DKT 240 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF APPEAL

On 05/16/23, Defendant Timothy Lynch Barton, by counsel, hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from the Court’s Order entered on May 15, 2023 “Order Granting Approval To Receiver’s Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement with HNGH Turtle Creek, LLC. [Doc. 210]” (ECF No. 236).

Download File

Related News

8 Critical Errors Made by the District Court in the SEC Case Against Timothy Barton

Learn about the 8 critical errors made by the District Court in its handling of the SEC case against Timothy Barton. These mistakes violated due process, destroyed businesses, and wrongly accused an innocent man.

DKT 124 DEFENDANT BARTON’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR STAY [ECF NO. 114] OF THE COURT’S ORDER RATIFYING SALE TO DLP ENTITIES [ECF NO. 109]

On 01/09/23, Defendant Timothy L. Barton respectfully submits this reply memorandum in support of his Motion for Stay Pending Appeal of Order Granting Receiver’s Motion

DKT 245 MOTION TO INTERVENE AND LIFT STAY

On 05/25/23, First Development Company of Ohio, LLC (“Movant”) and files this its Motion To Intervene And Lift Stay (“Motion”), seeking to (1) intervene in

DKT 289 SOUTHERN PROPERTIES CAPITAL, LTD.’S OPPOSITION TO RECEIVER’S MOTION TO STAY DEADLINE FOR REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING SOUTHERN PROPERTIES CAPITAL, LTD.’S CLAIMED OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN CERTAIN RECEIVERSHIP ENTITIES AND PROPERTIES

On 06/29/30, Southern Properties Capital, Ltd. (“SPC”) files this Opposition to Receiver’s Motion to Motion to Stay Deadline for Reply in Support of Motion for

DKT 558 RECEIVER’S MOTION FOR “SHOW CAUSE” HEARING, SANCTIONS, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT

On 08/23/24, Receiver Cortney C. Thomas (the “Receiver”) respectfully requests that the Court schedule a “Show Cause Hearing” compelling Defendant Timothy Barton (“Barton”) to appear

DKT 548 ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTIONS FOR EXEMPTION FROM RECEIVERSHIP AND JUDGMENT

On 08/14/24, Two motions from Daniel Crow pertaining to Venus 59, LLC (“Venus 59”). In both motions, Crow argues he owns 90% of Venus 59,