Motion for Expedited Ruling on Barons Freedoms Doc 592

 
 
-1-
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 FOR AN EXPEDITED 
RULING ON THE STAY MOTIONS [DOCS 590 and 591]  
 
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE ROYAL FURGESON: 
COMES  NOW  JEFF  BARON,  and  moves  this  Court  to  grant  leave  to  file 
the  following  motion  for  an expedited ruling  this week  on the stay motions  [Docs 
590 and 591].  
1.  The  seizure  of  a  citizen’s property is  an event of constitutional  proportions.  
So to is the restraint of an individual’s freedom to work and earn money, as is the 
restraint  of  an  individual’s  right  to  travel  freely.    More  than  six  months  ago  this 
Court  seized  Jeff  Baron’s  property,  including  his  exempt  property,  and  restrained 
(in  fact  prohibited)  his  right  to  transact  business,  to  earn money,  and  to  travel  (in 
his clothes and with any of his money or possessions) outside the Northern District 
of Texas.  This Court is also stripping Mr. Baron of his money, hundreds of dollars 
for every hour the Court’s receiver bills.  Around a million dollars have been billed 
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F   Document 592    Filed 06/01/11    Page 1 of 6   PageID 24551

 
 
-2-
so far.  At this point, even another dollar more is unreasonable and unjust.  
2.  The  proponents’  story  sold  to  this  Court  six  months  ago  was  of  a  “Ponzi 
scheme and getting free legal services”, representing to this Court that Jeff “would 
bring a  lawyer in  and  get  them  to  work  for  free  as  long  as  they  are willing  to  do 
that,  and  when  they  protest  he  brings  in  a  new  lawyer. And  thereby  continuing  a 
Ponzi scheme and getting free legal services”. [Doc 410 p67].   
3.  At  this  point  the  real  story  has  become  clear:  Jeff  entered  into  engagement 
agreements  based  on  flat  fees,  contingency  fees,  and  capped  monthly  fees.    The 
lawyers  were  paid,  and  paid  in  full  pursuant  to  the  terms  of their agreements, but 
the lawyers want more.  For example:   
(1)  Broome  wants  more  than  the  $10,000.00  per  month  capped  fee  he  was 
paid.  His  argument—  his  contract  does  not  contain  any  term  limiting  the 
amount  of  fees  which  may  be  incurred  by  the  attorneys  in  any  month. 
However,  anyone  who  can  read  English  can  look  at  Broome’s  contract  and 
see  Broome’s  assertion  is  groundless.    Broome’s  contract  contains  a  clear 
provision  expressly  limiting  the  amount  of  fees  which  may  be  incurred  by 
the attorneys to $10,000.00 per month.   
(2) Crandall wants more than the flat rate she contracted at and was paid at.  
Her argument—  she  was billing hourly at $300.00/hour.  However, her own 
invoice proves the groundless nature of her claim—she billed, and was paid 
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F   Document 592    Filed 06/01/11    Page 2 of 6   PageID 24552

 
 
-3-
at a flat monthly fee.    
(3)  Pronske  was  paid  $75,000.00  up  front.    Pronske  wants  more.  His 
argument  is  that  $75,000.00  was  just  an  initial  retainer.    However,  Pronske 
has  admitted  that  “There  are  no  engagement  agreements  relating  to  the 
representation”  and  for  almost  a  year  after  receiving  a  $75,000.00  fee  and 
working on the case, Pronske sent no contract, no engagement letter, no bill, 
no  invoice,  no  demand  for  payment,  no  hourly  work  report,  and  no  other 
document  of  any  type  alleging  that  the  flat  fee  payment  was  actually  a 
‘retainer’.  
(4) Dean Ferguson wants more than the $22,000.00 capped fee he agreed to 
and was paid. His latest argument
1
— he is allowed to violate his engagement 
agreement and  charge  more  than  the  agreed  upon  (and  paid in  full)  fee cap 
because  he  was  ‘defrauded’.    Ferguson’s  claim  is  that  Jeff  ‘fraudulently’ 
represented that the money would be paid from Jeff’s million dollar trust and 
not from Jeff’s pocket because Jeff was personally “destitute” (according to 
Ferguson).    However,  the  trust’s  money  is  just  as  green  and  in  US  Dollars 
just  the  same  as  if  it had  come  from  Jeff’s  pocket  and where the money  to 
                                                
1
 In his original  sworn testimony before this Court Dean Ferguson testified that his cap was for 
work only to August 21, and the cap did not apply because it was based on him working 33% of 
his  time  not  99%  of  his  time.    That  testimony  is  completely  discredited  by  his  ‘claim’  affidavit 
and exhibits which  prove clearly that  the cap  was for  all of his work, expressly through August 
31 and that the cap was clearly not based on the work being 33% of Ferguson’s time. 
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F   Document 592    Filed 06/01/11    Page 3 of 6   PageID 24553

 
 
-4-
pay  the  bill  came  from  (the  million  dollar  trust  or  Jeff’s  pocket)  has  no 
materiality as to the rate agreed to by Dean Ferguson. 
(5)  Lyon  wants  more  than  the  $40/hour  fee  he  charged  and  was  paid.  His 
argument—  his  fee  was  really  $300/hour  and  $260/hour  is  due  him.  
However,  his  own emails  proves  his  fee  was  $40/hour, and he bragged—in 
writing—  his  rate  of  $40/hour  gave  Jeff  ‘more  bang  for  the  buck’  so  that 
Lyon should be given more work to do. 
(6) Schurig  wants  more  than  the  million  dollar  fee  she  has  been  paid  and 
submitted  a  claim  for  work  performed—without  any  contract—for  the 
company owned by her colleague, AsiaTrust.  However, AsiaTrust is neither 
owned nor controlled in any way by Jeff, and has itself filed a claim against 
Jeff  and/or  Ondova.  Jeff  never  agreed  or  undertook  to  pay  the  debts  of 
AsiaTrust, nor has anyone alleged that he has.  
(7) Etc. 
4.  At  this  point,  there  is  no  interest  served  by  continuing  the  receivership  for 
even one more day, other than to redistribute more money from Jeff Baron to Peter 
Vogel and his law partners.  Accordingly, the immediate stay of the receivership is 
requested.    To  continue  the  receivership  with  its  costs,  in  light  of  the  current 
posture of this case, is unreasonable and unjust. 
 
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F   Document 592    Filed 06/01/11    Page 4 of 6   PageID 24554

 
 
-5-
 
 
WHEREFORE,  Jeff  Baron  requests  the  Court  to  enter  an  expedited  ruling 
this week on the stay motions [Docs 590 and 591].  
  
Respectfully submitted, 
 
  /s/ Gary N. Schepps 
Gary N. Schepps 
Texas State Bar No. 00791608 
Drawer 670804 
Dallas, Texas 75367 
(214) 210-5940 - Telephone 
(214) 347-4031 - Facsimile 
E-mail: legal@schepps.net 
COUNSEL FOR JEFF BARON 
 
 
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-F   Document 592    Filed 06/01/11    Page 5 of 6   PageID 24555

 
 
-6-
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE 
This is to certify that the undersigned conferred with counsel for: (1) Mr. Vogel by 
email  and  the  receiver  does  not  oppose  the  relief  requested,  and (2) Mr.  Sherman 
by email and they oppose.   
CERTIFIED BY:  /s/ Gary N. Schepps 
            Gary N. Schepps 
 
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F   Document 592    Filed 06/01/11    Page 6 of 6   PageID 24556