MOTION FOR LEAVE AND SUR-REPLY RE: [DOC#221] - Page 1IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASDALLAS DIVISIONNETSPHERE, INC., § Civil Action No. 3-09CV0988-FMANILA INDUSTRIES, INC., and §MUNISH KRISHAN, §Plaintiffs. §§v. §§JEFFREY BARON, and §ONDOVA LIMITED COMPANY, §Defendants. §APPELLANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR LEAVE AND SUR-REPLY TORECEIVER'S MOTION FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF ADDITIONALPERSONAL FUNDS [DOC#221]TO THE HONORABLE ROYAL FURGESON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE:COMES NOW, Appellant, defendant Jeffrey Baron and Appellants NovoPoint,LLC and Quantec, LLC and make this joint motion for leave and sur-reply toReceiver's Motion for Receiver's Motion for Reimbursement of Additional PersonalFunds [Doc#221]. Movants request the Court to allow the filing of this sur-reply.1. In his reply [Doc#262] the receiver has made a new accusation andaccused Mr. Baron of “Fraud on the Court”. Leave to file a sur-reply isappropriate in such a circumstance.Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 263 Filed 02/04/11 Page 1 of 5 PageID 6144MOTION FOR LEAVE AND SUR-REPLY RE: [DOC#221] - Page 22. The context of the receiver's sharp accusation is that the Appellantsraised to this Court's attention that the receiver’s counsel redacted the keyportion of the law in their briefing to this Court that 28 U.S.C. 2041 appliesonly to “Moneys Paid into Court.”3. Clearly, the 'quote' offered by the receiver to this Court in the receiver’sbriefing is materially misleading. If Mr. Baron's counsel had tried to ‘play’ thisCourt as the receiver’s counsel has, it is clear this Court would impose very severesanctions.4. Where the receiver has taken action that would clearly be sanctioned ifsome attorney had done that on behalf of Mr. Baron, Mr. Baron requests that theCourt not give succor to the receiver's attempt to escape its actions by accusing Mr.Baron of wrongdoing.7. It wasn't Mr. Baron who redacted key portions of a quoted law to changeits meaning. It was the receiver’s counsel. Yet, as is consistent with the posturingof this case before this Honorable Court, it is Mr. Baron who is accused of “fraudon the court”.8. The receiver's motion subject of this sur-reply sought $900 for openingnine separate bank accounts. A short and simple response was filed, adopting thediscussion of the law and controlling legal precedent previously briefed relevant tothe issues. One issue involves the requirement that money turned over to officersCase 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 263 Filed 02/04/11 Page 2 of 5 PageID 6145MOTION FOR LEAVE AND SUR-REPLY RE: [DOC#221] - Page 3of the court—pursuant to the controlling precedent cited by Mr. Baron1a receiveris an officer of the court— be deposited in US Treasury accounts.9. Obviously, if the funds are properly deposited in US Treasury accounts,re-payment of nine $100 payments by the receiver to open nine non-Treasuryaccounts is not necessary nor appropriate. Accordingly, noting the receiver'sredaction of the law in the argument incorporated by reference is directly relevantto the response.10. Similarly, as briefed in the previously filed argument which wasincorporated and referenced in Appellant’s response, the district court has beendivested of jurisdiction over the receivership order, pending appeal, andmodification of the status quo by disbursement of receivership assets to thereceiver is not allowed pursuant to controlling precedent of the United StatesSupreme Court and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.11. Much of the receiver's justification for this Court's acting with judicialdisregard for the clear and controlling precedent is that controlling precedent is old(and implicitly, so is our constitution) and quite a bit has also occurred since thecases were decided (and implicitly, since the constitution was written).1The Receiver's cite in its response is not exactly correct, as briefed by Mr. Baron, the receiver is an officer, not an‘office’ of the court.Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 263 Filed 02/04/11 Page 3 of 5 PageID 6146MOTION FOR LEAVE AND SUR-REPLY RE: [DOC#221] - Page 412. Judicial disregard for the constitution and long established legalprinciples and controlling precedent has been expressly discredited andrejected by the United States Supreme Court. E.g., Harrington v. Richter, 2011WL 148587, Supreme Court 2011. Even if controlling precedent and theconstitution are ‘old’ and pre-date airplane flight, they must still be honored bythis Court. That is the basis of our constitutional legal system.13. The ‘old’ cases cited by counsel for the Appellants, were cited as long-standing, established, and controlling precedent that a receiver is an officer of thecourt that appoints him. The holding is clear in the cases cited, and the law is longestablished. Great Western Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Harris, 198 U.S. 561, 574(1905); United States v. Pollard, 115 F.2d 134 (5th Cir. 1940).CONCLUSIONClearly, Mr. Baron did not engage in ‘fraud on the court’. Just as clearlycounsel for the receiver redacted the relevant provision of the law in ‘quoting’ thelaw to this Court. When such redaction was raised to the attention of this Court,the fallback position which seems to have great traction in these proceedings wasonce again played: ‘Mr. Baron. Fraud on the Court.’Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 263 Filed 02/04/11 Page 4 of 5 PageID 6147MOTION FOR LEAVE AND SUR-REPLY RE: [DOC#221] - Page 5Respectfully submitted,/s/ Gary N. ScheppsGary N. ScheppsState Bar No. 00791608Drawer 670804Dallas, Texas 75367(214) 210-5940(214) 347-4031 FacsimileAPPELLATE COUNSEL FORJEFFREY BARON,NOVOPOINT, LLC, ANDQUANTEC, LLCCERTIFICATE OF SERVICEThis is to certify that this was served on all parties who receive notificationthrough the Court’s electronic filing system./s/ Gary N. ScheppsGary N. ScheppsCERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCEThis is to certify that the undersigned has conferred with counsel for the receiver,and they oppose the relief requested./s/ Gary N. ScheppsGary N. ScheppsCase 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 263 Filed 02/04/11 Page 5 of 5 PageID 6148