MOTION FOR LEAVE AND SUR-REPLY RE: [DOC#221] - Page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
NETSPHERE, INC., § Civil Action No. 3-09CV0988-F
MANILA INDUSTRIES, INC., and §
MUNISH KRISHAN, §
Plaintiffs. §
§
v. §
§
JEFFREY BARON, and §
ONDOVA LIMITED COMPANY, §
Defendants. §
APPELLANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR LEAVE AND SUR-REPLY TO
RECEIVER'S MOTION FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF ADDITIONAL
PERSONAL FUNDS [DOC#221]
TO THE HONORABLE ROYAL FURGESON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE:
COMES NOW, Appellant, defendant Jeffrey Baron and Appellants NovoPoint,
LLC and Quantec, LLC and make this joint motion for leave and sur-reply to
Receiver's Motion for Receiver's Motion for Reimbursement of Additional Personal
Funds [Doc#221]. Movants request the Court to allow the filing of this sur-reply.
1. In his reply [Doc#262] the receiver has made a new accusation and
accused Mr. Baron of “Fraud on the Court”. Leave to file a sur-reply is
appropriate in such a circumstance.
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 263 Filed 02/04/11 Page 1 of 5 PageID 6144
MOTION FOR LEAVE AND SUR-REPLY RE: [DOC#221] - Page 2
2. The context of the receiver's sharp accusation is that the Appellants
raised to this Court's attention that the receiver’s counsel redacted the key
portion of the law in their briefing to this Court that 28 U.S.C. 2041 applies
only to “Moneys Paid into Court.”
3. Clearly, the 'quote' offered by the receiver to this Court in the receiver’s
briefing is materially misleading. If Mr. Baron's counsel had tried to ‘play’ this
Court as the receiver’s counsel has, it is clear this Court would impose very severe
sanctions.
4. Where the receiver has taken action that would clearly be sanctioned if
some attorney had done that on behalf of Mr. Baron, Mr. Baron requests that the
Court not give succor to the receiver's attempt to escape its actions by accusing Mr.
Baron of wrongdoing.
7. It wasn't Mr. Baron who redacted key portions of a quoted law to change
its meaning. It was the receiver’s counsel. Yet, as is consistent with the posturing
of this case before this Honorable Court, it is Mr. Baron who is accused of “fraud
on the court”.
8. The receiver's motion subject of this sur-reply sought $900 for opening
nine separate bank accounts. A short and simple response was filed, adopting the
discussion of the law and controlling legal precedent previously briefed relevant to
the issues. One issue involves the requirement that money turned over to officers
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 263 Filed 02/04/11 Page 2 of 5 PageID 6145
MOTION FOR LEAVE AND SUR-REPLY RE: [DOC#221] - Page 3
of the court—pursuant to the controlling precedent cited by Mr. Baron
1
a receiver
is an officer of the court— be deposited in US Treasury accounts.
9. Obviously, if the funds are properly deposited in US Treasury accounts,
re-payment of nine $100 payments by the receiver to open nine non-Treasury
accounts is not necessary nor appropriate. Accordingly, noting the receiver's
redaction of the law in the argument incorporated by reference is directly relevant
to the response.
10. Similarly, as briefed in the previously filed argument which was
incorporated and referenced in Appellant’s response, the district court has been
divested of jurisdiction over the receivership order, pending appeal, and
modification of the status quo by disbursement of receivership assets to the
receiver is not allowed pursuant to controlling precedent of the United States
Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
11. Much of the receiver's justification for this Court's acting with judicial
disregard for the clear and controlling precedent is that controlling precedent is old
(and implicitly, so is our constitution) and quite a bit has also occurred since the
cases were decided (and implicitly, since the constitution was written).
1
The Receiver's cite in its response is not exactly correct, as briefed by Mr. Baron, the receiver is an officer, not an
‘office’ of the court.
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 263 Filed 02/04/11 Page 3 of 5 PageID 6146
MOTION FOR LEAVE AND SUR-REPLY RE: [DOC#221] - Page 4
12. Judicial disregard for the constitution and long established legal
principles and controlling precedent has been expressly discredited and
rejected by the United States Supreme Court. E.g., Harrington v. Richter, 2011
WL 148587, Supreme Court 2011. Even if controlling precedent and the
constitution are ‘old’ and pre-date airplane flight, they must still be honored by
this Court. That is the basis of our constitutional legal system.
13. The ‘old’ cases cited by counsel for the Appellants, were cited as long-
standing, established, and controlling precedent that a receiver is an officer of the
court that appoints him. The holding is clear in the cases cited, and the law is long
established. Great Western Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Harris, 198 U.S. 561, 574
(1905); United States v. Pollard, 115 F.2d 134 (5th Cir. 1940).
CONCLUSION
Clearly, Mr. Baron did not engage in ‘fraud on the court’. Just as clearly
counsel for the receiver redacted the relevant provision of the law in ‘quoting’ the
law to this Court. When such redaction was raised to the attention of this Court,
the fallback position which seems to have great traction in these proceedings was
once again played: ‘Mr. Baron. Fraud on the Court.’
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 263 Filed 02/04/11 Page 4 of 5 PageID 6147
MOTION FOR LEAVE AND SUR-REPLY RE: [DOC#221] - Page 5
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Gary N. Schepps
Gary N. Schepps
State Bar No. 00791608
Drawer 670804
Dallas, Texas 75367
(214) 210-5940
(214) 347-4031 Facsimile
APPELLATE COUNSEL FOR
JEFFREY BARON,
NOVOPOINT, LLC, AND
QUANTEC, LLC
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that this was served on all parties who receive notification
through the Court’s electronic filing system.
/s/ Gary N. Schepps
Gary N. Schepps
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
This is to certify that the undersigned has conferred with counsel for the receiver,
and they oppose the relief requested.
/s/ Gary N. Schepps
Gary N. Schepps
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 263 Filed 02/04/11 Page 5 of 5 PageID 6148
