Shon Jason Treanor and Jill Diana Treanor

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
FRESNO DIVISION
In re
SHON JASON TREANOR and
JILL DIANA TREANOR,
Debtors.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 20-23267-B-7
Date: 	June 9, 2026
Time: 	1:30 p.m.
Place: U.S. Courthouse
2500 Tulare Street
Courtroom 13, Fifth Floor
Fresno, California
Honorable René Lastreto II
RULING ON SHON TREANOR’S PETITION TO SUBMIT DIRECT
EVIDENCE OF ALLEGED FRAUD AND OTHER CRIMES DIRECTLY TO
THE U.S. ATTORNEY AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
INTRODUCTION
Co-debtor Shon Treanor (“Shon” or “Treanor”) petitions the
court to refer Shon’s evidence of alleged fraud and other crimes
to the United States Attorney. 	The court does not have
reasonable grounds for believing that any violation of the
relevant bankruptcy crime statutes has been presented. 	For that
and other reasons, the court denies the petition without
prejudice.
BACKGROUND
This bankruptcy case was filed on June 30, 2020. 	The
debtors received their discharge on February 17, 2021, and the
case was closed on December 27, 2022. 	Docket generally. 	At the
end of the case, the trustee paid Shon and co-debtor Jill Treanor
each $159,823.26. 	Doc. #505.
Filed 06/23/26 Case 20-23267 Doc 546

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
A motion to reopen the case was filed by co-debtor Jill
Treanor on January 21, 2026. 	Doc. #511. 	An order reopening the
case was entered the next day. 	Doc. #512.
Shortly after, Jill Treanor filed a handwritten “Motion to
Receive Proceeds from the Sale of My Home.” 	Doc. #514. 	No
further statement was filed in support of the motion.
A month and one-half later, Shon filed this “Petition to
Submit Direct Evidence.” 	Doc. #519. 	The hearing on both motions
was originally set for April 23, 2026. 	The hearing has been
continued a few times at the request of Jill Treanor. 	Both
motions were then set June 9, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. by order dated
May 20, 2026. 	Docs. #533, #534. 	Jill Treanor requested and
received another continuance of her motion only. 	Doc. #539.
This motion was heard June 9, 2026.
This bankruptcy case has been riddled with disagreements and
allegations of fraud by the debtors. 	The debtors discharged
counsel during the case.1
The alleged crimes and cover up asserted by Treanor here
relate to probate estate and trust litigation in both Fresno and
Solano counties, California. 	The relevant events began in 2014
through 2018.2
1 This case was originally assigned to now retired Judge Sargis. 	Upon Judge
Sargis’ retirement, the case was assigned to the undersigned.
2 Shon submitted 66 exhibits consisting of over 275 pages purporting to
establish the crimes committed in connection with Probate Estates and Trust
litigation. 	The court reviewed the documents in camera. 	Most of the
documents consist of email chains between lawyers and clients, lawyers and
lawyers, pleadings in the probate estates involved and reports of various
agencies including Adult Protective Services for Fresno County, the Fresno
Sheriff’s Office, the Fresno County District Attorney, the California Attorney
General, County Counsel and others. 	Some of the language in the
correspondence is “rough.” 	The documents also include a toxicology report
which Shon says has not been previously released. 	This report, Shon claims,
is evidence that the Bandys’ deaths are suspicious. 	The court will attach the
numerous documents as appendices to this ruling. 	Under 11 U.S.C. 107(b) the
Filed 06/23/26 Case 20-23267 Doc 546

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Wayne and Mary Bandy resided in Fresno County, California,
in what is now known as “Yokuts Valley.” 	Mary Bandy died on June
8, 2014 without a will. 	Wayne Bandy died a little over three
months later on September 21, 2014. 	Wayne and Mary had two
children: Mark Bandy and Cheryl Lynn Bandy-Gotemiller. 	Mark has
a son, James Bandy. 	Cheryl had no children. 	Cheryl was married
to Mark Gotemiller who died in August 2013. 	Cheryl predeceased
her parents on March 20, 2014.
Though Cheryl had no children, Mark had a niece, Jill
Treanor. 	Shon was Jill’s spouse.
The elder Bandys were cared for by Terry Novak and others.
Cheryl was cared for by the Treanors until her death in March
2014.
Wayne Bandy allegedly wished to disinherit Mark. 	So, Wayne
and Mary hired attorney Donna Standard to draft two wills
sometime in mid-2014. 	Mary never signed her will. 	Wayne signed
his. 	However, the Bandys had an existing trust since 2002.
Cheryl signed a trust shortly before her death giving the
Treanors a substantial amount if not all of her assets. 	Cheryl
resided in Solano County when she died.
Then the litigation circus began. 	Two separate probate
proceedings for the Bandys were started in Fresno County.3
///
///
court will seal the documents from public view subject to further court order
to unseal the documents for good cause. 	That order only affects public
viewing of the documents on the docket. 	The order does not prevent the
Treanors from using their own copies as they wish.
3 Just prior to her death, a proceeding to appoint a public administrator as
Mary Bandy’s conservator began in Fresno County. 	That proceeding turned into
a probate proceeding after Mary’s death.
Filed 06/23/26 Case 20-23267 Doc 546

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
The Treanors contended that Wayne and Mary were subject to
undue influence when they were presented with the new wills. 	The
Treanors started a proceeding in the Solano County Superior Court
to confirm Cheryl’s trust which was opposed by Terry Novak who
was appointed executrix under Wayne Bandy’s will. 	Terry was
represented by Donna Standard.
The Treanors were dissatisfied with the manner in which the
probates in Fresno County were handled. 	They sincerely believed
that criminal activity was involved not only in the drafting and
presentation of the wills to the Bandys shortly before their
death but also in the very care given to the Bandys. 	Equally
disturbing allegations were made against the Treanors concerning
their alleged undue influence over Cheryl when her trust was
prepared.
The Treanors sought an investigation by the Fresno County
Sheriff’s Office into the Bandys’ death and alleged undue
influence. 	They were dissatisfied with the result of that
investigation. 	They went to other law enforcement agencies
including the Internal Affairs Division of the Fresno County
Sherrif’s Office without success. 	They submitted evidence to the
Fresno County District Attorney’s Office who declined to
prosecute finding that there was not enough evidence to establish
proof beyond a reasonable doubt of any criminal activity. 	The
Treanors asked the California Attorney General to review that
decision. 	The Attorney General determined that the District
Attorney did not abuse its discretion in declining to prosecute.
The Treanors had sought an investigation by the United States
Attorney. 	They have been frustrated there as well. 	Shon has
Filed 06/23/26 Case 20-23267 Doc 546

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
repeatedly stated an assistant U.S. Attorney needs a court
referral before looking into the case.
It is not entirely clear from a review of the documents by
the court in camera, but it appears that the two probate estates
in Fresno County and the claims involved were settled between
Mark Bandy and Terry Novak. 	Litigation in Solano County
continued through trial. 	The Treanors apparently prevailed in
that trial. 	However, it is unclear what, if anything, the
Treanors received as a result of their trial victory.4
During their bankruptcy case, the Treanors filed a motion
for a U.S. Attorney General criminal investigation into fraud.
See Docket Control Number SJT-2. 	Judge Sargis issued two orders
on that motion. 	First he set a hearing and invited counsel
involved including an Assistant United States Attorney, to
participate. 	Doc. #299. 	The hearing was on June 17, 2021, and
the court issued a ruling denying the motion/application without
prejudice. 	Doc. #306.5
Shon now asks the court to look again at his evidence and
some new evidence he claims supports an inference of criminal
activity surrounding the Bandys’ death. 	He ultimately asks again
for the court to refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney.6
///
4 See Complaint in Adversary Proceeding 20-2160, Sanders, et al. v. Treanor, et
al.
5 Many of the documents the court reviewed in camera were part of the record of
the motion SJT-2. 	See Docs. ##252-279. 	One of the attorneys representing
Mark Bandy in the probate litigation filed a declaration setting forth his
version of the events. 	Doc. #290.
6 By summarizing the lengthy disputes in all the litigation matters, the court
does not intend to minimize the impact of all of this on the Treanors or any
other participant in the litigation. 	The court set forth the pertinent facts
and did not include much detail and many names since the court construes Shon
Treanor’s request for a referral, not to decide issues that have already
either been settled by the parties or tried by the appropriate state court.
Filed 06/23/26 Case 20-23267 Doc 546

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction is founded on 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) and 157(a).
This is a matter that this court may finally determine under 28
U.S.C. 157(b)(2)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 3057.
ANALYSIS
I. 	The Controlling Statute Limits the Matters This Court Must
Refer.
18 U.S.C. § 3057 provides, in part, as follows:
(a) 	Any judge…having reasonable grounds for
believing that any violation under [the
bankruptcy crime statutes] or other laws
of the United States relating to
insolvent debtors…has been committed or
that an investigation should be had in
connection therewith, shall report to
the appropriate United States Attorney
all the facts and circumstances of the
case, the names of the witnesses and the
offense or offenses believed to have
been committed. 	Where one of such
officers has made such report, the
others need not do so.
(b) 	The United States Attorney thereupon
shall inquire into the facts and report
thereon to the judge, and if it appears
probable that any such offense has been
committed, shall without delay, present
the matter to the grand jury, unless
upon inquiry and examination he decides
that the ends of public justice do not
require investigation or prosecution, in
which case he shall report the facts to
the Attorney General for his direction.
Notably absent from that statute is any provision saying the
court shall report upon the application or motion of a debtor or
any other individual. 	Further, the decision whether to proceed
with a prosecution is made only by the United States Attorney if
it appears probable that an offense has been committed. 	The
Filed 06/23/26 Case 20-23267 Doc 546

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Attorney General has the ultimate discretion to proceed to
prosecution. 	This court does not.
A debtor cannot require a court to refer matters for
criminal prosecution. 	Mays v. CitiBank, N.A., 04-20227-CIV-
Lenard/Simonton; 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46358*10 (S.D. Fla. 2005)
aff’d 180 Fed. Appx. 143 (11th Circuit, 2006); Virginia Hospital
Center Arlington Health Systems v. Akl (In re Akl), 2010
Bankruptcy LEXIS 1338, (Bankr. D.C. April 23, 2010). 	A judge may
report certain conduct to the United States Attorney, but the
court has no authority to determine whether a prosecution should
occur. 	Gibbs v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (In re Gibbs), 19-
54809; 2022 Bankruptcy LEXIS 579*17 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. March 4,
2022).
So, the question is not whether the court must refer the
matter based upon a debtor or any party’s request. 	The answer is
no. 	The real question is whether this court was presented with
reasonable grounds for belief that a bankruptcy crime has been
committed. 	Those grounds do not exist here.
II. 	This court Does Not Have Reasonable Grounds to Believe a
Bankruptcy Crime Has Occurred.
The bankruptcy crimes referenced in 18 U.S.C. § 3057 do not
relate to probate or trust proceedings predating a bankruptcy
case by more than six years. 	For example, 18 U.S.C. § 152 makes
it a crime for a person to “knowingly and fraudulently”:
• 	Conceal from an official property belonging to the
estate;
• 	Present a false oath in relation to any case;
Filed 06/23/26 Case 20-23267 Doc 546

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
• 	Presents a false claim;
• 	Receives material property after a bankruptcy filing
and conceals same;
• 	Commits bribery for acting or not acting in a
bankruptcy case;
• 	With intent to defeat provisions of Title 11, conceals
any of its property or as an agent of a corporation;
• 	Falsifies books in contemplation of filing or
thereafter relating to property or the financial
affairs of a debtor;
• 	After filing of the bankruptcy withholds from an
officer of the court any recorded information relating
to property or the financial affairs of a debtor.
The court has paraphrased the proscribed activity. 	However,
alleged conspiratorial acts of fraud or other crimes relating to
probate or trust proceedings are not bankruptcy crimes. 	They did
not affect this bankruptcy case. 	As another example, 18 U.S.C. §
153 proscribes embezzlement from the estate by an officer of the
bankruptcy court. 	18 U.S.C. § 154 proscribes an adverse interest
by an officer of the bankruptcy court. 	18 U.S.C. § 157
proscribes devising a scheme or artifice to defraud and filing a
fraudulent petition; filing a document to deceive; makeing a
false or fraudulent representation, claim or promise concerning
or in relation to a proceeding under Title 11 before or after
filing or in relation to a proceeding falsely asserted to be
pending. 	None of those crimes are even remotely related to the
alleged actions at issue here.
There is simply no reasonable grounds for this court to
refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney or another prosecutorial
agency. 	There is no reasonable grounds for belief that a
bankruptcy crime has been committed. 	Gibbs. 	Section 3057 is not
Filed 06/23/26 Case 20-23267 Doc 546

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
a general crime referral statute.7 	It is specific to bankruptcy
crimes and crimes relating to insolvent debtors.
III. The Debtors Have No Standing to Request Such a Referral.
As mentioned above, 18 U.S.C. § 3057 does not confer
standing on litigants to request such a referral from the
bankruptcy court. 	In re Baroni, 643 B.R. 253, 273 (Bankr. C.D.
Cal. 2022). 	The text of the statute speaks only to the
obligation of a judge (or others not relevant here) to make a
referral if there are reasonable grounds for believing that a
criminal violation has occurred. 	It says nothing about the
making of a referral upon request of a party in interest. 	Id.
The statute expresses no intent by Congress to authorize any
party litigant to request let alone require a court or other
officer of the bankruptcy estate to report anything.
IV. 	Other Reasons Why a Referral is not Mandated Here.
There are other reasons why a referral is not required here.
First, it is unnecessary. 	All persons already have the
unfettered right to report potential bankruptcy crimes or other
crimes for investigation directly to the United States Attorney.
Baroni 643 B.R. at 275; In re Valentine, 386, 387-88 (Bankr. E.D.
Mich. 1996). 	Shon or Jill can report crimes to the appropriate
agency.
///
7 See, In re Canoe Mfg. Co., 466 B.R. 251, 263 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2012); McKnew
v. Wilson (In re Wilson), 2015 Bankr. LEXIS 2205 *11 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. July 2,
2015); Gibbs at *17-18. 	Under 28 U.S.C. § 586(a)(3)(F), the United States
Trustee has a broader reporting duty.
Filed 06/23/26 Case 20-23267 Doc 546

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
Second, the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel has
held that a creditor has no due process rights to or an
opportunity to be heard before a criminal referral is made.
Seidel v. Durkin (In re Goodwin) 194 B.R. 214, 223 (B.A.P. 9th
1996); Baroni, 643 B.R. at 275. 	This supports the referral
process based on a reasonable ground for believing certain crimes
are committed. 	It is the specified entities that have the duty
to report. 	The statute does not support a motion hearing.
Third, application of 18 U.S.C. § 3057 in the manner
requested here would upset the criminal investigative process.
The ultimate charging body in the federal system is the Grand
Jury. 	If 18 U.S.C. § 3057 were intended to be applied in the
manner asserted by Shon here, there would be a public process as
opposed to it being subject to restrictions on public disclosure
as part of the Grand Jury process. 	Persons names and reputations
could be subject to public scrutiny before the criminal process
plays out. 	If a referral is made after a motion is presented to
a bankruptcy judge and the Grand Jury decides not to indict, the
damage to the reputation may very well have already occurred and
be extremely difficult to reverse.8
Fourth, the statute of limitations for bankruptcy crimes has
expired. 	Even if any of the acts involved here amounted to a
bankruptcy crime – they do not – the statute of limitations may
have run. 	The statute of limitations for bankruptcy crimes with
the exception of concealment of assets of a debtor is five years
from the offense. 	The actions here occurred in 2014 through
8 Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct, Rule 3.10(a) provides that a lawyer shall not
threaten to present criminal, administrative or disciplinary charges to obtain
an advantage in a civil dispute.
Filed 06/23/26 Case 20-23267 Doc 546

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
2018. 	The statute of limitations ran in 2023 or 2024 assuming a
continuing offense. 	18 U.S.C. § 3284. 	18 U.S.C. § 3284 provides
a five year statute of limitations for concealment of assets of
the debtor in a case under Title 11. 	That crime, if applicable
here – it is not – is considered a continuing offense until the
debtor shall have been finally discharged. 	The period of
limitations then begins to run. 	18 U.S.C. 3284. 	The debtors
here received their discharge on February 17, 2021. 	The statute
of limitations ran February 16, 2026 and expired. 	As mentioned,
the crimes Shon alleges occurred here do not include concealment
of assets of a debtor. 	Contesting the estate’s rights to assets
is not concealment.
This court expresses no opinion on alleged non-bankruptcy
related crimes Shon contends may have occurred.
CONCLUSION
This court does not doubt the Treanors’ sincerity. 	Indeed,
they fought this fight for many years and eventually prevailed at
least in the Solano County matter. 	The court certainly
understands how the Treanors feel that they have not been taken
seriously by the various law enforcement agencies to whom they
have presented their facts. 	But this court’s authority to refer
this matter to the United States Attorney requires that this
court have a reasonable ground for believing that a violation of
the bankruptcy crime statutes has occurred. 	For the forgoing
reasons, this court does not have that belief. 	Nevertheless, the
court does not want to preclude the Treanors from continuing to
approach law enforcement agencies should they desire to do so.
Filed 06/23/26 Case 20-23267 Doc 546

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
So, this court will deny this motion without prejudice. 	A
conforming order will issue.9
Dated: 	By the Court
René Lastreto II, Judge
United States Bankruptcy Court
9 The forgoing constitutes the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law
under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 52 (Fed. R. Bankr. Proc. 7052). 	If any finding of
fact is deemed a conclusion of law it is adopted as such. 	If any conclusion
of law is construed as a finding of fact, it is adopted as such.
Jun 23, 2026
Filed 06/23/26 Case 20-23267 Doc 546

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
Instructions to Clerk of Court
Service List - Not Part of Order/Judgment
The Clerk of Court is instructed to send the Order/Judgment
or other court generated document transmitted herewith to the
parties below. 	The Clerk of Court will send the Order via the
BNC or, if checked 	, via the U.S. mail.
Shon Jason Treanor
4390 Emerald Ridge Lane
Fairfield, CA 94534
Jill Diana Treanor
2100 West Texas Street #52
Fairfield, CA 94533
Office of the U.S. Trustee
United States Courthouse
2500 Tulare Street, Room 1401
Fresno, CA 93721
Filed 06/23/26 Case 20-23267 Doc 546