Judicial Activism Goes Berserk

Article written by Carey Branstetter

In a pending civil lawsuit in a Texas Federal Court, a constitutional nightmare is occurring that could have ominous consequences for all Americans. In violation of the Constitution, The activist federal judge in this case has made a U.S. business owner essentially a slave without any due process or hearing. All of the relevant details of this profoundly disturbing case are summarized at the case overview tab on LawInjustice.com.

No case in recent judicial history resembles more of a Stalinist show trial. The conduct appears to be more corruption than merely judicial activism and the litany of outrages occurring are almost beyond belief.

Recent Court Documents

Receivership Ruling Is "Reversed", Restoring (some) Civil Rights

The Court of Appeals has ruled that the receivership over Jeff was “abuse of (the judge’s) discretion”.

The ruling “reverses” the receivership that has left Jeff without his civil rights and assets for over two years. According to the ruling, Jeff’s freedom to travel, to enter into transactions and to own possessions will "soon" be restored, although he is left penniless. Presumably, his right to hire a lawyer will also be restored, but does not seem to be left with any money to do that. The diabetes research trust that Jeff founded also appears to be left without any funds.

Federal Ethics Center urges Congress to hold hearings on Jeff's case and others

The Federal Ethics Center urges Congress to hold hearings on Jeff's case and others. The letter addressed to Members of Congress is available to read at the FederalEthicsCenter.com website. (website is currently offline).

Stop Legalization of Human Bondage In Receiverships (Petition)

National Human Rights Organization, NOTEGA (notega.com) is sponsoring a petition to Stop Legalization of Human Bondage In American Receiverships. Click Here to read and sign the petition.

The petition begins as follows:

Federal judge puts Internet pioneer in civil lockdown

Article written by Barbara Hollingsworth, Washington Examiner

 When Jeff Baron came to Washington this month, he was wearing a borrowed suit.

Once upon a time, the Internet pioneer -- who taught himself computer programming and created innovative software to register domain names -- lived the good life in a Dallas suburb.

His company, Ondova, was a cash cow, pulling in $1.5 million in profit each month.

Diabetes Research Trust Ordered Liquidated for "2 cents on the Dollar"

2/12/2012 Update

In a grand finale', on January 31, 2012, Judge Furgeson  granted Peter Vogel's request to sell the remaining assets in the trust Jeff established to fund diabetes research. These assets, valued by Vogel at $60 million, are ordered sold for 2 cents on the dollars, in secret sales to undisclosed buyers. Insiders? The proceeds of over $ 1.2 million, from the trust's liquidation (valued by the adversaries at over $60 million) will go right into the bulging pockets of Mr. Vogel and his associates. Mr. Vogel's victims now include the millions of diabetes suffers whose lives would have been bettered through the contributions from this trust.   The related documents are listed below:

Judges' Marshalls Deployed to Intimidate Jeff's Family and Friends

As reported at SCJustice.com, the Judges "deployed nearly a dozen U.S. Marshals to barge into the homes of Mr. Barons' friends, family and acquaintances, intimidating, harassing anyone associated with Mr. Baron. Unbelievably, the Marshals, controlled by these judges, were instructed to defame Mr. Baron by making various allegations to Mr. Baron's acquaintances and neighbors. "These are the the most ludicrous allegations I have heard of and clearly retaliation for Mr. Baron's whistle blowing" says SCJustice.com.

James Eckels Charged with Criminal Wiretapping, Invasion of Privacy, and Breach of Duty

Attorney James Eckels, former lawyer for Jeff Baron and Quantec, LLC, turned co-conspirer has been charged with criminal wiretapping, invasion of privacy, and breach of fiduciary duty by another former client. Chris Faulkner, Eckels' former client sued Eckels for breach of duty and criminal wiretapping. Faulkner is the owner of Cassiopia Internet (A/K/A CI Host) where Eckels is general counsel.

Reports from Media Sent to Congress

Letters and reports from various media outlets to Congress, concerning Jeff's case, will be uploaded soon

Notable Quotes of Appellate Lawyer, Gary N. Schepps*

"The suspension of Mr. Baron’s constitutional rights and seizure of his assets has absolutely no basis in law and is a gross violation of the US Constitution. . . .The District Court’s order appointing receiver was issued without due process for a clearly improper and unconstitutional purpose. The damages being inflicted upon Mr. Baron by virtue of the order are very real, harsh, irreparable and immediate."


”My concern is that the Fifth Circuit has to make a choice. Do they acknowledge that there are a bunch of dishonest attorneys who have tried, literally, to conspire together to steal money from Jeff? Or, do they throw Jeff under the bus to 'protect' the 'good name' of the legal profession?"

Where did the Money Go?


Click on the Image for Full Size
(no article here)

Client Hijacked to Pay Legal Fees

Article written by John W. Toothman, commenting on a story published by tabloid, "Texas Lawyer", regarding Jeff's case. Mr. Toothman is a lawyer and co-author of "Legal Fees: Law & Management" and is also the author of blog.civiliansguidetolawyers.com

Normally a client may hire and fire lawyers at will, subject only to the lawyer agreeing to be retained. If there’s a dispute over the fees, it gets resolved in the normal course in a court proceeding or perhaps by a special fee arbitration proceeding. But the claims of lawyers for payment of their fees are not special, although in bankruptcy, for example, certain claims do have priority otherwise no one would take on bankruptcy cases.

Lawyers' "Claims" against Jeff Baron

When even the most basic evidence is examined, it is clear that Jeff paid his lawyers in full pursuant to the terms of their engagement agreements. The groundless nature of the claims are from attorneys’ own documentation and sworn testimony:

  • Attorney Stanly Broome wants more than the $10,000.00 per month capped fee he was paid. His claim is that his contract does not contain any term limiting the amount of fees which may be incurred by the attorneys in any month. However, Broome’s assertion is so groundless that it is hard to imagine anyone making it with a straight face. Broome’s contract contains a clear provision expressly limiting the amount of fees which may be incurred by the attorneys to $10,000.00 per month.

Why Were So Many Lawyers Involved in Jeff's Case?

In the dispute that preceded the receivership—a dispute that lasted five years,Jeff, Ondova, the diabetes research trust, and several separate companies were forced to defend numerous suits in federal and state court in multiple jurisdictions (California, US Virgin Islands, Texas, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals-which ruled in Jeff's favor) brought by Krishan/Netsphere/MacPete.  It appeared that Krishan/MacPete’s tactic was to file an abundance of lawsuits in hopes that Jeff would not be able to sustain the assault and bankrupt Jeff.

The trustee of the research trust insisted on independent counsel for the trust and trust companies; therefore, the number of attorneys required to defend the suits was very large. Prior to Judge Furgeson’s court where the receivership was initiated, Jeff and the defendants were successful in every suit.

Are the Court and Peter Vogel engaging in Victim Blaming?

Victim Blaming is an age-old psychological tactic used by wrongdoers, including some governments, to demonize their victims .In doing so, the perpetrator deflects responsibility of his wrongful acts and directs responsibility to the victim, himself. In its sinister form, the perpetrator utilizes propaganda, lying and fabricating events to make the victim appear evil.

Why Does Jeff Baron's Case have the Potential to Affect All Americans

This case is more than simply about Jeff Baron. It is about our government's encroachment on the fundamental tenets and values that we Americans have fought more than 200 years to maintain. The precedent that this case is setting may well impact the lives of all Americans and the rights we take for granted--such as our fundamental right to own property. In deciding whether this case should concern you, you should ask yourself two basic questions:

  1. Should the government (in this instance a US judge) by permitted to seize all of your property (your home, bank accounts, car, clothing, etc..) and arbitrarily redistribute it without a hearing, trial, judgment?
  2. Should the government (in this instance a US judge) be entitled to prevent you from being represented by counsel of your choice (when you have money to pay a lawyer)?

Why Do the Judge and Receiver Blog Together on a Site that Features Jeff's Case as a Topic?

The judge in Jeff's case, William Royal Furgeson and the Receiver, Peter S. Vogel blog together on Karl Bayer's Blog*(each has a designated commentator's page). A feature topic of this blog is Jeff Baron's case. In addition, Karl Bayer and Judge Furgeson recently published an article regarding "special masters" and presented the article to the Texas Bar. Although Peter Vogel apparently did not attend this presentation, he is cited repeatedly in the article. Is this all a coincidence?

Why is Jeff Being Denied a Jury?

The jury is the cornerstone of a fair justice system. Recognizing this is the case, the framers of our Constitution provided Americans with guarantees of jury trials in the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Amendments.

The American justice system is designed for juries to work hand-in-hand with judges to render fair and just decisions. In proceedings involving honest judges, this system works extremely well, while in proceedings involving a corrupt process, juries perform an even more important role . In these proceedings, juries provide an obstacle to the corruption, albeit not an insurmountable one, because juries have the opportunity to render an independent decision. For a victim of a corrupt judicial process, in which the result is preordained by the judge, the jury provides the only hope for justice.

Motion To Disqualify Judge

On Mr. Schepps filed a motion to disqualify Judge Furgeson due to the appearance of bias in favor of lawyers in the case. Click Here to view motion. Some excerpts from transcripts demonstrating this bias can be viewed here.  The motion was denied.


Subscribe to Law Injustice RSS