Ian Renert wants me to take down some "defamatory" pages.


Categories: Personal

So, I used to run an ISP, and I still let a couple of the former “customers” keep files on my machine.

One of the things a customer keeps is a copy of an old archive discussing a MLM fraud called “Global Prosperity Group”. One of the files in that archive refers to Mr. Renert. It calls him a “queer” (since I have no contact information for the author, I can’t speak as to why this was deemed relevant to anything), and it asserts that he was a participant in fraud.


So he complained. And I pointed out that, being an ISP, I was not in the business of policing content; if he dislikes something someone says, he can post something else. He sent me faxes, he called me, and so on. Recently he sent me a whole new letter, and just today an email.

As time goes on, he gets weirder. The boy’s not right in the head, frankly.

Here’s the short form, from some SEC findings:

Renert and Hawthorne induced more than 700 investors in 49 states and more than 100 investors overseas to purchase interests in 30 entities known as the Hawthorne Sterling Family of Funds. (Div. Ex. 2 at 8.) Renert and Hawthorne misrepresented through the internet, offshore seminars, and a network of sales agents that the funds would invest in bank debentures, which were actually fictitious prime bank instruments. (Div. Ex. 2 at 8.) Renert and Hawthorne failed to disclose that Renert used fund assets to engage in day trading in internet stocks, losing at least \$2.2 million, and to fund a mortgage on one of Renert’s homes. (Div. Ex. 2 at 11.)

Renert’s explanation is, uhm.

In what may well be his own words:

This is Ian Renert. I was the fund manager for a Bahamian family of funds organised in 1997. BDO International served as both our accountants and auditors. [BDO International is the 5th largest accounting firm in the world]. The Bahamas office of the Firm illegally forced us into receivership under their control on 7th June 2000 and used this opportunity to bury their culpability and that of their Isle of Man operation. While they were at it, they invoiced us for millions of dollars, thereby stealing millions of dollars of our assets in what they claimed would be a ‘protective receivership.’ Through my efforts and that of our lawyer, Maurice Glinton of Freeport, Bahamas - whom I found - we were successful in overturning the receivership, suing and winning lawsuits against BDO and our former lawyers in 2004 (Callender’s & Co. conspired with BDO to create the illegal receivership). Thankfully we received justice through the courts in the Bahamas. It is too bad that the SEC decided to make me into the fall guy and totally excluded all evidence of what the BDO organisation did in their involvement as both our accountants and auditors. It is frightening that such an occurrence is possible within the U.S. legal system.

Most investment managers would have walked away from their clients as soon as they stopped receiving their paychecks. However, I have continued to work for my clients for nearly five years since receiving my last one. My goal is for my clients to receive the value stated on their last statement plus damages, and if that happens, I shall feel as though we were successful in our efforts.

Shame on you BDO International and the SEC!

Ian Renert

Mr. Renert has been very active in hunting down and eliminating things that he claims are defamatory. One particularly long post giving a great amount of detail about his dealings was followed up to shortly later with claims that it was posted by a hacker, and that Ian and Larry can prove they weren’t near a computer, and so on and so forth. And yet…

It all rings hollow.

Here’s a sample from his latest snail mail:

I authored two books on legitimate bank instrument transactions and for this got on the SEC’s hit list. Con artists were using my books to legitimatize what they were attempting to do. And some law firms were hiring me to aid them in defending in their clients’ defence! The SEC didn’t like that.

That’s certainly an innovative take on things. But it doesn’t make any sense; the SEC’s got no history of going after people for writing investment books! Rather, they have a history of going after fraudsters.

I talked to Mr. Renert on the phone for a while. He’s a likeable guy, and he oozes palpable sincerity at all times. That, even more than the SEC rulings and court findings, are among the things that initially convinced me that he was a habitual liar – only habitual liars sound sincere when saying things of no consequence.

But let’s look at another quote from his snail mail:

The site associates me with bank debenture fraud which is not the case and it refers to me as a “queer” which, calling someone that is classified as a hate crime in the US.

Spoken like a man who never watched any prime time television. Furthermore, a casual review of the literature shows that the term “queer” is often used by proponents of hate-crime legislation to refer to the people they hope to protect. Hardly convincing.

His latest missive gets even more surreal:

I have written to you on numerous occasions about the above-referenced link and about the use of the word “queer” which is classified as a hate crime. If you do not remove any and all references to my name, I will have no choice but to begin a campaign with the FTC and other regulatory agencies. That will bring attention to you and your activities as well as to any other questionable materials being broadcast on your server(s). I will spend the time to initiate the campaign. I think you know that by now. But it would be in everyone’s best interest to simply remove references to my name now rather than later.

So, what do we know?

We know that Ian Renert was tagged for involvement with fraud, and that many people have identified him as a participant in particular frauds they fell prey to.

We know that Ian Renert says things that would be useful to him if they were true, even though they are not true, such as that the word “queer” is a hate crime.

We know that Ian Renert fled the country rather than paying any of the money he was found to owe.

We have compelling evidence that Ian Renert is a habitual liar, with the traditional habits of a con man.

But look one more time at that last note.

I will have no choice but to begin a campaign with the FTC and other regulatory agencies. That will bring attention to you and your activities

Ignore for a moment the FTC’s total non-interest in claims of internet defamation, especially when the substance of the alleged defamation is either a finding of a court or an admitted fact.

“That will bring attention to you and your activities,” he says.

This is a sentence written by a man to whom the idea that someone could be legit, and simply not be doing anything the governmental authorities would object to, is simply inconceivable. It is so far from his experience that the idea that government attention would not be a serious threat never occurs to him; he simply uses the government’s awareness of “activities” as a threat, because it always has been.

This letter, more than anything else I’ve seen, convinces me that the man is, indeed, exactly as someone whom he later claimed really wasn’t Larry, described him:

Sadly, even after being found guilty of a several crimes by the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States, Ian Renert has not learned his lesson and I now feel that some people? lives may be in danger. Ian continues to blame everyone else for his misfortune and never seems to learn his own lesson. Ian? family has money. If he would have just invested that money into something legitimate he would
be wealthy several times over. But instead, Ian insists on squandering other people? money and is jealous to the point of obsession about other people? success. Ian can not handle other people being more successful then himself in anything.

Ian is using large quantities of prescription drugs and is not well. These drugs being given to him by quacks are probably at the root of his behavior. Ian has repeatedly cheated on me in our relationships and tried to get me to accept these facts sighting a medical infirmity of my own as the reason. I am no longer willing to be used as Ian? personal check book as I have been in the past when he has needed to hide money.

The whole thing, quite long, is found at http://www.offshorebusiness.com/message_board_detail.asp?id=22230 – of course, Renert may be able to get it taken down, and a later message claimed it was forged. But Renert is a man who, by multiple and corroborated accounts, wouldn’t even have to stop to think about whether or not to lie about something like that. So… I’m inclined to believe that, in fact, he’s a kook, and an arguably dangerous one. The down side of saying something like this is, of course, the risk that he’ll take more of his stolen money and try to retaliate somehow. There’s compelling evidence that he may have done so in the past. And, unlike some perps, he doesn’t seem to have the ability to look ahead to realize that such actions merely confirm the truth of all the allegations. On the other hand, what exactly is the FTC going to do? Nothing. I suggest he might get better luck with the SEC, who are at least demonstrably interested in his activities.

So, there you have it. That’s my latest kook. With any luck, he’ll eventually just pick a better assumed name and stop bugging us all.

(This was written on the third, but I took some time to do some research before posting it.

Comments [archived]

From: James Lick
Date: 2007-11-11 23:38:05 -0600

You might want to fix the last blockquote. All the apostrophe-esses seem to have morphed to question marks.

From: seebs
Date: 2007-11-12 15:07:34 -0600

Yeah, I know. That’s in the original, and since I’m quoting, I’m not “fixing” them.

From: Michael Burlak
Date: 2009-11-02 10:38:52 -0600

Why don’t you just take this miserable posting down? Exude positive thoughts to the world’s population. Negativity does no one any good and it doesn’t make the world a better place. And how do you benfit from this?

From: Peter Seebach
Date: 2010-01-05 12:48:13 -0600

Michael, you ask interesting questions.

My positive thought is that people who try to bully other people into taking down true statements ought to fail, and ought to in fact find that things are made worse by the attempt.

The guy fled the country owing huge amounts of money. If he is able to cover his tracks just by sending nasty emails, the next group of people he scams will have no way of knowing who or what he is.

It doesn’t benefit me personally very much, but I think it’s a positive thing to do.