UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
__________________________________________
Samuel H Sloan a/k/a M. Ismail Sloan
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 6:09-cv-00005-nkm
-against-
No. 09-1476
Christopher P. Smith, Sheriff J. L. Ayers III, Michael W. Cox,
William Starke Mundy III, James C. Turk, William G. Petty,
Richard S. Miller, Roy B. Willett, Lawrence Janow,
Michael Gamble, Stephen R. Pattison, Morgan Scott III,
Ray Fitzgerald, John P. Butler, Eugene Wingfield,
Frank G. Davidson III, Richard Groff, Lisa L. Schenkel,
Leighton S. Houck, Killis T. Howard, Sue H. Roe,
Catherine H. Kennedy, Dorchen Leidholdt, Rosemonde Pierre-Louis,
Jill Zuccardy, Alexander Karam, Salvatore J. Modica,
Charles Roberts, Jay Roberts, Lane Vance, Verio.net, Khalid Shaikh Muhammed, George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, United States Department of Justice, United States of America
Defendants
__________________________________________
PETITION FOR REHEARING AND
SUGGESTION THAT THE REHEARING BE EN BANC
__________________________________________
Plaintiff-Appellant hereby submits the within petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc because the petitioner believes that the panel of this honorable court must have failed to understand that one of the judges of this panel is specifically named as a defendant in this case and thus is disqualified from appearing in this case, as the case is against him.
1. Specifically, paragraph 29 of the complaint herein alleges: “In addition, the Fourth Circuit at that time was controlled by a judge even worse than Judge Turk, namely the rabid right wing lunatic Chief Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III.”
2. This same “rabid right wing lunatic Chief Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III” made himself a judge on the panel of judges who decided this appeal.
3. Thus, this decision cannot be allowed to stand and this rehearing en banc must be granted.
4. The judges on the panel that “decided” this appeal are J. Harvie Wilkinson III, M. Blane Michael and Clyde H. Hamilton. All three of these judges are judges who date back to the time when the kidnappings that underlie this complaint occurred. None of the many more recently appointed judges were on this panel.
5. This case arose because the Deputy Sheriff of Amherst County Virginia, Christopher P. Smith, contacted all of the Internet service providers of Plaintiff and threatened them with arrest and criminal prosecution of they did not remove Plaintiff's web pages and email address from the Internet. Because of this action by the Deputy Sheriff of Amherst County, Plaintiff's primary websites and his primary email address and contact list was deleted. This has caused great economic harm to plaintiff and financial loss to his business of selling chess books on the Internet. A simple Internet search will show that Plaintiff's websites of:
www.ishipress.com
www.samsloan.com and
www.shamema.com
which previously were popular websites with thousands of hits per day, now no longer exist.
6. Paragraph 14 of the complaint herein alleges that plaintiff's then 8-year-old daughter, Shamema Honzagool Sloan, and his 80-year-old mother, Dr. Helen Marjorie Sloan, were kidnapped in 1990. His mother kidnapped in Bangkok, Thailand and his daughter was kidnapped in the United Arab Emirates. The kidnappers “were allowed to keep the kidnapped child through an 'Old Boys Network' of corrupt local Lynchburg Virginia judges and city and county officials. The reason that these corrupt judges allowed Roberts to keep the child that they had kidnapped was that they were all controlled by Jerry Falwell.” The complaint alleges that these corrupt judges and officials participated in the kidnapping of this child for two reasons (1) to go to Heaven as Promised by Jerry Falwell and (2) to gain great wealth while still here on Earth due to their mistaken belief that the family of Plaintiff was one of great wealth.
7. These corrupt judges obviously included Judge Norman K. Moon, who at that time was not yet a federal judge but was a Virginia State Court of Appeals judge. Because Judge Moon was the only Lynchburg Judge on the Virginia Court of Appeals, every time the plaintiff here attempted to appeal, the appeal came to Judge Moon and Judge Moon had every appeal dismissed on one pretext or another. Plaintiff filed about six appeals to the Virginia Court of Appeals. All of those appeals came to Judge Moon and all were summarily and immediately dismissed without any of the normal submission of the record and briefs and the normal procedures that all proper appellate courts go through.
8. Thus, the fix was clearly in. It all started with Judge Lawrence Janow, who, as the complaint alleges, masterminded and planned for the kidnapping of this child during a meeting held on May 21, 1986 with Frank G. Davidson III, attorney for Charles and Shelby Roberts. Later, as other fellow judges realized that one of their fellow judges was a criminal kidnapper, they rallied around and protected the judge by instantly dismissing every case and every appeal, thereby preventing a hearing of any kind into this kidnapping.
9. The sua sponte instant dismissal of the case was by Judge Moon in the District Court, the same judge who dismissed all these appeals back in the period 1990-1993 when Plaintiff was trying to bring these issues before the state courts, followed by the dismissal of the appeal by J. Harvie Wilkinson III of this court, the same judge who dismissed all of these appeals back then, when Plaintiff tried to bring the issues before this court. This is all part of a continuing pattern of covering up the kidnapping of an 8-year-old child.
10. It is obvious that this was a kidnapping because there is no way that this child, Shamema Honzagool Sloan, could ever have legally even arrived in the United States of America. Neither of the parents nor any close relative of this child resided in America. The mother resided in her native Pakistan. The father and grandmother resided with the child in the United Arab Emirates. No relative of this child authorized the bringing of this child across international boundaries. Thus, the child was clearly kidnapped.
11. What we have here is a criminal gang of judges bent on kidnapping an 8-year-old child away from BOTH of her parents. Please note that the mother has never relinquished her rights to custody of this child either. There is simply no legal way that any third party could ever have obtained custody of this child by legal means without a showing that both of the parents were unfit. In this case, neither parent was shown to be unfit nor was ever there even an allegation that either parent was unfit.
12. The statement is often made that this child was “better off” being kidnapped from her parents and brought to America and to Virginia. The Jerry Falwellites in Lynchburg Virginia often make the same argument about the African slaves, saying that the slaves were better off being brought to America for sale than if they had been allowed to stay in their home countries.
13. It must be emphasized that this was not the normal child custody case between the mother and father of a child. This was a case brought by unrelated third-persons who were members of a fanatical religious group with no legal claim on this child but who wanted this child for their religious purposes.
14. What makes this case different from the Branch Davidians and other extremist religious groups (none of whom have ever been accused of kidnapping somebody else's child) is that the group that kidnapped Shamema Honzagool Sloan, the 8-year-old daughter of the plaintiff, were members of a supposedly main stream religious organization, the Jerry Falwellites, who controlled the politicians, the judges and the courts of Lynchburg, Virginia.
15. Judge Moon himself is one of those Falwellites. He regularly attended the Falwell Church up until the death of Jerry Falwell. Judge Moon was a devout worshiper of Jerry Falwell. He was a devoted follower and practitioner of Falwellian Doctrines, even though Judge Moon lives out in Rivermont, near the home of Plaintiff and his parents.
16. This alone, along with Judge Moon's personal association with most of the named defendants in this case, including especially Judge Turk, was more than enough to disqualify him from being a judge in this case.
17. However, Plaintiff knew that the fix was in and that all of these judges are all criminals when he filed this case. Therefore, the complaint herein is concerned primarily with another issue, namely the actions of Christopher P. Smith, Deputy Sheriff of Amherst County, Virginia, who contacted all of the Internet Service Providers that carried the websites of Plaintiff and threatened them with arrest and criminal prosecution if they did not remove from the Internet the websites that linked the Sheriff of Amherst Country Virginia to the kidnapping of Plaintiff's daughter and mother. Deputy Smith told the Internet Service Providers that Plaintiff's websites violated Virginia Law by linking these kidnappings to a law enforcement officer, namely the sheriff, his boss.
18. Because many Internet Services Providers such as AOL are headquartered in Virginia, the threat of arrest by a Virginia's Law Enforcement officer such as Deputy Sheriff Christopher Smith was a matter of serious concern and as a result all of Plaintiff's websites were deleted except for one minor website in California, and in that case the pages concerning the kidnapping of Plaintiff's mother and daughter were stripped off of the website.
19. Subsequent to the filing of this lawsuit, Deputy Christopher Smith shot a man in Amherst County and for that reason was suspended from duty by the Amherst County Sheriff's Department. Later, a grand jury in Amherst County was convened but the grand jury failed to return an indictment of Deputy Smith. Deputy Sheriff Smith was quoted in the Lynchburg newspapers as stating that he expected to be reinstated after the failure of the grand jury to indict him. Apparently this has happened, because Deputy Smith is now again listed as a member of the Amherst County Sheriff's Department.
20. Judge Moon now as a district court judge stated that Plaintiff had “lost custody of his daughter in the 1980s”. This is absolutely not true. The subject child was born in New York City. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is an order of the Bronx New York Supreme Court awarding custody of the child to the mother, Honzagool, with weekly visitation to the father, the Plaintiff here.
21. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is an order of the same court, the Bronx Supreme Court, modifying the original order and awarding custody to the father, the Plaintiff here.
22. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is an order dated April 1986 by Judge Janow of the Amherst County Juvenile Domestic Relations Court awarding legal custody of the child to Ismail Sloan, the plaintiff here. There is legal doubt as to whether Judge Janow had jurisdiction to issue this order, as jurisdiction has never been transferred from New York to Virginia, but this seemed to be of no moment at the time. It later became apparent in retrospect that this order was part of a long range plan to give custody to the Roberts, the clients of Mr. Davidson, with whom Judge Janow had secretly met at that time. The plan was to take custody away from the mother and give it to the father and then after that to take it away from the father and give it to the Roberts. This was a long range plan or, in short, a conspiracy.
23. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is another order, this one dated August 25, 1986, again giving legal custody to the father, the Plaintiff here. Plaintiff actually never received this order until months later, as he was not around when the order was issued, but again it seemed to be of no moment because the Plaintiff had custody in every jurisdiction.
24. At the time of the date of this last order, Plaintiff had the absolute legal right to take the child anywhere he wanted, and did so.
25. A few days later, Shelby Roberts, realizing that she had been dismissed as the child's babysitter and that Plaintiff and the child were no longer in Virginia, filed for legal custody through her attorney, Frank G. Davidson III. This was the first time the Roberts had ever appeared in this case. Of course, the Amherst County Court had no jurisdiction because the child was not in Amherst County or even in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
26. Four years passed. During this four years, the Roberts and their Falwell allies made incessant and repeated efforts to have this child kidnapped and brought to them. Kidnapping attempts were made in Argentina, Sri Lanka, Thailand and perhaps in other places as well. The child was eventually kidnapped in October 1990 in Fujairah, United Emirates.
27. The next order was an order by Judge Janow dated October 24, 1990 stating “the child having been returned” to Amherst County Virginia, and “the child having been returned to the United States” after having been “wrongfully” removed from that county. This order is Annexed as Exhibit E. One wonders what “wrongful” act Judge Janow was referring to, as Plaintiff was never charged with that. More significantly, Judge Janow uses the passive voice. He says that the child “having been returned”. He makes no mention of whom returned the child or how the child had been returned. In fact, the child had been brought to Amherst County by Charles Roberts, who had picked up the child at Washington National Airport after paying $16,000 to professional kidnappers to kidnap this child.
28. Obviously, Charles Roberts should have been arrested as soon as it was discovered what he had done. The reason Charles Roberts was not arrested was that the Sheriff of Amherst County was a neighbor of Charles Roberts and attended the same church with Charles Roberts. Thus began the long history of this case of police officials and judges covering up a heinous criminal act in the name of their religion.
29. Plaintiff brought numerous cases in both state and federal court to redress this obvious case of kidnapping. Many of the lawyers and judges recused themselves, realizing that this case was a hot potato. This left only the few completely crooked and dishonest lawyers and judges as the only ones who would handle the case. Those completely crooked and dishonest lawyers and judges are named as defendants in this lawsuit.
30. Plaintiff tried many different approaches. For example, Plaintiff sued the Director of the Department of Education of Virginia in Sloan vs. Spagnolo, on the ground that this child was not attending school in violation of the compulsory education law of Virginia. Followers of Jerry Falwell never allow their children to attend school, because schools teach heathen beliefs such as Evolution. Thus, the child of Plaintiff never attended school as long as she was under the control of the Falwellites. Like all other cases, this suit was instantly and immediately dismissed by Judge Turk, who is as crooked a judge as has ever been born.
31. The surprising thing about Judge Turk is that he rode up and down the elevator with my father every day for twenty years. My Father worked in the federal building in Lynchburg, which is now City Hall, in the same building with Judge Turk. My father, Leroy B. Sloan. was the director of the Lynchburg Branch of the Audit Division of the Internal Revenue Service. Judge Turk was a federal judge. His office was a few doors down the hall from the office of my father. I assume that Judge Turk knew that Leroy B. Sloan was my father.
32. One person who certainly did know who my father was was Frank G. Davidson III, attorney for Charles and Shelby Roberts. This is because my father was an attorney for the IRS. Frank G. Davidson III and his father Frank G. Davidson Jr. had as a substantial part of his practice the representation of tax cheats. These cases often came before Judge Turk, with Frank. G. Davidson representing the tax cheat and my father representing the government. In fact, one of my theories as to why Frank G. Davidson III was so intent on kidnapping my children was to get revenge on my father for prosecuting so many of his clients.
33. Another case I brought was Sloan vs. United States of America as a counter claim to the case United States of America vs. Sloan. My basis for this suit was false arrest. I obviously had a strong case because I had been arrested three times by the FBI, each time at the behest of the Falwell Group. However, in spite of being arrested three times, once in Guam, once in Honolulu and once in San Francisco, I had never been charged with anything. Each arrest was for the purpose of holding me just long enough to get my child away from me so as to get custody of my children. There was never any intent by the government to actually prosecute me for anything. Thus, it was clear cases of false arrest.
34. Again, Judge Turk dismissed this case instantly the same day it was filed, even though my complaint included more 600 pages of exhibits which Judge Turk obviously never read. This time, Judge Turk said that my case was improper because I was trying to overturn a state court conviction. This was not true. My suit against the federal government could not possibly be for the purpose of overturning a state court conviction. Judge Turk must think that I am awfully stupid if he believed that, or else it must be Judge Turk who is the stupid one.
35. All of these obviously wrong decisions by Judge Turk were appealed up to Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, the same “rabid right wing lunatic Chief Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III” that dismissed this appeal too. It as long been obvious that as long as the same group of crooked and dishonest judges keep assigning these cases to themselves, it will never been possible for Plaintiff to win a case or even to obtain a hearing on these issues..
POINT II
The Rule requiring all pro se appellants to file only an “informal brief” deprives pro se appellants of their constitutional rights
36. The Fourth Circuit has a rule that no other circuit has. The rule is that pro se appellants are not allowed to file a normal brief and appendix. Instead, they are limited to filing what the circuit calls an “informal brief”. This informal brief is essentially a two-page question and answer questionnaire, with questions like “what are you complaining about” and “what do you want the court to do”, with only two lines allowed for handwritten answers to these questions.
37. This questionnaire is obviously insufficient for a complex case such as this one. Plaintiff-Appellant demanded the right to file a normal brief and appendix, citing case like a normal appeal does. This right was denied.
38. Plaintiff-Appellant is forced to point out that he has the distinction of having argued orally before the United States Supreme Court and having won a 9-0 decision of that court, the only pro se non-lawyer in the 20th century to have done so. SEC vs Samuel H. Sloan, 436 US 103 (1978). Thus, Plaintiff knows how to write and file a persuasive brief. This court's rule treating non-lawyers differently from lawyers is a clear deprivation of constitutional rights. It would be different if this circuit made it an option allowing pro se appellants to file an informal brief. In the Fourth Circuit, an informal brief is “required” and a normal brief that lawyers file is not allowed. On this ground alone, the decision of this court must be reversed.
WHEREFORE, for all of the reasons set forth above, this petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc should be granted and, upon rehearing, the decision of the district court that sua sponte dismissed this case must be reversed.
/s/_______________________
Samuel H. Sloan
1664 Davidson Ave., Apt. 1B
Bronx NY 10453-7877
1-917-507-7226
1-917-659-3397
samhsloan@gmail.com
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Motion to Stay Eviction and Dismiss Eviction Case
SAMUEL H. SLOAN
2550 Webster Street
San Francisco CA 94115
samhsloan@gmail.com
917-507-7226
646-938-0454
917-659-3397
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO
David A. Bradlow, Chapter 11 Trustee for the
Bankruptcy Estate of Arden Van Upp,
Plaintiff
- against -
Samuel H. Sloan and Does 1 to 10, Inclusive
Defendants
Case No. 09-631354
Motion to Stay Eviction Proceedings and to Dismiss this case.
Samuel H. Sloan, being duly sworn deposes and states:
1. Without proper notice to me, the Trustee in Bankruptcy is seeking to evict me from 2550 Webster Street, a residence I have maintained for at least the last 18 years since 1991.
2. I first learned of this when a neighbor informed that the sheriff had been by seeking to evict me. As I had no knowledge of this, I looked around and found an envelope addressed to me with no return address on it. I had not opened the envelope because it has no return address on it and therefore I had assumed that it was junk mail.
3. When I opened this envelope, I found that it contained a document entitled “Prejudgment Claim of Right to Possession”.
4. I attach a copy of this envelope as an exhibit. The envelope is hand addressed, almost certainly in the handwriting of the trustee, David A. Bradlow. I request that a sample of his handwriting be taken to determine whether he wrote my name and address on the envelope and, if he did not do it, who did.
5. I have resided on the top floor of 2550 Webster Street since at least 1991. I maintain the house, pay the PG&E Gas and Electric Bills and I also help Arden Van Upp, the owner, with her legal matters. I have known her since 1966.
6. I filed a motion last month in federal bankruptcy court, In Re Arden Van Upp, Case No. 09-31932 TEC, to remove David Bradlow as trustee and dismiss this bankruptcy case. My motion is available on PACER and is still pending. It has not been acted upon by the judge. Even if it is denied, Mr. Bradlow's days as trustee are numbered. Mark my words, by two weeks from today, David Bradlow will not be the trustee any more. I will not tell you how this will happen, but it will happen.
7. The Trustee, David A. Bradlow, is a con man and a scam artist. He is also a liar. He commits perjury in his affidavit attached to the eviction proceeding when he states, “if Defendant is in possession of the premises it is without permission of Plaintiff, the bankruptcy estate, or Arden Van Upp.” He is well aware that I have the full permission of Arden Van Upp to continue to reside on the premises. He is desperately lying to try to sell the house at 2550 Webster Street so he can get a cut on the sale price. The house is appraised at $7.5 million. The trustee wants to sell the house for only $2.55 million to one of his cronies by the name of Patrick A. Kenealy, who is represented by Caryl Welborn, 220 Montgomery Street, Suite 417, San Francisco, California 94104, Tel: (415) 513-3606; Fax: (415) 78201415, Email: caryl@cwelborn.com.
8. Anybody can see that this property at 2550 Webster Street is worth vastly more than $2.55 million. The house is a city, state and nationally protected landmark and heritage. It is on the tourist maps of San Francisco. A gaggle of tourists walk by the house every day and take pictures of it.
9. The trustee, David A. Bradlow, is trying to steal the house, pure and simple. In fact, there is an article about this in the San Francisco Examiner for September 20, 2009 entitled “a steal” about the obvious corruption on the part of the trustee for wanting to sell the house for such a ridiculously low amount.
10. The selling price set by Mr. Bradlow is so low that not only will there be no money left after the sale, but the debtor will be even more deeply in debt. There will not be enough money left to pay the mortgage after all the expenses, plus Mr. Bradlow's cut and fee (which he has left out of his calculations submitted to the court). This will enable him to go after the other properties owned by the debtor, so that he can steal those properties too.
11. In addition to stealing the house by selling it for a ridiculously low price and taking a cut and a fee, Mr. Bradlow is churning legal fees. His team of lawyers including Elizabeth Berke-Dreyfus of the friendly law firm of Wendel, Rosen, Black and Dean, 1111 Broadway, 24th Floor, Oakland CA 94607, is charging the debtor $425 an hour to evict me!!! Imagine that I am such an important person that they need to pay $425 an hour to get rid of me. Elizabeth Berke-Dreyfus has made numerous court appearances in this eviction case and of course she charges $425 an hour to take the BART over from Oakland too. Do not worry. She will get paid. The crooked trustee has already taken $100,000 out of the debtor's bank accounts and you can be sure that he will not return even one penny of it. All of it will be used up in “legal fees” to evict Sam Sloan, plus other ridiculous boondoggles such as putting plastic sheets on top of the house, which the trustee has done twice in the last few weeks and is the most ridiculous and absurd thing imaginable.
12. The reason the trustee, David A. Bradlow, is so desperately trying to have me evicted is because I am the person who is stopping him from selling the house and reaping these vast profits he will get from stealing the house. He has a hard time selling the house with me in it. Meanwhile, due slightly to my efforts, we are close to re-financing the house. Mr. Bradlow wants to sell the house to his friend on December 22, 2009. That is the date he has set. He wants me to be evicted before then. He has set it up so that it is a foregone conclusion that his friend, Mr. Patrick Kenealy, will get the house. The restrictions on anybody else who tries to bid against Mr. Kenealy are so onerous that nobody can make it. To begin with, any bidder must put up a non-refundable cash deposit in advance of $78,000. He must also prove that he has the in excess of $2.55 million in the bank. Even if he meets all these requirements, the trustee can unilaterally reject any bidder and award the house to his friend anyway.
13. I fully intend to seek criminal indictments against Mr. Bradlow and to put him in prison for a long time. I am not kidding either. Mr. Bradlow needs to serve a long prison sentence, even though he will have to be kept protected in the gay tank.
14. Please understand that I am not against Mr. Bradlow just because he is a flaming faggot. I am a long time supporter of gay rights. I encourage them to come out and do whatever they feel like doing with each other. I hope they have a good time, too. However, I do not want gays coming into my house and especially not into my bedroom. Mr. Bradlow is trying to steal my home which I have maintained for the last 18 years. It is not because Mr. Bradlow is a queer that I object, and, after all, this is San Francisco. It is because Mr. David A. Bradlow is a thief.
WHEREFORE, for all of the reasons set forth above, the order of eviction should be vacated, these proceedings should be stayed, and this case should be dismissed.
/s/_______________________
Samuel H. Sloan
2550 Webster Street
San Francisco CA 94115
samhsloan@gmail.com
917-507-7226
646-938-0454
917-659-3397
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO
David A. Bradlow, Chapter 11 Trustee for the
Bankruptcy Estate of Arden Van Upp,
Plaintiff
- against -
Samuel H. Sloan and Does 1 to 10, Inclusive
Defendants
Case No. 09-631354
Motion to Stay Eviction Proceedings and to Dismiss this case.
Samuel H. Sloan, being duly sworn deposes and states:
1. Without proper notice to me, the Trustee in Bankruptcy is seeking to evict me from 2550 Webster Street, a residence I have maintained for at least the last 18 years since 1991.
2. I first learned of this when a neighbor informed that the sheriff had been by seeking to evict me. As I had no knowledge of this, I looked around and found an envelope addressed to me with no return address on it. I had not opened the envelope because it has no return address on it and therefore I had assumed that it was junk mail.
3. When I opened this envelope, I found that it contained a document entitled “Prejudgment Claim of Right to Possession”.
4. I attach a copy of this envelope as an exhibit. The envelope is hand addressed, almost certainly in the handwriting of the trustee, David A. Bradlow. I request that a sample of his handwriting be taken to determine whether he wrote my name and address on the envelope and, if he did not do it, who did.
5. I have resided on the top floor of 2550 Webster Street since at least 1991. I maintain the house, pay the PG&E Gas and Electric Bills and I also help Arden Van Upp, the owner, with her legal matters. I have known her since 1966.
6. I filed a motion last month in federal bankruptcy court, In Re Arden Van Upp, Case No. 09-31932 TEC, to remove David Bradlow as trustee and dismiss this bankruptcy case. My motion is available on PACER and is still pending. It has not been acted upon by the judge. Even if it is denied, Mr. Bradlow's days as trustee are numbered. Mark my words, by two weeks from today, David Bradlow will not be the trustee any more. I will not tell you how this will happen, but it will happen.
7. The Trustee, David A. Bradlow, is a con man and a scam artist. He is also a liar. He commits perjury in his affidavit attached to the eviction proceeding when he states, “if Defendant is in possession of the premises it is without permission of Plaintiff, the bankruptcy estate, or Arden Van Upp.” He is well aware that I have the full permission of Arden Van Upp to continue to reside on the premises. He is desperately lying to try to sell the house at 2550 Webster Street so he can get a cut on the sale price. The house is appraised at $7.5 million. The trustee wants to sell the house for only $2.55 million to one of his cronies by the name of Patrick A. Kenealy, who is represented by Caryl Welborn, 220 Montgomery Street, Suite 417, San Francisco, California 94104, Tel: (415) 513-3606; Fax: (415) 78201415, Email: caryl@cwelborn.com.
8. Anybody can see that this property at 2550 Webster Street is worth vastly more than $2.55 million. The house is a city, state and nationally protected landmark and heritage. It is on the tourist maps of San Francisco. A gaggle of tourists walk by the house every day and take pictures of it.
9. The trustee, David A. Bradlow, is trying to steal the house, pure and simple. In fact, there is an article about this in the San Francisco Examiner for September 20, 2009 entitled “a steal” about the obvious corruption on the part of the trustee for wanting to sell the house for such a ridiculously low amount.
10. The selling price set by Mr. Bradlow is so low that not only will there be no money left after the sale, but the debtor will be even more deeply in debt. There will not be enough money left to pay the mortgage after all the expenses, plus Mr. Bradlow's cut and fee (which he has left out of his calculations submitted to the court). This will enable him to go after the other properties owned by the debtor, so that he can steal those properties too.
11. In addition to stealing the house by selling it for a ridiculously low price and taking a cut and a fee, Mr. Bradlow is churning legal fees. His team of lawyers including Elizabeth Berke-Dreyfus of the friendly law firm of Wendel, Rosen, Black and Dean, 1111 Broadway, 24th Floor, Oakland CA 94607, is charging the debtor $425 an hour to evict me!!! Imagine that I am such an important person that they need to pay $425 an hour to get rid of me. Elizabeth Berke-Dreyfus has made numerous court appearances in this eviction case and of course she charges $425 an hour to take the BART over from Oakland too. Do not worry. She will get paid. The crooked trustee has already taken $100,000 out of the debtor's bank accounts and you can be sure that he will not return even one penny of it. All of it will be used up in “legal fees” to evict Sam Sloan, plus other ridiculous boondoggles such as putting plastic sheets on top of the house, which the trustee has done twice in the last few weeks and is the most ridiculous and absurd thing imaginable.
12. The reason the trustee, David A. Bradlow, is so desperately trying to have me evicted is because I am the person who is stopping him from selling the house and reaping these vast profits he will get from stealing the house. He has a hard time selling the house with me in it. Meanwhile, due slightly to my efforts, we are close to re-financing the house. Mr. Bradlow wants to sell the house to his friend on December 22, 2009. That is the date he has set. He wants me to be evicted before then. He has set it up so that it is a foregone conclusion that his friend, Mr. Patrick Kenealy, will get the house. The restrictions on anybody else who tries to bid against Mr. Kenealy are so onerous that nobody can make it. To begin with, any bidder must put up a non-refundable cash deposit in advance of $78,000. He must also prove that he has the in excess of $2.55 million in the bank. Even if he meets all these requirements, the trustee can unilaterally reject any bidder and award the house to his friend anyway.
13. I fully intend to seek criminal indictments against Mr. Bradlow and to put him in prison for a long time. I am not kidding either. Mr. Bradlow needs to serve a long prison sentence, even though he will have to be kept protected in the gay tank.
14. Please understand that I am not against Mr. Bradlow just because he is a flaming faggot. I am a long time supporter of gay rights. I encourage them to come out and do whatever they feel like doing with each other. I hope they have a good time, too. However, I do not want gays coming into my house and especially not into my bedroom. Mr. Bradlow is trying to steal my home which I have maintained for the last 18 years. It is not because Mr. Bradlow is a queer that I object, and, after all, this is San Francisco. It is because Mr. David A. Bradlow is a thief.
WHEREFORE, for all of the reasons set forth above, the order of eviction should be vacated, these proceedings should be stayed, and this case should be dismissed.
/s/_______________________
Samuel H. Sloan
Friday, November 27, 2009
Sixth American Chess Congress, New York 1889 by William Steinitz
I sent this book to the printers yesterday, Thanksgiving Day, where I spent Thanksgiving in the company of my devoted computer.
This book of the New York 1889 Chess Congress by William Steinitz will be out and published by the middle of next week.
I expect that this book will be my best selling chess book because it is otherwise unavailable.
If you want this book relatively inexpensively, you should buy in the Barnes and Noble website below now, because they are offering it at $9 below list price. They always offer my books at a deeply discounted pre-publication price for one or two days. Since you know that the book will be out in three days more, you will not have to wait long.
Sam Sloan
New York 1889 at Barnes and Noble
New York 1889 at Amazon
This book of the New York 1889 Chess Congress by William Steinitz will be out and published by the middle of next week.
I expect that this book will be my best selling chess book because it is otherwise unavailable.
If you want this book relatively inexpensively, you should buy in the Barnes and Noble website below now, because they are offering it at $9 below list price. They always offer my books at a deeply discounted pre-publication price for one or two days. Since you know that the book will be out in three days more, you will not have to wait long.
Sam Sloan
New York 1889 at Barnes and Noble
New York 1889 at Amazon
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
"A Reader of Pashto" by Herbert Penzl has been published by Ishi Press
"A Reader of Pashto" by Herbert Penzl has been published by Ishi Press
It is available on Barnes and Noble at
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ISBN=0923891714
and on Amazon at
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891714
It will also be available in India soon at
http://www.flipkart.com/search-books/ismail+sloan
Pashto is spoken by 40 to 60 million people in Afghanistan and Pakistan. There are also speakers in India, Iran and Tajikistan.
After a brief introduction to the use of this reader and a summary of the Pashto language, the author presents 25 units of reading selections and correlated exercises. A typical lesson consists of-- (1) a short Pashto text in typewritten Arabic-Persian form, (2) a Romanized transcription of this text indicating pronunciation, (3) a glossary of new words in Romanized transliteration, (4) short notes on grammar and pronunciation, (5) an English translation of the text, and (6) short exercises in writing in Pashto (in units 1-10 only). The texts chosen for this beginning reader represent current usage in the three major Pashto dialectal regions and include a variety of styles and levels of difficulty. An appended "Pashto word-index" lists the Pashto forms and the unit and sentence in which they are presented. The author assumes that most users of this text have completed the equivalent of a one-semester, non-intensive course in the Pashto language. This reader and other instructional materials in Pashto were prepared at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, Department of Near Eastern Studies.
Sam Sloan
It is available on Barnes and Noble at
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ISBN=0923891714
and on Amazon at
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891714
It will also be available in India soon at
http://www.flipkart.com/search-books/ismail+sloan
Pashto is spoken by 40 to 60 million people in Afghanistan and Pakistan. There are also speakers in India, Iran and Tajikistan.
After a brief introduction to the use of this reader and a summary of the Pashto language, the author presents 25 units of reading selections and correlated exercises. A typical lesson consists of-- (1) a short Pashto text in typewritten Arabic-Persian form, (2) a Romanized transcription of this text indicating pronunciation, (3) a glossary of new words in Romanized transliteration, (4) short notes on grammar and pronunciation, (5) an English translation of the text, and (6) short exercises in writing in Pashto (in units 1-10 only). The texts chosen for this beginning reader represent current usage in the three major Pashto dialectal regions and include a variety of styles and levels of difficulty. An appended "Pashto word-index" lists the Pashto forms and the unit and sentence in which they are presented. The author assumes that most users of this text have completed the equivalent of a one-semester, non-intensive course in the Pashto language. This reader and other instructional materials in Pashto were prepared at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, Department of Near Eastern Studies.
Sam Sloan
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Motion to Dismiss Arden Van Upp Bankruptcy
Friday, October 9, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Sam Sloan Fan Club: Sloan v Truong, 08-5813-cv, Petition for Rehearing and Suggestion that the Rehearing Be En Banc
Friday, May 15, 2009
We Made the SF Weekly
There is an article about us in the SF Weekly, a well known newspaper
in San Francisco.
http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-05-13/news/chessmasters-take-their-fight-to-sf-courts/
It says, in part:
As the kings and queens of American chess descend on St. Louis for the 2009 U.S. Championship tournament this week, another set of brainiacs is brawling here in San Francisco before a bemused federal judge.
The dispute, between warring factions of the U.S. Chess Federation's executive board, packs all the drama of a Cold War–era grandmaster showdown. It's a culture clash of skillful tacticians.
On one side is Susan Polgar, a Hungarian-born chess champ who cast herself as a reform candidate in the 2007 federation elections and won a seat on the seven-member executive board. Two other candidates supported by Polgar also joined the board, including her husband, Paul Truong.
Bill Goichberg, the federation president, criticized Polgar for keeping her marriage to Truong a secret during the campaign. Goichberg, whose leadership in the USCF dates to the mid-1970s, backed a separate slate of candidates. One of those candidates finished fourth and took the last remaining seat on the board.
Two months after the election, a former board member who had staged a losing campaign went to court in New York and claimed that Truong had impersonated him in thousands of defamatory postings on Internet message boards. The lawsuit was dismissed, but not before the board launched its own investigation.
in San Francisco.
http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-05-13/news/chessmasters-take-their-fight-to-sf-courts/
It says, in part:
As the kings and queens of American chess descend on St. Louis for the 2009 U.S. Championship tournament this week, another set of brainiacs is brawling here in San Francisco before a bemused federal judge.
The dispute, between warring factions of the U.S. Chess Federation's executive board, packs all the drama of a Cold War–era grandmaster showdown. It's a culture clash of skillful tacticians.
On one side is Susan Polgar, a Hungarian-born chess champ who cast herself as a reform candidate in the 2007 federation elections and won a seat on the seven-member executive board. Two other candidates supported by Polgar also joined the board, including her husband, Paul Truong.
Bill Goichberg, the federation president, criticized Polgar for keeping her marriage to Truong a secret during the campaign. Goichberg, whose leadership in the USCF dates to the mid-1970s, backed a separate slate of candidates. One of those candidates finished fourth and took the last remaining seat on the board.
Two months after the election, a former board member who had staged a losing campaign went to court in New York and claimed that Truong had impersonated him in thousands of defamatory postings on Internet message boards. The lawsuit was dismissed, but not before the board launched its own investigation.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Lubbock Avalanche-Journal: Chess group levels charges at Tech employee
http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/031109/loc_407742251.shtml
"Legal tiffs between the couple and federation associates began after the husband and wife won board seats in 2007. Chess writer Sam Sloan accused them of posting obscene Internet messages in his name, which they've repeatedly denied authoring. A judge dismissed his suit, but the federation and its associates have continued to pursue charges against the couple in various courts.
"The chess federation filed the complaint against Truong on March 5, adding it as a third-party complaint in a libel and slander lawsuit that Polgar filed against the federation last year.
"The complaint also accuses Truong of lying on his June 2007 bankruptcy filing. It says Truong reported he was unemployed when he was employed at Tech.
"Truong admitted to filing for bankruptcy in 2007 after a divorce, but told The Avalanche-Journal he wasn't employed by the university until September. The university, which has a policy against commenting on pending litigation, recorded his start date as June 1, according to information the university's office of communications provided."
"Legal tiffs between the couple and federation associates began after the husband and wife won board seats in 2007. Chess writer Sam Sloan accused them of posting obscene Internet messages in his name, which they've repeatedly denied authoring. A judge dismissed his suit, but the federation and its associates have continued to pursue charges against the couple in various courts.
"The chess federation filed the complaint against Truong on March 5, adding it as a third-party complaint in a libel and slander lawsuit that Polgar filed against the federation last year.
"The complaint also accuses Truong of lying on his June 2007 bankruptcy filing. It says Truong reported he was unemployed when he was employed at Tech.
"Truong admitted to filing for bankruptcy in 2007 after a divorce, but told The Avalanche-Journal he wasn't employed by the university until September. The university, which has a policy against commenting on pending litigation, recorded his start date as June 1, according to information the university's office of communications provided."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
