Response to Vogel’s Motion re Value of Specific Domain Names Doc 607

-
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. §
RESPONSE TO VOGEL’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF 
ORDER ON REQUEST FOR FINANCING OPTIONS [DOC 581] 
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE ROYAL FURGESON:
COMES  NOW  JEFF  BARON, Appellant,  and  makes  this  response  to  the 
Receiver's  Sealed  Ex  Parte  Motion  for  Reconsideration  of  Order  Regarding  Mr. 
Baron's Request to Research Financing Options.
1. The same old Baron bashing.  This Court ordered the receiver to provide 
specific information as to specific domain names to  facilitate obtaining a loan to 
provide  funding  desired  by  the  Court,  to  achieve  objectives  of  the  Court.    The 
receiver refused to comply with the Court's order and has refused to provide the 
information ordered by the Court.  Yet, it is Mr. Baron that is blamed as the one who 
refuses to cooperate.
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F   Document 607    Filed 06/09/11    Page 1 of 6   PageID 25672

-
3
-
2.  According to the website found by the receiver
1
, a friend of Mr. Baron's, is 
in disbelief as to what is transpiring in this Court and put up a website in response.   
The First Amendment clearly provides him the full freedom to do that.  Yet, it is Mr. 
Baron that is 'blamed' as being the website's owner.  
3. More  advocacy  from  the  receiver.    Instead  of  carrying  out  the  Court's 
orders and directives, the Vogel is continuing the unusual relationship in this case of 
advocating and directing the Court as to what actions to take.  Vogel argues that if 
the LLCs’ obtain a loan and are removed from the receivership, being replaced by 
the loan funds, the LLCs’ will not be able to pay the money back, and therefore the 
companies should have their assets liquidated.   The receiver's argument makes no 
sense.   It is not the receiver's concern whether the companies would be able to repay 
the loan outside of receivership, or would be forced to sell assets to repay the loan. If 
the  receiver  is now  attempting to sell  assets at 3 cents  to the  dollar,  a  fractional 
amount of assets would need to be sold outside of receivership to repay the loan 
amount.
4. Inconsistent argument.  On one hand the receiver argues that Mr. Baron is 
so famous as a 'vexatious litigant' that no one will loan money.  On the other hand 
the receiver argues that a lender will look up Mr. Baron by searching for "Jeff Baron 
Receivership Lawsuit" on the internet.    
5. Disparity between the facts, and the receiver's statement of the facts.  The 
receiver's statements of factual matters have become laughable.  Mr. Baron is now 
1
 It is unclear why the receiver would be searching the internet for websites and reports about 
Mr. Baron.
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F   Document 607    Filed 06/09/11    Page 2 of 6   PageID 25673

-
4
-
accused of telling "distorted tales" in his filings.  Perhaps Mr. Broome is one typical 
example ?   Mr. Broome's contract, submitted by Mr. Broome himself,  clearly limits 
the fees that can be incurred in any month to $10,000.00 without express written 
authorization to exceed the fee cap for that month.   Mr. Broome was paid based on 
his  written  employment  contract.  Yet,  Mr.  Broome  filed  a  claim,  response,  and 
affidavits, stating that there was no fee cap term in his contract, but rather fees in 
excess of  $10,000.00 would  'roll over' to the  next  month.      Is Mr.  Baron's filing 
pointing  out  the  terms  of  Broome's  contract  and  the  $10,000.00  monthly  cap  a 
"distorted tale" ?
6.  Another  example  is  Mr.  Lyon.    Mr.  Lyon  claimed  his  fee  rate  was 
$300/hour.  Lyon's own email, however, proves that Lyon is not telling the truth.  
Lyon's  hourly  rate  was  the  $40/hour  he  was  paid  at.    Lyon  even  bragged—in 
writing— that rate gave 'more bang for the buck'.  Is Mr. Baron's filing with Mr. 
Lyon's email proving the $40/hour rate another "distorted tale" ?
7.  Another example  is Ms. Crandall. Ms. Crandall claimed she was billing 
hourly  at  $300.00/hour.    She  was  unable  to  locate  the  written  contract  she 
acknowledges  exists,  but  swears  her  work  was  billed  at  an  hourly  fee  of  $300.   
However, her own invoice proves the groundless nature of her claim.  Per her own 
invoice, Ms. Crandall billed, (and was paid) at a flat monthly fee.  Is the filing of 
Ms. Crandall's invoicing to prove she was billing at a flat and not hourly rate another 
"distorted tale" ?  And the list goes on.
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F   Document 607    Filed 06/09/11    Page 3 of 6   PageID 25674

-
5
-
8.  Another example is the receiver’s being caught red-handed fabricating a 
complaint against Jeff for harassment.  What emails were sent out and when are not 
an issue of ‘dispute’.  The  emails  are  in  someone's  email out box or they aren't.   
Once emails are ordered preserved and the order complied with, there is no doubt 
that  the sender by  that time  has  full knowledge about  the  facts.     Vogel  and his 
partners claim that they only sent Mr. Baron one email, and on a certain date.   Mr. 
Baron produced actual emails, with the full sender unique ID information from the 
receiver.   The  emails  prove  that  the receiver  sent  the  first  email  days before  the 
receiver admits to doing so.   The emails prove the  receiver  sent a second email,  
directing Mr. Baron to dial into to a conference call at a certain date and time.   The 
receiver denies sending the first email days prior to the second email.  The receiver 
denies  the  existence  of  the  second  email.  The  receiver  argues  that  Jeff  Baron 
improperly  obtained  the  conference  call  information,  and  called  in  to  harass  the 
participants.  At this point, this is not an issue of 'confusion' or 'misunderstanding', or 
even 'disputed facts'.  The receiver either sent the emails produced by Mr. Baron and 
is lying about them,  or they didn't.   The receiver has represented that they have 
preserved  the  evidence  to  establish  whether  the  receiver  is  lying,  but  refuses  to 
produce that evidence.   This Court does not believe the matter is relevant.  
9. The website complained of by the receiver http://acquire.freezoka.net has 
an interesting page on victim blaming, particularly the Nazi's use of propaganda in 
victim blaming.  One of the Nazi's tricks was to tell a big lie, based on the inclusion 
of some truth.  This is the very technique engaged in by the receiver. Two examples:
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F   Document 607    Filed 06/09/11    Page 4 of 6   PageID 25675

-
6
-
(1) The Receiver claims that the website states that the Court and the 
receiver blog together on Karl Bayer's blog about this case.  That is 
a  fact  the  Court  has  personal  knowledge  is  not  true.    Thus  it 
discredits the website as telling lies.   But the website does not say 
what the receiver claims.  The website states that this Court and the 
Receiver blog together on Karl Bayer's blog.  The Court knows that 
is true.  The website doesn't say that the Court directly blogs about 
this case.  Rather, the website says the Court blogs on a site that has 
other articles about the Court and this case, and Mr. Vogel. 
(2) The Receiver claims that the website accuses a lawyer of sexually 
abusing a 6 year old boy.   Unless it the accusation is contained in 
some part of the website the undersigned could not find, there is no 
such accusation on the site.  Rather, the website points out the Texas 
case  law  that  reveals  Mr.  John  MacPete  has  been  prosecuted 
multiple  times  by  the  State  of  Texas  as  a  pedophile  for  child 
molestation/rape  but  has  never  been  found  guilty  beyond  a 
reasonable doubt.  Contrary to the distorted report of the receiver, 
the website does not accuse any lawyer of sexually abusing anyone.
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F   Document 607    Filed 06/09/11    Page 5 of 6   PageID 25676

-
7
-
WHEREFORE, the receiver should have no interest in preventing financing for the 
court  to  hold  in  place  of  the  LLC  domain  assets,  and  their  motion  for 
‘reconsideration’ should be denied.    
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Gary N. Schepps
Gary N. Schepps
Texas State Bar No. 00791608
5400 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1200
Dallas, Texas 75240
(214) 210-5940 - Telephone
(214) 347-4031 - Facsimile
Email: legal@schepps.net
FOR JEFFREY BARON
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This  is  to  certify that  this  filing 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
COURT ORDERED TRIAL COUNSEL 
FOR JEFFREY BARON
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F   Document 607    Filed 06/09/11    Page 6 of 6   PageID 25677