Dr. Patrick Byrne of Overstock.com's interview with Carol Remond of Dow Jones

Email is Carol.Remond@dowjones.com

Dr. Byrne's summary

I just spoke to a reporter named Carol. I had never heard from her before. She agreed as a condition for the interview that before she published anything she would call me back and verify each quote of mine she used, and I hope that she honors that agreement, as I got the distinct impression that it was possible that she might take liberties, put words in my mouth or your mouth, etc. - possibly due to the language issue - she has a distinct French accent. Here's my capsule summary:

1. Carol kept trying to say that you said, or I said, that Rocker is naked shorting Overstock.com. I know you would never say that (O'Brien's note - I didn't, and corrected her multiple times during my interviews, which she steamrollered over). Finally I stopped the interview and said, "I am going to say this carefully, so there can be no mistake: I am not claiming that David Rocker is naked-shorting Overstock. I do think that someone is naked shorting Overstock, but that's not me saying it: it is the SEC Reg SHO Threshold list saying it. David Rocker has publicly acknowledged that he is short Overstock, and apparently has also publicly acknowledged being short a number of other companies that have turned up on the SEC Reg SHO Threshold list. But that could be a coincidence: you'd have to ask David Rocker." Her response was along the lines of, "So, you're saying that David Rocker is illegally shorting your stock...." Perhaps it is a language barrier. I'll be charitable and believe that it is.

2. Carol saw no significance to the fact that our stock got registered on 6 exchanges, but that essentially no trading occurs on those exchanges. She claimed not to understand how this could be a ruse tied in to naked shorting. She seemed so deliberately obtuse on this that it set off alarm bells. (O'Brien's note - I spent a good fifteen minutes clarifying that the trading wasn't coming through the exchanges, but that rather it was used as a pretense to fail to deliver - she apparently didn't apprehend the nuance, even though I directed her to the OSTK CC where I made the point, or on the Sanity Check columns where it is explained in excruciating detail).

3. Carol was adamant that you and I have been cooking up this plan for months. I confirmed for her that I have cooperated in the writing of the Washington Post ad and contributed money to run it. I told her, however, that lots of the money for the ad came in the form of $200 checks from grandmothers (who really have no business doing this), and that in fact, at least $40,000 (O'brien - probably more than $50K) had come in from such folks. She asked if it was safe to infer that you and I had contributed the rest, and I said it was: still, she seemed not to believe that any money had come in from anyone but me and you. (O'Brien - she has received dozens of emails from people who contributed, so it is difficult to be charitable at this point as to why she is ignoring those actual testimonials).

4. Carol made it clear that she believes that I know who you really are, and that you and I have been cooking up this enormous plan together going back many months, and continuing up to the point that I planted you on the January conference call with a script. I told her that I had never heard of you or spoken to you until shortly after our October conference call, but that we had spoken half a dozen times since then, that whatever you had to say on our January 28th conference call was your own doing, and that I was open to taking questions on our conference calls from anyone, not just analysts. She seemed not to believe this (though I pointed her to a message I posted on our auction message board the night before the conference call, inviting anyone to join our earnings call). (O'Brien - are you starting to sense that the reporter isn't interested in the truth, but is rather just making pronouncements from a bully pulpit?)

My reason for being so specific about what I told her is that, by the end of the call, I'm fairly certain that Carol could easily misstate what I had said. I reminded her, "Now, you agreed to check all quotes with me before you publish, right?" Carol said, "Right, ciao" and hung up quickly.

My fear is that Carol will write a story that links us, claims that we have cooked up a scheme together, and that we are saying David Rocker is naked shorting Overstock and other companies (perhaps giving Rocker grounds to sue for libel). That is untrue, and not what was said. I want it on the record what was actually said - I endorse this effort to bring the naked shorting issue out into the public eye, and am happy to lend my name and personal funds to supporting the efforts of NCANS. I am also proud of all the small investors who put up their hard earned money to stand shoulder to shoulder with us in demanding an end to the abuses of the system. I am not saying Rocker is naked shorting or breaking the law - (O'Brien - neither am I, although I will say that it is an astounding coincidence that he's short 30+% of the US companies on the NYSE Reg SHO Threshold list and at least 10% or more of the US companies on the NASDAQ list - but that is me wondering aloud at the mystery at it all, not accusing him of anything but astounding luck).

I hope that Carol sees fit to honor her commitment to confirm any quotes with me before running any article, and does he same for you - I know you are very careful with your use of language, as am I, and would hate for us to be the victims of a reporter's misunderstanding of the actual message or words used.