From: Peter Michaelson [pmichaelson@qwest.net] Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 10:10 PM To: rule-comments@sec.gov Subject: S7-23-03 Dear Sir or Madam: I am astounded by the volume of correspondence you are receiving regarding 'abusive naked short selling'. In none of these letters do I see a shred of evidence that any form of short-selling is the cause of these peoples' losses. In fact, the two most mentioned companies, USXP and PCBM, have both had serious legal difficulties. Amazingly, PCBM was sued by SEC Enforcement itself!! Yet still its shareholders blame short-sellers. http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/complr17507.htm SEC FILES FRAUD CHARGES AGAINST PINNACLE BUSINESS MANAGEMENT INC., VINCENT A. LO CASTRO AND JEFFREY G. TURINO" And USXP is so righteous that it has asked the Department of Justice to investigate the SEC! Apparently the short-selling conspirators have even co-opted the SEC. Is this a satire or real life? "Oct 29, 2003 (financialwire.net via COMTEX) -- (FinancialWire)"Universal Express, Inc's (OTCBB: USXP), General Counsel, Chris G. Gunderson, disclosed that he has sent a letter to the United States Attorney in Miami requesting that the Justice Department conduct an investigation of Hugh Beck and others at the Denver Office of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission for issuing a subpoena to Universal Express." It is the company insiders who are responsible for these people's pain - not independent short-sellers. The term 'independent short-sellers' excludes insiders, promoters and the toxic financers they rely upon, who together are likely responsible for most of the short-selling. Please base rule changes on material evidence, not the outcry of a sorely misinformed public. As Forbes Magazine said "What's really making these stocks go down: the way the trades are cleared--or how the managers run the firms?" http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/1013/066_2.html Thank you, Peter Michaelson