-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. §

§ Motion for Expedited Relief

JEFFREY BARON, and §

ONDOVA LIMITED COMPANY, §

Defendants. §

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE: MOTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 144

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE ROYAL FURGESON:

COMES NOW JEFF BARON, and moves this Court to grant leave to file the

following motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §144:

Based upon a careful review of the record of the case, and based upon the Court’s

ruling with respect to the ‘unfounded’ nature of the statements made with respect to Peter

Barrett, the undersigned counsel certifies that Jeff Baron’s affidavit and statements that he

cannot receive fair and impartial treatment nor a fair and impartial hearing before Judge

Furgeson with respect to attorneys’ claims has been made in good faith.

WHEREFORE, the SECTION 144 AFFIDAVIT OF JEFFREY BARON is

presented to this Court, for a determination of whether the facts and reasons set out in

the affidavit give fair support to the charge of a bent of mind that may prevent or

impede impartiality of judgment with respect the claims of attorneys and the respective

defenses thereto.

Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 498 Filed 04/27/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID 18374

SUPPLEMENTED SECTION 144 AFFIDAVIT OF JEFFREY BARON - Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

NETSPHERE, INC., )

MANILA INDUSTRIES, INC., and )

MUNISH KRISHAN, )

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs. ) Civil Action No. 3-09CV0988-F

)

JEFFREY BARON, and )

ONDOVA LIMITED COMPANY, )

Defendants. )

S

U

P

L

E

M

E

N

T

A

L

S

E

C

T

I

O

N

1

4

A

F

I

D

A

V

I

T

O

F

J

E

F

R

E

Y

B

A

R

O

N

1. My name is Jeffrey Baron. I am a defendant in the above entitled and

numbered cause. I am competent to make this declaration. The facts stated

in this declaration are within my personal knowledge and are true and

correct. I have personal knowledge of the stated facts, which I learned as the

result of being subjected to the facts and events stated herein. This affidavit

is made pursuant to Judge Furgeson’s order, and supplements my previously

filed affidavit with an additional paragraph (13), and redacts some text

relating to Judge Furgeson’s findings relating to factual allegations with

respect to Mr. Barrett.

2. I believe the Hon. Senior Judge William Royal Furgeson has a strong

and longstanding personal bias for believing lawyers are good, honest people

because they are lawyers. I believe Judge Furgeson has a personal bias

against giving credence to allegations of poor conduct by attorneys. Judge

Furgeson clearly has held this personal bias for a very long time. I recognize

that it is a positive attitude and is probably very helpful in most of the cases

being handled by the Judge. It is also probably a good thing to appoint

judges who have a positive view and bias for believing all lawyers are good,

honest people. It likely brings out the best of many lawyers, in many

situations. Unfortunately, in this particular case where my opponents are

attorney-parties the Judge's deep-seated bias in favor of attorneys has led to

a gross injustice and has empowered dishonest attorneys to victimize me. I

cannot receive fair and impartial treatment nor a fair and impartial hearing

Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 521 Filed 05/05/11 Page 1 of 10 PageID 18678

SUPPLEMENTED SECTION 144 AFFIDAVIT OF JEFFREY BARON - Page 2

before Judge Furgeson with respect to attorneys’ claims because of his deep-

seated personal bias. The Judge’s bias is shown by the following facts:

3. Judge Furgeson said that he has a deep-seated personal view that he

believes that lawyers are important to the rule of law and that giving

credence to accusations against lawyers would be bad for society. In relation

to his personal bias that lawyers must not be found to have acted poorly:

(A) Judge Ferguson stated that he would

n

o

t

t give credence to

assertions of lawyers acting poorly– that doing so in his view was

bad for society.

(B) With respect to allegations that lawyers have acted poorly, Judge

Furgeson expressly said that he never wanted in any way to give

credence to that kind of assertion.

(C) Judge Furgeson said that with respect to lawyers, he did not ever

find lawyers acted improperly and impose sanctions against them

(except for one single time). By contrast, the Judge told me, a non-

lawyer, that if I failed to comply with his orders it was “punishable

by possible jail, death.”

4. I have also heard Judge Furgeson state that he had practiced many

years as an attorney, and to my understanding of the Judge's statement, he

said that he had a special sympathy for other attorneys and is especially

sympathetic to their fees.

5. I do not believe the Judge has ill will for me personally, but holds a

sincere and deep-seated personal bias (as opposed to bias based on malice or

ill-will). Because perceptions are bent by bias, someone who holds a very

deep-seated personal bias acts without realizing they are prejudiced. In this

case, my attorney-opponents have been dishonest with the Judge, but

because of his personal bias, Judge Furgeson may not be cognizant of that. I

am under a cloud of accusations, and have been denied the very essence of

our system of justice—a jury trial. It is through a jury trial that a party can

clear their name, and prove their innocence. This very basic and

fundamental right has been denied me. Since the Judge sees the case

through the color of biased eyes, he does not see that—and seems to believe

a jury trial is not necessary since if the attorneys say I am guilty, I must be.

Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 521 Filed 05/05/11 Page 2 of 10 PageID 18679

SUPPLEMENTED SECTION 144 AFFIDAVIT OF JEFFREY BARON - Page 3

6. My belief that Judge Furgeson is prejudiced and biased in favor of

attorney-claimants is based on the Judge’s own statements about his

prejudices and beliefs. In case there is any question about whether the

statements I have made about the Judge’s statements are true, judge’s

Furgeson’s bias can also be seen in the Judge’s unwillingness to give

credence to the fact that the attorney-parties have been dishonest. For

example:

(A) There is no question the attorney-parties against me have

misrepresented material facts in securing the receivership over me.

For example in his motion to appoint a receiver over me Mr.

Urbanik materially misrepresented the bankruptcy court’s

recommendation. Urbanik represented that the bankruptcy judge

recommend placing a receiver over me if I chose to proceed pro se.

Examination of the record establishes that the bankruptcy judge

threatened to make a recommendation to appoint a receiver in order

to perform my settlement obligations for me if I (1) proceeded pro se

and (2) failed to perform my settlement obligations. However,

because of his long-standing and deep-seated personal bias,

Judge Furgeson is unwilling to give credence to the fact that the

attorney-parties misrepresented material facts in securing their

ex-parte receivership order over me.

(B) Similarly, as another example, Sherman/Urbanik were dishonest in

representing to Judge Furgeson that I had filed ethics complaints

against Martin Thomas, as well as other facts relating to him.

Sherman/Urbanik’s allegations were totally false fabrications.

Urbanik filed an affidavit falsely claiming that he had personal

knowledge of certain specific facts. However, Judge Furgeson

would not allow my attorney to call Urbanik as a witness to

challenge those assertions, and Judge Furgeson would not disqualify

Urbanik as an attorney in the case even though he put himself forth

as the primary witness with personal knowledge against me.

(C) Peter Vogel fabricated a story that I created the Cook Islands

management company that is the legal management for Novo Point

and Quantec. I have nothing to do with the management company

and I did not select them to manage the LLCs. Vogel invented and

fabricated his story, falsely accusing me of wrongdoing. Judge

Furgeson simply accepted at face value that Vogel’s fabricated

Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 521 Filed 05/05/11 Page 3 of 10 PageID 18680

SUPPLEMENTED SECTION 144 AFFIDAVIT OF JEFFREY BARON - Page 4

allegation was true, and Vogel’s motion was granted without any

hearing and before any response had been filed.

(D) As another example, Vogel and his law partners affirmatively set me

up to call into a 'secret' phone meeting so that there would be

'witnesses' that I was harassing him. The receiver sent me multiple

emails directing me to call a certain number at a certain time. Then,

they filed a motion with Judge Furgeson falsely representing that

they did not send me the call information. The receiver set up the

'incident' offered to 'prove' that I was interfering or harassing. It was

all fabricated by the receiver. Even though the receiver was caught

red handed with the smoking gun emails to me, Judge Furgeson has

taken no action against the receiver. Although the matter has been

brought to his attention, the Judge to this point allowed the receiver

to carry forward as if they had never filed their false representations

with the Court – to the extent of allowing the receiver to continue to

file new material making the same, knowingly false representations.

Specifically: (1) The receiver pre-planned to set me up to ‘break in’

to a conference call. My calling in was set up in advance by an

email sent to me on March 30

th

directing me to call a certain phone

number at a certain time on April 1

st

concerning my own tax returns.

I produced that email. Even in the face of the hard evidence, the

receiver claims that they did not pre-plan such an event and decided

only on April 1

st

to arrange a conference call, and only on April 1

st

sent out the email. (2) In reality, on April 1

st

, the receiver sent me a

second email directing me to call in to a new, second conference

number. The receiver denies this occurred.

(E) The emails proving the above facts have been produced, and

records proving the authenticity of those emails have been

requested from the receiver and the receiver has refused to

produce the records. The court ordered those records be preserved

and the receiver has stated they have preserved those records. Yet,

because of the Judge’s deeply imbedded personal bias not to give

credence to allegations of poor behavior on the part of attorneys,

the Judge has supported the receiver’s refusal to produce the

incriminating records. Accordingly, the receiver continues to make

their knowingly false misrepresentations to the Court, and continues

to falsely represent that I broke into the conference call and have

threatened and harassed others such as Ms. Schurig. The receiver did

Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 521 Filed 05/05/11 Page 4 of 10 PageID 18681

SUPPLEMENTED SECTION 144 AFFIDAVIT OF JEFFREY BARON - Page 5

this most recently in their ‘work report’ (DOC 479) at pages 99-101.

The Judge has expressed his view that the email record proof

(proving that the receiver made false statements of fact within

their personal knowledge to the Court) is irrelevant.

7. The receivership, and most aspects of it, such as denying me access to

my own money to hire qualified federal trial counsel to defend me are

deeply troubling. Nevertheless, I do not think the Judge is acting with some

evil intent in denying me access to my own money to hire experienced

federal trial counsel and access to my own money to pay expenses to hire

expert witnesses to defend myself. Since the Judge sincerely believes that

attorneys cannot be found to be dishonest, he clearly believes there is no

basis or grounds for an individual to contest or defend against attorneys'

claims for fees. In Judge Furgeson's view-- and he has said so and

admitted this-- if a group of attorneys say a client owes them money and

has ‘abused’ them, then it does not matter what the client says: Judge

Furgeson believes the attorneys, and does not need to hear from the client

or hear the client's side. This is what the Judge himself said: before hearing

from me the matter was decided in the Judge’s mind based on a one sided

hearing of what the attorneys said. The Judge said that even if I testified

to certain facts he had already decided that he wasn’t going to believe

me. In considering evidence from the attorney-parties, the Judge said that

he had already decided the matter and had already decided not to believe my

testimony—even before he heard it.

8. After three former attorneys testified before Judge Furgeson claiming

that they felt I owed them money, Judge Furgeson told me he had already

determined that he was not going to believe me if I testified that I had

paid them in full. This is despite the fact the attorneys produced no

contracts, no bills, no statements, and no list of payments. I believe this

shows bias.

9. Judge Furgeson has expressed a personal bias in favor of attorney

claimants. Judge Furgeson has already decided—and has said so—that

the attorneys who represented me did a good job and acted in good

faith. Since he has seen no evidence presented or hearing held on those

issues, his opinion is pre-formed. I believe this shows prejudice.

Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 521 Filed 05/05/11 Page 5 of 10 PageID 18682

SUPPLEMENTED SECTION 144 AFFIDAVIT OF JEFFREY BARON - Page 6

10. Before I was set to testify at the FRAP 8(a) evidentiary hearing, the

Judge said that no matter what I said-- if I offered evidence that I paid the

attorneys in full, and performed the contract obligations, etc. that he was not

going to believe my evidence-- even though he hadn't heard or seen it yet. I

believe this shows bias.

11. The type of personal bias and prejudice held by Judge Furgeson is the

most dangerous type– a sincere personal prejudice. Thus, for example, to the

Judge, it is natural for what an attorney party says to be taken as fact and for

statements reflecting poorly on an attorney to be disregarded as incorrect and

unfounded– without the necessity of an evidentiary inquiry. If there is any

issue about whether the statements I have made about Judge Furgeson’s

statements of his bias are true, the Judge’s bias can also be seen from the

Judge’s actions. Some examples include the following:

(A) Judge Furgeson ruled without any hearing that the statement in my

response/motion that Peter Barrett was “a state court criminal

defense attorney with serious medical issues and **** SEALED BY

COURT ORDER ****, that has zero experience in handling civil

matters in the federal court” was unfounded and incorrect. Since the

Judge has no idea what evidence or upon what facts the motion was

founded, there is no objective way for the Judge to have made the

findings he made. Rather, since the district judge has a long standing

and deep seated bias in favor of attorneys, anything that seems to

place an attorney in a bad light, even if true and relevant, is seen by

the Judge as “unprofessional”, incorrect and unfounded. Judge

Furgeson used no objective basis to determine whether these

facts were correct or incorrect, founded or unfounded. His

finding about these facts was made based purely on his personal

bias and prejudice.

(B) Judge Furgeson has engaged in a pattern of granting attorneys’

motions for fees without allowing for the response period for my

objections or responses to the attorneys’ motions requesting money.

The substance of the rulings themselves do not prove bias, but

Judge Furgeson’s process does. If an attorney says they are

entitled to money, the Judge’s personal bias leads him to the

conclusion—not based on a fair hearing or consideration of both

sides— that the attorney is so entitled. Accordingly, because of

his personal bias, Judge Furgeson has not seen the need to allow

Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 521 Filed 05/05/11 Page 6 of 10 PageID 18683

SUPPLEMENTED SECTION 144 AFFIDAVIT OF JEFFREY BARON - Page 7

my attorney the opportunity to respond, to present argument, or

to present evidence. Judge Furgeson has granted multiple motions

for fee requests in this manner-- without allowing me the opportunity

to respond as provided by the rules and the law. Some of those

orders include docket document numbers 464, 463, 462, 461, 427,

387, 384, 386, 371, 370, 369, 368, 367, 366, 365, 364, 363, 295, 294,

292, and others.

(C) On many occasions, when an attorney-party has made an allegation,

Judge Furgeson has treated the allegation as fact. One clear example

where the results of this bias can be seen is in the Judge’s findings in

denying my FRAP 8(a) motion. In his opinion, Judge Furgeson

based his ruling on things he was 'informed' of by Mr. Urbanik and

Mr. Sherman. An unbiased perspective would be that Mr. Urbanik

and Sherman’s allegations, which were not offered from the witness

stand, are allegations and not facts. An unbiased judge would look to

the evidence, not to an attorney’s accusations. A biased judge,

whose internal personal view of the world is that attorneys always

tell the truth, does not need evidence when an attorney-witness

makes an allegation. To the biased judge's perspective, attorneys’

allegations are facts that he is informed of by the attorney. Judge

Furgeson repeatedly stated that he was informed of facts from

attorney parties that were actually merely allegation. An objective

Judge would see that those were allegations and not facts.

(D) Judge Furgeson has appeared to ignore that fact that attorney-parties

have repeatedly filed motions based on false and fabricated

allegations. For example, the Urbanik/Sherman' motion for

receivership materially and substantially misrepresented the

bankruptcy court's recommendation and other facts. This was

pointed out to Judge Furgeson but he took no action other than to

approve ever-increasing fees and penalties on the receivership.

12. Prior to this lawsuit, I had shared private and confidential information

in the context of an attorney-client or prospective attorney-client relationship

with Urbanik’s firm. Now, not only is that law firm adverse to me in this

case, but they have also filed as ‘evidence’ a chart that looks almost exactly

in form like a chart I provided them in confidence in seeking their legal

services. Similarly, I had consulted with Peter Vogel and within the scope

Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 521 Filed 05/05/11 Page 7 of 10 PageID 18684

SUPPLEMENTED SECTION 144 AFFIDAVIT OF JEFFREY BARON - Page 8

of attorney-client confidentiality shared personally with him secret and

confidential information about the registration of domain names for

companies I owned. Peter Vogel’s firm then sued me for wrongful

registration of domain names, and I filed formal papers complaining of that

breach of ethical duty toward me. Vogel’s firm represented the plaintiff in

the “servers.com” lawsuit. That lawsuit was active at the same time Judge

Furgeson was appointing Vogel to be a special master in this lawsuit.

Urbanik and his firm are now suing on the servers.com lawsuit in the

Ondova bankruptcy case, while Vogel is the receiver in this case—even as

the servers.com defendant is Vogel’s firm’s former client when they were

suing Ondova. I was not aware of the legal duties and significance of the

interconnections at the time, but I am now. Judge Furgeson has been made

aware of the conflicts of interests regarding Vogel, but because of the

Judge’s bias, does not see anything wrong or even any appearance of

impropriety. Urbanik requested Vogel be appointed receiver (after this case

settled and a stipulated dismissal was entered by all parties). Vogel then

withdrew the objection to Urbanik’s fee in the bankruptcy court. Vogel has

also refused to even examine Urbanik’s fee requests in the bankruptcy court

subsequent to the receivership. Urbanik and Vogel have worked hand in

hand– Urbanik moved for Vogel to be appointed receiver, Vogel withdrew

the objection to Urbanik’s fees, etc. Those attorney’s firms have billed

hundreds of thousands of dollars (in fact, almost three million dollars)

essentially from me. An unbiased judge might find many of these issues

troubling. None of these facts has even been acknowledged to be an issue

by Judge Furgeson.

13. The statements Judge Furgeson made about his personal bias in favor

of attorneys detailed in this affidavit were made during the time period that

my case has been pending before Judge Furgeson. My opinion of his bias

was formed after consideration of the statements the Judge himself made

about his personal bent of mind. Some of these include, for example:

(A) On or about February 10, 2011 after the hearing on my case had

terminated, Judge Furgeson made statements including “I think

lawyers are the guardians of civilization” and “We face over and

over again claims about … lawyers acting poorly. We never want in

any way to give credence to that kind of assertion in our society.” I

became aware of those statements only on or about April 20 or 21st,

2011, because the statements were made after the hearing on my case

had terminated and I was not present when the statements were

Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 521 Filed 05/05/11 Page 8 of 10 PageID 18685

SUPPLEMENTED SECTION 144 AFFIDAVIT OF JEFFREY BARON - Page 9

made. I became aware of those statements reviewing official court

transcripts for statements by the Judge with regard to his views

against giving credence to assertions of lawyer misconduct.

(B) On or about June 17, 2009 Judge Furgeson said “I'm not here to

reproach hard working lawyers”.

(C) On or about January 29, 2010 Judge Furgeson said “I love lawyers”.

(D) On or about February 10, 2011, during the hearing of a motion in my

case, Judge Furgeson made a statement to the effect that he refused

to ever sanction attorneys (except one single time).

(E) By contrast, on or about June 19, 2009, Judge Furgeson told me, a

non-lawyer, that failure to comply with his orders was "punishable

by possible jail, death."

(F) On or about January 4, before any hearing was held on the issue,

Judge Furgeson stated that I abused a dozen lawyers. The Judge also

stated– before any hearing was held on the issue– “I have been a

lawyer before. You know, I was a lawyer for twenty-four years, and

the abuse that was visited on these lawyers is amazing to me.”

(G) On or about February 10, 2011, Judge Furgeson said –before any

hearing was held on attorneys’ fee claims– “Mr. Baron has run up

enormous amounts of fees to lawyers, and those lawyers as far as I

can tell took that work in good faith .... Those lawyers are going to

have to be given in some way their just recompense. And all of this

goes back to Mr. Baron. And you know, you say I've already got my

mind made up.”

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Signed this 4th day of May 2011, in Dallas, Texas.

Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 521 Filed 05/05/11 Page 9 of 10 PageID 18686

SUPPLEMENTED SECTION 144 AFFIDAVIT OF JEFFREY BARON - Page 10

CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH

DATED: May 4, 2011.

Based upon a careful review of the record of the case, and based upon the

Court’s ruling with respect to the ‘unfounded’ nature of the statements made

with respect to Peter Barrett, the undersigned counsel certifies that Jeff Baron’s

affidavit and statements that he cannot receive fair and impartial treatment nor a

fair and impartial hearing before Judge Furgeson with respect to attorneys’

claims has been made in good faith.

/s/ Gary N. Schepps

Gary N. Schepps

Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 521 Filed 05/05/11 Page 10 of 10 PageID 18687

-3-

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

E-mail: legal@schepps.net

COURT ORDERED TRIAL

COUNSEL FOR JEFF BARON

Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 498 Filed 04/27/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID 18375

-4-

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 GOOD FAITH

DATED: April 27, 2011.

Based upon a careful review of the record of the case, and based upon the Court’s

ruling with respect to the ‘unfounded’ nature of the statements made with respect to

Peter Barrett, the undersigned counsel certifies that Jeff Baron’s affidavit and

statements that he cannot receive fair and impartial treatment nor a fair and impartial

hearing before Judge Furgeson with respect to attorneys’ claims has been made in

good faith.

I am a solo practitioner and this motion was presented as quickly as I was able after

the Court’s ruling with respect to the Barrett issues. I carefully reviewed the material

to provide this certificate and present this motion and there was delay due to 5

intervening days for which I have a firm religious commitment not to work (4 days of

Passover and a Sabbath). The prior two business days have been religious holidays,

and that is why this motion is filed now and not on Monday. This motion has been

made in good faith and is not intended as a surprise or as a procedural maneuver.

/s/ Gary N. Schepps

Gary N. Schepps

Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 498 Filed 04/27/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID 18376