Maguire/NN-L Respond To Cohan Interview
The latest in the saga, though not directly from Andrew Maguire, seems to place the onus back upon William Cohan.
Below is the latest "reply", just published by GATA and written again by our friend, Ned Naylor-Leyland. In it, Ned asserts that the hold up in publishing the article in question is NOT coming from Andrew and his attorneys. It is instead coming from Cohan, himself.
Apparently, the delay in publication comes down to this:
Cohan wants to insert language that directly names the TBTF bank at the heart of the manipulation (which, I guess, we all assume to be JP Morgan). Andrew and his attorneys allege that, at this stage, directly identifying the lead perpetrator would be potentially libelous and, thus, was never agreed to by Andrew and his lawyers.
Look, I'm not a lawyer so I really have no idea what is libelous and what is not. Maybe our pal CaliforniaLawyer can chime in with some clarification? For now, though, here's a full reprint of Ned's response. It appears that the ball is squarely back on Cohan's side of the court. At this point, I just hope some kind of middle ground can be found. I mean, seriously...who cares if JPM or some other bank is mentioned directly? The story just needs to be put into the public domain and then we can all just let the chips fall where the may.
By Ned Naylor-Leyland
Quilter Cheviot Investment Management
London, England, United Kingdom
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Last week I wrote about financial journalist William Cohan's unpublished article about silver market manipulation and a regulatory cover-up. This week Cohan has claimed that lawyers for London metals trader and market-rigging whistleblower Andrew Maguire were stopping him from publishing his article.
Cohan is demanding that the main perpetrator of metals manipulation (the institution also known as Voldemort) be named specifically in the article. Without this, Cohan says, he won't publish.
Contrary to his claim, this was never agreed by Maguire's lawyers and for legal reasons cannot happen. But since everyone has a pretty good idea who the institution is anyway, I find it ridiculous that Cohan is making a demand that cannot be met and using that as a reason to remain mute. Contrary to what he appears to be saying, this detail wasn't agreed in the version of the article he wanted to put in newspapers.
Cohan appears to want this all to go away, which it won't.
I repeat: Cohan told me that his article "got killed everywhere I took it" and that it is "an amazing story that really should be out there." These statements and that he did see the evidence and did write a long expose of the subject are unavoidable.
Cohan's thoughts on the matter, in light of his reputation, would be worthwhile indeed and metals investors deserve to have this subject cleared up. If, as well may be the case, silver and gold prices are being managed with not just impunity but also with the collusion of the government, then this truly is a monster of a story with far-reaching implications.
Maguire has been relentless in pursuit of the prosecution of criminal behavior in the metals markets, so any suggestion that he is getting in the way of Cohan's publishing his article is really absurd. Such a complaint deflects the blame, as of course Cohan said and thought he could get the article published in the mainstream financial news media and then discovered otherwise.
Who other than Maguire approached the government regulators with folders full of evidence, risked life and limb to do this, and will not let go of the subject despite a monstrous cover-up admitted by a former member of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Bart Chilton?
The article Cohan wrote can and should be published. He already has mentioned one of the things he was told not to publish -- that other enforcement agencies have been involved -- and the other detail he is insisting on cannot be included.
Enough of the obfuscation, please, Mr. Cohan. Let's see your article, on your own Internet site if you can't publish it elsewhere.
10:00 PM EDT UPDATE:
Below is the email reply that William Cohan sent off to Dr. Janda upon review of this post:
this may have reached the point of ridiculousness i am afraid. i never mentioned
the JPM point. everyone knows JPM is the big kahuna here as i wrote in my NYT article.
it is about being able to include the fact that Andrew's lawyers went to two other enforcement
agencies and won't let me identify them and the fact that Andrew's colleague will no longer
allow me to quote him.
thanks for sharing
As you can see, we are nowhere near any type resolution/clarification of this matter and I, for one, am getting sick of dealing with it.