-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
