UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL
____________________________________________________
BAP Case No: NC-16-1384
BAP Case No: NC-16-1385
____________________________________________________
Arden Van Upp; Bankruptcy Case No.: 09-31932-TC,
Honorable Thomas E. Carlson
BAP Case No: NC-16-1384

David A. Bradlow vs. Samuel H. Sloan; Adversary
Proceeding No.: 10-3040-TC (Bankruptcy Case No. 09-31932 TEC),
Honorable Thomas E. Carlson
BAP Case No: NC-16-1385
____________________________________________________________________________
Appellant's Brief
____________________________________________________________________________
Appeals from the decisions and orders of Bankruptcy Judge Thomas E. Carlson dated October 5, 2016 and October 10, 2016 which denied motions to vacate and set aside the so-called “settlement” dated September 24, 2012, which denied motions to unseal
the files and records of this case including the 14 documents ordered sealed in Documents #436 and #548, denied the motions to vacate the appointment of David Bradlow as Trustee, denied the motions to vacate the default judgment entered against Sam Sloan,
denied the motions to order the return to Arden Van Upp the fees in excess of $125,000 awarded to the trustee and his counsel for obtaining the default judgment against Sam Sloan, denied the motions to order the return to Arden Van Upp of $1.5 million
dollars in attorneys and trustees fees awarded to David Bradlow and his attorneys, denied the motions to remove and disqualify Bankruptcy Judge Thomas E. Carlson from appearing in this case and denied ordering the final unconditional retroactive
dismissal of this case.
______________________________________________
Arden Van Upp, pro se
1019 Ashbury Street, Apt. 3
San Francisco CA 94117

Sam Sloan, pro se
1019 Ashbury Street, Apt. 3
San Francisco CA 94117 Table of Contents
Preliminary Statement 1
Argument 14
There was no oral testimony under oath in this case and no oral decisions and thus no transcripts in this case.
Certification Required by BAP Rule 8015(a)-1(a)
The Undersigned certifies that the following parties have an interest in the outcome of this appeal.
Trustee David A. Bradlow and his attorneys Michael D. Cooper (Bar No. 42761) and WENDEL, ROSEN, BLACK & DEAN LLP
1111 Broadway, 24th Floor, Oakland, California 94607
Certification Required by BAP Rule 8015(a)-1(b)
The undersigned certifies that there are no known related cases and appeals Table of Cases
Bankruptcy Case No. 92-32965 Arden Van Upp 4, 14 Bankruptcy Case No. 09-31932 Arden Van Upp 6, 13 Bankruptcy Case No. 16-30742 Arden Van Upp 12, 14, 26
Bankruptcy Case No. 01-30233 Tammy Ann VanUpp 14 Bankruptcy Case No. 92-33747 Laurence Eugene Badgley 4
Arden Van Upp vs. Linda Sue Catron for Elder and Adult Dependent Abuse Case Number CCH 16-578600. 13
Arden Van Upp vs. Northern California Mortgage, Case No. 16-553424. 13, 27
Badgley v. Van Upp, 20 Cal. App. 4th 218 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate Dist., 2nd Div. 1993 4
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 4
Bradlow vs. Sloan, Adv. Pro. No. 10-3040 21, 22, 25
City and County of San Francisco v. VAN UPP, Cal: Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate Dist., 3rd Div. 2011 6, 10
Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Bellingham, Chapter 7 Trustee, ___ U.S. ___, No. 12-1200 (June 9, 2014) 24
In re Taub, 441 BR 211 - Bankr. Court, ED New York 2010 9
IN RE VAN UPP, Bankr. Court, ND California 2010 7
IN RE VAN UPP, No. C 11-04408 SI, United States District Court, N.D. California, July 23, 2012. 10
Linda Sue Catron vs. Specialized Lending Services et all, CGC-16-551351, filed April 6, 2016. 28
Noel Weeks v. Linda Catron, Case No. CGC-11-516849 12,28
Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011) 7,17,24
Yin Falk v. Linda S. Catron, et al. No. CGC-09-486921 12,28
“Last Bonanza Kings: The Bourns of San Francisco” by Ferol Egan ISBN 0874177863 21


Arden Van Upp
Samuel H. Sloan
1019 Ashbury Street, Apt. 3
San Francisco CA 94117
415-410-6400
917-659-3397
samhsloan@gmail.com

United States Bankruptcy Court
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit

Arden Van Upp; Bankruptcy Case No.: 09-31932-TC,
Honorable Thomas E. Carlson
BAP Case No: NC-16-1384

David A. Bradlow vs. Samuel H. Sloan; Adversary
Proceeding No.: 10-3040-TC (Bankruptcy Case No. 09-31932 TEC),
Honorable Thomas E. Carlson
BAP Case No: NC-16-1385
____________________________________________________________________________

Appellant's Brief
____________________________________________________________________________

Preliminary Statement

Arden Van Upp is an elderly woman aged 79. Over the period of the last 50 years starting in 1967 she emassed a considerable real estate empire, by shopping carefully, buying undervalued residential buildings at depressed prices and renting them out to
tenants.
In 2009, when this bankruptcy case was filed, Arden Van Upp listed assets of $13 million and liabilities of $4 million for a net worth of $9 million.
Now, because of the actions of the parties to this case including especially the improper actions of the Bankruptcy Judge Thomas E. Carlson, she has lost everything and is now completely destitute.
This entire matter is now being investigated by San Francisco District Attorney Investigator Vadim Rotberg and by Adult Protective Services Worker of the Adult Protective Services Claudia Sepulveda.
San Francisco Superior Court Judge Joseph M. Quinn, who hears elder abuse cases, stated this is the most extreme case of elder abuse he has ever encountered. “I have never seen a case like this of elder abuse. It is obvious and it is dire, really dire.�
��
After filing this voluntary petition in bankruptcy on July 10, 2009 because she needed time to complete the refinancing of her buildings, Arden Van Upp filed her first motion to dismiss this bankruptcy case on November 4, 2009, Document #119, as she was
about to complete the refinancing of her buildings. The judge denied the motion but allowed her leave to renew. Arden Van Upp renewed the motion as filed by competent and experienced counsel Iain MacDonald on December 22, 2009. Document #182. Again it
was denied. Arden Van Upp has repeatedly made motions to dismiss this voluntary bankruptcy proceeding a dozen times since. Even when a “settlement” took place on September 24, 2012 that Arden Van Upp thought would finally end this nightmare of a case,
it turned out that it did not end this case as Judge Carlson has retained jurisdiction to this day.
It is now apparent that Judge Carlson intends never to let Arden Van Upp out of bankruptcy and will retain jurisdiction over this case for as long as they both shall live. This violates The 13th Amendment to the Constitution that prohibits "Neither
slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime.” Accordingly, Arden Van Upp demands all her money back that has been taken from her by the trustee and his attorneys and the restoration to her possession of her house at 2550 Webster
Street known as the Bourn Mansion, as well as dismissal of this case retroactive to at least December 22, 2009.
In building her real estate empire, Arden Van Upp followed the example of her mother Doris Loy Rich who gained considerable wealth owning seven houses in Vallejo, and who got most of her wealth by buying houses slated for demolition to make way for a new
freeway being built and moving them to empty lots.
Doris Rich loaned Arden Van Upp the money in 1967 to make the initial down payment on her first building which was and is at 1019 Ashbury Street. Sam Sloan who was and is her old friend was present at the closing in 1967, 50 years ago. Another old friend,
George Rowan, had found the property and made and closed the deal.
Like almost all people of wealth, Arden Van Upp soon became the target of people who wanted to get her money, including crooked lawyers like those present here.
Arden was married very briefly in 1957 at the age of 19 in Las Vegas to Gail Van Upp, son of a famous movie producer Virginia Van Upp. They have a daughter born of this marriage Tammy Van Upp who is a make-up artist and hair stylist but who is in no way
involved in real estate transactions or financial dealings with her mother, Arden Van Upp. Gail Van Upp is deceased now for unknown causes, but he had been separated from Arden Van Upp and had nothing to do with her since at least 1959.
In 1973, George Rowan found another exceptional property for Arden Van Upp to buy. That was the famous 28-room Bourn Mansion at 2550 Webster Street built in 1896 on the pinnacle of Pacific Heights. In spite of being a famous building and an architectural
wonder, it was considered to be a white elephant that few wanted. It was to be slated for demolition when George Rowan got Arden to bid on it.
However, about that time, Arden got a new boyfriend Laurence Badgley and as they were having a romantic relationship she included him on the deed, although his financial contribution was minimal.
Badgley was a medical doctor whose claim to fame was being the Dr. Feelgood on the Rolling Stones Tour, supplying prescription drugs to members of the band. More recently, he claims to have discovered a cure for AIDS and makes his living supplying his
AIDS cure to terminally ill patients.
Dr. Badgley filed his first of many lawsuits against Arden Van Upp in 1976. He claimed wrongful eviction from the premises at 2550 Webster Street by Arden Van Upp by her calling the police to complain that he had been smoking marijuana on the premises.
However, Arden had not called the police. Arden Van Upp does not call the police. The person who actually had called the police on Dr. Badgley was another tenant in the building named Judy Lamb also known as Judy Balistreri who became famous for calling
the police repeatedly and for filing pro se cases against the police departments for failing to protect her as in Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
The lawsuit or multitude of suits filed by Laurence Badgley against Arden Van Upp lasted 25 years until 2000. It was the longest running active lawsuit in the history of the San Francisco Court System. It had varying decisions including Badgley v. Van
Upp, 20 Cal. App. 4th 218 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate Dist., 2nd Div. 1993
Even after these courts decisions, Badgley continued to file new cases against Van Upp. This 25-year litigation put both Badgley and Van Upp into Bankruptcy.
Case No. 92-32965 Arden Van Upp
Case type: bk Chapter: 11 Asset: Yes Vol: v Judge: Dennis Montali
Date filed: 06/18/1992 Date of last filing: 10/26/2000 Date discharged: 08/25/2000
Date terminated: 10/26/2000
Case No. 92-33747 Laurence Eugene Badgley
Case type: bk Chapter: 11 Asset: Yes Vol: v Judge: Dennis Montali
Date filed: 08/04/1992 Date of last filing: 06/22/1999
Date terminated: 06/22/1999
This litigation finally ended only because Judge Montali insisted that Badgley put all his claims into one basket so that he would not be able to file a new case against Arden Van Upp if his current claims were unsuccessful. Judge Montali then conducted
a new trial on all of this and ruled substantially in favor of Arden Van Upp. However, he did not award Arden Van Upp attorneys fees which was a major omission because her attorneys fees by then were more than one million dollars. Thus, Arden Van Upp
would have been better off just paying the half million dollars Badgley was initially claiming. Badgley appealed without success.
Even though Arden Van Upp won all the cases Badgley had filed against her, he still owned half the Bourn Mansion. Neither side was willing to sell his half to the other. However, Dr. Badgley had no money, as sales for his AIDS Cure were not going well,
so by order of Judge Montali Arden Van Upp was able to buy out Badgley by paying him one million dollars which was one million more than Badgley had paid for his half of the building back in 1973.
This left Arden Van Upp owing two million dollars, one million to pay Badgley and the other one million to pay her own law firm. She was able to pay the two million by taking out a hard money mortgage on the Bourn Mansion.
Having accomplished this, therefore Judge Montali dismissed her bankruptcy case.
However, there was a cloud on the horizon because in the meanwhile the City of San Francisco had filed a new suit against Arden Van Upp on January 21, 1999. This suit was for failure to Earthquake Retrofit the Bourn Mansion on time and demanded that she
pay $500 per day.
There is doubt that the City had jurisdiction to file this new case since Arden Van Upp was still in bankruptcy. Arden was never served and did not know about it. The bankruptcy court was never notified and did not know about it either.
The City of San Francisco got a default judgment against Arden Van Upp on August 31, 1999 in the amount of civil penalties totaling $614,500. They did not sue Laurence Badgley even though he was still half owner of the Bourn Mansion at the time. By the
time Arden Van Upp found out about the case, the default had been entered. She went to many attorneys trying to get the default judgment lifted but none would take her case. Finally in 2008 Attorney Peter Hadiaris agreed to take her case. He filed a
motion to vacate the default judgment and amazingly won on October 17, 2008. The judgment was set aside. The City of San Francisco appealed repeatedly up to the Supreme Court of California but lost at every level. Finally, the City of San Francisco was
forced to take their lien off the house. This happened in 2011.
During this entire time between 1999 and 2010, the City of San Francisco had a default judgment against Arden Van Upp and the Bourn Mansion located at 2550 Webster Street. Because of additional interest and late fees, the amount of the judgment kept
increasing, so it was $950,000 or nearly one million dollars by 2008.
All this is explained in the California Court of Appeals decision in City and County of San Francisco v. VAN UPP, Cal: Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate Dist., 3rd Div. 2011
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9460274017048482124
During this entire time between 1999 and 2008, Arden Van Upp was unable to refinance her property because of the million dollar default judgment against her and the amount kept increasing. However, once the judgment was lifted even though the case was
still pending on appeal, the lenders started to foreclose on the loan.
Having no choice, on July 10, 2009, Arden Van Upp filed a new bankruptcy petition because her creditors had scheduled a foreclosure auction to be held on the steps of City Hall that day.
09-31932 Arden Van Upp
Case type: bk Chapter: 11 Asset: Yes Vol: v Judge: Thomas E. Carlson
Date filed: 07/10/2009 Date of last filing: 12/20/2016
Debtor dismissed: 09/24/2012
Date terminated: 11/08/2012
This was filed as a Chapter 11 petition because Arden Van Upp just needed a little bit more time to arrange a refinancing of her building. She was already in contact with a lender. She just needed time to go through the procedures that every borrower has
to follow.
Instead, as she found out, she had fallen into a black hole, as Judge Carlson would never let her out and still to this day eight years later has not let her out of bankruptcy as he is still to this day retaining jurisdiction over her and over this case.
It is submitted that almost every act by Judge Carlson over the last eight years has been done without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles set forth in the US Supreme Court decision of Stern v. Marshall, 564 US 462 (2011).
Bankruptcy Judge Thomas Carlson ruled against her in IN RE VAN UPP, Bankr. Court, ND California 2010 in a decision dated January 21, 2010
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13995089036175911144
It is submitted that the bankruptcy judge was without jurisdiction to make this decision under many grounds including Stern v. Marshall, 564 US 462 (2011). In summary, the bankruptcy judge ruled that Arden Van Upp is not allowed to refinance her property
even though she had the money to do so. She must sell it, the judge ruled.
All of these statements are conclusory. In this entire case, there has been no fact hearing, so sworn testimony of witnesses. The judge says he based his decision on photographs of the house.
It is submitted that mere photographs are not enough to support such a sweeping conclusion that the owner is required and forced to sell the home she has owned and lived in since 1973.
The photographs were of three of the rooms in the 28-room mansion showing that they were is a state of disarray. It is submitted that even if true that the house was messy, a bankruptcy judge lacks the jurisdiction to rule that the owner must move out
and sell the property. Such a ruling would make every residential property owner subject to the whelms of every bankruptcy judge.
Judge Carlson also complains that Arden Van Upp fired her lawyer. It is true that Arden Van Upp fired her lawyer, Mitchell Hadler, and replaced him with another lawyer. She had every right to do that. This was one of several lawyers she has had during
this case. The reason she fired her lawyer is he was insisting that she sell her house. She wanted to keep her house. If she had been willing to sell her house, she could have simply listed it for sale with any real estate agent. She could probably have
gotten the $8.5 million that was the appraised value of the house. Her lawyer wanted her to sell the house for the ridiculously low amount of $2.9 million, the price that mere apartments are going for nowadays.
On the very same day that Arden Van Upp fired her lawyer and replaced him with another lawyer, Judge Carlson appointed a trustee.
It is submitted that this too was without jurisdiction. The law requires that for a trustee to be appointed there must be a motion made by one of the parties and there must be adequate grounds. Here a check of the record shows that nobody made a motion
for the appointment of a trustee. The judge acted sua sponte. In addition, the only grounds Judge Carlson has ever given for his actions was that Arden Van Upp had fired her lawyer. A party has a right to fire a lawyer and parties often do so without
recrimination.
The Trustee that was appointed, David Bradlow, proceeded to eat up all of the assets of the estate until nothing was left. That is the primary reason but not the entire reason that Arden Van Upp who had a net worth of $9 million dollars when this case
started has lost all of her buildings is now penniless and destitute.
Several of the attorneys who have represented Arden Van Upp have filed vehement objections to the actions of the trustee and the judge. These objections by counsel for Arden Van Upp have been sealed by the court so nobody can read them. It seems that the
bankruptcy judge is trying to protect his own reputation, so that the general public will never know what a terrible, awful, horrible judge he is. These attorneys whose objections have been sealed are Peter Hadiaris, Iain MacDonald and Richard Sinclair.
That decision not to let her out of bankruptcy has been cited in other cases such as In re Taub, 441 BR 211 - Bankr. Court, ED New York 2010 where “the court denied the debtor's application to remove a trustee where the debtor did 'not establish that [
she was] any more likely to manage the bankruptcy estate properly at this date' than when the trustee was appointed. In re Van Upp, 2010 WL 2901634, at *2.” However, in the case presented here, the only reason Bankruptcy Judge Carlson has ever given
for the appointment of a trustee was that Arden Van Upp had fired her attorney in open court.
In the case presented here, Arden Van Upp did not merely ask for the removal of the Trustee. She asked repeatedly for the entire case to be dismissed. She did not want the so-called “protection” of the bankruptcy court any more. The judge refused to
let her out of bankruptcy. It is submitted that this violated the Constitutional provision against Slavery or Involuntary Servitude.
The judge states that there have been “declarations” supporting his actions. However, no declarations are to be found in the court files. All there are in the files are unsworn statements by counsel for the trustee. This is clearly insufficient.
There must be sworn testimony by live witnesses and there have been none in the eight years that this case has been pending.
For example, the court states the debtor “(5) authorized a man (Petrizze) to live on the Webster property without a lease and defended him at eviction proceedings after having told the Trustee that Petrizze had no authority to live on the property”.
In fact, Arden Van Upp has never authorized Petrizze to live on the property. Petrizze was a homeless schizophrenic man who used to climb the walls to get into the building. Arden Van Upp had had him arrested several times. Petrizze had been given the
keys to the building by “Sam” Osama bin Freej, the real estate agent hired by David Bradlow, not by Arden Van Upp.
The standard to be applied here is the standard set forth in the previously cited case that Arden Van Upp won: "A number of decisions carrying out this idea say that the test of the sufficiency of the affidavit is whether it could be the foundation of an
indictment for perjury if false.” Cited in California Court of Appeals decision in City and County of San Francisco v. VAN UPP, Cal: Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate Dist., 3rd Div. 2011
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9460274017048482124
Here, there have been no affidavits at all, just unsworn statements by the attorneys for the trustee. The trustee himself has never taken the stand to testify.
Many of the points made by Arden Van Upp here have been made previously. For example, her next attorney Richard Sinclair tried by suing the Trustee in federal district court in 2012. Richard Sinclair filed a suit against the trustee David Bradlow.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14874684986096517270
IN RE VAN UPP, Dist. Court, ND California 2012
No. C 11-04408 SI. United States District Court, N.D. California. July 23, 2012.
District Judge Susan Illston ruled that Arden Van Upp cannot sue the trustee without leave of the bankruptcy judge. The attorney had requested leave but leave had been denied.
Now the current situation is the Bankruptcy Judge Thomas Carlson clearly intends to keep her case under his jurisdiction for the rest of her life or the rest of his life which ever ends first. For the last eight years, Arden Van Upp has been trying in
every possible way to remove both the judge and the trustee and to have this case dismissed but they refuse to relinquish their control over her and over this case.
A new development in this case involves Linda Catron. Linda Catron has had her fingers in this case from the beginning. It was she who introduced Arden to Mitchell Hadler who filed this case. It is now apparent that the plan from the beginning of Linda
Catron has been to get the property of Arden Van Upp. She has been pretending to be Arden's friend but in reality she is Arden's worst enemy. She has forged Arden's signature at least 14 times in documents filed in state and federal courts.
In August 2016, Arden was contacted by George Rowan, the man who had arranged in 1967-1969 for her to buy both the Ashbury Street property and the Webster Street property. Knowing that Arden was far behind in her mortgage payments, Rowan had arranged for
Reid Settlemier to buy both the 1019 Ashbury Street Property and the 2807-2809 Steiner Street Property for $6.6 million.
Because George Rowan was an old friend and Arden tends to rely on old friends, she had signed the agreement to sell the two buildings together for $6.6 Million. As by then the mortgage on the two buildings was $6 million, this would leave Arden with $600,
000 in cash.
All this time, Linda Catron has been trying to get the buildings for herself by pretending to be Arden's friend. Upon hearing that Arden had agreed to sell the buildings, Linda had moved to stop the sale from happening. Linda Catron has a friend named
Joe Kan or Khan in Calistoga who pretends to be a lawyer and who draws up quasi legal proceedings and files them in court. Linda had Joe Kan draw up a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition and Linda took it down to the federal courthouse and filed it in San
Francisco Bankruptcy Court. We know that Arden Van Upp did not file this because she never left her apartment at 2807 Steiner Street Apartment 3 on that day or the day before after the date in question. However, this bankruptcy petition appears as though
it had been filed by Arden Van Upp.
16-30742 Arden Van Upp
Case type: bk Chapter: 13 Asset: Yes Vol: v Judge: Dennis Montali
Date filed: 07/01/2016 Date of last filing: 09/25/2016
Debtor dismissed: 07/28/2016
Date terminated: 09/23/2016
Linda Catron has her own case in federal bankruptcy court. In addition, she has filed 27 cases in San Francisco Superior Court as can be seen from the San Francisco Superior Court Website and she has also filed cases in Reno and Placer County in Tahoe as
well, where she operating.
Her modus operandi is to borrow money at excessively high rates of interest such as 100% per month, to claim that the loan would be secured by her buildings and then when she does not pay back the loan she sues the lender claiming that he is a predatory
lender so she does not have to pay him back. Most of the 27 cases Linda Catron has filed in San Francisco Superior Court follow this pattern.
Even though Judge Montali promptly dismissed the Chapter 13 case filed by Linda Catron in the name of Arden Van Upp, the effect was to render null and void the contract Arden Van Upp had signed to sell her two remaining buildings to Reid Settlemier for $
6.6 million. With the foreclosure auction scheduled for the next day, George Rowan brought a new contract for Arden to sign agreeing to sell the buildings for the same price. Linda Catron contacted Arden and tried to convince her by telephone not to sign.
At a meeting in Arden's apartment on August 1, 2016, Linda on the phone tried to convince Arden not to sign.
However, George Rowan prevailed by showing Arden two of the civil judgments against Linda Catron for fraud: Noel Weeks v. Linda Catron, Case No. CGC-11-516849 in which she has a non-dischargable judgment in the amount of 1.4 Million and Yin Falk v. Linda
S. Catron, et al. No. CGC-09-486921, in which the judgment against her is $1.09 Million dollars.
This signing took place at 8:00 PM on August 1, 2016. However, the foreclosure sale was scheduled for 11:00 AM the following morning.
Reid Settlemier still wanted to buy the property directly from Arden and he did not want to risk being outbid at the auction so he tried to prevail on the lender to postpone the foreclosure sale. However, when the lender found out that Linda Catron was
still involved and knowing her proclivity for filing lawsuits, he was unwilling to postpone. So Reid Settlemier made the winning bid at the auction and bought the buildings for $6 million, which was $600,000 less than he had been willing to pay Arden Van
Upp. So Arden Van Upp lost $600,000 because of Linda Catron.
Then, on the same day but after the foreclosure Auction, Linda filed a new case in San Francisco Superior Court in the name of Arden Van Upp but did not tell Arden about it. The Case is Arden Van Upp vs. Northern California Mortgage, Case No. 16-553424.
In this case, Linda Catron has forged the signature of Arden Van Upp at least 14 different times. The cause of action is to stop the foreclosure sale on the grounds of predatory lending, even though the foreclosure sale had already taken place. Linda
Catron renewed the motion with new forged signatures ever week for the next seven weeks.
When Arden finally found out that Linda was doing this, Arden filed a civil action against Linda Catron, Arden Van Upp vs. Linda Sue Catron for Elder and Adult Dependent Abuse Case Number CCH 16-578600. At a hearing before Judge Joseph M. Quinn, Linda
Catron claimed that Arden had given her permission to sign her name whenever she wanted and produced a letter she claimed Arden had signed giving Linda permission to sign her name. Arden vehemently denied she had given any such permission. At the
conclusion of the hearing, Judge Quinn ordered that for the next five years, “Respondent is not allowed to sign petitioner's name to anything, any time, any where” and must stay at least 100 yards away from Arden Van Upp.
A mystery concerns the question of why Bankruptcy Case 09-31932 was given to Judge Carlson, whereas bankruptcy cases Cases No. 92-32965 Arden Van Upp and 16-30742 and were given to Judge Montali.
A likely reason is a simple mistake. Arden's daughter Tammy Van Upp had filed for bankrupcy Case No. 01-30233 Tammy Ann VanUpp
Case type: bk Chapter: 7 Asset: No Vol: v Judge: Thomas E. Carlson
Date filed: 01/31/2001 Date of last filing: 05/14/2001 Date discharged: 05/08/2001
Date terminated: 05/14/2001
This was a simple credit card case. Since Judge Carlson had that case, perhaps they thought that the next case should be given to Judge Carlson too, even though Tammy Van Upp is involved solely with beauty products such as hair and make-up and has no
connection with the financial dealings of her mother, Arden Van Upp.
Other actions by Judge Carlson are absurd and ridiculous. The trustee David Bradlow requested and received $200,000 to file suit against Sam Sloan. The trustee alleged he was in fear of his life from Sloan because Sloan had said he was homosexual.
Actually, Sloan had no such statement and even if he had why does that make Bradlow entitled to receive $200,000 in money belonging to Arden Van Upp? Sloan had never met, seen, spoken with, written a letter to, seen a picture of or talked with David
Bradlow. All he knows about David Bradlow is the reputation Bradlow has in the Castro District of San Francisco where Bradlow reputedly lives. Why does that entitle Bradlow to receive such a huge amount of money belonging to Arden Van Upp?
ARGUMENT
The undersigned jointly appeal from the decisions and orders of Bankruptcy Judge Thomas E. Carlson dated October 5, 2016 and October 10, 2016 which among other things denied motions to vacate and set aside the so-called “settlement” dated September
24, 2012, which denied motions to unseal the files and records of this case including the 14 documents ordered sealed by Bankruptcy Judge Carlson in Documents #436 and #548, denied the motions to vacate the appointment of David Bradlow as Trustee of the
Estate, denied the motions to vacate the default judgment entered against Sam Sloan, denied the motions to order the return to Arden Van Upp the attorney fees of the amount in excess of $125,000 awarded to the trustee and his counsel for obtaining the
default judgment against Sam Sloan, denied the motions to order the return to Arden Van Upp of $1.5 million dollars in attorneys and trustees fees awarded to David Bradlow and his attorneys in that no legal work or other work was done in this case that
benefited the debtor or her estate, and denied the motions to remove and disqualify Bankruptcy Judge Thomas E. Carlson from acting and appearing in this case and denied ordering the final unconditional dismissal of this case.

[continued in next message]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)