>> Braude: TONIGHT ON "GREATER BOSTON" OUR WEEK OF BALLOTED QUESTION DEBATES CONTINUES WITH QUESTION TWO WHICH WOULD LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF DENTSAL INSURANCERS COULD SPENDS ON ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS MANDATING THE REST GO TO PATIENT CARE.

BUT WILL PATIENTS ACTUALLY BENEFIT?

BOTH SIDES MAKE THEIR CASE.

PLUS THE NATICK COUPLE HARASSED, SOME WOULD SAY TERRORIZED BY EBAY EXECS.

THE LATEST PRISON SENTENCES THAT HAVE RESULTED AND WHY THEY SAY OTHERS WERE INVOLVED AND SHOULD FACE CONSEQUENCES TOO.

IN THE DEBATES OVER THE MASSACHUSETTS BALLOT QUESTIONS, QUESTION 2 HAS BEEN ON THE QUIETER SIDE BUT HERE ARE THE BASICS.

ACCORDING TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S REDBOOK, THAT IS THE INFORMATION FOR VOTERS, A YES VOTE WOULD REGULATE DENTAL INSURANCE RATES INCLUDING BY REQUIRING COMPANIES TO SPEND AT LEAST 83 PERCENT OF PREMIUMS ON MEMBER DEPARTMENTAL EXPENSES AND QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS INSTEAD OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES AND OTHER CHANGES TO DENTAL INSURANCE REGULAR LACES.

A NO VOTE ACCORD TOTION THE SECRETARY OF STATE WOULD MAKE NO CHANGE IN LAW RELATIVE TO THE REGULATIONS THAT APPLY TO DENTAL INSURANCE COMPANIES.

AND I SHOULD ADD THAT A LOT OF THIS DISCUSSION FOCUSES ON THE TERM MEDICAL-- MEDICAL LOSS RATIO THE TECHNICAL TERM FOR THE PERCENT OF MONEY AN INSURER SPENDS ON MEDICAL EXPENSES, HEALTH CARE QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS AS OPPOSED TO ADMINISTRATIVE COSTING, ON THE OTHER SIDE, THE LIMITED REGULATION COST SIDE I'M JOINED BY ORTHODONTIST MOUHAB RIZKALLAH WITH THE COMMITTEE ON DENTAL INSURANCE QUALITY, ON THE NO SIEZ SIDE, KEEP IT HOW ST, SPHORMER STATE SENATOR JAMES WELCH WHO SEARCHED ON A SPECIAL COMMISSION IN 2014 THAT REJECTED A SIMILAR PROPOSAL AND WITH THE COMMITTEE TO PROTECT PUBLIC ACCESS TO QUALITY DENTAL CARE.

GOOD TO SIGH, THANKS FOR BEING HERE.

DOCTOR, I GAVE A SHORT EXPLANATION FROM THE STATE OF STATE.

WHY IS IS YES VOTE THE RIGHT VOTE?

>> SIMPLY PUT, AT SOME POINT ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE TO TRUST YOUR DOCTORS.

AND I WOULD JUST POINT OUT THAT AT THIS POINT THIS IS NOT JUST A STATE MATTER, IT IS A NATIONAL MATTER, THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION, THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRIC DENTISTS, OF ORAL SURNTION THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF ENDODONE TYES, THE ACADEMY OF NATIONAL DEN TRIS REE HAVE ENDORSED THIS ON THE NATIONAL LEVEL, AND STATE MASSACHUSETTS DENTAL SOCIETY, HYGIENIST ASSOCIATION, NURSES ASSOCIATIONS-- .

>> Braude: WHY ON THE MERITS SHOULD PEOPLE VOTE YES.

>> THIS IS A VERY GOOD QUESTION.

ULTIMATELY WHAT THIS COMES DOWN TO IS WHY IS IT-- WHY IS MEDICAL INSURANCE REGULATED AND DENTAL INSURANCE IS NOT.

AND THE ANSWER IS REALLY DEMONSTRATED AS A CASE IN POINT.

DELTA DENTAL OF MASSACHUSETTS IN 2019 GAVE AWAY 291 MILLION DOLLARS TO THEIR PARENT COMPANY.

WHILE ONLY SPENDING 177 MILLION ON PATIENT CARE.

THEY ARE A NOT-FOR-PROFIT COMPANY AND AT SOME POINT SOMEONE WAS SITTING AROUND IN A BOARD ROOM AND REALIZED THEY HAD A SURPLUS OF PREMIUM REVENUE.

AND THAT SURPLUS OF 291 MILLION DOLLARS, THEY HAD A CHOICE.

IT IS A CHOICE WE WANT TO GIVE TO PATIENTS NOW.

>> Braude: GOT IT AND YOU WOULD SAY 83 PERCENT OF THAT MONEY HAS TO GO TO PATIENT CARE.

>> ALL OF THAT MONEY SHOULD HAVE GONE TO PATIENT CARE.

>> Braude: WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS YES SIDE?

WHY SHOULD PEOPLE VOTE NO.

>> WHEN EVALUATING ANY HEALTH CARE POLICY OR RECOMMENDATION YOU ALWAYS WANT TO THINK OF THREE THINGS, THREE MAIN PILLARS WHAT IS THE EFFECT IT WILL HAVE ON COSTS TO CONSUMERS.

WHAT IS THE EFFECT IT IS GOING TO HAVE ON ACCESS FOR CONSUMERS.

AND WHAT IS IT GOING TO HAVE ON THE ACCESS OR EFFECT ON THE ACTUAL QUALITY OF CARE.

FOR CONSUMERS, AND THREE OF THOSE QUESTIONS THIS BALLOT QUESTION FAILS.

>> Braude: MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT IS MANDATED THAT MEDICAL INSURANCE, A CERTAIN PERCENT AJTS, IN THE 80s HAS TO GO TO PATIENT CARE.

IF IT WORKFORCE MEDICAL CARE Y SHUBT A COMPARABLE THING WORK FOR PATIENT CARE?

>> WELL, AS MUCH AS TRADITIONAL HEALTH CARE, TRADITIONAL MEDICAL CARE AND DENTAL INSURANCE OR DENTAL CARE HAVE A LOT IN COMMON, THERE ARE A FEW THINGS, A COUPLE OF THINGS ESPECIALLY THAT THEY DON'T.

>> Braude: LIKE WHAT?

>> ONE IS THAT IT IS MANDATED TO HAVE MEDICAL INSURANCE HERE IN MASSACHUSETTS.

AND ALSO WHEN ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT TRYING TO CUT COSTS, DENTAL INSURANCE IS ABOUT FIVE PERCENT OF THE SAME TYPE OF PREMIUMS THAT TAKE INTO DENTAL INSURERS RATHER THAN MEDICAL INSURERS, MUCH SMALLER POOL.

>> Braude: BY THE WAY, JUST TO BE CLEAR, OTHER THAN THIS DELTA DENTAL, YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE CURRENT LOSS RATIO S IT COULD BE 83 PERCENT.

IT COULD BE ACTUALLY 83 PERCENT, DO YOU KNOW IT IS NOT.

HOW DO YOU KNOW ST NOT.

>> WE HAVE GOTTEN THAT DIRECTLY FROM JOURNALISTS WHO HAVE ASKED DELTA DENTAL AND HAVE I THAT IN WRITING.

I COULD PROVIDE THAT.

>> Braude: I DON'T HAVE TIME TO SEE IT.

>> SO JOHN-- SO I HAVE TWO PIECES-- TWO DOCUMENTS HERE.

WHEN WE CAME OUT AND EXPOSED THIS PROBLEM, DELTDA-- DELTA DENTAL TRIED TO SEND A MESSAGE TO ALL DOCTORS, ALL THE DENTISTS IN THIS STATE SAYING WE ARE NOT A 60% MEDICAL LOSS RATIO WHICH TWHE CLAIM THEY ARE AT.

I HAVE THIS IN WRITING IN MY BINDER, THEY SAID WE ARE AT 85% LOSS RATIO.

AND MY GROUP, WHICH WHICH IS FIVE DOCTORS AND FIVE PATIENT WES PUT TOGETHER A RETORT TO THEIR POINT AND PUBLISHED IT AND GAVE IT TO ALL DOCTORS, GUESS WHAT, THEY CHANGED THEIR MINDS, THEY ARE NO LONGER 85%, THEY TOLD JOHN CHESTO ABOUT A WEEK AND A HALF THEY THINK THEY ARE NOW AT 74%, THAT IS NOT TRUE EITHER.

>> Braude: CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, JIM, HAVE THE INSURANCE COMPANIES RELEASED WHAT THE LOSS RATIO IS?

>> WELL, I THINK THE STUDY, THE STUDY I'M SURE YOU HAVE READ AND DOCTOR YOU HAVE READ AS WELL, VERY CONSERVATIVE STUDY TALKS ABOUT EVEN IF DENTAL INSURANCE COMPANIES HAD TO CUT COSTS OR WERE ABLE TO CUT COSTS IN THEIR CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE, EVEN IF THEY WERE ABLE TO BREAK EVEN AND CUT COSTS BY 10%, YOUR AVERAGE PREMIUM FOR YOUR AVERAGE PERSON WOULD STILL PROBABLY GO UP CLOSE TO 34 PERCENT.

>> THAT FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND FROM TUFTS IS PLAYED FOR BY THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DENTAL PLANS, SO WHY SHOULD THAT HAVE CREDIBILITY WITH THE PUBLIC PAID FOR BY THE-- QUESTION.

>> THE TUFTS STUDY THAT IT SAYS TO QUOTE THEIR QUESTION IT SAYS THE BALLOT QUESTION, FORGIVE ME, BOX TOR, IS BUILT BACK THIN INFORMATION.

>> Braude: THE THING I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND IS WOULDN'T THE PUBLIC BE FAR BETTER SERVED WHETHER ITS NO VOTE OR YES VOTE IS THE RIGHT VOTE TO SAY HERE IS THE CURRENT LOSS RATIO, IN THE INDUSTRY.

SO PEOPLE KNOW WHEN THEY HEAR YOU SAY IT'S GOING TO CAUSE DIMINUTION OF PATIENT CARE OR RAISE OF PREMIUMS, THEY KNOW HOW MUCH IT IS GOING TO BE ADJUSTED IF HIS LAW, IF HIS PROPOSAL WERE TO BECOME LAW.

>> IF YOU LOOK AT THE BALLOT QUESTION, FORTUNATELY VOTERS ARE TASKED WITH THE JOB OF BEING ABLE TO PICK OUT CERTAIN PARTS OF THE BALLOT QUESTION.

THEY KOANL VOTE YES OR NO ON THE BLAL OT-- BALLOT QUESTION, THE BALLOT QUESTION IS FLAWED AND WHEN IT COMES TO POTENTIAL COST FORCE CONSUMERS, POTENTIAL ACCESS FOR CONSUMERS IS GOING TO GO DOWN AND THE QUALITY OF CARE THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO GUARANTEE.

>> WHEN ARE YOU SHAKING YOUR HEAD, THIS IS THE FIRST IN THE NATION.

>> IT IS.

>> SO HOW YOU CAN BE SO SURE THAT HE IS WRONG AND YOU'RE RIGHT?

HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT IT WON'T LEAD TO DIM NUTION OF CARE AND RAISING OF PREMIUMS.

>> THERE ARE SO MANY ANSWERS.

>> Braude: HOW BAY SHORT ONE.

>> THE SHORT ONE 291 MILLION IS JUST A CASE EXAMPLE, IT WOULD GO BACK TO PATIENTS.

IT WOULD GO BACK TO THEM AS PREMIUM REDUCTIONS, AS PREMIUM REBATES, OR AS COPAY REDUCTIONS.

>> Braude: DO YOU QUARREL WITH THESE NUMBERS, THEY WERE AT 990.

>> DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THESE NUMBERS WITHIN THE "BOSTON GLOBE" WROTE A STORY JUST LAST WEEK, THEY MORE ACCURATE, I WOULD SAY, MAYBE DIFFERENT NUMBERS.

>> THESE ARE THE EXACT NUMBERS.

>> Braude: PLEASE LET HIM FINISH.

>> I APPRECIATE IT BUT THE REALITY IS I THINK THE DOCTOR TRIES TO MAKE THIS BALLOT QUESTION ABOUT ONE COMPANY.

THE REALITIES IS THIS IS GOING TO AFFECT ALL CONSUMERS.

THIS IS GOING TO POTENTIALLY AFFECT ALL COMPANIES THAT PROVIDE DENTAL INSURANCE.

YOU CAN'T MAKE IT JUST ABOUT ONE COMPANY.

>> Braude: LAST NIGHT WE HAD THE QUESTION ONE PEOPLE HERE AND BECAUSE THEY WANT TO RAISE, CHANGE A PROVISION IN THE INSTITUTION, AROUND THE INCOME TAX THEY HAVE TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION, YOUR IS A LAW CHANGE, YOU COULD HAVE GONE TO THE LEGISLATURE AND SAY THIS IS WHAT I THINK IS BEST FOR THE PEOPLE OF MASSACHUSETTS.

DID YOU DO THAT?

>> WE DID.

>> Braude: AND WHAT HAPPENED.

>> I REALLY NEED TO RESPOND.

>> Braude: YOU CAN IN A SECRETARY, YOU CAN ANSWER MY QUESTION.

>> YES, I HAVE.

IN MY BINDER.

>> Braude: YOU DON'T NEED TO SHOW IT.

>> IN 2015 AND 2019 WE WENT TO THE MASSACHUSETTS DENTAL SOCIETY, TRIED TO GET IT PASSED IN 2015 AND 20 1-9D.

>> Braude: WITH A CAP ON ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.

>> YES, YES.

WE DID IT 2015 AND 2019 IT NEVER EVEN MADE IT OUT OF COMMITTEE BECAUSE OF THE PO TER OF THE DENTAL INSURANCE LOBBY.

THEY ARE USING MEMBER FUNDS, THE PATIENT FUNDS TO STOP THE THING FROM EVEN BEING VOTED ON.

>> Braude: WHAT SHOULD THEY DO IF THEY THINK IT'S A BAD IDEA.

>> WHAT SHOULD WHO DO.

>> Braude: WHAT SHOULD THE DENTAL INSURER IF THEY BELIEVE AS JIM WOULD SUGGEST THAT IT IS A BAD IDEA.

>> THERE IS A GREAT ANSWER TO THAT.

>> Braude: WHAT IS IT.

>> WHAT THEY SHOULD DO IS CREATE CONTROVERSY AND SMOKE AND MIRRORS AND CONFUSE EVERYBODY WHICH IS WHAT THEY ARE DOING AND WHAT JIM JUST DESCRIBED WAS A STUDY WHICH POINTED OUT WAS ACTUALLY PRODUCED BY THE NADP AND THEY CALLED IT, THEY LITERALLY CALLED IT IN THE VOTER INSURANCE GUIDE WHICH IN THIS CASE IS A DIS INFORMATION GUIDE, THEY CALLED IT SPECIFICALLY, FOR TO YOU OPEN IT AND I HOPE EVERY VOTER OPENS IT, IT SAYS ON ITS FIRST LINE, THAT IT-- THAT PREMIUMS WILL INCREASE ACCORDING TO A RECENT INDEPENDENT STUDY.

BUT THIS STUDY WAS NOT INDEPENDENT,.

>> Braude: WE GOT THAT POINT.

IF I CAN GO BACK TO YOU FOR A SECOND.

I UNDERSTAND BALLOT QUESTIONS CAN'T BE SEPARATED BUT JUST SO THE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU ARE COMING FROM AND I KNOW YOU ARE URGING A NO.

THERE SAY PORTION OF THIS THAT WOULDN'T, THAT DOESN'T MANDATE THE 83 PERCENT GO TO PATIENT CARE, A TRANSPARENCY THING.

THIS IN A STATE WITH THE WORST TRANSPARENCY WHEN IT COMES TO GOVERNMENT, AS YOU KNOW.

YOU SERVED IN THE GOVERNMENT T IS NOT YOUR DOING BUT IN TERMS OF THE JUDICIARY, EXECUTIVE BRAMPLEG, THE LEDGE SLAILT TURE.

WOULD YOU OPPOSE THE TRANSPARENCY PROVISION IF THAT WERE A STAND ALONE BY THE DOCTOR.

>> IT IS NOT A STAND ALONE.

>> WHAT IF IT WERE SO I CAN UNDERSTAND WHERE ARE YOU COMING FROM.

WOULD YOU OPPOSE TRANSPARENCY, WERE THESE LOSS RATIOS REPORTED TO THE PUBLIC.

>> TRANSPARENCY IS NEVER A BAD THINGS, OBVIOUSLY.

BUT THE REALITY IS THIS QUESTION DOESN'T AFFORD THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE VOTER TO-- DOES NOT A FORTH OPPORTUNITY FOR TWO DECIDE OR CAFETERIA STYLE PLAN WHEN THEY ARE GOING TO THE VOTING BOOTH.

THIS IS EITHER A QUESTION FOR YES OR A QUESTION FOR NO.

>> Braude: AS JIM SAID, THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT DELTA DENTAL.

I KNOW YOU HAVE AN ISSUE.

>> THEY ARE THE LARGEST COMPANY IN THE STATE.

>> Braude: I UNDERSTAND BUT ARE THERE OTHER INSURERS AS WELL.

GETTING BACK TO THE QUESTION THAT I ASKED YOU BEFORE, HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THERE WON'T BE, I MEAN I ASSUME WHEN PEOPLE VOTE THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION TO THEM IS GOING TO BE, AS A PATIENT.

WHICH IS WHAT WILL VIRTUALLY EVERY VOTER IS.

IS THIS GOING TO BE GOOD FOR MY CARE.

ASK THIS GOING TO BE GOOD FOR MY PREMIUM.

YOU REALLY DON'T KNOW.

>> WE DO.

WE DO.

>> Braude: HOW IS THAT?

>> SO WE, I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN MULTIPLE LITIGATIONS THAT EXPOSE THE NUMBERS FROM DELTA DENTAL.

DELTA DENTAL, SPECIFICALLY, WE HAD A SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT LITIGATION TWICE WITH DELTA DENTAL REGARDING THIS BALLOT QUESTION.

>> Braude: IF YOU CAN ANSWER MY QUESTION.

>> THEY PROVIDED DATA SHOWING THAT THEIR ACTUAL COST AS A NOT-FOR-PROFIT COMPANY IS 5.15 PERCENT WHICH BASICALLY MEANS THEY'RE AT A 94ISH PERCENT.

THEY COULD SPEND 94% ON PATIENT CARE WE'RE GIVING THEM 83%.

>> Braude: ACCORDING TO YOU, FIVE PERCENT IS ADMINISTRATIVE RELATED COSTS.

>> EXACTLY.

>> Braude: DO YOU ADDIS AGREE.

>> I WOULD ADD TO THE POINT OF TRANSPARENCY FROM THE LAST QUESTION FLRKS 2011 THERE WERE POLICIES THAT WERE ADDED.

IN THE DIVISION OF INSURANCE AND THEY WERE ACTUALLY REPEALED WITH A ONE-YEAR, AS YOU KNOW, COVERING MASSACHUSETTS POLITICS FOR MANY YEARS, YOU KNOW THAT THINGS DON'T GET REPEALED THAT QUICKLY UNLESS THEY WERE COMPLETELY TO THE POINT WHERE THERE WERE NO BENEFIT.

>> YOU CAN RESPOND TO THE NUMBERS THAT THE DOCTOR IS THROWING OUT, THIS 5% NUMBER AND SUGGESTING 95% WOULD HAVE BEEN-- WOULD BE AVAILABLE?

DELTDA DENTAL FOR PATIENT CARE, IS THAT ACCURATE AS FAR AS ARE YOU CONCERNED.

>> I THINK IT ACTUALLY HIGHLIGHTS THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT ABOUT THIS.

IS THIS QUESTION HAS NOT BEEN VETTED.

THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW THE NUMBERS THAT THE DOCTOR IS TALKING ABOUT.

THERE IS NO STUDY THAT SHOWS IT.

>> THOSE ARE THE NUMBERS PROVIDED.

>> Braude: LET HIM FINISH.

>> THE PIECE OF PAPER PRINTED ON THE COMPUTER BUT THE REALITY IS THIS HASN'T BEEN VETTED OUT.

>> THERE IS THEIR COMPLAINT.

>> WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO READ THE COMPLAINT, YOU HAVE 30 SECONDS, IF YOU WANT TO GIVE A FINAL SHOT, LITERALLY 30 SECONDS, GIVE YOUR FINAL PITCH.

>> AT THE END OF THE DAY THIS COMES DOWN TO MATH.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO TRUST THE DENTAL INSURANCE COMPANIES.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO TRUST ALL OF THE DENTAL ORGANIZATIONS.

ALL YOU HAVE TO TRUST IS THE-- WHEN THEY HAVE A SURPLUS, THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A DECISION.

DO THEY MAKE THE DECISION THAT THEY ARE GOING TO GIVE IT TO PATIENTS OR DO THEY MAKE THE DECISION THAT THEY WILL GIVE IT TO THEMSELVES.

AND IN THIS CASE THEY GAVE IT TO THEMSELVES.

DELTA DENTAL 291 MILLION, GIVE IT AWAY.

>> CONSUMERS HAVE TO ASK THREE QUESTION, WILL THIS HAVE AN IMPACT ON ME FROM A COST STANDPOINT, FROM AN ACCESS STANDPOINT AND IS IT GOING TO INCREASE THE QUALITY OF CARE.

ON ALL THREE OF THOSE QUESTIONS, THIS FAILS.

>> Braude: JIM, GOOD TO SIGH, THANKS FOR YOUR PERSPECTIVE, DOCTOR RIZKALLAH AS WELL.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THREE YEARS SINCE A GROUP OF eBAY EXECUTIVES HATCHED A SCHEME TO TERRORIZE A LOCAL COUPLE TWO MORE OF THOSE INVOLVED WILL SOON BE HEADING TO PRISON.

BUT THAT IS NOWHERE NEAR OFF FOR THE COUPLE INUNDATED WITH ANONYMOUS PACKAGES INCLUDING A BOX OF LIVE SPIDERS, FUNERAL WREATHES, STALKED AND THREATENED ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS, WE WILL HEAR DIRECTLY FROM THEM IN A MINUTE BUT FIRST A LITTLE BACK STORY AND SOME OF WHAT THEY ENDURED AND WHAT LEAD UP TO IT.

BACK IN 2019 DAVID AND IANA STEINER OF NATICK PUBLISHED SOME STORIES IN THEIR E-COMMERCE NEWSLETTER THAT WERE CRITICAL OF HE BAY.

SO IN RESPONSE A BUNCH OF TOP eBAY DREAMED UP A TARGETED CAMPAIGN TO MAKE THEIR LIVES MISERABLE.

THE COUPLE STARTED GETTING ANONYMOUS THREATENING MESSAGES, THEY WERE SPENT A BLOODY PIG MASK, A MASK FROM THE MOVIE SAW WORN BEFORE A KILL, A BOOK ON SURVIVORRING THE DEATHS OF A SPOUSE AND LIVE COCKROACHES, THEIR ADDRESS WAS POSTED OP CRAIGSLIST INVITING STRANGERS TO THEIR HOME FOR A GROUP SEX PARTY.

AND THEN THREE PEOPLE INCLUDING THE TWO WHO WERE JUST SENTENCED TO PRISON FLEW FROM CALIFORNIA TO NATICK, AT ONE POINT DRIVING AN UNMARKED VAN BEHIND DAVID AS HE WENT AROUND TOWN AND TRYING UNSUCCESSFULLY TO INSTALL A GPS MONITOR ON THE COUPLE'S KAMPLET THE STEINERS REPORTED IT ALL TO THE POLICE WHO REFERRED THEM TO THE FBI RESULTING IN THE LATEST PRISON SENTENCES, ALMOST FIVE YEARS FOR FORMER SENIOR DIRECTOR OF SAFETY AND SECURITY JAMES BAUGH, TWO YEARS FOR FORMER EXECUTIVE DAVID HARVILLE, ANOTHER COCONSPIRATOR WAS SENT TO PRISON LAST YEAR AS WELL AND FOUR OTHERS WHO PLED GUILTY ARE AWAITING SENTENCE, THE STEINERS SAY IT CAME FROM THE TOP, THE COMPANY AND FORMER C.E.O.

SHOULD ALL BE RESPONSIBLE, THE STEINERS DID FILE A LAWSUIT AGAINST ALL OF THEM WHICH IS ONGOING.

DAVID AND IANA STEINER JOIN ME NOW ALONG WITH THEIR LAWYER ROSEMARY SCAPICCHIO AS I'M SURE YOU REMEMBER THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY FOR SEAN ELLIS AND OTHERS, THANKS FOR BEING HERE.

CAN WE START WITH YOU, I HAVE FOLLOWED THE GLOBE REPORTING AND OTHER REPORTING AS CLOSELY AS ONE POSSIBLY CAN AND THE THING THAT IS NOT CLEAR TO ME, WHAT DID THE STEINERS DO THAT WOULD PROVOKE ANY RESPONSE MUCH LESS A RESPONSE LIKE I JUST DESCRIBED?

THE ONLY THING I EVER SAW WAS THEY SAID THESE C.E.O.

MAKES $1-- 152 TIMES WHAT THE AVERAGE EMPLOYEE MAKES WHICH BY THE WAY IS NOWHERE NEAR WHAT THE AVERAGE C.E.O.

MAKES IN THIS COUNTRY.

WHAT PROVOKED THIS.

>> I DON'T KNOW.

THAT IS WHY WE FILED THE CIVIL LAWSUIT.

THE STEINERS WANT ANSWERS.

THEY WANT TO KNOW WHY DID THEY GET HARASSED, WHY DID THEY CHOOSE THEM.

WE DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.

WE WERE HOPEFUL THE CRIMINAL TRIAL MIGHT BRING OUT SOME OF THOSE ANSWERS BUT NOW THAT EVERYONE HAS PLED THE ONUS SON US, IN THE CIVIL SUIT TO TRY TO GET THOSE ANSWERS.

WORST THING YOU EVER SAID ABOUT eBAY OR ANYBODY IN eBAY.

>> FIRST YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN I WRITE ABOUT eBAY I'M WRITING FOR SERLS ON eBAY AND ON AMAZON AND ELSEWHERE.

SO MY TASK IS AS I SEE IT AS A REPORT CERTIFICATE NOT TO BRING DOWN THE COMPANY T IS TO HELP SELLERS SUCCEED OP ANY MARKETPLACE THEY SELL.

SO WHEN I TALK ABOUT A POLICY AND HOW IT EFFECTS SELLERS, I DON'T TAKE IT THE WAY eBAY MIGHT SPIN SOMETHING.

I TAKE IT HOW DOES THIS IMPACT SELLERS.

>> Braude: WHAT CAN THEY EVEN SPIN.

WHAT IS THE WORST FACTUAL CRITICISM YOU'VE EVER MADE TO THE COMPANY OR THEIR LEADERS.

>> WELL, THE CONTEXT IS IMPORTANT TOO.

SO THE C.E.O.

HAD JUST BEEN EVISCERATED BY AN ACTIVIST INVESTOR WHO CRITICIZED WASTEFUL SPENDING AND A LOT OF OTHER PROBLEMS AT THE COMPANY.

AND INDEED, eBAY WAS EXPERIENCING NEGATIVE GROWTH UNDER THIS C.E.O.

AND SO WHEN I POINTED OUT THAT HE HAD BUILT A VANITY PROJECT ON CAMPUS AND REMEMBER SILLERS ARE THE ONES WHO PAY THE FEES THAT GO INTO THE COFFERS, I FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR SELLERS TO KNOW THIS.

>> Braude: DO THEY CONTEND ANY OF THIS IS FACTUALLY ININACCURATE, THEY DON'T.

>> IF THEY HAD THEY COULD HAVE PICKED UP THE PHONE, I SPOKE TO eBAY COMMERCE PEOPLE FOR 20 YEARS COVERING THE COMPANY.

>> Braude: WHEN THIS FIRST STARTED, WHO DID YOU THINK WAS BEHIND THIS?

>> WE HAD NO IDEA.

LIFE WAS A NIGHTMARE.

IT WAS THREE WEEKS OF HELL.

>> Braude: AN YOU'RE HAVING A LARD TIME EVEN TALKING ABOUT IT THIS FAR REMOVED FROM THIS.

WHAT WAS LIFELIKE.

I MEAN WHAT WAS EVERY DAY LIKE ONCE THIS, AND IT REALLY IS TERRORISM T IS CORPORATE TERRORISM, WHAT WAS IT LIKE ONCE IT STARTED.

>> IT BUILT.

IT BUILT, EVERY DAY WAS ANOTHER DISTURBANCE, ANOTHER INCIDENT.

ANOTHER POLICE CRUISER IN FRONT OF OUR HOUSE.

IT WAS HORRIFIC.

>> Braude: DID YOU WORRY WERE YOU GOING TO BE KILLED.

>> YES, YEVMENT I SAW DAVID PULL OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY WITH OUR 81 YEAR OLD FRIEND.

AND WE HAD JUST INSTALLED A NEW SECURITY CAMERA AND I SAW A BLACK VAN THAT I HAD SEEN EARLIER IN THE DAY FOLLOW HIM.

AND I WAS CONVINCED THEY WERE GOING TO FOLLOW HIM TO OUR FRIEND'S HOUSE.

AND ATTACK HIM, PHYSICALLY.

I WAS-- I WAS TERRIFIED THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BREAK INTO OUR HOME.

>> Braude: DID YOU, I READ THAT YOU SLEPT IN SEPARATE BEDROOMS ONCE THIS STARTED, IS THAT TRUE?

>> DAVID SLEPT IN THE FRONT BEDROOM TO KEEP AN EYE ON THE FRONT DOOR, I SLEMENT IN THE BACK BEDROOM AND WE THOUGHT IF SOMETHING, IF DISB BREAK INTO OUR HOME,.

>> Braude: THAT THEY WOULD ONLY GET ONE OF YOU.

>> YEAH, THE OTHER WOULD HAVE A CHANCE.

>> THE OTHER WOULD HAVE A CHANCE TO CALL TO RUN.

>> Braude: DAVID, I'M ALMOST EMBARRASSED TO ASK THIS QUESTION, IN LIGHTS OF YOUR RESPONSE.

I WAS GOING TO SAY WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF THIS NOW, YOU KNOW, CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME REMOVED.

>> IT REALLY HASN'T SUB SIDED IN FACT, ANY TIME WE GO OUT, I AM AWARE OF PEOPLE AROUND ME.

I'M AWARE IF SOMEONE IS FOLLOWING ME, I MIGHT TAKE A CIRCUITOUS ROUTE TO MY DESTINATION.

AND EVEN AS EARLY AS THIS MORNING, I'M A VERY LIGHT SLEEPER NOW.

I HEARD A CAR PULL UP.

WE HAVE A VERY QUIET ONE-WAY STREET.

A CAR STOPPED IN FRONT OF OUR HOUSE.

I HEARD THE DOOR OPEN.

AND I RAN TO THE WINDOW.

AND SAW A MAN WALKING UP TO THE STAIRS, THIS IS 4:30 IN THE MORNING.

>> Braude: AND WHAT DID IT DO TO YOU.

>> IT THREW ME RIGHT BACK INTO THE MOMENT T WAS AN AMAZON DELIVERY.

>> Braude: AND INA, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, I THINK YOU TOLD ONE OF OUR PRODUCERS WHEN WE FIRST INVITED YOU ON, THAT YOU WERE CANOEING FOR RELAXATION OR SOMETHING.

AND YOU HAD AN EXPERIENCE THAT WAS TROUBLING, WHAT HAPPENED TO.

>> KAYAKING.

>> Braude: ALL THE SAME TO ME BUT I KNOW-- SOO YOU WERE KAYAKING AND WHAT?

>> YEAH, SO THIS WASN'T DISEURG THE INCIDENT BECAUSE A I WAS TOO AFRAID TO GO KAYAKING DURING THE INCIDENTS.

AND B, WE DIDN'T HAVE TIME.

BUT AFTERWARDS WHEN LAW ENFORCE.

SAID WE KNOW WHO THIS IS, THE FIRST TIME I I WENT KAYAKING AND DAVID WAS ON SHORE, I SAW AN ELDERLY WOMAN WITH A VIDEO CAMERA AND ONCE I GOT INTO THE WATER, SHE HAD BINOCULARS AND I SPENT ABOUT FIVE MINUTES AND I CAME BACK ON SHORE BECAUSE I WAS TERRIFIED.

AND IT IS ALSO-- I MEAN WE ARE REALLY DEPRESSED BECAUSE OUR LIFE IS DIFFERENT NOW.

AND IT IS HARD TO SEE WHAT IS AHEAD IN THE FUTURE.

WE JUST DON'T KNOW.

>> Braude: I WILL TALK TO YOU ABOUT IN THE FUTURE IN A MINUTE.

SO YOU FILED THIS CIVIL SUIT ON THEIR BEHALF.

WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FOR AND WHO IS IT AGAINST.

>> IT IS AGAINST eBAY, DEVIN WENIG, STEVE WYMER, THEY WERE THE C SUITE PEOPLE AND THE SEVEN DEFENDANTS THE GOVERNMENT CHARGED.

WE FRANKLY DON'T THINK THE GOVERNMENT WENT FAR ENOUGH.

>> Braude: THE WITH THE.

>> THE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE UNDER ANDREW WELDINGS.

>> YES.

>> NOT UNDER RACHAEL ROLLINS.

>> Braude: I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY DISPUTE THAT WENIG WHO WAS THE C.E.O.

DID SAY TO AN ASSOCIATE, TAKE HER DOWN.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> Braude: HER BEING INA, THAT SAY PRETTY COMMON PARLANCE, PRETTY SCARY THING.

WHAT DO THEY SUGGEST TAKE HER DOWN MEANS.

>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU THINK IT MEANS BUT WHEN YOU ARE TALKING TO THE DIRECTOR OF SECURITY WHO HAS THE BACKGROUND THAT BAR HAS.

>> Braude: THE GUY SENTENCED.

>> AND YOU JUST TOLD HIM THROUGH YOUR LEGAL DEMENT THAT THERE IS NOTHING MORE LEGALLY YOU CAN DO WHEN YOU USE THE WORDS, "TAKE HER DOWN" THEY HAVE CONNECT MEERCHING AND ACCORDING TO BAUGH THAT CAME DIRECTLY FROM WENIG TO MEAN DO WHATEVER IT TAKES.

>> Braude: HE SAID THAT EXPLICITLY, BAUGH SAID EXPLICITLY THAT HE GOT IT FROM THE TOP BOYS.

>> HE DID, HE GOT IT FROM WYMER WHO GOT IT FROM WENIG.

WENIG'S LAWYER ON FRIDAY, THEY SENT A STATEMENT, HE HAD ZERO FLOJ OF THE ACTIONS OF MR. BAUGH AS FULLY CONFIRMED BY AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION BY AN OUTSIDE LAW FIRM, BY eBAY ITSELF AND INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE INVOLVED.

MR. WENIG NEVER KNEW COUNSEL OR APPROVED ANY OF THE CONDUCT THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE CRIMINAL CASE, HAD HE KNOWN HE WOULD HAVE IMMEDIATELY TAKEN STEPS TO STOP IT.

WHAT IS YOUR REACTION AND WHAT IS THE INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION.

>> THE INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION WAS PAID FOR BY eBAY, THEY HIRED THEIR OWN COMPANY TO DO THEIR OWN INVESTIGATION.

THEY INTERVIEWED WITNESSES AND STILL DIDN'T TURN THOSE INTERVIEWS OVER TO THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

WE DON'T HAVE WENIG'S INTERVIEW WITH HIS COMPANY.

THEY NEVER TURNED THAT OVER.

WE DON'T HAVE JOAN'S INTERVIEW, THEY NEVER TURNED THAT OVER.

WHAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS SATISFIED WITH WHICH IS WHAT OUR CONCERN IS, IS TO GET AN ORAL REPORT OF WHAT THESE INDIVIDUALS SAID.

SO IF WENIG HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, GIVE US YOUR STATEMENT, HAND IT OVER.

>> Braude: TO BE CLEAR, WE SAID A MINUTE AGO THIS STARTED UNDER AN RYU LELLING, RACHELLE ROLLINS IS HERE NOW, YOU HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH HER ABOUT WHO WERE NOT PROSECUTED THAT YOU BELIEVE HE SHOULD BE.

>> NO.

>> Braude: WHY NOT.

>> BECAUSE I'M IN THE CIVIL CASE, NOT THE CRIMINAL CASE, I HAVE TO KEEP A SEPARATE STANCE BETWEEN WHAT IS HAPPEN NGHT CRIMINAL CASE AND THE CIVIL CASE.

THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE REPRESENTING THE VICTIMS IN THE CRIMINAL CASE.

AND IF THE EVIDENCE IS THERE, WHICH WE SUGGEST IT IS, AND THEY KNOW ABOUT IT, THEN THEY SHOULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, BUT THAT IS NOT, MY ROLE ISN'T THAT.

WHEN I CRITICIZED THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, I CRITICIZE IT BECAUSE OF THE WAY IN WHICH CORPORATIONS ARE ALLOWED TO INTERACT WITH THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.

>> Braude: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?

>> WHEN eBAY FOUND OUT THAT THEY PRT TARGET OF THIS INVESTIGATION.

THEY WERE ALLOWED TO PUTTING TO A POWER POINT PRESENTATION WITH A BUNCH OF LAWYERS THAT CHARGE A MILLION DOLLARS AN HOUR AND GO INTO THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND MAKE A PRESENTATION FOR ALL THE REASONS YOU SHOULDN'T INDICT US AS A COMPANY AND ANY OF OUR C SUITE PEOPLE.

WE WILL GIVE YOU THESE SEVEN BECAUSE WE SAY THESE ARE THE ONE WHOSE DID IT AND THEY ARE ROAG EMPLOYEES.

THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DOESN'T ALLOW PEOPLE THAT ARE, THE BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE THAT I REPRESENT FOR THE MOST PART TO EVER GO IN.

>> Braude: DID YOU EVER HAVE ANY OF THOSE MEETINGNESS.

>> HAVE I NEVER IN THE 30 YEARS, NEVER HAD A MEETING WHERE THEY ALLOWED ME TO SAY DON'T CLARG MY CLIENT, CHARGE THIS ONE.

>> Braude: INA S ANY SATISFACTION FOR AT LEAST SOME OF THESE CHARACTERS GOING TO JAIL OR DO YOU STEE AS JUST AN INCOMPLETE MISSION.

>> IT WOULD BE UNTHINKABLE TO KNOW THAT IF WE DIDN'T KNOW WHO IT WAS AND IF THEY DIDN'T END UP WHERE THEY ARE, BUT IT IS NOT CLOSURE.

AND I REALLY WANT TO SEE PEOPLE SCREUTD NIEZ OTHER COMPANIES AND OTHER SECURITY DIVISIONS WITHIN THOSE COMPANIES.

>> Braude: IT IS FUNNY, WE WILL GET TO THAT IN A SECOND.

>> SORRY.

>> Braude: NO, NOT SORRY AT ALL.

I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT IT UP.

DO YOU SEE A FUTURE WHERE YOU ARE FREE OF THIS NIGHTMARE OR DO YOU NOT.

>> NOT YET.

>> Braude: WHAT WOULD-- FINISH, I'M SORRY.

>> NO, WHAT WOULD BE CLOSURE IS TO SEE REAL JUSTICE DONE.

>> Braude: WHAT IS REAL JUSTICE WHAT WOULD THAT MEAN.

>> IT IS TO MAKE THE COMPANY ACCOUNTABLE AND TO MAKE EVERYBODY THAT WAS INVOLVED, EITHER OVERTLY OR TACITLY INVOLVED IN THIS, ACCOUNTABLE.

>> Braude: DOES THIS EFFECT THE QUALITY OF YOUR WORK?

ARE YOU-- IS THERE A CHILLING EFFECT ON WHAT YOU DO IN TERMS OF HOW FORTH WRITE YOU ARE, I DON'T MEAN YOU WOULDN'T BE HONEST.

BUT HOW FORTH WRITE, HOW DIRECT YOU ARE IN REPORTING BECAUSE OF THIS EXPERIENCE?

>> I THINK OF THE POSITION I'M IN.

I AM SUING A COMPANY I'M COVERING.

IT IS UNTENABLE BUT IF IT WORKED, IF A COMPANY KNEW THAT THEY CHO ATTACK REPORTERS AND SHUT THOSE REPORTERS DOWN, THEN WHERE WOULD WE BE.

SO LIKE I SAID, I WRITE FOR THE SELLERS.

EVERYTHING I HAVE EVER WRITTEN ABOUT, I LOOK THROUGH THE LENS OF THE SELLER, HOW DOES IT IMPACT THEM.

>> Braude: ARE YOU MORE OPTIMISTIC ABOUT THE FUTURE THAN YOUR HUSBAND IS?

>> WELL I THINK THAT TENDS TO BE OUR OUTLOOK IN GENERAL.

>> Braude: YOU MEAN AS A COUPLE.

>> AS A COUPLE.

BUT ON THE OTHER HAND HE'S MORE OF A REALIST THAN I AM.

I HAVE TO BE ABLE TO TRY TO SLEEP AT NIGHT.

>> Braude: WERE YOU ABOUT TO SAY SOMETHING?

>> NO, WHEN YOU ASKED ABOUT HOW IT EFFECTS THE REPORTING, I WOULD SAY THAT WHAT IT HAS AFFECTED IS THAT THIS CASE HAS TAKEN UP SO MUCH BAND WIDTH IN OUR LIVES THAT IT HAS MADE THE JOB HARDER, BECAUSE WE DID THIS 12 TO 15 HOURS A DAY.

IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND NOW INA'S PRODUCTION HAS REALLY.

>> AND IT IS ALSO A MATTER OF TRUST IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO HAVE ANY LEVEL OF TRUST.

AND WHEN I CALL A VEND IR, IT IS ALWAYS IN THE BACK OF MY MIND, YOU KNOW, WHERE, THEY'RE DEPEND ENT ON eBAY.

THEY'RE DEPEND ENT ON eBAY.

>> Braude: CAN I FOWM, LAST QUESTION, ON SOMETHING INA SAID A MINUTE AGO, SURELY LUNGE, THE BUSINESS COUPLE NIS ON THE GLOBE, MARGERY EAGAN AND PRI TALKING ABOUT THIS ON THE RADIO TODAY, A TOPIC CAME UP, THANK GOODNESS IT IS ONLY THIS COMPANY.

BUT FOLLOWING UP ON WHAT INA SAID, DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA IF THIS KIND OF CORPORATE TERRORISM IS PRACTICED ON OTHER VICTIMS AND WE JUST DON'T KNOW ABOUT IT YET?

>> WE KNOW FROM LINKED IN PROFILES THAT IT APPEARS AS IF THE SECURITY OFFICERS ARE IN SILT CON-- SILICON VALLEY TRADING FROM ONE COMPANY TO ANOTHER.

I DON'T KNOW THAT DEF INTIFFLY, BUT IT APPEARS THAT FROM THEIR PROVIALS.

>> Braude: ROSEMARY SCAPICCHIO, ALWAYS GOOD TO SEE YOU.

THANK YOU.

THAT IS IT FOR TONIGHT, PLEASE COME BACK TORNLINGS BALLOT QUESTION DEBATED WEEK CONTINUES WITH QUESTION FOUR, WHERE WITH IF PASS WOOD OVERTURN A LAW THAT WOULD LET UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS TO GET DRIVER'S LICENSES STARTING IN JULY THAT AND MORE TOMORROW AT 07 CLOCK.

THANK YOU FOR WATCHING.

AND PLEASE DON'T FORGET UKRAINE.