Easter Bunny In The News Again
1) The Alpert piece is incorrect in its most basic claim, that Saunders' brother (assuming that it is his brother) created or is involved with the site he cites (couldn't resist the alliteration, sorry). That site is created and is devoted to pieces by someone named Brett Randolph. So the story is wrong at its core, something we've all learned to savor like a fine wine from Mr. Alpert (drinkey drinkey...typey typey...). Saunders' brother is not apparently connected to Randolph, other than sharing a link and a publisher.
2) Saunders' brother apparently wrote a book, and Saunders apparently helped write or edit or whatever that book, and has a co-author credit (assuming that Phillip Ross and Phillip Ross Saunders are one and the same, which seems likely given that Ross is Saunders' middle name).
3) Saunders is not in any way connected that I can see (nor is it claimed anywhere that I can find), with the Randolph site or material (I haven't checked the library of Congress to see who it is copy-written to, and frankly don't have the time or the interest). At best some of the bashers have advanced that Randolph may be connected to Saunders as an employee (or ex-employee) or a web consultant, thus Saunders must be involved in some unknown and heretofore unproven capacity - pure conjecture and invention, a "might" supported by a "could be" based on a "possible".
Other unknowns are whether Saunders co-writes with Mr. Alpert, or whether they are one and the same person - nobody has seen the two men in the same place, thus it is equivalently supported by fact - it's all possible, right? Anything is - that's why these sorts of articles usually get killed - but not at Barron's. Nosirreee.
So that's it folks. The guy the NY Post speculates might be the Easter Bunny might have helped his sibling (assuming that is right, could be his dad or his cousin or his long lost nephew or uncle) with a book. Period. And the book is apparently about Christian or spiritual material "which celebrates the triumph of the human spirit " - sounds profoundly troubling and nefarious in some way. As an Easter Bunny I am disturbed that anyone connected with acting as a shareholder advocate and commentator might also be involved in anything remotely Christian or spiritual, especially if it might be at a superficial level to help his relative, who apparently is religious.
What's next? Did Saunders get ticketed for trespassing at some point? Oh, wait, no, that would be Jesse Eisinger, of the WSJ. Did he get put away for trafficking in Stingers? Uh, no, that would be...well, you know. So the absolutely best and most juicy stuff they can come up with is the guy's brother's book, and a connection to a web designer who did some work on another site that Saunders is purportedly linked with - although how is unclear.
For anyone who might be wondering, I still am not going to comment on speculations about my identity, either pro or con - that's been my policy all along, and I see no reason to change it now. I do think that if the best body blow these guys have is a relative's book, if that is the deepest darkest dirt they can come up with, then they are running seriously scared, and have been told to make hay with something, anything, and do it quick. Apparently I have them worried, and discrediting me has gotten pushed ahead of discrediting Dr. Byrne. Amazing.
I do have a sneaking suspicion that this latest tangent is some sort of Machiavellian scheme by the Saunders clan to draw attention to their work - does Alpert know them, I wonder? Can't buy publicity like this, so I am somewhat skeptical. But then again, I'm paranoid...
Wonder why they have it in for the Bunny? A cuddly soft rodent whose big offense is to want the markets to be run honestly, and those who have been breaking the law to stop it. I can see why that would be threatening. And yet this particular rabbit has now appeared more often in NY financial publications than the chairman of General Motors this year. What's up with that? Touch a nerve?
Anyway, while some say "I don't know nothin' about any of that", I will simply say "I am not making this up".
Can this really get any weirder? Will the old lady in Vegas get her own sitcom? Does the web guy get a miniseries? Is there a Vanity Fair piece on my taste in socks in the offing? Maybe my own Discovery series on blogging for notoriety and fun?
Thank goodness that nobody is asking why OSTK has been on the SHO list now for over 6 months, and NFI since the day it commenced (both punctuated by a few weeks off), and why the SEC won't tell anyone why that is. I mean, we have weightier matters to attend to...
Like who is the Easter Bunny.