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

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE ROYAL FURGESON:

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

the following motion to supplement the record with the evidence attached as

Exhibit A and Exhibit B:

EXHIBIT A - THE LYON EMAIL

This email:

(1) Completely discredits Mr. Lyon. Even after September 2010, Lyon is

was $40.00/hour– it is Broome who sent Cox the email

from Lyon. Yet, Broome and Cox have been silent,

allowing this Court to falsely believe that Jeff owed Lyon

money and failed to pay it.

this email chain, Mr. Taylor is 'proposing' a contingency fee

of $42,000.

1

This is about half of what Mark Taylor now

1

‘proposal’, although half the amount of his ‘receivership claim’, is itself discredited by Exhibit B

to this motion. Taylor’s statements in August were that a subsequent “small bill” in September

should be the last one. It should also be noted that, per Taylor’s own ‘claim affidavit’, Taylor

held $10,000.00 in retainer from Jeff. Thus, the $2,500.00 “60 day old” invoice mentioned in

Exhibit B, was not outstanding as there was a $10,000.00 retainer balance. (Today, there is still a

$7,500.00 retainer balance due Jeff and it should be returned to Jeff).

In other words, this email evidence establishes that multiple

‘claimant’ attorneys have personal knowledge that the ‘claims’ of other

attorneys are false and fraudulent. However, each and every ‘claimant’

attorney has kept his mouth shut as to the false claims another attorney is

Notably, Powers Taylor’s own billing ‘evidence’ supports this.

2

retainer still with Taylor, there was actually no balance due. The Powers Taylor ‘claim’ plainly

admits that there is a $7,500.00 balance due to Jeff based on the hourly fees billed and paid.

(2) This email evidence proves that there was no claim alleged or asserted

receiver after first promising to produce, refused to produce. Accordingly, the

undersigned counsel has not physically had the available hours to review all of the

material at hand (let alone material in the possession of the receiver and claimant

3

of counsel), and counsel’s duties as trial counsel (which was placed upon counsel by this Court,

over objection, for which this Court has not paid for those services nor provided funding for

expenses or support), counsel still has pre-existing duties to other clients. If counsel had no other

work to perform, that would mean still that only approximately one work day was allowed to

investigate, review all the material and search for relevant evidence, research, and respond to

each of the ‘claims’. Since the receiver and trustee have flooded counsel with an avalanche of

paperwork, both in the trial court and in the court of appeals, the available time to review each

claim has amounted to a fractional part of a day, per claim. In such circumstance, it is simply

not possible as a matter of available time to review much of the available material for each case.

has, as a matter of physical time, been able to review and find the material.

C. RELIEF REQUESTED

Jeff Baron requests the Court to consider this evidence with respect to the

Court’s consideration of the receiver’s motions.

Jointly and in the alternative Jeff Baron requests this Court to reconsider its

ruling with respect to entering a stay pending appeal because such ruling was based

in material part on the Court’s belief that Mr. Baron had “abused” Mr. Lyon and

not paid him his fee. The new evidence proves that Mr. Lyon’s fee was $40 per

hour and not the $300 per hour billing rate Mr. Lyon has constructed his unpaid fee

4

4

whose “withdrawal” in the bankruptcy court was offered to show good cause for the

receivership, has now produced his contract. The contract proves that his fees were capped– he

was not authorized under the contract terms [page 3 term “2”] (without a written modification

authorizing such work) to work more than $10,000.00 in billing for any month. He withdrew in

November, 2010 with a maximum (per Broome’s accounting) ‘claim’ for $3,314. Accordingly his

‘claim’ for almost ten times that amount ($28,737.00) is not supported by his retainer agreement.

This is to certify that this document was served this day on all parties who receive

notification through the Court’s electronic filing system.

the $75,000.00 was anything other than an up-front flat fee payment. It is also especially true

where Pronske averred in his bankruptcy court counterclaim that when Pronske was first hired,

Jeff had stated he was not going to be paying Pronske any fee payments.