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.   Some commonly known examples are: 1) Nazi demonizing Jews and other non-Germans in the WWII era;  2) Terrorists justifying the murder of innocents by convincing  the members of their society that the victims were members of an “evil” religion, race or ideology, thus justifying the murder.

In order to justify the enormous payments made to himself and his Gardere law firm, Peter Vogel has drafted and filed hundreds of pages of incendiary, false and defamatory statements concerning Jeff (using Jeff’s seized money), often omitting essential facts and even fabricating events. The receiver's punch-line is invariably “Jeff deserves the receiver is administering to him”.

A Frightening Recent Example of the Receiver's Propaganda

For example, on March 30,2011, Peter Vogel , through his attorney, Peter Loh, sent an emailto Jeff Baron inviting him to attend a teleconference, to be held on April 1, concerning the receiver’s intent to file tax returns on behalf of Jeff Baron and ttempts to obtain confidential information from Jeff’s former tax lawyer, Elizabeth Schurig (one of the “claimant lawyers” mentioned above). The email included access instructions along with a “dial in” phone number and was sent to Ms. Schurig, Jeff and a tax preparer hired by Mr. Vogel. 
On April 1, Mr. Vogel’s lawyer sent another email to Jeff informing him of an alternate number to dial for the conference. At the designated time, Jeff’s appellate counsel, Gary Schepps, dialed in to join the conference as instructed.  Upon Mr. Schepps entering the conference, he announced himself and discovered the other attendees were already in attendance.  Immediately after Mr. Schepps announced himself, the receiver yelled at Mr. Schepps, accusing him of trespassing and “breaking in” to a private phone conference, and abruptly terminated the phone conference within approximately 20 seconds of Mr. Schepps joining.

The obvious and perplexing question is: “Why in the world would the receiver invite someone to a conference then accuse them of ‘breaking in’"?  The answer came bluntly the following business day, April 4. On April 4, the receiver, Peter Vogel, filed an emergency Motion to Compel in court, telling the judge that there was an emergency concerning the “break in”, accusing Jeff and Mr. Schepps of a “despicable pattern of threatening and intimidating”, “obstructing the work of the receiver”  and  that Jeff and Mr. Schepps actions “scared” and “intimidated” Ms. Schurig and hijacked the conference call dial-in instructions from a third party, Jeff Harbin.

A few hours later, the judge obliged and signed the receiver's requested Order directing Ms. Schurig to disclose 72 categories of confidential information to the receiver. Forensic analysis was performed on the emails sent by the receiver, which uncontrovertibly prove the emails originated from the receiver's Gardere law firm and were delivered to Jeff Baron. Now there was proof of the orchestrated scheme designed to malign Jeff and obtain a sweeping disclosure order from the court.
After obtaining the forensic evidence, Jeff asked the judge for permission to file a motion for the receiver to produce the emails (the Judge has Ordered that Jeff is prohibited from making motions in the court without asking the Judge for permission in advance). The Judge promptly denied Jeff's request.

It is very important to note that the receiver is an arm of the U.S. District Court, appointed by the District Judge to fulfill its mandate.



Add new comment

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.