Appellant’s Response to Receiver Cashing out Stocks and IRAs Doc 337

RESPONSE TO [DOC#309]  - Page 1 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
DALLAS DIVISION 
 
NETSPHERE, INC.,      §   
MANILA INDUSTRIES, INC., and  § 
MUNISH KRISHAN,       § 
  Plaintiffs.           § 
  §  Civil Action No. 3-09CV0988-F 
  v.   §   
  § 
JEFFREY BARON, and      §   
ONDOVA LIMITED COMPANY,    § 
  Defendants.          § 
 
APPELLANT’S RESPONSE TO RECEIVER'S OMNIBUS MOTION TO 
PERMIT CASHING OUT OF STOCKS AND IRAS [DOC#309]  
 
Jeffrey Baron makes this objection and response and shows: 
1.  The receiver is seeking an order from this Court allowing accessing Jeff’s 
Roth IRA accounts to pay disputed attorneys’ fees.  The receiver’s request should 
be denied. 
2.  Pursuant  to  Texas  Law,  the  Roth  IRA  accounts  are  exempt  from 
execution. Tex.Prop.Code §42.0021; E.g., In re Youngblood, 29 F.3d 225 (5th Cir. 
1994).  
3.  Jeff claims this exemption in his IRAs, and objects to their liquidation.   
4.  It is also a longstanding principle of law that a receiver may take into his 
possession  only  “property  which  may  be  taken  in  execution”.  Booth  v.  Clark,  58 
U.S. 322, 331 (1855). 
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F   Document 337    Filed 03/02/11    Page 1 of 4   PageID 7662

RESPONSE TO [DOC#309]  - Page 2 
5.  The business which has ended in the ‘business divorce’ before this Court, 
was  generating  millions  of  dollars  in  profit.  Approximately  $8,000,000.00  was 
‘borrowed’  by  the  Plaintiff  in  this  lawsuit,  Krishan,  and  the  money  was  not 
returned.  That fact may be more understandable to the Court in the context of the 
background that the Plaintiff has a string of Felony indictments:  Theft and Forgery 
(multiple  indictments);  and  has  a  criminal  conviction  record.    Half  of  the  money 
the  Plaintiff has  ‘borrowed', pursuant to  the agreement Plaintiff  sued to  enforce  in 
this  Court, belongs to Jeff and the Village Trust, etc.  The receiver can access the 
money being held by Krishan, on behalf of Jeff and the disputed fees. 
6.   A  remaining  $2,000,000.00  was  delivered  to  the  AsiaTrust  Trustees 
and/or their attorneys.  When it came  time  to transfer the funds to the new trustee, 
the  money  was  reported  ‘gone’.  The  AsiaTrust trustee  claims that the money was 
spent in attorney’s fees in arriving at the global settlement agreement in this case. 
7.  This Court may take note that Mr. Pronske’s formal counterclaim clearly 
states  that  Jeff  stated  he  would  not personally be  paying Mr.  Pronske’s fees,   but 
that  the  fees  would  be  paid  by  AsiaTrust,  the  trustee.    Similarly,  Mr.  Shaver’s 
paperwork  tells  the  same  story,  he  was  to  be  paid  from  the  AsiaTrust  –  per  Mr. 
Shaver’s paperwork, Jeff repeatedly requested that Mr. Shaver’s fee be paid (there 
is/was $2,000,000.00 to pay the fees), but AsiaTrust, and/or their attorneys refused 
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F   Document 337    Filed 03/02/11    Page 2 of 4   PageID 7663

RESPONSE TO [DOC#309]  - Page 3 
to  release  the  funds.  The  receiver  can  access  that  money  being  held  by 
AsiaTrust and/or their attorneys, to pay the disputed fees. 
1
   
8.  If  equitable  factors  figure  in  the  Court’s  consideration  of  this  response,  
the court’s  attention is directed to the pattern that can be seen in  the  Pronske and 
Shaver  and  other’s  fee  disputes.    From  Jeff’s  side,  the  money  was  paid  out– 
$2,000,000.00  went  into  AsiaTrust  and/or  their  attorneys.    The  attorneys–  per 
Pronske’s  written  counterclaim–  agreed  to  look  to  AsiaTrust  for  payment.    Per 
Shaver’s  paperwork, Jeff repeatedly requested that the fees be paid, but AsiaTrust 
(which received the  $2,000,000.00), refused to pay the fees. 
9.   For  further  cause  should  same  be  necessary,  Jeff  Baron  adopts  and 
incorporate  by  reference  the  argument  and  authority raised  in  Appellants’  Limited 
Objection  To  The  Receiver's  First  Application  For  Reimbursement  Of  Fees 
Incurred  By  Receivership  Professional  Joshua  Cox  [Doc#190]  and  in  Appellants’ 
Joint  Objection  And  Response  To  (1)  The  Receiver's  First  Application  For 
Reimbursement Of  Fees  And Expenses  Incurred  By  The  Receiver [Doc#192]  and 
(2)  The  Receiver's  First  Application  For  Reimbursement  Of  Fees  And  Expenses 
Incurred  By  Gardere  Wynne  Sewell  LLP  [Doc#193]  and  Appellants’  Joint 
Response  and  Motion  to  Strike  the  Receiver's  Motion  For  Order  Confirming 
Propriety of Fund Management [Doc#245]. 
                                                
1
 The receiver correctly assumes that there was millions of dollars held by AsiaTrust.   It has not been moved by Jeff 
to some offshore account.  AsiaTrust had kept the money.   Notably,  this court has ordered AsiaTrust is a 
receivership party.  
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F   Document 337    Filed 03/02/11    Page 3 of 4   PageID 7664

RESPONSE TO [DOC#309]  - Page 4 
 
 
                          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 
                           
 
 
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 337    Filed 03/02/11    Page 4 of 4   PageID 7665