• Arden's Appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

    From samsloan@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jun 27 17:06:41 2017
    In re: ARDEN VAN UPP, | No. 17-60034
    Debtor |
    _____________________________| BAP No. 16-1385
    Appellants | ORDER TO SHOW
    v. | CAUSE
    David A. Bradlow, |
    Appellee |
    ____________________________ |

    Arden Van Upp and Sam Sloan hereby move for an order to show cause why the scope of this appeal should not be limited to a review of the BAP's Orders entered March 13, 2017 and April 11, 2017.

    1. The court is simply mistaken with its calculation of the dates. My notice of appeal was not late. It was timely and my appeal should be considered on the full merits of the case.

    2. It is standard that when notice is sent by mail an additional three days is allowed in the filing of an appeal. When that three days is added my appeal was fully timely. That is the reason why this court issued a briefing schedule giving me until July
    25, 2017 to file my appeal brief.

    3. I am an elderly woman aged 79. I do not have an email address. I do not have a computer or a typewriter. I do not even have a telephone in my name. I am using a friends phone. Unfortunately, my daughter Tammy has been taking my mail and not giving it
    to me. I did not even know about this court's order until today.

    4. Secondly, I am asking this court to unseal the files in this case. I have had five attorneys in this case. They are in order Mitchell Hadler, Thomas Swihart, Iain MacDonald, Richard Sinclair and Robert Cross. All of my attorneys have abandoned me
    because I have no money left to pay them. Before that, I had an attorney Peter Hadiaris who has moved to San Rafael representing me. In my previous bankruptcy John Hansen of the law firm of Nossaman, Gunther Knox and Elloitt represented me.

    5. All of these attorneys have abandoned me. I always thought that once an attorney in a case he must stick with it until the end.

    6. Most of these attorney above filed pleadings in this case. However, Judge Carlson sealed their pleadings so nobody including the judges of this court can read these files.

    7. Counsel for the Trustee moved to seal all the documents filed by my different Counsel in this case. The papers filed by three attorneys, Iain MacDonald, Peter Hadiaris and Richard Sinclair, were all sealed by the court and remained sealed to this day.
    They have never been unsealed. Judge Carlson also ordered Google to remove all references to this case from the Internet. Thus, neither Judge Illston nor the judges of the BAP have ever seen these documents. Thus this court has only seen one side of this
    case. They have not seen the opposition papers filed by my side.
    8. Appellants have been moving to unseal the files and records of this case including the 14 documents ordered sealed by Bankruptcy Judge Carlson listed in Documents #436 and #548. It is obvious that the judges of this BAP never read the papers filed by
    Appellants because they made no mention of this motion to unseal these 14 documents.
    9. I feel that I am a woman who has been raped by the courts and has been told not to resist but to lay back and enjoy it.
    10. The BAP obviously never read the papers filed by the appellants in this case. With a wave of the hand, they casually dismissed this appeal with a one sentence summary order.
    11. Opposing counsel contends that this case has been dismissed and is too old. This is not true. It has not been dismissed. There is no final order of dismissal. Instead it has been CONDITIONALLY dismissed. But the judge set conditions that can never be
    complied with and thus this case will remain pending forever.
    12. Starting in September 2009 the my different attorneys filed 13 motions to dismiss this voluntary bankruptcy that I voluntarily filed. All have been denied without a statement of reasons by the bankruptcy judge. All fees were paid but none have been
    heard and no written decisions made.
    13. As you will see from the record of this case, I filed a voluntary petition in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in July 2019. In September 2009, only two months later, I had refinanced my properties and no longer needed nor wanted the protections of the
    bankruptcy courts. So I filed a motion through counsel to dismiss my Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Inexplicably without giving any reason, Bankruptcy Judge Carlson not only denied my motion but appointed a trustee. I contend that the judge had no jurisdiction
    to involuntarily hold me in my voluntary bankruptcy petition.
    14. At that time I had a net worth of $9 million dollars because my three real estate properties had a combined appraised value of $13 and my liabilities including mortgages were only $4 million. This is the reason I was able to refinance my properties
    so easily.
    15. Instead the Trustee David Bradlow started to sell my properties and taking the proceeds of the sale as his fees. All this was illegal and criminal theft.
    16. As you will see, by January 2010, I, Arden Van Upp. had paid off all my debts. I owed nothing. But the Trustee in Bankruptcy and his attorneys had awarded themselves over a million dollars in their own fees although they had done NOTHING to benefit
    the estate.
    17. In addition to filing numerous appeals, I through counsel filed suit against David Bradlow in Oakland federal court, Case No. 10-02559. As will be seen the allegations in the complaint are much the same as are made in this appeal here. The complaint
    was dismissed essentially on the claim that the trustee was immune from suit. 18. After waiting two more years for this case to be dismissed and seeing that Judge Carlson was NEVER going to dismiss it, the I appealed through counsel.
    19. As you will see, here is a direct quote, “The Court: Yes, there is. The debtor’s litigiousness about everything is unusual circumstances.”
    20. So, in other words, if the debtor is unhappy about being raped, she has been told should say nothing and she should spread her legs and try to have a good time.
    21. Another thing caused by the failure of the judges here to read the papers is they did not rule on the contention by appellants that Bankruptcy Judge Carlson far exceeded the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy courts as set forth in the US Supreme Court
    Case of Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011) and thus all of this is null and void as without jurisdiction.
    22. Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011) started off as a supermarket tabloid case involving a woman with huge inflated breasts who was able to marry a 89-year-old oil magnate. After he died, the dispute as to who would get the money went to the US
    Supreme Court. The court ruled that the Bankruptcy Judge is essentially a magistrate who can only decide routine matters that normally come before the bankruptcy courts. The case presented here is not routine. Since January 2010 the debtor has been debt
    free. All of her current liabilities were paid in 2009. But seven years have passed while the bankruptcy judge holds her hostage refusing to dismiss the case she filed voluntarily.
    23. Since the 2012 Decision by Judge Illston affirming the decision of the bankruptcy judge which denied the motion to dismiss, there have been no changes. Thus the case is still not dismissed.
    24. What has changed is the financial condition of the debtor. By holding me in bankruptcy and refusing to release me, the I have lost all her money. When I filed in July 2009, I had $13 million in assets and $4 million in liabilities for a net worth of $
    9 million. Now I have nothing, zero.
    25. My two remaining properties were sold at public auction on the steps of city hall on August 2, 2016. One reason they were sold was Linda Sue Catron forged my signature more than 14 times. Linda Sue Catron is a habitual forger who herself is in
    perpetual bankruptcy having filed for bankruptcy seven times. See 15-03074 Noelke v. Catron. Linda Sue Catron filed a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy in the name of Arden Van Upp on July 1, 2016, Case No. 16-30742. I can prove that I did not file it because I
    never left my apartment in her building on the days in question. Linda Sue Catron has filed 27 active cases in San Francisco Superior Court, mostly against mortgage companies who have loaned her money. When the mortgage lender found out that Linda Sue
    Catron was forging the signature of Arden Van Upp, he went forward on foreclosing on my buildings realizing that otherwise the buildings would be tied up in litigation forever like the other lenders who have loaned money to Linda Sue Catron.
    26. Because I lost all my money through the foreclosure sale, I was free for the first time to file this motion that brought the case before this court. If you will look at the onerous conditions imposed by the bankruptcy court on September 6, 2012, you
    will see that the court specifically retains jurisdiction over this case in perpetuity forever. Moreover, it imposes severe penalties on Arden Van Upp if I should ever try to get rid of this bankruptcy by moving to dismiss it again. Thus the papers in
    this case clearly show that Judge Carlson is still retaining jurisdiction over this case to this day.
    27. Judge Carlson stated and the Trustee and his counsel have repeatedly stated that if Arden Van Upp or her counsel do anything to rock the boat they will immediately move to convert this case into a Chapter 7 and will seize her remaining properties
    located at 2807-2809 Steiner Streets and 1019 Ashbury Streets and will sell the buildings and pay the expected proceeds of $6 million dollars to themselves as their fees. That is what they did with the 2550 Webster Street property, selling it for the
    ridiculously small amount of $2.79 million and pay almost the entire amount to themselves as their fees.
    28. It is for this reason that I could not do anything. I dared not take further steps to get out of bankruptcy because if I did anything I would lose every thing.
    29. This court has also ignored the motion by Sam Sloan to vacate the default judgment entered against him. Sloan has never seen the judgment. He does not know what it says. Yet it shows up in his credit reports making it impossible for him to obtain a
    mortgage to buy a home. The summons and complaint and the default judgment are all in the 14 sealed documents that neither the parties nor the general public are allowed to see. This has been a Star Chamber proceeding where Sloan has been charged and
    never been allowed to know what he is charged with doing. It may interest this court to know that Sloan once argued orally pro se and won a case before the United States Supreme Court, the only non-lawyer ever to do so. "SEC v. Samuel H. Sloan, 436 U.S.
    103 (1978)".
    30. Another matter raised by the Appellants but ignored by this court is the matter of the $110,000 income tax refund owed by the IRS to me, Arden Van Upp for the year 2010 based on the tax return the trustee himself filed for Arden Van Upp while she was
    in bankruptcy. The trustee is apparently claiming that this $110,000 refund is owed to himself as part of his fees. Arden Van Upp claims through counsel that the bankruptcy trustee no longer has authority over this case. This obviously turns on the
    question of whether this case is dismissed or not.
    31. Looking at the last accounting filed by the trustee, you will see that he is claiming a balance owed to him of $110,000. The court has never ruled on that.
    32. The trustee and his counsel charged Arden Van Upp $125,000 (one hundred twenty five thousand dollars) to file an adversary proceeding against Sam Sloan called Bradlow vs. Sloan. Sloan was never served and 30 days later a default judgment was entered.
    The trustee paid himself the $125,000 from the funds obtained from the sale of the Webster Street Property.
    33. Notice how casually the trustee throws out amounts like $100,000 for this and $100,000 for that. As the old saying goes “$100,000 for this and $100,000 for that” and pretty soon we are talking about real money. The most any attorney could
    reasonably charge for that case was $2,000 (two thousand dollars).
    34. Judge Illston noted “the conditional dismissal was not really relevant anymore, because the conditions that attach to it are unlikely ever to be fulfilled.” This is one of the biggest problems. Judge Carlson has set forth conditions to the
    dismissal of my bankruptcy that are impossible of fulfillment. Arden cannot get the case dismissed even after the passage of seven years unless she files a motion and if she files another motion then she is litigating again.
    35. The courts decision and the contentions by the opponents is wrong. This bankruptcy case had never been dismissed by the bankruptcy judge. The bankruptcy was CONDITIONALLY dismissed. However according to the decisions by Bankruptcy Judge Thomas E.
    Carlson the conditions have NEVER been met. Thus the case is still pending.
    36. Appellants have made at least 13 different motions to dismiss this case. All have been denied by Judge Carlson. Appellants even appealed to the District Court from the denial of our motion to dismiss. Counsel for the Trustee strenuously opposed this
    motion and District Judge Illston denied the motion.
    37. Our request in this appeal is that this case be dismissed retroactively going all the way back to September 2009 when the first motion by Arden Van Upp to dismiss this bankruptcy was denied.
    38. In denying the current motions that resulted in this appeal Judge Carlson never stated that the case had been dismissed, nor did opposing counsel ever state that this case has been dismissed. If it had been dismissed he would have so stated and
    opposing counsel would have so stated.
    39. In addition, the Trustee still has a motion pending to convert this case to a Chapter 7 so he can sell all the remaining properties and pay the proceeds to himself as fees. He and his attorneys have already collected more than two million dollars in
    fees but they are not satisfied with this and want more money.
    40. However, they cannot get any more money because I have lost my two remaining properties that had an appraised value of over $6 million in a foreclosure sale in August on the Steps of City Hall. This is the reason Appellants could not make that motion
    earlier but were making it when they did. Earlier if I had made any motion, the trustee was going to go in and take the two remaining properties as he said he was going to do. Now he cannot do that any more because Arden Van Upp has lost the properties.
    41. There is also the matter of the $110,000 tax refund due from the IRS. The trustee David Bradlow is claiming that tax refund belongs to himself as his fees. So, he claims the case is still pending for the purposes of collecting even more money. He
    cannot have his cake and eat it too. He cannot claim the case is dismissed only when it is convenient for him to make this claim.
    42. Let us not overlook the fact that our greatest leader has “promised to clean up the swamp”. The swamp is here and now. The trustee and his counsel with the connivance of the bankruptcy judge have stolen $9 million dollars from Arden Van Upp. The
    9th Circuit is not the flavor of the month right now. No more outrageous case of criminal theft can be imagined. Here the trustee, the attorneys and the judge all belong in jail.
    WHEREFORE this court must:
    1. Not limit the scope of this appeal to a review of the BAP's Orders entered March 13, 2017 and April 11, 2017 and
    2. Unseal the files and records of this case including the 14 documents ordered sealed by Bankruptcy Judge Carlson listed in Documents #436 and #548. Dated June 27, 2017
    This motion contains 2864 words.

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