FELONY INDICTMENT OF BARRON THOMAS AND

Henning said:
No it doesn't, it just victimizes a different class of person, the greedy/cheap as- semi affluent dumb ass.... "When a deal sounds to good to be true, it probably is...". Anybody who has done their due diligence will know what to do. This used to be a Caveat Emptor one, now it's full on cries for a nanny state...
Click to expand...

AMEN!!!!!

The flip side of "If it sounds too good to be true" is "there is a sucker born every minute."

I don't need a courtroom. That 90-day, guaranteed 12% return deal smelled like 2-day-old fish. No further due diligence required.
 
flyersfan31 said:
AMEN!!!!!

The flip side of "If it sounds too good to be true" is "there is a sucker born every minute."

I don't need a courtroom. That 90-day, guaranteed 12% return deal smelled like 2-day-old fish. No further due diligence required.
Click to expand...

I was offered in on Maddoff's deal, couldn't make the pitch match the realities...
 
Hey, this guy has a plane - I'd invest with him...

michelle-and-marcus-schrenker.jpg
 
Dr. O said:
Expect him to pop up on here refuting every statement in that article... A con man's only tool is the silver tongue... The con creed is 'keep talking until they are hypnotized.'

denny-o
Click to expand...

You can also expect an email from his attorney about your remarks, similar to this one I received awhile back, where I had, very mistakenly of course, implied that a person who loses $700,000 to a sour investment could also afford the means to invest in kneecap removal services.

I of course modified the offending speech immediately, as it mis-conveyed my intentions. I would never want it implied that Barron receive any kneecap modifications in response to his clients losing large sums of money while under his investment management. I was merely commenting on the means of people who invest $700,000 in diversified interests, and never wanted it suggested that these means be directed or implemented. That would not be legal.

MS Word needs a "lawsuit bait" checker similar to the spell-check, or maybe like TurboTax's audit alert. :rolleyes2:

-----Original Message-----
From: Kroyerlaw@aol.com [mailto:Kroyerlaw@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 10:30 AM
To: fly@flycorona.com; mike@msxpert.com
Cc: barronlax@aol.com
Subject: Barron Thomas

Mr Brannigan:

I am counsel for Barron Thomas. It has come to my attention that you have posted the following comments on a website:

"I find it amazing that a cabal of people with $700,000 under their couch cushions to invest in pipe dreams cannot discover a solution to this problem. If you lose 700 grand, why not find another 50 or 100, and put this joker into a hurtlock? I'm sure in the wealthy burbs of Arizona, 50 grand would buy a lot of kneecaps."

While this may be the land of free speech, the free speech that you have posted makes you liable for criminal prosecution. You have two choices: Retract your statements with another post OR I can forward your post and threats of physical violence to the appropriate authorities who will in all likelihood want to come over and have a talk with you. Since your electronic comments crossed state lines you are subject to Federal laws regarding criminal solicitation, threats and criminal intimidation. It's a federal crime to solicit others to do physical violence to another. It's your choice.

Ken Royer
Royer law Office, PC
480-460-6371
Click to expand...
 
Oh now I remember that guy.


Yeah, sure, I always wear a parachute when I fly my PA46....
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

IMHO? FWIW??

GUILTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
schmookeeg said:
You can also expect an email from his attorney about your remarks, similar to this one I received awhile back, where I had, very mistakenly of course, implied that a person who loses $700,000 to a sour investment could also afford the means to invest in kneecap removal services.

I of course modified the offending speech immediately, as it mis-conveyed my intentions. I would never want it implied that Barron receive any kneecap modifications in response to his clients losing large sums of money while under his investment management. I was merely commenting on the means of people who invest $700,000 in diversified interests, and never wanted it suggested that these means be directed or implemented. That would not be legal.

MS Word needs a "lawsuit bait" checker similar to the spell-check, or maybe like TurboTax's audit alert. :rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

What do you think the 'appropriate authorities' would have done beyond a 'shrug' ?
 
Dang,
I've been trying to buy a plane from Barron for some time now....it was a really good plane at a really high price and no information in the ad other than "contact me for details". I'm sure going to miss him......


On the other hand....I managed to get one out of Schrenkers pile. At least he had some real planes to have the bank take away and auction off...I'm guessing hiltons won't ever hit the market.
Oh well, another one bites the dust, for a while anyway.
Frank
 
schmookeeg said:
You can also expect an email from his attorney about your remarks, similar to this one I received awhile back
Click to expand...

From some guy with an AOL email address?!? Seriously people, this is 2011. Even the scammers have their own domains these days. I would be skeptical of any email from a supposedly-legitimate business that came from AOL, Yahoo, MSN, GMail, etc.

Not saying the guy wasn't for real, but that'd sure set off my BS alert. Probably Barron's kid or something.
 
schmookeeg said:
You can also expect an email from his attorney about your remarks...

I of course modified the offending speech immediately, as it mis-conveyed my intentions.
...

MS Word needs a "lawsuit bait" checker similar to the spell-check, or maybe like TurboTax's audit alert. :rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

Way too much work. Hitting your delete key on the Attorney's e-mail would have been just as effective.

Google shows 6.1 million hits for the phrase "F--- off and die."

Pretty sure law-enforcement won't be able to keep up with these intra and interstate "death threats" on the Internet any tine soon.

"What e-mail? I never received it."

:)
 
ScottM said:
they probably have been in too many airport bathroom stalls. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...
Tap your feet and shuffle all you want in an airport bathroom stall... just don't hum the hook to Bronski Beat's "Small Town Boy" when you do so, or everybody gets the wrong idea.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
From some guy with an AOL email address?!? Seriously people, this is 2011. Even the scammers have their own domains these days. I would be skeptical of any email from a supposedly-legitimate business that came from AOL, Yahoo, MSN, GMail, etc.

Not saying the guy wasn't for real, but that'd sure set off my BS alert. Probably Barron's kid or something.
Click to expand...

For what its worth, there is a Phoenix attorney by that name.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
... who apparently can't even afford to hire anyone to handle his IT issues.
Click to expand...

Dunno, he has a reasonably well done website.

Don't underestimate someone based on the email address they use.

I think the particular threat (of a criminal compaint) is empty and a silly waste of time, but folks in the same line of business as BT are known to file frivolous libel suits just to harrass their critics.
 
I would have left the comments and said bring it.
 
EdFred said:
I would have left the comments and said bring it.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it costs next to nothing to file a lawsuit. If the defendant doesn't respond, you may end up with a default judgment. You'll spend a few thousand just filing the answer.
 
Steve Foley said:
Unfortunately, it costs next to nothing to file a lawsuit. If the defendant doesn't respond, you may end up with a default judgment. You'll spend a few thousand just filing the answer.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one is going to get a default judgment because you didn't answer an email, are they?
 
3 pages and no claim of innocence??????
 
Palmpilot said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one is going to get a default judgment because you didn't answer an email, are they?
Click to expand...

You get a default judgement if you get sued and you dont respond to the suit.

Not answering an email or letter from someone who has an issue with something you have done may put you at an increased risk of getting sued. Ask the runwayfinder guy.
 
Where's that dead horse beater when we need him?

This deal will drag on for months, then we'll hear about it again. In the meantime, why do we think it's so important to continue to yap about it now?
 
Is this conversation bothering you?
 
weilke said:
You get a default judgement if you get sued and you dont respond to the suit.
Click to expand...

That's my understanding as well.

Not answering an email or letter from someone who has an issue with something you have done may put you at an increased risk of getting sued. Ask the runwayfinder guy.
Click to expand...

I think a letter shows the complainant to be a lot more serious about it than an email does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top