, or possibly altered and Herb never had an answer. Instead he claimed that these were his blogs and he could pick and choose how he wanted to address the questions – responsible to no one.
I beg to differ as I believe herb is responsible to all his readers to insure he is accurate to the public forum he demands. If he is going to take the opportunity to allege collusion than the comments must go farther than second hand accusations and lead to first hand evidence. Something Herb has been remiss to perform
Take a peek at the Herb barrage of blogs and see if good ole Herbie will answer any direct questions on the matter. He has already been caught by PIPES reporter Brett Goetschius printing several inaccuracies (or flat out lies) as Herb later retracted one of his comments and denies the others despite recordings that prove otherwise.