Comments on: My letter requesting an apology to Sam Antar from Utah AG Mark Shurtleff

By: TerminatedRamp

TerminatedRamp — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:32:09 +0000

Seems the only strategy Overstock and USANA have is to shoot the messenger. How dare anyone speak out against crime. Would be very simple for these two companies to prove the messenger wrong. Why haven’t they?

By: Tracy Coenen

Tracy Coenen — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 18:04:31 +0000

It’s a fairly simple concept: Sam was indicating his reason for being in Salt Lake City.

By: Peter L.

Peter L. — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:43:32 +0000

**nonsense edited out by Admin**

I have issue with the title of a Blog being "Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne Continues to Dodge Questions about SEC Probe and Faces Counterclaims by Rocker and Gradient" where Antar is accusing Byrne of fraud and then open and close the Blog with a discussion on the White Collar Crime Conference.

What do the two have to do with each other? Antar is clearly trying to link the two subject matters where no link exists.

By: Tracy Coenen

Tracy Coenen — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:53:21 +0000

You can characterize it however you want, but the fact is that it was not ever implied that the AG endorsed Sam’s work against Overstock. No one ever said Patty is required to answer Sam’s questions… On the other hand, he has engaged with him many times, so I see nothing wrong with Sam inviting him to engage once again. Damn that Sith Lord again!

By: Peter L.

Peter L. — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:11:27 +0000

Tracy, You will more than likely not post this because it disagrees with you but here goes:

Sam’s Blog specifically used the Conference to “bookend” an unsubstantiated rant against Overstock.com. There was no reason to bring the Conference into a rant about how Patrick Byrne is not responding to direct questions to sam Antar as if the CEO is obligated to respond to this convicted criminal.

Likewise, I will refer you to this diversion on meetings and calls. For the record Corporate conference calls are not on “invite only status”. Sam Antar has every right to call into an Overstock call and ask questions. The call is not there for Sam alone and as a non-shareholder or analyst the CEO has no obligation to allow Mr. Antar to take control.

By: Scipio

Scipio — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:24:37 +0000

“I was warned that Mr. Antar might use this speaking engagement to suggest that my office or I personally, endorse or support his accusations against Overstock.com or some other public company.”

That’s a telling statement isn’t it? Apparently he wasn’t warned that a public company may use his letter to suggest he personally endorses said company. Sam’s at a disadvantage here. He didn’t contribute to Shurtleff’s campaign.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 23:51:10 +0000

So let me get this straight. Mr. Shurtleff has effectively endorsed or advocated both Usana and Overstock, two publicly traded companies that provided campaign contributions to Mr. Shurtleff.

It sound like it is time to investigate Mr. Shurtleff’s office.

By: TerminatedRamp

TerminatedRamp — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:18:46 +0000

While Mark Shurtleff is at it, he can make a public statement whether or not he or his office endorses USANA. The video of him at USANA’s 2004 convention is clear evidence that he was giving the company an endorsement. What was edited out of the video was when Mark Shurtleff endorses USANA and consumes on stage one of USANA’s products as treatment for his knee.

He has clearly violated the code of ethics and should have been thrown out of office. I guess it is only fair to endorse a company that contributed $7500 to their political campaign prior to the endorsement. Anything for a buck…