account in Switzerland, (Kirwan Dep. at 91), but he does not know the name of the bank (id.) and does not have any documents in Australia that show the identity of the bank (id.) despite his position as trustee. If such statements were not enough to warrant dismissal of Kirwan’s assertions in this examination, I observe that Kirwan never acknowledges actually having the assets anywhere in the transcript. Put simply, there is no new evidence before me. Armstrong has provided me, but mostly the Court of Appeals, nothing but self-serving and conclusory statements that he does not have possession, custody or control over the assets sought by the Temporary Receiver, but has come forward with no hard evidence to substantiate this assertion. See Rylander, 460 U.S. at 757-758, 103 S.Ct. 1548 (<HOLDING>). Thus, he has not satisfied his burden of
holding that section 523a2c shifts the burden of production and not the burden of proof on the issue of intent only holding employer satisfied its burden of production holding that plaintiff bears burden of production as well as persuasion holding defendant does not meet burden of production with an ex parte affidavit denying ability to comply holding that the employers burden is one only of production inasmuch as the burden of proving an improper motive always remains with the plaintiff