I wouldn't go that far Thomas. By the way here is a lazy link to an Arb case on Mantanmoreland _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmorela... d_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmorela...)
The point of the article in The Register, in part I think, is that this situation of attacking Byrne was allowed to continue for a very very long time. And now the FDIC has "fully vindicated him". I'm not sure if that is an accurate way to put it, but it certainly puts the entire history in a new light doesn't it?
He was decrying naked short selling for quite a while, while WP insiders like Mantanmoreland were able to squelch him. And now he was right, and they were wrong, at least per this article. And it's egg on our face, for treating the opposing sides in such a one-sided manner.
Of course we're not alone, since the WSJ wouldn't publish Byrne's article at the time, but now Forbes has.
**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)