Below is an email that some have indicated is damaging to me, in theory, "proves" that I am in cahoots with Michael Hartlieb. Read the email for yourself, and see my comments below it:
dateFri, Jul 11, 2008 at 9:27 PM
This is confidential
I speak to michael often, and he is not NAB or anyone in that camp. He is a passionate shareholder that is very good at research, and on top of many things that most people who do not spend the time even know about. While his activities on the interopearable device may seem contrary to the merger process, in the end, the light he shed will help ensure that other activities that may be detrimental do not happen.
in my opinion Sirius and XM walked in a gray area on the interoperable device, and also are keeping many aspects of their business in the dark. The focus on the interoperable issue may allow other things to stay quiet, where they should be. Sirius and XM are not "pure" in this interoperable issue. Hartlieb believes that had the interoperable device become real that Sirius would have taken out XM, and that the merger price would have been less steep. I disagree. In my opinion, if XM had ever gotten cheap they would have been bought before a merger could ever happen.
While Michael and I do not see eye to eye on some issues, we have very good discussions, and share information. I'll tell you more on the phone sometime this weekend
I do speak to Michael Hartlieb quite a bit. The fact that I speak to him does not mean I agree with him. In fact, he will perhaps be the first one to tell you that. Lately our conversations have been fewer, but there was a point in time that we spoke quite regularly. As I have said many times...It is better to understand what is happening than to be in the dark about it.
Is it my opinion that Sirius XM was not "pure" in the interoperable issue? Yes. There are times in these companies history where one company would want the device, and the other would want to drag their feet. Whoever had the advantage in the market would want the device. the other would not. It is business, and how things work.
Do I think that the Sirius and XM met the intention of the interoperable mandate? As I have stated, it is an issue subject to interpretation. I even explained to Michael that the companies submitted their design to the FCC and certified that they had met the mandate. The ball was in the FCC's court to tell Sirius and XM "Yes" or "No". The FCC had not taken that step.
Do I share information with Hartlieb? Sure, when we talk, it is mostly about satellite radio. We have discussions back and forth, agree on some things, disagree on others, and talk about the news. Nothing shocking or earth shattering. Most of what I shared with Hartlieb was information that was posted on the site anyway. In point of fact, I always received more "information" than I gave. Many times Michael wanted me to cover a certain issue. If the issue had merit, I covered it. Many times he was rebuffed by me as it was a lot of opinion that could not be verified one way or the other.
There are those that seem to construe the email above as some sort of "smoking gun" that I am acting in concert with Michael Hartlieb. It simply is not the case.
Why was this e-mail even sent? Because the other party was convinced that Michael Hartlieb was employed by the NAB. Having known Michael Hartlieb for over 4 years, I was simply telling him that this was not the case.
What other actions will be stopped? There was a class action lawsuit that potentially could have been damaging to shareholder rights happening.
Has Michael ever spoken with the NAB? To my knowledge yes he has. That however does not mean he was coordinating anything with them. I myself have spoken to the NAB's lead council to clarify to them that I had no ties to Sirius or XM. Was I in concert with the NAB? No, I was not.
Why am I posting this now?
1. To dispell the notion that I act in concert with Hartlieb.
2. To let to those that have been "told" about the email, but never got to read it read it. It is here in its entirety, and those people can judge for themselves.
3. My posting it is a premptive action because some "threaten" to post it and put it onto the fromnt page of Google (Google does not like to be used in this way, but that is beside the point). This way, you see it from the horses mouth.
So, in the end, you all get to read this for yourselves, and arrive at your own conclusions.