Schepps Motion re Elizabeth Schruig Morgan Client Attorney Privilage

 
-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 STAY ORDER TO 
DISCLOSE ATTORNEY-CLIENT MATERIALS 
 
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE ROYAL FURGESON: 
COMES NOW JEFF BARON, Appellant, and moves this Court to grant leave to 
file the following  emergency  motion to protect the attorney-client privilege between a 
client  and  their  former  counsel,  and  to  stay  the  district court’s  order  for  Jeff  Baron’s 
former  tax  attorney,  Elizabeth  Schurig,  to  disclose  attorney-client  materials.    Mr. 
Schurig has been  ordered  to  disclose by today, so an  immediate consideration  of this 
motion is requested.  
 As explained below, and established though the  concrete  evidence attached as 
exhibits  hereto,  the  receiver  below  affirmatively  orchestrated  matters,  setting  up  Jeff 
Baron by directing him to call a certain phone number at a certain time.  The receiver 
then  represented  that  Mr.  Baron  had  not  been  provided  the  secret  number  and  was 
“despicable” and was ‘harassing’ and ‘intimidating’ the receiver by calling that number 
and interfering with the call.   
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F   Document 440    Filed 04/07/11    Page 1 of 6   PageID 16492

 
-3-
A.  BACKGROUND 
The procedural background of this motion is as follows: 
(1)  Jeff Baron settled the lawsuit below, and all parties to the suit entered into 
a stipulated dismissal with prejudice. 
(2)  A former attorney of Jeff Baron's, Elizabeth Schurig, had been paid a fee 
totaling  $1,100,249.88.  Although  no  lawsuit  was  filed,  she  claims 
$1,331.50  (approx. 0.1%)  is still due from Jeff Baron.  See Exhibit B. 
(3)  Approximately 20 other attorneys claim to be in the same situation.  One, 
for  example,  had  filed  a  claim  in  small  claims  court,  another  (who  had 
worked for two weeks on a flat monthly rate) filed a county court lawsuit 
seeking $1,000,000.00.  Most of the attorneys have no claims filed in any 
court. 
(4)  These  non-diverse,  unpled  claims  were  not  part  of  the  district  court 
lawsuit.   However, your honor has ruled that since 20 attorneys claim Jeff 
owes them money, it must be true and no lawsuits or trials are necessary. 
See e.g., Exhibit D. The this court ruled that a district judge has  'inherent 
authority'  and  pursuant  to  that  power  can  control  the  aspects  of  Jeff 
Baron's  personal  life  as  the  court  finds  appropriate  ‘in  the  interest  of 
justice’.   
(5)  Jeff Baron  was  placed in  ex-parte  receivership so  that your honor could 
take possession of all of Jeff's assets.   The proceedings have evolved into 
something  akin  to  a  'free  for  all'  bankruptcy  conducted  according  to 
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F   Document 440    Filed 04/07/11    Page 2 of 6   PageID 16493

 
-4-
ad hoc rules and your honor’s sense of 'justice'.    
(6)  For his willingness to assist Mr. Baron in appealing the receivership order, 
the  undersigned  counsel  was  ordered  to  work,  without payment,  as  Mr. 
Baron’s attorney for all purposes in the trial court.   
B. THE IMMEDIATE ISSUE 
The  district  court  has  now  waived  Jeff  Baron's  attorney  client  privilege  with 
respect  to  Ms.  Schurig  and  ordered  her  to  disclose  information  relating  to  her 
representation of Jeff.  The purpose of all that is to strip Jeff Baron of his right to file his 
own personal income tax returns.  See Exhibit C.  
Once attorney client material is released, it cannot be placed back into the bottle.  
If  this  court’s  order  is  allowed  to  stand,  it  will  threaten  public  confidence  in  the 
attorney-client relationship, and have wide ranging impact that lowers the standing and 
trust  in  the  sanctity  of  the  attorney-client  relationship  generally.  See  Upjohn  Co.  v. 
United States, 449 US 383, 389 (1981). 
C. FARCE AND ORCHESTRATED “SHOW”, WITHOUT MUCH 
EFFORT TO CONCEAL THE WIRES 
Here is how the receiver’s false motion and order were orchestrated:   
(1)  The  receiver  sent  an  email  to Jeff  Baron  telling  him  to call  a phone 
number at a certain date and time about his tax returns.  A second email, directed 
personally to him and none other, instructed him as to a new phone number to 
call.  Exhibit E. 
 (2) When Jeff Baron's counsel called the number at the requested time, he 
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F   Document 440    Filed 04/07/11    Page 3 of 6   PageID 16494

 
-5-
was  announced  his  name  and  was  immediately  accused  of  ‘harassment’  and 
intimidation by ‘breaking in’ to a ‘private’ and secret call of the receiver. 
 (3)  The  district  court's  receiver  immediately filed  an  emergency  motion 
representing:   
(A)  That no email was sent to Jeff Baron with the secret phone 
number, (before any response claiming this had been filed); 
(B)  Jeff  Baron  must  have  received  the  phone  number 
information from a 3rd party, Mr. Harbin, whom Jeff Baron 
controls  and  conspires  with  (as  proven  by  the turning  over 
by Harbin of the secret phone number); and  
(C)  Jeff Baron broke into the private conversation in a pattern of 
harassment of the receiver and Ms. Schurig.    
(4) Your honor then signed an ex-parte order before allowing a response to 
the substance of the motion.   Jeff Baron filed a letter with the court explaining 
that  the  facts  had  been  orchestrated  by  the  receiver,  and  that  a  response  in 
opposition would be filed.    None of that mattered.  The receiver filed the false, 
orchestrated  motion  and  an  order stating  that the district court considered “the 
evidence,  and  pleadings  on  file”  and  finding  “the  Motion  is  well-taken  and 
should be GRANTED in all ways” was entered the next day. Exhibit C. 
D. THE EVIDENCE 
Attached as Exhibit E is a copy of the smoking gun email, including the ‘bits 
and bytes’ showing the originating IP  and source of the email: the receiver's law 
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F   Document 440    Filed 04/07/11    Page 4 of 6   PageID 16495

 
-6-
office.  It may come as a surprise to the receiver that the email contains this data, but the 
message ID numbers can be traced directly back to the receiver’s email server.    
The receiver’s orchestrated  framing  of Jeff Baron has now been fully exposed. 
The risk to public confidence in the federal court system is substantial if such conduct– 
by a district judge's own officer who serves on behalf of the district judge– is permitted.   
This  is  not  a  circumstance  of  a  private  party  'setting  up'  a  fake  incident  and 
making fraudulent claims to a court.  This is an agent of the court itself engaged in a 'set 
up' and false representations to frame a defendant to show a “pattern of threatening and 
intimidating”.   
E. THE RELIEF REQUESTED 
Jeff Baron moves jointly and in the alternative for an order to: (1) Stay the order 
allowing Ms. Schurig to disclosing Jeff Baron’s attorney-client material.  Ms. Schurig is 
set to take that action today.  (2) Stay the receivership against Mr. Baron, or stay the 
receivership to the extent it is limited to property and is stayed with respect to control of 
Mr. Baron’s person, his civil rights, his right to work, his right to hire counsel, his right 
to file income tax returns, and all other personal and constitutional rights of a citizen of 
this country.   
Because of the emergency nature of the relief and the time limitations a motion 
to stay has also been filed in the court of appeals.  If this court enters any ruling on this 
motion, counsel will immediately notify the court of appeals. 
 
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F   Document 440    Filed 04/07/11    Page 5 of 6   PageID 16496

 
-7-
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  brief  was  served  this  day  on  all  parties  who  receive 
notification through the Court’s electronic filing system. 
 
 
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE 
This is to certify that I called counsel for the receiver and Sherman, and was unable 
to conference with them.  I left messages but have not yet been called back.  
 
CERTIFIED BY:  /s/ Gary N. Schepps 
            Gary N. Schepps 
            COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT JEFFREY BARON 
 
 
 
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F   Document 440    Filed 04/07/11    Page 6 of 6   PageID 16497