Motion to Vacate Order to Appoint Trustee

Discussion in 'Bankruptcy' started by samsloan, Oct 8, 2009.

  1. samsloan

    samsloan Guest

    SAMUEL H. SLOAN
    2550 Webster Street
    San Francisco CA 94115

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

    UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

    NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

    SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

    In re: )
    ) Case No. 09-31932 TEC
    ARDEN VAN UPP, )
    ) Chapter 11
    Debtor. )
    )
    )
    ) Place: United States Bankruptcy Court
    2550 Webster Street ) 235 Pine Street, Ctrm 23
    San Francisco, CA 94115 ) San Francisco, California
    ) Judge: The Honorable Thomas E. Carlson
    _________________________)


    MOTION TO VACATE ORDER DIRECTING THE APPOINTMENT OF A TRUSTEE AND FOR
    OTHER RELIEF


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

    1. I hereby move to vacate the order entered sua sponte by this court
    on September 29, 2009 directing the US Trustee to appoint a trustee in
    this case. I am also moving for the following relief.

    (a) An order recusing and disqualifying Judge Thomas E. Carlson from
    appearing in this case due to his inappropriate action in directing
    the appointment of a trustee without the required notice, opportunity
    for a hearing and findings of facts.

    (b) An order transferring this case to Judge Dennis Montali who heard
    the previous bankruptcy involving this same debtor and properties. The
    prior bankruptcy filed in 1992 was extensively litigated, lasted five
    years and resulted in appeals. The current bankruptcy is the result of
    decisions that were made in the prior bankruptcy and therefore this
    case should be put back before the same judge.

    (c) An order requiring the creditors to file proofs of claim showing
    how much they claim is owed by the debtor.

    (d) An order directing the return of my computer hard drive that was
    taken during the recent “clean up” of the property.

    (e) An order removing David A. Bradlow as trustee and Wendel, Rosen,
    Black and Dean as his counsel in this case.

    (f) An order allowing electronic filing by me in this case.

    2. On September 29, 2009 this court made a sua sponte decision
    directing the US Attorney to appoint a trustee in this case. This
    decision was wrong and must be reversed because 11 USC 1104 (a)
    states:

    At any time after the commencement of the case but before confirmation
    of a plan, on request of a party in interest or the United States
    trustee, and after notice and a hearing, the court shall order the
    appointment of a trustee - (1) for cause, including fraud, dishonesty,
    incompetence, or gross mismanagement of the affairs of the debtor by
    current management, either before or after the commencement of the
    case, or similar cause,

    3. As can be plainly seen, this statute has several required elements:
    (1) There must be a request of a party in interest or of the US
    Trustee, (2) there must be notice, (3) there must be an opportunity
    for a hearing and (4) there must be a showing of “fraud, dishonesty,
    incompetence, or gross mismanagement of the affairs of the debtor”.

    4. None of the required elements of this statute have been fulfilled.
    Neither any party nor the US Trustee has ever requested the
    appointment of a trustee. There was no notice. There was no oportunity
    for a hearing. There was no showing of “fraud, dishonesty,
    incompetence, or gross mismanagement of the affairs of the debtor”.
    Therefore, the order of this court must be vacated. Please note that
    the prior bankruptcy proceeding involving the same debtor lasted five
    years of heavy litigation and Judge Montali never saw fit to appoint a
    trustee.

    5. In addition, the proceedings herein are taking place on the wrong
    premise. The moving papers recently filed all state that the
    properties are being readied for sale. This is not true. The debtor
    does not wish to sell any of her properties. She does not agree to the
    sale of any of her properties. She intends to keep all of these
    properites until she dies at which time they will be donated to a
    charitable trust. She recently fired her lawyer Mitchell Hadler
    because he was proceeding with the sale of her properties against her
    wishes. Mr. Hadler no longer represents Ms. Van Upp. Her new lawyer is
    Thomas Swihart.

    6. I have known the debtor since 1966. I helped he pick out and select
    her first property, 1019 Ashbury Street, which she bought in 1967. I
    am fully familiar with her history and the history of her ownership of
    these properties. I am prepared to competently testify at a trial or a
    hearing on this matter.

    7. I am a long time resident of 2550 Webster Street, San Francisco,
    California, one of the subject properties in this case. The electric
    bill is in my name. My clothing, papers and personal effects are
    present in the house. I believe that many of my personal belongings
    including apparently my computer have been thrown out recently.

    8.It is not true that a real estate agent has been appointed to sell
    these properties. The debtor has not authorized anybody to sell the
    properties. It is true that Mr. Hadler appointed a real estate agent
    named Osama to list the properties for sale. (That is really his name.
    Due to the unfortunate coincidence associating his name with
    international terrorism, the parties have adopted the practice of
    calling him “Sam”, but that creates the problem of confusing him with
    me, as my name is also Sam.) Mr. Osama was not authorized by Miss Van
    Upp to sell the properties and when she fired Mr. Hadler she also by
    implication fired Mr. Osama.

    9.The current bankruptcy is the outgrowth of a previous bankruptcy by
    the same debtor. In re Arden Van Upp, Case No. 92-33747 DM, and
    appellate case No. 97-1294. That case went on for five years before
    Judge Montali. The result of the case was that Arden Van Upp was
    reorganized under bankruptcy. She basically won the case against Dr.
    Badgley who had brought the case that forced her into bankruptcy.
    However, the Badgley case had started in 1973 and went on for 24 years
    and became known for being the longest running active case in the San
    Francisco Court System. Although Arden Van Upp won the case, she had
    to pay more than one million dollars in attorney's fees, including
    $750,000 to the law form of Nossaman, Guthner, Knox and Elloit.
    Unfortunately, Judge Montali did not award her attorneys fees.
    Therefore, she had to borrow money to pay her attorney. (Also, at the
    outset of the case, she had paid the Nossaman firm a check for
    $125,000, but they had lost the check.)

    10.Prior to all of this, she owned her three properties, the Webster
    Street property, the Steiner Street property, and the Ashbury Street
    property, free and clear. She was debt free until she had to start
    borrowing money to pay all her lawyers.

    11.In addition to the money it took to pay the Nossaman firm for their
    legal services, there was the issue of Earthquake Retrofitting. As
    different administrations take office in City Hall, each new one
    brings up again the requirement that she earthquake retrofit her
    house. This earthquake retrofitting of the Webster Street property
    would cost millions of dollars and it would destroy the value of her
    house. It would involve jacking up her house several inches and
    installing springs under her house. The house was built in 1896. It
    easily survived the San Francisco 1906 and 1989 earthquakes and will
    survive any other earthquake because it is built on solid rock at the
    very peak, the pennacle of Pacific Heights. The buildings affected by
    the earthquakes are in the lower areas and near the fault lines and
    the bay. In addition, the Webster Street property is a private home.
    Nobody lives there but Arden Van Upp and myself and possibly my
    children. It is nobody's business but our own whether she should
    earthquake retrofit the house. Any house up to four units in not
    required under the law to be earthquake retrofitted.

    12.Nevertheless, the City of San Francisco got a $900,000 default
    judgment against her for failing to Earthquake Retrofit the house. The
    city then placed a lein on all her properties for this $900,000.
    Because of this $900,000 lein, she could not borrow money and could
    not fix up the houses.

    13.Very recently, the default judgment for $900,000 was vacated and
    the lein was lifted. The City of San Francisco has filed a notice of
    appeal but has failed to prefect the appeal. However, almost as soon
    as the $900,000 judgment was vacated, her creditors, who had not been
    paid up to date due in part to the $900,000 judgment and lein, moved
    to foreclose on her property. The Webster Street was noticed to be
    sold at auction just two days after the day that Arden Van Upp filed
    the current Bankruptcy proceeding.

    14.A further problem that led to the curent bankruptcy proceeding is
    the issue of deadbeat tenants. Arden Van Upp has two deadbeat tenants
    who have not paid rent in months. Each of them owes her more than
    $10,000. One of her deadbeat tenants just filed for bankruptcy on
    August 20, 2009. In re Sarah Villarreal, Case No. 09-32435. That case
    has been assigned to Judge Montali, which may provide another reason
    to transfer this case to Judge Montali. I understand that Arden Van
    Upp has just received a check to pay the curent October rent for Sarah
    Villarreal, who occupies Apartment Number 5 at 2807 Steiner Street.
    Apparently, Miss Villarreal believes that she does not have to pay her
    rent for May, June, July, August and September of $2600 per month
    because she filed for bankruptcy in August. However, she is mistaken.
    I have examined her creditors list and Arden Van Upp is not listed as
    a creditor. The box which asks if she has notified her landlord has
    not been checked. Also, a creditors meeting has been held and Arden
    Van Upp was not noticed. Therefore, the rent is still owed. It should
    now be easier for Miss Villarreal to pay the rent she owes because her
    other debts are being discharged

    15. The other deadbeat tenant is Judy Sparako. She has not paid rent
    since January on the pretext that there is a vine growing across her
    window. However, she has lived in that apartment for 30 years and the
    vine has been there all that time. Cutting the plant would kill the
    fine. I doubt that a vine growing across her window relieves her of
    the obligation to pay rent. She is also a low rent, as a rent
    controlled tenant of only $1200. She threatened suit on that and
    several other grounds, including she wants another new refrigerator.
    She entered into an agreement with Arden Van Upp that she will be paid
    $47,500 to move out provided that she moves out by December 31, 2009.
    In this way, Arden Van Upp would get rid of a tenant who has been
    causing her trouble for years and then she can raise the rent to
    market levels. However, because of the current bankruptcy situation,
    it seems that Arden Van Upp will not be able to pay the $47,500.
    Therefore, Judy Sparaco has made a counter offer that she will live
    for the next three years in the building rent free and after three
    years she will start paying rent at her current low rent controlled
    rate and will not move out. Arden Van Upp is not willing to agree to
    this.

    16. In order for a trustee to be appointed under 11 USC 1104 (a) there
    must be a showing that there has been “fraud, dishonesty,
    incompetence, or gross mismanagement of the affairs of the debtor by
    current management”. There has been no such showing. I am quite
    familiar with the management of real estate. I worked for 13 years
    managing rental properties in Park Slope, Brooklyn, New York. I also
    worked for a real estate law firm in downtown Brooklyn. Unfortunately,
    the owner of the real estate I was managing, Allan P. Fogelson, got
    Alzheimers Disease, lost his mind and then died and then his lawyer,
    Jon P. Sherry, took a gun and blew his brains out, thereby committing
    suicide.

    17. Since I am quite familiar with both the problems in managing real
    estate, including dealing with dead beat tenants, and with the
    particularities of the Arden Van Upp cases, I can say with confidence
    that nobody could do any better than Arden Van Upp has done in
    managing there properties. The law firm that proposes to take over the
    management of her properties and intends to charge $425 per hour to do
    so has no experience dealing with dead beat tenants like Sarah
    Villarreal and Judy Sparaco. I however have extensive experience
    dealing with theants like that because that was my job for 13 years in
    Park Slope Brooklyn preparing court cases to evict hard core non-
    paying trenants like these. Therefore, if anybody is appointed to
    manage her properties, it should be me. It is note worthy that in the
    application by the high-powered law firm of Wendel, Rosen, Black and
    Dean to manage her properties and to charge her $425 per hour for
    doing so, they make no mention of doing the things that ought to be
    done, which is forcing Sarah Villarreal and Judy Sparaco to pay rent
    or get out or both, or dealing with the pending appeal by the City of
    San Francisco against the vacating of the $900,000 default judgment.
    Instead they propose to do the very thing that the debtor does not
    want them to do, which is sell the properties. That was what Mitchell
    Hadler wanted to do and he was fired as her lawyer for going against
    her wishes. Mr. Hadler was informed on September 29, 2009 that he had
    been fired just prior to the court hearing on this case.

    18.In addition, the law firm that is applying to take over the
    magagnemt of the properties, Wendel, Rosen, Black and Dean, has failed
    to serve all opposing counsel. Their service list, which I found on
    PACER, shows that only her FORMER lawyer, Mitchell Hadler, was served.
    Her current lawyer, Thomas Swihart, was not served, nor were any of
    the attorneys for her creditors served. I believe that the attorneys
    for her creditors should also object to the appointment of Wendel,
    Rosen, Black and Dean. Arden Van Upp spends an average of 100 hours
    per week managing her properties. If they do the same amount of work
    and charge $425 per hour for it, they will be charging her $42,500 per
    week. Even if they work less or charge less there is little doubt that
    their fees will soon exceed $100,000. I know this because I am
    involved in a case in San Francisco Federal Court before Judge Patel
    that was just trabnsferred to Texas and already the legal fees in that
    case exceed $400,000. As noted previously, the Law Firm of Nossaman,
    Guthner, Knox and Elloit charged her $750,000 for the prior bankruptcy
    ending in 1997.

    19. It is obvious that the law firm of Wendel, Rosen, Black and Dean
    will similarly be charging these huge fees. They are confident of
    getting paid because they list the properties as being worth $7.5
    million and the debt owed on the properties as being $3.5 million.
    Thus, they can charge $4 million in legal fees and still get paid.
    There can be little doubt that the law firm of Wendel, Rosen, Black
    and Dean will charge every penny of it. This is an obvious scam,
    because they have not shown and cannot show that they have any
    experience managing this type of property and they can do any better
    than Arden Van Upp is already doing. I am hereby calling upon then to
    withdraw their application to be appointed.

    20. I am also moving that this court require all creditors of this
    estate to file proofs of claim. The creditors keep increasing the
    amounts they claim that they are owed. If I had a firm figure of how
    much is owed, I believe that through my own sources in Japan and
    possibly in China as well I could raise the money to pay off this
    debt. However, I cannot even approach lendors as long as I do not know
    how much is really owed. Arden Van Upp believes that the amount she
    really owes is at least a million dollars less than the seem to be
    claiming. Mitchell Hadler told me that he was going to file a motion
    to require them to file proofs of claim, but he never did so.

    21. I am also demanding the return of the computer that was in the
    computer room on the second floor. I suspect that the Mexicans or the
    Salvadorians that were hired by Kevin Webb to “clean up” the building
    took it. I am demanding it back.

    22. In addition, I am requesting permission to file electronically in
    this case. I have applied to the agency in this court that handles
    electronic filing. They have replied that I was not qualified to file
    electronically. I would like to know why I am not qualified. I already
    have permission to file electronically in the aforementioned Texas
    federal case.

    WHEREFORE, for all of the reasons set forth above, I request:

    (a) An order recusing and disqualifying Judge Thomas E. Carlson from
    appearing in this case due to his inappropriate action in directing
    the appointment of a trustee without the required notice and
    opportunity for a hearing.

    (b) An order transferring this case to Judge Dennis Montali, who heard
    the previous bankruptcy involving this same debtor. The prior
    bankruptcy filed in 1992 was extensively litigated and resulted in
    appeals. The current bankruptcy is the result of decisions that were
    made in the prior bankruptcy and therefore this case should be put
    back before the same judge.

    (c) An order requiring the creditors to file proof of claim showing
    ohow much ithey claim is owed by the debtor.

    (d) An order directing the return of my computer hard drive that was
    taken during the recent “clean up” of the property.

    (e) An order removing David A. Bradlow as trustee and Wendel, Rosen,
    Black and Dean as counsel for the trustee in this case.

    (f) An order allowing electronic filing by me in this case.


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

    Tel. 917-507-7226
    samhsloan @ gmail.com

    Sworn to before me this 8th
    Day of October 2009


    ______________________________
    NOTARY PUBLIC
    Affidavit of Service

    Samuel H. Sloan does hereby swear and affirm that on October 8, 2009
    he served the within “MOTION TO VACATE ORDER APPOINTING TRUSTEE” 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


    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 8th
    Day of October 2009

    ______________________________
    NOTARY PUBLIC
     
    samsloan, Oct 8, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. samsloan

    Rob Guest

    Arden Van Upp= Sam Sloan=Mohamed Ismail Sloan
     
    Rob, Oct 8, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. samsloan

    samsloan Guest

    SAMUEL H. SLOAN
    2550 Webster Street
    San Francisco CA 94115

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

    UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

    NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

    SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
    _________________________
    In re: )
    ) Case No. 09-31932 TEC
    ARDEN VAN UPP, )
    ) Chapter 11
    Debtor. )
    ) Place: United States Bankruptcy Court
    2550 Webster Street ) 235 Pine Street, Courtroom 23
    San Francisco, CA 94115 ) San Francisco, California
    ) Judge: The Honorable Thomas E. Carlson
    _________________________)


    MOTION TO VACATE ORDER DIRECTING THE APPOINTMENT
    OF A TRUSTEE AND FOR OTHER RELIEF

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

    1. I hereby move to vacate the order entered sua sponte by this court
    on September 29, 2009 directing the US Trustee to appoint a trustee in
    this case. I am also moving for the following relief.

    (a) An order recusing and disqualifying Judge Thomas E. Carlson from
    appearing in this case due to his inappropriate action in directing
    the appointment of a trustee without the required notice, opportunity
    for a hearing and findings of facts.

    (b) An order transferring this case to Judge Dennis Montali who heard
    the previous bankruptcy involving this same debtor and properties. The
    prior bankruptcy filed in 1992 was extensively litigated, lasted five
    years and resulted in appeals. The current bankruptcy is the result of
    decisions that were made in the prior bankruptcy and therefore this
    case should be put back before the same judge.

    (c) An order requiring the creditors to file proofs of claim showing
    how much they claim is owed by the debtor.

    (d) An order directing the return of my computer hard drive that was
    taken during the recent “clean up” of the property.

    (e) An order removing David A. Bradlow as trustee and Wendel, Rosen,
    Black and Dean as his counsel in this case.

    (f) An order allowing electronic filing by me in this case.

    2. On September 29, 2009 this court made a sua sponte decision
    directing the US Attorney to appoint a trustee in this case. This
    decision was wrong and must be reversed because 11 USC 1104 (a)
    states:

    At any time after the commencement of the case but before confirmation
    of a plan, on request of a party in interest or the United States
    trustee, and after notice and a hearing, the court shall order the
    appointment of a trustee - (1) for cause, including fraud, dishonesty,
    incompetence, or gross mismanagement of the affairs of the debtor by
    current management, either before or after the commencement of the
    case, or similar cause,

    3. As can be plainly seen, this statute has several required elements:
    (1) There must be a request of a party in interest or of the US
    Trustee, (2) there must be notice, (3) there must be an opportunity
    for a hearing and (4) there must be a showing of “fraud, dishonesty,
    incompetence, or gross mismanagement of the affairs of the debtor”.

    4. None of the required elements of this statute have been fulfilled.
    Neither any party nor the US Trustee has ever requested the
    appointment of a trustee. There was no notice. There was no
    opportunity for a hearing. There was no showing of “fraud, dishonesty,
    incompetence, or gross mismanagement of the affairs of the debtor”.
    Therefore, the order of this court must be vacated. Please note that
    the prior bankruptcy proceeding involving the same debtor lasted five
    years of heavy litigation and Judge Montali never saw fit to appoint a
    trustee.

    5. In addition, the proceedings herein are taking place on the wrong
    premise. The moving papers recently filed all state that the
    properties are being readied for sale. This is not true. The debtor
    does not wish to sell any of her properties. She does not agree to the
    sale of any of her properties. She intends to keep all of these
    properties until she dies at which time they will be donated to a
    charitable trust. She recently fired her lawyer Mitchell Hadler
    because he was proceeding with the sale of her properties against her
    wishes. Mr. Hadler no longer represents Ms. Van Upp. Her new lawyer is
    Thomas Swihart.

    6. I have known the debtor since 1966. I helped her pick out and
    select her first property, 1019 Ashbury Street, which she bought in
    1967. I am fully familiar with her history and the history of her
    ownership of these properties. I am prepared to competently testify at
    a trial or a hearing on this matter.

    7. I am a long time resident of 2550 Webster Street, San Francisco,
    California, one of the subject properties in this case. The electric
    bill is in my name. My clothing, papers and personal effects are
    present in the house. I believe that many of my personal belongings
    including apparently my computer have been thrown out recently.

    8.It is not true that a real estate agent has been appointed to sell
    these properties. The debtor has not authorized anybody to sell the
    properties. It is true that Mr. Hadler appointed a real estate agent
    named Osama to list the properties for sale. (That is really his name.
    Due to the unfortunate coincidence associating his name with
    international terrorism, the parties have adopted the practice of
    calling him “Sam”, but that creates the problem of confusing him with
    me, as my name is also Sam.) Mr. Osama was not authorized by Miss Van
    Upp to sell the properties and when she fired Mr. Hadler she also by
    implication fired Mr. Osama.

    9.The current bankruptcy is the outgrowth of a previous bankruptcy by
    the same debtor. In re Arden Van Upp, Case No. 92-33747 DM, and
    appellate case No. 97-1294. That case went on for five years before
    Judge Montali. The result of the case was that Arden Van Upp was
    reorganized under bankruptcy. She basically won the case against Dr.
    Badgley who had brought the case that forced her into bankruptcy.
    However, the Badgley case had started in 1973 and went on for 24 years
    and became known for being the longest running active case in the San
    Francisco Court System. Although Arden Van Upp won the case, she had
    to pay more than one million dollars in attorney's fees, including
    $750,000 to the law form of Nossaman, Guthner, Knox and Elloit.
    Unfortunately, Judge Montali did not award her attorneys fees.
    Therefore, she had to borrow money to pay her attorney. (Also, at the
    outset of the case, she had paid the Nossaman firm a check for
    $125,000, but they had lost the check.)

    10.Prior to all of this, she owned her three properties, the Webster
    Street property, the Steiner Street property, and the Ashbury Street
    property, free and clear. She was debt free until she had to start
    borrowing money to pay all her lawyers.

    11.In addition to the money it took to pay the Nossaman firm for their
    legal services, there was the issue of Earthquake Retrofitting. As
    different administrations take office in City Hall, each new one
    brings up again the requirement that she earthquake retrofit her
    house. This earthquake retrofitting of the Webster Street property
    would cost millions of dollars and it would destroy the value of her
    house. It would involve jacking up her house several inches and
    installing springs under her house. The house was built in 1896. It
    easily survived the San Francisco 1906 and 1989 earthquakes and will
    survive any other earthquake because it is built on solid rock at the
    very peak, the pinnacle of Pacific Heights. The buildings affected by
    the earthquakes are in the lower areas and near the fault lines and
    the bay. In addition, the Webster Street property is a private home.
    Nobody lives there but Arden Van Upp and myself and possibly my
    children. It is nobody's business but our own whether she should
    earthquake retrofit the house. Any house up to four units in not
    required under the law to be earthquake retrofitted.

    12. Nevertheless, the City of San Francisco got a $900,000 default
    judgment against her for failing to Earthquake Retrofit the house. The
    city then placed a lien on all her properties for this $900,000.
    Because of this $900,000 lien, she could not borrow money and could
    not fix up the houses.

    13.Very recently, the default judgment for $900,000 was vacated and
    the lien was lifted. The City of San Francisco has filed a notice of
    appeal but has failed to prefect the appeal. However, almost as soon
    as the $900,000 judgment was vacated, her creditors, who had not been
    paid up to date due in part to the $900,000 judgment and lien, moved
    to foreclose on her property. The Webster Street had been noticed to
    be sold at auction just two days after the day that Arden Van Upp
    filed the current Bankruptcy proceeding.

    14.A further problem that led to the current bankruptcy proceeding is
    the issue of deadbeat tenants. Arden Van Upp has two deadbeat tenants
    who have not paid rent in months. Each of them owes her more than
    $10,000. One of her deadbeat tenants just filed for bankruptcy on
    August 20, 2009. In re Sarah Villarreal, Case No. 09-32435. That case
    has been assigned to Judge Montali, which may provide another reason
    to transfer this case to Judge Montali. I understand that Arden Van
    Upp has just received a check to pay the current October rent for
    Sarah Villarreal, who occupies Apartment Number 5 at 2807 Steiner
    Street. Apparently, Miss Villarreal believes that she does not have to
    pay her rent for May, June, July, August and September of $2600 per
    month because she filed for bankruptcy in August. However, she is
    mistaken. I have examined her creditors list and Arden Van Upp is not
    listed as a creditor. The box which asks if she has notified her
    landlord has not been checked. Also, a creditors meeting has been held
    and Arden Van Upp was not noticed. Therefore, the rent is still owed.
    It should now be easier for Miss Villarreal to pay the rent she owes
    because her other debts are being discharged.

    15. The other deadbeat tenant is Judy Sparaco. She has not paid rent
    since January on the pretext that there is a vine growing across her
    window. However, she has lived in that apartment for 30 years and the
    vine has been there all that time. Cutting the plant would kill the
    fine. I doubt that a vine growing across her window relieves her of
    the obligation to pay rent. She threatened suit on that and several
    other grounds, including she wants another new refrigerator. She has
    low rent, as a rent controlled tenant of only $1200. She entered into
    an agreement with Arden Van Upp that she will be paid $47,500 to move
    out provided that she moves out by December 31, 2009. In this way,
    Arden Van Upp would get rid of a tenant who has been causing her
    trouble for years and then she can raise the rent to market levels.
    However, because of the current bankruptcy situation, it seems that
    Arden Van Upp will not be able to pay the $47,500. Therefore, Judy
    Sparaco has made a counter offer that she will live for the next three
    years in the building rent free and after three years she will start
    paying rent at her current low rent controlled rate and will not move
    out. Arden Van Upp is not willing to agree to this.

    16. For a trustee to be appointed under 11 USC 1104 (a) there must be
    a showing that there has been “fraud, dishonesty, incompetence, or
    gross mismanagement of the affairs of the debtor by current
    management”. There has been no such showing. I am quite familiar with
    the management of real estate. I worked for 13 years managing rental
    properties in Park Slope, Brooklyn, New York. I also worked for a real
    estate law firm in downtown Brooklyn. Unfortunately, the owner of the
    real estate I was managing, Allan P. Fogelson, got Alzheimer's
    Disease, lost his mind and then died and then his lawyer, Jon Sherry,
    took a gun and blew his brains out, thereby committing suicide.

    17. Since I am quite familiar with both the problems in managing real
    estate, including dealing with dead beat tenants, and with the
    particularities of the Arden Van Upp cases, I can say with confidence
    that nobody could do any better than Arden Van Upp has done in
    managing there properties. For example, in just the past few weeks,
    she has rented two of her apartments at high premium rents of $2900
    for a two-bedroom and $1575 for a studio with a loft. The law firm
    that proposes to take over the management of her properties and
    intends to charge $425 per hour to do so has no experience renting
    apartments and dealing with dead beat tenants like Sarah Villarreal
    and Judy Sparaco. I however have extensive experience dealing with
    tenants like that because that was my job for 13 years in Park Slope
    Brooklyn preparing court cases to evict hard core non-paying tenants
    like these. Therefore, if anybody is appointed to manage her
    properties, it should be me. It is note worthy that in the application
    by the high-powered law firm of Wendel, Rosen, Black and Dean to
    manage her properties and to charge her $425 per hour for doing so,
    they make no mention of doing the things that ought to be done, which
    is forcing Sarah Villarreal and Judy Sparaco to pay rent or get out or
    both, or dealing with the pending appeal by the City of San Francisco
    against the vacating of the $900,000 default judgment. Instead they
    propose to do the very thing that the debtor does not want them to do,
    which is to sell the properties. That was what Mitchell Hadler wanted
    to do and he was fired as her lawyer for going against her wishes. Mr.
    Hadler was informed on September 29, 2009 that he had been fired just
    prior to the court hearing on this case.

    18.In addition, the law firm that is applying to take over the
    management of the properties, Wendel, Rosen, Black and Dean, has
    failed to serve all opposing counsel. Their service list, which I
    found on PACER, shows that only her FORMER lawyer, Mitchell Hadler,
    was served. Her current lawyer, Thomas Swihart, was not served, nor
    were any of the attorneys for her creditors served. I believe that the
    attorneys for her creditors should also object to the appointment of
    Wendel, Rosen, Black and Dean. Arden Van Upp spends an average of 100
    hours per week managing her properties. If they do the same amount of
    work and charge $425 per hour for it, they will be charging her
    $42,500 per week. Even if they work less or charge less there is
    little doubt that their fees will soon exceed $100,000. I know this
    because I am involved in a case in San Francisco Federal Court before
    Judge Patel that was just transferred to Texas and already the legal
    fees in that case exceed $400,000. As noted previously, the Law Firm
    of Nossaman, Guthner, Knox and Elloit charged her $750,000 for the
    prior bankruptcy ending in 1997.

    19. It is obvious that the law firm of Wendel, Rosen, Black and Dean
    will similarly be charging these huge fees. They are confident of
    getting paid because they list the properties as being worth $7.5
    million and the debt owed on the properties as being $3.5 million.
    Thus, they can charge $4 million in legal fees and still get paid.
    There can be little doubt that the law firm of Wendel, Rosen, Black
    and Dean will charge every penny of it. This is an obvious scam,
    because they have not shown and they cannot show that they have any
    experience managing this type of property and they can do any better
    than Arden Van Upp is already doing. I am hereby calling upon them to
    withdraw their application to be appointed.

    20. I am also moving that this court require all creditors of this
    estate to file proofs of claim. The creditors keep increasing the
    amounts they claim that they are owed. If I had a firm figure of how
    much is owed, I believe that through my own resources in Japan and
    possibly in China as well I could raise the money to pay off this
    debt. However, I cannot even approach lenders as long as I do not know
    how much is really owed. Arden Van Upp believes that the amount she
    really owes is at least a million dollars less than the seem to be
    claiming. Mitchell Hadler told me that he was going to file a motion
    to require them to file proofs of claim, but he never did so.

    21. I am also demanding the return of the computer that was in the
    computer room on the second floor. I suspect that the Mexicans or the
    Salvadorians that were hired by Kevin Webb to “clean up” the building
    took it. I am demanding it back.

    22. In addition, I am requesting permission to file electronically in
    this case. I have applied to the agency in this court that handles
    electronic filing. They have replied that I was not qualified to file
    electronically. I would like to know why I am not qualified. I already
    have permission to file electronically in the aforementioned Texas
    federal case.

    WHEREFORE, for all of the reasons set forth above, I request:

    (a) An order recusing and disqualifying Judge Thomas E. Carlson from
    appearing in this case due to his inappropriate action in directing
    the appointment of a trustee without the required notice and
    opportunity for a hearing.

    (b) An order transferring this case to Judge Dennis Montali, who heard
    the previous bankruptcy involving this same debtor. The prior
    bankruptcy filed in 1992 was extensively litigated and resulted in
    appeals. The current bankruptcy is the result of decisions that were
    made in the prior bankruptcy and therefore this case should be put
    back before the same judge.

    (c) An order requiring the creditors to file proof of claim showing
    how much they claim is owed by the debtor.

    (d) An order directing the return of my computer hard drive that was
    taken during the recent “clean up” of the property.

    (e) An order removing David A. Bradlow as trustee and Wendel, Rosen,
    Black and Dean as counsel for the trustee in this case.

    (f) An order allowing electronic filing by me in this case.


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

    Tel. 917-507-7226

    Sworn to before me this 8th
    Day of October 2009

    Affidavit of Service

    Samuel H. Sloan does hereby swear and affirm that on October 8, 2009
    he served the within “MOTION TO VACATE ORDER APPOINTING TRUSTEE” 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


    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 8th
    Day of October 2009


    ______________________________
    NOTARY PUBLIC
     
    samsloan, Oct 9, 2009
    #3
  4. samsloan

    madams Guest

    samsloan wrote:
    ..
    I however have extensive experience dealing with deadbeat tenants like
    Sarah Villarreal and Judy Sparako because I myself am a deadbeat tenant
    who in the past have spitefully broken fixtures & smeared excrement on
    the bathroom walls before taking-off into the night, but now I'm settled
    in a rent controlled Bronx slum & besides there's $4 mil up for grabs &
    Arden Van Upp has requested that I take full control of her affairs &
    make sure none of her estate falls to the undeserving...

    ...........
     
    madams, Oct 9, 2009
    #4
  5. samsloan

    samsloan Guest

    There is a shocking development in this case.

    Mitchell Hadler, the attorney who filed this bankruptcy petition, is
    NOT licensed to practice law in the State of California.

    On his court papers, he lists his license number as MN 31972.

    That is a Minnesota number and he maintains an office in Minnesota.

    He claims that since Bankruptcy is a nationwide federal procedure,
    that he can find in bankruptcy court without being licensed in the
    state where he is filing.

    However, I believe that this is NOT TRUE.

    Also, I cannot find him being licensed in Minnesota either. He is not
    a member of the Minnesota State Bar Association. However, in Minnesota
    one can practice law without being a member of the state bar
    association.

    I have been unable to find a place that conclusively tells whether his
    license to practice law is current.

    Can anybody tell where to find this information in Minnesota?

    The next question is whether a bankruptcy petition can be filed by an
    unlicensed lawyer. I am thinking of filing a motion to dismiss this
    bankruptcy petition on the ground that it was filed by an unlicensed
    lawyer. Does anybody know what the status is of a bankruptcy petition
    filed on behalf of a client by a lawyer who is not licensed to
    practice law?

    Sam Sloan
     
    samsloan, Oct 21, 2009
    #5
  6. samsloan

    samsloan Guest

    OK It appears that he is licensed to practice law in Minnesota.

    http://www.courts.state.mn.us/mars/AttorneyDetail.aspx?id=0039172

    However, he is not licensed to practice law in the State of
    California, even though he has maintained a law office here for a
    number of years. In addition, he also has not made a motion to be
    admitted to appear pro hak vice.

    Therefore, I believe that the bankruptcy petition he has filed on
    behalf of Arden Van Upp is invalid.

    Sam Sloan
     
    samsloan, Oct 21, 2009
    #6
  7. samsloan

    help bot Guest


    Why do you believe that is not true? Is it a whim,
    or might you have some /secret/ reason which you
    cannot disclose?


    I am thinking of flying like a bird-- but I am probably
    too heavy and I haven't even a single feather.



    I am now thinking of smacking Mr. Sloan on the
    head with a large iron mallet; I am imagining his
    head being crushed beneath the mallet, like an
    egg-- gooey stuff running out his ears. I now am
    imagining a crowd of observers, applauding my
    action... .


    -- help bot
     
    help bot, Oct 21, 2009
    #7
  8. samsloan

    samsloan Guest

    SAMUEL H. SLOAN
    2550 Webster Street
    San Francisco CA 94115

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

    UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

    NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

    SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
    _________________________
    In re: )
    ) Case No. 09-31932 TEC
    ARDEN VAN UPP, )
    ) Chapter 11
    Debtor. )
    ) Place: United States Bankruptcy Court
    2550 Webster Street ) 235 Pine Street, Courtroom 23
    San Francisco, CA 94115 ) San Francisco, California
    ) Judge: The Honorable Thomas E. Carlson
    _________________________)


    MOTION TO DISMISS ENTIRELY CHAPTER 11 BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING

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


    1. I hereby move to dismiss this bankruptcy proceeding. This motion
    must be granted because the attorney who filed this bankruptcy
    petition is NOT licensed to Practice Law in the State of California.
    This attorney has also not moved for leave to appear Pro Hac Vice. In
    addition, were he to make such a motion it would probably not be
    granted because he does not meet the standards or the qualifications
    for such a motion to be granted.

    2. What is especially shocking that all of the other attorneys in this
    case have known all along that Mitchell Hadler is not licensed to
    practice law in the State of California. It is common knowledge. A
    lawyer casually mentioned this to me yesterday and I looked him up and
    found that sure enough he is not licensed to practice law in
    California.

    3. Mitchell Hadler apparently is claiming that he is licensed to
    practice law in Minnesota and, since Bankruptcy is a nationwide
    federal procedure, he can appear in Bankruptcy Court in San Francisco
    or any other jurisdiction of the United States without being licensed
    in that state. However, THIS IS NOT TRUE. He must be licensed in any
    state in which he appears or, failing that, he can make a motion for
    leave to appear pro hac vice. Usually the motion for leave to appear
    pro hac vice is made by a local attorney, in this case a San Francisco
    Lawyer, and is accompanied by a statement by the Bar is the state
    where he is licensed that he has not been the subject of any
    disciplinary proceedings.

    4. In this case, Mitchell Hadler has a law office in San Francisco and
    he had been conducting the practice of law in San Francisco for a
    number of years, all the while never being licensed to practice law
    here. He advertises his law office at 1450 Sutter Street 508 San
    Francisco California 94109, tel: 415-626-6897. He is listed in various
    directories as a California lawyer. A motion for Leave to Appear pro
    hac vice is normally made by a local lawyer on behalf of an out of
    state lawyer who needs to appear in this state on behalf of a client.
    Mitchell Hadler is not an out-of-state lawyer. He is right here. For
    whatever reason, he has for years been using his Minnesota license to
    appear in California cases.

    5. The next question concerns the status of his Minnesota license. The
    court papers filed here list his license number as MN 39172. He is not
    a member of the Minnesota State Bar Association. However, it appears
    that his law license is paid up to date in that state. See:

    http://www.courts.state.mn.us/mars/AttorneyDetail.aspx?id=0039172

    6. Arden Van Upp does not want Mitchell Hadler to be her lawyer. She
    publicly fired him on September 21, 2009 just before a hearing in
    federal bankruptcy court on that date. He was replaced by Thomas
    Swihart. Nevertheless, Mitchell Hadler went up before the court and
    sat at counsel's, table even though he had just been fired. He later
    filed a motion to be appointed as counsel in this case, even though he
    not only had been fired but his interests were directly contrary to
    the interests of his client. His client, Arden Van Upp, wants to keep
    the house at 2550 Webster Street where she resides until she dies. She
    has no wish to sell the house. Moreover, if she did sell the house,
    she would have to pay Capital Gains Taxes in excess of $500,000. Thus,
    it makes no sense for her to sell her house as then she would have to
    search for a place to live. It is likely that she would be reduced to
    being a shopping cart lady, living on the street.

    7. Mitchell Hadler wants to force her to sell the house so that he can
    get a cut on the sale price. The trustee and the attorney for the
    trustee also want to get their cut too. Everybody wants to get their
    fingers into the pot. The house at 2550 Webster Street has a currently
    appraised value of $3.85 million and a mortgage of a maximum of $1.15
    million. Thus, the equity in the house is $ 2.7 million. If sold,
    $500,000 roughly would go to Capital Gains Tax and then Mr. Hadler,
    Mr. Cooper, Mr. Barnes and the rest of their old boy networks would
    just divide up the remaining two million among them selves and Arden
    Van Upp would be left with nothing plus she would have no place to
    live.

    8. Arden Van Upp has already been illegally evicted from her home at
    2550 Webster Street. She came home two nights ago only to find that
    the paddle lock on the gate to her house had been broken off and also
    the locks to the doors of her house had been drilled open. New locks
    had been installed to her house and there was also a new lock on the
    gate. Arden Van Upp has not been allowed to enter her own home since.
    This was done by the attorney for the trustee, Michael Cooper. This
    was illegal. There was no authority for Michael Cooper to lock Arden
    Van Upp out of her own house.

    9. Prior to that time, only three people had the key to the house at
    2550 Webster Street. These were: Myself, who has lived there since the
    early 1990s, plus Arden Van Upp and her daughter Tammy Van Upp. Now,
    none of us can get in the house. Instead, there is a mentally ill and
    obviously schizophrenic man named Jeff who has found a way to break
    into the house, probably by climbing the wall next to the gate, and,
    upon finding him inside the house, the trustee gave him the keys. So,
    now Arden Van Upp cannot get into her own house and a mentally ill man
    named Jeff who had broken in has been made in effect the custodian of
    the house.

    10. To make matters even worse, Arden Van Upp hired an attorney to
    replace Mitchell Hadler named Thomas Swihart. Thomas Swihart appeared
    in bankruptcy court at a hearing on September 21, 2009 and went up and
    sat at the counsel's table, identifying himself as attorney for Arden
    Van Upp. However, since then he has never filed a notice of appearance
    nor filed any papers at all in this case. His name is nowhere in the
    court pleadings. Opposing counsel have not included him on the service
    list. Arden Van Upp heard that he was sick, in the hospital. However,
    I have found out that this was not true.

    11. Arden Van Upp paid $5,000 to Thomas Swihart in September with the
    understanding that he was taking over the case and that Mitchell
    Hadler would no longer be her attorney. Arden Van Upp did not realize
    that she is not allowed to pay money to a lawyer without permission of
    the court while she is in bankruptcy. However, Thomas Swihart
    certainly should have realized that, since he regularly practices in
    the bankruptcy courts. Now, Thomas Swihart should be ordered to pay
    back that $5,000 (although I doubt he still has it). Thomas Swihart
    called me yesterday, knowing that I have some influence with Arden Van
    Upp and said that he has been trying to call her for a week and does
    not understand why she does not call back.

    12. I replied that she is not calling back because he has flaked out
    on her. She paid him $5,000 thinking that he would represent her.
    Instead, he never appeared in the case other than physically appearing
    on September 21 and he has left her high and dry. Now, she is trying
    to find another attorney to represent her. Furthermore, she has
    another big problem. Several attorneys have refused to take her case
    because they look at PACER and see that she is represented by Mitchell
    Hadler. They are reluctant to go into court and fight a court battle
    with Mitchell Hadler, just to be acknowledged as the attorney for
    Arden Van Upp. They can see that Mitchell Hadler is not relinquishing
    his role in this case, plus he has now been appointed by the court as
    counsel for Arden Van Upp.

    13. The current situation is that Arden Van Upp has obtained a
    commitment from a major financial institution to refinance all three
    properties of her properties. They have the money. The money is ready.
    This is NOT “Dr. Carroll”. However, they cannot give her the money
    without approval of this court while this bankruptcy proceeding is
    pending. Therefore, she wants this bankruptcy proceeding dismissed.
    However, she faces another problem. Mr. Barnes has repeatedly listed
    this property for foreclosure sale, week after week. Therefore she
    fears that if the bankruptcy proceeding is dismissed, Mr. Barnes will
    complete foreclosure and take the property right away before the
    refinancing by the major financial institution is completed. It is
    clear that Mr. Barnes wants literally to steal this property. In fact,
    there was an article in the San Francisco Examiner dated September 20,
    2009 entitled “A Steal” about how the financial predators in this case
    were trying to steal the house of an elderly lady. My name was
    mentioned in the article in the San Francisco Examiner.

    14. I recognize the serious fears and concerns that Arden Van Upp has
    about what will happen if this bankruptcy proceeding is dismissed.
    What we have here are vultures flying around overhead ready to dive in
    and eat the dead carcass. Mr. Barnes, who forced Arden Van Upp into
    Bankruptcy by putting her house into foreclosure, does not really have
    a valid case. Mr. Barnes never loaned her anything. He bought the loan
    from the original lender. The original amount of the loan was only
    $650,000. Now, Mr. Barnes claims that Arden Van Upp owes $1.2 million.
    He has provided no financial figures showing what his figures are or
    where they come from. He has resisted all efforts to force him to file
    a proof of claim. In short, he wants to grab this property cheaply and
    make millions for himself by flipping and selling it. The appraised
    values for these properties are $3.85 million for the Webster Street
    house, $3.15 million for Steiner Street and $2.75 million for Ashbury
    Street. Thus, the total appraised value of the three properties
    combined is $9.75 million. Mr. Barnes obviously is not worried about
    recovering on his $1.2. million loan, even assuming there is a valid
    obligation to him in this amount. He simply wants to steal the
    properties.

    15. Attached as an Exhibit is an affirmation filed by Mitchell Hadler
    on October 2, 2009 in which he asks this court to appoint him as
    counsel in this case. This was filed 11 days after Arden Van Upp had
    fired him as her attorney on September 21. It fails to disclose that
    Mitchell Hadler is not licensed to practice law in California. This is
    filed as document number 39 on PACER. This affirmation contains the
    statement that he has been licensed to practice law in the Northern
    District of California since 1986. This statement is false. Mitchell
    Hadler is not licensed to practice law in California at all. On
    October 6, 2009, the judge approved this motion thereby making
    Mitchell Hadler officially the attorney for Arden Van Upp. I know that
    Mitchell Hadler knew that he had been fired because he called me
    previously asking me if Arden would ever take him back as her
    attorney. I told him that Arden was not going to take him back. I also
    told Thomas Swihart that Arden was not taking him back either, because
    he was a flake who had disappeared after being paid $5,000.

    16. Speaking of flakes, “Dr. Ted Carroll” who appeared in bankruptcy
    court before the judge and stated that he has the $3 million either to
    buy or refinance the property, turns out not to have any money. “Dr.
    Carroll” also turns out to be not the medical doctor he implied that
    he was. We have so many flakes in this case including the trustee and
    his attorneys and accountants and who knows what else. The only person
    in this case who has any money at all is Arden Van Upp, who could buy
    and sell all of them combined if only she could get out of this
    bankruptcy trap she has fallen into.

    WHEREFORE, for all of the reasons set forth above, this Chapter 11
    Bankruptcy Proceeding must be dismissed.



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

    Tel. 917-507-7226

    Sworn to before me this 22nd
    Day of October 2009

    Affidavit of Service

    Samuel H. Sloan does hereby swear and affirm that on October 22, 2009
    he served the within “MOTION TO DISMISS CHAPTER 11 BANKRUPTCY
    PROCEDING” 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 22nd
    Day of October 2009


    ______________________________
    NOTARY PUBLIC
     
    samsloan, Oct 23, 2009
    #8
  9. samsloan

    samsloan Guest

    samsloan, Oct 29, 2009
    #9
  10. samsloan

    sandwest Guest

    hi, what is this thread about? it does not make much sense. thanks.
     
    sandwest, Dec 12, 2009
    #10
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.