REPLY TO RECEIVER’S RESPONSE ON STAY PENDING APPEAL, PAGE 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
NETSPHERE, INC., Et. Al. §
Plaintiffs, §
vs. § Civil Action No. 3-09CV0988-F
§
JEFFREY BARON, Et. Al. §
Defendants §
REPLY TO RECEIVER’S RESPONSE [DOC 1042] TO BARON
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RECONSIDER STAY
TO THE HONORABLE ROYAL FURGESON, SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT
JUDGE:
Defendant Jeff Baron briefs three reply issues, as follows:
1. Is Vogel deceiving the Court ?
2. Has Vogel de-humanized Jeff Baron ?
3. Vogel’s use of deceitful distraction.
Reply Issues
1. Is Vogel Deceiving the Court ?
The Court has clearly placed its trust in Vogel, or Vogel would not
have been appointed Special Master, Mediator, and Receiver. With that
trust, the Court appears to presume Vogel to be honest.
The question is, what is the level of that presumption ?
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 1052 Filed 09/25/12 Page 1 of 10 PageID 60641
REPLY TO RECEIVER’S RESPONSE ON STAY PENDING APPEAL, PAGE 2
(1) Is the presumption irrebuttable, such that the game is
‘fixed’ and Vogel can get away with anything ?
(2) Is the presumption extremely high, such that Vogel is
afforded special status before the Court that allows Vogel
to get away with almost anything ?
(3) Or, if there is clear evidence that Vogel has been dishonest
and deceitful
with the Court, is the Court open to
receiving, and fairly considering the evidence, with an
open, unbiased mind ?
In his response, Vogel justifies Baron’s living conditions by
representing to the Court the following:
a. Baron never sought “help from the Receiver”.
b. “Mr. Baron’s counsel ignored the Receiver’s request to simply
identify the name and address of the dealership from which the
car was to be purchased.”
a. Baron failed “to select a new car” or to “send the specifics”.
b. “Baron and Schepps have persistently disregarded the
Receiver’s efforts to assist in the purchase of an automobile for
Mr. Baron”
c. The receiver “would have gladly written him a check to rectify
the supposed issues”.
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 1052 Filed 09/25/12 Page 2 of 10 PageID 60642
REPLY TO RECEIVER’S RESPONSE ON STAY PENDING APPEAL, PAGE 3
However, in stark contract to Vogel’s representations to the Court, the
truth
(evidenced by the exhibits filed with this reply) is as follows:
a. First Baron’s unpaid appellate counsel volunteered to have
Vogel provide a check in escrow, and to supervise the car
purchase and return any unused funds to Vogel. A simple,
reasonable solution, minimizing Vogel’s fees and providing for
full accountability. Vogel, however refused
. See Exhibit “A”.
b. Next, based on Vogel’s demand to control the purchase
transaction, Baron located a vehicle to purchase, negotiated a
price with the owner, and then provided the owner’s name,
purchase information, and phone number to Vogel to arrange
payment. Vogel refused. Id.
c. Vogel instead raised impossible to meet pre-requisites
including that Baron first have the car titled in his name, pay
all taxes and insurance, and then, Vogel would pay for the car.
Since no seller will transfer title of their car before
being paid,
the conditions were just sham way of saying NO. Id.
d. Later, Vogel represented in filings to the Court that he was
ready to pay for a new car. Vogel’s counsel suggested a dealer
must be the seller and not a private person. So, Baron worked
and found a car at a dealer. Complete information about the
car, including the car’s tag numbers, sticker, a picture of the
car, an appraisal of the car, and the PHONE NUMBER OF
THE DEALER was sent to Vogel with a request for him to pay
for the car. All Vogel had to do was pick up the phone and
make payment arrangements. Vogel refused. See Exhibits
“B” and “C”. At that point, to Baron’s unpaid appellate
counsel it was more than clear Vogel had no intention of
allowing the funding for a car or better living conditions. It
was a game Vogel used to pad his billing at Baron’s expense.
Notably, at each step in obstructing Baron from normal living
conditions Vogel personally profited.
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 1052 Filed 09/25/12 Page 3 of 10 PageID 60643
REPLY TO RECEIVER’S RESPONSE ON STAY PENDING APPEAL, PAGE 4
Similarly with respect living conditions for Baron, Vogel required that
a signed lease be presented to him for his signature. However, Vogel refused
to provide for the cost of movers, utility deposits, insurance, and the like.
Without a car, Baron could not physically move. So, once again, the matter
was, for Vogel, another billing game at Baron’s expense.
The undersigned has previously filed a motion apprising the Court
that Baron was not represented on these issues. [DOC 264]. The Court
decided not to allow Baron to hire an attorney to represent him. The
undersigned then spent literally tens of hours attempting to work with Vogel,
fruitlessly. All the undersigned’s efforts were at the expense of the
undersigned and, not coincidentally, were at a large profit to Vogel. While
Baron and the undersigned pay the price for Vogel’s games of obstruction,
Vogel and his partners have enjoyed the profit. Counsel for Baron is unpaid,
and has no motive to waste time with obstructions. Every hour wasted is a
lost hour. By contrast, Vogel bills and bills. Every hour wasted is a billed
hour and more profit for Vogel.
As shown clearly by the attached exhibits, contrary to the cock & bull
story offered by Vogel to this Court, Baron (1) has repeatedly sought help
from the receiver, (2) has selected more than one new car, and (3) more than
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 1052 Filed 09/25/12 Page 4 of 10 PageID 60644
REPLY TO RECEIVER’S RESPONSE ON STAY PENDING APPEAL, PAGE 5
once has sent Vogel specifics as to a specific car selected to purchase. Each
of the cars Baron selected qualified for the $20,000.00 limit approved by the
Court in authorizing the car purchase.
As detailed above, repeatedly
a specific car and the PHONE
NUMBER of the seller was provided to Vogel. Each time, Vogel
obstructed the purchase and refused to allow Baron normal living
conditions. Vogel’s claims to the contrary are flatly untrue and Vogel has
used his position and the backing he has received from this Honorable Court
to sadistically trap Baron in sub-human living conditions. Meanwhile,
Baron is prohibited from earning a living, engaging in business transactions,
and from hiring counsel to defend himself, while Vogel lines his pockets
with Baron’s hard earned life savings and assets.
Notably, Vogel will soon be seeking to take more of Baron’s savings
in order to pay for the making of the fabrications and false representations
that have been offered in ‘defense’ of the motion to stay. Baron is expected
to pay -- as this Honorable Court has ordered in the past Baron pay-- for the
absolute fabrication and deceit that Vogel’s response seeks to sell. Vogel’s
story that Baron failed to select a new car or send Vogel the specifics is a
load of cock & bull. Vogel’s pattern is well worn-- manufacturing fabricated
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 1052 Filed 09/25/12 Page 5 of 10 PageID 60645
REPLY TO RECEIVER’S RESPONSE ON STAY PENDING APPEAL, PAGE 6
‘wrongdoing’ alleged against Baron. The facts, however, are that Vogel has
played a game of running up his fees while obstructing Baron’s efforts to
obtain normalized living conditions.
2. Has Vogel de-humanized Jeff Baron ?
Vogel so de-humanizes Baron that Baron’s lack of air in the scorching
Dallas summer heat, and lack of heat in the winter, and lack of an operative
vehicle are to Vogel merely “putative complaints”. Baron belongs, to
Vogel’s view, to some underclass of human that does not need a vehicle
because he “never drives”, and does not need heat and air because he
‘boasted’ about living a low-cost lifestyle. Aside from Vogel’s cock & bull
assertions, Vogel implicitly argues that Baron is more like an animal than a
human being who “did not really
want to move out of apartment or buy a
new car”.
Similarly, Jeff Baron is demoted by the Vogel receivership order to the
status of some sub-class of human that is not entitled to such basic rights as
the right to possess his own property, the right to earn an income and enter
business transactions, the right to hire legal counsel of his choice, the right to
defend claims against him in court before a jury, etc.
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 1052 Filed 09/25/12 Page 6 of 10 PageID 60646
REPLY TO RECEIVER’S RESPONSE ON STAY PENDING APPEAL, PAGE 7
Vogel’s response shamelessly argues that Baron ‘likes it that way’ and
does not want a vehicle, nor want heat and air in his home. Such offensive
reasoning is consistent with the sub-human treatment of Baron in the
receivership. ‘He is part beast’, Vogel implies in his argument-- Baron isn’t
like us, he doesn’t drive and he likes it
in without heating or air
conditioning in his home.
3. Vogel’s use of deceitful distraction
Vogel’s response focuses on distraction such as various allegations
regarding communication with the undersigned shortly before the deadline
for filing Vogel’s response to Baron’s stay motion. Similarly, Vogel’s
response attempts to place responsibility on Mr. Cochell, who was not
allowed by this Honorable Court to undertake a general representation of
Baron, and who was expressly limited by this Court to represent Baron with
respect to obtaining health insurance (after Vogel neglected to pay the
premium on Baron’s policy and his insurance was retroactively cancelled).
In addition to being offered as a distraction, Vogel’s response tells a
deceitful story. Vogel’s response makes it sound like (1) Jeff Fine didn’t
have the undersigned’s phone number, (2) Mr. Fine had to look up the
docket sheet to find counsel’s phone number, and (3) was then stumped
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 1052 Filed 09/25/12 Page 7 of 10 PageID 60647
REPLY TO RECEIVER’S RESPONSE ON STAY PENDING APPEAL, PAGE 8
because the number on the docket sheet is out of date. The truth is starkly
different form the bogus story passed off in Vogel’s response. The truth is as
follows:
The undersigned has known Jeff Fine for more than twenty years. Jeff
Fine has the undersigned’s working office number and
the undersigned’s cell
phone number. Moreover, David Schenck, and Peter Vogel also have the
undersigned’s cell phone number. In fact, David Schenck and Jeff Fine have
repeatedly
called the undersigned at his current office number (972-200-
0000) and at his cell phone number, when they
needed things on this very
case. In fact, Jeff Fine and Peter Vogel have also both called the
undersigned on his cell phone about matters for this very case.
So, for Jeff Fine to now go look at the docket sheet and call that old
phone number-- is an act,
a sham, a game used as a deception-- for the
purpose of play acting and making it sound like Jeff Fine made reasonable
and substantial efforts to contact the undersigned but was unable to. It is
deceit and nothing less because Jeff Fine knows the undersigned, has the
undersigned’s current office phone number, and has the undersigned’s cell
phone number, and has repeatedly used those numbers every other time Jeff
Fine wanted to contact the undersigned about this case.
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 1052 Filed 09/25/12 Page 8 of 10 PageID 60648
REPLY TO RECEIVER’S RESPONSE ON STAY PENDING APPEAL, PAGE 9
As part of an apparent tactic of distraction, Vogel’s response raises the
issue of his current counsel’s ethical issue with respect to accepting the
representation of Vogel. The issue is a distraction with no relevance to the
matter at hand.
1
4. Conclusion.
This Honorable Court ordered the receiver to provide Baron a new
vehicle and proper living conditions. Vogel didn’t do that. Instead, Vogel’s
response tells a cock & bull story that he would have provided Baron with a
new vehicle and habitable living conditions, except Baron prevented Vogel’s
vigorous efforts to do so and obstructed
Vogel from doing so. Vogel
claims that Baron would never provide the specific information of any car
that Baron wanted to purchase. The truth, as clearly evidenced by the
attached exhibits, is opposite. Baron requested a specific car be purchased
and provided Vogel with phone number and detailed information. Baron did
so more than once. However, Vogel obstructed Baron’s repeated efforts—to
Baron’s suffering and Vogel’s personal profit.
1
Vogel’s counsel have apparently mistyped “Baron” when searching their email because—contrary to the
claims made in their response-- the undersigned is in possession of email whereby Baron transmitted
privileged and confidential material (including, for example, a confidential draft of a letter to Vogel
regarding an issue as to his fee as special master) to more than one attorney at Vogel’s current counsel as
part of the consultations and communications engaged in when Baron had previously consulted with the
very same law firm with respect to their representing him in this very same lawsuit.
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 1052 Filed 09/25/12 Page 9 of 10 PageID 60649
REPLY TO RECEIVER’S RESPONSE ON STAY PENDING APPEAL, PAGE 10
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Gary N. Schepps
Gary N. Schepps
Texas State Bar No. 00791608
(972) 200-0000
(972) 200-0535 fax
Drawer 670804
Dallas, Texas 75367
E-mail: legal@schepps.net
APPELLATE COUNSEL
FOR JEFFREY BARON
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that this document 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
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 1052 Filed 09/25/12 Page 10 of 10 PageID 60650
From: Gary Schepps [mailto:legal@schepps.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 12:18 AM
To: BLAKLEY, JOHN DAVID
Subject: Re: FW: Car for Mr. Baron
John,
If the receiver has control over Jeff's money how can Jeff pay the TAX,
TITLE and LICENSE fees ? How can he do this prior
to purchasing a car.
The seller is not interested in getting a check, which he does not trust, and
has requested cash. Thus, by imposing arbitrary conditions, you have
effectively excluded Jeff from purchasing the car.
Moreover, it is not possible to "prior
to the date and time we meet with the
seller, ... handle all issues pertaining to tax, title, and license". You have
imposed impossible to meet conditions. Nobody is going to be fooled by
this.
Jeff needs a car. The judge ordered he be allowed to purchase one.
Jeff found a car and negotiated a purchase price. I asked the receiver either
to provide me the funds to purchase for Jeff, or to make payment
arrangements directly with the seller.
You have refused to do either.
Instead, you set up impossible to meet conditions, such as handling the tax
and title (where you hold all Jeff's assets), prior
the purchasing the vehicle.
Since the seller will not sign over his car title before being paid, it is not
possible to do what you have requested.
But, since you all have college educations, you obviously know this.
Thus, your impossible to meet conditions were set up... for the purpose of....
increasing your billing and keeping Jeff from actually having a vehicle.
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 1052-1 Filed 09/25/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID 60651
Yours truly,
Gary Schepps
Monday, March 14, 2011, 6:05:03 PM, you wrote:
Messrs. Schepps and Baron:
I have not received a response to my e-
m
ail below, offering assistance in
the purchase of a car picked out by Mr. Baron. It was my impression that
this issue required quick action to “take care of this before [Mr.
Baron’s chosen car] is sold to another buyer.” Does Mr. Baron still
intend to purchase this vehicle? Please advise.
Thank you,
John David Blakley
214.999.4753 direct
From: BLAKLEY, JOHN DAVID
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 1:12 PM
To: 'legal@schepps.net
'; 'jeffbaron1@gmail.com'
Cc: 'barrettlorand@yahoo.com
'; 'peter@barrettcrimelaw.com'; GOLDEN, BARRY; LOH,
PETER; VOGEL, PETER
Subject: Car for Mr. Baron
Messrs. Schepps and Baron:
The Receiver is in receipt of the below email from Mr. Schepps regarding
the purchase of a car for Mr. Baron. The Receiver is prepared to assist
Mr. Baron in the purchase of this vehicle and I will meet Mr. Baron (and,
if Mr. Baron believes he needs counsel present, Mr. Schepps) at the
seller’s location to consummate the purchase, but the following must
occur first:
1)
Mr. Baron (and/or Mr. Schepps) needs to set up a date and time to
meet with the seller to make the purchase, and then let me know that date
and time, as well as the seller’s location;
2)
The Receiver and his counsel will not be contacting or performing
any negotiations with the seller. I will simply be present to hand the
seller a check once Mr. Baron confirms he is satisfied with the car and
the terms of the purchase, and the necessary paperwork is completed and
exchanged. So, Mr. Baron (and/or Mr. Schepps), prior to
the date and
time we meet with the seller, needs to complete all negotiations with the
seller;
3)
The Receiver and his counsel will not be handling (other than
taking care of costs) any issues pertaining to tax, title, and license or
insurance. Again, I will simply be present to hand the seller a check
once Mr. Baron confirms he is satisfied with the car and the terms of the
purchase and the necessary paperwork is completed and exchanged. So, Mr.
Baron (and/or Mr. Schepps), prior to the date and time we meet with the
seller, needs to handle all issues pertaining to tax, title, and license
or insurance.
Once Mr. Baron (and/or Mr. Schepps) provides me the information requested
in No. (1) above, and confirms that the issues addressed in Nos. (2)-(3)
are completed, I will meet Mr. Baron (and, if Mr. Baron wishes, Mr.
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 1052-1 Filed 09/25/12 Page 2 of 8 PageID 60652
Schepps) at the seller’s location to consummate the purchase of the car.
Please advise.
John David Blakley
Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP
1601 Elm Street, Suite 3000 | Dallas, TX 75201
214.999.4753 direct
214.999.3753 fax
Gardere
| Bio | vCard
<image001.png>
********************************************************
NOTICE BY GARDERE WYNNE SEWELL LLP
This message, as well as any attached document, contains information from the law firm of
Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP that is confidential and/or privileged, or may contain attorney
work product. The information is intended only for the use of the addressee named above.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure,
copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this
message or its attachments is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have
received this message in error, please delete all electronic copies of this message and
its attachments, if any, destroy any hard copies you may have created, without disclosing
the contents, and notify the sender immediately. Unintended transmission does not
constitute waiver of the attorney-client privilege or any other privilege.
Unless expressly stated otherwise, nothing contained in this message should be construed
as a digital or electronic signature, nor is it intended to reflect an intention to make
an agreement by electronic means.
From: Gary Schepps [mailto:legal@schepps.net]
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 9:03 AM
To: VOGEL, PETER
Subject: Car for Jeff
Peter,
Jeff has found a car he would like to purchase. He
has worked out a price with the seller,
$18,500.00. The car is a 2008 Ford Edge.
The sellers name is Bart, phone is 903-952-0292.
Either tender me $18,5000 and I will go with Jeff
to do the purchase, or if that is not acceptable,
please send someone to do the purchase for Jeff.
It took Jeff a lot of effort to find this car,
please take care of this before it is sold to
another buyer.
Yours truly,
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 1052-1 Filed 09/25/12 Page 3 of 8 PageID 60653
Gary Schepps
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 1052-1 Filed 09/25/12 Page 4 of 8 PageID 60654
From: Gary Schepps <legal@schepps.net>
To: "GOLDEN, BARRY" <bgolden@gardere.com>
Subject: Fwd: re: Car for Jeffrey Baron
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:05:45 -0600
BARRY GOLDEN:
In light of your representations that you are ready, willing, and able to provide a new car, please pay for
the attached car. It is with a dealer, the price is rated as "great", and is within the price range set and
approved by the District Court.
Jeffrey Baron needs a car, and is requesting you immediately pay the dealer for this car before it is sold
to another purchaser.
Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter.
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 1052-1 Filed 09/25/12 Page 5 of 8 PageID 60655
From: Gary Schepps <legal@schepps.net>
To: "GOLDEN, BARRY" <bgolden@gardere.com>
Subject: RE: Car for Jeffrey Baron
Matter: JEBAJB
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 10:02:11 -0600
Peter,
I sent you the information with the Car and the Dealer information and the
Dealer Phone number.
The dealer is CarMax. I can meet you at any time, just let me know. If you
require Jeff to be personally present, I'll have to go pick him up. If I need
to do that, Friday morning is the best time for me-- but, the car may be sold
by all this delay. As I am sure you are well aware, when a good car is
priced low, you have to quickly purchase it-- or someone else will.
Yours Truly,
Gary Schepps
Wednesday, January 11, 2012, 7:10:38 AM You wrote:
Gary: Good morning. I am responding to your request below on
behalf of Barry. I recall your request for a car for Mr. Baron last
March 2011. At that time, we made it very clear we would assist
in the purchase of a car. All you had to do was provide us with the
name of a dealership in the area. At a mutually convenient time,
we would meet you there with Mr. Baron and pay for the car and
make sure that Mr. Baron took possession of it with proper title,
insurance, etc.
So, just like last March, we are standing by waiting to hear from
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 1052-1 Filed 09/25/12 Page 6 of 8 PageID 60656
you with the name of the dealership, its address, and a proposed
time for a meeting.
Thank you.
Peter
214-999-4391
From: "Gary Schepps" <legal@schepps.net>
To: "GOLDEN, BARRY" <bgolden@gardere.com
>
Subject: Fwd: re: Car for Jeffrey Baron
BARRY GOLDEN:
In light of your representations that you are ready, willing, and able to provide a new
car, please pay for the attached car. It is with a dealer, the price is rated as "great",
and is within the price range set and approved by the District Court.
Jeffrey Baron needs a car, and is requesting you immediately pay the dealer for this
car before it is sold to another purchaser.
Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter.
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 1052-1 Filed 09/25/12 Page 7 of 8 PageID 60657
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 1052-1 Filed 09/25/12 Page 8 of 8 PageID 60658
-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
NETSPHERE, INC., ET. AL. §
Plaintiffs §
§ Civil Action No. 3-09CV0988-F
v. §
JEFFREY BARON, ET. AL. §
Defendants. §
SWORN DECLARATION OF GARY SCHEPPS
“1. My name is Gary Schepps. I am appellate counsel for Jeff
Baron in appeals from orders in this case. 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 knowledge of the stated facts, which I learned in my role
as appellate counsel in appeals from orders entered in the
above entitled and numbered cause.
“2. I offered to Vogel, through his counsel, to have Vogel provide
a check to me in escrow, in order for me to supervise the car
purchase and return any unused funds to Vogel. Vogel,
however refused.
“3. Next, based on Vogel's demand to control the purchase
transaction, Jeff Baron located a vehicle to purchase,
negotiated a price with the owner, and I then provided the
owner's name, purchase information, and phone number to
Vogel to arrange payment. Vogel refused.
“4. Vogel instead raised impossible to meet pre-requisites
including that Jeff first have the car titled in his name, pay all
taxes and insurance, and then, Vogel would pay for the car.
Since no seller we could find would agree to transfer title of
their car before being paid, the conditions were just sham way
of Vogel saying NO.
“5. Later, I saw that Vogel represented in filings to the Court that
he was ready to pay for a new car. Vogel's counsel suggested
a dealer must be the seller and not a private person. So, Jeff
worked and found a car at a dealer. I secured and then sent to
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 1052-2 Filed 09/25/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID 60659
-2-
Vogel, through his counsel, complete information about the
car, including the car’s tag numbers, sticker, a picture of the
car, an appraisal of the car, and the PHONE NUMBER OF
THE DEALER, with a request for him to pay for the car. All
Vogel or his counsel had to do was pick up the phone and
make payment arrangements. Vogel refused.
“6. Exhibits “A”, “B” and “C” filed with this declaration are true,
accurate and authentic copies of email correspondence
between myself and Vogel, through his counsel. I sent to
Vogel all the information he needed, but Vogel just ignored it.
At that point, it was more than clear to me as Baron’s still
unpaid
appellate counsel that Vogel had no intention of
allowing the funding for a car or better living conditions. It
was clear that Vogel was playing a game to pad his billing at
Baron's personal expense.
“7. Similarly with respect living conditions for Baron, Vogel
required that a signed lease be presented to him for his
signature. However, Vogel refused to provide for the cost of
movers, utility deposits, insurance, and the like. Under those
conditions, Baron could not physically move. As it is, Baron
has been unable to obtain some medical treatment and testing
because after paying for his out of pocket share of his medical
needs and medications, Baron was unable to pay the
deductible necessary for the medical care he required. I raised
this to the attention of both the Court and Vogel, but unless
Baron was willing to compromise and waive his fundamental
right to privacy as to his medical care, funding for his out of
pocket medical costs was refused. In that circumstance,
without additional funding to the costs of relocating beyond
just the monthly rental agreement, it was not possible for me
to facilitate Jeff’s relocation. So, once again, the matter was,
for Vogel, another billing game at Baron's expense.
“8. I repeatedly raised the issue of Baron’s living conditions to
Vogel’s attention. My requests were generally ignored. For
example, over a year ago on July 25, 2011, I emailed Vogel
(through his counsel) that “Jeff has no air-conditioning in his
apartment and still needs a car-- that the Court authorized”.
Vogel responded by serving a subpoena on my law office trust
account to search for non-existent evidence that Baron had
paid me any money for representing him. Vogel expended
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 1052-2 Filed 09/25/12 Page 2 of 5 PageID 60660
-3-
huge efforts and expense in those efforts—all funneled into
his own, and his firm’s pockets—while Baron languished.
“9. While I took of my time to facilitate resolution of the issues, I
have not agreed to undertake representation of Baron on these
matters. I have previously filed a motion apprising the Court
that Baron was not represented on these issues and requesting
funding for an attorney to represent Jeff on the matters. [DOC
264]. Still, I spent literally tens of hours attempting to work
with Vogel, fruitlessly. All my efforts were at my expense.
While Baron and myself have paid the price for Vogel's
games of obstruction, Vogel and his partners clearly have to
this point enjoyed the profit. The undersigned appellate
counsel for Baron is still unpaid, and has no motive to waste
time with obstructions. Every hour wasted is a lost hour. By
contrast, Vogel bills and bills. Every hour that Vogel can
generate in conflict represents more profit for Vogel.
“10. As shown clearly by the attached exhibits, contrary to the
cock & bull story offered by Vogel to this Court, Baron (1)
has repeatedly sought help from the receiver, (2) has selected
more than one new car, and (3) more than once has sent Vogel
specifics as to a specific car selected to purchase. Each of the
cars Baron selected qualified for the $20,000.00 limit
approved by the Court in authorizing the car purchase.
“11. Repeatedly a specific car and the PHONE NUMBER of the
seller was provided to Vogel. Each time, Vogel obstructed
the purchase. Vogel's claims to the contrary are flatly untrue.
“12. Vogel’s story that Baron failed to select a new car or send
Vogel the specifics is a load of cock & bull. Vogel's pattern is
well worn-- manufacturing fabricated 'wrongdoing' alleged
against Baron. The facts, however, are that Vogel has played
a game of running up his fees while obstructing Baron's
efforts to obtain normalized living conditions.
“13. For the record, I have personally seen Jeff Baron drive, and
state further that my ability to represent him on appeal has
been substantially impaired by Baron’s lack of access to an
operable vehicle. Many times, effective representation
required Baron to meet with me at certain times, and he was
unable to do so because he lacks an operable vehicle. I have
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 1052-2 Filed 09/25/12 Page 3 of 5 PageID 60661
-4-
experienced the problem first hand with him, and in many
instances it has significantly impaired my ability to represent
him in the appeal.
“14. I have known Jeff Fine for more than twenty years. Jeff Fine
has my working office number and my cell phone number. I
know this because I gave him my cell phone number, and he
has called me on it, including about this case. He has also
called me at my working office phone number. Moreover,
David Schenck, and Peter Vogel also have my cell phone
number, and they both have called me on it. David Schenck
and Jeff Fine have repeatedly called me at my office number
(972-200-0000) and at my cell phone number, when they
needed things on this case.
“15. Jeff Fine knows me, has my current office phone number, and
has my cell phone number, and has repeatedly used those
numbers every other time he wanted to contact me about this
case.
“16. I personally spoke with David Schenck, and informed him
that I was not
receiving emails that he sent to me. The issue
was raised when counsel for the Trustee mentioned that I was
“cc’d” on an email from Schenck that I never received. I
called David and informed him of the problem with his email
to me. I have requested on my side a technical review of
communication from Schenck & Fine’s law firm, and it has
been shown to me that their firm uses a ‘spoofing’ email
system that is rejected by anti-spam protections of many email
servers, including for my law office. In non-technical terms
that means that Jeff Fine is sending emails from one email
address, but that email address does not really send out emails
and in fact, has no email server. The address listed by Fine’s
emails as sender is thus ‘fake’, (“spoofed” in computer
terminology), and is thus rejected by email servers that
prevent such email address forgery.
“17. Vogel is lying. Contrary to Vogel’s dishonest representations
to the Court, on more than one occasion I provided specific
information of a car that Baron wanted to purchase—
including on each occasion the phone number of the seller for
Vogel to call to pay for the car. The truth, as clearly
evidenced by the attached exhibits, is that Baron repeatedly
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 1052-2 Filed 09/25/12 Page 4 of 5 PageID 60662
-5-
requested a specific car be purchased and provided Vogel
with phone number and detailed information. However,
Vogel obstructed Baron’s repeated efforts—to Baron’s
continued suffering and Vogel’s personal profit.”
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing declaration is true and correct.
Signed this 25th day of September, 2012, in Dallas, Texas.
/s/ Gary N. Schepps
Gary N. Schepps
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 1052-2 Filed 09/25/12 Page 5 of 5 PageID 60663
