Fabrication by Peter Vogel re Former Attorney Claims

 
-2-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
DALLAS DIVISION 
 
NETSPHERE, INC.,       § 
MANILA INDUSTRIES, INC., and   § 
MUNISH KRISHAN,       §  
Plaintiffs.                     § 
  § Civil Action No. 3-09CV0988-F 
  v.   §   
  §  
JEFFREY BARON, and      §   
ONDOVA LIMITED COMPANY,    § 
  Defendants.          § 
 
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE: MOTION TO STRIKE RECEIVER’S 
ERRONEOUS “NOTICE” OF ALLEGEDLY ERRONEOUS STATEMENT 
REGARDING EVIDENCE OF FORMER ATTORNEY CLAIMS [DOC 571]  
 
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE ROYAL FURGESON: 
COMES  NOW  JEFF  BARON,  and  moves  this  Court  to  grant  leave  to  file 
the following motion to strike the receiver’s “Notice” [Doc 571].  
1.   Once again the receiver is fabricating a falsely alleged ‘wrong’ on the part 
of  Jeff  Baron  and  his  counsel.    The  receiver’s  “notice”  falls  well  outside  any  rule  of 
procedure,  and  is  at  best  materially  misleading.   The  receiver  has  created  a  blizzard  of 
billing, and the receiver’s “notice” is just one more example. 
2.   On  March  17,  2011  the  receiver filed their motion for an order  approving 
their “assessment” of  ‘claims’ [Doc 396].   
3.   That  motion  lists  Exhibits  such  as  V  and  W.      Exhibit  W  is  listed  as  the 
Reyna  Hinds  &  Crandall  affidavit.    Exhibit  V  and  Exhibit  W  were  withheld  by  the 
receiver  from  the  undersigned  counsel.      (Notably,  the  undersigned  counsel  formally 
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L   Document 520   Filed 05/05/11    Page 1 of 4   PageID 18674

 
-3-
requested  to  be  provided  very  specific  material  from each attorney.     The  receiver  first 
promised to produce the material and then refused to produce). 
4.   Exhibit W, the Reyna  Hinds & Crandall  material, was  not provided to the 
undersigned counsel in the hard  copies  the  receiver delivered,  and  was  not provided in 
the  CD  the  receiver  delivered,  and  was  not  received  by  the  undersigned  in  any  pre-
hearing email from the receiver.    
5.   The  absence  of  the  affidavit  listed  in  the  receiver’s  motion  on  the 
assessments was noted of the in the post trial briefing, noting simply that the “Receiver 
did not produce affidavit for the undersigned counsel to review.” 
6.   If  the  receiver  was  concerned  about  the  substance—and  not  about 
trying to ‘set up’ and incident and generate more and more paperwork and billings,  
the receiver could have simply informed counsel that there was no information in Exhibit 
W  that  was  not  subsequently  provided  via  email.    However,  the  receiver  does  not  use 
email communication to resolve issues.   For the receiver emails are a tool of ‘advocacy’ 
in which the receiver attempts to generate some ‘sound bite’ in which to file the email as 
‘proof’ of some wrongdoing.    The receiver has repeatedly used cut-and-paste email bits 
from counsel to attempt to show some alleged misdeed or another.   
7.   The receiver represented in their March 17, 2011 motion that an Exhibit W 
had  been  provided  with  respect  to  Reyna  Hinds  &  Crandall.  The  receiver’s  
representation  was  not  correct,  and  the  material  was  not  provided.      It  is  clear  the 
receiver  is  aware  of  that  when  the  filed  their  latest  “NOTICE”.      However,  the 
receiver failed to disclose that fact to the Court.  Accordingly, instead of filing an agreed 
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L   Document 520   Filed 05/05/11    Page 2 of 4   PageID 18675

 
-4-
letter or notice to clarify that the receiver did  not provide the Exhibit W, but (accepting 
the  receiver’s  explanation),  that  Exhibit  W  contained  nothing  more  than  subsequent 
‘supplemental’  material,  the  receiver  contrived  a  formal  “Notice”  attempting  to  paint  a 
picture of some malfeasance on the part of Jeff or his counsel. 
8.   The  filing  of  this  motion  should  not  be  necessary.  Rule  5(b)(1)  clearly 
requires service “must” be made on the attorney and not the party unless the court orders 
otherwise.   Rule 5(b)(2)(E) similarly clearly requires that service by electronic means is 
not  considered  served under the  rules  if  the  serving  party  learns  that it  didn’t reach the 
person  to  be  served.      The  receiver  was  clearly  informed  of  that,  and  the  receiver’s  
“Notice” does not appear to be filed in good faith. 
9.   The  undersigned  received  the  Crandall  material  only  after  the  April  28, 
2011 hearing,  based on the receiver’s subsequent e-mailings about it. The receiver was 
fully  aware  of  this  prior  to  filing  their  “Notice”.    The  receiver  also  knows  Jeff  is 
represented by counsel. Notably, the undersigned has never looked to a client to provide 
notice from opposing counsel in an active litigation.  
WHEREFORE motion is made to strike the receiver’s “NOTICE” [Doc 571]. 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
  /s/ Gary N. Schepps 
Gary N. Schepps 
Texas State Bar No. 00791608 
Drawer 670804 / Dallas, Texas 75367 
(214) 210-5940 / (214) 347-4031 fax 
E-mail: legal@schepps.net 
COURT ORDERED TRIAL 
COUNSEL FOR JEFF BARON 
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L   Document 520   Filed 05/05/11    Page 3 of 4   PageID 18676

 
-5-
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
This is to certify that this document was served this day on all parties who receive 
notification through the Court’s electronic filing system. 
CERTIFIED BY:  /s/ Gary N. Schepps 
            Gary N. Schepps 
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L   Document 520   Filed 05/05/11    Page 4 of 4   PageID 18677