# Appendix — Legg v. Smith > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385020_2995%3A3 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1991 - **Citation:** 498 U.S. 1067 ## Text Supreme Court, US FILED DEC 21 1998 No. 90-646 ~~ JOSEPH F. SPANIOL, UR, SLERK + ee a IN THE Supreme Court of the United States OcTOBER TERM 1990 IN THE MATTER OF UNITED ) MARKETS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Debtor R. Davip LEGG, Petitioner vs. W. Steve Smith, Trustee, Respondent APPENDIX TO BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO fHE UNITED STATES COURT OF % APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT W. Steve SMITH agtonion ee HaALt & PRIMM, a. 7000 Texas Commerce Tower Houston, Texas 77002 713/221-3935 Counsel of Record Attorney for Respondent, W. Steve SMITH, Trustee a-i TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX A Order Appointing Trustee (dated February 27, 1985) ... APPENDIX B Order for Relief and Appointment of A Trustee (dated ie iil es on ing 5d wewarde tu sea aus APPENDIX C Notice of Appeal (to District Court related to Order for tes Bo bat ovat akan abit dacedad¥erneorn eve. APPENDIX D Order of District Court dated July 7, 1988 (related to ake ee So oie ae i oe ak APPENDIX E Notice of Appeal (to Fifth Circuit related to Order for Ee are re a ens oa sick hE ER RADON T EEOC EER 8 APPENDIX F Opinion of Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dated Decem- ber 2, 1988 (related to Order for Relief)............ APPENDIX G Memorandum and Order of District Court dated March 7, 1990 (related to sanctions) ............... APPENDIX H Order of District Court dated September 27, 1990 Commeeels GO Gletier Gir TUGTEGE) 6c ccc ccc ceocves APPENDIX I Ura wid ba 6 bc ke ed odd es 66 RKA ORS Oe APPENDIX J Answer of R. David Legg to Trustee’s Original Com- plaint (Adversary No. 85-0375-H1) ................ First Amended Answer of R. David Legg to Trustee’s a rep ee eae herman PAGE B-| E-1 APPENDIX K Order of Bankruptcy Court dated May 11, 1988 (for accounting in Adv. No. 85-0375-H1) ....... 6.65055. APPENDIX L Application for Temporary Restraining Order Pursuant to ale GD) sco dccccavidecccenpudetentsceeeds: APPENDIX M Order of District Court dated July 21, 1988 ........... APPENDIX N Motion Requesting Stay of Execution of Judgment Pending Hearing to Set Bond Or Security; Request for Expedited Hearing On Sanctions ...............45. APPENDIX O ee Sn a Ea a ere TY “py yeeyny epee APPENDIX P Final Judgment of District Court dated November 9, 1989 (imposing constructive trust) ...........65005. Opinion on Affirmance of the Bankruptcy Judgment .... APPENDIX Q Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to Rule 59 and 60(A) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ............ Notice of Appeal ........cccccccccscccccccsesvesess APPENDIX R Order Authorizing Sale Free and Clear of Bankruptcy Court Dated December 6, 1988.............. sevens APPENDIX S Agreed Order of Bankruptcy Court dated Jame 16, 19GB: onic ccs Svea ee eee odes res PAGE K-| L-! R-1 APPENDIX A IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION IN Re: ) UNITED MARKETS INTERNATIONAL, INC. Debtor, CASE Essam Opsaip, et al. No. 85-00872-H2-5 Movants, DISTRICT COURT VS. CASE No. MBH-85-150 UNITED MARKETS INTERNATIONAL, INC. Respondent. ORDER APPOINTING TRUSTEE The Motion to Appoint Trustee or, in the Alternative, an Examiner, filed by Essam Obaid and Obaid & Almulla Construc- tion Company, Ltd. (“OBALCO”) having come on for consider- ation before the Court, the proper notice thereof having been given, and a hearing having been held thereon on February 19 and 20, 1985, at which hearing were present and participating counsel for Movants and for Respondent, the Court finds, based upon testimony and evidence presented at such hearing, that the appointment of a trustee for the estate of United Markets Inter- national, Inc. (“UMI”), pursuant to Section 1104 of the Bank- ruptcy Code, would be in the best interests of the creditors and the estate of UMI for the reasons that: (1) there has been a sufficient showing of fraud, dis- honesty, incompetence and gross mismanagement of the affairs of UMI; and A-2 (2) the principal asset of UMI may be a cause or causes of action against R. David Legg, the president and sole shareholder of UMI, for, inter alia, monies transferred to him or on his behalf from UMI; and it is accordingly, ORDERED that W. Steve Smith be, and he hereby is, appointed trustee of UMI pursuant to Section 1104 of the Bankruptcy Code, and it is further ORDERED that the trustee secure a bond pursuant to Section 322 of the Bankruptcy Code in the amount of $11,000.00 and evidence of the same be filed with this Court, and it is further ORDERED that Movants, Essam Obaid and Obaid & Almulla Construction Company, Ltd., shall pay into the registry of this Court, upon further order of this Court, such amounts as shall be necessary to compensate reasonably the trustee for his services performed in this case and to compensate such profes- sionals as may hereafter be employed by the trustee pursuant to further order of this Court, and it is further ORDERED that such payments, to the extent not repaid to Movants, shail be first priority administrative expenses as de- scribed in Section 507(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code allowed under Section 503(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, and it is further ORDERED that each of the trustee and such professionals shall be entitled to receive compensation from such funds only in the event there are insufficient assets in the estate to satisfy his application for compensation which has been approved by the Court and to the extent consistent with Sections 326, 327, 328, 330 and 504 of the Bankruptcy Code. DATED: February 27th, 1985. CAROLYN DINEEN RANDALL UNITED STATES Circuit JUDGE sitting by designation sd ian aaa aaainiiiaiia ee APPENDIX B UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION IN Re: UNITED MARKETS CASE INTERNATIONAL, INC. No. 85-00872-H2-5 Debtor ORDER FOR RELIEF AND APPOINTMENT OF A TRUSTEE Came on for consideration the Involuntary Case: Creditors’ Petition (the “Petition’”) filed on February 7, 1985, against the above-named Debtor, and the Consent to Entry of Order for Relief and Appointment of a Trustee signed by United Markets International, Inc. (“UMI”), and there being sufficient grounds for the relief sought in the Petition, it is accordingly ORDERED that an Order for Relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code is hereby granted with respect to UMI, and it is further ORDERED that W. Steve Smith be, and hereby is, contin- ued as trustee of UMI, having been appointed as Trustee on February 27. 1985 by order of this Court pursuant to Section 1104 of the Bankruptcy Code. DATED: - March 28, 1985. /s/_ R. F. WHELESS Jr. R. F. Wheless Jr. United States Bankruptcy Judge APPENDIX C IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION IN Re: Y Unitepo MARKETS CASE INTERNATIONAL, INC. No. 85-00872-H2-5 Debtor NOTICE OF APPEAL United Markets International, Inc., alleged debtor, hereinaf- ter appellant, appeals to the district court from the final Order for Relief entered in the above referenced matter on the 28th day of March, 1985. Appellant will show that said order was a “fraud upon the court” as defined in Rule 60(b), of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that no time limit is imposed for an appeal under such circumstances. Appellant would show that the Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to enter said Order, and that no time limit is imposed for asserting a claim of failure of jurisdiction. Appellant would have said Order for Relief, and any and all actions taken pursuant thereto, declared null and void. Appellant would show that it is entitled to damages, and remittitur of all funds and/or property wrongfully received and/or appropriated as a result of this present proceeding and all pro- ceedings relating thereto. C-2 The parties to the Order appealed from, their names and addresses, and/or the names and addresses of their respective attorneys are as follows: |. Attorneys for Essam Obaid, Obaid & Almullah Construction Company: Hutcheson & Grundy 3300 Citicorp Center 1200 Smith Street Houston, Texas 77002 ~) Attorney for W. Steve Smith, Trustee: Barbara Rodgers Woodard, Hall & Primm 4700 Texas Commerce Tower Houston, Texas 77002 ” 3. Rex Supply Company: 3715 Harrisburg Houston, Texas 77003 4. Vasco Equipment: 501 N. Shepard Houston, Texas 77007 5. Alltransport: 1520 Texas Houston, Texas 77002 C-3 6. Kewaunee Scientific Equipment Co.: 505 E. North Belt Houston, Texas 77060 Dated: May 5, 1988. Respectfully submitted, __J/s/__R. Davip Leca | R. David Legg Attorney at Law 3000 Smith Street Houston, Texas 77006 713/521-9797 Federal Admissions No. 1414 Attorney for Appellant C-4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Appeal was served upon all parties named in the attached List of Service on the Sth day of May, 1988, by placing same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid. /s/ R. Davip LEGG R. David Legg Debtor — United Markets International, Inc. 5858 Westheimer, Suite 103 Houston, Texas 77051 Debtor's Attorney — Ronald J. Sommers 2302 Fannin, The Gibraltar Bldg. Houston, Texas 77002 Priority Creditors — First Class Mail Internal Revenue Service 3223 Briarpark Houston, Texas 77042 Texas Employment Commission P. O. Box 2908 Austin, Texas 78769 All Secured Creditors None C-5 Twenty Largest Unsecured Creditors — First Class Mail American Express P. O. Box 13764 Phoenix, Arizona 85002-3764 DHL Airways, Inc. Central Region P. O. Box 38465 Houston, Texas 77238-8465 Federal Express Corporation P. O. Box 727 Dept. A Memphis, Tennessee 38194 General Motors Acceptance Corporation 7141 Office City Drive Houston, Texas 77087 Vasco Automotive Equipment Warehouse Company, Inc. 501 N. Shepard Drive Houston, Texas 77007 WAF/RMH Office I Joint Venture Brazos Management Company 5858 Westheimer, Suite 503 Houston, Texas 77057 Warren, Gonham & Lamont, Inc. 210 South Street Boston, Massachusetts 02111 Western Union Telegraph Co. 427 S. LaSalle Street Chicago, Illinois 60605 Clyde Wilson International Investigative and Securities Service 1506 Upland Houston, Texas C-6 Attorney for Creditors — First Class Mail Robert G. Richardson 3300 Citicorp Center 1200 Smith Street Houston, Texas 77002 Equity Security Holder — First Class Mail R. David Legg 101 Westcott, Suite 1201 Houston, Texas 77007 Gerald P. DeNisco 5177 Richmond, Suite 1050 Houston, Texas 77056 Parties Requesting Notice — First Class Mail Pete Sandoval Heard, Goggan, Blair, Williams & Harrison 3150 Citicorp Center 1200 Smith Street Houston, Texas 77002 Hancock & Lippert 5858 Westheimer, Suite 104 Houston, Texas 77057 Hannah Niday Flowers P. O. Box 66464 Houston, Texas 77006 Houston Fire & Safety Equipment Company 85555 W. Monroe Rd. Houston, Texas 77061 Kewaunee Scientific Equipment Corporation P. O. Box 95973 Chicago, Illinois 60694 C-7 Pitney Bowes P. O. Box 38390 Louisville, KY 40233-8390 RCA Service Company P. O. Box 7780-1274 Philadelphia, PA 19182 Red Hot Documentation Consultants P. O. Box 74109] Houston, Texas 77274-109] Southwestern Bell Telephone 3100 Main, Room 207 Houston, Texas 77002 The Stephens Company P. O. Box 14516 Houston, Texas 77221-4516 TMC/America, Inc. 3301 Airport Freeway, Ste. 222 Bedford, Texas 7602] TMC of Houston 4801 Woodway, Suite 160 W. Houston, Texas 77056 APPENDIX D IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION CIVIL ACTION No. H-88-1706 BANKRUPTCY No. 85-00872-H2-5 IN RE: UNITED MARKETS INTERNATIONAL, INC. ORDER In adjudicating a bankruptcy appeal this Court must make an independent assessment of its jurisdiction. See City of Miami v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 669 F2d 219, 221 (Sth Cir. 1982). Having made such a determination, the Court DIS- MISSES this appeal for want of jurisdiction. Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 8002, a notice of appeal must be filed within 10 days of entry of the appealable order. Failure to follow Rule 8002 mandates dismissal of the appeal. Matter of Bad Bubba Racing Products, 609 F.2d 815 (Sth Cir. 1980). Appellant filed his notice of appeal on May 5, 1988. He seeks to appeal an order for relief signed March 28, 1985, and entered on April 2, 1985. The notice of appeal is not timely and this appeal must be dismissed. Appellant argues that the appeal is timely because the March 28, 1985, order was a fraud upon the Court and this appeal is made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) . He also argues that the bankruptcy court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter the March 28, 1985, order. A Rule 60 (b) motion can not be used to escape the time limits for appeal. United States v. 329.73 Acres of Land, 695 F.2d 922, 925-6 (Sth Cir. 1983). The purpose of a 60 (b) motion is to D-2 allow the trial judge to reconsider a matter to correct obvious errors and perhaps obviate an appeal. Fackelman v. Bell, 564 F.2d 734, 736 (Sth Cir. 1977). It is not a substitute for an appeal. Id. at 735. Appellant cannot bring this appeal pursuant to Rule 60(b). The Court also notes that an examination of the record shows no fraud on the Court took place. It is clear that the bankruptcy court has subject matter jurisdiction over the case which is now on appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a); see also 28 U.S.C. §§ 151, 157. Appellant argues that the bankruptcy court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter the March 28 order because a trial is required before entry of the March 28 agreed order. The failure to hold a trial does not deprive the Court of jurisdiction and must be raised on timely appeal, not three years after the appeal time has run. See Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 254 U.S. 348, 353 (1920). The bankruptcy court had the authority to enter the March 28, 1985, order. 11 U.S. § 303 (h); Bankr. Rule 1013. UMI’s attorney entered into an agreed order consenting to the bankruptcy proceedings. R. at 34.' Under Section 303(h) Judge Wheless properly entered the March 28 order without delay. Appellant waited over three years before filing his notice of appeal. He is barred by the doctrines of laches and estoppel from now asserting that the March 28, 1985, order of relief is void. Citation Cycle Company v. York, 693 F.2d 691 (7th Cir. 1982). For these reasons the Court must dismiss this appeal. Tem- norary Restraining Order DENIED fer want of jurisdiction. ' The affidavit of David Unger indicates that Mr. Legg consented to entry of the March 28 order. Even if there is a dispute regarding consent, a purty is bound by the acts of his attorney. Callip v. Harris County Child Welfare, 757 F.2d 1513, 1522 (Sth Cir. 1985). Appe- lant cannot complain on appeal regarding the absence of his consent. D-3 APPEAL DISMISSED. Done at Houston, Texas, this 7th day of July, 1988. /s/ NORMAN W. BLACK Norman W. Black United States District Judge APPENDIX E UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION CIVIL ACTION —— aes No. H-88-1706 — — aa ‘ BANKRUPTCY NTERNATIONAL, INC. No. 85-00872-H2-5 NOTICE OF APPEAL UNITED MARKETS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Appel- lant, appeals to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals from a final order of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. Appellant would show that a trial is a necessary prerequisite to the entry of an order pursuant to 11 USC 303(h); further without such a mandated trial, any subsequent order is void. Appellant would further show that subject matter jurisdic- tion cannot be conferred by agreement, consent, waiver, collusion or estoppel. Appellant would further show that lack of subject matter jurisdiction is an issue that may be raised at any time. Appellant would further show that an action to set aside a void order may be had at any time. Appellant would further show that there was committed a fraud upon the court, and that an appeal may be had in such a circumstance without regard to limitations. E-2 The parties to the judgement appealed from, and/or their attorneys of record are: 1. W. Steve Smith Woodard, Hall & Primm 4700 Texas Commerce Tower Houston, Texas 77002 ed Hutcheson & Grundy 3300 Citicorp Center 1200 Smith Street Houston, Texas 77002 Respectfully submitted, /s/ R. Davip LEGG R. David Legg Attorney at Law 3000 Smith Street Houston, Texas 77005 Federal Admissions No. 1414 Attorney For Appellant UNITED MARKETS INTERNATIONAL, INC. APPENDIX F IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 88-2721 Summary Calendar IN THe MATTER OF UNITED MARKETS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Debtor UNITED MARKETS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Appellant, VS. EssamM OBalIbD, OBAID & ALMULLA CONSTRUCTION Company, Ltp., and W. Steve Smitn, Trustee, Appellees. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (CA-H-88- 1706) (December 2, 1988) Before RUBIN, REAVLEY, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Over three years after the bankruptcy court entered an order for relief in an involuntary petition initiated against United Markets International, Inc., that company’s president, Legg, filed, * Local Rule 47.5 provides: “The publication of opinions that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession.” Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published. F-2 in May, 1988, an appeal of that order. Although the debtor at first contested the involuntary petition, his attorney signed a pleading admitting many of its allegations and setting the stage for entry of an agreed order for relief in April 1985. Appellant’s essential contention is that this agreement to enter an order for relief was made without his knowledge or approval and constituted a fraud on the court. Legg asserts that, notwithstanding a statement to the contrary submitted by his then-attorney subject to penalties of perjury, he did not withdraw his objection to the involuntary petition. Now, after having dogged the trustee for three years and lost a lawsuit to the trustee for misappropriation of corporate funds, Legg wants to relitigate the propriety of the involuntary bankruptcy. This position is untenable. As the district court found, Bankruptcy Rule 8002 requires an appeal from a bankruptcy court order to be filed within ten days of its entry. Suffice it to say this period expired long before May 1988. Legg next asserts that he seeks relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). That rule plainly does not apply to this case. Rule 60(b) is designed to seek relief from the court which rendered the judgment or order complained of, and not from another court. Banker's Mortgage Company v. United States, 423 F.2d 73, 78 (Sth Cir. 1970). The bankruptcy court entered the order for relief, not the district court, hence the district court could not entertain a Rule 60(b) motion. Further, the district court has jurisdiction over bankruptcy court orders in two ways following the enactment of 28 U.S.C. § 158(a) in 1984. The district court must hear appeals from all final orders, judgments or decrees of the bankruptcy court, and it may, by leave, hear interlocutory appeals. Congress simply did not provide district courts the free-wheeling ability to remedy “fraud” in bankruptcy court orders that Legg seeks by filing a motion under Rule 60(b). F-3 The district court properly held, therefore, that because Lege’s appeal was untimely, it was without jurisdiction to entertain it. We would also observe that Legg’s arguments supporting his belated appeal to the district court are so obviously without merit that we must warn him of the possibility that sanctions may be incurred if he pursues the filing of further frivolous pleadings or appeals in this Court. See, e.g, 28 U.S.C. § 1927: FRAP 38. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. APPENDIX G IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ) CIVIL ACTION — No. H-89-3093 UNITED MARKETS CHAPTER 11 INTERNATIONAL, INC. BKCY. No. Pe ae 85-00872-H2-5 ADVERSARY } No. 85-0932 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Appellant, R. David Legg, pro se, purportedly on behalf of United Markets International, Inc. (“UMI”), has appealed a final order issued on June 23, 1989 by Bankruptcy Judge Wheless imposing sanctions in excess of $63,000 on Appellant. It is this order from which he appeals even though his brief contains other, unrelated issues. One such issue concerns Judge Wheless’ final Order of Relief dated March 28, 1985. That order was granted to the creditors of UMI who petitioned the court for an involuntary Chapter 11 proceeding. The record shows that Mr. David Unger, Appellant’s attorney at the time, consented to the bankruptcy court’s order with the knowledge and acquiescence of Appellant. Appellee’s Exhibit C, p. 19. Trustee W. Steve Smith, appointed to the Estate of UMI pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1104, remains active in that position. Since the final Order of Relief was entered Appellant Legg has filed two suits in federal district court and a plethora of actions in both the district and bankruptcy courts in an attempt to circumvent Judge Wheless’s Order of Relief. As early as Janu- ary 22, 1986 Judge Wheless, in his dismissal of one of the suits G-2 removed to his court, admonished Appellant and his counsel for bringing meritless claims. He threatened to impose sanctions if they continued to pursue such claims. Appellant’s Exhibit 8a. However, this did not dampen the enthusiasm of Appellant Legg who continued to plague the Court with additional causes of action. On May 5, 1988 Appellant filed an appeal of the March 28, 1985 final Order of Relief, which was dismissed on July 7, 1988 by District Court Judge Norman Black for being untimely. Bankruptcy Rule 8002. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed on December 2, 1988. Again, Appellant Legg was admonished for his meritless claim and was threatened with sanctions. Appellee’s Exhibit B6. A second District Court suit, this one including RICO allegations, was dismissed by Judge David Hittner on December 12, 1988. On June 23, 1989, Judge Wheless ordered Appellant Legg to pay approximately $63,000 in sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and Bankruptcy Rule 9011. Appellant’s motion for new trial was denied and this appeal followed. Appellant’s Arguments 1. The Original Order for Relief was a legal nullity. This argument has already been decided by this Court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and therefore will not be addressed. 2. Removal of Adversary Proceeding No. 85-0932 was wrongful because the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction. After careful review of the record, this Court finds that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction over Appellant’s adversary proceeding pur- suant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a). 3. A bankruptcy judge has no jurisdiction to award sanc- tions; and appellant, as litigant, is not a proper party for assess- ment of sanctions. Bankruptcy Rule 9011 incorporated Fed. R. G-3 Civ. P. 11 and permits a bankruptcy judge to sanction an attorney, the represented party, or both, as deemed appropriate. 4. The sanctions are punitive, and not rehabilitative; and appellees conduct increased fees. Bankruptcy Rule 9011 states that the court shall impose ... an appropriate sanction which may include (emphasis added) an order to pay to the other party or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the document, including a reasonable attorney’s fee. It is clear from a reading of Rule 9011 that other charges may be assessed against a party in addition to attorney’s fees and ex- penses, e.g. punitive fees. Further, there is no indication from either Bankruptcy Rule 9011 nor Rule 11, Fed. R. Civ. P. that rehabilitation is the sole purpose of sanctions. However, it is apparent from the record that the sanctions imposed on Appellant were an accumulation of the attorneys’ fees expended by the Appellees in the numerous meritless actions instigated by Appel- lant. These fees have been well-documented by Appellees. 5. Judge Wheless’s Order is too vague to support an award of sanctions. The records of in re: United Markets International, Inc. are replete with evidence supporting a sanctions order. 6. Trustee abandoned claims against OBALCO, thereby rendering MOOT sanctions against Appellant for bringing suit against Appellees. This argument is factually untrue, as Trustee Smith has sued OBALCO in Adversary Proceeding No. 87-0866 which is now pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court. For the reasons stated above, it is ORDERED that Appel- lant’s request for an oral hearing is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that the Order of the United States Bankruptcy Court imposing sanctions and signed June 23, 1989 is AF- FIRMED. It is further G-4 ORDERED that there being no further pending dispute in this case, the appeal is DISMISSED. Signed this 7th day of March, 1990 at Houston, Texas. /s/ NORMAN W. BLACK Norman W. Black United States District Judge APPENDIX H IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION Davip LEGG, ) Plaintiff ve. CIVIL ACTION UNITED MARKET No. H-90-716 INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant. | ORDER The order of the Bankruptcy Court denying Appellant’s Rule 60(b) motion is affirmed. David R. Legg, president of Market International Inc., (“MCI”) is appealing an order of the Bankruptcy Court. On March 28, 1985, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order for relief from an involuntary bankruptcy petition and designated Steve Smith as trustee for the company. David Unger, MCI’s attorney at the time of the involuntary petition, had agreed to the terms of the order. In May 1987, Legg, unsatisfied with the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling and with Unger’s actions, filed a Rule 60(b) motion in the District Court to attack the Bankruptcy Court’s order for relief. Legg argued that the Bankruptcy Court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order of relief and that Unger lacked the authority to consent to the order. In addition, Legg argued that the actions constituted fraud on the Court. This Court dismissed Legg’s appeal holding that the Bank- ruptcy Court had jurisdiction over the case; that a valid order had H-2 been issued in 1985; that laches and estoppel barred Legg’s appeal and that the appeal was not timely. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s holding and admonished Legg to refrain from further attempts to escape the Bankruptcy Court’s order in the following language: We also observe that Legg’s arguments supporting his belated appeal to the district court are so obviously without merit that we must warn him of the possibility that sanctions may be incurred if he pursues the filing of further frivolous pleadings or appeals in this Court. Undeterred by the Court’s warning, Legg filed a Motion to Vacate Void Order under Rule 60(b) again, but this time in the Bankruptcy Court. Legg was thus trying to bring his appeal of the i985 order in the proper forum. The Bankruptcy Court dismissed his appeal, denied Legg’s motion for reconsideration, and affirmed the validity of the 1985 order. Legg’s present appeal to the District Court contains essen- tially the same arguments as those previously raised before this Court. Legg’s argument now has one additional wrinkle. Legg contends that, because his Rule 60(b) motion is the proper procedural attack on the 1985 order and the Bankruptcy Court refused to allow an adversary hearing on the validity of that order, his appeal is now properly before the District Court. While applauding Legg’s creativity, the court finds no merit to his argument. This Court now affirms the Bankruptcy Court’s 1985 order once again and denies Appellant’s motion for sum- mary judgment. In addition, in light of the Fifth Circuit’s admonishment and the history of the case, the Court finds that Legg’s second attempted appeal is frivolous. It is further ORDERED that Appellant’s Motion to Strike is DENIED. It is further H-3 ORDERED that Appellant’s Original Motion to Supple- ment the Record is GRANTED with regard to all items listed on pages 2 & 3 of the motion. The motion is DENIED with regard to item #2 on page 4 of the motion, the letter from Hutcheson & Grundy. It is further ORDERED that Appellant’s Second Motion to Supplement is GRANTED with regard to item #1, a copy of the transcript of a Preliminary Heaing in the Bankruptcy case, and the motion is DENIED with regard to item #2, the series of newspaper articles. Signed this 27th day of September, 1990 at Houston, Texas. /s/ NORMAN W. BLACK Norman W. Black United States District Judge se ~ pererhigie senaneel Si a” I OS SER APPENDIX I UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION IN RE: 7 UNITED MARKETS C.A. H-89-3093 INTERNATIONAL, INC. CASE No. 85-00872-H2-5 R. Davip LEGG, et al. > Plaintiffs CHAPTER 11 Essam Opalb, et al. ADVERSARY No. 85-0932 Defendants | NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is hereby given that R. David Legg, Appellant below, hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from the final order denying Appellant Legg’s Motion for Reconsideration, entered in this action on the 26th day of October, 1990, as well as any and all interlocutory orders entered pursuant thereto. Parties to this appeal requiring notice, their last known addresses and/or addresses of their respective counsel are as follows: Parties notified by R. David Legg: TIMOTHY WENTWORTH THOMAS T. HUTCHESON W. STEVE SMITH HUTCHESON & GRUNDY WOODARD, HALL & PRIMM, P.C. 3300 CITICORP CENTER 7000 TEXAS COMMERCE TOWER 1200 SMITH STREET HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002 ROBERT FINLEY ESSAM OBAID ATTORNEY AT LAW 3 ALLBERT GOS 707 TRAVIS, SUITE 1700 GENEVA 1206 SWITZERLAND HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002 OBAID & ALMULLA CONSTRUCTION CO., LTD. KHALIL AWAD P.O. BOX 15467 P.O. BOX 59 RIYADH, SAUDI ARABIA DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES DATED: NOVEMBER 26, 1990. Respectfully submitted, /s/_ R. Davip LEGG R. David Legg, Pro Se 15415 Katy Frwy., Suite 205 Houston, Texas 77094 713/578-8829, Fed.Adm.No.1414 APPENDIX J IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION IN Re: 7 UNITED MARKETS INTERNATIONAL, INC. Debtor W. Steve Smirn, Trustee, ae CASE No. 85-00872-H2-5 Plaintiff | VS. R. Davip LeGG, BANCTEXAS ADVERSARY No. 85-0375-H| Nortu SIDE HOUSTON and HENRY HWANG, Defendant | ANSWER OF R. DAVID LEGG TO TRUSTEE’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE: Comes now, R. DAVID LEGG, (Legg) Defendant in the above styled and numbered adversary proceeding and files his Answer to Trustee’s Original Complaint, and in support thereof would respectfully show the Court as follows: 1. In response to Paragraph | of the Trustee’s Com- plaint, Legg neither admits nor denies the allegations con- tained therein. 2. In response to Paragraph 2 of the Trustee’s Com- plaint, Legg admits the allegations contained therein. 3. In response to Paragraph 3 of the Trustee’s Com- plaint, Legg admits that he was the President and sole stockholder of United Markets International, Inc. Legg J-2 further admits that United Markets International, Inc. pur- chased all the stock of Bayou Bend Realty, Inc. and that Bayou Bend purchased real property described as Unit No. 1201, Bayou Bend Towers, Houston, Harris County, Texas. Legg specifically denies all remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of Trustee’s Complaint. 4. In response to Paragraph 4 of Trustee’s Complaint, Legg admits that BancTexas Northeast Houston advanced Bayou Bend the THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($300,000.00) DOLLARS cash down payment and that Bayou Bend executed its note therefor. Legg specifically denies all remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of Trustee’s Complaint. 5. In response to Paragraph 5 of the Trustee’s Com- plaint, Legg specifically denies the allegations contained therein. 6. In response to Paragraph 6 of the Trustee’s Com- plaint, Legg specifically denies the allegations contained therein. 7. In response to Paragraph 7 of the Trustee’s Com- plaint, Legg specifically denies that the application of the Certificates of Deposit were violative of the automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. Legg further specifically denies that the same constituted a fraud upon anyone, and further responds that Trustee has failed to allege fraud or fraudulent conduct with the degree of particularity required by Rule 9(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 8. In response to Paragraph 8 of Trustee’s Complaint, Legg specifically denies the allegations contained therein. 9. In response to Paragraph 9 of the Trustee’s Com- plaint, Legg specifically denies the allegations contained therein. J-3 10. In response to Paragraph 10 of the Trustee’s Com- plaint, Legg specifically denies the allegations contained therein. 11. In response to Paragraph |1 of the Trustee’s Com- plaint, Legg specifically denies the allegations contained therein. 12. In response to Paragraph 12 of the Trustee’s Com- plaint, Legg specifically denies the allegations contained therein. 13. Answering further, Legg moves that Trustee be required to clarify his request for relief contained in the complaint to conform to the allegations contained therein. Trustee has alleged in his complaint in Paragraph 6 that the property should be considered as property of the Debtor or Alternatively that the property be impressed with a resulting and/or constructive trust for the monies used to purchase same. However, in the prayer for relief the Trustee appears to be asking for both the property and the money used to purchase it, an inconsistent and untenable request. 14. Answering further, Legg would show that the real property in issue described in Trustee’s Original Complaint as Unit No. 1201, Bayou Bend Towers, Houston, Harris County, Texas is now and has been at all times pertinent herein the homestead of Defendant Legg. As such home- stead the same is exempt from forced sale pursuant to Article 3832 of the Revised Civil Statutes of the State of Texas and U.S. Bankruptcy Code § 522(b)(2)(A), 11 U.S.C. § 522. J-4 WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Legg prays that this Court deny the relief requested in the Trustee’s Original Complaint with respect to all claims against Legg, that Trustee be directed to amend his complaint to plead any allegations of fraud with particularity, to conform his prayer for relief to the allega- tions of the complaint, to declare the property in issue to be the homestead of Legg and therefore not subject to this action, and for such other and further relief to which Legg may be justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, Law offices of GERALD P. DE NISCO, P.C. By /s/ GERALD P. DENisco Gerald P. DeNisco 5177 Richmond, Suite 1050 Houston, Texas 77056 (713) 961-5292 Texas State Bar No. 05655500 Attorneys for Defendant J-5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify and declare that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Answer of R. David Legg to Trustee’s Original Complaint was mailed to all interested parties and/or counsel of record, by CERTIFIED MAIL — RETURN RE- CEIPT REQUESTED on this day of 1985. Mr. W. Steve Smith, Mr. Juan Csillagi, Trustee President WOODARD, HALL & BancTexas-North Side PRIMM Houston 4700 Texas Commerce P. O. Box 4418 Tower Houston, Texas 77210 Houston, Texas 77002 /s/ GERALD P. DE Nisco Gerald P. De Nisco J-6 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION IN RE: ) UNITED MARKETS INTERNATIONAL, INC. _ Debtor W. Steve SMitH, Trustee, CASE No. 85-00872-H2-5 Plaintiff (Chapter 11) VS. R. Davip LEGG and H. C. HWANG & PARTNERS, INC., ADVERSARY No. 85-0375-H1 Defendants ) FIRST AMENDED ANSWER OF R. DAVID LEGG TO TRUSTEE’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, R. DAVID LEGG, (LEGG) Defendant in the above styled and numbered adversary proceeding and files this his First Amended Answer to Trustee’s Original Complaint, and in support thereof would respectfully show the Court as follows: 1. In response to Paragraph of the Trustee’s Com- plaint, LEGG neither admits nor denies the allegations contained therein. 2. In response to Paragraph 2 of the Trustee’s Com- plaint, LEGG admits the allegations contained therein. 3. In response to Paragraph 3 of the Trustee’s Com- plaint, LEGG admits that he was the President and sole stockholder of United Markets International, Inc. LEGG further admits that United Markets International, Inc. in- J-7 tended to purchase all of the stock of Bayou Bend Realty, Inc., as a subsidiary, and that Bayou Bend purchased real property described as Unit No. 1201, Bayou Bend Towers, Houston, Harris County, Texas. LEGG specifically denies all remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of Trus- tee’s Complaint. 4. In response to Paragraph 4 of Trustee’s Complaint, LEGG admits that BancTexas Northeast Houston advanced Bayou Bend the THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($300,000.00) DOLLARS cash down payment and that Bayou Bend executed its note therefor. LEGG specifically denies all remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of Trustee’s Complaint. 5. In response to Paragraph 5 of the Trustee’s Com- plaint, LEGG specifically denies the allegations contained therein. - 6. In response to Paragraph 6 of the Trustee’s Com- plaint, LEGG specifically denies the allegations contained therein. 7. In response to Paragraph 7 of the Trustee’s Com- plaint, LEGG specifically denies that the application of the Certificates of Deposit were violative of the automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. LEGG further specifi- cally denies that the same constitute a fraud upon anyone, and further responds that Trustee has failed to allege fraud or fraudulent conduct with the degree of particularity required by Rule 9(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 8. In response to Paragraph 8 of Trustee’s Complaint, LEGG specifically denies the allegations contained therein. 9. In response to Paragraph 9 of the Trustee’s Com- plaint, LEGG specifically denies the allegations contained therein. J-8 10. In response to Paragraph 10 of the Trustee’s Com- plaint, LEGG specifically denies the allegations contained therein. 11. In response to Paragraph 11 of the Trustee’s Com- plaint, LEGG specifically denies the allegations contained therein. 12. In response to Paragraph 12 of the Trustee’s Com- plaint, LEGG specifically denies the allegations contained therein. 13. Answering further, LEGG moves that Trustee be required to clarify his request for relief contained in the complaint to conform to the allegations contained therein. Trustee has alleged in his complaint in Paragraph 6 that the property should be considered as property of the Debtor or Alternatively that the property be impressed with a resulting and/or constructive trust for the monies used to purchase same. However, in the prayer for relief the Trustee appears to be asking for both the property and the money used to purchase it, an inconsistent and untenable request. 14. Answering further, LEGG would show that the real property in issue described in Trustee’s Original Com- plaint as Unit No. 1201, Bayou Bend Towers, Houston, Harris County, Texas is now' and has been at all times pertinent herein the homestead of Defendant LEGG. As such homestead the same is exempt from forced sale pursu- ant to Article 3832 of the Revised Civil Statutes of the State of Texas and U.S. Bankruptcy Code § 522(b)(2)(A), 1! U.S.C § 522. 15. Answering further, LEGG would show that he was the sole stockholder of United Markets International, Inc., and was thus entitled to distributions of profit earned by said corporation. Defendant LEGG would show that the Three J-9 Hundred Thousand ($300,000.00) Dollars held in Certifi- cates of Deposit No. 8723 and No. 8533 at the Bank, was identified as profit. Defendant LEGG would further show that it was his intent to declare said amount to be a dividend but was unable to due to the involuntary bankruptcy. 16. Answering further, LEGG would show that the petitioning creditors in the involuntary bankruptcy were not proper creditors of the estate. As such, LEGG would show that the primary purpose of said proceedings were to hinder, delay or completely stop work on the contract. 17. Answering further, LEGG would show that as a result of the involuntary bankruptcy proceeding a trustee was appointed to manage the corporation, and said trustee is W. Steve Smith. Defendant LEGG would show that the trustee comes to this Court of equity with unclean hands in that he has failed to comply with the responsibilities and duties of a trustee in failing to pursue all causes’ of actions of the estate or to protect all of its interest. J-10 WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, LEGG prays that this Court deny the relief requested in the Trustee’s original Complaint with respect to all claims against LEGG, that Trustee be directed to amend his complaint to plead any allega- tions of fraud with particularity, to conform his prayer for relief to the allegations of the complaint, to declare the property in issue to be the homestead of LEGG and therefore not subject to this action, and for such other and further relief to which LEGG may be justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, Law Offices of GERALD P. DE NISCO, P.C. By Mario L. VASQUEZ Gerald P. De Nisco Mario L. Vasquez 5177 Richmond, Suite 1050 Houston, Texas 77056 (713) 961-5292 Texas State Bar No. 05655500 Attorneys for R. DAVID LEGG Of Counsel: Mario L. Vasquez Law Offices of Gerald P. De Nisco, P.C. 5177 Richmond, Suite 1050 Houston, Texas 77056 (713) 961-5292 J-11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify and declare that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing FIRST AMENDED ANSWER OF R. DAVID LEGG to Trustee’s Original Complaint was delivered to all interested parties and/or counsel of record, by Messenger on this, the Sth day of May, 1987. Barbara M. Rogers Kevin H. Bell WOODARD, HALL SINGLETON, SINGLETON & PRIMM & COOKSEY 4700 Texas Commerce 1950 First Western Bank Bldg. Tower 1300 Main Street Houston, Texas 77002 Houston, Texas 77002 /s/_ Mario L. VASQUEZ Mario L. Vasquez APPENDIX K IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION IN RE: } UNITED MARKETS INTERNATIONAL, INC. Debtor CASE No. 85-00872-H2-5 W. Steve Situ, Trustee, > i Plaintiff ADVERSARY No. 85-0375-H1 V. R. Davip LEGG and H. C. HWANG PARTNERS, INC. ORDER Came on for consideration the request of W. Steve Smith, Trustee in the above-referenced adversary to require R. David Legg to provide an accounting of funds received from United Markets International, Inc. It is therefore ORDERED, that R. David Legg by and hereby is ordered and directed to deliver to W. Steve Smith, Trustee, 4700 Texas Commerce Tower, Houston, Texas 77002, a written detailed accounting of the receipt and disbursement of any and all funds received, transferred or otherwise removed from United Markets International, Inc. as salary, dividend, loan, payment for services rendered, legal or otherwise, said accounting to include dates, amounts, purpose of transfer or receipt of funds and eventual use of those funds; and it is further ORDERED that R. David Legg identify and account to the Trustee for all unpaid taxes and maintenance fees on the condominium. K-2 Such information is to be provided on or before June 21, 1988. SIGNED this 11th day of May, 1988. /s/__R. F. WHELEss, JR. R. F. Wheless, Jr. U. S. Bankruptcy Judge APPENDIX L UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION R. Davip Lea, Appellant CIVIL ACTION V. W. Steve SMITH, No. H-88-2293 Appellee APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 65(B) COMES NOW R. DAVID LEGG, Appellant in the above styled and numbered cause, and respectfully requests that this Honorable Court, pursuant to Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, issue a Temporary Restraining Order, restraining the imposition of a constructive trust upon, foreclosure or judicial sale of, or any interference whatsoever with Appellant’s right to peaceful possession of his homestead whose legal description is Unit 1201, Bayou Bend Towers, 101 Westcott, Houston, Texas 77007. Appellant further requests that this Temporary Restraining Order be entered pending a hearing and determination of Appel- lant’s request for a Preliminary Injunction upon the grounds that immediate and irreparable injury, loss and damage will result to Appellant before a hearing can be held thereon. Respectfuliy submitted, /s/_ R. Davip LEGG R. David Legg Attorney at Law 3000 Smith Street Houston, Texas 77006 713/521-9797 Federal Admissions No. 1414 PRO SE / , heen L-2 AFFIDAVIT BEFORE ME, THE UNDERSIGNED AUTHORITY did on this date personally appear R. David Legg, known by me to be a credible person, who did depose and state under oath as follows: “My name is R. David Legg. I am an attorney licensed to practice by the State Bar of Texas, and admitted before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. | am the sole owner of United Markets International, Inc., UMI, a Texas corporation involved in a bankruptcy proceeding which | have alleged to be fraudulent. Further, | am the owner of Unit 1201, Bayou Bend Towers, a condominium which is my residence, and which I claim as my homestead under the laws of the State of Texas. An involuntary bankruptcy petition was filed against UMI on February 7, 1985 by two petitioners, Essam Obaid, (Obaid), and the Obaid and Almullah Construction Co. (OBALCO). At the time of filing, UMI was a solvent company having over Four Million Dollars in assets. The claims of Obaid and OBALCO were false and fraudulent, and their petition was timely controverted. On March 28, 1985, an Order for Relief was entered against UMI without a trial or hearing. A collusive consent decree was entered by counsel for UMI without the knowledge. approval or consent of their client. An appeal is presently pending before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to set aside and vacate the void Order for Relief. An adversary proceeding was brought by W. Steve Smith, Trustee alleging the homestead of R. David Legg to be an asset of the estate of the alleged debtor, UMI. Judgement in favor of Smith was entered May 11, 1988. This judgement is under appeal before this Honorable Court. Urgent client matters require my absence from the country for a period of approximately two weeks. During the course of this trip, I shall be meeting with business associates abroad to discuss the possibility of their assistance in posting a bond or security, in the event such is required to stay execution of the above judgement pending appeal. I am fearful that Trustee Smith may attempt to L-3 levy against my homestead in my absence, causing me and my family immediate and irreparable harm. I urgently request that any such actions be restrained pending my return, and a hearing on the setting of a bond pending appea!.” FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT. SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me, the under- signed authority, this 21st day of July, 1988. /s/_ R. Davip LEGG R. David Legg /s/ PuHyLiis K. LAMBERT Phyllis K. Lambert Notary Public APPENDIX M UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION IN RE: 1 ee copcciebgee BANKRUPTCY CASE hac s vanaia aaa No. 85-00872-H2-5 Debtor. W. Steve Smitn, Trustee, CIVIL ACTION vs. No. H-88-2293 R. Davip LEGG, et al., ) ORDER R. David Legg’s application for a temporary restraining order is denied. Identical relief was denied by Judge Black on July 7, 1988, in Civil Action No. H-88-1706. Any further duplicitous attempts to circumvent orders on unit 1201 at Bayou Bend Towers will result in the imposition of sanctions under Rule 11. Signed on July 21, 1988, at Houston, Texas. /s/_ LYNN N. HUGHES Lynn N. Hughes United States District Judge ee ee ee Cee eenee C APPENDIX N UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION RK. Davip LEGG, Appellant Vv. > C.A. No. H-88-2293 W. Steve SMITH, Appellee } MOTION REQUESTING STAY OF EXECUTION OF JUDGEMENT PENDING HEARING TO SET BOND OR SECURITY; REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED HEARING ON SANCTIONS COMES NOW R. DAVID LEGG, Appellant herein and files this, his Motion Requesting Stay of Execution of Judgement Pending Hearing to Set Bond or Security; Request for Expedited Hearing on Sanctions, and would respectfully demonstrate to the Court as follows: 1. Appellant has timely filed an appeal from a final order entered relating to a proceeding under Title 11 USC, pursuant to 28 USC 158(a). 2. Appellant hereby seeks a stay of said judgement in Adversary Proceeding 85-0375, appeal of which is currently under review by this Honorable Court, pending a hearing on supersedeas bond, or such security, if any, as the Court may order. Appellant would request that an expedited hearing be held on this matter at the earliest practicable time. 3. Pursuant to Rule 8, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Appellant has filed this present Motion with this N-2 Court, as it would not be practicable to seek relief from the bankruptcy court. Appellant has filed a Motion to Recuse requesting that the Honorable U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, R. F. Wheless Jr. recuse himself in said matter pursuant to 28 USC 455. A copy of said Motion to Recuse is attached herewith. Appellant has no reasonable expectation that the relief sought would be granted by the Honorable Judge Wheless. In virtually every instance, Appellant’s Motions filed before the Honorable Judge Wheless have been ig- nored, or summarily dismissed without hearing. For over three years, said Court has ignored Appellant’s claims of fraud, conversion of property of the estate, and gross mis- management of the estate by Trustee Smith. Appellant has been threatened with “criminal contempt,” and has been sanctioned, as a result of causes of action brought by counsel for Appellant — even though he had no role in the prepara- tion or filing of said causes of action. As a result, Appellant has reason to question the impartiality of the Honorable Judge Wheless, and would expect any relief sought by Appellant to be denied. 4. Appellant had previously filed an appeal of the order for relief entered in the main bankruptcy case, 85-00872. This appeal was assigned to the Honorable U. S. District Judge Norman W. Black. The relief sought in said appeal would have vacated all judgements entered with regard to said bankruptcy proceeding. Appellant sought an injunction of enforcement of the judgement presently under appeal on that ground. Judge Black took the matter under advisement, then subsequently determined a lack of subject matter juris- diction, and declined to consider the appeal or to grant the requested restraining order. Appellant seeks injunctive relief from this Honorable Court, as the judgement appealed from is now before this Court. The injunctive relief sought is for Ae a nt Ac A eee ee N-3 the limited purpose, and limited period of time necessary to set an appropriate bond pending appeal. 5. Appellant has been admonished by this Honorable Court for filing an Application for Temporary Restraining Order, pending the setting of a bond, and warned that any subsequent similar attempt would be sanctioned. Appeilant is at a loss to understand why his actions are deemed offensive, as this is the only Court from which Appellant can request the relief sought. Appellant would respectfully request of this Honorable Court an expedited hearing on Appellant’s conduct that may be subject to sanction. As to all his actions, heretofore and hereafter, Appellant has and will continue to make reasonable enquiry, and will exercise due diligence and best judgement as to the applicability of existing relevant law, while vigorously defending his rights to the extent permitted by law. 6. With reference to the matter at hand, Appellant would respectfully show the Court as follows: 11 USC 54] states “(a) The commencement of a case under 301, 302 or 303 creates an estate. Such estate is comprised of all the following property, wher- ever located and by whomever held: (1) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c)(2) of this section, all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the case.” At the commencement of the bankruptcy case related to the matter under review by this Court, among the property of the estate was; (a) A Six Million Three Hundred Ninety-four Thousand Dollar /rrevocable Let- ter of Credit to which the alleged debtor was the sole beneficiary, under which approximately Two Million Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars remained undrawn and to the benefit of the sole beneficiary. (b) Two N-4 special deposit accounts containing an aggregate of approximately One Million Three Hundred Thousand Dollars, to which the alleged debtor was a joint party. 7. In over three and a half years, only two pre-petition, undisputed creditors have filed proofs of claim. The amounts are negligible, and were current invoices at the time of the filing of the fraudulent involuntary petition. Appellant will show this as clear and undisputable evidence that the alleged debtor was solvent, that the bankruptcy proceeding is a fraud. 8. For over three and a half years, Trustee of the estate of the alleged debtor has refused to convene a single meeting of creditors. Not one single meeting of creditors has been held to date, an extraordinary violation of 11 USC 341(a), which re- quires that the Trustee convene a meeting of creditors “within a reasonable time after the order for relief.” Bankruptcy Rule 2003 provides a definition of a reasonable time as being “not less than 20 nor more than 40 days after the order for relief.” It is now more than three and a half years after the order for relief. 9. Atno time in over three and a half years have the original two fraudulent petitioning creditors, who converted over Four Million Dollars of property of the estate, been required to appear before the bankruptcy court to defend their disputed fraudulent claims. Objections to said claims have been made, and an adversary proceeding is pending on this matter before the honora- ble U.S. Bankruptcy Judge R. F. Wheless. woe Reman a a ARS crc nds Aone N-5 10. Should this Honorable Court decline to set a hearing on the posting of a bond or security, Appellant would respectfully request that the Court set the amount of said bond, and that said amount be set at no more than $20,000.00. This amount exceeds the amount of pre-petition, undisputed proofs of claim presently on file in Bankruptcy Case No. 85-00872. To impose upon Appellant a bond or security so greatly in excess of any legitimate claims against the alleged debtor’s estate would be inequitable and unjust. Respectfully submitted, /s/_ R. Davip LEGG R. David Legg Attorney at Law 3000 Smith Street Houston, Texas 77006 713/521-9797 Federal Admissions No.1414 N-6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion Requesting Stay of Execution of Judgement Pending Hearing to Set Bond or Security; Request for Expedited Hearing on sanctions has been served upon all counsel in this matter, this 22nd day of July, 1988. Respectfully submitted, /s/_ R. Davip LEGG R. David Legg APPENDIX O IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ) CASE No. 85-00872-H2-5 CHAPTER 11 IN RE: ADVERSARY , No. 85-0375-HL and ADVERSARY No. 87-0866 and ADVERSARY No. 85-0932 UNITED MARKETS INTERNATIONAL INC. MOTION TO RECUSE TO THE HONORABLE U.S. BANKRUPTCY JUDGE: COMES NOW R. David Legg, Movant and files this Motion to Recuse, and in support thereof would respectfully show: 28 U.S.C. sec. 455 provides therein as follows: (a) Any Justice, Judge, or Magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. (b) He shall also disqualify himself in the follow- ing circumstances (1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party... In connection with the above matters, the Honorable R.F. Wheless Jr. has exhibited such a lack of impartiality, as well as bias and prejudice in his conduct of the above referenced O-2 matters, and all proceedings related to Case No. 85-00872-H2-5. In support of this contention, Movant would cite the following: (a) On March 28, 1985, Judge Wheless did deny United Markets International, Inc. (UMI), its rights to a trial on the merits, by the entry of an order for Relief, without a hearing on the controverted involuntary petition filed against UMI. This unwarranted action was highly prejudicial as to Movant, and did destroy his company, UMI. Further, said action was an abdication and abnegation of judicial responsibility by Judge Wheless, and did in fact constitute a fraud upon his own Court. Ensminger v. Powers, 108 U.S. 292, 2 S. Ct. 643, 27 L. Ed. 732 (1883). (b) On January 22, 1986, Judge Wheless did threaten Movant personally, by a handwritten addendum to an order dismissing a cause of action brought by Movant's counsel in the United States District Court, stating “if the same is refiled without the permission of this Court the plaintiff and his attorney may be certified for criminal contempt”. Such a threat was abusive with regard to Movant, who had no role in the preparation or filing of the offending cause of action. Further, “Where actions of parties charged with criminal contempt were not committed in presence of Court, criminal contempt would be inappropriate under 28 U.S.C sec. 1481. Frankford Trust Co. v. Allanof, (1983 ED Pa.), 29 B.R. 407. Said threat was illustrative of the bias and prejudice of Judge Wheless toward Movant. (c) On September 3, 1986, Movant was personally sanctioned by Judge Wheless, for the actions of Movant's counsel in filing the above mentioned cause of action, through Movant was merely a party to a pleading prepared by Movant's counsel — without his participation; without his Signature to same. Movant, as a litigant, was sanctioned. Movant's counsel of record in said matter was not. ’ O-3 (d) In his Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law signed May 11, 1988, Judge Wheless did therein state “This Court does not accept Mr. Legg’s credibility in connection with this matter’, thereby callously disregarding Movant’s testimony made under oath. Movant is an officer of this Court, a licensed and practicing attorney at law, a former staff member of several Members of the United States Congress, including the former President Pro Tempore of the United States,” a former adjunct professor of law, and has never suffered such a slight to his personal and professional integrity as was inferred by Judge Wheless. Movant alleges all of the above actions of Judge Wheless illustrate his bias, prejudice and lack of impartiality towards Movant. Such actions exceed the requirements of 28 U.S.C. sec. 455, mandating disqualification. In U.S. v. Miranne, (Sth Cir. 1982), 688 F.2d 980, cert. denied 103 S. Ct. 736, 459 US. 1109, 74 L. Ed. 959, it was held, “Under this section, actual demonstrated prejudice need not exist in order for the judge to be required to recuse himself.” The facts presented herein clearly warrant Judge Wheless’ recusal. O-4 WHEREFORE, Movant respectfully requests that the Hon- orable Judge R. F. Wheless, Jr. recuse and disqualify himself from further involvement with Case No., 85-00872-H2-S and all adversary proceedings related thereto, and that a successor Judge be named and all related files, hearings, motions, etc. be trans- ferred accordingly. Respectfully submitted, /s/_ R. Davip LEGG R. David Legg Attorney at Law 3000 Smith Street Houston, Texas 77006 713/521-9797 Federal Admissions No.1414 PRO SE APPENDIX P UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION IN Re: ! c UNITED MARKETS CIVIL ACTION No. H-88-2293 INTERNATIONAL, INC., W. Steve Smitn, Trustee, ADVERSARY vs. No. 85-1375-H1 R. Davip LEGG, AND H. C. HWANG & PARTNERS, INC. BANKRUPTCY CASE No. 85-00872-H2-1 FINAL JUDGMENT The judgment of the bankruptcy court is affirmed. It is adjudged that: 1. The estate of United Markets International, Inc., by its Trustee, W. Steve Smith, is granted a constructive trust on Unit No. 1201, Bayou Bend Towers, Volume 117, page 24, Condominium Records, Harris County, Texas, to the extent of $300,000.00, plus interest at 10% per year from February 5, 1985, to today, with the constructive trust being subject to the lien of H. C. Hwang & Partners, Inc.; the principal and prejudgment interest shall bear postjudgment interest at 7.90% per year. 2. R. David Legg shall deliver possession of Unit No. 1201, Bayou Bend Towers, by May 30, 1988, to the Trustee W. Steve Smith for the benefit of the Estate including all © fixtures and improvements in the unit; P-2 3. H. C. Hwang & Partners, Inc., is prohibited from foreclosure under |1 U.S.C. § 362 unless the stay should lift; and 4. All issues about fraudulent transfer, preference, un- paid tax, maintenance fee, or other claim against R. David Legg not expressly addressed in this judgment will be deter- mined separately. This is a final judgment. Signed on November 9, 1989, at Houston, Texas. /s/_ LYNN N. HUGHES Lynn N. Hughes Uni 2d States District Judge Dende neon & add nedletls “ RT a Oe aR P-3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION IN Re: re ) CIVIL ACTION UNITED MARKETS No. H-88-2293 INTERNATIONAL, INC., , W. Steve Situ, Trustee, ADVERSARY - No. 85-1375-H! R. Davip LEGG and H. C. HWANG & PARTNERS, INC. BANKRUPTCY CASE No. 85-00872-H2-1 OPINION ON AFFIRMANCE OF THE BANKRUPTCY JUDGMENT The appellants’ emergency motion to vacate judgment on appeal for failure to join indispensable parties will be denied. The insufficiency of evidence point of error cannot be ruled on by this court because the appellant did not submit the record; therefore, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the trial court will stand. The appellant seriously misunderstands the indispensable party rule which is not applicable here because no other party’s interests were either decreased or diminished by the occasion of this lawsuit and its judgment. The constructive trust will be affirmed. There is a quibble about the use of the term “first.” The constructive trust is subordinate to Hwang's lien whejher that lien was the first or the fifteenth. Even if the language causes confusion, it is surplusage; otherwise, the order will stand. Signed on November 9, 1989, at Houston, Texas. /s/ LYNN N. HUGHES Lynn N. Hughes United States District Judge i a APPENDIX Q UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION IN RE: : UNITED MARKETS INTERNATIONAL, INC. CIVIL ACTION W. Steve Smitn, Trustee No. H-88-2293 Vs , ADVERSARY R. DAvip LEGG and NO. 85-0375-H1 H. C. HWANG & PARTNERS, INC. } MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION PURSUANT TO RULE 59 AND 60(A) FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE R. DAVID LEGG, Appellant moves for reconsideration of this Honorable Court’s Opinion on Affirmance of the Bankruptcy Judgment and Final Judgment in the above referenced matter, and would respectfully show as follows: 1. The United States Supreme Court most recently held, in its decision pronounced June 23, 1989, in Cause No. 87-1716, styled Granfinanciara, S.A. et al., Petitioners v. Paul C. Nordberg, Creditor Trustee for the Estate of Chase & Sanborn Corporation, Etc., that an action by a trustee in bankruptcy, alleging a fraudulent conveyance against a party who has not filed a claim against the estate, is an action in law, not in equity, and the right to a trial by jury is protected and ensured by the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. Appellant Legg had not filed a claim against the estate in this proceeding, and was entitled to a Q-2 trial by jury on the contested allegations asserted by the trustee below. . See Affidavit of Legg attached as Exhibit “A.” 6 2. The Supreme Court in Granfinanciara, supra, ex- pressly stated, at p. 21 of the slip opinion; There can be little doubt that fraudulent conveyance actions by bankruptcy trustees — suits which, we said in Schoenthal v. Irving Trust Co., 28 U.S. at 94-95 (cita- tion omitted), “constitute no part of the proceedings in bankruptcy but concern controversies arising out of it” — are quintessentially suits at common law that more nearly resemble state-law contract claims brought by a bankrupt corporation to augment the bankruptcy estate than they do creditors’ hierarchically ordered claims to a pro rata share of the bankruptcy res. See Gibson 1022- 1025. They therefore appear matters of private rather than public right. The Court further states at p. 23 of the slip opinion: Citing Schoenthal v. Irving Trust Co., supra, approv- ingly, we expressly stated that, if petitioner had not submitted a claim to the bankruptcy court, the trustee could have recovered the preference only by a plenary action, and that petitioner would have been entitled to a jury trial if the trustee had brought the action in federal court. The Trustee’s Original Complaint was therefore fatally defective, brought before a court without jurisdiction to hear a plenary action. Having defined a fraudulent conveyance as a “private right,” the Court stated that “if that right neither belongs to nor exists against the Federal Government, then it must be adjudicated by an Article III] court.” Supra, p. 20. 3. A challenge to subject matter jurisdiction may be made at any time. American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn, (1951) 341 USS. 6. A ch sah Aka % Q-3 4. The absence of the record is not material to consid- eration of the threshold questions of jurisdiction raised above. 5. A copy of the record was provided to the Court, and was subsequently supplemented. See attached Exhibit “B.” Apparently its absence is due to inadvertent clerical error. A true and correct complete copy will be prepared and provided without delay. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Movant prays that this Honorable Court reconsider its opinion on Affirm- ance of the Bankruptcy Judgment and Final Judgment; that, upon reconsideration, the Court vacate the judgment below for want of jurisdiction, and dismiss Trustee’s Original Complaint, pursuant to 12(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. Respectfully submitted, /s/_ R. Davip LEGG R. David Legg Attorney at Law 15415 Katy Freeway Suite 10] Houston, Texas 77094 713/578-8829 Federal Admissions No. 1414 PRO SE Q-4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent to opposing counsel this 29th day of November, 1989. /s/_ R. Davip LEGG R. David Legg Q-5 EXHIBIT “A” STATE OF TEXAS County OF HARRIS AFFIDAVIT Before me, the undersigned authority, on this day did appear R. David Legg, known to me to be a credible person, who after being duly sworn, did depose and state: My name is R. David Legg. I am a defendant in Adversary No. 85-0375-H1 in bankruptcy Main Case No. 85-00872-H2-S. Trustee’s Original Complaint alleging fraudulent conveyance of my homestead was filed in the Spring of 1985. Trial of the Adversary was held before the Hon. R. F. Wheless, Jr., United States Bankruptcy Judge, concluding February 4, 1988. Judg- ment was pronounced on May 11, 1988. At no time relevant to said proceeding, had I filed a claim against the estate in Case No. 85-00872-H2-5. Further Affiant sayeth not. SIGNED this 29th day of November, 1989. /s/ R. Davip LEGG R. David Legg SWORN AND SUBSCRIBED before me, the undersigned authority this 29th day of November, 1989. /s/ DorotHuy L. SANDERS Dorothy L. Sanders Notary Public Q-6 EXHIBIT “B” R. Davip LEGG ATTopney at Law 3000 Smith Houston. Texas 77006 713/521-9797 July 22, 1988 Office of the Clerk United States Bankruptcy Court 515 Rusk Avenue Houston, Texas 77002 Attn: Bankruptcy Appeals Clerk, Ms. Mary Perales Re: Bankruptcy Appeal H-88-2293, Adversary Proceeding 85-0375; Bankruptcy Case 85-00872, Chapter 11; Supplement of Designation of Record Ms. Perales, With regard to the above referenced bankruptcy appeal, now pending before the Honorable Judge Lynn N. Hughes, I would like to supplement the record previously designated. I request that a complete transcript of the hearing on Adversary Proceeding 85-0375, heard before the Honorable Judge Wheless on January 29, February 3 and 4, 1988, be furnished the District Court, by all exhibits. A portion of this transcript has been completed and is presently on file, the remain- der has been ordered and is presently being transcribed. A related appeal has recently been concluded, Civil Action $8-1706, before the Honorable Judge Black. I would request that those items in the attached designation in said appeal now be furnished to Judge Hughes’ court. Q-7 Please don’t hesitate to contact me should you have any questions regarding this matter. Thank you for your assistance. Very truly yours, /s/ RR. Davip LEGG R. David Legg Q-8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION IN Re: ) UNITED MARKETS INTERNATIONAL, INZ., CIVIL ACTION W. Steve Smitt:, Trustee, No. H-88-2293 vs ADVERSARY R. Davip LeGG and No. 85-0375-H! H. C. HWANG & PARTNERS, INC. } NOTICE OF APPEAL R. DAVID LEGG, Appellant, appeals to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals from a Final Judgment of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, entered November 14, 1989, affirming the decision of the bankruptcy court. A motion for reconsideration was timely filed, and the same was denied by the district court, said denial being entered in this action on January 11, 1990. This appeal is timely filed. Appellant would show that a constructive trust may not be imposed upon a homestead, and that any attempt at such imposi- tion is null and void. Appellant would further show that there was no jurisdictional basis for trial of this matter by a United States Bankruptcy Judge, that any resulting judgment was thus null and void, and that-by failing to address this fatal jurisdictional issue, the district court ruling affirming the trial judge is in error and warrants reversal. Appellant would further show that Appellant had a right to trial by jury in this matter as recently propounded by the United States Supreme Court, and that by failing to address this argu- ment, the district court erred, warranting reversal of its judgment. \ Q-9 Appellant would further show that the district court erred in failing to grant de novo review of this matter, and that the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law propounded by the bankruptcy court are null and void. Appellant would further show that the Order for Relief in the main bankruptcy case 85-00872-H2-5 from which Adversary no. 85-0375 flows is null and void, and that any subsequent judgment emanating from the initial void order is likewise null and void and subject to collateral attack. The District Court erred in refusing to address this issue. The parties to the final order appealed from, their names and addresses, and/or the names and addresses of their respective attorneys are as follows: Ms. Barbara M. Rogers Mr. Kevin Bell, Atty. Woodard, Hall & Primm, Singleton & Cooksey, Attys. Pil 1600 Smith, Ste. 4500 7000 Texas Commerce Houston, Texas 77002 Tower Houston, Texas 77002 Dated: February 9, 1990. Respectfully submitted, /s/ R. Davip LEGG R. David Legg 15415 Katy Freeway Ste. 101 Houston, Texas 77094 (713) 578-8829 Fed. Adm No. 1414 APPENDIX R IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION IN RE: UNITED MARKETS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Debtor. CIVIL ACTION W. Steve Smitn, Trustee, No. 85-00872-H2-5 vs. R. Davip LeGG and H. C. HWANG & PARTNERS, INC. } ADV. No. 85-0375-H1 ORDER AUTHORIZING SALE FREE AND CLEAR At Houston came on for hearing the Motion For Authority To Sell Free and Clear filed by W. Steve Smith, Trustee herein, and R. David Legg having filed an opposition to such Motion, and the Court having considered the evidence presented and the arguments of counsel, and determining that the Motion should be in all respects granted, it is therefore ORDERED that W. Steve Smith, Trustee for the Estate of United Markets International, Inc., is hereby authorized to sell Unit 1201 of Bayou Bend Towers, 101 Westcott, Houston, Harris County, Texas, for the cash price of $275,000,00 to Mr. Gideon G. Agar (pursuant to contract dated November 3, 1958) and that any interest that any party might claim in the subject condomin- R-2 ium be attached to the net proceeds from said sale, said claims including but not being limited to: 1. Lien in favor of H. C. Hwang & Partners, Inc. securing a promissory note in the original principal sum of $115,000.00; 2. Lien filed August 2, 1988, in favor of The Bayou Bend Towers Council of Co-owners, in the amount of $15,475.95: 3. Lien filed August 26, 1987, in favor of West Pub- lishing Company against R. David Legg in the amount of $2,727.40; 4. Lien filed August 31, 1987, in favor of The Bayou Bend Towers Council of Co-owners, in the amount of $17,622.83; 5. Lien filed August 24, 1988, in favor of Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. in the amount of $1,558-88; 6. Federal lien filed on October 26, 1988, against Robert David Legg in the amount of $7,722.01; 7. State Tax Lien filed on July 15, 1985, in favor of Comptroller of Public Accounts, State of Texas, in the amount of $64.02; 8. Claims asserted by R. David Legg in Adversary Proceeding No. 85-0375-HI in the United States Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of Texas; 9. Claims asserted by any party in the lawsuit styled R. David Legg vs. Lackshin & Nathan, et al., Docket No. 88-54225, in the 127th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas; and R-3 10. Claims of R. David Legg that are asserted in the Notice of Lis Pendens filed on August 5, 1988, by R. David Legg, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” it is further ORDERED that all of the claims and interests that all parties might have against the net proceeds of the sale of this property are not approved herein, but are subject to determination in the appropriate forum and proceeding prior to disbursement of the net proceeds from the sale of Unit 1201, Bayou Bend Towers, Houston, Harris County, Texas; it is further ORDERED that unless the time is shortened for cause, sign this Order and its effect is conditioned upon the Trustee giving 20 days written notice to West Publishing Company, Matthew Bender Publishing Company and the I.R.S., and giving each of these creditors the opportunity to object or request a hearing. If none is requested then the full effect of this Order shall mature. Dated: December 6, 1988 /s/ R. F. WHELEsSS, Jr. R. F. Wheless, Jr. United States Bankruptcy Judge STATE OF TEXAS | SS CouNTy OF HARRIS NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS Notice is hereby given that in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, there is pending a Civil Action entitled R. David Legg vs. W. Steve Smith, Trustee. By that suit R. David Legg asserts that certain property is his homestead under the laws of the State of Texas, and is exempt from the claims of creditors. Legg asserts the invalidity of any claims of said property being property of an estate of an alleged debtor entitled United Markets International, Inc., said estate being administered by W. Steve Smith, Trustee. Further notice is hereby given that there is pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, an appellate cause of action No. 88-2721 entitled United Markets International vs. Essam Obaid et al. In this action, appellant asserts as void an Order in bankruptcy entering an Order for Relief, and asserts as void the appointment of W. Steve Smith as Trustee. The property in question with regard to these proceedings is described as: UNIT NUMBER 1201, BAYOU BEND TOWERS, HOUSTON, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. The return of said property to its rightful owner of record, R. David Legg is sought in both said proceedings. R-5 Signed this Sth day of August, 1988. /s/_R. Davip LEGG R. David Legg Attorney for United Markets International, Inc., and Pro Se Counsel for R. David Legg STATE OF TEXAS SS County OF HARRIS BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority personally ap- peared R. David Legg, Attorney for United Markets Interna- tional, Inc., and Pro Se Counsel for R. David Legg, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same for the purposes and consideration therein expressed. GIVEN under my hand and seal of office this Sth day of August, 1988. /s/ CAROL WADE WILSON Carol Wade Wilson Notary Public in and for the State of TEXAS My commission expires: Carol Wade Wilson 12-31-88 eked (print name) Return to: R. David Legg Attorney at Law 3000 Smith Street Houston, Texas 77006 - Pes yim pone aamanal , PRB it a a aca aes APPENDIX S IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS “HOUSTON DIVISION IN RE: ) UNITED MARKETS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Debtor. W. Steve Smith, Trustee, Movant ¥. Bayou BEND Towers Coun- cit oF Co-Owners, H. C. HWANG & PARTNERS, INC., DANIEL, MANN, JGHNSON & MENDENHALL, SINGLETON & CooKxsey, ASIAN AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, MATTHEW BENDER & Co., INC., AND West PUBLISHING Co. Respondents ) CASE No. 85-00872-H2-11 CHAPTER 11 CONTESTED MATTER AGREED ORDER Came on this date for hearing in the above-entitled and numbered cause the following described matters: 1. Trustee’s Motion to Determine Interest in Proceeds; 2. H.C. Hwang & Partners’ Motion to Compel Distri- bution of Proceeds; 3. Daniel, Mann, Johnson & Mendenhall’s Motion to Compel Distribution of Proceeds; S-2 4. Bayou Bend Towers’ Counsel of Co-owner’s Motion for Allowance of First Priority Claim; 5. Asian American National Bank’s Motion to Inter- vene in H. C. Hwang & Partners’ Motion to Compe! Distri- bution of Proceeds; and 6. Application for Payment of Administrative Expenses. The Court, after reviewing the various motions, responses and pleadings, and after the presentation of evidence and arguments of counsel, finds that the Internal Revenue Service, Matthew Bender & Co., Inc. and West Publishing Co. did not respond to assert an interest in the proceeds that are the subject of the Trustee’s Motion to Determine Interest in Proceeds and that the other parties to the various motions are in agreement that pursu- ant to its Order granting the Trustee authority to sell the condo- minium commonly known as Unit 1201 of Bayou Bend Towers, Houston Texas, free and clear of liens; that such sale closed on January 30, 1989 and resulted in net cash pre-eeds in the sum of $225,311.06, together with accrued interest, which funds are currently in the possession of the Trustee, W. Steve Smith; and that the cash proceeds should be distributed to the respective parties in the sums which follow. It is therefore, ORDERED that distribution of the cash proceeds on deposit with this Court be as follows: 1. The sum of $46,500.00 to the Trustee, W. Steve Smith; 2. The sum of $157,500.00 to H. C. Hwang & Partners, Inc., by virtue of its valid first lien, to be distributed in the respective sums and following priority: (a) $17,500.00 to Daniel, Mann, Johnson & Mendenhall; S-3 (b) $30,000.00 to Singleton & Cooksey; and (c) $110,000.00 to Asian American National Bank: 3. The sum of $24,000.00 to Bayou Bend Towers’ Council of Co-Owners; 4. Any sums remaining after payment of the foregoing shall be paid to the Trustee, W. Steve Smith; it is further ORDERED that the Internal Revenue Service, Matthew Bender & Co., Inc. and West Publishing Co. have no interest in the subject proceeds. SIGNED this 18th day of June, 1989. /s/_ R. F. WHeELEssS, Jr. R. F. Wheless, Jr. Judge Presiding APPROVED AS TO FORM AND SUBSTANCE: SINGLETON & COOKSEY WOODARD, HALL & PRIMM, P.C. By: Kevin H. Bett By: BARBARA M. RoGers Kevin H. Bell Barbara M. Rogers Admissions I.D. No. 2610 Admissions I.D. No. 1845 Randall L. Brim Timothy L. Wentworth Admissions 1.D. No. 8723 Admissions I.D. No. 945] 1600 Smith, Suite 3100 7000 Texas Commerce Houston, Texas 77002 Tower (713) 651-0175 Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 221-3800 Attorneys for Attorneys for H. C. Hwang & Partners, Inc. W. Steve Smith, Trustee and Singleton & Cooksey /s/_ W. Steve Smit W. Steve Smith, Trustee R. C. HWANG & PARTNERS, INC. By: H. C. HWANG H. C. Hwang President SCOTT, DOUGLASS & LUTON By: Louis K. BONTIAN Louis K. Bontian Admissions I.D. No. 8300 4300 NCNB Center 700 Louisiana Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 228-6337 Attorneys for Daniel, Mann Johnson & Mendenhall DANIEL, MANN, JOHNSON & MENDENHALL By: Name: Title: S-4 O'CONNOR, WISNER, CRAIG & YOUNG, P.C. By: LAWRENCE AveRY YOUNG Lawrence Avery Young Admission I.D. No. 2539 2603 Augusta, Suite 800 Houston, Texas 77057 (713) 266-3311 Attorneys for Asian American National Bank ASIAN AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK By: Name: Title: BuTLER, LANGFORD, EWALT & Hairey, P.C. By: Lori E. ALDERSON Lori £. Alderson Admissions I.D. No. 117 5718 Westheimer, Suite 1600 Houston, Texas 77057 (713) 780-4135 Attorneys for Bayou Bend Towers’ Council of Co-Owners Bayou BEND Towers’ COUNSEL OF Co-OWNERS By: J. H. JONES J. H. Jones President --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385020_2995%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.