UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
_____________________________
|
In re: ARDEN VAN UPP, | No. 17-60035
Debtor |
_____________________________| BAP No. 16-1384
|
ARDEN VAN UPP and SAM SLOAN, | MOTION FOR AN
Appellants | ORDER TO SHOW
v. | CAUSE
|
David A. Bradlow, |
Appellee |
____________________________ |

Sam Sloan and Arden Van Upp 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. In this Chapter 11 bankruptcy case, the trustee David Bradlow and his counsel requested from Bankrutcy Judge Carlson permission to file an adversary proceeding against Sam Sloan and also moved for an order prohibiting Sam Sloan from appearing and
filing pleadings in this case, even though they well knew that Sam Sloan had resided in the Bourn Mansion with Arden Van Upp for more than ten years and the objective of David Bradlow was to evict both Sam Sloan and Arden Van Upp from the Bourn Mansion
located at 2550 Webster Street, San Francisco CA so he could sell the property and pay the proceeds to himself and his attorneys as their fees.

2. Bradlow then proceeded to carry out these plans by selling the Bourn Mansion for the ridiculously low amount of $2.79 million, whereas the appraised value was $8 million and now the property is worth in the range of $50 million.

3. No attempt was made to serve legal process on Sam Sloan nor was and affidavit of service of certificate of service filed. All that was filed was a statement that service by regular first class mail was made by regular mailing to an address for Sam
Sloan listed in the litigation of Susan Polgar vs. United States Chess Federation in the Northern District of Texas where Sam Sloan was a defendant in a long list of defendants.

4. Then, exactly 31 days after filing this adversary proceeding Bradlow vs. Sloan, Judge Carlson entered a default judgment and then sealed the record of the adversary proceeding so that neither Sloan nor any member of the public can read and find out
what the case was all about. Sloan has never seen nor had any opportunity to read the complaint or the judgment and therefore does not know what the adversary proceeding is about.

5. In addition, because Arden Van Upp was a prominent socialite in the San Francisco Bay Area before all her money was taken away from her by the Trustee, with her name often appearing in the society columns, David Bradlow requested an order through his
counsel removing any remarks and comments about this case from the internet search engine Google.

6. Google was apparently served and appeared in opposition to this motion but nevertheless the motion was granted and Google was ordered by Judge Carlson to remove all references to this case from the Internet.

7. Even though Arden Van Upp had not made nor authorized any postings about this case to appear on the Internet nor had she requested or authorized Sam Sloan or anybody else to make derogatory remarks about David Bradlow and his attorneys or the judge in
papers and pleadings in this case or in Internet postings, Judge Carlson ordered the payment to David Bradlow and his counsel Michael Cooper in the amount of $125,000 (one twenty five thousand dollars) in legal fees, this money to come from the proceeds
from the sale of the Bourn Mansion in the ridiculously low amount of $2.79 million.

8. Appellants contend that all this was illegal and unconstitutional and prohibited under the US Supreme Court ruling in Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011), the “big boobs case”, and thus all of this is null and void as without jurisdiction.

9. 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.

10. In addition, appellants contend that Judge Carlson was without jurisdiction to do almost any of the things he did after Arden Van Upp moved to dismiss her own voluntary bankruptcy in September 2009. None of the opposing attorney's objected to the
dismissal of her voluntary bankruptcy nor did any of the opposing counsel request the appointment of a trustee. Bankruptcy Judge Carlson did this entirely on his own sua sponte.

11. Arden Van Upp objected to this immediately and ever since and this is one of the basis for which she filed 13 notices of appeals.

12. 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.

13. This case is obviously not moot and the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel obviously never read the court filings. The default judgment is still in place much to the detriment of Sam Sloan because he appears to have a default judgment against him in a
bankruptcy case which makes it impossible for him to borrow with a mortgage to buy a home or to make almost any normal bank or credit card transaction.

14. Appellants are am asking this court to unseal the sealed files in this case. There have been five attorneys appearing in this case representing Arden Van Upp. They are in order Mitchell Hadler, Thomas Swihart, Iain MacDonald, Richard Sinclair and
Robert Cross. One of these attorneys, Thomas Melvin Swihart, has recently been disbarred from the practice of law, as indeed he should have been back in 2009 due to his misconduct in the Arden Van Upp Bankruptcy case, in that he appeared in court
announcing that he was her attorney but never filed a notice of appearance or did anything after that. Arden Van Upp should not have been required to suffer because of the misconduct of one of her attorneys.

15. All of other attorneys have abandoned Van Upp because she had no money left to pay them after the bankruptcy judge took away all her access to her assets. Before that, she had an attorney Peter Hadiaris representing her successfully in her appeal
against the City of San Francisco, thereby vacating the almost million dollar judgment the City of San Francisco had obtained against her. In her previous bankruptcy, John Hansen of the law firm of Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott representing her
successfully vacated the $500,000 judgment Dr. Lawrence Badgley had obtained in his 25-year-lawsuit against her. In these litigations, I was the behind-the-scenes guy offering her my advice that she usually followed as to how to direct her attorneys.

16. All of these attorneys have since abandoned her. This is in spite of the rule that once an attorney appears in court to represent a client, he cannot walk away and leave her defenseless.

17. 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.

18. Counsel for the Trustee moved to seal all the documents filed by Van Upp's different Counsels 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 our side. 19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. Starting in September 2009 the different attorneys filed 13 motions to dismiss this voluntary bankruptcy. 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.
23. As you will see from the record of this case, Van Upp filed a voluntary petition in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in July 2019. In September 2009, only two months later, she had refinanced all properties and no longer needed nor wanted the protections of the
bankruptcy courts. So she filed a motion through counsel to dismiss her Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Inexplicably without giving any reason, Bankruptcy Judge Carlson not only denied her motion but appointed a trustee. We contend that the judge had no
jurisdiction to involuntarily hold her in her voluntary bankruptcy petition. 24. At that time she had a net worth of $9 million dollars according to her Chapter 11 Bankruptcy petition because her three real estate properties had a combined appraised value of $13 million and her liabilities including mortgages were only $4 million.
This is the reason she was able to refinance her properties so easily.
25. Instead the Trustee David Bradlow started to sell her properties and taking the proceeds of the sale as his fees. All this was illegal and criminal theft.
26. As you will see, by January 2010, Arden Van Upp. had paid off all her debts. She 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.
27. In addition to filing numerous appeals, she 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.
28. 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.
29. As you will see, here is a direct quote, “The Court: Yes, there is. The debtor’s litigiousness about everything is unusual circumstances.”
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. What has changed is the financial condition of the debtor. By holding her in bankruptcy and refusing to release her, the she has lost all her money. When she filed in July 2009, she had $13 million in assets and $4 million in liabilities for a net
worth of $9 million. Now she has nothing, zero, and I am supporting her financially.
35. Her 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 her 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. Arden Van Upp upon realizing that Linda Sue
Catron was forging her signature including in pleadings filed in bankruptcy court got a court order in San Francisco Superior Court prohibiting Linda Sue Catron from coming within one hundred yards of her or her residence for five years.
36. She proved that she did not file it because she never left her 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 her 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.
37. Because Van Upp lost all of her money through the foreclosure sale, she 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 she 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.
38. 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.
39. It is for this reason that she could not do anything. She dared not take further steps to get out of bankruptcy because if she did anything she would lose everything.
40. This Bankruptcy Appellate Panel 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)".
41. Another matter raised by the Appellants but ignored by the BAP is the matter of the $110,000 income tax refund owed by the IRS to 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.
42. 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.
43. 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 31 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.
44. 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).
45. 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 the 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.
46. 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.
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. 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.
51. However, they cannot get any more money because she lost her 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.
52. 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.
53. 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 28, 2017
This motion contains 3771 words.

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