Saturday, October 22, 2011

Deepcapture Web Site Shut Down

The web site,, founded by Overstock's Patrick Byrne to battle and report from an anti-short seller perspective, parts of the Wall Street underworld, appears to be shutdown.

According to, Vancouver promoter Altaf Nazerali has won a court order that has at least temporarily shut down the website. He complained that the site, which purports to expose stock market wrongdoing, posted material portraying him as a criminal and a fraud artist. The order, handed down in the Supreme Court of British Columbia on Wednesday, Oct. 19, instructs the site's host to block access to any material referring to Mr. Nazerali and prohibits the domain's registrar from allowing a transfer of the domain.

While it is not clear how much of directly referred to Mr. Nazerali, attempts to access any part of the site only returned a blank screen on Friday. The order was granted without any prior notice to Unless extended, it remains in effect until Dec. 2, 2011.

Obviously, the judge in the case has not read, or does not agree with, Walter Block's view on slander and libel.


  1. How many people went over and supported the site, or helped correct or add information so they wouldn't run into trouble exposing an important story.

    Not one. People want other people to do the dirty work and take the risks and danger, and then they want to swoop in later to scoop up the groundswell of anger and resentment and put their own faces on it.

    This is not the first important website that was shut down either, where what the site was exposing was very important, politically relevant information.

    You do not have to agree with Block's theories about slander or libel to tell the difference between calling attention to professional wrong-doing having a massive impact on public policies and vast numbers of people, and personal material that is intended only to hurt or humiliate.

    It's the difference between something like Cryptome and something like Gawker.

    Failure of theory isn't the problem. Failure of nerve is.

    There is a vast difference between unproven allegations and clear statements.

  2. Also, to clarify, Byrne was not anti-short seller. He was anti naked short seller, a big difference.

    Byrne's brother runs a hedge-fund. He is not anti-short selling at all.

    But that's how the criminal speculators would like to portray it.

  3. While I've read his book and support his position, in actuality few agree with Block's view on slander and libel. They are part of our social conditioning that is rarely challenged - there are bigger issues to discuss.

  4. Lila,

    Mark Mitchell, who authored the article in question as well as most of the work on the site, has a clear record of being anti-shortseller and has said that it should be banned. So there's that.

    It is difficult to defend against libel, in whatever jurisdiction, when you clearly make up assertions, embelish details or jump to wholly unsupportable conclusions ("X" worked at place "Y" that was sanctioned, so "X" is an integral component of global financial fraud.)

    Put another way, no law should protect speech that is intentionally misleading and/or dishonest and non-satirical in scope. Moreover, the tone and scop of DC's "work" is designed to inflict damage to reputation. Thus, the plaintiff, per DC, isn't just another Canadian promoter but a close associate of the chief fundriaser for Al Quaida, among others.

    Not to worry: I'm sure DC's "robust" fact-checking apparatus will acquit them in the end.

  5. @Steiner

    Agreed that Mark just listed a lot of facts together without proving causation.
    But I don't think he actually said those people were committing fraud. I recall, he left it loose, saying he didn't know how many people were innocent, merely working at the same place, or actually guilty of something.

    I don't know about the Nazerali thing, though.
    I certainly thought he tried to do too much.

    "Tone" inflicts damage to reputation?
    That's what short-sellers do ALL DAY LONG on message board.

    Google Mr. Pink and Daniel Loeb.
    Absolutely vulgar, lewd personal attacks on company management.

    Funny how all these "free market" "let the market decide" short-seller types, run to the government (courts) when they become the victims.

    When they're bashing companies, oh then that's the public interest...

    Just saying.
    Nazerali might be a combo of Mother Theresa and
    Good King Wenceslaus for all I know..

    And Mitchell is not a financial expert. He's a regular guy. Regular people don't like short sellers because they destroy companies.

    There's not law that says you have to like short-sellers.

    And there is no symmetry between market bubbles and crashes, as you know, so there need not be symmetry between management and short-sellers.
    In fact, the power is all with the latter...
    they have no standards of anything to live up to.

  6. Lila,
    Where to begin?

    Short sellers destroy companies?

    Prove that statement. Companies prosper or collapse based on their ability to generate revenues and turn that into cash-flow. Describe, factually, how short sellers affect that process. I can, however, describe how management's do.

    SHort sellers can and do act preposterously on message boards, though the example you cited was between 10 and 15 years old; there are likely few other germane examples of actual shorts acting that crudely. On the occasions they have, they have come in for substantial rebuke. I can, however, cite dozens more examples of companies and their paid agents willingly shilling and misleading on message boards and other, more important venues to entrap investors so the stock price is pushed up.

    What of the two causes more damage to the average person? The person who snarks on a companies prospects as Surferdude on the YHOO! boards or a CFO who BS's his way thru an otherwise disastrous earnings release?

    Odd how freedom of speech seems to extend to those whose speech is appealing to your cultural or financial interests.

    Mitchell has absolutely held himself out as an authority on these matters. Read the structure and tone of his work.

    Please provide examples of how short sellers use the judicial process in the US or Canada to "enforce" their views. I can provide you several dozen examples of companies that do that to reporters and short-sellers.

    Nazerali is not a short-seller. He is a low-grade Canadian stock promoter, a mildly crummy sort, who was linked directly to Al Quaida based on.....something that Mitchell dreamt up.

    Investigative reporting is rare enough and vital to the public interest. What Byrne sponsors, and Mitchell does, is verbal pornography with a financial/political tilt to fit a conspiracy theory.

    Beyond that, I'm totally down it.

  7. This is the internet, once it's out of the box, you can't put it back in. This ruling is nothing but a signal to the internet that the content of the site needs duplicated and distributed widely (it has already started). Even Google's cache is still available (mouseover a result to access the cache link). Governments and the criminals that rely on them are out of their league. All they have is brute force and the more they use, the less effective it becomes (and it will eventually have the opposite of the intended effect).

  8. @Anon
    Google caches can be removed easily, once a blog is deleted
    See how much you can find of Green Laser Reviews.
    There used to be a lot of google webcache pages. They've all been deleted.
    You can do it with webmaster tools, only takes a simple request and it's gone in a few hours.
    I suggest you take screen shots.

  9. Also, Mark might have got it all wrong, but then so have two "legit" investigative reporters (one, an award winner), at least according to this link:

  10. Naked short selling is destroying the market, All these Bernie Madoff hedge funds should be closed down and scamsters should be sent to prison....

  11. Lila,

    It's pretty clear that Mark's "work" was derived--to the extent any was true--from a series of threads on a site that was completely dedicated to exposing pumpers, promoters, touts and exagerators among investors and managements.

    They were brilliant at it and were led, in spirit at least, by a fellow that wound up in some hot water of his own, Anthony ElGindy.

    So yes, Mark's assertions that Nazerali was a tout in Vancouver is akin to saying a woman seven months pregnant isn't a virgin. It's his connection to global terror finance that is a tad more fictional.

    Need I remind you that most reporters don't make up facts and connections. When they assert something, they have documents and multiple sources, usually some on the record, backing it up.

    That's something that Mark will have a fine time explaining in court. I suspect Byrne will write a check long before it gets to that though.

  12. @Steiner

    Are you saying that short selling stock or other items that you do not own isn't harmful? Is that your claim?

  13. @Steiner

    No one is defending trashing someone's reputation without credible proof.
    But I suspect there's much more to the story.
    Vancouver is well-known as a kind of center for bs pumpers, terrorism money-laundering and more.

    I don't believe Mark got his "stuff" from Elgindy (are you from the Elgindy fan base?)

    If he's wrong, then the courts must decide.

    If there are 2 other investigative journalists who also think Nazerali was worth investigating, then a claim for malice is that much harder, right?

    Look at the big names mentioned on the site...
    You think the Canadian Supreme Court really got its knickers in a twist only because of Nazerali?

    If I'm not mistaken, Patrick's suit against Goldman Sachs also goes to trial in December (?)..

    Interesting huh?

  14. Anon,

    What the hell are you talking about? No, it's very clearly not legal. When it is discovered, it is sanctioned. It is a red herring issue in 99% of the cases it is cited--as often as not, the management's claiming it are the one's doing it--and it absolutely certainly, without a doubt had zero to do with the credit crisis of 2008 or whatever other calamity Mitchell and Byrne claimed of it.

    If anyone had listened to the short-sellers in, say, 2005 there would have been much less of a problem. Thanks to Patrick and his merry band of liars, lackwits and apologists, speaking out became legally dangerous.

    No, I am not an ElGindy afficianado.
    You have hit upon my precise point: Nazerali is a PUMPER who inflates, illegally and artifically, stock prices and was investigated as such. The traditional remedy for his ilk is investigative reporting and short-selling, both of which Patrick and Mark are sworn enemies of.

    I did take a look at the site. It is a clown's bedroom of allegations whose evidence is even more thin than Nazerali's. I have no reason to believe that, per your allegation, the series of concentric farces that is the Canadian justice system has ordered the site shut down because of some threat it poses to the world's power base.

    That you do is classic.

    Oh, and girl, I truly love the Goldman Sachs bit at the end. Classic, and so expected. Yup, all the arrows point to......that.

    You forget the first rule of dots: They can only be connected when they exist. Nice try. I think the first 10 defendants settled with Byrne et al for under $500k, give or take, several times less than the Plaintiff's legal bills. The banks must just be crapping their pants, coming up with $40-$50k each.

    I guess it is piling on to say that Overstock moved to have the trial pushed back to mid-March, next year?

    But at least it gives us license to use "Beware the ides of March."

  15. Anon at 10:13 am:

    Make no mistake, I am saying that legal short-selling is both valid and necessary, on multiple levels. It is a pity is not better understood and that short-sellers didn't have such legal impediments to discussing their views more openly.

    And no, I do not short stocks, buy puts or anything of the sort.

  16. @Anon

    I said it's an interesting fact. It warrants investigation. You say it doesn't. But it sure looks like you're following that pretty closely, no?

    Let's see, you said no serious investigative journalist would look at Nazerali..nothing to see here.

    I just told you, he's showed up in at least two serious investigative journalists' books (even if you don't count Mitchell as one) of them was an award-winning book.

    So that is my first rebuttal.

    My second, I'm addressing on my site.

    But why so much sound and fury...if Nazerali is right (and look how quickly, nay, immediately, the BC Supreme Court leaped to hand down that order....the very same day he made the claim..and with no notice to the site.

    A bit strange, no? Especially, since the material has been up since April 2011, with nary a peep.

  17. @Steiner
    Sorry. The last comment was meant for you.
    Agreed about legal short selling. No problem with it. Maintains liquidity, helps price discovery etc.

    But efficient market theory, the villain of the piece and current ideology of the market, still doesn't correctly account for asymmetry, herding, etc in the markets....

  18. Lila,

    RE: Sound and Fury.
    Beats me. If I beleived in karma, that'd be a handy explanation, but I don't.
    I guess he simply got sick of seeing himself linked to Al Quaida by a bunch of thugs. Frankly, I'm surprised it hadn't sooner and in greater volume.

    With that, I depart this thread. You've been a civil commentator and I wish you and yours well. These are hard times and do try our souls.

    In peace,

  19. It is painful to read attacks on short selling and naked short selling on this site of all places. I mean in the comments section of course because I know Wenzel understands the virtue of short sellers. Robert Murphy wrote a very good article in defense of short selling and naked short selling that desperately needs to be read by many of you here.

  20. @Steiner

    Same to you. If you're interested, Gary Weiss had a couple of comments on his blog from his perspective. I think Byrne also posted something on a message board.

    Wish people on opposite sides would actually put their heads together instead of butting against each other.

    Might solve a few problems

  21. Wow!! Does anyone actually read all of the articles on Deep Capture before they comment? Over and Over again they state that there is nothing wrong with Short Selling. A 3rd grader could read it a pick that up.

    Their whole point is market manipulation that is allowed by "FAILURE TO DELIVERS". These massive FTD's are allowed to happen with millions of shares shorted that had no intention of being located.

    Over and over they give examples of it occurring with no enforcement by the SEC and no fines or prosecution appropriate to the crime.

    It doesn't require a huge leap to imagine that scum bags are the ones colluding and perpetrating these manipulations.

  22. Jimmy Carter was targeted with a lawsuit for writing critically about Israel. Eliot Spitzer former NY AG has been sued. In a  Salon piece, Spitzer identified Marsh & McLennan officials as corrupt (M&M is one of the outfits close to the 9-11 story). He has now been sued for libel for $90 million.

    The financial site, Deep Capture , which attempts to trace the connections between the media, the Russian Jewish mafia, Islamic jihadi networks and the market collapse, has been blocked by the web, following a Supreme Court order from British Columbia.  The American courts have not allowed RICO to be invoked in Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne’s lawsuit against Goldman Sachs.

  23. I'm just now catching on to this. Deepcapture is one of the greatest exposes and looks inside of the scam of the 1% corporate fascist machine that owns and operates our Judiciary, Supremes, Executive, Congress, n MIC, not to mention they own and operate every facet of our lives from towhship to city, county, state and nation. What a loss this insight is for those 99% who know NOTHING about the scams being foisted on them . . . other than the income inequity they suffer from . . . which is the CRUX of the matter. Loss of jobs/income, housing, healthcare . . , as this tide rises from the scams of the banking and financial deregulations which are destroying our country and we the people, the inevitable will occur, sooner than later. When empires over extend, they collapse, from within and without. This one, is well on its way. Those who would paint Deep Capture as muddled mutterings are simply shilling for and paid by the 1% as much as Jim Cramer is. Life is simple, ya can't fuck it up unless you WANT to and can profit from it. ;-)

  24. this is the only site that has provided information on the ridiculous censoring of the deepcapture financial website. it is a great source of information. it went to great lengths to explain the opaqueness of our markets' clearing and settlement system and the consequent threats to independent investors not party to privileged info. this independent uncaptured information was stolen from we,the people. this country is slipping precariously into the gulag. censorship will make us slaves. stop censoring necessary independent information

  25. I didn't hear of until it was shutdown. Now it's my little obsession and I've got about 50% of it's content copied to my hard drive. And I'll have the whole thing by tomorrow.

    Judd and Mitchell have put so many names and so many firms on the site that it's almost overwhelming. Did Nazarali really think that going after Google would remove Deepcapture's content from the internet? LOL!

    The whole thing about Revell's involvement with Imagis, Alqueda and the Mob was either crazy or a gutsy call on another level of a very deep rabbit hole. Also, Revell going after Christopher Byron of Red Herring makes you wonder if he'll go after

    Great stuff for us "red pill" poppers who want to see how far the rabbit hole goes.

  26. Deep Capture CEO given Ernst & Young's Entrepeneur of the Year award.

    Ha ha ha, to any banksters out there...

  27. I have just found this site. I wondered just what had happened to P. Byrne's site. I happen to believe him much more than the banksters on Wall Street. One of the most interesting parts of this entire sordid affair is that having read the DC stuff, I expected something just like this on the day that I could no longer access the site.

  28. @Rcoutme

    I have multiple posts and background information about Deep Capture at my blog.

    You can search my site and find more information related to it from 2009 onward at least.

    I have been posting on the financial crisis since 2007.

  29. Lila Rajiva: The SEC and the "special interest group" will have there way as long as the regulatory authorities for public equities on United States markets decide to "look the other way" for political reasons! was my website to expose a public company named Daleco Resources Corp and the scam of "ABUSIVE NAKED SHORT STOCK SALES OF PUBLIC CORPORATIONS"! The following happened and can be proved beyound a reasonable doubt.

    On Sept. 30, 2007 CEDE & CO 55 Water St New York NY 10041-0004 was the owner of 25,544,336 common shares of Daleco Resources Corporation. This is from "LIST OF STOCKHOLDERS" per Daleco's stock transfer agent since 1996 STOCKTRANS, INC. From 10KSB report for fiscal year 2007 (ending Sept. 30,2007) as of Dec. 31, 2007:

    Number of shares outstanding of the issuer’s Common Stock as of December 31, 2007: 43,081,346!

    So 25,544,336 common shares of Daleco Resources Corp were held in STREET NAME with stock brokerage firms with CEDE & CO as the "legal owners" of these shares. The stockholders of these common shares of Daleco simply held an "entitlement" to their brokerage account for the common shares that they thought that they OWNED!

    Since CEDE & CO OWNED 25,544,336 common shares of Daleco as of Sept. 30, 2007, how did this ownership play into the following ABUSIVE NAKED SHORT SELLING of Daleco's common stock and covering this ABUSIVE NAKED SHORT SELLING three plus years after the fact as following:

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: marv eatinger
    Cc: ;
    Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 7:15 PM



    Marv Eatinger

    Daleco's stock transfer agent for the last 14 years STOCKTRANS, INC. is no longer in business as of March 8, 2010.

    cc: Senate Banking Committee

    Marv Eatinger