On 12/09/22, The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) submits this Response to Defendant Timothy L. Barton’s (“Barton”) Motion for Stay Pending Appeal (“Motion for Stay”).
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.
On 07/29/24, Defendant Timothy Barton files this Response in opposition to the Receiver’s Verified Motion to Ratify BM318, LLC’s Settlement Agreements with the Dixon Water
On 01/31/23, Receiver’s motion to approve the sale of property consisting of approximately 4.538 acres of undeveloped land in Collin County, Texas (the “Property”) [Doc.
Timothy Barton has filed a Motion for More Definite Statement in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, challenging the Tenth Quarterly Report submitted by the court-appointed receiver. Barton argues the report lacks financial transparency, contains misleading accusations, and fails to provide essential financial disclosures. His legal team insists that the defense demands transparency and is calling for a court-ordered revision to ensure accurate reporting and judicial accountability. This case highlights broader concerns about receivership overreach, due process, and asset management transparency—setting a crucial precedent for future legal disputes.
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
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,
