Response to Vogels Sealed Motion to Have his Propriety of Actions Confirmed

No. 10-11202
In the
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
NETSPHERE, INC. Et Al, 
Plaintiffs
v.
JEFFREY BARON, 
Defendant-Appellant
v.
ONDOVA LIMITED COMPANY, 
Defendant-Appellee
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Appeal of Order Appointing Receiver in Settled Lawsuit
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cons. w/ No. 11-10113
NETSPHERE INC., Et Al,  Plaintiffs
v.
JEFFREY BARON, Et Al, Defendants
v.
QUANTEC L.L.C.; NOVO POINT L.L.C., 
Appellants
v.
PETER S. VOGEL, 
Appellee
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Appeal of Order Adding Non-Parties Novo Point, LLC 
and Quantec, LLC as Receivership Parties
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
From the United States District Court
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division
Civil Action No. 3-09CV0988-F
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
RESPONSE TO VOGEL SEALED MOTION TO HAVE 
THE PROPRIETY OF HIS ACTIONS CONFIRMED 
AND MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING 
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Case: 10-11202     Document: 00511598319     Page: 1     Date Filed: 09/09/2011

-
1
-
TO THE HONORABLE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS:
COMES NOW Appellants, and subject to the preliminary Fifth Amendment 
objection  and  motion  previously  filed  in  this  cause,  make  this  response  with 
respect to the 8-16-11 Sealed MOTION filed by Appellee Mr. Peter S. Vogel in 11-
10113 to Confirm Propriety of Domain Name Deactivations and sealed appendix. 
Appellants move that an evidentiary hearing be allowed prior to the entry of an 
order confirming the propriety of the receiver’s actions.
I. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY 
Vogel offers no legal authority to support the relief he requests.  Vogel does 
not seek court approval, but seeks a preemptive finding that his actions have been 
proper.  
Background of Peter Vogel and Jeff Baron
Several years ago, Jeff Baron personally consulted with Vogel, and shared 
important trade secrets regarding the domain name registration process of Ondova.   
Baron’s consultations with Vogel were clearly with a view towards Vogel’s and his 
firm’s representation of Baron and Ondova.  Accordingly, Vogel was under a strict 
duty to  maintain  the confidentiality  of  Baron’s  disclosures to  him.  See Nolan  v. 
Freeman, 665 F.2d 738, 739 n.3 (5th Cir. 1982).   Vogel, however, violated that 
confidence and used the information to turn his law firm into a ‘specialist’ at suing 
Jeff  Baron  and  Ondova.    Pursuant  to  Federal  law,  all  of  this  should  have  been 
disclosed by Vogel before he was appointed special master in the District Court 
Case: 10-11202     Document: 00511598319     Page: 2     Date Filed: 09/09/2011

-
2
-
proceedings below.
1
  It was not.  Then, while acting as special master, Vogel held 
secret  consultations  with  respect  to  having  himself  appointed  receiver  over  Jeff 
Baron.  SR.  v5  p238.    Vogel  then  personally  filed  an  order  signed  by  Judge 
Furgeson  appointing  Vogel  receiver  ex  parte.      Vogel,  while  still  employed  as 
special master in the case, then filed a motion to have himself appointed receiver 
over the assets of Novo Point, LLC, and Quantec, LLC. R. 1717.
DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES: What Should Be Happening
Novo  Point,  LLC  and  Quantec,  LLC  own  together  around  two  hundred 
thousand unique domain name assets.  The domains were registered in good faith, 
based on a computer algorithm as to what pragmatically are key generic terms that 
web surfers would be interested in.  The focus of the companies’ business model is 
providing multiple users access to common domain names.   While sites are being 
developed,  domain  monetization  services  are  used  to  provide  additional  income 
streams.    Many  of  the  domain  names  are  extremely  valuable,  and  third  parties 
occasionally  attempt  to  take  over  the  domains  by  filing  domain  name  disputes.  
Additionally, sometimes a domain name intended to be generic is not, and due to 
an error in the computer algorithm a domain name might have been registered that 
clearly is not generic.
1
  Federal  Rule  of  Civil  Procedure  53(b)(3)  strictly  requires  that  a  court  may  issue  an  order 
appointing  a  special  master  only  after the  master  files an  affidavit  disclosing any  ground  for 
disqualification under 28 U.S.C. §455.
Case: 10-11202     Document: 00511598319     Page: 3     Date Filed: 09/09/2011

-
3
-
When a third party raises to the attention of the companies that they have an 
issue  with  the  companies’  ownership  of  any  particular  domain,  there  is  a 
fundamental legal question that must be answered as a preliminary matter: Was the 
registration of the domain name lawful ?   Because the computer algorithm used to 
register  the  domain  names  was  designed  to  register  lawful  generic  names,    the 
answer to this question should in the usual course of events be “Yes”.
DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES: What Is Happening 
Here Vogel has a serious conflict of interest.  He and his law partners have in 
the  past  filed  a  substantial  number  of  lawsuits  alleging  that  the  registration  of 
domain names (including specifically those owned now by Novo Point, LLC and 
Quantec, LLC) was not lawful.   If Vogel were to assert— as is his fiduciary duty 
as  receiver  for  the  companies—  that  the  registrations  are  lawful,  he  would  be 
undermining  a  significant  portion  of  the  lawsuits  his  firm  would  otherwise 
undertake.   Accordingly, in direct and gross violation of his fiduciary duties to 
the companies, Vogel has prevented the companies from asserting that their 
registration of the domains was lawful.  The results have been disastrous for the 
companies.
As Vogel  is well aware  (he and  his  law partners have alleged this  fact in 
prior lawsuits), a company that has lost prior domain name dispute arbitrations is 
presumed to have registered domains in bad faith.  The more prior domain name 
registrations that have been lost, the greater and more significant the presumption 
Case: 10-11202     Document: 00511598319     Page: 4     Date Filed: 09/09/2011

-
4
-
of bad  faith.    To  contest  a domain  name  dispute  in arbitration,    a simple  form 
needs to be filled out, explaining why the domain registration was proper pursuant 
to the  international  rules.     A staff attorney  at  $8,000.00  per  month cost  would 
normally perform this function for the companies.  
Vogel has prevented this from happening, and has instead DEFAULTED on 
every single  domain  name  dispute brought against the companies.   Because he 
does  not want to take  the position that  the  registrations were  lawful, Vogel  has 
refused  to  defend  the  companies’  assets.    Instead,  Vogel  has  attempted  to 
intimidate  those  with  domain  name  disputes  to  ‘honor’  the  District  Court  stay.   
This has worked for some claimants, but many, realizing that the District Court has 
no  jurisdictional  authority  to  stay  international  arbitration  proceedings,  have 
continued  with  their  disputes.      The  companies  have  BY  DEFAULT  lost  those 
disputes.  Vogel has for the time being hidden the result of his gross and intentional 
neglect by pushing the domain name registrar to ignore the international arbitration 
panel results—but only while the receivership is pending.    What will happen the 
second the receivership is dissolved ?   Due to Vogel’s multiple defaults, it appears 
that  hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars  (and  potentially  millions  of  dollars)  in 
domain name assets will be instantly lost as the registrar then complies with the 
completed  arbitration  panel  decisions  against  the  companies  (which  Vogel 
intentionally defaulted on).
Notably, Vogel  has  caused  severe  reputation  damage to  the companies by 
allowing  multiple  defaults  of  domain  name  disputes.    This  serves  his  personal 
Case: 10-11202     Document: 00511598319     Page: 5     Date Filed: 09/09/2011

-
5
-
interest  and  the  interest  of  his  law  firm,  but  it  is  in  direct  violation  of Vogel’s 
fiduciary duties to the companies.
Vogel Seeks to Be Relieved of Liability for His Gross Violation of Duty
Accordingly, what Vogel is really seeking is a court order he can later use to 
absolve himself of liability for his gross violation of his fiduciary duty as receiver.  
Notably, Vogel has failed to disclose to this Honorable Court that he has prevented 
the companies  from substantively responding or defending before the arbitration 
panels any of the multiple domain name disputes brought against the companies’ 
assets.    Vogel  notably  offers  no  legal  authority  as  to  why  an  international 
arbitration panel, clearly outside the territorial jurisdiction of a US District Court, 
would be suspended by a district court’s receivership order.  Notably too, Vogel has 
taken no action to reverse the arbitration awards against the companies that have 
been granted in the past 9 months.
WHEREFORE, Vogel’s motion should be in all things denied and overruled. 
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
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS
Case: 10-11202     Document: 00511598319     Page: 6     Date Filed: 09/09/2011

-
6
-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that this motion 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
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT
Case: 10-11202     Document: 00511598319     Page: 7     Date Filed: 09/09/2011