Petition for Writ of Mandamus- Novo Point, LLC v Daniel Sherman, Trustee

No. 
/ 
)_ 
--/()ltff 
3Jn 
tbe 
Wntteb 
~tate~ 
Qtourt 
of 
~ppeal~ 
for 
tbe 
.1' 
tftb 
Qtfrtuit 
In 
re: NOVO 
POINT 
LLC, 
Petitioner 
NOVO 
POINT 
LLC, 
Petitioner 
v. 
DANIEL 
J. 
SHERMAN, 
Real Party 
In 
Interest 
On 
Petition 
for 
Writ 
of 
Mandamus 
to 
The 
United 
States 
Bankruptcy 
Court 
Northern 
District 
of 
Texas, 
Dallas 
Division 
Bankruptcy 
Case 
No. 09-34 784-sgj11 
Honorable 
Stacey 
G. 
C. 
Jernigan, 
Judge 
Presiding 
and 
Tawana 
C. 
Marshall, 
Clerk 
of 
Court 
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 
Gary 
N. 
Schepps 
Texas 
State 
Bar 
No. 
00791608 
5400 
LBJ 
Freeway, 
Suite 
1200 
Dallas, 
Texas 
75240 
(972) 200-0000 -
Telephone 
(972) 200-0535 -
Facsimile 
Email: legal@schepps.net 
For 
Petitioner 
-------
--
---
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 1     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

CERTIFICATE 
OF 
INTERESTED 
PERSONS 
The 
undersigned 
counsel  of  record 
certifies 
that 
the 
following 
listed 
persons 
and 
entities 
have 
an 
interest 
in 
the 
outcome 
of 
this 
case. 
These 
representations 
are 
made 
in 
order 
that 
the 
judges 
of 
this 
Court 
may 
evaluate 
possible 
disqualification 
or 
recusal. 
1. 
PRINCIPAL 
PARTIES 
IN 
THE 
BANKRUPTCY 
CASE 
a. 
DEBTOR: 
Ondova 
Ltd. 
b. 
Beneficial 
Equity 
holder 
of 
Debtor: 
Jeffrey 
Baron 
c. 
Chapter 
11 
Trustee: 
Daniel 
J. 
Sherman 
2. 
PARTIES 
OF 
INTEREST 
IN 
THIS 
PETITION 
a. 
Petitioner: 
Novo 
Point 
LLC 
b. 
Real 
Party 
in 
Interest: 
Daniel 
J. 
Sherman 
c. 
Respondents: 
a. 
Honorable 
Stacey 
G. 
C. 
Jernigan 
b. 
Tawana 
C. 
Marshall, 
Clerk 
of 
Court 
3. 
ATTORNEYS 
& 
THEIR 
PARTIES 
Daniel 
J. 
Sherman 
representing 
Daniel 
J. 
Sherman 
(Trustee) 
Sherman 
& 
Yaquinto 
509 N. 
Montclair 
Ave. 
Dallas, 
TX 
75208-5498 
(214) 942-5502 
djsherman@syllp.com 
Jay 
Ong 
representing 
Daniel 
J. 
Sherman 
Trustee 
Munsch 
Hardt 
Kopf 
Harr, 
P.C. 
& 
Lee 
Jacob 
Pannier 
Munsch, 
Hardt, 
Kopf 
& 
Harr, 
P.C. 
-3-
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 2     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

3800 Lincoln 
Plaza 
500 N 
Akard 
St 
Dallas, 
TX 75201 
(214) 855-7500 
"/./ 
Raymond 
J. 
Urbanik 
representing 
Daniel 
J. 
Sherman; 
Munsch 
Hardt 
Kopf 
& 
Harr, 
P.C. 
Munsch, 
Hardt, 
Kopf 
& 
Harr 
PC 
500 N. 
Akard 
St., 
Ste. 
3800 
Dallas, 
TX 75201-6659 
214-855-7590 
214-978-4374 (fax) 
rurbanik@munsch.com 
Charla 
Aldous 
representing 
Aldous 
Law 
Firm 
Aldous 
Law 
Firm 
2305 
Cedar 
Springs, 
Suite 
200 
Dallas, 
TX 75201 
214-526-5595 
Mark 
Ed 
ward 
Andrews 
representing 
Grupo 
Andrea, 
S.A. 
de 
C.V. 
Cox 
Smith 
Matthews 
Incorporated 
1201 
Elm 
Street, 
Suite 
3300 
Dallas, 
TX 75270 
(214)698-7800 
(214)698-7899 (fax) 
Stanley 
D. 
Broome 
representing 
Jeffrey 
Baron 
The 
Broome 
Law 
Firm, 
PLLC 
105 
Decker 
Court 
Suite 
850 
Irving, TX 75062 
(214)574-7500 
(214)574-7501 (fax) 
sbroome@broomelegal.com 
-4-
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 3     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

Gerrit 
M. 
Pronske 
representing 
Pronske 
& 
Patel, 
PC 
Pronske 
& 
Patel, 
P.C. 
2200 Ross Avenue 
Suite 
5350 
Dallas, 
TX 
75201 
214 658-6500 
214-658-6509 (fax) 
Craig 
Alan 
Capua 
representing 
Iguana 
Consulting, 
LLC, 
Novo 
Point, 
LLC, 
Quantec, 
LLC 
West 
& Associates, 
LLP 
320 
South 
R.L. 
Thornton 
Fwy., 
Ste. 
300 
Dallas, TX 75203 
(214) 941-1881 
(214) 941-1399 
(fax) 
craig.c@westllp.com 
Jeanne 
Crandall 
representing 
Reyna 
Hinds 
& 
Crandall 
Reyna, 
Hinds 
& 
Crandall 
1201 
Elm 
Street, 
Suite 
3850 
Dallas, TX 75270 
(214) 760-8100 x103 
(214) 760-8109 
(fax) 
jeannecrandall@sbcglobal.net 
Angela 
B. 
Degeyter 
representing 
VeriSign, 
Inc. 
Vinson & Elkins, LLP 
2001 Ross Ave., Ste. 
3700 
Dallas, TX 75201-2975 
(214) 220-7763 
(214) 999-7763 
(fax) 
adegeyter@vela 
w. 
com 
James 
Michael 
Eckels 
Purportedly 
representing 
"Quantec, 
LLC 
Novo 
Point, 
LLC, 
The 
Village 
Trust" 
7505 
John 
Carpenter 
Freeway 
Dallas, TX 7524 7 
(972) 439-1882 
(817) 704-4489 
(fax) 
-5-
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 4     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

jamesmeckels@gmail.com 
William 
Lloyd 
Foreman 
representing 
Owens, 
Clary 
& 
Aiken, 
LLP 
Owens, 
Clary 
& 
Aiken, 
L.L.P. 
700 N. 
Pearl 
St., No. 
1600 
Dallas, TX 75201 
(214)698-2107 
214-698-2121 (fax) 
wforeman@oca -law .com 
Michael 
A. 
Grow 
representing 
Arent 
Fox 
LLP 
Grupo 
Andrea, 
S.A. 
de 
C.V. 
1050 
Connecticut 
Ave, 
NW 
Washington, 
DC 20036 
202-857-6395 
Michael 
S. 
Haynes 
representing 
Peter 
S. 
Vogel 
Akin 
Gump 
Strauss 
Hauer 
& 
Feld 
LLP 
1700 Pacific 
Avenue 
Suite 
4100 
Dallas, TX 75201 
(214)969-2845 
(214)969-4343 (fax) 
mhaynes@akingump.com 
Melissa 
S. 
Hayward 
representing 
Manila 
Industries, 
Inc.; 
Netsphere, 
Inc.; 
Franklin 
Skierski 
Lovall 
Hayward 
LLP 
Franklin 
Skierski 
Lovall 
Hayward 
LLP 
10501 
N. 
Central 
Expry, 
Ste. 
106 
Dallas, 
TX 
75231 
972-755-7104 
972-755-7114 (fax) 
MHayward@FSLHla 
w .com 
Edwin 
Paul 
Keiffer 
representing 
Ondova 
Limited 
Company; 
Wright 
Ginsberg 
Brusilow, 
P.C. 
-6-
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 5     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

Wright 
Ginsberg 
Brusilow 
P.C. 
Republic 
Center, 
Suite 
4150 
325 
North 
St. 
Paul 
Street 
Dallas, 
TX 75201 
(214) 
651-6517 
(214) 744-2615 (fax) 
pkeiffer@wgblawfirm.com 
Bradley 
Clay 
Knapp 
representing 
Locke 
Lord 
Bissell 
& 
Liddell 
LLP 
Locke 
Lord 
Bissell 
& 
Liddell 
2200 
Ross 
Avenue, 
Suite 
2200 
Dallas, 
TX 75201 
(214)740-8586 
(214)756-8586 (fax) 
bkna 
pp@lockelord.com 
Ryan 
Kenneth 
Lurich 
representingFriedman 
& 
Feiger, 
L.L.P. 
Friedman 
& Feiger, 
L.L.P. 
5301 
Spring 
Valley 
Rd. 
Ste 
200 
Dallas, 
TX 
75254 
(972) 
788-1400 
(972) 
788-2667 
(fax) 
rlurich@fflawoffice.com 
Gary 
G. 
Lyon 
representing 
Gary 
G. 
Lyon 
Gary 
G.  Lyon, 
Attorney 
at 
Law 
P.O. Box 
1227 
Anna, 
TX 
75409-1227 
972-977-7221 
214-831-0411 (fax) 
glyon.attorney@gmail.com 
Dennis 
Oliver 
Olson 
representing 
Novo 
Point, 
LLC 
Olson, 
Nicoud 
& Gueck, 
LLP 
1201 
Main 
Street, 
Suite 
24 
70 
Dallas, 
TX 
75202 
(214) 
979-7300 
(214) 979-7301 (fax) 
denniso@dallas-la 
w. 
com 
-7-
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 6     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

Franklin 
H. 
Perry 
Representing 
Payne 
and 
Blanchard, 
LLP; HCB, LLC; 
Marshden, 
LLC; 
Realty 
Investment 
Management, 
LLC; 
Denis 
Kleinfeld 
Payne 
and 
Blanchard, 
LLP 
Plaza 
of 
the 
Americas 
700 N. 
Pearl 
St. 
Ste 
500, 
North 
Tower 
Dallas, TX 75201-7424 
Patrick 
W. 
Powers 
representing 
Powers 
Taylor 
LLP 
Cash 
Powers 
Taylor, 
LLP 
Powers 
Taylor 
LLP 
8150 N. 
Central 
Expressway, 
Suite 
1575 
Dallas, 
TX 
75206 
(214) 239-8900 
(214) 239-8901 (fax) 
pa 
trick@cptla wfirm. com 
Jeffrey 
H. 
Rasansky 
representing 
Rasansky 
Law 
Firm 
Rasansky 
Law 
Firm 
2525 McKinnon, 
Suite 
725 
Dallas, 
TX 75201 
214-651-6100 
rwolf@jrlawfirm.com 
David 
D. 
Ritter 
representing 
Grupo 
Andrea, 
S.A. 
de 
C.V. 
Kane, Russell, 
Coleman 
& 
Logan 
3700 
Thanksgiving 
Tower 
1601 
Elm 
St. 
Dallas, 
TX 75201-7207 
(214)777-4200 
(214) 777-0049 (fax) 
dritter@krcl.com 
-8-
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 7     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

Alec 
P. 
Rosenberg 
representing 
Grupo 
Andrea, 
S.A. 
de 
C.V. 
Arent 
Fox 
LLP 
1050 
Connecticut 
Ave N.W. 
Washington, 
DC 20036 
202-857-6395 
Deirdre 
B. 
Ruckman 
representing 
Peter 
S. 
Vogel 
Gardere,Wynne 
& 
Sewell 
1601 
Elm 
St., 
Suite 
3000 
Dallas, 
TX 
75201 
(214) 999-4250 
(214) 999-3250 (fax) 
druckman@gardere.com 
Eric 
Lopez 
Schnabel 
representing 
VeriSign, 
Inc. 
Dorsey & 
Witney 
(Delaware) 
LLP 
300 
Delaware 
Ave., 
Ste 
1010 
Wilmington, 
DE 
19801 
302-425-7171 
302-425-7175 (fax) 
Doug 
D. 
Skierski 
representing 
Manila 
Industries, 
Inc.; 
Netsphere, 
Inc.; 
Franklin 
Skierski 
Lovall 
Hayward 
LLP 
10501 N. 
Central 
Expwy, 
Suite 
106 
Dallas, TX 75231 
(972) 755-7100 
(972) 755-7110 (fax) 
dskierski@fslhla w .com 
Eric 
J. 
Taube 
representing 
Asia 
Trust 
Limited, 
as 
Trustee 
of 
The, 
Village 
Trust; 
Iguana 
Consulting, 
LLC; 
Novo 
Point, 
Mark 
C. 
Taylor 
LLC; 
Quantec, 
LLC;Hohmann, 
Taube 
& 
Summers, 
L.L.P 
Hohmann. 
Taube 
& 
Summers, 
L.L.P. 
100 
Congress 
Ave., 
18th 
Floor 
Austin, 
TX 78701 
512-472-5997 
-9-
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 8     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

512-4 72-5248 (fax) 
erict@hts-law.com,markt@hts-law.com,sherris@hts-law.com,annmariej@hts-law.com 
Martin 
Keith 
Thomas 
purportedly 
representing 
Jeffrey 
Baron 
Thomas 
& Sobol 
P.O. Box 36528 
Dallas, TX 75235 
214-951-9466 
214-951-9007 (fax) 
thomas 
12@swbell.net 
Gary 
N. 
Schepps 
Drawer 
670804 
Dallas, 
Texas 
75367 
(972) 200-0000 -
Telephone 
(972) 200-0535 -
Facsimile 
legal@schepps.net 
For 
Petitioner 
CERTIFIED 
BY: 
/s/ 
Gary 
N. Schepps 
Gary 
N.  Schepps 
COUNSEL 
FOR 
PETITIONER 
-I 
0-
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 9     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

TABLE 
OF 
CONTENTS 
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED 
PERSONS 
.......................................... 3 
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................... 11 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................... 
14 
RELIEF SOUGHT ......................................................................................... 18 
(1) 
The 
Clerk 
of 
the 
Bankruptcy 
Court of 
the 
Northern 
District 
of 
Texas, 
Dallas 
Division to  process 
and 
deliver 
to 
the 
U.S. 
District 
Clerk for 
the 
Northern 
District of Texas for docketing 
and 
random 
assignment 
to a 
District 
Court, 
the 
appeals 
taken 
pursuant 
to 
the 
following notices of 
appeal 
filed 
in 
Bankruptcy 
Case 
09-34 784-sgj11: ......... 18 
a.  Notice of 
Appeal 
[DE# 
610], filed 8/16/11; ............................................... 18 
b.  Notice of 
Appeal 
[DE# 
612], filed 8/18/11; ............................................... 18 
c. 
Notice of 
Appeal 
[DE# 
613], filed 8/18/11; 
and 
....................................... 18 
d. 
Amended Notice of Appeal [DE # 614], filed 8/18/11. .............................. 18 
(2) 
The 
Bankruptcy 
Judge 
to  Vacate 
the 
Bankruptcy 
Judge's 
orders 
striking 
the 
above  listed  Notices  of 
Appeal 
and 
Ordering 
counsel for 
the 
Petitioner 
to Show 
Cause 
why 
they 
should 
not 
be 
sanctioned 
and 
held 
in 
Contempt  for 
appealing 
orders 
of 
the 
Bankruptcy 
Judge 
.............................................................................................. 18 
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ................................................................... 19 
The 
Bankruptcy 
Court 
Proceedings 
...................................................... 
19 
Novo 
Point 
LLC, 
not 
the 
debtor 
Ondova, 
owns 
the 
domain 
name 
asset 
"mondial.com" 
..................................................................... 19 
The 
Value 
of 
"Mondial.com" is 
Substantial. 
.......................................... 21 
Novo 
Point 
LLC 
and 
the 
Vogel 
'Receivership' 
....................................... 22 
-11-
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 10     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

REASONS WHY THE WRIT SHOULD ISSUE ........................................ 
31 
ISSUE 
1: 
Notices of Appeal 
were 
timely filed  from  decisions of 
the 
Bankruptcy 
Court.  The 
right 
to  file  such  notices  is 
granted 
pursuant 
Federal 
Rule  of 
Bankruptcy 
Procedure 
8001, 
and 
29 U.S.C. §158. 
The 
Bankruptcy 
Court 
Judge 
found  (without  a 
noticed hearing) 
that 
the 
appeals 
were 
not 
properly authorized, 
and 
struck 
the 
notices of 
appeal 
from 
her 
orders. 
The 
Bankruptcy 
Clerk 
has 
accordingly refused to process 
the 
appeals 
or 
docket 
them 
with 
the 
District 
Clerk. 
The 
Bankruptcy 
Judge, 
however, lacks 
both 
the 
authority 
and 
jurisdiction 
to 
strike 
the 
notices  of 
appeal 
or 
to 
otherwise 
prevent 
the 
filing of 
appeals 
from 
her 
orders ................................ 
31 
ISSUE 
2: 
Bankruptcy 
Court 
Judges 
are 
not Article 
III 
judges 
and 
the 
right 
to 
seek 
appeal 
from 
the 
orders of a 
Bankruptcy 
Court 
Judge 
is 
fundamental 
to 
the 
constitutionality of proceedings before 
the 
Bankruptcy 
Court. 
Further, 
the 
threat 
of  imposition  of  a 
penalty 
for 
having 
pursued 
a 
right 
of 
appeal 
is  a  violation of 
due 
process of law. 
The 
Bankruptcy 
Judge 
has 
ordered 
attorneys 
not 
to 
appeal 
her 
orders 
and 
has 
cited 
the 
attorneys 
who filed  notices of 
appeal 
from 
her 
orders to 
appear 
at 
contempt 
hearings 
for 
having 
appealed 
her 
orders. 
In 
order 
to  protect 
the 
integrity 
of 
the 
appellate 
process,  litigants 
and 
their 
counsel 
must 
be  free  of 
apprehension 
of 
retaliation 
and 
sanction  from 
the 
Bankruptcy 
Judge 
in 
exercising 
their 
right 
to 
appeal 
from 
orders 
of 
the 
Bankruptcy 
Court 
.............................................................................................. 33 
A. 
The 
Bankruptcy 
Court 
has 
Attempted 
to 
Divest 
Article 
III 
Courts 
of 
their 
Supervisory 
Jurisdiction 
Over 
the 
Bankruptcy 
Court's 
Orders 
........................................................................................ 33 
B. 
The 
Bankruptcy 
Court's 
Attempt 
to 
Penalize 
a 
Party 
for 
Appealing 
its 
Orders 
is 
also a Violation of 
Due 
Process 
........................ 35 
ISSUE 
3: 
This  Honorable 
Court 
has 
authority 
to 
issue 
the 
requested 
writ 
..................................................................................................... 37 
JE>RAYER 
.......................................................................................................... 
:J~ 
a.  Notice of Appeal 
[DE# 
610], filed 8/16/11; ............................................... 38 
b. 
Notice of 
Appeal 
[DE# 
612], filed 8/18/11; ............................................... 38 
-12-
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 11     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

c. 
Notice of 
Appeal 
[DE# 
613], filed 8/18/11; 
and 
....................................... 38 
d. 
Amended 
Notice of Appeal 
[DE# 
614], filed 8/18/11. .............................. 
38 
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .......................................................... .40 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..................................................................... 40 
EXHIBITS ....................................................................................................... 41 
-13-
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 12     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 
FEDERAL CASES 
Armstrong 
v. 
Manzo, 
380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965) ..................................................................................... 29 
Boddie 
v. 
Connecticut, 
401 
U.S. 
371,379 
(1971) ..................................................................................... 29 
Booth 
v. 
Clark, 
58 
U.S. 322, 333, 
17 
How. 322, 
15 
L.Ed.  164 (1854) ......................................... 30 
Cochrane 
v. 
WF Potts Son &  Co., 
47 F.2d 1026, 1029 (5th Cir.  1931) ..................................................................... 28 
Cooter 
& Gell v. Hartmarx 
Corp., 
496 
u.s. 
384, 407-408 (1990) ............................ : ................................................ 36 
Gannett Co. 
v. 
DePasquale, 
443 
u.s. 
368,412 
(1979) ..................................................................................... 29 
Goss 
v. 
Lopez, 
419 
u.s. 
565, 579 (1975) ..................................................................................... 29 
Griggs 
v. 
Provident Consumer Discount Co., 
459 
u.s. 
56,58 
(1982) ......................................................................................... 
31 
Hardwick 
v. 
Doolittle, 
558 F.2d 292, 299-300 (5th Cir.  1977) ................................................................ 36 
Hogg 
v. 
United States, 
411 
F .2d 578, 579-580 (6th Cir. 1969) ................................................................ 
31 
-14-
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 13     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

Stern 
v. 
Marshall, 
131 
S.Ct. 2594 ...................................................................................................... 33 
United States 
v. 
Krezdorn, 
718 F.2d 1360, 1363 (5th Cir.  1983) ................................................................... 32 
Webster 
v. 
Sowders, 
846 F.2d 1032, 1040 (6th Cir.  1988) ................................................................... 36 
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. 
v. 
Woodson, 
444 U.S. 286,291 (1980) ..................................................................................... 30 
FEDERAL STATUTES 
28 U.S.C.  §2075 ...................................................................................................... 32 
28. 
u.s.c. 
§ 158 ................................................................................................. 32, 34 
-16-
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 14     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

ISSUES 
PRESENTED 
ISSUE 
1: 
Notices of Appeal were timely filed  from  decisions 
of 
the 
Bankruptcy 
Court.  The 
right 
to  file 
such 
notices  is 
granted 
pursuant 
Federal 
Rule  of 
Bankruptcy 
Procedure  8001, 
and 
29 U.S.C. §158.  The 
Bankruptcy 
Court 
Judge 
found  (without  a 
noticed hearing) 
that 
the 
appeals were not properly authorized, 
and 
struck 
the 
notices of appeal from 
her 
orders. 
The 
Bankruptcy 
Clerk 
has 
accordingly refused to process 
the 
appeals or docket 
them 
with 
the 
District 
Clerk. 
The 
Bankruptcy 
Judge, 
however, lacks 
both 
the 
authority 
and 
jurisdiction  to 
strike 
the 
notices  of 
appeal 
or 
to 
otherwise prevent 
the 
filing of 
appeals 
from 
her 
orders. 
ISSUE 
2: 
Bankruptcy 
Court 
Judges 
are 
not 
Article 
III 
judges 
and 
the 
right 
to  seek  appeal from 
the 
orders  of a 
Bankruptcy 
Court 
Judge 
is 
fundamental 
to 
the 
constitutionality of proceedings before 
the 
Bankruptcy 
Court. 
Further, 
the 
threat 
of  imposition  of  a 
penalty 
for  having 
pursued 
a 
right 
of 
appeal 
is a  violation of due 
process of law. 
The 
Bankruptcy 
Judge 
has 
ordered 
attorneys 
not 
to 
appeal 
her 
orders 
and 
has 
cited 
the 
attorneys 
who filed  notices  of 
appeal 
from 
her 
orders to 
appear 
at 
contempt 
hearings 
for 
having 
appealed 
her 
orders. 
In 
order  to  protect 
the 
integrity 
of 
the 
appellate  process,  litigants 
and 
their 
counsel 
must 
be 
free  of 
apprehension 
of  retaliation 
and 
sanction  from 
the 
Bankruptcy 
Judge 
in 
exercising 
their 
right 
to 
appeal 
from  orders  of 
the 
Bankruptcy 
Court. 
ISSUE 
3: 
This  Honorable  Court 
has 
authority 
to  issue 
the 
requested 
writ. 
-17-
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 15     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

RELIEF SOUGHT 
The 
Petitioner, 
Novo 
Point, 
LLC,  a 
limited 
liability 
company 
chartered 
pursuant 
to 
laws 
of 
the 
Cook 
Islands, 
respectfully 
petitions 
the 
Justices 
of 
this 
Honorable 
Court 
to 
issue 
a 
Writ 
of 
Mandamus 
(requested 
by 
May 
15, 2012) 
jointly 
and 
in 
the 
alternative 
directing: 
(1) 
The 
Clerk 
of 
the 
Bankruptcy 
Court 
of 
the 
Northern 
District 
of 
Texas, 
Dallas 
Division 
to process 
and 
deliver 
to 
the 
U.S. 
District 
Clerk 
for 
the 
Northern 
District 
of 
Texas 
for 
docketing 
and 
random 
assignment 
to 
a 
District 
Court, 
the 
appeals 
taken 
pursuant 
to 
the 
following 
notices 
of 
appeal 
filed 
in 
Bankruptcy 
Case 
09-34 784-sgj11: 
a.  Notice 
of 
Appeal 
[DE# 
610], filed 8/16/11; 
b. 
Notice 
of 
Appeal 
[DE# 
612], filed 8/18/11; 
c. 
Notice 
of 
Appeal 
[DE# 
613], filed 8/18/11; 
and 
d. 
Amended 
Notice 
of 
Appeal 
[DE# 
614], filed 8/18/11. 
(2) 
The 
Bankruptcy 
Judge 
to 
Vacate 
the 
Bankruptcy 
Judge's 
orders 
striking 
the 
above 
listed 
Notices 
of 
Appeal 
and 
Ordering 
counsel 
for 
the 
Petitioner 
to 
Show 
Cause 
why 
they 
-18-
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 16     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

should 
not 
be 
sanctioned 
and 
held 
in 
Contempt 
for 
appealing 
orders 
of 
the 
Bankruptcy 
Judge. 
STATEMENT 
OF 
THE FACTS 
The 
Bankruptcy 
Court 
Proceedings 
The 
Bankruptcy 
Court 
has 
attempted 
to 
prevent 
appellate 
review 
of a 
series 
of 
its 
orders 
regarding 
the 
sale 
of 
property 
by 
ordering 
[DE# 
648] 
that 
the 
notices 
of 
appeal 
from 
its 
orders 
be 
stricken. 
Because 
the 
Bankruptcy 
Court 
has 
ordered 
the 
appeals 
stricken, 
mandamus 
is 
necessary. 
The 
stricken 
appeals 
seek 
revww 
of 
orders 
of 
the 
Bankruptcy 
Court 
relating 
to 
the 
liquidation 
of 
a 
substantial 
asset 
not 
owned 
by 
the 
Ondova 
bankruptcy 
estate, 
as 
follows: 
Novo 
Point 
LLC, 
not 
the 
debtor 
Ondova, 
owns 
the 
domain 
name 
asset 
"mondial.com" 
As  a 
matter 
of 
law,  Novo 
Point 
LLC 
owns 
the 
domain 
name 
"mondial.com". 
The 
chain 
of 
title 
to 
the 
domain 
name 
discussed 
briefly 
below. 
On 
December 
30,  2005, 
Ondova 
Limited 
Company 
("Ondova") 
owned 
the 
domain 
name 
and 
transferred 
it, 
along 
with 
all 
other 
domain 
-19-
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 17     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

names 
it 
owned 
not 
then 
in 
litigation, 
to 
Macadamia 
Management, 
LLC 
("Macadamia"). 
Pursuant 
to 
the 
terms 
and 
conditions 
of 
the 
Assignment, 
Ondova 
conveyed 
all 
right, 
title 
and 
interest 
which 
it 
had 
in 
"All 
domain 
names 
owned 
by 
Assignor 
on 
December 
29,  2005, 
as 
registrant, 
less 
those 
domain 
names 
that 
are 
currently 
subject 
to 
active 
claims 
... " 
The 
domain 
name 
mondial.com 
was 
registered 
with 
Ondova 
Limited 
Company 
before 
December 
29, 
2005 
and 
was 
not 
then 
subject 
to 
any 
active 
claim 
against 
Ondova. 
Accordingly, 
the 
domain 
name 
was 
conveyed 
pursuant 
to 
the 
Assignment 
from 
Ondova 
to 
Macadamia 
on 
December 
30,  2005, 
and 
Ondova 
has 
no 
ownership 
interest 
in 
this 
name. 
Macadamia, 
a 
US 
Virgin 
Islands 
limited 
liability 
company, 
filed a 
Change 
of 
Name 
Certificate 
with 
the 
Secretary 
of 
State's 
office 
of 
the 
US 
Virgin 
Islands 
on 
March 
10,  2006, 
pursuant 
to 
which 
it 
changed 
its 
name 
to 
Blue 
Horizon 
Limited 
Liability 
Company 
("Blue  Horizon"). 
Novo 
Point 
LLC 
is 
the 
successor 
in 
interest 
to 
all 
Blue 
Horizon 
domain 
names 
pursuant 
to 
the 
Mutual 
Settlement 
and 
Release 
Agreement 
which 
was 
approved 
by 
the 
Bankruptcy 
Court 
on 
or 
about 
July 
28, 
2010 
-20-
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 18     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

and 
which 
became 
a 
final 
Order 
on 
or 
about 
August 
28, 
2010 
("the 
Settlement 
Agreement"). 
Pursuant 
to 
the 
Settlement 
Agreement, 
Ondova 
and 
the 
Trustee 
quitclaimed 
"any 
interest 
in 
any 
and 
all 
domain 
names 
that 
were 
previously 
registered 
through 
Ondova, 
exclusive 
of 
the 
Even 
Group 
Portfolio, 
the 
Odd 
Group 
Portfolio, 
and 
any 
domain 
name 
not 
registered 
through 
or 
at 
Ondova 
as 
of 
February 
22, 
2010, 
pokerstar.com 
and 
servers.com 
and 
the 
Excluded 
Disputed 
Domains."  As 
Ondova 
had 
previously 
assigned 
all 
of 
its 
right, 
title 
and 
interest 
in 
these 
names, 
neither 
it 
nor 
the 
Trustee 
had 
any 
ownership 
interest 
to 
quitclaim 
in 
such 
names. 
Accordingly, 
ownership 
was 
transferred 
to 
NovoPoint 
LLC 
by 
virtue 
of 
the 
quitclaim 
from 
Blue 
Horizon 
as 
a 
part 
of 
the 
Global 
Settlement 
Agreement. 
The 
Value 
of"Mondial.com" 
is 
Substantial 
. 
In 
Europe, 
and 
much 
of 
the 
world, 
"Mondial" 
means 
the 
World 
Cup, 
which 
is 
equivalent 
to 
something 
along 
the 
line 
of 
the 
Super 
Bowl 
and 
Olympics 
combined. 
Accordingly, 
the 
domain 
name 
has 
been 
appraised 
in 
value 
as 
high 
as 
$6,000,000.00. 
-21-
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 19     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

Novo 
Point 
LLC 
and 
the 
Vogel 
'Receivership' 
The 
overall 
background 
of 
the 
Vogel 
'receivership' 
is 
as 
follows:
1 
(1) 
The 
Ondova 
Chapter 
11 
-bankruptcy 
Trustee, 
Sherman, 
induced 
Jeffrey 
Baron, 
the 
equity 
owner 
of 
Ondova, 
to 
fund 
the 
Ondova 
Bankruptcy 
Estate 
with 
an 
approximate 
net 
three 
million 
Dollars 
by 
promising 
to 
immediately 
pay 
off 
all 
the 
creditor 
claims 
and 
return 
Ondova 
to 
Baron 
with 
around 
$1 
million 
Dollars 
in 
the 
bank 
and 
all 
the 
non-cash 
assets 
intact. 
In 
the 
words 
of 
Sherman's 
counsel: 
"The 
negotiation 
was 
to 
pay 
the 
debts 
and 
give 
the 
keys 
back 
to 
Mr. 
Baron. 
But 
that 
didn't 
happen." 
R.  4598:11-12. 
(2) 
Instead 
of 
using 
the 
funding 
provided 
by 
Baron 
to 
pay 
off 
Ondova's 
creditors 
and 
close 
the 
bankruptcy, 
Sherman 
started 
using 
the 
Baron 
funding 
to 
run 
up 
hundreds 
of 
thousands 
of 
Dollars 
in 
attorneys' 
fees. 
(3) 
Using 
the 
normal, 
legally 
proper 
channels, 
Baron 
objected 
by 
having 
his 
counsel 
file  a 
formal 
objection 
with 
the 
Bankruptcy 
1 
The 
legal 
authority 
discussed 
in 
this 
section 
is 
presented 
as 
background 
relating 
to 
various 
positions 
asserted 
by 
the 
relevant 
parties 
and 
is 
not 
offered 
as 
argument 
for 
the 
underlying 
relief 
sought 
in 
this 
Petition. 
-22-
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 20     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

Court. 
Instead 
of 
using 
the 
normal, 
legally 
proper 
channels 
to 
reply 
to 
Baron's 
objection, 
Sherman 
went 
to 
work 
behind 
closed 
doors 
at 
the 
federal 
courthouse. 
Within 
three 
business 
days 
of 
Baron's 
objection, 
Sherman 
privately 
consulted 
ex 
parte 
with 
the 
Special 
Master 
Peter 
Vogel 
over 
in 
the 
District 
Court, 
to 
have 
the 
District 
Judge 
act 
in 
secret, 
without 
notice 
or 
an 
opportunity 
for 
Baron 
to 
be 
heard, 
to 
issue 
a 
complete 
and 
total 
receivership 
order 
over 
Baron 
and 
to 
use 
Vogel to 
seize 
all 
of 
Baron's 
exempt 
and 
non-exempt 
assets, 
and 
to 
prevent 
Baron 
from 
hiring 
an 
attorney 
to 
defend 
himself. 
(4) 
Sherman 
then 
participated 
1n 
private 
off-the-record  ex 
parte 
proceedings 
before 
the 
District 
Court 
to 
implement 
the 
plan 
worked 
out 
with 
Vogel 
and 
to 
convince 
the 
District 
Court 
that 
Baron 
was 
a 
menace 
to 
society 
(or 
at 
least 
to 
Attorneys) 
by 
constructing, 
ex parte, a 
false 
picture 
for 
the 
District 
Court 
by: 
a. 
Falsely 
representing 
to 
the 
District 
Court 
that 
the 
Bankruptcy 
Judge 
recommended 
a 
receiver 
be 
placed 
over 
Baron 
should 
his 
bankruptcy 
lawyer 
Thomas 
withdraw; 
-23-
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 21     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

b. 
Falsely 
representing 
to 
the 
District 
Court 
that 
Baron 
didn't 
pay 
Thomas' 
fees 
and 
thus 
forced 
Thomas 
to 
withdraw 
(whereas, 
in 
reality 
Thomas 
was 
neither 
owed 
unpaid 
fees 
nor 
withdrew); 
c. 
Falsely 
representing 
that 
Baron 
caused 
a 
Court 
ordered 
mediation 
to  fail  (Vogel 
was 
also 
the 
mediator 
and, 
in 
reality, 
had 
not 
even 
scheduled 
the 
mediation); 
d. 
Failing 
to 
disclose  to 
the 
District 
Court 
that 
Ondova 
had 
more 
than 
sufficient 
cash 
in 
the 
bank 
to 
pay 
ALL  of 
the 
creditors 
who 
filed 
claims 
with 
Ondova, 
plus 
ALL 
of 
the 
attorney 
'claimants' 
who 
had 
not 
so filed; 
and 
e. 
Participating 
in 
a concerted effort to 
mislead 
the 
District 
Court 
into 
falsely 
believing 
that 
under 
the 
bankruptcy 
code,  a 
creditor 
such 
as 
Baron 
was 
liable 
to 
indemnify 
the 
bankruptcy 
estate 
for 
the 
substantial 
contributions 
of 
his 
counsel-when 
no 
such 
law 
exists 
and 
the 
law 
is 
exactly 
opposite,  i.e., 
the 
bankruptcy 
estate 
and 
not 
the 
creditor 
must 
ultimately 
pay 
for qualifying 
substantial 
contributions. 
-24-
----------
--· 
-----
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 22     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

(5) 
Then, 
after 
obtaining 
the 
ex 
parte 
Vogel 
receivership 
order 
in 
the 
private 
off 
the 
record ex 
parte 
proceedings, 
Sherman 
and 
Vogel 
made 
concerted 
efforts to cover-
up 
and 
deny 
the 
existence 
of 
the 
ex 
parte 
proceedings 
and 
to  conceal 
the 
fact 
that 
the 
Vogel 
receivership 
order 
[Doc  124] 
had 
been 
signed 
hours 
before 
Sherman's 
motion 
for 
such 
an 
order 
was 
filed [Doc  123]; 
and 
(6) 
Since 
Baron 
has 
been 
held 
down 
by 
the 
District 
Court 
and 
prohibited 
from 
retaining 
trial 
counsel 
to 
defend 
himself 
and 
the 
property 
of 
Ondova, 
Sherman 
has 
engaged 
in 
a 
non-stop 
blizzard 
of billing. 
The 
billing is  so 
massive 
that 
it 
has 
used 
up 
the 
two 
million 
Dollar 
funding 
Baron 
had 
provided 
and 
has 
completely 
emptied 
the 
bank 
account  of 
Ondova, 
leaving 
only 
an 
escrow 
amount 
deposited 
by 
Baron. 
At 
the 
same 
time, 
Vogel, 
as 
receiver, 
has 
completely 
emptied 
Baron's 
personal 
savings 
accounts 
into 
his 
firm's 
pockets 
by 
billing 
more 
than 
a 
million 
Dollars 
from 
Baron's 
personal 
lifetime 
Savings 
accounts 
as 
'fees'. 
In 
addition,  Vogel  also 
gutted 
Novo 
Point 
LLC  by 
liquidating 
millions 
of 
Dollars 
of 
assets 
of  Novo 
Point 
LLC 
to 
pay 
for 
-25-
-----------------------------
-------
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 23     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

additional 
million 
Dollar 
'fees'. 
(7) 
Thus, 
after 
using 
private 
off 
the 
record 
ex 
parte 
proceedings 
to 
secure 
an 
ex 
parte 
order 
preventing 
Baron 
from 
having 
any 
paid 
counsel 
to 
represent 
him, 
Sherman 
and 
Vogel 
have 
vigorously 
gone 
after 
the 
assets 
of 
Baron, 
Ondova, 
and 
the 
other 
receivership 
entities, 
emptying 
the 
estate 
of 
Ondova 
and 
lining 
their 
and 
their 
firms' 
pockets 
with 
over 
five 
million 
Dollars 
in 
'fees'. 
Notably, 
all 
the 
litigation 
Baron 
was 
involved 
with 
had 
settled 
prior 
to 
the 
Vogel 
'receivership' 
order. 
Yet, 
although 
Baron 
funded 
the 
bankruptcy 
with 
a 
net 
multi-million 
Dollar 
cash 
infusion, 
no 
claimant 
has 
received  a 
penny. 
Instead, 
the 
multi-million 
dollar 
funding 
of 
Ondova 
has 
been 
completely. 
drained 
by 
Sherman 
for  'fees'. 
Sherman 
and 
Vogel, 
of 
course, 
attempt 
to 
place 
the 
blame 
on 
the 
whipping 
boy, 
Baron 
who 
has 
been 
tied 
down 
helplessly 
by 
the 
District 
Court's 
'receivership' 
order-
without 
any 
property 
or 
basic 
legal 
rights, 
and 
prohibited 
from 
hiring 
any 
paid 
counsel 
to 
defend 
himself 
while 
Sherman 
and 
Vogel 
have 
their 
way 
with 
him 
and 
the 
estates' 
assets. 
-26-
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 24     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

(8) 
Sherman 
argues 
that 
his 
. 
and 
Vogel's 
actions 
cannot 
be 
challenged 
because 
in 
addition 
to 
Baron, 
the 
management 
and 
rights 
of Novo 
Point 
LLC, a  Cook 
Islands 
entity, 
were 
also seized 
by 
the 
District 
Court's 
November 
2010 Vogel 
receivership 
order 
(that 
Novo 
Point 
LLC 
was 
neither 
a 
party 
to, 
nor 
served 
any 
process 
for). 
Sherman 
argues 
that 
because 
of 
the 
ex 
parte 
Vogel 
Receivership 
order,  Novo 
Point 
LLC  is, 
like 
Baron, 
helpless 
to 
defend 
itself 
and 
that 
Sherman 
and 
Vogel 
can 
have 
their 
way 
with 
the 
assets, 
legally 
unimpeded 
by 
any 
party. 
Further, 
Sherman 
argues 
that 
because 
Novo 
Point 
LLC, 
its 
owner, 
SouthPac 
Trust, 
and 
its 
trustor, 
Baron, 
have 
all 
been 
ordered 
into 
the 
Vogel 
'receivership' 
that 
Vogel 
and 
Sherman 
are 
free 
to 
act 
with 
impunity 
as 
no one 
has 
the 
authority 
to complain. 
(9) 
However, Novo 
Point 
LLC of 
the 
Cook 
Islands 
was 
not 
named 
in 
the 
Vogel 
receivership 
order. 
Sherman 
responsively 
argues 
that 
after 
the 
receivership 
order 
was 
appealed 
(and 
the 
District 
Court 
was 
divested 
of 
jurisdiction 
over 
the 
matter), 
the 
District 
Court 
then 
had 
the 
power 
to  seize 
control 
of 
the 
Cook 
Islands' 
entity 
-27-
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 25     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

"Novo 
Point 
LLC" 
by 
a 
subsequent 
order 
that 
"the 
Receiver 
Order's 
definition  of 
Receivership 
Parties 
has 
always 
included 
Novo 
Point, 
LLC  [sic, 
with 
address 
and 
nation 
of 
origin 
undefined]". 
(10) Novo 
Point 
LLC's 
position 
is 
that 
the 
ex 
parte 
receivership 
order 
and 
subsequent 
'clarification' 
are 
void ab initio, 
as 
follows: 
a. 
The 
Vogel 
'receivership 
order' 
is 
void  ab  initio  for 
lack 
of 
subject 
matter 
jurisdiction. 
The 
district 
court 
lacked 
subject 
matter 
jurisdiction 
as 
Novo 
Point 
LLC 
was 
not 
a 
party 
to 
the 
lawsuit 
and 
no 
claim 
for 
relief 
regarding 
the 
Novo 
Point 
LLC 
or 
its 
property 
was 
pled 
before 
that 
court.  See  Cochrane 
v. 
WF 
Potts  Son  &  Co.,  4 7  ·F.2d  1026,  1029 
(5th 
Cir.  1931) 
(absent 
pleadings 
asserting 
a 
claim 
in 
and 
to 
the 
property 
subject 
of 
the 
receivership, 
an 
order 
appointing 
a 
receiver 
over 
that 
property 
is 
"absolutely 
void 
in 
the 
strictest 
sense 
of 
the 
term"). 
b. 
Further, 
an 
ex 
parte 
order 
such 
as 
the 
'receivership 
order' 
that 
was 
signed 
without 
a 
motion 
on 
file 
to 
support 
it, 
and 
without 
notice, 
opportunity 
to 
be 
heard, 
sworn 
affidavits, 
or 
bond  to 
-28-
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 26     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

protect 
the 
rights 
of 
those 
adversely 
affected 
by 
the 
order, 
etc., 
is 
an 
order 
fundamentally 
devoid 
of 
due 
process 
and 
void 
as 
a 
matter 
of 
Ia 
w. 
Failure 
to afford a 
party 
the 
opportunity 
to 
be 
heard 
on 
a 
motion 
seeking 
relief 
against 
them 
is 
fundamentally 
inconsistent 
with 
the 
notion 
of 
due 
process. 
See e.g., 
Armstrong 
v. 
Manzo, 
380 
U.S. 545, 552 (1965); Goss 
v. 
Lopez, 419 
U.S. 
565, 
579  (1975); 
Boddie 
v. 
Connecticut,  401 
U.S. 
371, 
379 
(1971); 
Phillips 
v. 
Vandygriff,  711 
F.2d 
1217, 
1227 
(5th 
Cir.  1983); 
Registration  Control  Systems 
v. 
Compusystems,  Inc., 
922 
F.2d 
805, 
807 
(Federal 
Cir. 1990). 
Similarly, 
the 
Supreme 
Court 
has 
described 
secret 
judicial 
proceedings 
as 
"a 
menace 
to 
liberty". 
Gannett 
Co. 
v. 
DePasquale, 
443 
U.S. 
368, 412 (1979). 
Because 
the 
Vogel 
'receivership 
order' 
was 
entered 
without 
the 
most 
basic 
aspects 
of 
Due 
Process, 
it 
is 
subject 
to 
collateral 
attack 
in 
the 
Bankruptcy 
Proceedings 
as 
being 
void ab  initio. 
See  e.g.,  Pennoyer 
v. 
Neff,  95  U.S.  714,  737  (1878)  ("such 
proceeding 
is 
void 
as 
not 
being 
by 
due 
process 
of 
law");  World-
-29-
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 27     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

Wide  Volkswagen  Corp. 
v. 
Woodson,  444  U.S.  286,  291  (1980) 
("rendered 
in 
violation of 
due 
process 
is 
void 
in 
the 
rendering"). 
c. 
Even 
had 
the 
District 
Court 
been 
vested 
with 
subject 
matter 
jurisdiction 
and 
respected 
the 
requirements 
of 
fundamental 
Due 
Process, Novo 
Point 
LLC, 
as 
a Cook 
Islands' 
entity, 
can 
not 
be 
seized 
by 
the 
U.S. 
District 
Court 
because 
of 
the 
District 
Court's 
territorial 
jurisdictional 
limits, 
e.g., 
Booth 
v. 
Clark,  58 
U.S. 322, 333, 17 How. 322, 15 
L.Ed. 
164 (1854). 
Further, 
Novo 
Point 
LLC 
as 
a 
legal 
entity 
exists 
by 
virtue 
of 
the 
laws 
of 
the 
Cook 
Islands, 
and 
pursuant 
to 
those 
laws 
(which  U.S. 
treaty 
obligations 
require 
be 
respected), 
absent 
an 
application 
for 
ancillary 
receivership 
filed 
with 
the 
courts 
of 
the 
Cook 
Islands, 
Novo 
Point 
LLC 
is 
immune 
from 
seizure 
by 
the 
U.S. 
District 
Court.
2 
2  Novo 
Point 
has 
also 
noted 
that 
even 
if 
its 
assets 
had 
been 
subject 
to 
seizure 
after 
Due 
Process 
in 
legally 
authorized 
receivership 
proceedings 
by 
a 
U.S. 
court 
with 
subject 
matter 
jurisdiction 
over 
the 
property, 
derivative 
stakeholders 
such 
as 
the 
Cook 
Islands' 
management 
still 
have 
standing 
to 
assert 
the 
company's 
rights 
in 
court 
when 
the 
receiver 
refuses 
to 
bring 
suit 
or 
'where 
it 
would 
be 
a 
vain 
thing 
to 
make 
a 
demand 
upon 
[it]'  . See e.g.,  Securities & Exchg.  Com 'n 
v. 
Spence &  Green 
Chemical, 
612 
F.2d 
896,  903 
(5th 
Cir.  1980), 
citing 
with 
approval 
Landy 
v .Federal 
Deposit 
Insurance 
Corporation, 
486 
F.2d 
139 
(3rd 
Cir. 1973). 
-30-
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 28     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

REASONS 
WHY 
THE 
WRIT 
SHOULD 
ISSUE 
ISSUE 
1: 
Notices 
of 
Appeal 
were 
timely 
filed 
from 
decisions 
of 
the 
Bankruptcy 
Court. 
The 
right 
to 
file 
such 
notices 
is 
granted 
pursuant 
Federal 
Rule 
of 
Bankruptcy 
Procedure 
8001, 
and 
29 U.S.C. §158. 
The 
Bankruptcy 
Court 
Judge 
found 
(without 
a 
noticed 
hearing) 
that 
the 
appeals 
were 
not 
properly 
authorized, 
and 
struck 
the 
notices 
of 
appeal 
from 
her 
orders. 
The 
Bankruptcy 
Clerk 
has 
accordingly 
refused 
to 
process 
the 
appeals 
or 
docket 
them 
with 
the 
District 
Clerk. 
The 
Bankruptcy 
Judge, 
however, 
lacks 
both 
the 
authority 
and 
jurisdiction 
to 
strike 
the 
notices 
of 
appeal 
or 
to 
otherwise 
prevent 
the 
filing 
of 
appeals 
from 
her 
orders. 
The 
Supreme 
Court 
has 
held 
that 
the 
filing 
of 
a 
notice 
of 
appeal 
is 
an 
event 
of 
jurisdiction 
significance 
and 
divests 
the 
trial 
court 
of 
its 
control 
over 
those 
aspects 
of 
the 
case 
involved 
in 
the 
appeal. 
Griggs 
v. 
Provident  Consumer  Discount  Co.,  459  U.S.  56, 
58 
(1982). 
This 
Honorable 
Court 
has 
held 
that 
"This 
rule 
applies 
with 
equal 
force 
to 
bankruptcy 
cases." 
In 
re 
Transtexas Gas  Corp., 
303 
F.3d 
571, 
579 
(5th 
Cir.  2002).  Accordingly, 
the 
Bankruptcy 
Court 
lacked 
jurisdiction 
to 
strike 
the 
notices 
of 
appeal 
after 
they 
were 
filed.  Hogg 
v. 
United States, 
411 
F.2d 
578, 579-580 
(6th 
Cir. 1969) (This 
rule 
applies 
even 
where 
the 
lower 
court 
was 
of 
the 
opinion 
that 
the 
appeal 
was 
not 
properly 
authorized). 
-31-
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 29     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

Secondly, 
this 
Honorable 
Court 
has 
held 
that 
where 
the 
right 
to 
appeal 
has 
been 
granted 
a 
litigant, 
constitutional 
rights 
of 
Due 
Process 
in 
the 
free  exercise 
of 
that 
right 
are 
invoked. 
Myers 
v. 
Collins,  8 
F.3d 
249, 252 fn 4 
(5th 
Cir. 1993); 
and 
see 
United 
States 
v. 
Krezdorn, 718 
F.2d 
1360,  1363 
(5th 
Cir.  1983)  (recognizing 
the 
right 
to 
appeal 
as 
a 
due 
process 
right 
invoking 
constitutional 
protection). 
Congress 
has 
vested 
district 
courts 
with 
jurisdiction 
to 
hear 
appeals 
from 
the 
bankruptcy 
court.  28.  U.S.C.  §158. 
Similarly, 
the 
Supreme 
Court 
established 
the 
right 
to 
appeal 
from 
orders 
of 
the 
Bankruptcy 
Court 
as 
a 
procedural 
right. 
Fed.R.Bankr.P. 
8001; 28 U.S.C. §2075. 
However, 
the 
Bankruptcy 
Judge 
has 
failed 
to 
respect 
this 
clear 
legal 
right 
of 
appeal 
from 
her 
orders. 
Rather, 
in 
clearly 
unauthorized 
action 
outside 
of 
the 
Bankruptcy 
Judge's 
jurisdiction, 
the 
Bankruptcy 
Judge 
has 
attempted 
to 
reach 
up 
into 
the 
appellate 
process 
and 
divest 
the 
Article 
III 
courts 
of 
jurisdiction 
over 
appeals 
from 
her 
orders 
by 
striking 
the 
notices 
of 
appeal. 
Accordingly, 
the 
Petitioner 
has 
the 
clear 
legal 
right 
to 
have 
its 
timely 
filed 
notices 
of 
appeal 
processed 
by 
the 
Bankruptcy 
Clerk, 
and 
to 
proceed 
with 
its 
appeals 
before 
an 
Article 
III 
court. 
-32-
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 30     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

ISSUE 
2: 
Bankruptcy 
Court 
Judges 
are 
not 
Article 
III 
judges 
and 
the 
right 
to 
seek 
appeal 
from 
the 
orders 
of 
a 
Bankruptcy 
Court 
Judge 
is 
fundamental 
to 
the 
constitutionality 
of 
proceedings 
before 
the 
Bankruptcy 
Court. 
Further, 
the 
threat 
of 
imposition 
of 
a 
penalty 
for 
having 
pursued 
a 
right 
of 
appeal 
is 
a 
violation 
of 
due 
process 
of 
law. 
The 
Bankruptcy 
Judge 
has 
ordered 
attorneys 
not 
to 
appeal 
her 
orders 
and 
has 
cited 
the 
attorneys 
who 
filed 
notices 
of 
appeal 
from 
her 
orders 
to 
appear 
at 
contempt 
hearings 
for 
having 
appealed 
her 
orders. 
In 
order 
to 
protect 
the 
integrity 
of 
the 
appellate 
process, 
litigants 
and 
their 
counsel 
must 
be 
free 
of 
apprehension 
of 
retaliation 
and 
sanction 
from 
the 
Bankruptcy 
Judge 
in 
exercising 
their 
right 
to 
appeal 
from 
orders 
of 
the 
Bankruptcy 
Court. 
A. 
The 
Bankruptcy 
Court 
has 
Attempted 
to 
Divest 
Article 
III 
Courts 
of 
their 
Supervisory 
Jurisdiction 
Over 
the 
Bankruptcy 
Court's 
Orders 
In 
examining 
the 
constitutionality 
of  non-Article 
III 
judges 
adjudicating 
bankruptcy 
claims, 
the 
Supreme 
Court 
has 
held 
that 
the 
Constitution 
requires 
that 
"[T]he 
functions 
of 
the 
adjunct 
must 
be 
limited 
in 
such 
a 
way 
that 
'the 
essential 
attributes' 
of 
judicial 
power 
are 
retained 
in 
the 
Art. 
III 
court."  Northern  Pipeline  Constr. 
Co. 
v. 
Marathon 
Pipe 
Line 
Co., 
458 
US 
50,  81. 
The 
Supreme 
Court 
held 
in 
Stern 
v. 
Marshall, 131 S.Ct. 2594, 564 
U.S._ 
(2011), 
that 
where 
"[The] 
exercise 
of 
judicial 
power 
may 
nonetheless 
be 
taken 
from 
the 
Article 
III 
Judiciary 
... 
then 
Article 
III 
would 
be 
transformed 
from 
the 
guardian 
of 
-33-
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 31     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

individual 
liberty 
and 
separation 
of 
powers 
we 
have 
long 
recognized 
into 
mere 
wishful 
thinking." 
Stern 
at 
2615. 
Allowing 
a 
bankruptcy 
court 
to 
'declare 
independence' 
from 
review 
by 
the 
Article 
III 
Judiciary, 
engenders 
the 
bankruptcy 
court 
with 
the 
power 
to 
exercise 
all 
of 
the 
attributes 
of 
judicial 
power 
as 
a  fully 
independent 
judiciary. 
As  a 
matter 
of 
constitutional 
separation 
of 
powers, 
Congress 
is 
not 
authorized 
to 
create 
an 
independent, 
non-Article 
III 
Judiciary. 
Thus, 
the 
fundamental 
premise 
of 
the 
constitutionality 
of 
the. 
present 
system 
of 
bankruptcy 
court 
judges 
rests 
on 
the 
direct 
supervision 
of 
their 
orders 
by 
Article 
III 
judges. 
See e.g.,  28 U.S.C. §158.  Accordingly, 
an 
attempt 
by 
a 
bankruptcy 
court 
to 
prevent 
review 
of 
its 
orders 
by 
Article 
III 
courts 
is  a 
usurpation 
of 
authority 
and 
a 
violation 
of 
the 
U.S. 
Constitution. 
Moreover,  a 
bankruptcy 
court's 
attempt 
to 
deprive 
Article 
III 
courts 
of 
jurisdiction 
over 
an 
appeal 
is 
a 
threat 
to 
the 
integrity 
of 
the 
appellate 
process. 
This 
risk 
has 
been 
recognized 
by 
the 
Seventh 
Circuit, 
in 
a 
case 
cited 
with 
approval 
by 
this 
Honorable 
Court 
in 
Matter 
of 
Transtexas  Gas  Corp.,  303 
F.3d 
571 
(5th 
Cir.  2002). 
The 
Seventh 
-34-
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 32     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

Circuit 
held 
as 
follows: 
"[T]he 
integrity 
of 
the 
appellate 
process 
is 
at 
serious 
risk 
if 
a 
bankruptcy 
court 
can 
deprive 
a 
district 
court 
of 
jurisdiction 
over 
an 
appeal". 
Matter 
of 
Statistical 
Tabulating  Corp.,  Inc.,  60 
F.3d 
1286, 
1289 
(7th 
Cir. 1995)(emphasis). 
B. 
The 
Bankruptcy 
Court's 
Attempt 
to 
Penalize 
a 
Party 
for 
Appealing 
its 
Orders 
is 
also 
a 
Violation 
of 
Due 
Process 
The 
Supreme 
Court 
has 
held 
that 
the 
imposition 
of 
a 
penalty 
for 
having 
pursued 
a 
statutory 
right 
of 
appeal 
is a  violation of 
due 
process 
of law. 
North 
Carolina 
v. 
Pearce,  395  U.S.  711,  724  (1969). 
Further, 
Due  Process 
requires 
that 
litigants 
be  freed 
even 
of 
apprehension 
of 
retaliatory 
motivation 
on 
the 
part 
of 
the 
judge 
when 
exercising 
their 
right 
to appeal. Id. 
at 
725. 
The 
Supreme 
Court 
has 
held 
that 
allowing a 
trial 
court to 
sanction 
a 
litigant 
for  exercising 
their 
statutory 
right 
to 
appeal would: 
"[C]reate 
doubt, 
ambiguity, 
and 
uncertainty, 
making 
it 
impossible 
for 
citizens 
to 
know 
which 
one 
of 
the 
two 
conflicting 
laws 
to 
follow, 
and 
would 
thus 
violate 
one 
of 
the 
first 
principles 
of 
due 
process." 
ld. 
at 
738-739. 
-35-
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 33     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

Similarly, 
this 
Honorable 
Court 
has 
held 
that 
due 
process 
of 
law 
requires 
that 
the 
potential 
for  "judicial 
vindictiveness" 
must 
not 
enter 
into 
the 
appellate 
process. 
Hardwick 
v. 
Doolittle, 558 
F.2d 
292, 299-300 
(5th 
Cir.  1977).  Likewise, 
the 
Supreme 
Court 
has 
cited 
with 
approval 
the 
Sixth 
Circuit's 
holding 
in 
Webster 
v. 
Sowders,  846 
F.2d 
1032,  1040 
(6th 
Cir.  1988), 
that 
"Appeals of 
district 
court 
orders 
should 
not 
be 
deterred 
by 
threats 
from 
district 
judges". Cooter &  Gell 
v. 
Hartmarx 
Corp.,  496 U.S.  384,  407-408  (1990). 
Further, 
the 
Supreme 
Court 
has 
held 
that 
due 
process 
requires 
that 
litigants 
can 
exercise 
the 
right 
to 
appeal 
from  a 
trial 
court's 
orders 
free  from 
the 
apprehension 
of 
a 
penalty 
imposed 
by 
the 
trial 
court. 
Pearce, 395 U.S. 
at 
724-725. 
Accordingly, for 
the 
reasons 
discussed above, 
the 
Bankruptcy 
Court 
exceeded 
its 
authority 
and 
violated 
the 
petitioner's 
constitutional 
rights 
to 
due 
process 
by 
subjecting 
the 
petitioner's 
counsel to 
contempt 
proceedings 
for 
seeking 
appellate 
relief from 
the 
Bankruptcy 
Court's 
orders 
pursuant 
to 
the 
Federal 
Rules 
of 
Bankruptcy 
Procedure. 
Similarly, 
as 
a 
constitutional 
matter 
of 
due 
process, 
the 
Bankruptcy 
Court 
exceeded 
its 
authority 
in 
ordering 
the 
petitioner 
and 
its 
counsel 
not 
to 
appeal 
it 
orders. 
-36-
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 34     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

ISSUE 
3: 
This 
Honorable 
Court 
has 
authority 
to 
issue 
the 
requested 
writ. 
The 
Supreme 
Court 
has 
held 
that 
the 
extraordinary 
writ 
of 
mandamus 
is 
appropriate 
"[T]o 
confine 
an 
inferior 
court 
to 
a 
lawful 
exercise 
of 
its 
prescribed 
authority, 
or 
to 
compel 
it 
to 
exercise 
its 
authority 
when 
it 
is 
its 
duty 
to 
do 
so".  Moses 
H. 
Cone 
Memorial Hospital 
v. 
Mercury  Constr.  Corp., 
460 
U.S. 
1, 
18 
(1983). 
As 
discussed above, 
the 
Bankruptcy 
Court 
clearly 
exceeded 
its 
jurisdiction 
and 
authority 
and 
the 
Bankruptcy 
Clerk 
has 
failed 
to 
act 
on 
the 
notices 
of 
appeal 
filed 
with 
the 
Clerk, 
when 
the 
Bankruptcy 
Clerk 
has 
a 
clear 
legal 
duty 
to do  so. 
Further, 
because 
the 
Bankruptcy 
Clerk 
has 
refused 
to 
process 
the 
appeals, 
the 
issues 
raised 
on 
the 
noticed 
appeals 
can 
only 
be 
addressed 
if 
the 
requested 
mandamus 
relief 
is 
granted. 
-37-
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 35     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

PRAYER 
Petitioner, 
jointly 
and 
in 
the 
alternative 
prays 
that 
a 
Writ 
or 
Writs 
be 
issued 
directing: 
(1) 
The 
Clerk 
of 
the 
Bankruptcy 
Court 
of 
the 
Northern 
District 
of 
Texas, 
Dallas 
Division  to 
process 
and 
deliver 
to 
the 
U.S. 
District 
Clerk 
for 
docketing 
and 
random 
assignment 
to  a 
District 
Court, 
the 
appeals 
taken 
pursuant 
to 
the 
following 
notices 
of 
appeal 
filed 
in 
Bankruptcy 
Case 
09-34 784-sgj11: 
a.  Notice of 
Appeal 
[DE# 
610], filed 8/16/11; 
b.  Notice of 
Appeal 
[DE# 
612], filed 8/18/11; 
c. 
Notice of 
Appeal 
[DE# 
613], filed 8/18111; 
and 
d. 
Amended 
Notice of 
Appeal 
[DE# 
614], filed 8/18/11. 
(2) 
The 
Bankruptcy 
Judge 
to 
Vacate 
the 
Bankruptcy 
Judge's 
order 
[DE #  648] 
striking 
the 
above 
listed 
Notices  of 
Appeal 
and 
Ordering 
counsel 
for 
the 
Petitioner 
to 
Show 
Cause 
why 
they 
should 
not 
be 
sanctioned 
and 
held 
in 
Contempt 
for 
appealing 
orders 
of 
the 
Bankruptcy 
Judge. 
-38-
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 36     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

Respectfully 
submitted, 
-39-
/s/ 
Gary 
N. 
Schepps 
Gary 
N. 
Schepps 
Texas 
State 
Bar 
No. 
00791608 
5400 
LBJ 
Freeway, 
Suite 
1200 
Dallas, 
Texas 
75240 
(972) 200-0000 -
Telephone 
(972) 200-0535 -
Facsimile 
Email: 
legal@schepps.net 
FOR PETITIONER 
NOVO POINT LLC 
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 37     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 
WITH TYPE-VOLUME LIMITATION, TYPEFACE 
REQUIREMENTS, AND TYPE STYLE REQUIREMENTS 
1. 
This 
brief 
complies 
with 
the 
type-volume 
limitation 
of 
FED. 
R. 
APP.  P.  32(a)(7)(B)  because: 
this 
brief 
does 
not 
exceed  30 
pages 
exclusive  of 
the 
the 
parts 
of 
the 
brief 
exempted 
by 
FED. 
R. 
APP. 
P. 
21(d) 
2. 
This 
brief 
complies 
with 
the 
typeface 
requirements 
of 
FED. 
R. 
APP.  P.  32(a)(5) 
and 
the 
type 
style 
requirements 
of 
FED. 
R. 
APP. 
P. 
32(a)(6) because: 
this 
brief 
has 
been 
prepared 
in 
a 
proportionally 
spaced 
typeface 
using 
MS 
Word 
2000 
in 
14 
and 
15 
point 
century 
font. 
DATED: April 20, 2012. 
CERTIFIED 
BY: 
/s/ 
Gary 
N. 
Schepps 
Gary 
N. Schepps 
COUNSEL 
FOR 
APPELLANTS 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
This 
is  to 
certify 
service 
this 
day 
of 
this 
Petition 
on 
the 
Respondents 
and 
real 
parties 
in 
interest 
by 
US 
Mail 
and 
by electronic 
service to 
counsel 
for all 
parties 
to 
the 
US 
District 
Case 
3:09-cv-00988-F 
in 
the 
Northern 
District 
of Texas. 
CERTIFIED 
BY: 
Is/ 
Gary 
N. 
Schepps 
Gary 
N. 
Schepps 
COUNSEL 
FOR 
PETITIONER 
-40-
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 38     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

Case 09-34784-sgj11  Doc 648  Filed 09/06/11  Entered 09/06/11 
15:40:4u1s. 
sD~TCY 
COURT 
Main Document  Page 1 
of 
9 
NoRTHERN 
msTRicT 
oF 
TExAs 
Exhibit A 
ENTERED 
TA 
WANA 
C. 
MARSHALL, 
CLERK 
THE 
DATE 
OF 
ENTRY 
IS 
ON 
THE 
COURT'S 
DOCKET 
~JJe~. 
U 
nitedates 
BankruptcyJU{lge 
Signed September 06, 2011 
THE 
UNITED  STATES 
BANKRUPTCY 
COURT 
FOR 
THE 
NORTHERN 
DISTRICT 
OF 
TEXAS 
DALLAS 
DIVISION 
IN 
RE: 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
ONDOVA 
LIMITED 
COMPANY, 
Case 
No. 
09-34784-SGJ-11 
Debtor. 
ORDER: 
(A) 
GRANTING, 
IN 
SUBSTANTIAL  PART,  TRUSTEE'S 
MOTION 
TO: 
(I) 
SHOW 
CAUSE 
WHY 
CHRISTOPHER 
PAYNE 
AND 
GARY 
SCHEPPS 
SHOULD 
NOT 
BE 
HELD 
IN 
CONTEMPT 
AND 
SANCTIONED; 
AND 
(II) 
STRIKE  NOTICES 
OF  APPEAL 
AND 
MOTION 
TO 
STAY 
SALE 
ORDER 
[DE 
#  6371 ; 
AND 
(B)  SETTING 
SHOW 
CAUSE 
HEARING 
ON 
OCTOBER 
24,2011, 
AT 
10:30 
A.M., 
AS 
TO 
ACTIONS 
OF 
LAWYERS 
CHRISTOPHER 
PAYNE 
AND 
GARY 
SCHEPPS 
I. 
INTRODUCTION. 
The 
court 
held 
a 
hearing 
on 
September 
1, 
2011 
on 
the 
Trustee's 
Motion 
to: 
(I) 
Show 
Cause 
Why 
Christopher 
Payne 
and 
Gary 
Schepps 
Should 
Not 
Be 
Held 
in 
Contempt 
and 
Sanctioned; 
and 
(II) 
Strike 
Notices 
of 
Appeal 
and 
Motion 
to 
Stay 
Sale 
Order 
(the 
"Motion") 
[DE 
# 
637]. 
Appearing 
at 
the 
hearing, 
among 
others, 
were: 
(a) 
the 
Chapter 
11 
Trustee 
for 
Ondova 
Limited 
Company 
("Ondova"), 
Daniel 
Sherman 
("Trustee"); 
(b) 
the 
Trustee's 
-1-
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 39     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

Case 09-34 784-sgj 
11 
Doc 648 
Filed 
09/06/11  Entered 09/06/11  15:40:41  Desc 
Main Document  Page 2 of 9 
counsel; 
(c) 
counsel 
for 
the 
Receiver, 
Peter 
Vogel 
(the 
"Receiver"), 
who 
was 
appointed, 
in 
2010, 
by 
United 
States 
District 
Judge 
Royal 
Furgeson 
in 
Civil 
Action 
No. 
3:09-CV-0988-F, 
as 
receiver 
over 
Jeffrey 
Baron, 
the 
former 
principal 
of 
Ondova, 
and 
related 
entities 
(the 
"Baron 
Receivership 
Action"); 
(d) 
Joshua 
Cox, 
counsel 
for 
Novo 
Point, 
LLC, 
which 
entity 
is 
a 
Baron-
related 
entity 
that 
is 
subject 
to 
the 
Baron 
Receivership 
Action 
(Mr. 
Cox's 
authority 
to 
act 
as 
counsel 
for 
Novo 
Point, 
LLC 
was 
previously 
approved 
and/or 
acknowledged 
in 
the 
Baron 
Receivership 
Action); 
(e) 
Christopher 
Payne, 
an 
attorney 
appearing 
for 
himself, 
and 
who 
has 
recently 
purported 
to 
represent 
Novo 
Point, 
LLC 
in 
the 
above-referenced 
bankruptcy 
case; 
and 
(f) 
Gary 
Schepps, 
an 
attorney 
appearing 
for 
himself, 
and 
who 
purports 
to 
be 
appellate 
counsel 
for 
Jeffrey 
Baron 
and 
perhaps 
Baron-related 
entities. 
In 
the 
Motion, 
the 
Trustee 
requested 
that 
the 
bankruptcy 
court 
strike 
five 
pleadings 
(the 
"Five 
Pleadings") 
that 
were 
signed 
by 
Christopher 
Payne 
and, 
in 
all 
but 
one 
case, 
electronically 
filed 
by 
Gary 
Schepps. 
The 
Five 
Pleadings 
were 
allegedly 
filed 
by 
Payne/Schepps 
on 
behalf 
of 
Novo 
Point, 
LLC, 
which 
entity-as 
mentioned 
above-is 
related 
to 
Jeffrey 
Baron 
and 
is 
under 
the 
control 
of 
the 
Receiver, 
pursuant 
to 
Orders 
signed 
by 
District 
Judge 
Royal 
Furgeson 
on 
November 
24, 
2010, 
and 
December 
17, 
2010. 
In 
fact, 
the 
main 
purpose 
of 
Judge 
Furgeson's 
-2-
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 40     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

Case 09-34784-sgj11 
Doc 
648 
Filed 
09/06/11  Entered 09/06/11  15:40:41  Desc 
Main Document  Page 3 of 9 
Order 
dated 
December 
17, 
2010 
was 
to 
specifically 
clarify 
that 
the 
entity 
Novo 
Point, 
LLC 
was 
a 
part 
of 
the 
Baron 
Receivership 
Action 
and  any 
individuals 
allegedly 
representing 
it 
were 
to 
comply 
with 
all 
instructions 
given 
to 
them 
by 
the 
Receiver.
1 
Such 
December 
17, 
2010 
Order 
was 
agreed 
to 
by 
Joshua 
Cox 
and 
James 
Eckles-who 
were 
then 
attorneys 
for 
Novo 
Point, 
LLC. 
The 
Trustee 
has 
requested 
that 
the 
Five 
Pleadings 
be 
stricken, 
since 
Christopher 
Payne 
and 
Gary 
Schepps 
had 
no 
authority 
from 
the 
Receiver 
to 
file 
them 
on 
behalf 
of 
Novo 
Point, 
LLC. 
The 
Trustee 
also 
asked 
for 
a 
Show 
Cause 
Order 
why 
Christopher 
Payne 
and 
Gary 
Schepps 
should 
not 
be 
sanctioned 
and 
held 
in 
contempt 
of 
the 
bankruptcy 
court, 
since 
the 
bankruptcy 
court 
has 
previously 
ruled 
that 
Christopher 
Payne, 
his 
firm, 
Dennis 
Olson, 
and 
Dennis 
Olson's 
firm 
may 
not 
appear 
in 
the 
bankruptcy 
court 
on 
behalf 
of 
Novo 
Point, 
LLC 
without 
first 
filing 
a 
motion 
for 
authority 
to 
do 
so, 
which 
motion 
must 
be 
supported 
by 
compelling 
evidence, 
including 
live 
testimony 
from 
a 
Brian 
Mason 
and 
Lisa 
Katz-i.e., 
the 
ones 
who 
have 
allegedly 
given 
instructions 
to 
Christopher 
Payne 
to 
take 
legal 
positions 
for 
Novo 
Point, 
LLC. 
See 
DE 
## 
605 
& 
609. 
II. 
THE 
FIVE  PLEADINGS. 
The 
Five 
Pleadings 
that 
the 
Trustee 
asked 
to 
have 
stricken 
The 
December 
17, 
2010 
Order 
contained 
similar 
clarification 
provisions 
concerning 
a 
Baron-related 
entity 
known 
as 
Quantec, 
LLC. 
-3-
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 41     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

Case 09-34784-sgj11  Doc 648 
Filed 
09/06/11  Entered 09/06/11  15:40:41  Desc 
Main Document  Page 4 
of 
9 
were: 
1. 
Notice 
of 
Appeal
2 
[DE 
# 
610] 
' 
filed 
8/16/11. 
2. 
Notice 
of 
Appeal
3 
[DE 
# 
612] 
' 
filed 
8/18/11. 
3. 
Notice 
of 
Appeal
4 
[DE 
# 
613] 
' 
filed 
8/18/11. 
4. 
Amended 
Notice 
of 
Appeal
5 
[DE 
# 
614] 
' 
filed 
8/18/11. 
5. 
Motion 
for 
Stay 
Pending 
Appeal
6 
[DE 
# 
615] 
' 
filed 
8/18/11. 
2 
This 
Notice 
of 
Appeal 
pertained 
to 
an 
Order 
[DE 
# 
605] 
granting 
the 
Receiver's 
Motion 
for 
Show 
of 
Authority, 
in 
which 
the 
bankruptcy 
court 
ruled 
that 
Christopher 
Payne, 
his 
firm, 
Dennis 
Olson, 
and 
Dennis 
Olson's 
firm 
had 
no 
authority 
to 
appear 
in 
the 
bankruptcy 
court 
for 
the 
entities 
Novo 
Point, 
LLC 
and 
Quantec, 
LLC, 
and 
that 
they 
may 
not 
appear 
before 
the 
bankruptcy 
court 
in 
the 
future 
for 
these 
entities 
without 
filing 
first 
a 
motion 
for 
authority 
to 
do 
so, 
which 
is 
supported 
by 
compelling 
evidence 
including 
live 
testimony 
from 
Brian 
Mason 
and 
Lisa 
Katz 
(the 
human 
beings 
who 
supposedly 
gave 
authority 
to 
Payne/Olson 
to 
take 
legal 
positions 
for 
Novo 
Point, 
LLC 
and 
Quantec, 
LLC)  . 
This 
Notice 
of 
Appeal 
pertained 
to 
an 
Order 
[DE 
# 
607] 
granting 
the 
Trustee's 
Motion 
to 
Sell 
Property 
of 
the 
Estate 
("Sale 
Motion"), 
in 
which 
the 
bankruptcy 
court 
ruled 
that 
the 
Trustee 
may 
engage 
in 
efforts 
to 
sell 
a 
certain 
Internet 
domain 
name 
owned 
by 
Ondova 
called 
"mondial.com." 
4 
This 
Notice 
of 
Appeal 
pertained 
to 
an 
Order 
[DE 
# 
609] 
granting 
the 
Trustee's 
Motion 
to 
Strike 
the 
objection 
to 
the 
Trustee's 
Sale 
Motion, 
which 
objection 
had 
been 
filed 
purportedly 
on 
behalf 
of 
Novo 
Point, 
LLC 
by 
attorneys 
Christopher 
Payne 
and 
Dennis 
Olson. 
This 
Amended 
Notice 
of 
Appeal 
(like 
the 
Notice 
of 
Appeal 
found 
at 
DE 
#610), 
pertained 
to 
the 
Order 
[DE# 
605] 
granting 
the 
Receiver's 
Motion 
for 
Show 
of 
Authority, 
in 
which 
the 
bankruptcy 
court 
ruled 
that 
Christopher 
Payne, 
his 
firm, 
Dennis 
Olson, 
and 
Dennis 
Olson's 
firm 
had 
no 
authority 
to 
appear 
in 
the 
bankruptcy 
court 
for 
the 
entities 
Novo 
Point, 
LLC 
and 
Quantec, 
LLC 
and 
that 
they 
may 
not 
appear 
before 
the 
bankruptcy 
court 
in 
the 
future 
for 
these 
entities 
without 
filing 
first 
a 
motion 
for 
authority 
to 
do 
so, 
which 
is 
supported 
by 
compelling 
evidence 
including 
live 
testimony 
from 
Brian 
Mason 
and 
Lisa 
Katz 
(the 
human 
beings 
who 
supposedly 
gave 
authority 
to 
Payne/Olson 
to 
take 
legal 
positions 
for 
Novo 
Point, 
LLC 
and 
Quantec, 
LLC). 
It 
is 
unclear 
what 
necessitated 
the 
amendment. 
6 
This 
Motion 
for 
Stay 
Pending 
Appeal 
pertained 
to 
the 
Order 
[DE 
# 
607] 
granting 
the 
Trustee's 
Motion 
to 
Sell 
Property 
of 
the 
Estate 
(the 
"Sale 
Motion"), 
in 
which 
the 
bankruptcy 
court 
ruled 
that 
the 
Trustee 
may 
engage 
in 
efforts 
to 
sell 
a 
certain 
Internet 
domain 
name 
owned 
by 
Ondova 
called 
"mondial.com." 
-4-
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 42     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

Case 09-34784-sgj11 
Doc 
648 
Filed 
09/06/11  Entered 09/06/11  15:40:41  Desc 
Main 
Document  Page 5 
of 
9 
All 
of 
the 
Five 
Pleadings 
were 
signed 
by 
Christopher 
Payne. 
Additionally, 
all 
of 
the 
Five 
Pleadings 
except 
DE 
#610 
were 
filed 
electronically 
by 
attorney 
Gary 
Schepps 
who, 
as 
mentioned 
above, 
describes 
himself 
as 
appellant 
counsel 
to 
Jeffrey 
Baron 
and 
Baron's 
related 
entities 
(DE# 
610 
was 
hand-filed 
by 
Christopher 
Payne 
who 
represented 
that 
he 
is 
not 
an 
E-Filer) 
. 
III. 
EXPLANATIONS 
AND 
ARGUMENTS 
GIVEN 
BY 
CHRISTOPHER 
PAYNE 
AND 
GARY 
SCHEPPS. 
Christopher 
Payne 
represented 
to 
the 
bankruptcy 
court 
at 
the 
September 
1, 
2011 
hearing 
that 
he 
did 
not 
believe 
a 
Notice 
of 
Appeal 
fell 
within 
the 
scope 
of 
the 
bankruptcy 
court's 
orders 
banning 
him 
from 
appearing 
in 
the 
bankruptcy 
court 
on 
behalf 
of 
Novo 
Point, 
LLC, 
since 
a 
Notice 
of 
Appeal 
is 
essentially 
directed 
to 
the 
district 
court. 
He 
also 
represented 
that 
he 
had 
no 
choice 
but 
to 
file 
the 
Motion 
for 
Stay 
Pending 
Appeal 
at 
the 
bankruptcy 
court 
level, 
due 
to 
Bankruptcy 
Rule 
8005. 
Gary 
Schepps 
allegedly 
only 
became 
entangled 
in 
all 
of 
this 
because 
Christopher 
Payne 
does 
not 
have 
the 
ability 
to 
E-File 
in 
the 
bankruptcy 
court 
and 
Schepps 
agreed 
to 
help 
him. 
Additionally, 
Gary 
Schepps 
(somehow) 
does 
not 
believe 
that 
Notices 
of 
Appeal 
are 
"pleadings," 
nor 
that 
filing 
documents 
with 
the 
Bankruptcy 
Clerk 
is 
the 
same 
as 
filing 
documents 
with 
the 
court. 
IV. 
RULING. 
The 
positions 
now 
taken 
by 
Messrs. 
Payne 
and 
Schepps 
appear 
weak 
at 
best. 
The 
court 
is 
more 
inclined 
to 
believe 
that 
-5-
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 43     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

Case 09-34784-sgj11  Doc 648 
Filed 
09/06/11  Entered 09/06/11  15:40:41  Desc 
Main Document  Page 6 of 9 
vexatious 
litigation 
tactics 
and 
gamesmanship 
are 
at 
play. 
As 
pointed 
out 
by 
the 
Trustee, 
Messrs. 
Payne 
and 
Schepps 
could 
have 
filed 
motions 
for 
authority 
to 
file 
the 
Notices 
of 
Appeal 
and 
the 
Motion 
for 
Stay 
Pending 
Appeal, 
and 
presented 
evidence 
and 
testimony 
from 
Brian 
Mason 
and 
Lisa 
Katz 
explaining 
their 
basis 
for 
taking 
legal 
actions 
on 
behalf 
of 
Novo 
Point, 
LLC. 
Mr. 
Payne 
and 
Mr. 
Schepps 
do 
not 
seem 
to 
understand 
basic 
notions 
of 
corporate 
governance 
(at 
least 
where 
this 
Baron 
Receivership 
Action 
is 
concerned). 
Multiple 
entities 
cannot 
speak 
for 
or 
be 
in 
control 
of 
Novo 
Point, 
LLC. 
Right 
now, 
pursuant 
to 
a 
District 
Court 
Order, 
the 
Receiver 
has 
governance 
and 
control 
over 
Novo 
Point, 
LLC. 
The 
District 
Court 
Order 
is 
on 
appeal. 
The 
District 
Court 
Order 
may 
be 
overturned. 
But 
meanwhile, 
the 
Order 
is 
not 
stayed 
and 
it 
controls. 
Parties 
who 
are 
aggrieved 
by 
that 
Order 
have 
standing 
to 
appeal 
it 
and 
take 
legal 
positions 
to 
protect 
their 
interests. 
Such 
parties 
might 
include 
stakeholders 
of 
Novo 
Point, 
LLC 
(such 
as 
creditors 
or 
shareholders) 
. 
But 
Novo 
Point, 
LLC-unless 
and 
until 
the 
District 
Court's 
Receivership 
Orders 
are 
reversed-speaks 
through 
only 
one 
master. 
The 
bankruptcy 
court-despite 
this 
seemingly 
unrefutable 
fact-gave 
Mr. 
Payne 
the 
opportunity 
to 
file 
a 
motion 
for 
authority 
to 
file 
pleadings 
on 
behalf 
of 
Novo 
Point, 
LLC, 
if 
he 
wanted 
to 
try 
and 
convince 
the 
bankruptcy 
court 
that 
there 
is 
some 
legal 
way 
for 
Novo 
Point, 
LLC 
to 
appear 
and 
file 
pleadings 
in 
the 
bankruptcy 
court 
absent 
-6-
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 44     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

Case 09-34 784-sgj 
11 
Doc 648 
Filed 
09/06/11  Entered 09/06/11  15:40:41  Desc 
Main 
Document  Page 7 of 9 
instructions 
to 
do 
so 
from 
the 
Receiver. 
But, 
rather 
than 
file 
such 
a 
motion, 
Payne 
decided 
to 
ignore 
that 
opportunity 
and 
attempt 
an 
appeal. 
Even 
when 
the 
court 
held 
a 
hearing 
on 
the 
Trustee's 
Motion, 
Messrs. 
Payne 
and 
Schepps 
showed 
up 
in 
the 
bankruptcy 
court 
with 
no 
witnesses 
and 
no 
documentation 
that 
might 
somehow 
support 
their 
authority 
to 
act 
for 
Novo 
Point, 
LLC. 
WHEREFORE, 
the 
court 
now 
ORDERS 
as 
follows: 
1. 
The 
court 
has 
jurisdiction 
over 
the 
Trustee's 
Motion 
pursuant 
to 
28 
U.S.C. 
§ 
1334 
and 
28 
U.S.C. 
§ 
157(b) 
.
7 
The 
court 
overrules 
the 
arguments 
of 
Messrs. 
Payne 
and 
Schepps 
that 
the 
case 
of 
Stern 
v. 
Marshall 
131 
S. 
Ct. 
63 
(2011) 
deprives 
a 
non-
Article 
III 
court 
from 
policing 
activity 
of 
lawyers 
and 
parties 
before 
the 
court 
through 
mechanisms 
such 
as 
sanctions 
and 
contempt. 
8 
2. 
The 
Five 
Pleadings 
are 
hereby 
STRICKEN. 
3. 
Even 
if 
it 
is 
somehow 
not 
appropriate 
to 
strike 
the 
7 
While 
this 
court 
recognizes 
that 
the 
filing 
of 
a 
notice 
of 
appeal 
is 
an 
event 
of 
jurisdictional 
significance, 
which 
event 
has 
sometimes 
been 
stated 
as 
divesting 
a 
trial 
court 
over 
those 
aspects 
of 
the 
case 
involved 
in 
the 
appeal, 
e.g., 
Blinco 
v. 
Green 
Tree 
Servicing, 
LLC, 
366 
F.3d 
1249, 
1251 
(11th 
Cir. 
2004), 
Bradford-Scott 
Data 
Corp. 
Physician 
Computer 
Network, 
Inc., 
128 
F.3d 
504, 
505 
(7th 
Cir. 
1997), 
this 
court 
interprets 
the 
relevant 
rules 
and 
case 
law 
in 
this 
regard 
to 
mean 
that 
once 
an 
appeal 
is 
actually 
docketed, 
such 
jurisdiction 
of 
the 
trial 
court 
is 
divested. 
See, 
e.g., 
Fed. 
R. 
Civ. 
P. 
60(a) 
(last 
sentence) 
. 
Accepting 
the 
arguments 
of 
Messrs. 
Payne 
and 
Schepps, 
apparently 
an 
attorney 
could 
strip 
naked 
and 
scream 
obscenities 
in 
the 
courtroom 
and 
there 
would 
not 
be 
a 
thing 
that 
a 
non-Article 
III 
judge 
could 
do 
about 
it 
(except, 
perhaps, 
call 
law 
enforcement 
so 
that 
the 
attorney 
could 
be 
arrested) 
. 
-7-
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 45     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

Case 09-34784-sgj11  Doc 648 
Filed 
09/06/11  Entered  09/06/11  15:40:41  Desc 
Main Document  Page 8 
of 
9 
Motion 
for 
Stay 
Pending 
Appeal, 
it 
is 
hereby 
denied 
since 
the 
movant 
(even 
if 
the 
"movant" 
had 
authority) 
cannot 
show 
a 
likelihood 
or 
probability 
of 
success 
on 
the 
merits 
in 
an 
appeal; 
nor 
that 
the 
movant 
faces 
irreparable 
injury 
if 
the 
stay 
is 
not 
granted; 
nor 
that 
a 
stay 
would 
not 
substantially 
harm 
other 
parties; 
nor 
that 
a 
stay 
would 
serve 
the 
public 
interest. 
4. 
Christopher 
Payne 
and 
Gary 
Schepps 
shall 
file, 
within 
5 
days, 
a 
statement 
making 
the 
disclosures 
contemplated 
by 
Bankruptcy 
Rule 
2019 
(for 
every 
entity 
that 
Christopher 
Payne 
and 
Gary 
Schepps 
allege 
that 
they 
represent 
in 
connection 
with 
the 
Ondova 
bankruptcy 
matters, 
the 
Baron 
Receivership 
Action 
matters, 
and 
appeals-and 
regardless 
of 
whether 
they 
represent 
more 
than 
one 
entity). 
5. 
Christopher 
Payne 
and 
Gary 
Schepps 
shall 
appear 
before 
this 
bankruptcy 
court 
on 
October 
24, 
2011, 
at 
10:30 
a.m., 
and 
SHOW 
CAUSE 
why 
they 
should 
not 
be 
held 
in 
contempt 
of 
court 
and 
sanctioned 
for 
filing 
the 
Five 
Pleadings 
in 
apparent 
violation 
of 
the 
court's 
Orders 
appearing 
at 
DE## 
605 
& 
609, 
and 
for 
otherwise 
purporting 
to 
appear 
and 
take 
legal 
positions 
for 
the 
entity 
Novo 
Point, 
LLC 
without 
any 
legal 
authority.
9 
9 
The 
court 
acknowledges 
that 
Gary 
Schepps 
was 
not 
named 
in 
the 
Orders 
that 
appear 
at 
DE 
## 
605 
& 
609, 
but 
he 
assisted 
Christopher 
Payne 
in 
violating 
those 
Orders 
and 
would 
in 
all 
ways 
appear 
to 
have 
the 
same 
standing 
problem 
of 
Christopher 
Payne, 
in 
that 
the 
Receiver 
has 
not 
directed 
Mr. 
Schepps 
to 
take 
actions 
on 
behalf 
of 
Novo 
Point, 
LLC. 
-8-
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 46     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

Case 09-34784-sgj11  Doc 648  Filed 09/06/11  Entered 09/06/11  15:40:41  Desc 
Main Document  Page 9 
of 
9 
IT 
IS 
SO 
ORDERED. 
###END 
OF 
ORDER### 
-9-
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 47     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

Case 3:09-cv-00988-F  Document 124  Filed 11/24/10  Page 1 
of 
14  PageiD 2067 
Exhibit B 
IN 
THE 
UNITED 
STATES 
DISTRICT 
COURT 
FOR 
THE 
NORTHERN 
DISTRICT 
OF 
TEXAS 
DALLAS 
DIVISION 
NETSPHERE 
INC., 
MANILA 
INDUSTRIES, 
INC.; 
and 
MUNISH 
KRISHAN 
Plaintiffs, 
vs. 
JEFFREY 
BARON 
and 
ONDOVA 
LIMITED 
COMPANY, 
Defendants 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
CIVIL 
ACTION 
NO. 
3-09CV0988-F 
ORDER 
APPOINTING 
RECEIVER 
The 
Court 
hereby 
appoints 
a 
receiver 
and 
imposes 
an 
ancillary relief 
to 
assist 
the 
receiver 
as 
follows: 
APPOINTMENT 
OF 
RECEIVER 
IT 
IS 
HEREBY 
ORDERED 
that 
Peter 
S. 
Vogel 
is 
appointed 
Receiver 
for 
Defendant 
Jeffrey 
Baron 
with 
the 
full 
power 
of 
an 
equity 
receiver. 
The 
Receiver 
shall 
be 
entitled 
to 
possession 
and 
control 
over 
all 
Receivership 
Assets, 
Receivership 
Parties 
and 
Receivership 
Documents 
as 
defined 
herein, 
and 
shall 
be 
entitled 
to 
exercise 
all 
powers 
granted 
herein. 
RECEIVERSHIP 
PARTIES, 
ASSETS, 
AND 
RECORDS 
IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
the 
Court 
hereby 
takes 
exclusive jurisdiction 
over, 
and 
grants 
the 
Receiver 
excl~slve 
control 
over, 
any 
and 
all 
"Receivership 
Parties", 
which 
term 
shall 
include 
Jeffrey 
Baron 
and 
the 
following 
entities: 
Village 
Trust, 
a 
Cook 
Islands 
Trust 
Equity 
Trust 
Company 
IRA 
19471 
Daystar 
Trust, 
a 
Texas 
Trust 
Belton 
Trust, 
a Texas 
Trust 
Novo 
Point, 
Inc., 
a 
USVI 
Corporation 
Iguana 
Consulting, 
Inc., 
a 
USVI 
Corporation 
Quantec, 
Inc., 
a 
USVI 
Corporation 
Shiloh, 
LLC, 
a 
Delaware 
Limited 
Liability 
Company 
Novquant, 
LLC, 
a 
Delaware 
Limited 
Liability 
Company 
ORDER 
APPOINTING 
RECEIVER-
Page 
1 
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 48     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

Case 3:09-cv-00988-F  Document 124  Filed 11/24/10  Page 2 
of 
14  PageiD 2068 
Manassas, 
LLC, 
a 
Texas 
Limited 
Liability 
Company 
Domain 
Jamboree, 
LLC, 
a 
Wyoming 
Limited 
Liability 
Company 
ID 
Genesis, 
LLC, 
a 
Utah 
Limited 
Liability 
Company 
and 
any 
entity 
under 
the 
direct 
or 
indirect 
control 
of 
Jeffrey 
Baron, 
whether 
by 
virtue 
of 
ownership
1 
beneficial 
interest, 
a 
position 
as 
officer, 
director, 
power 
of attorney 
or 
any 
other 
authority 
or 
right 
to 
act. 
The 
Court 
hereby 
enjoins 
any 
person 
from 
taking 
any 
action 
based 
upon 
any 
presently 
existing 
directive 
from 
any 
person 
other 
than 
the 
Receiver 
with 
regard 
to 
the 
affairs 
and 
business 
of 
the 
Receivership 
Parties, 
including 
but 
not 
limited 
to 
proceeding 
with 
the 
transfer  of a 
portfolio 
of internet 
domain 
names 
("Domain 
Names") 
for which 
Ondova 
Limited 
Company 
("Ondova") 
acted 
as 
registrar. 
Specifically, 
but 
without limitation, 
VeriSign 
Inc 
and 
The 
Internet 
Corporation 
for 
Assigned 
Names 
and 
Numbers 
(''ICANN"), 
and 
any 
other 
entity 
connected 
to 
the 
transfer 
of 
the 
Domain 
Names, 
shall 
Immediate 
cease 
such 
efforts 
and 
shall 
terminate 
any 
movement 
of 
the 
Domain 
Names. 
IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
the 
Court 
hereby 
takes 
exclusive 
jurisdiction 
over, 
and 
grants 
the 
Receiver 
exclusive 
control 
over. 
any 
and 
aii"Receivershlp Assets", 
which 
term 
shall 
include 
any 
and 
all 
legal 
or 
equitable 
interest 
in, 
right 
to, 
or 
claim 
to, 
any 
real 
or 
personal 
property 
(including 
"goods," 
"instruments," 
"equipment," 
''fixtures," 
"general 
intangibles," 
"inventory," 
~~checks,'' 
or 
"notes" 
(as 
these 
terms 
are 
defined 
in 
the 
Uniform 
Commercial 
Code)), 
lines 
of 
credit, 
chattels, 
leaseholds, 
contracts, 
mail 
or 
other 
deliveries, 
shares 
of 
stock, 
lists 
of 
consumer 
names, 
accounts, 
credits, 
premises, 
receivables, 
funds, 
and 
all 
cash, 
wherever 
located, 
and 
further 
including 
any 
legal 
or 
equitable 
interest 
in 
any 
trusts, 
corporations, 
partnerships, 
or 
other 
legal 
entities 
of 
any 
nature, 
that 
are: 
1. 
owned, 
controlled, 
or 
held 
by, 
in 
whole 
or 
in 
part, 
for 
the 
benefit 
of, 
or 
subject 
to 
access 
by, 
or 
belonging 
to, 
any 
Receivership 
Party; 
2. 
in 
the 
actual 
or 
constructive 
possession 
of 
any 
Receivership 
Party; 
or 
3. 
in 
the 
actual 
or 
constructive 
possession 
of, 
or 
owned, 
controlled, 
or 
held 
by, 
or 
subject 
to 
access 
by, 
or 
belonging 
to, 
any 
other 
corporation, 
partnership, 
trust, 
or 
any 
ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER - Page 2 
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 49     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

Case 3:09-cv-00988-F  Document 124  Filed 11/24/10  Page 3 
of 
14  PageiD 2069 
other 
entity 
directly 
or 
indirectly 
owned, 
managed, 
or 
controJied 
by, 
or under 
common 
control 
with, 
any 
Receivership 
Party, 
including, 
but 
not 
limited 
to, 
any 
assets 
held 
by 
or 
for 
any 
Receivership 
Party 
in 
any 
account 
at 
any 
bank 
or 
savings 
and 
Joan 
institution, or 
with 
any 
credit 
card 
processing 
agent, 
automated 
clearing 
house 
processor, 
network 
transaction 
processor, 
bank 
debit 
processing 
agent, 
customer 
service 
agent, 
commercial 
mail 
receiving 
agency, 
or 
mail 
holding 
or 
forwarding 
company, 
or 
any 
credit 
union, 
retirement 
fund 
custodian, 
money 
market 
or 
mutual 
fund, 
storage 
company, 
trustee, 
or 
with 
any 
broker-dealer, 
escrow 
agent, 
title 
company, 
commodity 
trading 
company, 
precious 
metal 
dealer, 
or 
other 
financial 
institution 
or 
depository 
of 
any 
kind, 
either 
within 
or 
outside 
of 
the 
State 
of 
Texas. 
IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
the 
Receiver 
shall 
be 
entitled 
to 
any 
document 
that 
any 
Receivership 
Party 
is 
entitled 
to 
possess 
as 
of 
the 
signing 
of 
this 
order 
("Receivership 
Documents"). 
IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
all 
persons 
who 
receive 
actual 
notice 
of 
this 
Order 
by 
personal 
service 
or 
otherwise 
are 
hereby 
restrained 
and 
enjoined 
from: 
A. 
Transferring, 
liquidating, 
converting, 
encumbering, 
pledging, 
loaning, 
selling, 
concealing, 
dissipating, 
disbursing, 
assigning, 
spending, 
withdrawing, 
granting 
a 
lien 
or 
security 
interest 
or 
other 
interest 
in, 
or 
otherwise 
disposing 
of 
any 
Receivership 
Assets. 
B. 
Opening 
or 
causing 
to 
be 
opened 
any 
safe 
deposit 
boxes, 
commercial 
mail 
boxes, 
or 
storage 
facilities 
titled 
In 
the 
name 
of 
any 
Receivership 
Party, 
or subject 
to 
access 
by 
any 
Receivership 
Party 
or under 
any 
Receivership 
Party's 
control, 
without 
providing 
the 
Receiver 
prior 
notice 
and 
an 
opportunity 
to 
inspect 
the 
contents 
in 
order 
to 
determine 
that 
they 
contain 
no 
assets 
covered 
by 
this 
Section; 
c. 
Cashing 
any 
checks 
or 
depositing 
any 
payments 
from 
customers 
or 
clients 
of a 
Receivership 
Party; 
D. 
Incurring 
charges 
or 
cash 
advances 
on 
any 
credit 
card 
issued 
in 
the 
name, 
singly 
or 
jointly, 
of 
any 
Receivership 
Party; 
or 
ORDER APPOINTING 
RECEIVER-
Page 3 
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 50     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

Case 3:09-cv-00988-F  Document 124  Filed 11/24/10  Page 4 
of 
14  PageiD 2070 
E. 
Incurring 
liens 
or 
encumbrances 
on 
real 
property, 
personal 
property, 
or 
other 
assets 
in 
the 
name, 
singly 
or 
jointly, of 
any 
Receivership 
Party 
or of 
any 
corporation, 
partnership, 
or 
other 
entity directly 
or 
indirectly 
owned, 
managed, 
or 
controlled 
by 
any 
Receivership 
Party. 
F. 
The 
funds, 
property, 
and 
assets 
affected 
by 
this 
Order 
shall 
include 
both 
existing 
assets 
and 
assets 
acquired 
after 
the 
effective 
date 
of 
this 
Order. 
IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
any 
financial 
institution, 
business 
entity, 
or 
person 
maintaining 
or 
having 
custody 
or 
control 
of 
any 
account 
or 
other 
asset of 
any 
Receivership 
Party, 
or 
any 
corporation, 
partnership, 
or 
other 
entity 
directly 
or 
indirectly 
owned, 
managed, 
or 
controlled 
by, 
or 
under 
common 
control 
with 
any 
Receivership 
Party, 
which 
is 
served 
with 
a 
copy 
of 
this 
Order, 
or 
otherwise 
has 
actual 
or 
constructive 
knowledge 
of 
this 
Order, 
shall: 
A. 
Hold 
and 
retain 
within 
Its 
control 
and 
prohibit 
the 
withdrawal, 
removal, 
assignment, 
transfer, 
pledge, 
hypothecation, 
encumbrance, 
disbursement, 
dissipation, 
conversion, 
sale, 
liquidation, 
or 
other 
disposal 
of 
any 
of 
the 
assets, 
funds, 
documents, 
or 
other 
property 
held 
by, 
or 
under 
its 
control: 
1. 
on 
behalf 
of, 
or 
for 
the 
benefit 
of, 
any 
Receivership 
Party; 
2. 
In 
any 
account 
maintained 
in 
the 
name 
of, 
or for 
the 
benefit 
of, 
or 
subject 
to 
withdrawal 
by, 
any 
Receivership 
Party; 
and 
3. 
that 
are 
subject 
to 
access 
or 
use 
by, 
or 
under 
the 
signatory 
power 
of, 
any 
Receivership 
Party. 
B. 
Deny 
any 
person 
other 
than 
the 
Receiver 
or 
his 
designee 
access 
to 
any 
safe 
deposit 
boxes 
or 
storage 
facilities that 
are 
either: 
1. 
titled 
in 
the 
name, 
individually 
or 
jointly, of 
any 
Re.ceivership 
Party; 
or 
2. 
subject 
to 
access 
by 
any 
Receivership 
Party. 
C. 
Provide 
the 
Receiver 
an 
immediate 
statement 
setting 
forth: 
ORDER APPOINTING 
RECEIVER-
Page 4 
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 51     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

Case 3:09-cv-00988-F  Document 124  Filed 11/24/10  Page 5 of 14  PageiD 
2071 
1. 
The 
identification 
number 
of 
each 
account 
or 
asset 
titled 
in 
the 
name, 
individual.ly 
or 
jointly, 
of 
any 
Receivership 
Party, 
or 
held 
on 
behalf 
thereof. 
or for 
the 
benefit 
thereof, 
including 
all 
trust 
accounts 
managed 
on 
behalf of 
any 
Receivership 
Party 
or 
subject 
to 
any 
Receivership 
Party's 
control; 
2. 
The 
balance 
of 
each 
such 
account, 
or 
a 
description 
of 
th.e 
nature 
and 
value 
of 
such 
asset; 
3. 
The 
identification 
and 
location 
of 
any 
safe 
deposit 
box, 
commercial 
mail 
box, 
or 
storage 
facility 
that 
is 
either 
titled 
in 
the 
name, 
individually 
or 
jointly, of 
any 
Receivership 
Party, 
whether 
in 
whole 
or 
in 
part; 
and 
4. 
If 
the 
account, 
safe 
dep~sit 
box, 
storage 
facility, 
or 
other 
asset 
has 
been 
closed 
or 
removed, 
the 
date 
closed 
or 
removed 
and 
the 
balance 
on 
said 
date. 
D. 
Immediately 
provide 
the 
Receiver 
with 
copies 
of 
all 
records 
or other 
documentation 
pertaining 
to 
each 
such 
account 
or 
asset, 
including, 
but 
not 
limited 
to, 
originals 
or 
copies 
of 
account 
applications, 
account 
statements, 
corporate 
resolutions, 
signature 
cards, 
checks, 
drafts,. 
deposit 
tickets, 
transfers 
to 
and 
from 
the 
accounts, 
all 
other debit 
and 
credit 
instruments 
or 
slips, 
currency 
transaction 
reports, 
1 
099 
forms, 
and 
safe 
deposit 
box 
logs; 
and 
E. 
lmmed!ately 
honor 
any 
requests 
by 
the 
Receiver 
with 
regard 
to 
transfers 
of 
assets 
to 
the 
Receiver 
or 
as 
the 
Receiver 
may 
direct. 
DUTIES 
OF 
DEFENDANTS 
REGARDING 
ASSETS 
AND 
DOCUMENTS 
IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
Defendants 
shall: 
A. 
Within 
three 
business 
days 
following 
service 
of 
this 
Order, 
take 
such 
steps 
as 
are 
necessary 
to 
turn 
over 
control 
to 
the 
Receiver 
and 
repatriate 
to 
the 
Northern 
District 
of 
Texas 
all 
Receivership 
Documents 
and 
Receivership 
Assets 
that 
are 
located 
outside 
of 
the 
Northern 
District 
of 
Texas 
and 
are 
held 
by 
or 
for 
the 
Receivership 
Parties. 
or 
are 
under 
the 
Receivership 
Parties' 
direct 
or 
indirect 
control, 
jointly, 
severally, 
or 
individually; 
ORDER APPOINTING 
RECEIVER-
Page 5 
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 52     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

Case 3:09-cv-00988-F  Document 124  Filed  11/24/10  Page 6 of 14  PageiD 2072 
B. 
Within 
thre.e 
business 
days 
following 
service 
of 
this 
Order, 
provide 
Plaintiff 
and 
the 
Receiver 
with 
a 
full 
accounting 
of 
all 
Receivership 
Documents 
and 
Receivership 
Assets 
wherever 
located, 
whether 
such 
Documents 
or 
Assets 
held 
by 
or 
for 
any 
Receivership 
Party 
or 
are 
under 
any 
Receivership 
Party's 
direct 
or 
indirect 
control, 
jointly, 
severally, 
or 
individually, 
including 
the 
addresses 
and 
names of 
any 
foreign 
or 
domestic 
financial 
institution 
or 
other 
entity 
holding 
the 
Receivership 
Documents 
and 
Receivership 
Assets, 
along 
with 
the 
account 
numbers 
and 
balances; 
and 
D. 
Immediately 
following 
service 
of 
this 
Order, 
provide 
Plaintiff 
and 
the 
Receiver 
access 
to 
Defendants' 
records 
and 
Documents 
held 
by 
Financial 
Institutions 
or 
other 
entities, 
wherever 
located. 
POWERS 
AND 
DUTIES 
OF 
RECEIVER 
IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
the 
Receiver 
shall 
immediately present a 
sworn 
statement 
that 
he 
will 
perform 
his 
duties 
faithfully 
and 
shall 
post 
a 
cash 
deposit or 
bond 
in 
the 
amount 
of 
$1,000. 
IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
in 
addition 
to 
all 
powers 
granted 
in 
equity 
to 
receivers, 
the 
Receiver 
shall 
immediately 
have 
the 
following 
express 
powers 
and 
duties: 
A. 
To 
have 
immediate 
access 
to 
any 
business 
premises 
of 
the 
Receivership 
Party, 
and 
immediate 
access 
to 
any 
other 
location 
where 
the 
Receivership 
Party 
has 
conducted 
business 
and 
where 
property or 
business 
records 
are 
likely 
to 
be 
located. 
B. 
To 
assume 
full 
control 
of 
the 
Receivership 
Party 
by 
removing, 
as 
the 
Receiver 
deems 
necessary 
or 
advis.;able, 
any 
director, 
officer, 
Independent 
contract'?r, 
employee 
or 
agent 
of 
the 
Receivership 
Party, 
Including 
any 
Defendant, 
from 
control 
of, 
management 
of, 
or 
participation 
in, 
the 
affairs 
of 
the 
Receivership 
Party; 
C. 
To 
take 
exclusive 
custody, 
control, 
and 
possession 
of 
all 
assets 
and 
documents 
of, 
or 
in 
the 
possession, 
custody 
or 
under 
the 
control 
of, 
the 
Receivership 
Party, 
wherever 
ORDER APPOINTING 
RECEIVER-
Page 6 
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 53     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

Case 3:09-cv-00988-F  Document 124  Filed 11/24/10  Page 7 
of 
14  PageiD 2073  · 
situated, 
including 
without 
limitation 
all 
paper 
documents 
and 
all 
electronic 
data 
and 
devices 
that 
contain 
or 
store 
electronic 
data 
including 
but 
not 
limited 
to 
computers, 
laptops, 
data 
storage 
devices, 
back-up 
tapes, 
DVDs, 
COs, 
and 
thumb 
drives 
and 
all 
other 
external 
storage 
devices 
and, 
as 
to 
equipment 
in 
the 
possession 
or 
under 
the 
control 
ofthe 
Receivership 
Parties, 
all 
PDAs, 
smart 
phones, 
cellular 
telephones, 
and 
similar 
devices 
issued 
or 
paid 
for 
by 
the 
Receivership 
Party. 
D. 
To 
act 
on 
behalf of 
the 
Receivership 
Party 
and, 
subject 
to 
further 
order 
of 
the 
Court, 
to 
have 
the 
full 
power 
and 
authority 
to 
take 
all 
corporate 
actions, 
including 
but 
not 
limited 
to, 
the 
filing 
of a 
petition 
for 
bankruptcy 
as 
the 
authorized 
responsible 
person 
as 
to 
the 
Receivership 
Party, 
dissolution of 
the 
Receivership 
Party, 
and 
sale 
of 
the 
Receivership 
Party. 
E. 
To 
divert 
mail. 
F. 
To 
sue 
for, 
collect, 
receive, 
take 
in 
possession, 
hold, 
and 
manage 
all 
assets 
and 
documents 
of 
the 
Receivership 
Party 
and 
other 
persons 
or 
entities 
whose 
interests 
are 
now 
held 
by 
or 
under 
the 
direction, 
possession, 
custody 
or 
control 
of 
the 
Receivership 
Party. 
G. 
To 
investigate, 
conserve, 
hold, 
and 
manage 
all 
Receivership 
Assets, 
and 
perform 
all 
acts 
necessary 
or 
advisable 
to 
preserve 
the 
value 
of 
those 
assets 
in 
an 
effort 
to 
prevent 
any 
irreparable 
loss, 
damage 
or 
injury 
to 
consumers 
or 
to 
creditors of the 
Receivership 
Party 
including, 
but 
not 
limited 
to, 
obtaining 
an 
accounting 
of 
the 
assets, 
and 
preventing 
transfer, 
withdrawal 
or 
misapplication 
of 
assets. 
H. 
To 
enter into 
contracts 
and 
purchase 
insurance 
as 
advisable 
or 
necessary. 
I. 
To 
prevent 
the 
inequitable 
distribution 
of 
assets 
and 
determine, 
adjust, 
and 
protect 
the 
interests 
of 
creditors 
who 
have 
transacted 
business 
with 
the 
Receivership 
Party. 
J. 
To 
manage 
and 
administer 
the 
business 
of 
the 
ReceiVership 
Party 
until 
further 
order 
of 
this 
Court 
by 
performing 
all 
incidental 
acts 
that 
the 
Receiver 
deems 
to 
be 
advisable 
or 
necessary, 
which 
include 
retaining, 
hiring, 
or 
dismissing 
any 
employees, 
independent 
contractors, 
or 
agents. 
ORDER APPOINTING 
RECEIVER-
Page 7 
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 54     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

Case 3:09-cv-00988-F  Document 124  Filed 11/24/10  Page 8 of 14  PageiD 2074 
K. 
To 
choose, 
engage, 
and 
employ 
attorneys, accountants, appraisers, 
and 
other 
independent 
contractors 
and 
technical specialists (collectively, "Professionals"), 
as 
each 
Receiver 
deems 
advisable 
or 
necessary 
In 
the 
performance of duties 
and 
responsibilities under 
the 
authority 
granted 
by 
this 
Order. 
L. 
To 
make 
payments 
and 
disbursements 
from 
the receivership estate that 
are 
necessary 
or 
advisable 
for 
carrying 
out 
the 
directions 
of, 
or exercising the authority 
granted 
by, 
this 
Order. 
M. 
To 
institute, 
compromise, 
adjust, 
defend, appear 
in, 
Intervene 
in, 
or 
become 
party 
to 
such 
actions 
or 
proceedings 
in 
state, 
federal 
or foreign 
courts 
that each Receiver 
deems 
necessary 
and 
advisable 
to 
preserve 
or recover 
the 
assets of 
the 
Receivership Party or 
that 
each 
Receiver 
deems 
necessary 
and 
advisable 
to 
carry out 
the 
Receivers mandate under 
this 
Order, 
including 
but 
not 
limited 
to, 
the 
filing 
of a petition 
for 
bankruptcy. 
N. 
To 
conduct investigations 
and 
to 
issue 
subpoenas 
to 
obtain documents 
and 
records 
pertaining 
to, 
or 
in 
aid 
of, 
the 
receivership, 
and 
conduct discovery 
in 
this 
action 
on 
behalf 
of 
the 
receivership 
estate. 
0. 
To 
consent 
to 
the 
dissolution of the receivership 
in 
the event that 
the 
Plaintiff 
m~y 
compromise 
the 
claim 
that 
gave 
rise 
to 
the 
appointment of 
the 
Receiver, 
provided, 
however, 
that 
no 
such 
dissolution 
shall 
occur without a 
motion 
by 
the 
Plaintiff 
and 
service 
provided 
by 
the 
Plaintiff 
upon 
all 
known 
creditors at least thirty 
days 
in 
advance 
of 
any 
such 
dissolution. 
LIMITATION 
OF 
RECEIVER'S LIABILITY 
I"T 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
except 
for 
an 
act of 
gross 
negligence, 
the 
Receiver 
and 
the 
Professionals 
shall 
not 
be 
liable 
for 
any 
loss 
or damage incurred 
by 
any of the Receivership 
Parties, 
their 
officers, 
agents, 
servants, 
employees 
and 
attorneys or 
any 
other 
person, 
by 
reason 
of 
any 
act 
performed 
or 
omitted 
to 
be 
perfonned 
by 
the 
Receiver 
and 
the 
Professionals 
in 
connection 
with 
the 
discharge of 
his 
or her duties 
and 
responsibilities.  Additionally, 
in 
the 
ORDER APPOINTING 
RECEIVER-
Page 8 
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 55     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

Case 3:09-cv-00988-F  Document 124  Filed 11/24/10  Page 9 of 14  PageiD 2075 
event 
of a 
discharge 
of the Receiver either 
by 
dissolution 
of 
the 
receivership 
or 
order of 
this 
Court, 
the 
Receiver 
shall 
have 
no 
further 
duty 
whatsoever. 
PROFESSIONAL 
FEES 
IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
each 
Receiver 
and 
his 
professionals, 
including 
counsel 
to 
the 
Receiver 
and 
accountants, 
are 
entitled 
to 
reasonable 
compensation for 
the 
performance 
of 
duties 
pursuant 
to 
this 
Order 
and 
for 
the 
cost 
of 
actual 
out-of-pocket expenses 
incurred 
by 
them, 
which 
compensation 
shall 
be 
derived 
exclusively 
from 
the 
assets now 
held 
by, 
or 
In 
the 
possession 
or 
control 
of, 
or 
which 
may 
.be 
received 
by 
the 
Receivership Party or 
which 
are 
otherwise 
recovered 
by 
the 
Receiver, 
against 
with 
the 
ReceiVer 
shall 
have 
a first 
and 
absolute 
administrative 
expense 
lien. 
The Receiver 
shall 
file 
with 
the 
Court 
and 
serve 
on 
the 
parties 
a 
fee 
application 
with 
regard 
to 
any 
compensation 
to 
be 
paid 
to 
professionals prior 
to 
the 
payment 
thereof. 
COOPERATION 
WITH 
RECEIVER 
IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that the 
Defendants 
and 
all 
other persons or entities 
served 
with 
a 
copy 
of 
this 
Order 
shall fully cooperate 
with 
and 
assist 
the 
Receiver. 
This 
cooperation 
and 
assistance 
shall 
include, 
but 
not 
be 
limited 
to, 
providing 
any 
information 
to 
the 
Receiver 
that 
the 
Receiver 
deems 
necessary to 
exercising 
the 
authority 
and 
discharging the responsibilities of 
the 
Receiver 
under 
this 
Order; 
providing 
any 
password 
required 
to 
access 
any 
computer, 
electronic 
account, 
or 
digital 
file 
or telephonic 
data 
in 
any 
medium; 
turning over 
all 
accounts, 
files, 
and 
records 
including 
those 
in 
possession 
or 
control 
of attorneys or accountants; 
and 
advising 
all 
pe.rsons 
who 
owe 
money 
to 
the 
ReceiVership 
Party 
that all debts should 
be 
paid 
directly 
to 
the 
Receiver. 
Defendants 
are 
hereby temporarily restrained 
and 
enjoined 
from 
directly 
or 
indirectly: 
A. 
Transacting any of 
the 
business 
of 
the 
Receivership Party; 
ORDER APPOINTING 
RECEIVER-
Page 9 
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 56     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

Case 3:09-cv-00988-F  Document 124  Filed  11/24/10  Page 10 of 14  PageiD 2076 
B. 
Destroying, secreting, 
defacing, 
transferring, or otherwise altering or 
disposing 
of 
any 
documents 
of 
the 
Receivership 
Party 
including, 
but 
not 
limited 
to, 
books, 
records, 
accounts, 
writings, 
drawings, 
graphs, 
charts, 
photographs, 
audio 
and 
video recordings, 
computer 
records, 
and 
other 
data 
compilations, electronically.stored 
records, 
or 
any 
other 
papers 
of 
any 
kind 
or 
nature; 
C. 
Transferring, 
receiving, 
altering, 
selling, 
encumbering, 
pledging, 
assigning, 
liquidating, 
or 
otherwise 
disposing of 
any 
assets 
owned, 
controlled, 
or 
in 
the 
possession 
or 
custody 
of, 
or 
in 
which 
an 
interest 
is 
held 
or 
claimed 
by, 
the 
Receivership 
Party 
or 
the 
Receiver; 
D. 
Drawing 
on 
any 
existing 
line 
of 
credit 
available to Receivership 
Party; 
E. 
Excusing 
debts 
owed 
to 
the 
Receivership 
Party; 
F. 
Failing 
to 
notify 
the 
Receiver 
of 
any 
asset, 
including accounts, of 
the 
Receivership 
Party 
held 
in 
any 
name 
other 
than 
the 
name 
of any of 
the 
Receivership 
Party, 
or 
by 
any 
person 
or 
entity other 
than 
the 
Receivership 
Party, 
or failing 
to 
provide 
any 
assistance 
or 
information 
requested 
by 
the 
Receiver 
in 
connection 
with 
obtaining possession, 
custody 
or 
control 
of 
such 
assets; 
G. 
Doing 
any act that 
would, 
or 
failing 
to 
do 
any 
act which failure would, interfere 
with 
the 
Receiver's 
taking 
custody, 
control, 
possession, 
or management of 
the 
assets 
or 
documents 
subject 
to 
this receivership; or 
to 
harass 
or interfere with 
the 
Receiver 
in 
any 
way; 
or 
to 
interfere 
in 
any 
manner with 
the 
exclusive jurisdiction of this Court over 
the 
assets 
or 
documents 
of 
th~ 
Receivership 
Party; 
or 
to 
refuse 
to 
cooperate with 
the 
Receiver or 
the 
Receiver's 
duly 
authorized agents 
in 
the 
exercise 
of their duties or authority under 
any 
Order of 
this 
Court; 
and 
H. 
Filing, 
or causing 
to 
be 
filed, 
any 
petition 
on 
behalf of the Receivership 
Party 
for 
relief 
under 
the 
United 
States Bankruptcy 
Code, 
11 
U.S.C. 
§§ 1 01·1330 
(2002), 
without 
prior 
permission 
from 
this 
Court. 
IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that: 
ORDER APPOINTING 
RECEIVER-
Page 1 0 
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 57     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

Case 3:09-cv-00988-F  Document 124  Filed  11/24/10  Page 
11 
of 
14 
PageiD 2077 
A. 
Immediately 
upon 
service 
of 
this 
Order 
upon 
them, 
or 
within 
such 
period 
as 
may 
be 
pennitted 
by 
the 
Receiver, 
Defendants 
or 
any 
other 
person 
or 
entity 
shall 
transfer or 
deliver 
possession, 
custody, 
and 
control 
of 
the 
following 
to 
the 
Receiver: 
1. 
All 
assets 
of 
the 
Receivership 
Party, 
including, 
without 
limitation, 
bank 
accounts, 
web 
sites, 
buildings 
or 
office 
space 
owned, 
leased, 
rented, 
or 
otherwise 
occupied 
by 
the 
Receivership 
Party; 
2. 
All 
documents 
of 
the 
Receivership 
Party, 
including, 
but 
not 
limited 
to, 
books 
and 
records 
of 
accounts, 
legal 
flies 
(whether 
held 
by 
Defendants 
or 
their 
counsel) 
all 
financial 
and 
accounting 
records, 
balance 
sheets, 
income 
statements, 
bank 
records 
(including 
monthly 
statements, 
canceled 
checks, 
records 
of 
wire 
transfers, 
and 
check 
registers), 
client 
lists, 
title 
documents, 
and 
other 
papers; 
3. 
All 
of 
the 
Receivership 
Party's 
accounting 
records, 
tax 
records, 
and 
tax 
returns 
controlled 
by, 
or 
in 
the 
possession 
of, 
any 
bookkeeper, 
accountant, 
enrolled 
agent, 
licensed 
tax 
preparer 
or 
certified 
public 
accountant; 
4. 
All 
loan 
applications 
made 
by 
or 
on 
behalf 
of 
Receivership 
Party 
and 
supporting 
documents 
held 
by 
any 
type 
of lender including, 
but 
not 
.limited 
to, 
banks, 
savings 
and 
loans, 
thrifts or 
credit 
unions; 
5. 
All 
assets 
belonging 
to 
members 
of 
the 
public 
now 
held 
by 
the 
Receivership 
Party; 
and 
6. 
All 
keys 
and 
codes 
necessary 
to 
gain 
or 
secure 
access 
to 
any 
assets 
or 
documents 
of 
the 
Receivership 
Party 
including, 
but 
not 
limited 
to, 
access 
to 
their 
business 
premises, 
means 
of 
communication, 
accounts, 
computer 
systems 
or 
other 
property; 
B. 
In 
the 
event 
any 
person 
or 
entity 
falls 
to 
deliver 
or 
transfer 
any 
asset 
or 
otherwise 
fails 
to 
comply 
with 
any 
provision 
of 
this 
Paragraph, 
the 
Receiver 
may 
file 
ex 
parte 
an 
Affidavit 
of 
Non~Compliance 
regarding 
the 
failure. 
Upon 
filing of 
the 
affidavit, 
the 
Court 
may 
authorize, 
without 
additional 
process 
or 
demand, 
Writs 
of 
Possession 
or 
Sequestration 
or 
other 
equitable 
ORDER APPOINTING 
RECEIVER-
Page 
11 
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 58     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

Case 3:09-cv-00988-F  Document 124  Filed 11/24/10  Page 12 of 
14 
PageiD 2078 
writs 
requested 
by 
the 
Receivers. 
The 
writs 
shall 
authorize 
and 
direct 
the 
United 
States 
Marshal 
or 
any 
sheriff 
or 
deputy 
sheriff of 
any 
county, 
or 
any 
other 
federal 
or 
state 
law 
enforcement 
officer, 
to 
seize 
the 
asset, 
document 
or 
other 
thing 
and 
to 
deliver 
It 
to 
the 
Receivers. 
IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that, 
upon 
service 
of 
a 
copy 
of 
this 
Order, 
all 
banks, 
broker-
dealers, 
savings 
and 
loans, 
escrow 
agents, 
title 
companies, 
leasing 
companies, 
landlords, 
ISOs, 
credit 
and 
debit 
card 
processing 
companies, 
insurance 
agents, 
insurance 
companies, 
commodity 
trading 
companies 
or 
any 
other 
person, 
including 
relatives, 
business 
associates 
or 
friends 
of 
the 
Defendants, 
or their subsidiaries 
or 
affiliates, 
holding 
assets 
of 
the 
Receivership 
Party 
or 
in 
trust 
for 
Receivership 
Party 
shall 
cooperate 
with 
all 
reasonable 
requests 
of 
each 
Receiver 
relating 
to 
implementation 
of 
this 
Order, 
including 
freezing 
and 
transferring 
funds 
at 
his 
or 
her 
direction 
and 
producing 
records 
related 
to 
the 
assets 
of 
the 
Receivership 
Party. 
STAY 
OF 
ACTIONS 
IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that: 
A. 
Except 
by 
leave 
of 
this 
Court, 
during 
the 
pendency 
of 
the 
receivership 
ordered 
herein, 
all 
other 
persons 
and 
entities 
aside 
from 
the 
Receiver 
are 
hereby 
stayed 
from 
taking 
any 
action 
to 
establish 
or 
enforce 
any 
claim, 
right, 
or 
interest 
for, 
against, 
on 
behalf 
of, 
in, 
or 
in 
the 
name 
of, 
the 
Receivership 
Party, 
any 
of their 
partnerships, 
assets. 
documents, 
or 
the 
Receiver 
or 
the 
Receiver's 
duly 
authorized 
agents 
acting 
in their 
capacities 
as 
such, 
including, 
but 
not 
limited 
to, 
the 
following 
actions: 
1. 
Commencing, 
prosecuting, 
continuing, 
entering, 
or 
enforcing 
any 
suit 
or 
proceeding, 
except 
that 
such 
actions 
may 
be 
filed 
to 
toll 
any 
applicable statute 
of 
limitations; 
2. 
Accelerating 
the 
due 
date 
of 
any 
obligation 
or 
claimed 
obligation; 
filing 
or 
enforcing 
any 
lien; 
taking 
or 
attempting 
to 
take 
possession, 
custody 
or 
control 
of 
any 
asset; 
ORDER 
APPOINTING 
RECEIVER 
-
Page 
12 
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 59     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

Case 3:09-cv-00988-F  Document 124  Filed 11/24/10  Page 13 
of 
14  PageiD 2079 
attempting 
to 
foreclose, 
forfeit, alter or 
terminate 
any 
interest 
in 
any 
asset, 
whether 
such 
acts 
are 
part 
of 
a judicial 
proceeding 
or 
are 
acts 
of 
self-help 
or 
otherwise; 
3. 
Executing, 
issuing, 
serving 
or 
causing 
the 
execution, 
issuance 
or 
service 
of, 
any 
legal 
process 
including, but 
not 
limited 
to, 
attachments, 
garnishments, 
subpoenas, 
writs 
of 
replevin, 
writs 
of 
execution, 
or 
any 
other 
form 
of 
process 
whether specified 
in 
this 
Order or 
not; 
and 
4. 
Doing 
any 
act 
or 
thing 
whatsoever 
to 
interfere 
with 
the 
Receiver 
taking 
custody, 
control, 
possession, 
or 
management 
of 
the 
assets 
or documents subject 
to 
this 
receivership, 
or 
to 
harass 
or interfere 
with 
the 
Receiver 
in 
any 
way, 
or 
to 
interfere 
in 
any 
manner 
with 
the 
exclusive 
jurisdiction of 
this 
Court 
over 
the 
assets or documents of 
the 
Receivership 
Party; 
B. 
This 
Order 
does 
not 
stay: 
1. 
The 
commencement 
or 
continuation 
of a criminal 
action 
or 
proceeding; 
and 
2. 
Except 
as 
otherwise 
provided 
in 
this 
Order, 
all 
persons 
and 
entities 
in 
need 
of 
documentation 
from 
the 
Receiver 
shall 
in 
all 
instances 
first 
attempt to 
secure 
such 
information 
by 
submitting 
a 
formal 
written 
request 
to 
the 
Receiver, 
and, 
if 
such 
request 
has 
not 
been 
responded 
to 
within 
30 
days 
of 
receipt 
by 
the 
Receiver, 
any 
such 
person 
or 
entity 
may 
thereafter 
seek 
an 
Order of this 
Court 
with 
regard 
to 
the 
relief 
requested. 
ORDER APPOINTING 
RECEIVER-
Page 13 
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 60     Date Filed: 04/23/2012

. 
Case 
3:09-cv-00988-F 
Document 
124 
Filed 
11/24/10 
Page 
14 
of 
14 
PageiD 
2080 
JURISDICTION 
IT 
IS 
FURTHER ORDERED that this Court shall retain jurisdiction of this matter for 
all 
purposes. 
~ 
SO ORDERED, this 
11/:..:a.Y 
of 
~.~ 
2010 
ORDER APPOINTING 
RECEIVER-
Page 
14 
Case: 12-10444     Document: 00511834959     Page: 61     Date Filed: 04/23/2012