Federal Judge Puts Internet Pioneer in Civil Lockdown

Washington Examiner ^ | February 15, 2012 | Barbara F. Hollingsworth

[Justice21]

Note: Judge appointed by President Clinton

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.

It all started unraveling when Baron, now 44, hired some high-powered Texas attorneys to help manage his holdings, and he was approached by a potential business partner who promised to turn Ondova into the next Google.

Baron admits he was naive and failed to perform due diligence as his lawyers set up an "elaborate" network of businesses offshore and his erstwhile partner turned out to be a convicted felon who sold porn online.

After a lengthy series of legal battles, Ondova was eventually forced into bankruptcy. But it wasn't until Baron found himself in the Dallas courtroom of U.S. District Judge Royal Furgeson that his real nightmare began.

At a June 19, 2009, hearing in his civil case, Judge Furgeson warned Baron that "failure to comply" with a previous court order to renew Ondova's domain names would be considered "contempt, punishable by lots of dollars, punishable by possible jail, death. ... You are a fool, a fool, a fool to screw with a federal judge, and if you don't understand that, I can make you understand it. I have the force of the Navy, Army, Marines and Navy (sic) behind me."

A shaken Baron agreed to give up half of his Internet assets to "buy peace." In 2010, he signed a Global Settlement Agreement for all outstanding claims against him. "There were 1,500 filings. I complied with the settlement agreement 100 percent," he told The Washington Examiner.

On Nov. 14, 2010, three days after Baron "mildly" objected to what he characterized as inflated legal bills, Judge Furgeson made good on his threat, issuing an ex parte order that placed all of Baron's business and personal assets, including his $1.2 million individual retirement account and a $60 million juvenile diabetes trust fund -- and incredibly, Baron himself -- into receivership. Baron's former attorney, Peter Vogel, was given "exclusive control over any and all Receivership Parties, which term shall include Jeffrey Baron."

A Dec. 2, 2010, email to Baron by Barry Golden, Vogel's attorney, clarified exactly what this meant: "you are expressly prohibited from retaining any legal counsel ... you are expressly prohibited from disbursing any Receiver Funds provided to you by the Receiver for anything other than the following daily-living expenses for yourself only: local transportation, meals, home utilities, medical care and medicine."

According to LawInjustice.com, there are no other reported cases in American history in which a person has been placed in receivership. Baron, as well as his home, car, personal bank accounts and even his clothes, remain under Vogel's total control.

He can be jailed for contempt if he removes anything from the Northern District of Texas, including the shirt on his back. To seek help from Congress, "I literally borrowed clothes to come to D.C.", he told us.

On Jan. 31, Dallas attorney Gary Schepps filed an emergency motion in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in an unsuccessful attempt to stop Furgeson's order to "immediately liquidate $60 million in assets for $0.02 cents on the dollar in pre-arranged secret sales" for two of Baron's companies, neither of which "was the party to any claim in the District court."

A former multimillionaire doesn't get much sympathy nowadays. But if Jeff Baron can be held in this weird form of civil lockdown even though he's never been charged with any crime and never had any judgments against him, what are you going to do when they come for you?

Barbara F. Hollingsworth is The Examiner's local opinion editor

[BuckeyeTexan]

The Fifth Circuit has reviewed every order — because Baron appealed every order — and affirmed the judge’s actions.  The bankruptcy judge found that Jeffrey Baron was guilty of theft of services and that the bankruptcy was a sham to avoid contempt proceedings in the District Court.  Mr. Baron has had every remedial process available to him.  The most pathetic part was that he tried to buy peace through a settlement agreement.  Yes, he signed it, but he never would execute it.  He wouldn’t turn over the domain names he stole.  That’s why the case is in federal court.  The plaintiffs had to sue him to enforce the settlement agreement.  And he still hasn’t executed the settlement.  He has fought every step of the way.  

[BuckeyeTexan]

P.S. You haven’t seen/read all the court files because that blog you linked didn’t post all of them.

[surfer]

This is America 2.0...thank the progressives! There is nothing we personally own anymore not even ourselves!!!

America is turning into hell!

[Strider2]

Can anyone explain what “$0.02 cents” is? No, it’s not a typo.

[glenmeadow]

BuckeyeTexan, you are wrong on everything you've said in your post. There are something like 1000 court filings in this case. If you start to read more of them, it becomes clear that the accusations against this Internet entrepreneur are a coordinated cover up for "taking" (trying to use a nice word instead of "stealing") $10 million dollars from him. Read the settlement agreement and the docs. Baron did execute and comply with it. He paid all of his lawyers, and so on. The bankruptcy judge is in on the cover-up, having secret, closed-door meetings with the other judge and the people who "took" Baron's money. I found this analysis as well: Click Here For Article. It's hard for most Americans to believe, but some of our federal judges are indeed corrupt, and two of those judges are involved in this case. Baron has been forbidden from having any paid lawyer even for his appeals, so its impossible for him (or for the dozens of other companies in that seizure order) to have any semblance of a fair result. There is absolutely no due process here, so what a court of appeals court finds is meaningless (you are also wrong about the appeals court affirming the orders...In reading the orders, I know that none have been affirmed yet). You can't have any justice without due process. A corrupt process without due process always results in unjust and false outcomes. This is a principle that every civilized society acknowledges and a principle very important to our founding fathers.