Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old February 26th 10, 07:10 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

SAMUEL H. SLOAN
2550 Webster Street
San Francisco CA 94115

917-507-7226
646-938-0454
917-659-3397

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
_________________________
In )
) Case No. C10-0204 SI
ARDEN VAN UPP, )
) Chapter 11
Debtor. )
)
2550 Webster Street ) 450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94115 ) San Francisco, California
) Judge: Hon. Susan Illston
_________________________)
In )
) Case No. C-10-00396 SI
ARDEN VAN UPP, )
) Chapter 11
Debtor. )
)
2550 Webster Street ) 450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94115 ) San Francisco, California
) Judge: Hon. Susan Illston
_________________________)


MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION


Samuel H. Sloan, being duly sworn, deposes and says:


1. I hereby move this court for a temporary restraining order and a
preliminary injunction enjoining and staying all proceedings in the US
Bankruptcy Court, Case No. 09-31932 TEC. No prior application has been
made for the relief requested herein.

2. Immediately after I filed my notice of appeal on this case on
January 12, 2010, the trustee made a plethora of motions, all ex-parte
motions or on very shortening time, giving only one or two days
notice, and then the bankruptcy judge almost instantly granted all of
these motions. One of these motions, granted on only one days non-
notice, was an order selling the building at 2550 Webster Street where
I reside to a new about-to-be-created entity called “Pacific Heights
LLC”.

3. It became obvious that the Trustee and his counsel was rushing to
enter as many orders as possible in as short a period of time as
possible. I had to file a new notice of appeal to appeal from four new
orders that were entered immediately after my first appeal. That
second notice of appeal was filed on January 26, 2010 and appealed
from four new orders that were entered after my first appeal of
January 12, 2010.

4. Please note that the Bankruptcy Judge did not grant and ignored my
motion for permission for ECF Electronic filing. Thus, I have been
required to file everything by US postal mail, whereas all other
parties have been filing electronically. Therefore, I am entitled to
three extra days for mailing.

5. It is obvious that the trustee and his counsel have been in an
unseemly rush to dispose of the properties, in order to make moot my
appeals. This should not be allowed. I am asking that all orders
entered by the bankruptcy judge since the filing of my first notice of
appeal be vacated and declared of no effect on the grounds, among
others, that the bankruptcy court lost jurisdiction over this case
with the filing of my notice of appeal.

6. The general rule is that the lower court loses jurisdiction over a
case when an appeal is filed. This is because otherwise two different
courts would have jurisdiction over the same case at the same time.
The general rule is well established that a district court and a court
of appeals do not have jurisdiction over the same case at the same
time. See Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58
(1982). This rule sensibly serves to prevent confusion, minimize
duplication of judicial efforts and avoid the inefficiencies and waste
that would occur in reviewing a judgment that could be changed during
the course of the appellate proceedings. As the U.S. Supreme Court has
explained, the "filing of a notice of appeal is an event of
jurisdictional significance — it confers jurisdiction on the court of
appeals and divests the district court of its control over those
aspects of the case involved in the appeal." Griggs, 459 U.S. at 58.

7. I am also asking this court to dismiss this bankruptcy case
altogether on the grounds among many others that it violated the
Thirteenth Amendment prohibition on “Slavery and Involuntary
Servitude”. The Thirteenth Amendment states:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction.

8. The reason the Thirteenth Amendment is applicable is that the
Debtor has repeatedly filed motions for the past more than two months
to dismiss this bankruptcy proceeding. This Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
proceeding was filed just to give the debtor a little time, a few
weeks only, to complete a re-financing deal that was just pending. The
pro-posed re-financier even appeared in court and addressed the judge.
Rather than give just a few weeks to complete the refinancing, the
trustee insisted on selling the buildings right away so that he could
get his cut. Subsequently the debtor has completed the re-financing on
the other two buildings, but then the trustee took that money too.
Altogether the Trustee has collected $6 million dollars on these
refinancing deals all arranged by the debtor herself. Now the trustee
has all that money and this is not a type. That is $6 million dollars,
all of which he has collected since the filing of my notices of appeal
dated January 12, 2010.

9. So far there have been 298 documents filed in this case, including
205 documents just in the four months since October 15. This must be
some kind of record. I am asking this court to look at the PACER file
on this case as I cannot include them all in this motion.

10. Attached as Exhibit A is a Law Journal article stating that once a
notice of appeal has been filed the lower court loses jurisdiction.
Apparently the opponents are contending that this does not apply to
bankruptcy cases. I know of no authority for their claim. Under
Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982)
and many other cases, the district court, not the bankruptcy court,
has original jurisdiction over this case. Thus, the action should have
stopped in the bankruptcy the moment I filed my notice of appeal.

11. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is the Trustee's Operating Report for
the month of December. As you will see, it shows that she had $13
million in assets and $3 million dollars in liabilities, for a net
worth of $10 million. Not bad for somebody who is bankrupt!

12. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is the operating report for the month
of January, that just came out. This shows that now she has only $7
million in assets and $6 million in liabilities and is down to her
last one million. It also shows that the trustee is holding $6 million
in her cash. This $6 million is substantially the money lenders put up
to refinance her properties. As you will see, the trustee just held
the money himself and did not give it to those who were supposed to
receive it.

13. The trustee is operating this case as a cash cow. He has hired all
his friends to do jobs that the debtor is used to doing herself. He
has hired an accountant, a property manager and a real estate manager.
Al of them are charging the estate $300 to $400 per hour. The bill
thus far for the accountant has been $40,000 and all the accountant
has done for that $40,000 has taken the rent checks for her 18
apartments and put them in the bank. The trustees attorney thus far is
charging $200,000 and all he has done in three months is win against
me, in a glorious victory by Michael Cooper, the trustees attorney, he
won against my motion to remove the trustee. However, now the trustee
is asking the court to give him $200,000 in estate funds to hire an
attorney to sue me. The trustee himself is charging the estate
$116,000 for the four months since he was appointed trustee. Thus,
between the trustee, his attorney and his accountant the estate is
being charged $356,000 for services the debtor and myself did free of
charge prior to October.

14. The trustee and his attorney has many times told the court that I
have been evicted from 2550 Webster Street. This is not true. I have
not been evicted. I am still residing in 2550 Webster Street. Rather a
homeless squatter named Jeffrey Porteze has been evicted. Attachjed
hereto as Exhibit D is a notice from the Sheriff of San Francisco that
Porteze has been evicted. Porteze is a homeless street person who
wandered into 2550 Webster Street when Osama Bin Freij, the real
estate agent, was showing the house to prospective buyers. Porteze
just went up to one of the rooms on the top floor and went asleep.
Later, Osama bin Freij, when he was changing the locks on the doors so
as to keep out me and Arden Van Upp, he gave a key to the new lock to
Jeffrey. That is how Jeffrey became a legal resident of the building.

15. The debtor has made about a dozen different motions to dismiss
this bankruptcy proceeding. She has even dropped some of her perfectly
valid claims in a desperate effort to get out of bankruptcy. How
example, she dropped her objections to an outrageous legal bill in
excess of $200,000 by attorneys for 4 Quarters investments just as a
way to get out of bankruptcy. Of course she plans to sue them all to
get her money back once the bankruptcy case is dismissed.

16. However, one of the creditors, Peter Hidairis, believes that this
case will remain in bankruptcy for years and will never end until the
estate runs out of money. He states that this case “will be litigated
until the cows come home, and then some”.

17. I agree. I do not believe that the trustee and his attorney ever
intend to end this case. They are stealing too much money. They will
never get another case like this one, where a person filed for
bankruptcy even though she has a net worth of $10 million dollars.

18. This case was filed by a non-licensed lawyer. I discovered that he
did not have a California law license just about the same time that
Arden Van Upp started making motions to dismiss this bankruptcy
proceeding. I am shocked that the court has ignored my motion to
dismiss this case on the ground that the lawyer who filed this case
was unlicensed.

19. This case does not belong in the bankruptcy courts. It does not
even belong in the federal courts. It is basically a state court case.
This case should be dismissed with all orders vacated and the parties
should be told to fight out their claims in the state courts.

WHEREFORE, for all of the reasons set forth above, this court should
issue a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction
enjoining and staying all proceedings in the US Bankruptcy Court, Case
No. Case No. 09-31932 TEC, and should set this matter for an immediate
hearing, following which all orders should be vacated and the case
dismissed.

______________________
Samuel H. Sloan
2550 Webster Street
San Francisco CA 94115

Tel. 917-507-7226


Sworn to before me this 26th
Day of February 2010

Affidavit of Service

Samuel H. Sloan does hereby swear and affirm that on February 26, 2010
he served the within “MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION” by mailing by electronic and postal mail a
true copy of the same to the following persons:

David A. Bradlow
Wendel, Rosen, Black and Dean
1111 Broadway, 24th Floor
Oakland CA 94607



Thomas Swihart
2039 Shattuck Ave. #308
Berkeley CA 94704
Tel: 510-843-2750

ROBERT A. FRANKLIN (091653)
DORIS A. KAELIN (162069)
LAURENT CHEN (191661)
MURRAY & MURRAY
A Professional Corporation
19400 Stevens Creek Blvd., Suite 200
Cupertino, CA 95014-2548

Email:

Email:

Email:

Attorneys for Creditor 4 QUARTERS INVESTMENT COMPANY

Stephen D. Finestone (125675)
LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN D. FINESTONE
456 Montgomery Street, 20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
E-Mail:


Mark Epstein
2358 Market Street, 3rd Floor
San Francisco CA 94114


Minnie Loo
Office of the U.S. Trustee
235 Pine St., Ste. 700
San Francisco, CA 94104


Peter Hadiaris
600 Harrison Street 120
San Francisco CA 94107

Leonor Noguez
Attorney for City of San Francisco
1390 Market Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco CA 94102


Mitchell R. Hadler
1450 Sutter Street 508
San Francisco, California 94109


/s/_____________________
Samuel H. Sloan
2550 Webster Street
San Francisco CA 94115
Tel. 917-507-7226


Sworn to before me this 26th
Day of February 2010


______________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
  #2   Report Post  
Old February 26th 10, 01:56 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,170
Default MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Vote for Sam Heverett Sloan and vote for SANITY!
  #3   Report Post  
Old February 26th 10, 02:51 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Aug 2009
Posts: 122
Default MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

What gives you standing to request the dismissal of a Bankruptcy case to
which you are not a party, and in which you have no ownership or other
financial interest?

Even if this entire case is a manifest injustice, which confers standing
upon Samuel Sloan?


  #4   Report Post  
Old February 26th 10, 06:16 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,soc.culture.usa
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

SAMUEL H. SLOAN
2550 Webster Street
San Francisco CA 94115

917-507-7226
646-938-0454
917-659-3397

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
_________________________
In )
) Case No. C10-0204 SI
ARDEN VAN UPP, )
) Chapter 11
Debtor. )
)
2550 Webster Street ) 450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94115 ) San Francisco, California
) Judge: Hon. Susan Illston
_________________________)
In )
) Case No. C-10-00396 SI
ARDEN VAN UPP, )
) Chapter 11
Debtor. )
)
2550 Webster Street ) 450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94115 ) San Francisco, California
) Judge: Hon. Susan Illston
_________________________)


MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION


Samuel H. Sloan, being duly sworn, deposes and says:


1. I hereby move this court for a temporary restraining order and a
preliminary injunction enjoining and staying all proceedings in the US
Bankruptcy Court, Arden Van Upp, Debtor, Case No. 09-31932 TEC. No
prior application has been made for the relief requested herein.

2. Immediately after I filed my notice of appeal in this case on
January 12, 2010, the trustee made a plethora of motions, all ex-parte
motions or on very shortening time, giving only one or two days
notice, and then the bankruptcy judge almost instantly granted all of
these motions. One of these motions, granted on only one days non-
notice, was an order selling my residence at 2550 Webster Street where
I reside to a new about-to-be-created entity called “Pacific Heights
LLC”.

3. It became obvious that the Trustee and his counsel were rushing to
enter as many orders as possible in as short a period of time as
possible. I had to file a new notice of appeal to appeal from four new
orders that were entered immediately after my first appeal. That
second notice of appeal was filed on January 26, 2010 and appealed
from four new orders that were entered after my first appeal of
January 12, 2010.

4. Please note that the Bankruptcy Judge did not grant and ignored my
motion for permission to file by ECF Electronic filing. Thus, I have
been required to file everything by US postal mail, whereas all other
parties have been filing electronically. Therefore, I am entitled to
three extra days for mailing. I hereby renew my request for ECF
Filing.

5. It is obvious that the trustee and his counsel have been in an
unseemly rush to dispose of the properties, in order to make moot my
appeals. This should not be allowed. I am asking that all orders
entered by the bankruptcy judge since the filing of my first notice of
appeal be vacated and declared void and of no legal effect on the
grounds, among others, that the bankruptcy court lost jurisdiction
over this case with the filing of my notice of appeal.

6. The general rule is that the lower court loses jurisdiction over a
case when an appeal is filed. This is because otherwise two different
courts would have jurisdiction over the same case at the same time.
The general rule is well established that a district court and a court
of appeals do not have jurisdiction over the same case at the same
time. See Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58
(1982). This rule sensibly serves to prevent confusion, minimize
duplication of judicial efforts and avoid the inefficiencies and waste
that would occur in reviewing a judgment that could be changed during
the course of the appellate proceedings. As the U.S. Supreme Court has
explained, the "filing of a notice of appeal is an event of
jurisdictional significance — it confers jurisdiction on the court of
appeals and divests the district court of its control over those
aspects of the case involved in the appeal." Griggs, 459 U.S. at 58.

7. I am also asking this court to dismiss this bankruptcy case
altogether on the grounds among many others that it violates the
Thirteenth Amendment prohibition on “Slavery and Involuntary
Servitude”. The Thirteenth Amendment states:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction.

8. The reason the Thirteenth Amendment is applicable here is that the
Debtor has repeatedly filed motions for the past more than three
months to dismiss this bankruptcy proceeding. There have been about
ten different motions by the Debtor to dismiss her own bankruptcy
filing. All have been opposed by the trustee and have been denied.
Thus, she is being held as a slave. This Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
proceeding was filed just to give the debtor a little time, a few
weeks only, to complete a re-financing deal that was pending. The
proposed re-financier even appeared in court and addressed the judge.
Rather than give her just a few weeks to complete the refinancing, the
trustee insisted on selling the buildings right away so that he could
get his cut. He sold one building on an ex-parte order from which I am
appealing. Subsequently, the debtor has completed the re-financing on
her other two buildings, but then the trustee took that money too.
Altogether, the Trustee has collected $6 million dollars on these
refinancing deals, deals all arranged by the debtor herself. Now the
trustee has all that money and this is not a typo. That is $6 million
dollars, all of which he has collected since the filing of my first
notice of appeal dated January 12, 2010.

9. So far there have been 298 documents filed in this case, including
205 documents just in the four months since October 15. This must be
some kind of record. I am asking this court to look at the PACER file
on this case, as I cannot include all the relevant documents in this
motion.

10. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a Law Journal article stating that
once a notice of appeal has been filed, the lower court loses
jurisdiction. Apparently the opponents are contending that this does
not apply to bankruptcy cases. I know of no authority for their claim.
Under Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50
(1982) and many other cases, the district court, not the bankruptcy
court, has original jurisdiction over this case. Thus, the action
should have stopped in the bankruptcy court the moment I filed my
notice of appeal.

11. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is the Trustee's Operating Report for
the month of December. As you can see, it shows that the debtor had
$13 million in assets and $4 million dollars in liabilities, for a net
worth of $9 million. Not bad for somebody who is bankrupt!

12. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is the operating report for the month
of January, that just came out. This shows that now she has only $7
million in assets and $6 million in liabilities and is down to her
last one million. It also shows that the trustee is holding $6 million
in her cash. This $6 million is substantially the money lenders put up
to refinance her properties. As you will see, the trustee just held
the money himself and did not give it to those who were supposed to
receive it.

13. The trustee is operating this case as a cash cow. He has hired all
his friends to do jobs that the debtor is used to doing herself. He
has hired an accountant, a property manager and a real estate manager.
All of them are charging the estate $300 to $400 per hour. He has also
hired a security guard for $28 per hour. He also had the back wall
knocked down and had tarps and weights placed on the roof, damaging
the property and reducing its value. (Fortunately, the tarps and
weights have not been replaced after I ordered them taken down.) He
also took my computer and disposed of some of my book manuscripts. (I
am a book writer and publisher.) The bill thus far for the accountant
has been $40,000 and all the accountant has done for that $40,000 has
taken the rent checks for her 18 apartments and put them in the bank.
The trustee's attorney thus far is charging $200,000 and all he has
done in three months is win a motion against me. In a glorious victory
by Michael Cooper, the highlight of his legal career, the trustee's
attorney won against my motion to remove the trustee. For doing this,
he is charging the estate $200,000. However, now the trustee is asking
the court to give him another $200,000 in estate funds to hire an
attorney to sue me. The trustee himself is charging the estate
$116,000 for the four months since he was appointed trustee. Thus,
between the trustee, his attorney and his accountant the estate is
being charged $356,000 for services the debtor and myself did free of
charge prior to October. There are additional charges by the real
estate manager, the real estate agent, the security guard and so on.

14. The trustee and his attorney have many times told the court that I
have been evicted from 2550 Webster Street. This is not true. I have
not been evicted. I am still residing in 2550 Webster Street. I have
been to the office of the Sheriff of San Francisco and they have
informed me that I have not been evicted. Rather, a homeless squatter
named Geoffrey Petrizze has been evicted. Attached hereto as Exhibit D
is a notice from the Sheriff of San Francisco that Petrizze has been
evicted. I found this notice taped to the door of 2550 Webster Street.
However, it only evicts Petrizze. It does not evict me. Petrizze is a
homeless street person who wandered into 2550 Webster Street when
Osama Bin Freij, the real estate agent, was showing the house to
prospective buyers. This is what happens on the Streets of San
Francisco when you leave a door wide open that had been sealed shut
for years. Petrizze just went up to one of the rooms on the fourth
floor, got into bed and went to sleep. Later, Osama bin Freij, when he
was changing the locks on the doors so as to keep out me and Arden Van
Upp, gave a key to the new locks to Geoffrey. That is how Geoffrey
Petrizze became a legal resident of the building.

15. The debtor has made about a dozen different motions to dismiss
this bankruptcy proceeding. She has even abandoned or dropped some of
her perfectly valid claims in a desperate effort to do anything get
out of bankruptcy. For example, she dropped her objections to an
outrageous legal bill in excess of $200,000 by attorneys for 4
Quarters investments, just as a way to get herself out of bankruptcy.
Of course, she plans to sue them all to get her money back once the
bankruptcy case is dismissed.

16. One of the unsecured creditors, Peter Hadiaris, believes that this
case will remain in bankruptcy court for years and will never end
until the estate runs out of money. He states that this case “will be
litigated until the cows come home, and then some”. Attached hereto as
Exhibit E is one of several pleadings filed by Perter Hadiaris stating
that in view of the excessive and outrageous spending by the trustee
of estate funds, there will not be enough money left to pay the
unsecured creditors, including himself.

17. I agree with Peter Hadiaris on this point. I do not believe that
the trustee and his attorney ever intend to end this case. They are
stealing too much money. They will never get another case like this
one, where a person was forced to file for bankruptcy even though she
had a net worth of $9 million dollars, a money cow that they can milk.

18. This Chapter 11 case was initially filed by a non-licensed lawyer.
I discovered that he did not have a California law license just about
the same time that Arden Van Upp started making motions to dismiss
this bankruptcy proceeding. I am shocked that the bankruptcy court has
ignored my motion to dismiss this case on the ground that the lawyer
who filed this case was unlicensed. Had he been a qualified and
licensed lawyer, he would or should have informed the debtor that
filing a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy proceeding could result in the trustee
stealing all her money, as has happened here. She filed this Chapter
11 Bankruptcy proceeding to stop a foreclosure sale auction of her
private residence where I also reside that was scheduled for the next
day. In retrospect, she would have been much better off allowing that
foreclosure sale to take place, because the auction would have brought
at least $5 million for this famous historic mansion at the pinnacle
of Pacific Heights. Instead, the trustee in this case sold the house
for the paltry sum of $2.7 million.

19. This case does not belong in the bankruptcy courts. It does not
even belong in the federal courts. It is basically a state court case.
This bankruptcy case should be dismissed with all orders vacated and
the parties should be told to fight out their claims in the state
courts. This will restore the private house at 2550 Webster Street and
the two apartment buildings to the possession of the debtor.

20. The opposing attorneys have gone from one extreme to the other. On
December 22, 2009 at a hearing in bankruptcy court, Elizabeth Burke-
Dreyfuss, counsel for the trustee, told the court that I do not exist.
She said that I am a front person or fake personality created by Arden
Van Upp. Thus, they were supposedly shocked when I appeared in person
in the flesh at a hearing in San Francisco Superior Court on December
29, 2009. There, they claimed that I had been evicted, but they
produced no documents showing that this has been occurred. I have
since inquired of the office of the Sheriff of San Francisco and they
have informed me that I have not been evicted. The reason is obvious.
I was never served with a summons. They knew where I was and how to
serve me. I am one of the easiest people in the world to reach and
serve. My contact information is at the top of all my court filings
including this one. I almost always answer my telephone and I always
respond to my emails. The trustee's attorneys have been exchanging
emails with me for a long time. Yet, when it came to serving me, they
hired a process server to attempt to serve me at a place where they
knew I would not be. The affidavit of the process server states that
he knocked at the door at 2550 Webster Street and there was no answer.
That was his attempt at service. There is never an answer at that
door, and the trustee knew that. The door was sealed shut at that
time. The affidavit of service by the process server states that he
also served me by substituted service by serving Arden Van Upp. She
vehemently denies that she was ever served and states that she was at
the “Project for the Homeless” on that day receiving free food.
Because the trustee took all her millions leaving her with zero money,
she was eating her meals at a homeless shelter. Attached hereto as
Exhibit F is the obviously insufficient affidavits of service of
process as filed by the Trustee's attorney in San Francisco Superior
Court, Case No. CUD-09-631354, on December 29, 2009. This is worse
than sewer service. It is no service at all and obviously I would have
appeared had I been notified of that case.

21. Now they have gone from the extreme of saying that I do not exist
to demanding that I be enjoined from filing notices of appeal.
Actually, I do not plan to file any more notices of appeal because the
two I filed are enough and they cost me $255 each. I understand a
hearing was held in US Bankruptcy Court on February 25th, yesterday,
devoted almost entirely to what can be done to stop me from appealing.
I have not been attending these court hearings lately, because I found
out that the trustee has been trying to have me attested.

22. The trustee is demanding that I be enjoined from making
unflattering comments about him. He wants the courts to order me not
to say that the trustee is a cook, a scammer and a thief. He wants to
use estate funds to sue me for an injunction to stop me from saying
that he is a crook. However, I am saying it because it is true. I will
say it again: The trustee in bankruptcy, David A. Bradlow, is a crook,
a scammer, a thief, and several other things.


WHEREFORE, for all of the reasons set forth above, this court should
issue a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction
enjoining and staying all proceedings in the US Bankruptcy Court, Case
No. 09-31932 TEC, and should set this matter for an immediate hearing,
following which all orders should be vacated and the entire case
dismissed.

______________________
Samuel H. Sloan
2550 Webster Street
San Francisco CA 94115

Tel. 917-507-7226


Sworn to before me this 26th
Day of February 2010

Affirmation of Service

Samuel H. Sloan does hereby swear and affirm that on February 26, 2010
he served the within “MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION” by mailing by electronic and postal mail a
true copy of the same to the following persons:

Michael D. Cooper
Wendel, Rosen, Black and Dean
1111 Broadway, 24th Floor
Oakland CA 94607



David A. Bradlow, Trustee
3947 23rd St
San Francisco, CA 94114-3302

ROBERT A. FRANKLIN (091653)
DORIS A. KAELIN (162069)
LAURENT CHEN (191661)
MURRAY & MURRAY
A Professional Corporation
19400 Stevens Creek Blvd., Suite 200
Cupertino, CA 95014-2548

Email:

Email:

Email:

Attorneys for Creditor 4 QUARTERS INVESTMENT COMPANY

Stephen D. Finestone (125675)
LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN D. FINESTONE
456 Montgomery Street, 20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
E-Mail:


Mark Epstein
2358 Market Street, 3rd Floor
San Francisco CA 94114


Minnie Loo
Office of the U.S. Trustee
235 Pine St., Ste. 700
San Francisco, CA 94104



Leonor Noguez
Attorney for City of San Francisco
1390 Market Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco CA 94102


William S. Reeves
Counsel for Gregory and Gloria McCandless
2300 Contra Costa Blvd., Ste. 310
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
(925) 288-1776


Caryl B. Welborn
Counsel for Patrick Kenealy
220 Montgomery Street, #417
San Francisco, CA 94104


Iain A. Macdonald, Esq.
221 Sansome Street, 3rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104-2323


Mitchell R. Hadler
1450 Sutter Street 508
San Francisco, California 94109


Thomas Swihart
2039 Shattuck Ave. #308
Berkeley CA 94704


Peter Hadiaris
600 Harrison Street 120
San Francisco CA 94107

/s/_____________________
Samuel H. Sloan
2550 Webster Street
San Francisco CA 94115
Tel. 917-507-7226

Sworn to before me this 26th
Day of February 2010

______________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
  #5   Report Post  
Old February 27th 10, 07:00 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,soc.culture.usa
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

The entire motion, including all 6 exhibits, is now at
http://rapidshare.com/files/35672979...o-2-vanupp.pdf

It is 2.7 MB and 54 pages.



On Feb 26, 2:10*am, samsloan wrote:
SAMUEL H. SLOAN
2550 Webster Street
San Francisco CA 94115

917-507-7226
646-938-0454
917-659-3397

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
_________________________
In * * * * * * * * * * * * *)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ) * * * Case No. C10-0204 SI
ARDEN VAN UPP, * * * * * * * * *)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ) * * * Chapter 11
Debtor. * * * * * * * * * * * * )
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * )
2550 Webster Street * * * * * * ) * * * 450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94115 ) * * * San Francisco, California
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ) * * * Judge: Hon. Susan Illston
_________________________)
In * * * * * * * * * * * * *)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ) * * * Case No. C-10-00396 SI
ARDEN VAN UPP, * * * * * * * * *)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ) * * * Chapter 11
Debtor. * * * * * * * * * * * * )
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * )
2550 Webster Street * * * * * * ) * * * 450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94115 ) * * * San Francisco, California
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ) * * * Judge: Hon. Susan Illston
_________________________)

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Samuel H. Sloan, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I hereby move this court for a temporary restraining order and a
preliminary injunction enjoining and staying all proceedings in the US
Bankruptcy Court, Case No. 09-31932 TEC. No prior application has been
made for the relief requested herein.

2. Immediately after I filed my notice of appeal on this case on
January 12, 2010, the trustee made a plethora of motions, all ex-parte
motions or on very shortening time, giving only one or two days
notice, and then the bankruptcy judge almost instantly granted all of
these motions. One of these motions, granted on only one days non-
notice, was an order selling the building at 2550 Webster Street where
I reside to a new about-to-be-created entity called “Pacific Heights
LLC”.

3. It became obvious that the Trustee and his counsel was rushing to
enter as many orders as possible in as short a period of time as
possible. I had to file a new notice of appeal to appeal from four new
orders that were entered immediately after my first appeal. That
second notice of appeal was filed on January 26, 2010 and appealed
from four new orders that were entered after my first appeal of
January 12, 2010.

4. Please note that the Bankruptcy Judge did not grant and ignored my
motion for permission for ECF Electronic filing. Thus, I have been
required to file everything by US postal mail, whereas all other
parties have been filing electronically. Therefore, I am entitled to
three extra days for mailing.

5. It is obvious that the trustee and his counsel have been in an
unseemly rush to dispose of the properties, in order to make moot my
appeals. This should not be allowed. I am asking that all orders
entered by the bankruptcy judge since the filing of my first notice of
appeal be vacated and declared of no effect on the grounds, among
others, that the bankruptcy court lost jurisdiction over this case
with the filing of my notice of appeal.

6. The general rule is that the lower court loses jurisdiction over a
case when an appeal is filed. This is because otherwise two different
courts would have jurisdiction over the same case at the same time.
The general rule is well established that a district court and a court
of appeals do not have jurisdiction over the same case at the same
time. See Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58
(1982). This rule sensibly serves to prevent confusion, minimize
duplication of judicial efforts and avoid the inefficiencies and waste
that would occur in reviewing a judgment that could be changed during
the course of the appellate proceedings. As the U.S. Supreme Court has
explained, the "filing of a notice of appeal is an event of
jurisdictional significance — it confers jurisdiction on the court of
appeals and divests the district court of its control over those
aspects of the case involved in the appeal." Griggs, 459 U.S. at 58.

7. I am also asking this court to dismiss this bankruptcy case
altogether on the grounds among many others that it violated the
Thirteenth Amendment prohibition on “Slavery and Involuntary
Servitude”. The Thirteenth Amendment states:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction.

8. The reason the Thirteenth Amendment is applicable is that the
Debtor has repeatedly filed motions for the past more than two months
to dismiss this bankruptcy proceeding. This Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
proceeding was filed just to give the debtor a little time, a few
weeks only, to complete a re-financing deal that was just pending. The
pro-posed re-financier even appeared in court and addressed the judge.
Rather than give just a few weeks to complete the refinancing, the
trustee insisted on selling the buildings right away so that he could
get his cut. Subsequently the debtor has completed the re-financing on
the other two buildings, but then the trustee took that money too.
Altogether the Trustee has collected $6 million dollars on these
refinancing deals all arranged by the debtor herself. Now the trustee
has all that money and this is not a type. That is $6 million dollars,
all of which he has collected since the filing of my notices of appeal
dated January 12, 2010.

9. So far there have been 298 documents filed in this case, including
205 documents just in the four months since October 15. This must be
some kind of record. I am asking this court to look at the PACER file
on this case as I cannot include them all in this motion.

10. Attached as Exhibit A is a Law Journal article stating that once a
notice of appeal has been filed the lower court loses jurisdiction.
Apparently the opponents are contending that this does not apply to
bankruptcy cases. I know of no authority for their claim. Under
Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982)
and many other cases, the district court, not the bankruptcy court,
has original jurisdiction over this case. Thus, the action should have
stopped in the bankruptcy the moment I filed my notice of appeal.

11. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is the Trustee's Operating Report for
the month of December. As you will see, it shows that she had $13
million in assets and $3 million dollars in liabilities, for a net
worth of $10 million. Not bad for somebody who is bankrupt!

12. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is the operating report for the month
of January, that just came out. This shows that now she has only $7
million in assets and $6 million in liabilities and is down to her
last one million. It also shows that the trustee is holding $6 million
in her cash. This $6 million is substantially the money lenders put up
to refinance her properties. As you will see, the trustee just held
the money himself and did not give it to those who were supposed to
receive it.

13. The trustee is operating this case as a cash cow. He has hired all
his friends to do jobs that the debtor is used to doing herself. He
has hired an accountant, a property manager and a real estate manager.
Al of them are charging the estate $300 to $400 per hour. The bill
thus far for the accountant has been $40,000 and all the accountant
has done for that $40,000 has taken the rent checks for her 18
apartments and put them in the bank. The trustees attorney thus far is
charging $200,000 and all he has done in three months is win against
me, in a glorious victory by Michael Cooper, the trustees attorney, he
won against my motion to remove the trustee. However, now the trustee
is asking the court to give him $200,000 in estate funds to hire an
attorney to sue me. The trustee himself is charging the estate
$116,000 for the four months since he was appointed trustee. Thus,
between the trustee, his attorney and his accountant the estate is
being charged $356,000 for services the debtor and myself did free of
charge prior to October.

14. The trustee and his attorney has many times told the court that I
have been evicted from 2550 Webster Street. This is not true. I have
not been evicted. I am still residing in 2550 Webster Street. Rather a
homeless squatter named Jeffrey Porteze has been evicted. Attachjed
hereto as Exhibit D is a notice from the Sheriff of San Francisco that
Porteze has been evicted. Porteze is a homeless street person who
wandered into 2550 Webster Street when Osama Bin Freij, the real
estate agent, was showing the house to prospective buyers. Porteze
just went up to one of the rooms on the top floor and went asleep.
Later, Osama bin Freij, when he was changing the locks on the doors so
as to keep out me and Arden Van Upp, he gave a key to the new lock to
Jeffrey. That is how Jeffrey became a legal resident of the building.

15. The debtor has made about a dozen different motions to dismiss
this bankruptcy proceeding. She has even dropped some of her perfectly
valid claims in a desperate effort to get out of bankruptcy. How
example, she dropped her objections to an outrageous legal bill in
excess of $200,000 by attorneys for 4 Quarters investments just as a
way to get out of bankruptcy. Of course she plans to sue them all to
get her money back once the bankruptcy case is dismissed.

16. However, one of the creditors, Peter Hidairis, believes that this
case will remain in bankruptcy for years and will never end until the
estate runs out of money. He states that this case “will be litigated
until the cows come home, and then some”.

17. I agree. I do not believe that the trustee and his attorney ever
intend to end this case. They are stealing too much money. They will
never get another case like this one, where a person filed for
bankruptcy even though she has a net worth of $10 million dollars.

18. This case was filed by a non-licensed lawyer. I discovered that he
did not have a California law license just about the same time that
Arden Van Upp started making motions to dismiss this bankruptcy
proceeding. I am shocked that the court has ignored my motion to
dismiss this case on the ground that the lawyer who filed this case
was unlicensed.

19. This case does not...

read more »


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Truong - Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction ( filing from Sam Sloan ) - rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 April 6th 08 08:25 AM
Sam Sloan censured by Executive Board Duncan Oxley rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 30 December 8th 06 12:22 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:08 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017