-2-IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASDALLAS DIVISIONNETSPHERE, INC., §MANILA INDUSTRIES, INC., and §MUNISH KRISHAN, §Plaintiffs. §§ Civil Action No. 3-09CV0988-Fv. §§JEFFREY BARON, and §ONDOVA LIMITED COMPANY, §Defendants. §RESPONSE, OBJECTION, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE, ANDMOTION FOR RELIEF WITH RESPECT TO SHERMAN’S MOTION TOBE GIVEN HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OF JEFFBARON’S MONEY [DOC 467]TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE ROYAL FURGESON:COMES NOW JEFF BARON, Appellant, and makes this response, andjointly moves this Court to grant leave to file the included motion for relief to allowJeff access to his money to hire expert witnesses to offer evidence as to thereasonableness and necessity of the claimed fees, to provide funding for theemployment of trial counsel and legal assistants to assist in investigating andresponding to Sherman’s motion, to provide funding for legal research on westlawand lexis, to allow discovery including for disclosures, document production anddepositions.1. Jeff Baron moves for access to his money sufficient to hire experiencedand qualified federal trial counsel to defend Sherman’s motion [DOC 467], to hireexperts to offer testimony as to the reasonableness of the fees demanded byCase 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 556 Filed 05/10/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID 18878-3-Sherman, and to pay expenses such as for legal research.2. Sherman’s motion is lengthy, but lacks any statement of the legal groundsfor the relief requested by the movant. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(b)(1)(B); Intera Corp. v.Henderson, 428 F.3d 605, 611 (6th Cir. 2005). Jeff Baron accordingly moves tostrike the motion, and jointly and in the alternative to require a more definitestatement so that a more specific response can be made.3. Notably, the district court has been divested of jurisdiction over thereceivership, and lacks jurisdiction to award attorneys fees with respect to work onthe matter on appeal. As a matter of established law, when Jeff appealed thereceivership order the District Court was divested of jurisdiction as to mattersrelating to the receivership orders and subsequent orders and, for that reason, feescannot be recovered in the district court for work relating to those orders. Taylor v.Sterrett, 640 F.2d 663, 668 (5th Cir. 1981).4. In our country, absent statutory authority the "American Rule" applieswith respect to attorney's fees. Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. WestVirginia Dept. of Health and Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598, 602 (2001) ("ageneral practice of not awarding fees to a prevailing party absent explicit statutoryauthority."); KeyTronic Corp. v. United States, 511 U.S. 809, 815 (1994) (attorney'sfees are not a recoverable cost of litigation "absent explicit congressionalauthorization.").5. No provision of the bankruptcy code, authorized the Trustee to seek areceivership in order to reduce the amount of ‘claims’ that might be made in theCase 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 556 Filed 05/10/11 Page 2 of 4 PageID 18879-4-bankruptcy court. The fees requested are also grossly excessive and unreasonable.6. The trustee's admission that the receivership was intended to extend thepower and jurisdiction of the bankruptcy proceeding is new evidence which revealsthe clear unlawfulness of the original motion and order. Congress has expresslyprohibited a court from imposing receivership as an extension of a bankruptcyproceeding. 11 U.S.C. §105(b).7. The Trustee’s further admission is shocking– he secretly collaborated ex-parte with Peter Vogel who was employed as a Special Master to have Peter Vogelappointed as receiver over Jeff Baron (by which Peter Vogel and his law firm havebeen allowed to bill what is now around a million dollars in fees to ‘administer’ thereceivership). Upon his appointment, Peter Vogel withdrew the fee objection JeffBaron had made to the Trustee’s grossly excessive attorney’s fee application in thebankruptcy court. Jeff Baron moves that an independent investigator be appointedto investigate the apparent gross misconduct on the part of Peter Vogel as specialmaster—engaging in secret ex-parte communications with Sherman in collaborationover the filing of a motion to appoint himself as receiver over Jeff Baron from whichhe and his firm would be able to bill approximately a million dollars in fees. Jointlyand in the alternative Jeff moves for access to his funds to be allowed to retaincounsel to protect and prosecute Jeff’s interests with respect to the conduct of PeterVogel and Mr. Sherman. Jeff Baron further moves that the Court enter an order forPeter Vogel to disclose the full contents of all ex-parte communications he engagedin while employed as special master. Jeff Baron further respectfully moves theCase 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 556 Filed 05/10/11 Page 3 of 4 PageID 18880-5-Court to disclose the contents of all ex-parte communications, if any, between PeterVogel and the Court or Court personnel. Jeff Baron jointly and respectfully movesthe Court to disclose the contents of all ex-parte communications regarding this case,Peter Vogel, the trustee, or Jeff Baron, that was conducted between this Court andthe bankruptcy judge.Respectfully submitted,/s/ Gary N. ScheppsGary N. ScheppsTexas State Bar No. 00791608Drawer 670804Dallas, Texas 75367(214) 210-5940 - Telephone(214) 347-4031 - FacsimileEmail: legal@schepps.netFOR JEFFREY BARONCERTIFICATE OF SERVICEThis is to certify that this filing was served this day on all parties who receivenotification through the Court’s electronic filing system.CERTIFIED BY: /s/ Gary N. ScheppsGary N. ScheppsCOURT ORDERED TRIAL COUNSELFOR JEFFREY BARONCase 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 556 Filed 05/10/11 Page 4 of 4 PageID 18881