IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

NETSPHERE, INC., §

MANILA INDUSTRIES, INC., and §

MUNISH KRISHAN, §

Plaintiffs. §

§ Civil Action No. 3-09CV0988-F

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE ROYAL FURGESON:

COMES NOW JEFF BARON, Appellant, and makes this response, and

jointly moves this Court to grant leave to file the included motion for relief to allow

Jeff access to his money to hire expert witnesses to offer evidence as to the

reasonableness and necessity of the claimed fees, to provide funding for the

employment of trial counsel and legal assistants to assist in investigating and

responding to Sherman’s motion, to provide funding for legal research on westlaw

Sherman, and to pay expenses such as for legal research.

2. Sherman’s motion is lengthy, but lacks any statement of the legal grounds

for the relief requested by the movant. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(b)(1)(B); Intera Corp. v.

Henderson, 428 F.3d 605, 611 (6th Cir. 2005). Jeff Baron accordingly moves to

strike the motion, and jointly and in the alternative to require a more definite

statement so that a more specific response can be made.

3. Notably, the district court has been divested of jurisdiction over the

receivership, and lacks jurisdiction to award attorneys fees with respect to work on

the matter on appeal. As a matter of established law, when Jeff appealed the

receivership order the District Court was divested of jurisdiction as to matters

relating to the receivership orders and subsequent orders and, for that reason, fees

authority."); KeyTronic Corp. v. United States, 511 U.S. 809, 815 (1994) (attorney's

fees are not a recoverable cost of litigation "absent explicit congressional

authorization.").

5. No provision of the bankruptcy code, authorized the Trustee to seek a

receivership in order to reduce the amount of ‘claims’ that might be made in the

bankruptcy court. The fees requested are also grossly excessive and unreasonable.

6. The trustee's admission that the receivership was intended to extend the

power and jurisdiction of the bankruptcy proceeding is new evidence which reveals

the clear unlawfulness of the original motion and order. Congress has expressly

prohibited a court from imposing receivership as an extension of a bankruptcy

proceeding. 11 U.S.C. §105(b).

7. The Trustee’s further admission is shocking– he secretly collaborated ex-

parte with Peter Vogel who was employed as a Special Master to have Peter Vogel

appointed as receiver over Jeff Baron (by which Peter Vogel and his law firm have

been allowed to bill what is now around a million dollars in fees to ‘administer’ the

receivership). Upon his appointment, Peter Vogel withdrew the fee objection Jeff

and in the alternative Jeff moves for access to his funds to be allowed to retain

counsel to protect and prosecute Jeff’s interests with respect to the conduct of Peter

Vogel and Mr. Sherman. Jeff Baron further moves that the Court enter an order for

Peter Vogel to disclose the full contents of all ex-parte communications he engaged

in while employed as special master. Jeff Baron further respectfully moves the

Court to disclose the contents of all ex-parte communications, if any, between Peter

Vogel and the Court or Court personnel. Jeff Baron jointly and respectfully moves

the Court to disclose the contents of all ex-parte communications regarding this case,

Peter Vogel, the trustee, or Jeff Baron, that was conducted between this Court and

the bankruptcy judge.

This is to certify that this filing was served this day on all parties who receive

notification through the Court’s electronic filing system.

CERTIFIED BY: /s/ Gary N. Schepps

Gary N. Schepps

COURT ORDERED TRIAL COUNSEL

FOR JEFFREY BARON