-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. §
§ Motion for Expedited Relief
JEFFREY BARON, and §
ONDOVA LIMITED COMPANY, §
Defendants. §
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE: MOTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 144
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE ROYAL FURGESON:
COMES NOW JEFF BARON, and moves this Court to grant leave to file the
following motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §144:
Based upon a careful review of the record of the case, and based upon the Court’s
ruling with respect to the ‘unfounded’ nature of the statements made with respect to Peter
Barrett, the undersigned counsel certifies that Jeff Baron’s affidavit and statements that he
cannot receive fair and impartial treatment nor a fair and impartial hearing before Judge
Furgeson with respect to attorneys’ claims has been made in good faith.
WHEREFORE, the SECTION 144 AFFIDAVIT OF JEFFREY BARON is
presented to this Court, for a determination of whether the facts and reasons set out in
the affidavit give fair support to the charge of a bent of mind that may prevent or
impede impartiality of judgment with respect the claims of attorneys and the respective
defenses thereto.
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 498 Filed 04/27/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID 18374
SUPPLEMENTED SECTION 144 AFFIDAVIT OF JEFFREY BARON - Page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
NETSPHERE, INC., )
MANILA INDUSTRIES, INC., and )
MUNISH KRISHAN, )
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs. ) Civil Action No. 3-09CV0988-F
)
JEFFREY BARON, and )
ONDOVA LIMITED COMPANY, )
Defendants. )
S
S
U
U
P
P
P
P
L
L
E
E
M
M
E
E
N
N
T
T
A
A
L
L
S
S
E
E
C
C
T
T
I
I
O
O
N
N
1
1
4
4
4
4
A
A
F
F
F
F
I
I
D
D
A
A
V
V
I
I
T
T
O
O
F
F
J
J
E
E
F
F
F
F
R
R
E
E
Y
Y
B
B
A
A
R
R
O
O
N
N
1. My name is Jeffrey Baron. I am a defendant in the above entitled and
numbered cause. 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 personal knowledge of the stated facts, which I learned as the
result of being subjected to the facts and events stated herein. This affidavit
is made pursuant to Judge Furgeson’s order, and supplements my previously
filed affidavit with an additional paragraph (13), and redacts some text
relating to Judge Furgeson’s findings relating to factual allegations with
respect to Mr. Barrett.
2. I believe the Hon. Senior Judge William Royal Furgeson has a strong
and longstanding personal bias for believing lawyers are good, honest people
because they are lawyers. I believe Judge Furgeson has a personal bias
against giving credence to allegations of poor conduct by attorneys. Judge
Furgeson clearly has held this personal bias for a very long time. I recognize
that it is a positive attitude and is probably very helpful in most of the cases
being handled by the Judge. It is also probably a good thing to appoint
judges who have a positive view and bias for believing all lawyers are good,
honest people. It likely brings out the best of many lawyers, in many
situations. Unfortunately, in this particular case where my opponents are
attorney-parties the Judge's deep-seated bias in favor of attorneys has led to
a gross injustice and has empowered dishonest attorneys to victimize me. I
cannot receive fair and impartial treatment nor a fair and impartial hearing
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 521 Filed 05/05/11 Page 1 of 10 PageID 18678
SUPPLEMENTED SECTION 144 AFFIDAVIT OF JEFFREY BARON - Page 2
before Judge Furgeson with respect to attorneys’ claims because of his deep-
seated personal bias. The Judge’s bias is shown by the following facts:
3. Judge Furgeson said that he has a deep-seated personal view that he
believes that lawyers are important to the rule of law and that giving
credence to accusations against lawyers would be bad for society. In relation
to his personal bias that lawyers must not be found to have acted poorly:
(A) Judge Ferguson stated that he would
n
n
o
o
t
t give credence to
assertions of lawyers acting poorly– that doing so in his view was
bad for society.
(B) With respect to allegations that lawyers have acted poorly, Judge
Furgeson expressly said that he never wanted in any way to give
credence to that kind of assertion.
(C) Judge Furgeson said that with respect to lawyers, he did not ever
find lawyers acted improperly and impose sanctions against them
(except for one single time). By contrast, the Judge told me, a non-
lawyer, that if I failed to comply with his orders it was “punishable
by possible jail, death.”
4. I have also heard Judge Furgeson state that he had practiced many
years as an attorney, and to my understanding of the Judge's statement, he
said that he had a special sympathy for other attorneys and is especially
sympathetic to their fees.
5. I do not believe the Judge has ill will for me personally, but holds a
sincere and deep-seated personal bias (as opposed to bias based on malice or
ill-will). Because perceptions are bent by bias, someone who holds a very
deep-seated personal bias acts without realizing they are prejudiced. In this
case, my attorney-opponents have been dishonest with the Judge, but
because of his personal bias, Judge Furgeson may not be cognizant of that. I
am under a cloud of accusations, and have been denied the very essence of
our system of justice—a jury trial. It is through a jury trial that a party can
clear their name, and prove their innocence. This very basic and
fundamental right has been denied me. Since the Judge sees the case
through the color of biased eyes, he does not see that—and seems to believe
a jury trial is not necessary since if the attorneys say I am guilty, I must be.
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 521 Filed 05/05/11 Page 2 of 10 PageID 18679
SUPPLEMENTED SECTION 144 AFFIDAVIT OF JEFFREY BARON - Page 3
6. My belief that Judge Furgeson is prejudiced and biased in favor of
attorney-claimants is based on the Judge’s own statements about his
prejudices and beliefs. In case there is any question about whether the
statements I have made about the Judge’s statements are true, judge’s
Furgeson’s bias can also be seen in the Judge’s unwillingness to give
credence to the fact that the attorney-parties have been dishonest. For
example:
(A) There is no question the attorney-parties against me have
misrepresented material facts in securing the receivership over me.
For example in his motion to appoint a receiver over me Mr.
Urbanik materially misrepresented the bankruptcy court’s
recommendation. Urbanik represented that the bankruptcy judge
recommend placing a receiver over me if I chose to proceed pro se.
Examination of the record establishes that the bankruptcy judge
threatened to make a recommendation to appoint a receiver in order
to perform my settlement obligations for me if I (1) proceeded pro se
and (2) failed to perform my settlement obligations. However,
because of his long-standing and deep-seated personal bias,
Judge Furgeson is unwilling to give credence to the fact that the
attorney-parties misrepresented material facts in securing their
ex-parte receivership order over me.
(B) Similarly, as another example, Sherman/Urbanik were dishonest in
representing to Judge Furgeson that I had filed ethics complaints
against Martin Thomas, as well as other facts relating to him.
Sherman/Urbanik’s allegations were totally false fabrications.
Urbanik filed an affidavit falsely claiming that he had personal
knowledge of certain specific facts. However, Judge Furgeson
would not allow my attorney to call Urbanik as a witness to
challenge those assertions, and Judge Furgeson would not disqualify
Urbanik as an attorney in the case even though he put himself forth
as the primary witness with personal knowledge against me.
(C) Peter Vogel fabricated a story that I created the Cook Islands
management company that is the legal management for Novo Point
and Quantec. I have nothing to do with the management company
and I did not select them to manage the LLCs. Vogel invented and
fabricated his story, falsely accusing me of wrongdoing. Judge
Furgeson simply accepted at face value that Vogel’s fabricated
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 521 Filed 05/05/11 Page 3 of 10 PageID 18680
SUPPLEMENTED SECTION 144 AFFIDAVIT OF JEFFREY BARON - Page 4
allegation was true, and Vogel’s motion was granted without any
hearing and before any response had been filed.
(D) As another example, Vogel and his law partners affirmatively set me
up to call into a 'secret' phone meeting so that there would be
'witnesses' that I was harassing him. The receiver sent me multiple
emails directing me to call a certain number at a certain time. Then,
they filed a motion with Judge Furgeson falsely representing that
they did not send me the call information. The receiver set up the
'incident' offered to 'prove' that I was interfering or harassing. It was
all fabricated by the receiver. Even though the receiver was caught
red handed with the smoking gun emails to me, Judge Furgeson has
taken no action against the receiver. Although the matter has been
brought to his attention, the Judge to this point allowed the receiver
to carry forward as if they had never filed their false representations
with the Court – to the extent of allowing the receiver to continue to
file new material making the same, knowingly false representations.
Specifically: (1) The receiver pre-planned to set me up to ‘break in’
to a conference call. My calling in was set up in advance by an
email sent to me on March 30
th
directing me to call a certain phone
number at a certain time on April 1
st
concerning my own tax returns.
I produced that email. Even in the face of the hard evidence, the
receiver claims that they did not pre-plan such an event and decided
only on April 1
st
to arrange a conference call, and only on April 1
st
sent out the email. (2) In reality, on April 1
st
, the receiver sent me a
second email directing me to call in to a new, second conference
number. The receiver denies this occurred.
(E) The emails proving the above facts have been produced, and
records proving the authenticity of those emails have been
requested from the receiver and the receiver has refused to
produce the records. The court ordered those records be preserved
and the receiver has stated they have preserved those records. Yet,
because of the Judge’s deeply imbedded personal bias not to give
credence to allegations of poor behavior on the part of attorneys,
the Judge has supported the receiver’s refusal to produce the
incriminating records. Accordingly, the receiver continues to make
their knowingly false misrepresentations to the Court, and continues
to falsely represent that I broke into the conference call and have
threatened and harassed others such as Ms. Schurig. The receiver did
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 521 Filed 05/05/11 Page 4 of 10 PageID 18681
SUPPLEMENTED SECTION 144 AFFIDAVIT OF JEFFREY BARON - Page 5
this most recently in their ‘work report’ (DOC 479) at pages 99-101.
The Judge has expressed his view that the email record proof
(proving that the receiver made false statements of fact within
their personal knowledge to the Court) is irrelevant.
7. The receivership, and most aspects of it, such as denying me access to
my own money to hire qualified federal trial counsel to defend me are
deeply troubling. Nevertheless, I do not think the Judge is acting with some
evil intent in denying me access to my own money to hire experienced
federal trial counsel and access to my own money to pay expenses to hire
expert witnesses to defend myself. Since the Judge sincerely believes that
attorneys cannot be found to be dishonest, he clearly believes there is no
basis or grounds for an individual to contest or defend against attorneys'
claims for fees. In Judge Furgeson's view-- and he has said so and
admitted this-- if a group of attorneys say a client owes them money and
has ‘abused’ them, then it does not matter what the client says: Judge
Furgeson believes the attorneys, and does not need to hear from the client
or hear the client's side. This is what the Judge himself said: before hearing
from me the matter was decided in the Judge’s mind based on a one sided
hearing of what the attorneys said. The Judge said that even if I testified
to certain facts he had already decided that he wasn’t going to believe
me. In considering evidence from the attorney-parties, the Judge said that
he had already decided the matter and had already decided not to believe my
testimony—even before he heard it.
8. After three former attorneys testified before Judge Furgeson claiming
that they felt I owed them money, Judge Furgeson told me he had already
determined that he was not going to believe me if I testified that I had
paid them in full. This is despite the fact the attorneys produced no
contracts, no bills, no statements, and no list of payments. I believe this
shows bias.
9. Judge Furgeson has expressed a personal bias in favor of attorney
claimants. Judge Furgeson has already decided—and has said so—that
the attorneys who represented me did a good job and acted in good
faith. Since he has seen no evidence presented or hearing held on those
issues, his opinion is pre-formed. I believe this shows prejudice.
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 521 Filed 05/05/11 Page 5 of 10 PageID 18682
SUPPLEMENTED SECTION 144 AFFIDAVIT OF JEFFREY BARON - Page 6
10. Before I was set to testify at the FRAP 8(a) evidentiary hearing, the
Judge said that no matter what I said-- if I offered evidence that I paid the
attorneys in full, and performed the contract obligations, etc. that he was not
going to believe my evidence-- even though he hadn't heard or seen it yet. I
believe this shows bias.
11. The type of personal bias and prejudice held by Judge Furgeson is the
most dangerous type– a sincere personal prejudice. Thus, for example, to the
Judge, it is natural for what an attorney party says to be taken as fact and for
statements reflecting poorly on an attorney to be disregarded as incorrect and
unfounded– without the necessity of an evidentiary inquiry. If there is any
issue about whether the statements I have made about Judge Furgeson’s
statements of his bias are true, the Judge’s bias can also be seen from the
Judge’s actions. Some examples include the following:
(A) Judge Furgeson ruled without any hearing that the statement in my
response/motion that Peter Barrett was “a state court criminal
defense attorney with serious medical issues and **** SEALED BY
COURT ORDER ****, that has zero experience in handling civil
matters in the federal court” was unfounded and incorrect. Since the
Judge has no idea what evidence or upon what facts the motion was
founded, there is no objective way for the Judge to have made the
findings he made. Rather, since the district judge has a long standing
and deep seated bias in favor of attorneys, anything that seems to
place an attorney in a bad light, even if true and relevant, is seen by
the Judge as “unprofessional”, incorrect and unfounded. Judge
Furgeson used no objective basis to determine whether these
facts were correct or incorrect, founded or unfounded. His
finding about these facts was made based purely on his personal
bias and prejudice.
(B) Judge Furgeson has engaged in a pattern of granting attorneys’
motions for fees without allowing for the response period for my
objections or responses to the attorneys’ motions requesting money.
The substance of the rulings themselves do not prove bias, but
Judge Furgeson’s process does. If an attorney says they are
entitled to money, the Judge’s personal bias leads him to the
conclusion—not based on a fair hearing or consideration of both
sides— that the attorney is so entitled. Accordingly, because of
his personal bias, Judge Furgeson has not seen the need to allow
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 521 Filed 05/05/11 Page 6 of 10 PageID 18683
SUPPLEMENTED SECTION 144 AFFIDAVIT OF JEFFREY BARON - Page 7
my attorney the opportunity to respond, to present argument, or
to present evidence. Judge Furgeson has granted multiple motions
for fee requests in this manner-- without allowing me the opportunity
to respond as provided by the rules and the law. Some of those
orders include docket document numbers 464, 463, 462, 461, 427,
387, 384, 386, 371, 370, 369, 368, 367, 366, 365, 364, 363, 295, 294,
292, and others.
(C) On many occasions, when an attorney-party has made an allegation,
Judge Furgeson has treated the allegation as fact. One clear example
where the results of this bias can be seen is in the Judge’s findings in
denying my FRAP 8(a) motion. In his opinion, Judge Furgeson
based his ruling on things he was 'informed' of by Mr. Urbanik and
Mr. Sherman. An unbiased perspective would be that Mr. Urbanik
and Sherman’s allegations, which were not offered from the witness
stand, are allegations and not facts. An unbiased judge would look to
the evidence, not to an attorney’s accusations. A biased judge,
whose internal personal view of the world is that attorneys always
tell the truth, does not need evidence when an attorney-witness
makes an allegation. To the biased judge's perspective, attorneys’
allegations are facts that he is informed of by the attorney. Judge
Furgeson repeatedly stated that he was informed of facts from
attorney parties that were actually merely allegation. An objective
Judge would see that those were allegations and not facts.
(D) Judge Furgeson has appeared to ignore that fact that attorney-parties
have repeatedly filed motions based on false and fabricated
allegations. For example, the Urbanik/Sherman' motion for
receivership materially and substantially misrepresented the
bankruptcy court's recommendation and other facts. This was
pointed out to Judge Furgeson but he took no action other than to
approve ever-increasing fees and penalties on the receivership.
12. Prior to this lawsuit, I had shared private and confidential information
in the context of an attorney-client or prospective attorney-client relationship
with Urbanik’s firm. Now, not only is that law firm adverse to me in this
case, but they have also filed as ‘evidence’ a chart that looks almost exactly
in form like a chart I provided them in confidence in seeking their legal
services. Similarly, I had consulted with Peter Vogel and within the scope
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 521 Filed 05/05/11 Page 7 of 10 PageID 18684
SUPPLEMENTED SECTION 144 AFFIDAVIT OF JEFFREY BARON - Page 8
of attorney-client confidentiality shared personally with him secret and
confidential information about the registration of domain names for
companies I owned. Peter Vogel’s firm then sued me for wrongful
registration of domain names, and I filed formal papers complaining of that
breach of ethical duty toward me. Vogel’s firm represented the plaintiff in
the “servers.com” lawsuit. That lawsuit was active at the same time Judge
Furgeson was appointing Vogel to be a special master in this lawsuit.
Urbanik and his firm are now suing on the servers.com lawsuit in the
Ondova bankruptcy case, while Vogel is the receiver in this case—even as
the servers.com defendant is Vogel’s firm’s former client when they were
suing Ondova. I was not aware of the legal duties and significance of the
interconnections at the time, but I am now. Judge Furgeson has been made
aware of the conflicts of interests regarding Vogel, but because of the
Judge’s bias, does not see anything wrong or even any appearance of
impropriety. Urbanik requested Vogel be appointed receiver (after this case
settled and a stipulated dismissal was entered by all parties). Vogel then
withdrew the objection to Urbanik’s fee in the bankruptcy court. Vogel has
also refused to even examine Urbanik’s fee requests in the bankruptcy court
subsequent to the receivership. Urbanik and Vogel have worked hand in
hand– Urbanik moved for Vogel to be appointed receiver, Vogel withdrew
the objection to Urbanik’s fees, etc. Those attorney’s firms have billed
hundreds of thousands of dollars (in fact, almost three million dollars)
essentially from me. An unbiased judge might find many of these issues
troubling. None of these facts has even been acknowledged to be an issue
by Judge Furgeson.
13. The statements Judge Furgeson made about his personal bias in favor
of attorneys detailed in this affidavit were made during the time period that
my case has been pending before Judge Furgeson. My opinion of his bias
was formed after consideration of the statements the Judge himself made
about his personal bent of mind. Some of these include, for example:
(A) On or about February 10, 2011 after the hearing on my case had
terminated, Judge Furgeson made statements including “I think
lawyers are the guardians of civilization” and “We face over and
over again claims about … lawyers acting poorly. We never want in
any way to give credence to that kind of assertion in our society.” I
became aware of those statements only on or about April 20 or 21st,
2011, because the statements were made after the hearing on my case
had terminated and I was not present when the statements were
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 521 Filed 05/05/11 Page 8 of 10 PageID 18685
