EMERGENCY MOTION TO CLARIFY OR MODIFY JANUARY 7, 2011 ORDER [DOC#219] AND FOR
FURTHER EMERGENCY RELIEF - Page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
NETSPHERE, INC., § Civil Action No. 3-09CV0988-F
MANILA INDUSTRIES, INC., and §
MUNISH KRISHAN, §
Plaintiffs. §
§
v. § MOTION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF
§
JEFFREY BARON, and §
ONDOVA LIMITED COMPANY, §
Defendants. §
EMERGENCY MOTION TO CLARIFY OR MODIFY JANUARY 7, 2011
ORDER [DOC#219] AND FOR FURTHER EMERGENCY RELIEF
TO THE HONORABLE ROYAL FURGESON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE:
NOW COMES Jeffrey Baron, Appellant, and files this Emergency Motion
to Clarify or Modify this Court’s January 7, 2011 Order [Doc#219] and for Further
Relief and would raise to the attention of this Court:
I. REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED HEARING
Mr. Baron requests that the Court consider this motion on an expedited
basis, at the earliest time available to the Court and within 72 hours from the
motion’s filing.
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 264 Filed 02/04/11 Page 1 of 8 PageID 6149
EMERGENCY MOTION TO CLARIFY OR MODIFY JANUARY 7, 2011 ORDER [DOC#219] AND FOR
FURTHER EMERGENCY RELIEF - Page 2
II. SUMMARY
1. Mr. Baron needs immediate access to his money. He is currently living
in an apartment with no heat, has no health insurance, and no working car. He
needs legal and mental health counsel.
III. REPRESENTATION NEEDED
2. Mr. Baron is in need of legal representation for several matters outside of
the appeal of the receivership.
3. For example, Mr. Baron has no heat or air-conditioning in his apartment.
It is freezing cold. Mr. Baron has no money to rent another apartment— this
Court has seized all his money. Accordingly, Mr. Baron needs on an immediate
and emergency basis competent and experienced counsel to seek on his behalf
relief so that he may immediately rent an apartment with heat and air-conditioning.
4. Mr. Baron would also like to purchase a home in a safe and secure
neighborhood. Accordingly, Mr. Baron needs on an immediate basis competent
and experienced counsel to seek on his behalf relief so that he may purchase a
home in a safe and secure neighborhood.
5. Mr. Baron does not have an operative car. It is a hardship not having a
car to drive. Accordingly, Mr. Baron needs on an emergency basis competent
and experienced counsel to seek on his behalf relief so that he may immediately
purchase a car.
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 264 Filed 02/04/11 Page 2 of 8 PageID 6150
EMERGENCY MOTION TO CLARIFY OR MODIFY JANUARY 7, 2011 ORDER [DOC#219] AND FOR
FURTHER EMERGENCY RELIEF - Page 3
6. Mr. Baron now does not have health insurance. Accordingly, Mr. Baron
needs on an emergency basis competent and experienced counsel to seek on his
behalf relief so that he may immediately sign up for coverage.
7. Mr. Baron faces threats to a multitude of his rights, such as right to
privacy and protection of the private and attorney client communications and work
product for attorneys who may have consulted with him in the past. Currently the
receiver has solicited attorney client materials from former counsel, and there
appears to be a very real threat that the material will be filed of public record. Mr.
Baron needs on an emergency basis competent and experienced counsel to protect
his rights of privacy and his attorney-client privileges, etc.
8. Mr. Baron needs money for food, utilities, transportation, clothes, and
other necessary living expenses. Mr. Baron has not received any of his money
released to him this month, and needs on an emergency basis competent and
experienced counsel to represent him with relationship to these matters.
9. Mr. Baron has been left without medical insurance and funds for
food or drugs he needs for his serious medical conditions, literally in a
freezing cold apartment without transportation, while the receiver/custodian
of Mr. Baron is seeking to be awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars of
Mr. Baron’s savings for its work as Mr. Baron’s ‘conservator’.
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 264 Filed 02/04/11 Page 3 of 8 PageID 6151
EMERGENCY MOTION TO CLARIFY OR MODIFY JANUARY 7, 2011 ORDER [DOC#219] AND FOR
FURTHER EMERGENCY RELIEF - Page 4
10. Mr. Baron also needs help securing his rights under the global settlement
agreement, including dismissal of district court lawsuit, obtaining the programming
code he was quit-claimed, and securing other rights under the settlement contract.
11. This Court seems intent on moving forward with setting up a
kangaroo court
1
with Mr. Vogel acting on behalf of this Court as prosecutor
and judge. Accordingly, Mr. Baron needs access to his money to hire
experienced trial counsel to defend each of the 'claims' solicited by the
prosecutor/judge receiver.
IV. APPELLATE REPRESENTATION
12. On January 7th the Court entered an order stating in part “Mr. Gary
Schepps and Mr. Peter Barrett will serve as Mr. Baron's counsel for all purposes.”
13. In conjunction with the order, the Court stated that money would not be
released to Mr. Baron's appellate counsel to pay for attorney’s fees and expenses
for Mr. Baron.
2
14. Failure to stay the receivership to allow money to Mr. Baron to pay his
appellate counsel impedes his ability to obtain full representation in his appeal. By
restraining Mr. Baron from funding his appeal, counsel for Mr. Baron is unable to
1
The term is especially appropriate in the context of the proceedings in this case. In modern usage, as noted by
wikipedia, “A kangaroo court's proceedings deny due process rights in the name of expediency.” Notably, “The
term ‘kangaroo court’ may have been popularized during the California Gold Rush of 1849. The first recorded use is
from 1853 in a Texas context.” Id. As the United States Supreme Court ruled in Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723,
726 (1963), “The case now before us does not involve physical brutality. The kangaroo court proceedings in this
case involved a more subtle but no less real deprivation of due process of law.”
2
January 4, 2011 hearing, at page 204 "THE COURT: By the way, I misspoke about one thing. I don't think I can do
anything about your fees if Mr. Baron doesn't pay you after the receivership is over."
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 264 Filed 02/04/11 Page 4 of 8 PageID 6152
EMERGENCY MOTION TO CLARIFY OR MODIFY JANUARY 7, 2011 ORDER [DOC#219] AND FOR
FURTHER EMERGENCY RELIEF - Page 5
retain and associate additional counsel to assist with multiple aspects of Mr.
Baron's appeal. The representation on appeal is therefore handicapped by the
inability to bring in additional manpower to assist with the appeal.
15. If the intention of the Court is to sanction appellate counsel for
representing Mr. Baron on appeal, and to order counsel to represent Mr. Baron
without pay for daring to raise the unconstitutional and unlawful actions taken
against Mr. Baron, then counsel respectfully requests reconsideration of such order
which acts to chill a party’s' ability to obtain representation to appeal court orders.
16. Appellate counsel is physically unable to represent Mr. Baron on all of
the matters needing representation, because of existing obligations that do not
physically allow enough hours in the day to undertake such representation. An
initial retainer of $150,000.00 is necessary for appellate counsel to retain additional
counsel to represent Mr. Baron in the matters for which he needs further
representation. Notably, each attorney 'claim' is like an independent lawsuit, and
will require its own representation to put on a proper defense to the 'claim'.
17. Notably, Mr. Peter Barrett was hired to assist Mr. Schepps for a very
narrow purpose and scope at the hearings December 17, 2010 and January 4, 2011.
This Court interfered with that employment and directed Mr. Barrett to represent
Mr. Baron at that hearing as his counsel for all purposes. Mr. Barrett has zero
experience in handling civil matters in the Federal Court, and Mr. Baron has never
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 264 Filed 02/04/11 Page 5 of 8 PageID 6153
EMERGENCY MOTION TO CLARIFY OR MODIFY JANUARY 7, 2011 ORDER [DOC#219] AND FOR
FURTHER EMERGENCY RELIEF - Page 6
agreed to accept Mr. Barrett as his civil counsel. This Court's attempt to foist an
inexperienced attorney upon Mr. Baron is inappropriate, and if such was this
Court's intention, request is made for reconsideration.
V. PRIVATE COUNSELING NEEDED
18. Mr. Baron needs private counseling to assist him emotionally in what is
a very difficult and trying circumstance— a federal judge has ex-parte, behind
closed doors imposed a severe and harsh punishment not authorized by any statute
or case law— and has made Mr. Baron and all his property a ward of a 'receiver'.
19. Where in a democratic society we would expect a judge to be an
unbiased arbiter of disputes raised before him, here Mr. Baron is faced with a
prosecutor judge that has decided Mr. Baron has acted wrongfully, and has taken it
upon himself to take action against Mr. Baron to 'do justice'. Having had all his
assets, including his exempt assets such as his Roth IRA, seized by the judge, Mr.
Baron has to this date been forced to stay in a freezing apartment with no heat.
His heath insurance has been cancelled, etc.
20. The emotional weight on any person in such a circumstance would be
heavy. Mr. Baron accordingly needs what he is entitled to under the law and
Constitution, to private counsel with mental health professionals of his choice.
The consultation is entitled to complete privacy, including the privacy as to the
identity of the professional and content of the counsel and therapy.
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 264 Filed 02/04/11 Page 6 of 8 PageID 6154
EMERGENCY MOTION TO CLARIFY OR MODIFY JANUARY 7, 2011 ORDER [DOC#219] AND FOR
FURTHER EMERGENCY RELIEF - Page 7
VI. PRAYER
Wherefore, Mr. Baron prays that this Honorable Court grant this motion, and
clarify or modify the January 7, 2001 Order so that Mr. Baron may obtain counsel to
represent him on the many areas for which representation is needed, and jointly order
further relief to allow Mr. Baron to rent an apartment with heat, purchase a car, seek
private therapy, etc.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Gary N. Schepps
Gary N. Schepps
State Bar No. 00791608
Drawer 670804
Dallas, Texas 75367
(214) 210-5940
(214) 347-4031 Facsimile
APPELLATE COUNSEL FOR
JEFFREY BARON
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that this was served on all parties who receive notification
through the Court’s electronic filing system.
/s/ Gary N. Schepps
Gary N. Schepps
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 264 Filed 02/04/11 Page 7 of 8 PageID 6155
EMERGENCY MOTION TO CLARIFY OR MODIFY JANUARY 7, 2011 ORDER [DOC#219] AND FOR
FURTHER EMERGENCY RELIEF - Page 8
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
This is to certify that the undersigned repeatedly attempted to confer with Mr.
Raymond J. Urbanik, and other counsel for for DANIEL J. SHERMAN, Trustee
for ONDOVA LIMITED COMPANY, but, likely due to the weather conditions,
no conference has been possible.
/s/ Gary N. Schepps
Gary N. Schepps
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 264 Filed 02/04/11 Page 8 of 8 PageID 6156
U.S. DlSTR1CT COURT
NORTIIERN
DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
CURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF T XAS
FEB
I I
2011
DALLAS DIVISION
~;RK,
U.S.~~CT
COURT
NETSPHERE, INC.,
§
Deputy
'I';
1114)ii1·
MANILA INDUSTRIES., INC., AND
§
MUNISH KRISHAN
§
§
PLAINTIFFS,
§
§
V.
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:09-CV-0988-F
§
JEFFREY BARON AND
§
ONDOVA LIMITED COMPANY,
§
§
DEFENDANTS.
§
ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY MOTION TO CLARIFY OR MODIFY JANUARY 7,
2011 ORDER AND FOR FURTHER EMERGENCY RELIEF
The Court reviewed Defendant Jeffrey Baron's Emergency Motion to ClarifY or Modify
January 7, 2011 Order [Doc#219] and for Further Emergency Relief (Docket No. 264). The
Court, having considered the motion, the Receiver'S response (Docket No. 301) and the appendix
in support thereof (Docket No. 299), the Receiver's Notice
of
Supplemental Evidence Relating
to Mr. Baron's Emergency Since Entry
of
the Receivership (Docket No. 307), the Trustee
Daniel
J. Sherman's response and exhibits thereto (Docket No. 308),the arguments
of
counsel, and the
pleadings and evidence on file, is
of
the opinion that the motion should be DENIED.
THEREFORE, IT
IS
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Mr. Baron's
Emergency Motion to Clarify or Modify January
7,
2011 Order [Doc#219] and for Further
Emergency Relief (Docket No. 264) is DENIED.
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 316 Filed 02/11/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID 6690
It
is so ORDERED.
J1..
SIGNED the. It)::: day
of
February, 2011
ORDER
DENYING EMERGENCY
MOTION
TO
CLARIFY
OR
MODIFY
JANUARY 7,2011
ORDER
AND
FOR
FURTHER
EMERGENCY
RELIEF
PAGE
2
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 316 Filed 02/11/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID 6691
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY RULING ON MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL - Page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
NETSPHERE, INC., § Civil Action No. 3-09CV0988-F
MANILA INDUSTRIES, INC., and §
MUNISH KRISHAN, §
Plaintiffs. §
§
v. § MOTION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF
§
JEFFREY BARON, and §
ONDOVA LIMITED COMPANY, §
Defendants. §
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY RULING ON MOTION TO STAY
PENDING APPEAL
TO THE HONORABLE ROYAL FURGESON, U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE:
COMES NOW, Jeffrey Baron, Appellant, and in light of Mr. Urbanik’s
motion filed Friday [Doc. 151] moving this Court to consider evidence and
adjudicate newly raised claims and factual issues, requests the Court to rule today
on [Doc. 137] Mr. Baron’s Motion to Stay.
Appellate Counsel for Mr. Baron has been retained strictly with respect to
appeal of the order appointing receiver entered by this Court now on appeal to the
Fifth Circuit. Mr. Baron is in need of an attorney to file proper legal objections to
the timing and form of the relief requested by Mr. Urbanik, to object to the
standing of Mr. Urbanik to request such relief, as well as seek a more definite
statement of the relief sought.
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 157 Filed 12/13/10 Page 1 of 5 PageID 3181
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY RULING ON MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL - Page 2
Mr. Baron needs experienced and specialized counsel to conduct discovery
and prepare to defend the very serious new charges Mr. Urbanik brings in his
motion. As Mr. Urbanik has maneuvered his motion to be a part of the hearing set
only 4 days from now, Mr. Baron needs an attorney to represent him on these
matters immediately.
The limited scope of Appellate Counsel’s representation is strictly limited to
matters of appeal and does not cover defense of Mr. Urbanik’s newly raised
claims, nor any other matter in the district court beyond staying the order
appointing receiver pending appeal, or declaring that order void.
Mr. Urbanik’s motion seeks determination of matters including whether:
1. Mr. Baron is in breach of an injunction order,
2. Mr. Baron is violation of Federal Rule of 13 (sic),
3. Mr. Baron engaged in a bad faith bankruptcy filing,
4. Mr. Baron refused to testify, and
5. Mr. Baron is the owner of Ondova.
Mr. Urbanik also seeks the determination of substantive rights between Mr.
Baron and former attorneys and judicial determination:
6. Declaring Mr. Baron a vexatious litigant,
7. Finding Mr. Baron in breach of the settlement agreement,
8. Determining Mr. Baron’s liability to attorneys for fees.
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 157 Filed 12/13/10 Page 2 of 5 PageID 3182
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY RULING ON MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL - Page 3
Mr. Urbanik further seeks adjudication on serious allegations including:
9. Whether Mr. Urbanik’s attorneys fees in the bankruptcy court are
legitimate and attributable to Mr. Baron's obstructive tactics, (or
conversely, if not, were unreasonable, improper, unjustified, and
excessive),
10. That Mr. Baron has acted with contempt for the court,
11. Whether Mr. Baron has incurred debts without regard to the financial
implication of doing so,
12. Whether Mr. Baron has engaged in fraud and is attempted to
fraudulently insolate himself from judgment,
These allegations were not
made in the motion to appoint receiver, and by
their timing appear clearly to be in retaliation for Mr. Baron's objection to Mr.
Urbanik's fees in the bankruptcy court.
Mr. Baron is currently unable to retain counsel to defend or even object to the
motion raised by Mr. Urbanik because his money has been seized and this Court
has ordered him not to retain any counsel to represent him in this Court.
Moreover, Mr. Baron’s personal papers have been seized as well as the materials
of his prior counsel. Unless the receivership is stayed and his money, right to
retain and consult with counsel, and his and his lawyer’s papers are immediately
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 157 Filed 12/13/10 Page 3 of 5 PageID 3183
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY RULING ON MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL - Page 4
returned to him, Mr. Baron will be irreparably harmed in his defense of Mr.
Urbanik’s motions set only 4 days from now.
Accordingly Mr. Baron seeks an immediate stay of the receivership so that
he may retain counsel to properly object and defend the very serious motion filed
by Mr. Urbanik.
Mr. Urbanik has refused to withdraw his motion. Short of an order from this
Court striking Mr. Urbanik’s motion or expressly removing it from the docket
Friday, his motion necessitates immediate stay of the receivership order.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Gary N. Schepps
Gary N. Schepps
State Bar No. 00791608
Drawer 670804
Dallas, Texas 75367
(214) 210-5940
(214) 347-4031 Facsimile
APPELLATE COUNSEL FOR
JEFFREY BARON
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that this was served on all parties who receive notification
through the Court’s electronic filing system.
/s/ Gary N. Schepps
Gary N. Schepps
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 157 Filed 12/13/10 Page 4 of 5 PageID 3184
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY RULING ON MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL - Page 5
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
This is to certify that the undersigned conferred with Mr. Raymond J. Urbanik, attorney
for DANIEL J. SHERMAN, Trustee for ONDOVA LIMITED COMPANY, and they
opposed the motion.
/s/ Gary N. Schepps
Gary N. Schepps
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 157 Filed 12/13/10 Page 5 of 5 PageID 3185
U.S. DlSTR1CT COURT
NORTIIERN
DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
CURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF T XAS
FEB
I I
2011
DALLAS DIVISION
~;RK,
U.S.~~CT
COURT
NETSPHERE, INC.,
§
Deputy
'I';
1114)ii1·
MANILA INDUSTRIES., INC., AND
§
MUNISH KRISHAN
§
§
PLAINTIFFS,
§
§
V.
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:09-CV-0988-F
§
JEFFREY BARON AND
§
ONDOVA LIMITED COMPANY,
§
§
DEFENDANTS.
§
ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY MOTION TO CLARIFY OR MODIFY JANUARY 7,
2011 ORDER AND FOR FURTHER EMERGENCY RELIEF
The Court reviewed Defendant Jeffrey Baron's Emergency Motion to ClarifY or Modify
January 7, 2011 Order [Doc#219] and for Further Emergency Relief (Docket No. 264). The
Court, having considered the motion, the Receiver'S response (Docket No. 301) and the appendix
in support thereof (Docket No. 299), the Receiver's Notice
of
Supplemental Evidence Relating
to Mr. Baron's Emergency Since Entry
of
the Receivership (Docket No. 307), the Trustee
Daniel
J. Sherman's response and exhibits thereto (Docket No. 308),the arguments
of
counsel, and the
pleadings and evidence on file, is
of
the opinion that the motion should be DENIED.
THEREFORE, IT
IS
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Mr. Baron's
Emergency Motion to Clarify or Modify January
7,
2011 Order [Doc#219] and for Further
Emergency Relief (Docket No. 264) is DENIED.
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 316 Filed 02/11/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID 6690
It
is so ORDERED.
J1..
SIGNED the. It)::: day
of
February, 2011
ORDER
DENYING EMERGENCY
MOTION
TO
CLARIFY
OR
MODIFY
JANUARY 7,2011
ORDER
AND
FOR
FURTHER
EMERGENCY
RELIEF
PAGE
2
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 316 Filed 02/11/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID 6691
