"I am really going to enjoy watching Goldman Sachs try to justify its nefarious schemes to a jury box with 12 Americans in it,' he said."
That was Fortune Magazine quoting me on January 28, 2011, regarding the escalation of Overstock's claims against Goldman Sachs, in an article entitled, "Nastiest CEO lashes out at Goldman". The title underscores their sympathies and journalistic objectivity. Displaying identical logic and equanimity there were, perhaps, similar "Nasty Belgians Lash Out at Fatherland" articles in the Nazi press of May, 1940.
Expecting Fortune Magazine to provide critical reporting of Wall Street in this first decade of the 21st century would be like expecting Sports Illustrated to provide critical reporting on Michael Jordan in the last decade of the 20th century. They cannot: it's a fan-mag. But Fortune's choice of title betrays its orientation more clearly than a dozen deconstructions of my own could accomplish.
One should note, however, that beneath its hysteria there are two facts on which Fortune Magazine is reporting. Those facts are:
1. As my Overstock colleague Jonathan Johnson, Esq., put it, "Recently discovered revelations of concerted action among certain market makers and these two brokerages necessitate that we amend our complaint to include additional claims. We expect that this conduct of Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch is fully actionable under anti-racketeering laws."
2. I wish to make Goldman Sachs explain its actions not to a White House to which Goldman is the largest donor ("Goldman Sachs was top Obama donor", CNN, April 2010); not to FINRA, its own industry's self-regulating body in which Goldman is the dominant member ("Goldman Action Highlights FINRA Facade"); not to an SEC which has been hopelessly captured beyond repair ("Why Isn't Wall Street in Jail?", Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone); not to members of the Senate Banking Committee from both sides of the aisle ("Goldman Sachs Congressional Inquisitors Also Beneficiaries of Firm's Financial Largesse"). I simply want to see Goldman to explain itself to 12 Americans whom they don't own.
Because Fortune Magazine is allergic to both of these facts, this is how they treat them:
1. Regarding the escalation of our lawsuit to RICO, Fortune provides this anodyne description: "Overstock said it made a filing with a New Jersey court allowing it to seek triple damages in its 2007 suit against the brokers." In comparison, note how the same fact was treated by various news organizations whose business model is not tied to regular and profound supplication before Wall Street:
a. Reuters: "Overstock accuses Goldman. Merrill of racketeering. Overstock says RICO charges apply in case" (December 16, 2010).
b. Associated Press: "Overstock adds RICO claim to short-sale suit: Overstock.com Inc. said Thursday that it sought to add racketeering charges against Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch…." (December 16, 2010)
c. Benzinga: "Overstock Adds RICO Claim To Goldman Sachs/Merrill Lynch Suit: As a result of evidence gathered through discovery in its prime brokerage lawsuit, Overstock.com, Inc. has filed a motion in California State Court to amend the suit to include claims under New Jersey's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act." (December 16, 2010).
d. TechRockies: "Overstock Sues Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch Over Racketeering" (December 17, 2010).
e. Benzinga: "Goldman Sachs Engaged In Interstate Racketeering, Says Overstock's Patrick Byrne" (February 15, 2011).
2. Regarding my insistence that Goldman answer for itself within the one system it cannot rig, Fortune's title and subtitle say it all: "Nastiest CEO lashes out at Goldman: It is hard to know who (sic)to root for in this one". Overstock conducted four years of discovery, obtained documents to support a RICO action, and filed that RICO action, which in the eyes of Fortune Magazine makes me a "nasty CEO" who is "lash[ing] out" against Goldman Sachs. The thought of poor, defenseless Goldman Sachs having to answer to 12 Americans whom they don't own and cannot buy clearly gives Fortune Magazine's staff the vapors.
It is the thesis of DeepCapture that the banksters have hijacked not just the regulators and industry self-regulators, but the politicians who oversee them, the academics who serve them, and much of the New York-based financial press. Of this observation Fortune once again provides fine confirmation. I am sure that Soviet apparatchiks could have wished for no more supine and obedient press coverage from their own state media services as Goldman Sachs (and by extension, Merrill Lynch) have received here from Fortune Magazine.
