Goldman Sachs Tries To Shut Down Dissident Blogger

The Narrative Fallacy sends along a piece from the Telegraph on efforts by Goldman Sachs to silence a blogger who is posting commentary critical of the bank. "Goldman Sachs has instructed Wall Street law firm Chadbourne & Parke to pursue blogger Mike Morgan, warning him in a recent cease-and-desist letter that he may face legal action if he does not close down his website goldmansachs666.com. According to the C&D letter, dated April 8, the bank is rattled because the site 'violates several of Goldman Sachs' intellectual property rights' and also 'implies a relationship' with the bank itself. Morgan claims he has followed all legal requirements to own and operate the website and that the header of the site clearly states that the content has not been approved by the bank. In a post entitled Goldman Sachs vs Mike Morgan, the blogger predicts that the fight will probably end up in court. He went through a similar battle with US home builder Lennar a few years ago after he set up a website to collect information on what he alleged was shoddy workmanship in its homes. 'Since I went through this with Lennar, I've had advice from some of the best intellectual property lawyers, and I know exactly what I can and can't do. We're not going to back down from this.'"

Comments

Um....

[Darkness404]

Why do companies go to these great lengths to censor these people? Its a lot more effective to let the bloggers blog in relative obscurity then to make a big deal of it and then increase the pagerank of their blog. Pursing these types of cases only leads people to believe you do have something to hide, and that something to hide just got a lot higher up on Google by threatening to sue them....

Re:Um....

[Anonymous Coward]

We should try to cover up the existence of the Streisand Effect. Then everyone would know about it.

Re:Um....

[Skapare]

Nor have they read this advice.

Re:Um....

[Gerzel]

Because most of the time it isn't more effective to let them blog in obscurity.

I'd be willing to bet that most people blowing whistles or posting such sites have not crossed every "t" and dotted every "i" and do have some legal leverage that companies can use to shut them down and in many cases wipe them out. Most fold quietly and are never heard from or else are destroyed by legal fees. These bussinesses would not pursue these practices if they were not effective in most cases.

Sending a scary legal-looking letter especially to a young or low-wage person is more than enough to get them to shut down and shut up what ever they are doing that you don't like. Often you can get the person to sign something to have them give up more rights while they are scared and thus have even more power over them once and if they ever come to their senses.

Re:Um....

[Matt Perry]

Why do companies go to these great lengths to censor these people? Its a lot more effective to let the bloggers blog in relative obscurity then to make a big deal of it and then increase the pagerank of their blog.

Did you mean "then" or "than"? Your post is interpreted differently with either word. You said "then" which makes this read as they left him to blog in obscurity and now they have decided to make a big deal about it which means they are doing the most effective thing, according to you.

Re:Um....

[Shikaku]

Then there would be a Streisand Effect on the Streisand Effect's Streisand Effect.

In Soviet Russia Streisand Effects you!

Re:Um....

[jcr]

Why do companies go to these great lengths to censor these people?

Because it used to work. This was before the internet reached most of the people in the country, though.

-jcr

Re:Um....

[PhreakOfTime]

But then again, posting such a poorly thought out Cease and Desist letter might end up in more attention being drawn to such unethical business practices.

Since you are a betting man, what do you think the odds are that the lawyer who wrote that letter has severely questioned the decision to do so?

Re:Um....

[SlashWombat]

Talking about banks having sense? Where have you people been for the last year? (Hint ... Global economic crisis, Junk Bonds, Corporate Greed)

Re:Um....

[Golddess]

Gerzel's point was that, most of the time, $BIG_CORP trying to shutdown $LITTLE_BLOG does not end up like TFA. Now, I don't know if that is true or not, but Mr Morgan fighting back against Mr Sachs does not automatically invalidate what Gerzel said.

striesand effect

[timmarhy]

when will lawyer types understand the world is more complex than litigation. even if sachs win this it's too late, they've given him all the credibility he needs just by reacting to it.

if they just ignored it and called it blatantly untrue, he'd slip off the radar never to been seen again. the other side to this is that there are lots of guys like this blogger who take up causes like this just to try get their 15 minutes. this guy strikes me as one of this self rightgeous types.

Re:striesand effect

[oldhack]

"when will lawyer types understand the world is more complex than litigation."

I'm sure lawyers understand that better than most.

Re:striesand effect

[fightinfilipino]

it's not often the lawyers' choice. Goldman Sachs consults Chadbourne & Parke on the best courses of action. if the law firm is doing its job correctly, they will give Goldman Sachs a number of different options they could take. but ultimately, it's up to Goldman Sachs as the client to choose what path to take. in short, the lawyer types DO understand that there's more than just litigation, but clients may not necessarily know, or even want, those other options.

Re:striesand effect

[timmarhy]

call me jaded, don't i don't see lawyers not advising legal action. that's simply not what we see happening in the courts these days.

Re:striesand effect

[Saysys]

It does not matter if it is right or wrong to the lawyers.

What matters is how much they can convince GS to pay them for the privilege of making GoldmanSachs look bad.

Re:striesand effect

[qbzzt]

Goldman Sachs probably has a PR department. It's the job of the PR department to weigh in and say this is not worth doing.

Lawyers are experts on how things would appear to a judge and a jury - not how the rest of the world would perceive them. Often the best legal course is a really bad PR course.

Re:striesand effect

[CodeBuster]

Often the best legal course is a really bad PR course.

That is true, but unless the bad PR reaches a mighty crescendo of public outrage, as the AIG bonus scandals did, then a bank holding company, like Goldman, is unlikely to change its ways. Goldman is not a consumer products or entertainment company and so is more insulated from, although not impervious to, the direct actions and opinions of the public.

Streisand Effect for Goldman Sachs

[Futurepower(R)]

This will cause a major Streisand Effect for Goldman Sachs. Now everyone will know what they want hidden.

It seems to me the banks are largely in control of the country, not the government or the people.

We need to transfer money to and from Europe and Brazil. We discovered that the banks: 1) Determine the exchange rate themselves; some banks won't even tell you their exchange rate in advance. 2) Charge a large fixed fee. 3) Charge a percentage of the money transferred.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

bad law

[belmolis]

The C and D letter itself undermines its argument. It notes that Goldmann Sachs owns the trademark "in the financial services market". Trademarks are restricted to particular market segments. The fact that Goldmann Sachs owns that trademark in the financial services market does not prevent others from using the same trademark in other market segments. If you want to start a chain of "Goldmann Sachs Cheeseburgers", you are free to do so. So, not only is GoldmannSachs666 clearly distinct from GoldmannSachs, but since it isn't in the financial services market, it wouldn't infringe even if it weren't distinct.

Re:bad law, not Kosher

[davebarnes]

Goldman Sachs Cheeseburgers.
Too funny.
Especially near Passover.

Right as Rain

[Seraphim_72]

But you know, even if you are right, being an asshole still shines through. You always have to consider the messenger.

Blah-sucks.com

[Citizen of Earth]

Haven't there already been Blah-sucks.com cases that have been decided in favor of free speech?

More of the many abuses by banks:

[Futurepower(R)]

Here are just a few more of the many abuses by banks:

The Federal Reserve Bank is not federal. There is nothing in reserve. It is not a bank. Three lies in the title! "The Fed" is controlled by the big banks.

Someone associated with the big banks, acting for "The Fed", determines the interest rate that will be paid on savings. There are often news stories saying how brilliant he is for lowering the interest rate, which allows the banks higher income, and means that those who save money get less interest.

Retirement savings accounts (IRAs): 1) IRAs are given a lower interest rate. 2) When IRA CDs are renewed automatically, it is always at a lower interest rate, taking advantage of people who are extremely busy before the renewal date, and don't have time to research a better rate at a different bank.

Credit Cards: 1) Credit card rules are changed any time the bank wants, with little prior notice. 2) Changes in the rules are hidden in complicated language.

Savings accounts: 1) Banks advertise a high rate, then lower the rate later, with very little or no notice. 2) Accounts don't show the interest rate. 3) Banks advertise phrases like "Great Rate" and then give an especially poor rate, depending on the lack of ability of most people to do research.

Bank Representatives: 1) Banks hire support people who have no power other than to waste time. 2) Online email support people press a button and give pre-recorded answers that have no relevance to the issue raised.

Re:More of the many abuses by banks:

[ip_fired]

Someone associated with the big banks, acting for "The Fed", determines the interest rate that will be paid on savings. There are often news stories saying how brilliant he is for lowering the interest rate, which allows the banks higher income, and means that those who save money get less interest.

Huh? Banks determine the interest rate that they will pay you. It's on your monthly statement. If banks need more money, they'll offer a higher interest rate to entice people to transfer more money over to them. If you want a fixed rate, you need to get a CD, which will lock you into a rate. By using a savings account which you can withdraw from, you get less. Less risk (because your cash is liquid), less reward.

The interest rate you are talking about is the inter-bank lending rate, where banks will make very short term loans to each other (overnight, or a few days) so that they have the requisite amount of cash to meet the needs of their depositors. It doesn't always effect the rates at which you can lend at.

In response to your other gripes:
IRAs) Don't invest in CDs. Put your money in managed funds that will get you better returns without you having to do all of the research.
Credit Cards) Don't buy what you can't afford. It doesn't matter what interest rate you have on the card if you pay it off in full each month.
Savings Accounts) Move your money out when the bank lowers the rate. Move it into something with a higher return if you can afford to have it be locked up for a while.
Bank Representatives) Not sure what bank you're with that causes you think this, but it isn't true of all banks. Start shopping around a bit more.

Re:More of the many abuses by banks:

[pod]

That was at best an extremely poor choice of words on the parent's part.

The FED rate is the rate the FED will lend to large banks at. The parent IS correct in that, effectively, the FED has nothing in reserve, and any money it lends is basically created out of thin air. The way it influences (and benefits) these banks is that the lower the rate, the more will be lent and borrowed, and anything they get from the FED they will multiply 10x through the magic of fractional reserve banking.

This is bad because it distorts the economy. By artificially lowering rates and encouraging capital borrowing, businesses misallocate their assets and efforts, anticipating economic conditions that are ultimately fake (because real capital is only created through savings, not the printing press), and that will lead to losses when the real condition is revealed (the classic boom/bust cycle).

Re:More of the many abuses by banks:

[sumdumass]

That's sort of true and not at the same time.

The fed actually holds a percentage of the money other banks own from deposits. Your local bank (or national/international conglomerate acting as a local bank) is required to keep so much of their deposits in reserve to account for normal withdraws and banking needs. The ratio usually is different for times deposits like a CD but for normal account deposits it's around 10% (last time I checked).

Now, here is where the fed comes in to play. The local banks don't really have the facilities or security to hold the entire amount of reserves. If a bank has 10 billion deposited (on paper), it needs to keep 1 billion in reserve. Most banks can don't have the capacity to keep more then a couple million on hand so the rest gets stored at the reserve. They transfer a portion of this (what they are capable of securing on site subtracted from the CRR applicable to the banks specifics) to one of the twelve district reserve banks. They do this for a small fee which is generally charged as the FDIC insurance. When the reserve lends money, they lend this money as their own and collect the interest on it.

They can do this essentially because 15 banks may have more then enough money deposited to cover the normal needs of all the banks in their district plus interbank lending. They aren't creating it our of thin air, they are using other people's money as their own for the purpose of stabilizing the monetary flow.

This can go awry and cause some disasters like when banks state trading loans and counting them as asset packages for the purpose of their reserve ratios (part of what got us into trouble recently). However, the system itself isn't inherently flawed or bad as you suggest. What this does is allow wealth and value to be created without the constant need to monitor the health of the economy. It doesn't really distort it as much as it keeps it stable. And best of all, it allows wealth to be created without causing inflation.

Now what I mean by wealth to be created without causing inflation is best explained in a short story/example. In a fixed system, there is a static amount of currency. When someone holds 90 percent of that currency, there is only 10 percent of it left for the community. The result is that people get paid less for their work and have to pay more for their goods and services they purchase. But with this reserve system and the ability to use other people's money, then you or I could do something of value and create wealth without lowing the amount of money in circulation or causing inflation. What happens is that if there was $100 in the entire country and $60 was in the hands or bank accounts of 2 of the 10 people living there, then when you convert your time and labor into value by going into the woods, cutting down a tree, cutting planks from that tree and manufacture rocking chairs or furniture or whatever, your not limited to selling them for the excess of the $5 the remaining 8 people control. Instead, they can temporarily use $2 each from the 2 with all the money and now you have your $5 plus $16 from the other 7 people with $5 and one of the 2 with $30 each. The effect is that the economy now has roughly $114-$116 and you purchase more stuff to better your life. This pays someone else more, allows them to do something to create wealth, purchase more, and the process repeats. At some point in time, they print more money to represent the actual value or wealth in the economy and you never knew it was short or in excess for that brief period of time.

This is a necessity with a fiat currency. It can be abused though. But that is actually rare. It is a little more complicated then I just attempted to explain but most people who attempt to understand it don't ever look at the good side of it and assume the bad because they can't see the benefits. I would say that this is because most people borrow to purchase things they can't afford that will eventually decrease in value (car, boats, big screen TVs, so on) instead of borrow to mak

Re:Signal To Noise Ratio

[Frosty Piss]

Since it is hosted with Google, I wonder if *they* will fold under threats from G.S.?

Re:bad law, not Kosher

[__aaclcg7560]

I wouldn't want either Goldman or Sachs on my cheeseburger. The bacon is okay. :P

Re:Signal To Noise Ratio

[Anonymous Coward]

I only skimmed the first couple entries, but it's a fact that:

1. Henry Paulson, former treasury secretary and key architect of the bailout plan, is a former CEO of Goldman Sachs.
2. Goldman Sachs has receieved 10 billion in TARP money.
3. Goldman Sachs has received 12-20 billion in additional monies via the AIG bailout.

The more people who know that the better.

Why do they try to stop him?

[surfingmarmot]

People try to make sense of GS catapulting this guy to fame to their detriment when they should properly just keep him in the shadows. Isn't it obvious why? One small Word, one big object: EGO The people who run Goldman-Sachs are used to running everything--including the Fed, Congress, and the Presidency. They have saddled everyone of us with a debt of $165,000 for the bail out (so far) and most of that money goes into their pockets in bonuses, guarantees for their failed investments, and other devious ways they bilk people for cash. It sticks in their craw that some little nobody on the net can flip them the bird and blow raspberries at them and be untouchable. And they just cannot accept that. Their egos cannot stand it.

Re:Why do they try to stop him?

[phantomfive]

They have saddled everyone of us with a debt of $165,000 for the bail out (so far) and most of that money goes into their pockets in bonuses, guarantees for their failed investments, and other devious ways they bilk people for cash.

You're way off in your figures. As you can see from this nifty little chart, the entire Federal Reserve balance sheet is only about $2 trillion. Include $700 billion for TARP and $787 billion for the stimulus, and it adds up to $3.487 trillion. Divide that by 250 million people in the United States, and you get $13,948 per person. And Goldman Sachs was only a small portion of that.

Personally I think we should have let them fail. When politicians say, "You must do X or the economy will collapse!" it sounds too much like "you must do X or the terrorists will win!"

Wow, did anyone RTFB?

[pongo000]

Disclosure: Yes, I am short Goldman Sachs stock. I believe this company is evil and should not exist. We need to begin to break up companies that have as much control over world finances as Goldman Sachs.

Let me see if I get this right:

1. Short GS stock
2. Blog about how evil GS is
3. ???
4. Profit!

There's only one problem with this plan: GS stock has been rising since the start of the year. No wonder the guy believes GS "should not exist": Should GS stock continue to rise, there's no limit to how much the guy can lose.

(For those who have no clue what I'm talking about: "Shorting a stock" basically involves selling stock you don't own. Your only obligation is to return the stock you "borrowed." If you can buy said stock at a lower price than the price you sold it at, you profit on the difference. If the stock becomes worthless, you basically pocket whatever profit you made from the sale of stock you never owned in the first place.)

Re:Signal To Noise Ratio

[hairyfeet]

I believe what they are trying to cover under the UFO BS is Aurora. The reason I say that is they fly the damned thing over rural states like mine(AR) when it is cloudy, probably testing out those noisy but bad ass engines. The damned thing sounds like a cross between a freight train and a jet and if the sky is clear and calm at dawn you will see the "donuts on a rope" exhaust trail the thing leaves behind. It has got to be the noisiest "secret" I have ever heard.

But what better way to cover up Aurora than have every nutjob with an abduction story on hard copy so that everyone is looking for little green men instead of super expensive hypersonic combat aircraft? You have to admit, you couldn't cook up a better disinformation campaign if you tried. But with Goldman Sachs there are plenty of eyes on them after the bailout. What better way to cover up the truck full of money you are sneaking out the back than to promote some paranoid whackjob with the Streisand Effect? The only way Goldman Sachs will get caught is if some whistleblower manages to sneak some seriously damaging paperwork to Wikileaks. Otherwise they are just going to laugh all the way to the bank.

Ties Between Goldman Sachs & Obama Administrat

[Nova Express]

I suspect that many Slashdotters are unaware of the numerous deep ties between Goldman Sachs and the Obama Administration. A few for instances:

• Obama has put his trust in the advice of menâ"Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Chief Economic Advisor Larry Summers, and, informally, former Clinton Treasurer Robert Rubin, all linked to the investment bank Goldman Sachs."
• "Despite President Barack Obama's pledge to limit the influence of lobbyists in his administration, a recent lobbyist for investment banking giant Goldman Sachs is in line to serve as chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Mark Patterson was a registered lobbyist for Goldman until April 11, 2008, according to public filings."
• "If AIG had managed to not collapse and not require $180 billion in taxpayer money, Goldman Sachs would be sitting today with some very very shaky investments. But since AIG collapsed, the folks at Goldman cleaned up. Goldman Sachs employees gave just shy of a million dollars to the Obama campaign, ranking second in contributions. Citigroup and JPMorgan ranked sixth and seventh. Goldman Sachs gave Obama four times more than they gave McCain."
• Obama nominated "Gary Gensler to head the Commodity Futures Trading Commission...Gensler is a reassuring figure to the moguls of finance; he was a partner at Goldman Sachs before being brought by Goldman honcho Robert Rubin to the Clinton Treasury Department."
• "When it came time to name a vice presidential running mate, Mr. Obama turned to Goldman Sachs Board Member James Johnson. Mr. Johnson was forced to vacate the post under controversy."

This above list is by no means exhaustive. Nor are the sources cited above (The Huffington Post, The Nation, etc.) exactly known for their fierce and unstinting criticism of Obama.

For a number of reasons ...

[golodh]

There are two mechanisms at work: one psychological, one institutional.

First of all, there are psychological factors. It's not the company that responds, it's certain individuals that do. Individual who set policy, or individuals who carry out said policy.

People who set policy, i.e. people at the top of the food chain in business usually didn't get there by being kind, timid, passive, open-minded, self-effacing and objective. Instead they tend to have much larger egos than the norm and also tend to be more much agressive towards others than usual (usually in the guise of being "effective" "goal-oriented", "focused", and "exercising management authority"). They obviously must be smart enough to get away with being agressive, or they won't be successful. Oh, and by the way, I'm extremely happy that Business offers such people a constructive outlet for their energy and aggression. Because otherwise it would go into Crime or Politics (or both).

As a result, while they are successful, life shows them on a daily basis that their thinking is correct, their opinions are valuable, and that their approach to life is the right one.

Now consider what happens when you contradict someone like that. Consider first what it means exactly to contradict someone like that. You and he (or she) are in a business setting, and both are vying for a "group position", i.e. who leads the thinking of whatever group is listening at that time on the issue at hand. And the subject under consideration isn't the weather either, it's (as in the case of the blog on Morgan Sachs) about company policy. Policy as set out and supported over a period of time by themselves.

With that in mind think of how this contradicting opinion (and the one doing the contradicting) will be perceived. There are no credits for answering that the perception will be that of a threat, if not a challenge.

So lets reformulate our original and fairly neutral description of "contradicting" a executive of a firm like that.

I believe the way to formulate it that does justice to the depth of emotion and self-interest would be: "you issue a public challenge to an executive, implying that he is at best incompetent and unethical, and at worst a crook"

Now about the institutional factors. Consider that high-ranking individuals impact their environment in various ways. First of all, they lead, and they can't do that without some authority. Only the very rarest of individuals can lead purely through their influence, and without exercising authority. The norm is that you shape your environment through selection (read hire-and-fire), rewards, promotions to support and protect your general ideas and the "image" of what you do and what you stand for. In its positive form it's called "Esprit de corps". It's what e.g. the Armed Forces insist on instilling in recruits. They do that because it makes the social coherence of the organization stronger. But in its negative form it can also degenerate into group think, bullying, and abuse (e.g. Nazism, Communism, Party doctrine, Scientology, and even religious abuse at the Airforce Acacdemy (see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4091956.stm)).

Now PR officials are a prime example of guards of a firm's public image (i.e. what others think of a firm and its actions). It's their job to be aware of the public image and to steer it in the way the firms wants it to be through propaganda. Lawyers are another example. Apart from their more mundane tasks of drawing up contracts they are specialists in the enforceable obligations in our society operates. Rules on topics like intellectual property, slander, defamation, torts, compensation for damages, etc..

Now do you understand the reaction of such companies? Their first-response mechanism is PR. Their secondary response are legal threats. Their tertiary response is litigation. All motivated by extremely aggressive and self-confident people who direct a lot of money and therefore wield a lot of power and who perceive the dissonant opinion as a threat to their personal position. Of course they get nasty!

Re:For a number of reasons ...

[Merls the Sneaky]

Long story short:- They do it because they are douche bags.

Re:For a number of reasons ...

[symbolic]

Oh, and by the way, I'm extremely happy that Business offers such people a constructive outlet for their energy and aggression. Because otherwise it would go into Crime or Politics (or both).

They are becoming indistinguishable. I'd opine that the whole bailout was nothing than legalized theft - grand larceny actually - on a rather grand scale. Despite the obvious carelessness and contempt inherent in the Wall Street money train, there were few (if any) real consequences.

Re:Signal To Noise Ratio

[uullly]

There are some surprisingly uninformed criticisms here.
- a guy looking for his 15 minutes
No. I have not noticed he has much interest in fame. At least he doesn't seem to try too hard.
- site is up only because he's shorting
No. His short position is besides the point. He expects them to go down on fundamentals. This is a protest site.

To this post:
Can you point out some specific posts that qualify as 'bordering on schizophrenic lunacy'?
The few posts I looked over sound about right.

I think this site (or anyone like it) is not just a good idea, but serves an important role to further necessary civic action. This far into the economic crisis that /.ers think otherwise surprises me.

As a current client, I know the site holder to the extent of what DD I could do. His other site does provide quite a bit more information.

Re:No a good choice of words, but basically correc

[Temposs]

If you want a higher interest rate at any given time, just check out www.bankrate.com, which is a great site for researching the health of a bank and its various interest rates. Here's a page I often turn to in order to see what the highest rates are:

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/rate/mmmf_highratehome.asp?web=brm&params=US,416&prodtype=chksav&market=416&product=33&state=US&sort=2

To choose a bank to deposit money into for savings, I generally will look at the bank with the highest interest rate that also has 4 stars(which indicates very good health). The bank I'm currently with for savings emails me whenever their rate changes, and they have excellent 24/7 customer service, with a competitive interest rate.

Another good site for this kind of thing is the finance section of www.fatwallet.com:

http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/finance/

The users keep a running list of the top returning CDs, Savings Accounts, and Credit Cards. They talk about all the minutiae of the different accounts and customer service, etc...

blue jeans cable, anyone?

[lawaetf1]

Wow, nobody has posted the wondrous story of Blue Jeans Cable?

Monster Cable sent this small cable co a threatening letter with a grab-bag of patents that they claim he violated. Little did they know the owner was a former lawyer himself. His reply to Monster is absolutely priceless.