RECEIVER GONE WILD

In legal proceedings, a court-appointed receiver holds a crucial role: to act as a neutral third party responsible for managing and protecting assets while litigation unfolds. The receiver’s role is meant to ensure fairness, impartiality, and the preservation of value for all parties involved, particularly the defendant. However, when a receiver abuses this power, the consequences can be devastating.

In the case of SEC vs. Barton et al., the appointed receiver, Cort Thomas, and his attorney, Charlene C. Koonce, have engaged in a series of actions that reflect severe misconduct, including malicious prosecution, overreach, and numerous other bad acts. Rather than fulfilling their fiduciary duties, they appear to have pursued personal vendettas, manipulated the court process and violated the rights of the defendant, Timothy Barton.

The situation has been further complicated by the involvement of Judge Brantley Starr, who has reappointed the same receiver twice, despite clear evidence of wrongdoing. This has led to a spiral of legal harassment, unjust asset seizures, and unwarranted financial harm to Mr. Barton and his family.

This article will outline the extent of this misconduct, focusing on how the receiver and his attorney have gone “wild,” abusing their position of power. Through an in-depth exploration of each bad act and a comparison between the qualities of a good receiver and the damaging actions witnessed in this case, we will expose the failures of the system and the injustice perpetrated against Mr. Barton.

The goal is to shed light on the dangers of unchecked receivership powers and the need for accountability in the legal system, particularly when such egregious overreach is allowed to continue.

Know what Judge Starr did in this questionable justice

In the pursuit of justice, fairness and impartiality must remain paramount. Yet, the handling of the case against Mr. Barton has been marked by questionable decisions, speculative accusations, and an approach that raises concerns about personal motives overshadowing legal principles.

Originally, the SEC presented David Wallace, a highly qualified receiver with extensive real estate expertise and the wisdom that comes with age and experience. Wallace’s credentials made him an ideal choice to oversee such a complex case. However, Judge Starr’s only substantive modification to the original order was to remove Wallace as receiver, replacing him with a 40-year-old attorney with no real estate experience. This individual, notably, has three law partners who previously served as clerks for Judge Starr, raising questions about impartiality in the selection process.

This replacement not only diminished the expertise brought to the case but also set the stage for a troubling pattern of punitive actions. Under oath, Receiver Cort Thomas stated in court that his first priority was to “honor Judge Starr.” In practice, he has interpreted this mandate as a directive to punish Mr. Barton at every turn. This punitive approach has been evident in his relentless filings—over 600 to date—and his aggressive tactics, which have already racked up more than $2 million in legal costs. Every moment that could be billed has been exploited, turning the legal process into a relentless campaign rather than a fair adjudication of facts.

1. The Role of a Good Receiver: What It Should Be

A court-appointed receiver holds a critical position in safeguarding assets during legal disputes. Their primary responsibility is to manage these assets impartially, ensuring that their value is preserved for all involved parties, including creditors, investors, and defendants. A good receiver is not only a custodian of the assets but also an advocate for the best possible outcomes for the estate under their control.

The following are the key qualities and expectations of a competent receiver in accordance with the SEC Receivership Guidelines (linked) and Rule 66 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (linked):

Key Qualities of a Good Receiver

1. Impartiality and Fairness: A good receiver operates without bias, making decisions solely based on protecting and maximizing the value of the estate for all parties involved.
2. Fiduciary Duty: They act with the highest fiduciary responsibility, putting the estate’s interests above all else, including personal or external influences.
3. Transparency: Providing clear and detailed reports to the court and all stakeholders is essential. A receiver must explain the rationale behind their decisions and ensure all actions taken are well-documented.
4. Protection of Assets: Ensuring that assets remain intact and are protected from harm or loss is a critical responsibility. This includes appropriate management of properties, businesses, and other holdings under their care.
5. Adherence to Legal and Court Directives: A good receiver strictly follows the mandates of the court, ensuring that their actions are in line with legal directives.
6. Fair Asset Management and Sale: When the sale of assets is necessary, it is the receiver’s duty to follow proper legal procedures, ensuring that assets are sold at fair market value to prevent unnecessary devaluation.
7. Collaboration with All Parties: The receiver must communicate effectively with creditors, legal representatives, and the defendant, ensuring that legal rights are respected and all parties remain informed.
8. Objective Decision Making: Decisions must be based on clear, objective evidence rather than speculation or external pressures.
9. Experience with the Nature of the Assets: A competent receiver has relevant experience with the type of assets they are managing. This experience is crucial for understanding the complexities of the assets under control and making informed decisions to maintain their value.
10. Maintaining the Status Quo: A good receiver ensures that the status quo is maintained. This includes paying mortgages, subscriptions, payroll, and other necessary expenses to keep the business operational and retain experienced staff. By doing so, the receiver protects the ongoing value of the assets under control.
11. Striving for Betterment of Asset Value: A receiver should not only protect assets from devaluation but also strive to improve their worth. This means implementing strategies to enhance the value of properties, businesses, or financial assets under receivership.
12. Litigation for Asset Protection: A good receiver actively continues any litigations necessary to protect the assets under their control. This includes fighting against illegitimate foreclosures or legal actions that could harm the estate, ensuring that the assets remain safeguarded for the benefit of the estate’s stakeholders.

In the SEC vs. Barton case, these essential qualities of a good receiver have been grossly neglected. Instead of acting as a neutral steward of the assets, the receiver, Cort Thomas, and his attorney, Charlene C. Koonce, have overstepped their authority, leading to significant financial and reputational harm to Mr. Barton. Charlene Koonce surprisingly an alumnus of the same college as Judge Brantley Starr and the supervisor over Mr. Tim Wells and Allan Corillo who proudly boast their time as Judge Brantley Starr’s Clerks had another rule book to follow, not the SEC’s Good Guidelines but the “weapons of a receivership” a handwritten manifesto by Charlene Koonce. Which outlines all the tricks of the trade to bring mass destruction to an estate.

The following sections will thoroughly examine each bad act committed and how it deviates from the qualities expected of a competent receiver. These acts will also be compared in a tabulated format, illustrating the stark contrast between a good receiver’s qualities and the actions taken by the receiver in this case.

Conflict of Interest – The Role of Charlene C. Koonce

In the SEC vs. Barton case, the receiver’s attorney, Charlene C. Koonce, plays a dual role, both as a key architect of aggressive receivership strategies and as the legal executor of these strategies in her role representing Cort Thomas, the receiver. Koonce’s contributions to shaping the legal powers of receivers, as highlighted in her co-authored publication Weapons of a Receivership – Unlocking A Receiver’s Arsenal (linked), reveal how her understanding of the system allows her to leverage these powers to the detriment of Timothy Barton.

In her document, Koonce outlines the various legal “weapons” a receiver can use, including:

• Power to recover assets nationwide and internationally, which has been misused in this case to overreach and seize Barton’s personal properties as well as his son’s and his son’s Trust.
• Power of contempt, allowing the receiver to coerce compliance from asset holders. This has been leveraged to suppress Barton’s ability to contest the asset seizures effectively.
• Power to recover commissions, which has been aggressively applied to claw back self-billings and further drain Barton’s financial resources,suing lawyers for their legal fees and his children for pay checks against the work they rendered.

Koonce’s deep expertise in these areas of wild receivership, combined with her execution of these tactics in the SEC vs. Barton case, represents a significant conflict of interest. Her work in drafting broad receivership powers has enabled her to navigate legal loopholes that allow the receiver to act with near impunity, often at the expense of the very fairness that receivership is supposed to guarantee.

This conflict raises serious concerns about the fairness of the legal proceedings in this case. Instead of using her expertise to ensure the fair administration of assets, Koonce has helped orchestrate a legal strategy that punishes Barton, disregarding the principles of impartiality and fiduciary responsibility that should govern a receiver’s conduct. Ms. Koonce went so far as to inform his daughter that if Mr. Barton cooperated with the liquidation of his assets that she would be at his sentence hearing, and if Mr. Barton did not do everything she said, she would again be there at the sentencing hearing of her father. These threatening tactics certainly are not in the SEC’s proper receiver handbook.

2. Bad Acts Committed by the Receiver in the SEC vs. Barton Case

In this case, the receiver, Cort Thomas, along with his attorney, Charlene C. Koonce, consistently misused their legal powers. Instead of acting as impartial custodians of the estate, they engaged in a series of actions that targeted Timothy Barton, causing significant financial and emotional harm.

Here are the key ways in which the receiver violated his responsibilities:

Bad Act	Description	Impact on Barton
Malicious Prosecution	Filed baseless lawsuits with no probable cause.	Caused high legal expenses and damaged Barton’s reputation.
Overreach of Power	Seized personal assets without legal justification.	Improper seizure of properties, leading to financial loss and disruption.
Misrepresentation of Facts	Distorted business transactions to appear fraudulent.	Misled the court, resulting in unjust asset sales and rulings.
Hiding Evidence	Withheld key documents needed for Barton’s defense.	Made it harder for Barton to defend himself, increasing costs and legal delays.
Collusion with Judge Starr	Judge reappointed the same receiver despite misconduct.	Allowed the receiver to continue abusing power, causing further damage.
Undervalued Asset Sales	Sold assets at prices far below market value.	Barton lost significant financial value, as properties were sold at much lower prices.
Emotional and Financial Harm	Continuous legal harassment and liquidation of assets.	Caused emotional distress and financial ruin for Barton.
Contempt Charges	Brought in the contempt charges that Mr. Barton be put in jail	Further threatening as against the role of a SEC receivership

1. Unjust Legal Actions: The receiver launched multiple baseless legal actions against Barton, which had no legitimate legal foundation. These lawsuits appeared to be designed more to financially burden Barton than to seek justice. The constant pressure of defending against these false claims drained Barton’s resources and tarnished his reputation.
2. Seizing Personal Assets Without Cause: The receiver went beyond his mandate by taking control of assets that were not directly tied to the case, including personal properties like the Rock Creek estate. This was done without proper legal justification, resulting in the unfair loss of valuable assets.
3. Twisting the Facts: To justify their actions, the receiver and Koonce misrepresented the financial status of Barton’s businesses. They presented normal business activities as fraudulent and exaggerated liabilities, such as in the case of Amerigold Suites, where they undervalued the property to push for a sale that wasn’t in the estate’s best interest.
4. Hiding Critical Information: Important documents that could have helped Barton defend himself were withheld by the receiver. Without access to these crucial records, Barton was left at a severe disadvantage, unable to fully contest the false claims made against him.
5. Collusion with the Court: Despite clear evidence of misconduct, Judge Brantley Starr reappointed the same receiver, allowing further abuses to continue. This favoritism contributed to a system where Barton’s rights were disregarded, and the receiver’s actions went unchecked.
6. Selling Assets Below Value: In multiple cases, the receiver sold Barton’s properties for much less than their true market value. Even when higher offers were available or the properties were still tied up in legal battles, the receiver rushed through sales, causing significant financial loss.
7. Emotional and Financial Harm: As a result of these relentless actions, Barton suffered not only financially but also emotionally. The constant legal battles, coupled with the reckless liquidation of his assets, left him under immense stress and financial strain.
8. They have seized the legal files of Mr. Barton’s Defense Lawyer ignoring the privilege of lawyer confidentiality and withholding those critical legal files for Mr. Barton’s Legal Defense.

4. Comparison: A Good Receiver vs. “Receiver Gone Wild”

In legal proceedings, a receiver is expected to act with impartiality and professionalism, safeguarding assets and maintaining the estate’s value for all parties involved. In contrast, the actions of Cort Thomas, the receiver in the SEC vs. Barton case, show a complete disregard for these standards. The following table highlights the key differences between the qualities of a good receiver and the harmful actions taken by the receiver in this case.

A Good Receiver – Qualities	Receiver Gone Wild – SEC vs. Barton
Impartial and Fair	Acted with bias, clearly targeting Barton and his assets with malicious intent.
Experienced in the Nature of Assets Under Control	Showed lack of experience, leading to improper management and undervaluation of assets.
Maintains the Status Quo (e.g., mortgages, payroll)	Failed to maintain the status quo, letting key payments lapse and causing damage to ongoing operations.
Strives for Betterment of Asset Value	Sold assets below market value, causing unnecessary financial losses for the estate.
Protects Against Asset Devaluation	Actively caused devaluation by rushing asset sales and ignoring higher offers.
Works Within Legal Boundaries and Court Mandates	Overreached legal authority by seizing personal assets and selling properties without proper justification.
Provides Transparency and Regular Reporting	Withheld key information, failed to release crucial documents that would help Barton’s defense.
Litigates to Protect Assets	Initiated baseless lawsuits against Barton, his lawyers, children and Ex-wife and immediately staying them – a clear violation of due process so that Mr. Barton could not defend these frivolous lawsuits.
Ensures Fair Asset Management	Mismanaged assets, leading to undervalued sales and significant financial loss for Barton.
Protects Against Illegitimate Foreclosures	Did not fight against illegitimate actions, but rather enabled quick liquidation, harming Barton’s interests.
Fiduciary Responsibility: Acts for Benefit of All Parties	Prioritized punishing Barton over fulfilling fiduciary duties, damaging the estate and Barton’s livelihood.
Collaborates with All Parties Involved	Acted without proper communication or cooperation, ignoring Barton’s legal rights and interests. Excluding Mr. Barton and his rights as a guarantor excluding a seat at the mediation process.
Seeks Court Approval for Major Actions	Rushed asset sales without proper court approval or fair market evaluation.
	Paid themselves and did not pay any mortgages or other essentials for the maintenance and uplift of assets

The table clearly shows the vast difference between the expected conduct of a good receiver and the actual actions taken by Cort Thomas in the SEC vs. Barton case. A good receiver is supposed to protect and manage assets for the benefit of all stakeholders, maintaining fairness and transparency throughout the process. Instead, Thomas and his attorney, Charlene C. Koonce, acted with bias, malice, and a clear intent to harm Barton, disregarding their fiduciary duties.

Name Calling – Extraordinary Bias – and all the nasty stuff continued

In the realm of justice, courtrooms are meant to be spaces for fairness and impartiality—not platforms for speculative accusations and character assassination. Yet, the language and actions surrounding the case against Mr. Barton suggest otherwise. The Receiver’s approach, marked by slanderous claims and unrelenting legal maneuvers, raises significant questions about both the process and the motives behind it.

The universal code of ethics dictates that accusations must be substantiated with evidence, and guilt cannot be presumed without a conviction. Yet, in this case, the Receiver appears to have bypassed these principles, resorting to inflammatory rhetoric and relentless filings—over 600 to date—designed to overwhelm rather than illuminate. This aggressive strategy, which has already cost over $2 million in legal battles, seems to prioritize billing opportunities over the pursuit of justice. Every moment that could be billed has been exploited, turning the legal process into a revolving door of paperwork rather than a pursuit of truth.

If the allegations against Mr. Barton were truly as grave as suggested, one must wonder why such excessive measures and sensational language are necessary to make the case. The Fifth Circuit, renowned for its commitment to evidence-based rulings, has already raised serious concerns about the lack of substantiated claims in this matter. It firmly upholds the principle that without evidence, no order should stand. Yet, the Receiver continues to act with an apparent vendetta, deviating from the SEC’s own rulebook, which emphasizes procedural fairness and accountability.

Honoring the legacy of Judge Starr, whose insights remain a guiding light in this case, one cannot ignore the questionable motives driving the Receiver’s actions. Personal grievances and vindictive pursuits have no place in the administration of justice. The failure to meet the burden of proof, as highlighted by the Fifth Circuit, underscores the fragility of the case against Mr. Barton—a fragility that is bound to lead to further reversals in court.

Justice demands more than speculation and hostility. It requires evidence, integrity, and adherence to ethical standards. The relentless campaign against Mr. Barton serves as a stark reminder of what happens when personal motives overshadow the principles of law. It is only a matter of time before the truth prevails, restoring fairness and rectifying the missteps that have marred this case.

Will you face this receiver?

The SEC vs. Barton case is a clear example of how the receivership system can be twisted into a tool of abuse rather than a means of protection. Cort Thomas and Charlene C. Koonce, through their actions, have damaged the integrity of the legal system and caused irreparable harm to Barton. This must serve as a wake-up call for courts, regulators, and the public to take a closer look at the receivership process and demand greater accountability.