Appellants Joint Response and Objection Doc 252

RESPONSE TO [DOC#207]  - Page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
NETSPHERE, INC., § Civil Action No. 3-09CV0988-F
MANILA INDUSTRIES, INC., and §
MUNISH KRISHAN,  §
Plaintiffs.  §
§
v.  §
§
JEFFREY BARON, and §
ONDOVA LIMITED COMPANY, §
Defendants. §
APPELLANTS’ JOINT RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR 
LEAVE TO FILE PLAINTIFFS' PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT 
[DOC#207]
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 response and objection to 
Motion For Leave to File Plaintiffs' Proposed Findings of Fact [Doc#207].
1. The  plaintiff’s  motion  was  filed  without  conference  and  without  a 
certificate of conference as required by Local Rule 7.1.  Accordingly the plaintiff’s 
motion is not properly before the Court for consideration.
2. A  negative  inference  is  allowed  in  civil  cases  with  respect  to  Fifth 
Amendment privilege, only where the refusal to testify occurs after there has been 
probative evidence offered against the witness invoking the privilege. E.g.,  Baxter 
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F   Document 252    Filed 01/27/11    Page 1 of 3   PageID 5831

RESPONSE TO [DOC#207]  - Page 2
v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318  (1976).  In this  hearing there was  none, and 
accordingly, a negative inference is not supported.
3. The requested findings are not relevant to the motion to stay or vacate 
pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a) and Mr. Baron had no notice 
that such findings would be sought.  Since these issues are beyond the scope of the 
motion heard, Mr. Baron did not undertake to put on evidence to defend or rebut 
such  findings.    Mr.  Baron  specifically  had  objected  to  being  ambushed  at  the 
hearing,  and,  the  Court  having  seized  his  money,  Mr.  Baron  did  not  have  trial 
counsel to represent him on matters beyond the scope of the FRAP 8(a) motion.   
Mr. Baron has also previously objected to the lack of opportunity and means to 
conduct full discovery with respect to the relevant factual issues. 
4. The motion to stay was made specifically so Mr. Baron would be allowed 
to retain qualified legal counsel to represent him in the trial court.  Attempting to 
proceed  to  determine  factual  issues  beyond  the  scope  of  a  FRAP  8(a)  motion, 
attempts to  take advantage of the  unconstitutional  interference with Mr.  Baron's 
ability to obtain trial counsel of his choice pending appeal.
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F   Document 252    Filed 01/27/11    Page 2 of 3   PageID 5832

RESPONSE TO [DOC#207]  - Page 3
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Gary N. Schepps
Gary N. Schepps
State Bar No. 00791608
Drawer 670804
Dallas, Texas 75367
(214) 210-5940
(214) 347-4031 Facsimile
APPELLATE COUNSEL FOR 
JEFFREY BARON, 
NOVOPOINT, LLC, AND
QUANTEC, LLC.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This  is  to  certify  that  this  was  served  on  all  parties  who  receive  notification 
through the Court’s electronic filing system.
/s/ Gary N. Schepps
Gary N. Schepps
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F   Document 252    Filed 01/27/11    Page 3 of 3   PageID 5833