Obviously the answer was yes in Joey's case, but how did he get fellow scam artists like Bill and John Margetis to do it as well? Windsor is running his own fake news story on the partial reversal of Judge Ferguson's ruling on Jeff Barron going into personal receivership. This really isn't much of a victory for Jeff as he will still be bankrupt and the appellate judges did mention that Ferguson had to take some extraordinary steps due to the vexatious nature of Barron, hardly a ringing endorsement of the man.
When we look at Windsor, he has hundreds of guys like Barron, yet he is taking special time and attention in to creating media around his case and giving it special attention. The same was true for John Margetis who spent almost all his waking time spitting out the propaganda on the Jeff Barron case. Why would they do this, these are career con artists that have seen much worse. Is it because Jeff is able to pay them for this work, or is it because they feel that the same punishment Jeff received will soon be aimed at them as they are running similar scams while being branded a vexatious litigant?
I think it's a "birds of a feather thing". Baron doesn't appear willing to give up any money for services rendered. Just like Bill, Baron has an "air" of being important and presents himself as being a target of the government because of his "importance".
ReplyDeleteI wonder what all those LA followers and pedophile accusers would think if they knew Baron's fortune was partially built on all those porno and child sex domains.
Ohhh but thats the best part of the Barron narrative, you see he was tricked by his business partner into getting into porn. He is against that but it all happened without his knowledge.
Deletelol, I have just read a couple of articles that paint Barron as a victim of his business partner. I also read a partial list of the domains he staked his claim on, and yeah, the guy knew what he was doing in tying up some of these names. The articles Bill wrote are very one sided, as expected. Even when quoting Bills articles, they point out how the numbers may be inflated, and how what he wrote shows a personal bias. LOL, Ya think? The throw in a disclaimer about the story being written for Barron's point of view only.
DeleteInterestingly, there are some comments on these articles that are more informative than the actual story. Talking about the greed, the intentional act of redirecting traffic purely based on typos, as well as the potential for white collar cons and theft with names like cardmemberservices.com and obvious valid company names with other similar hooks to services. I wonder how much actual thievery and fraud was done with domains that Barron's owned?
One point that I have yet to understand, is why didn't he sell off part of his portfolio of names to pay off his debts and stay afloat. Was he so full of hubris that he (like Bill) believe he is above the law and unable to lose?
Sorry if these are silly questions, I am reading about it all in more depth, and trying to catch up.
Oceans: " why didn't he sell off part of his portfolio of names to pay off his debts and stay afloat". Baron is a tight wad. The only reason he put Ondova in bankruptcy was to delay and manipulate settlement of the suit filed against him by Krishan. He wanted to limit the amount of Krishan's recovery or award. He kept the other companies in tact because they were wholey owned by Baron and weren't subject to the suit filed by Krishan.
DeleteYeah, right Baron didn't know about the sex sites. When/how did he find out? When Joey caught it? Can you hear Baron when he found out? What? I'm rich because of perverted sex domain names???!!!! OK, THEN what did do about it? Oh wait, I remember - he laughed all the way to the bank the feds can't touch and through countless attorneys and judges.
I'm curious about the mention of the $1 Mil loan offer (and 30+% interest)that Baron's lawyer found but the receiver thought was possibly illegal?
DeleteI don't know how much thievery and fraud was done with the names themselves, possibly none, but if somebody offered to buy up the childporn names, he obviously would have sold them. I still have a hard time believing that some algorithm came up with those names by itself. And if it did, wouldn't a rational person attempt to make adjustments rather than keep creating and buying domains like that? At very least wouldn't you find a way to trash them?
Somewhere I read that not just the grandfather of the internet quote from Mr. Baron, but the idea that he was going to rival Google. I don't see how registering domain names in giant batches has really anything to do with google. And, did he not see that this was something that while potentially profitable had an expiration date? Eventually all of the existing companies are going to have names & startups will acquire .coms before he even knows they are on the map. At a certain point it's going to be the law of diminishing returns.
It seems to me like he's devoted a lot of time and energy into this when he should have been reinventing his programming for something that has viable opportunities into the future, but then again, I don't think he has the level of talent that he thinks he does. He's just a vulture. People with the real talent do real things.
from what I can tell, he really didn't worry about the potential obsolescence of his application. He was betting on the continuation of the revenues from the bogus domains he owned. I don't see him as particularly innovative or brilliant anywhere but in his own mind.
DeleteHe seems to have gone overboard with 153,000 domain names. Seriously!
I'm guessing he saw his future in leasing out the names. The court documents kind of indicated that way the way he wanted to go even though his past history with that ended up in lawsuits.
DeleteWhile I understand these names are valuable, particularly the already branded & copyrighted names, it'd be like going to aol and trying to pick a screenname after millions of people already have. Yeah, lots of people will settle for sillygirl1238543893457 but, if you are smart, you can still come up with a combo that nobody has with 2 or fewer numbers after it. And that's just little screennames. There are infinite possibilities of website addresses, what he has just isn't that valuable in my mind. And, he really didn't get in on it "at the beginning" as he'd like people to believe. He was actually behind the curve.
any idea how many lawsuits he has from this scheme? I agree, I just don't see the value in it. Maybe that's why he failed. I do love the part about how his net revenue of 1.5 million can't be found anywhere but from his own statements. You would think that kind of money would be easy to spot LOL
DeleteHe seems to share the trait of I AM AMAZING AND ALWAYS RIGHT with Bill. I think that's part of how they became such buddies. I suspect Jeff is far more devious than Bill, and is maybe giving him tutorials in exchange for the articles.
Yeah, I think Jeff has started out more smarmy.
DeleteBill was get rich quick, build it & let somebody else see if they can make it run, don't put your own money into anything when you can get investors kind of guy. While he's in it for himself, and say giving college kids credit cards or selling tickets online for an exorbitant markup aren't exactly altruistic endeavors, somehow I see Jeff as being a lot worse. His tried to leverage companies for large sums of money to use their own preexisting names &/or profited off of clumsy fingers. He obviously wasn't planning to pay attorneys that worked FULL TIME for him, and he was trying to get his money overseas. I just don't see this being the nice guy/victim he is portrayed to be even if the receivership overstepped the courts bounds.
No NBTDT. It's much more sinister.
ReplyDeleteI think there is code-talking and secret handshaking going on. You don't think it's beyond strange that certain people are becoming immediate friends (and even adopted Daddies)? Don't you notice how they just immediately fall in line and share eachothers' stories before they've even taken time to get the facts? Do you really think people are just that dumb to blindly follow eachother? Or, do you think that it just might stem from some connection they all have? I mean, what better way for the Illuminati to destroy the opposition than by infiltrating and sabotaging those who know the Truth?
It's all starting to fall together for you now isn't it?
Think about Loryn and Connie. Loryn knows the truth. Connie (a covert Illuminati operative) becomes her best bud. Connie bonds with her by telling of incredible (and true) stories about how the sinister illuminati have ruled the world for generations. After befriending Loryn, Connie gives her life coaching "advice" and instruction. Connie's advice leads to more and more roadblocks for Loryn. She gets increasingly desperate and strung out. Connie basically leads Loryn down a path of destruction. By the end, Loryn is left with no possessions, relationships, and fleeting sanity. Anything of the Truth that Loryn shares about the Illuminati gets dismissed as the rantings of a mad woman.
Brilliant plan, no?
lol Oreader you're scaring me.
DeleteSo Baron really had child porn domains? And how is that not illegal, what are wrong with the laws?
i did it i did it, old archaic desktop worked. If you could see me I'm covered in dust hugging a computer screen. lol
Deleteshhhh no one tell blogger
NBTDT, you left a link in the "other" thread about Baron but I don't know where to find it. Can you go in there and get it for me? I'm allergic to Bedwells ;)
nevermind, I ran like the wind and got it.
DeleteNothingbettertodotodayDecember 19, 2012 8:09 PM
Moving on - big news for Jeff Baron. The receivership placed on assets that were not part of the original litigation was reversed on appeal. The court stated that "We recognize that the district court was dealing with a conundrum when it decided to appoint the receiver – the problem was great, but standard remedies seemed inadequate. We also take into account that, to a large extent, Baron’s own actions resulted in more work and more fees for the receiver and his attorneys." So the receivership gets to keep what is currently funded but can't sell any more assets.
Baron waived his right to have an appeal heard on Furgeson's recusal - they gave him 3 shots at filing the right paperwork but he never did. All of the other appeals were denied as moot.
Here's a link to the whole decision:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ca5.uscourts.gov%2Fopinions%255Cpub%255C11%2F11-10113-CV0.wpd.pdf&ei=NY_SUIuoEtSk2gX_m4GIBA&usg=AFQjCNFmoOBaz3wgOKTQLF2wyWY7gzaLPQ&sig2=QGRI0-DL5zVvGM7EEsFZ_A&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.b2I
My cousin is here and he told me to sign out of my blogger account (which is a different name than yappy, oh no don't sue me please) and sign out of youtube, which apparently is owned by google too, and try my laptop. I think I've confused google or it thinks I'm trying to post under a few names? Only time will tell. Slimmy I hope you figure it out.
DeleteNBTDT has the best Jeff Baron docs. This was also provided:
Deletehttp://assetprotectionbook.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=71&t=1960
"Mr. Baron has represented himself as being a "grandfather" of the internet and a business entrepreneur being deprived of his livelihood.
Mr. Baron has never sold a domain name himself. But he has numerous criticisms of the Receiver's marketing/sale procedures in this case.
Only one lender was recommended by Mr. Baron's lawyer and such lender proposed an approximately $1 million loan at a 32% interest rate and the lender seemed to lack credibility (the Receiver actually credibly testified that he feared the lender was proposing something criminal in nature).
Mr. Baron testified that either names owned by Ondova or the Receivership Parties (unclear which) at one time earned $1.5 million per month through monetization efforts. There is no evidence of this other than Mr. Baron's word. Mr. Morris testified that his research showed the portfolio of Domain Names had never earned anywhere close to this amount of revenue. The court cannot and does not find it to be true, by a preponderance of the evidence."
Jeff Baron isn't a grandfather of the internet. He's more like that creepy great uncle that only comes around at Christmas. Nobody is even sure exactly how he is related, but they definitely know they don't want to get stuck sitting beside him at the table.
Oh yeah, and Joey's manifesto said Jeff "smelled of filth".
No question he's "shifty" in his lawless vid.
Brilliant and absolutely diabolical. So glad OReader uncovered the plot. Makes me feel so much better that there is a reason for this madness and we can blame the illumati. Here I was, just blaming it on non-selective breeding and stupidity.
DeleteAlso glad yappy OReader are BACK! Now, OReader can add filter training to her resume, right after training cats to walk on a leash.
Someone please help pull Slim Shady in from the blogger black hole? :(
DeleteOreader, I missed that. Your cat walks on a leash? LOL Wow good for you, that is a marketable talent! When I attempted that, my face was almost rearranged.
Thanks for the assetprotection link Oreader, I wiped out my history and cookies to see if it would make blogger happy.
Yes, he came from the pound and somebody had already removed his front claws, so he's not allowed outside unsupervised. You'd be surprised he takes walks by looking at the size of him . . . However tubby, Icarus still thinks he can fly. ;-)
Deleteyap, can you get an explanation from slim of what is happening? are comments just not posting and going nowhere or is slim even able to get that far?
I think Jeff way over valued his domain names to try and sheild him or launder his assets against the revenue he was making straight from the fraud and deceptive domain sites. Same thing on the porn sites. He would say "oh I have so many hundreds of thousands of sites I can't possibly keep up with all of them individually". He tried to have it set up so that he could look oblivious to the crimes his company was engaged in and have patsys set up to take the fall.
DeleteAnd for Slim Shady, if you are asking if he is posting but it gets stuck in spam the answer is no, I haven't seen one of his make it to spam yet.
Deleteway overvalued is putting it mildly Ginger- read he thought that the 4.3 million was a lowball, and that he thought 40-100 million was more accurate!
DeleteI agree on the shear volume being used as a ploy to claim innocence of the creepy factor on those porn names. As well as the clear cases of trying to redirect true TM names. In my post about it took out part of the domain name. It was a valid bank name and then cardmemberservices.com was tacked on. There is no justification for this other than fraud.
I think this may be part of the problem with trying to sell these domains as a portfolio- you end up assuming too much potential litigation. I was surprised by half a million you had to put up to even bid on these portfolios.
I've had a recurring problem where the "Reply as" box would not let me drop down. At some point I figured out that when this happens, I can use the down arrow to get to the options as it still seems to be selected. Maybe this has happened to Slim Shady?
DeleteOK, I think I posted something a minute ago, but it didn't come up. Crossing my fingers that I just got distracted.
DeleteGinger, do you have your comments set as "embedded" or "full page"? Apparently it makes a diff on the cookie side. Full page requires less and will kick less people out, but embedded looks better. I had full page, but that was just dumb luck.
yeah it was in the spam again.
DeleteIts set on embedded. Which one are you saying works better? Full page? I can try that.
yes, full page is supposedly better. and we should all have 3rd party cookies enabled, but that is for embedded, but I'm doing it anyway
DeleteOreader, you know this is why Blogger was trying to block you. The NWO owns it and was attempting to block your disclosure of these truths. Expect a visit from the Pope too. It's either that or you are being stalked by those COINTELPRO people and they are messing with you.
ReplyDeleteOkay, I can't watch the videos on this laptop. What do his (Barron's) parent's videos say? Pretty sure I can figure out his rant, I mean testimony, just from what Bill writes about him.
I'm not worried about the Pope for at least another week. I heard he was going on a cruise. Shh. Don't tell.
DeleteHe's sharing a connecting room with that yappypattycakepie person. He shall return next Friday, Oreader. I hope Funday can create a photoshop in is honor. Maybe Webby can join us, I hear he likes cruises.
DeleteWe're sailing on the Scientology Freewinds, it shall be an interesting adventure indeed. I hear Obama will be the lead singer again. He loves singing funkytown and will be doing a duet with Lady Gaga's "Christmas tree".
http://www.freewinds.org/
And you always wondered WHY Tom has the last name "Cruise"? See how it all pieces together? Now you know.
ooh. That offer to stowaway is looking even better.
DeleteJust a reminder, Funday is a Koolaid drinker now. He's probably gonna come here spewing some kind of propaganda or something.
Except for the Pope might be going....now I'm wondering ...how big was yappy's over-sized purse?
DeleteWhat you got against Pope Benedict? He makes this awesome egg dish with Canadian bacon. A fancy word for "ham".
DeleteLots of room! Slimmy is very slimmy, will fit in my wallet.
I have two of these, we'll make my old guy carry one. Orrrr if Webby joins us AND he's nice, I'll let him hold it.
http://p.twimg.com/A4SfFmdCYAEAH5z.jpg
http://i47.tinypic.com/2j4pqc8.jpg
DeleteGoin' on a boat, Goin' on a boat
Everybody look at me
'Cause I'm sailing on a boat
I'm on a boat, I'm on a boat
Take a good hard look
At the very lovely boat! ;-)
from LA FB
ReplyDelete'Lawless America It's worthy of note that Royal W. Furgeson RESIGNED his cushy job as a federal judge not long ago while this action was pending. He plans to become Dean at a new law school in Dallas. BIG MISTAKE for the law school.'
I can't get over how EVERYTHING is somehow a conspiracy. How there is always some twist to simple facts to make it sinister. wow
oh my, just read Bill's post on his site about judicial corruption, and all of the signs to look out for- and it all pertains to him.
I was reading his article on Barron, which is in large part just a copy of a previous post he made about Jeff. Sort of reads like the Wikipedia page Bill wrote about himself lol.
Somewhere out there in an undisclosed mobile home, Barbara Farris is reading all of this Jeff Barron/Bill Windsor stuff saying "I want to play, let me play"
DeleteLOL, you got me with that one!
DeleteI am wondering when she will reappear and offer help to those on LA FB hahahaaa
It's an unlimited supply of playthings for her
Ginger found Farris? A Christmas Miracle!
DeleteI hate to pay Connie any more attention, but this is worth note - from FB. I'm guessing she finally figured out the lightening thing is not going to work out.
ReplyDeleteLexie Amann Too bad anonymous cant cause chaos and shut them down
Aaliyah Connie Bedwell-Tuma Its more like too bad we can't line all of them up and shoot them....
She's speaking of us or me? Isn't she a lovely little thing, what a darling. I wonder why at age 30, no one has snatched her hand in marriage. It's baffling. Even Presley found her dream man before 20.
DeleteYappy: maybe the paranoia is rubbing off on me. I got the feeling in reading that FB thread that the Conster has been talking about you and her trip to this site with her pals. Probably on a private site or in messages. I thought the references I posted were directed at you and us.
DeleteOceans, I tried to listen to Jeff's dad, but I've played it 3 times and gotten distracted each time. However he did say his son was under complete control of the court in "involuntary servitude" "yes, I said it, that's slavery." If you aren't well connected and get into the court system, you should just pay up according to his dad. I think it's funny that they all claim that they can't fight the system because they don't have the money, and then people like Baron and Windsor burn through their resources by being vexatious and manipulative, money is no longer the issue . . . oh wait, yes it is, after they waste it all (because they think they can make the other part pay it back when then win).
ReplyDeleteOh he also says, "if our forefathers could see this, they would just poop."
Oh yeah, and all three of them read from a script. And they will tell you over and over again how Jeff has had no rulings against him, which as we know is only true on the first piece of paper . . . if you follow the paper trail, he most certainly has, it's just been under other names.
DeleteO.O
ReplyDeletepoop?
Oreader you rock...thanks
Umm, yeah, it is all about the money- that's why they refuse to accept that they lost, and/or never had a case to begin with. There are $$ in their eyes. Maybe that's why they have so much trouble seeing they are in the wrong.
It's all the underlying greed and entitlement they believe in. And when they run out of money, they want the taxpayers to foot the bill. I'm still waiting for Bill to endorse one of his sheeples demand that they add free lawyers for anyone who wants one to the legislation they plan on proposing.
He seriously said "poop." Poop. I now have some weird mental image of George Washington making a poopy face.
DeleteTo all you mothers and fathers that read the blog . . what do you think? Do you recognize this facial expression?
http://qkme.me/3sa0t6
lmao George is such a joker. I wanna buy that poster!
DeleteOh yes, that is the face you see right before you change a diaper...
DeleteDid he win?
ReplyDeleteJEFF BARON WINS -- JEFF BARON WINS:
No. 10-11202
v.
JEFFREY BARON,
Defendant - Appellant
QUANTEC L.L.C.; NOVO POINT, L.L.C.,
Movants - Appellants
v.
PETER S. VOGEL,
Appellee
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
Before DeMOSS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
LESLIE H. SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judge:
These consolidated interlocutory appeals arise from the district court’s
appointment of a receiver over Jeffrey Baron’s personal property and entities he
owned or controlled. The district court sought to stop Baron’s practice of
regularly firing one lawyer and hiring a new one. This practice vexed the
litigation involving Baron’s alleged breaches of a settlement agreement and a
related bankruptcy. It also created new claims in bankruptcy by unpaid
attorneys. Baron appealed the receivership order and almost every order
entered by the district court thereafter. We hold that the appointment of the
receiver was an abuse of discretion and REVERSE and REMAND — with Bill Windsor and 2 others in Dallas, TX.
Sort of, but not really.
DeleteThat was the pdf that was linked earlier today or last night? I forget. It's the one NBTDT linked and you ran and got this morning/afternoon.
I didn't get around to reading the whole thing, but NBTDT summarized, "Moving on - big news for Jeff Baron. The receivership placed on assets that were not part of the original litigation was reversed on appeal. The court stated that "We recognize that the district court was dealing with a conundrum when it decided to appoint the receiver – the problem was great, but standard remedies seemed inadequate. We also take into account that, to a large extent, Baron’s own actions resulted in more work and more fees for the receiver and his attorneys." So the receivership gets to keep what is currently funded but can't sell any more assets. "
And basically from what I can tell the courts overstepped with the receivership because the debts he owes aren't really part of the original litigation. It's future debt. Basically attorneys near and far won't be paid, but him, but they are going to have to go after him themselves. That's my understanding of the little bit that I quickly read. However, it's not a glowing report on Jeff by any means. Basically, it points out all the valid reasons he was put in the receivership, however, the courts are limited by jurisdiction and can't protect all the people that he is going to screw over because it's not part of the original dispute they were ruling on.
This one
Deletehttp://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C11/11-10113-CV0.wpd.pdf