Plaintiffs. §
§ Civil Action No. 3-09CV0988-F
v. §
Defendants. §
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
2. According to the website found by the receiver
, 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
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
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
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 braggedin
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
8. Another example is the receivers 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
(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
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
This is to certify that this filing was served this day on all parties who receive
notification through the Courts electronic filing system.
CERTIFIED BY: /s/ Gary N. Schepps
Gary N. Schepps
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 607 Filed 06/09/11 Page 6 of 6 PageID 25677

Leave a Reply

Threats From The Bench Video

Recent Articles

Jeff Baron’s Father’s Testimony
Jeff’s Mother’s Testimony