-

Sworn Declaration of Schepps re Vogels obstruction in the purchase of a car

-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
NETSPHERE, INC., ET. AL. §
Plaintiffs §
§ Civil Action No. 3-09CV0988-F
v. §
JEFFREY BARON, ET. AL. §
Defendants. §
SWORN DECLARATION OF GARY SCHEPPS
“1. My name is Gary Schepps. I am appellate counsel for Jeff
Baron in appeals from orders in this case. I am competent to
make this declaration. The facts stated in this declaration are
within my personal knowledge and are true and correct. I
have knowledge of the stated facts, which I learned in my role
as appellate counsel in appeals from orders entered in the
above entitled and numbered cause.
“2. I offered to Vogel, through his counsel, to have Vogel provide
a check to me in escrow, in order for me to supervise the car
purchase and return any unused funds to Vogel. Vogel,
however refused.
“3. Next, based on Vogel's demand to control the purchase
transaction, Jeff Baron located a vehicle to purchase,
negotiated a price with the owner, and I then provided the
owner's name, purchase information, and phone number to
Vogel to arrange payment. Vogel refused.
“4. Vogel instead raised impossible to meet pre-requisites
including that Jeff first have the car titled in his name, pay all
taxes and insurance, and then, Vogel would pay for the car.
Since no seller we could find would agree to transfer title of
their car before being paid, the conditions were just sham way
of Vogel saying NO.
“5. Later, I saw that Vogel represented in filings to the Court that
he was ready to pay for a new car. Vogel's counsel suggested
a dealer must be the seller and not a private person. So, Jeff
worked and found a car at a dealer. I secured and then sent to
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 1052-2 Filed 09/25/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID 60659
-2-
Vogel, through his counsel, complete information about the
car, including the car’s tag numbers, sticker, a picture of the
car, an appraisal of the car, and the PHONE NUMBER OF
THE DEALER, with a request for him to pay for the car. All
Vogel or his counsel had to do was pick up the phone and
make payment arrangements. Vogel refused.
“6. Exhibits “A”, “B” and “C” filed with this declaration are true,
accurate and authentic copies of email correspondence
between myself and Vogel, through his counsel. I sent to
Vogel all the information he needed, but Vogel just ignored it.
At that point, it was more than clear to me as Baron’s still
unpaid
appellate counsel that Vogel had no intention of
allowing the funding for a car or better living conditions. It
was clear that Vogel was playing a game to pad his billing at
Baron's personal expense.
“7. Similarly with respect living conditions for Baron, Vogel
required that a signed lease be presented to him for his
signature. However, Vogel refused to provide for the cost of
movers, utility deposits, insurance, and the like. Under those
conditions, Baron could not physically move. As it is, Baron
has been unable to obtain some medical treatment and testing
because after paying for his out of pocket share of his medical
needs and medications, Baron was unable to pay the
deductible necessary for the medical care he required. I raised
this to the attention of both the Court and Vogel, but unless
Baron was willing to compromise and waive his fundamental
right to privacy as to his medical care, funding for his out of
pocket medical costs was refused. In that circumstance,
without additional funding to the costs of relocating beyond
just the monthly rental agreement, it was not possible for me
to facilitate Jeff’s relocation. So, once again, the matter was,
for Vogel, another billing game at Baron's expense.
“8. I repeatedly raised the issue of Baron’s living conditions to
Vogel’s attention. My requests were generally ignored. For
example, over a year ago on July 25, 2011, I emailed Vogel
(through his counsel) that “Jeff has no air-conditioning in his
apartment and still needs a car-- that the Court authorized”.
Vogel responded by serving a subpoena on my law office trust
account to search for non-existent evidence that Baron had
paid me any money for representing him. Vogel expended
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 1052-2 Filed 09/25/12 Page 2 of 5 PageID 60660
-3-
huge efforts and expense in those efforts—all funneled into
his own, and his firm’s pockets—while Baron languished.
“9. While I took of my time to facilitate resolution of the issues, I
have not agreed to undertake representation of Baron on these
matters. I have previously filed a motion apprising the Court
that Baron was not represented on these issues and requesting
funding for an attorney to represent Jeff on the matters. [DOC
264]. Still, I spent literally tens of hours attempting to work
with Vogel, fruitlessly. All my efforts were at my expense.
While Baron and myself have paid the price for Vogel's
games of obstruction, Vogel and his partners clearly have to
this point enjoyed the profit. The undersigned appellate
counsel for Baron is still unpaid, and has no motive to waste
time with obstructions. Every hour wasted is a lost hour. By
contrast, Vogel bills and bills. Every hour that Vogel can
generate in conflict represents more profit for Vogel.
“10. As shown clearly by the attached exhibits, contrary to the
cock & bull story offered by Vogel to this Court, Baron (1)
has repeatedly sought help from the receiver, (2) has selected
more than one new car, and (3) more than once has sent Vogel
specifics as to a specific car selected to purchase. Each of the
cars Baron selected qualified for the $20,000.00 limit
approved by the Court in authorizing the car purchase.
“11. Repeatedly a specific car and the PHONE NUMBER of the
seller was provided to Vogel. Each time, Vogel obstructed
the purchase. Vogel's claims to the contrary are flatly untrue.
“12. Vogel’s story that Baron failed to select a new car or send
Vogel the specifics is a load of cock & bull. Vogel's pattern is
well worn-- manufacturing fabricated 'wrongdoing' alleged
against Baron. The facts, however, are that Vogel has played
a game of running up his fees while obstructing Baron's
efforts to obtain normalized living conditions.
“13. For the record, I have personally seen Jeff Baron drive, and
state further that my ability to represent him on appeal has
been substantially impaired by Baron’s lack of access to an
operable vehicle. Many times, effective representation
required Baron to meet with me at certain times, and he was
unable to do so because he lacks an operable vehicle. I have
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 1052-2 Filed 09/25/12 Page 3 of 5 PageID 60661
-4-
experienced the problem first hand with him, and in many
instances it has significantly impaired my ability to represent
him in the appeal.
“14. I have known Jeff Fine for more than twenty years. Jeff Fine
has my working office number and my cell phone number. I
know this because I gave him my cell phone number, and he
has called me on it, including about this case. He has also
called me at my working office phone number. Moreover,
David Schenck, and Peter Vogel also have my cell phone
number, and they both have called me on it. David Schenck
and Jeff Fine have repeatedly called me at my office number
(972-200-0000) and at my cell phone number, when they
needed things on this case.
“15. Jeff Fine knows me, has my current office phone number, and
has my cell phone number, and has repeatedly used those
numbers every other time he wanted to contact me about this
case.
“16. I personally spoke with David Schenck, and informed him
that I was not
receiving emails that he sent to me. The issue
was raised when counsel for the Trustee mentioned that I was
“cc’d” on an email from Schenck that I never received. I
called David and informed him of the problem with his email
to me. I have requested on my side a technical review of
communication from Schenck & Fine’s law firm, and it has
been shown to me that their firm uses a ‘spoofing’ email
system that is rejected by anti-spam protections of many email
servers, including for my law office. In non-technical terms
that means that Jeff Fine is sending emails from one email
address, but that email address does not really send out emails
and in fact, has no email server. The address listed by Fine’s
emails as sender is thus ‘fake’, (“spoofed” in computer
terminology), and is thus rejected by email servers that
prevent such email address forgery.
“17. Vogel is lying. Contrary to Vogel’s dishonest representations
to the Court, on more than one occasion I provided specific
information of a car that Baron wanted to purchase—
including on each occasion the phone number of the seller for
Vogel to call to pay for the car. The truth, as clearly
evidenced by the attached exhibits, is that Baron repeatedly
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 1052-2 Filed 09/25/12 Page 4 of 5 PageID 60662
-5-
requested a specific car be purchased and provided Vogel
with phone number and detailed information. However,
Vogel obstructed Baron’s repeated efforts—to Baron’s
continued suffering and Vogel’s personal profit.”
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing declaration is true and correct.
Signed this 25th day of September, 2012, in Dallas, Texas.
/s/ Gary N. Schepps
Gary N. Schepps
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 1052-2 Filed 09/25/12 Page 5 of 5 PageID 60663


Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • Replaces [VIDEO::http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=someVideoID::aVideoStyle] tags with embedded videos.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • No HTML tags allowed.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.