In the Matter of Shamema Honzagool Sloan
M. Ismail Sloan,
Appellant-Father
-against-
Commonwealth of Virginia,
Appellee
Record No. 0249-92-3
Circuit Court No. 7309
___________________________________________________
M. Ismail Sloan, the father of the subject child, hereby petitions for a rehearing of the decision of the Deputy Clerk (signature illegible) of the Court, on behalf of Patricia G. Davis, Clerk of the Court, dated May 28, 1992, in which she dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner-father on the grounds of untimeliness.
M. Ismail Sloan, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. I make this affidavit in support of a petition for a rehearing to reinstate my appeal which was dismissed on the grounds of untimeliness. I believe that this matter must be decided by the court, rather than by a mere clerk, especially since I am raising a constitutional due process issue. Please understand that I have never yet been able to obtain a copy of the order from which I am appealing. I therefore do not know the date of the order or the date on which it was entered or what the order says. It is clear that Judge Gamble, the judge in the court below, does not want me to have a copy of the order. The order was never served upon me.
2. This is a bizarre case which never should have been brought in the first instance. It is based upon two capias issued illegally by Judge Lawrence Janow in about September, October or November 1986. This is a personal matter with Judge Janow. He never notified the Commonwealth Attorney of the existence of these two capias. Instead, he carried them around in his pocket for the next four years until November, 1990, at which time he personally ordered the arrest of M. Ismail Sloan, the father of the subject child.
3. It should be noted at the outset that the action of Judge Janow of carrying around these capias in his pocket for four years, without notifying anybody of them, was a clear and direct violation of 19.2-76.1, which requires the submission of quarterly reports of all unexecuted felony and misdemeanor arrest warrants and capiases. Indeed, the current statute requires that all unexecuted misdemeanor arrest capiases must be destroyed after a period of three years.
4. The Commonwealth Attorney admitted at a bond hearing before Judge Goad on November 16, 1990 that it appeared that the charges upon which these capiases were based were "frivolous". The Commonwealth Attorney has stated on many occasions that he was not aware of the existence of these capiases up until the moment of the arrest of Ismail Sloan on November 13, 1990. It is obvious from this that had the Amherst Commonwealth Attorney been aware of these capiases prior to that date, he would have destroyed them in accordance with the procedure under 19.2-76.1 at that time.
5. The two capiases were issued in connection with child custody litigation instituted by Mr. Charles Roberts on August 27, 1986, in which he petitioned for the custody of Shamema Honzagool Sloan, who had been cared for by the wife of Charles Roberts as a paid baby-sitter for a period of four years. Mr. Roberts is a non-relative and a self-proclaimed religious fanatic who was determined to raise this Muslim child in the Christian religion. He petitioned for her custody for that reason. However, at the time that he filed his custody petition, Shamema Honzagool and her father were no longer in the State of Virginia, having left the state two days earlier.
6. Charles Roberts spent the next four years tracking down Shamema and her father. Roberts then hired a professional kidnapper named Boonchoo in Thailand and made a down payment to Boonchoo of $12,000 to kidnap Shamema and have her brought to the United States. Shamema was kidnapped from her father's house in the United Arab Emirates on the afternoon of October 7, 1990 and arrived in the home of Roberts in Madison Heights, Virginia in Amherst County on the morning of October 9, 1990, two days later.
7. After obtaining an Interpol warrant for the arrest of Roberts on international kidnapping charges, Ismail Sloan arrived in Amherst County, Virginia on November 13, 1990, to recover his kidnapped daughter. However, Roberts was not arrested. Instead, Ismail Sloan was arrested on the personal order of Judge Janow.
8. Had it not been for this arrest, Ismail Sloan almost certainly would have recovered his daughter within a few days and Roberts would have been in jail and none of the bizarre events which have taken place over the last one and a half years would have occurred.
9. The way that the arrest occurred was that on November 13, 1990, by prior appointment, Ismail Sloan went to the office of Ed Meeks, the Amherst Commonwealth Attorney, to inquire about his daughter. Meeks was not present, but had left word with his secretary that Sloan should go to the office of Rick Groff of the Amherst County Department of Social Services. Sloan went to see Groff, who invited him into his office. While waiting in the office of Groff, the sheriff arrived, who arrested Sloan on the order of Judge Janow.
10. The arrest was based on two capiases issued in 1986. One alleged that Sloan had failed to appear at a hearing on October 8, 1986. The other alleged a violation of an order dated August 25, 1986, plus the failure to attend court on September 8, 1986.
11. Both of these charges were frivolous, as the Amherst Commonwealth Attorney so stated on November 16, 1990. The September 8, 1986 court date had been set pursuant to an order to show cause obtained by Roberts on about August 27, 1986, but which had never been served because Sloan was not in the state. The hearing for October 8, 1986 had been cancelled by Judge Janow himself several weeks prior to that date and no such hearing had ever taken place. Finally, the order of Judge Janow dated August 25, 1986 was never served on Sloan and never ordered Ismail Sloan to do or nor to do anything. What the order said was that the Roberts were "allowed to enroll the child in the Temple Baptist School". The order said nothing at all about Ismail Sloan. It is well established that to charge a party with contempt, the order must contain "an express command or prohibition", French v. Pobst, 203 Va. 704, 127 S.E.2d 137 (1962).
12. A second factor was that the August 25, 1986 order had never been personally served upon the respondent. A finding of disobedience of lawful process cannot be made unless there has been "valid service of the process in one of the modes prescribed by law". Bellis v. Commonwealth, 402 S.E.2d 211, 214 (1991). In the case at bar, there was no service of process at all.
13. After Ismail Sloan was arrested by the sheriff on November 13, 1990, he was taken before Magistrate Dudley, who set a bond of one thousand dollars, cash or surety. Sloan was remanded to the Amherst County Jail. However, at 6:30 PM that evening, Sloan was brought from the jail to the court of Judge Janow. Naturally, Sloan was expecting that his bond was going to be reduced or the charges dismissed. Instead, however, Judge Janow stated that he had come in to open up the court that evening because he was going to be out of town the next day and he wanted to make sure that no other judge would hear this case. Judge Janow then stated that he intended to sentence Ismail Sloan to one full year in jail. Ismail Sloan demanded that Judge Janow disqualify himself and demanded a trial with regard to the contempt matter on the spot, but Judge Janow refused to agree. Finally, Judge Janow increased the bond from one thousand to ten thousand dollars in cash.
14. The next day, Ismail Sloan borrowed a legal pad from a fellow prisoner and wrote out a hand written notice of appeal of the bond. A police officer agreed to take over this notice of appeal and file it in court. The notice of appeal was filed and a hearing was set for November 16, 1990.
15. At the hearing, Judge Goad remarked that as there was no service of process, then he ought to dismiss the entire proceeding altogether. To this, the Amherst Commonwealth Attorney responded that he had no knowledge at all about this case and that Judge Janow might have some reason not apparent from the record for arresting Ismail Sloan and for setting such a high bond. As a result of this argument, Judge Goad did not dismiss the entire proceeding, but he did reduce the bond back to one thousand dollars. Ismail Sloan raised the money and obtained his release from custody that evening. The terms of the cash appearance bond were that Ismail Sloan appear in court at 9:30 AM on December 19, 1990.
16. Ismail Sloan did, in fact, appear in court at 9:30 AM on December 19, 1990, with counsel. However, Judge Janow was not there. A substitute judge was present. The case of Ismail Sloan was not on the calendar. The clerk, June Wood, checked the file and could find nothing about this case. After noting his appearance and the appearance of counsel, Ismail Sloan left the courthouse.
17. At that point, according to all normal criminal procedure, the prosecution of this case had been abandoned and Sloan was entitled to get his one thousand dollars back. A few days later, Sloan called the clerk and asked for his money. However, the clerk, June Wood, told him that the money would not be returned but that Judge Janow would take up this matter at the hearing of the child custody case, which was scheduled for February 4, 1991.
18. All of this was entirely illegal. Sloan was a criminal defendant, with the rights to a speedy trial as well as other constitutional and statutory rights. He appeared for the trail at the designated time and place. The matter was not continued. The case was not adjourned. Instead, there was nobody there at all, other than a substitute judge who was totally unfamiliar with the matter.
19. The hearing for the child custody matter was set for February 4, 1991. On that date, Judge Janow heard about eight hours of testimony regarding the child custody issue, and then adjourned the matter for another three months. However, the contempt matter never came up. Again, the contempt case was not continued. Instead, it was not mentioned at all.
20. A few days after that, Ismail Sloan again called and demanded his one thousand dollars back. Again, the clerk said that Judge Janow was going to leave the contempt case until after the child custody matter had been decided.
21. At this point, Sloan wrote several letters demanding the return of his one thousand dollars bond. When he received no response, he filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and prohibition demanding the return of the one thousand dollars and the dismissal of this case for want of prosecution.
22. That petition for a writ of mandamus is still pending today. The reason for this is that Judge Gamble, recently appointed after the death of Judge Goad, disqualified himself from handling that case and no other judge in the State of Virginia has been willing to take it, according to Fred Hodnett.
23. Judge Janow held further hearings regarding the child custody matter in May and June, 1991. Again, he refused to take up the matter of the contempt. Finally, after the conclusion of the child custody matter in June, 1991, Judge Janow repeatedly asked Sloan to agree to a continuance of the contempt matter. Sloan refused to agree to a continuance, in spite of the urgings if his counsel that he do so. Judge Janow then held a five minute trial on the matter of the contempt. The only significant witness who testified was Ismail Sloan. (Rick Groff testified for one or two minutes regarding a remark which he claimed that he had over-heard Ismail Sloan to make in 1991 in the oral argument of a related case before Judge Peatross).
24. In reality, the five minute trial consisted primary of Judge Janow giving his reasons for finding Ismail Sloan in contempt. In particular, Judge Janow stated that he had cancelled the October 8, 1986 hearing because he knew that Ismail Sloan would not be attending "so he is guilty of that."
25. Judge Janow also ordered the forfeiture of the one thousand dollars cash appearance bond. No hearing had ever been scheduled regarding the forfeiture of the bond. There was no timely notice of a pending forfeiture of a bond, as required by Sec. 19.2-128. A bond is forfeited when the respondent fails to appear, but in this case, the respondent had appeared at every of the many hearings. It was clear that the bond was declared forfeited as a way to punish the respondent.
26. However, Judge Janow did not make good on his promise to sentence Ismail Sloan to one full year in jail for contempt. Ismail Sloan had researched the law in the meantime and found out that Judge Janow could sentence him to no more than ten days in jail for contempt pursuant to Sec. 18.2-458, three days of which he had already served. Judge Janow bitterly complained on the record about this. He said that his clerk had "done it wrong". Accordingly, he sentenced Ismail Sloan to the maximum of ten days in jail plus a fifty dollar fine. Ismail Sloan immediately appealed.
27. On appeal, the case went to Judge Gamble, the former law partner of Judge Janow. Judge Gamble did exactly the same thing as Judge Janow. Ismail Sloan insisted on an immediate trial on the contempt charge. Judge Gamble refused to try the contempt matter, stating that he would not do so until the child custody proceeding was concluded. Judge Gamble held hearings on the child custody matter in August and September, but he refused to hear the contempt matter at that time.
28. It must be understood the reason why Ismail Sloan kept demanding a hearing on the contempt charge whereas the judges kept refusing to hear the matter. There were two reasons. First, Ismail Sloan wants his one thousand dollars back. However, more importantly, the entire justification of Judge Janow and Judge Gamble for keeping his kidnapped daughter away from him is the contempt charge. Stated differently, if Judge Janow or Judge Gamble had tried Ismail Sloan on the contempt charge and found him not guilty, they would have been under an obligation to return his daughter to him. This is the reason why they kept insisting that they would not try the contempt matter until after they had tried the custody case.
29. After the last hearing on the child custody matter on September 25, 1991, Judge Gamble stated that he would put the matter down on the calendar for the December appeal day, at which time a trial would be scheduled. Again, this was done over the objections of Ismail Sloan, who once again demanded a trial on the spot. It must be noted that Judge Gamble could have put this case on the appeal day for July, August, September, October or November, but he did not do so. It was clear that he wanted to postpone this case for as long as possible.
30. After that, Ismail Sloan received a summons from California dated November 7, 1991, stating that his other daughter, Jessica, had been taken into foster care and would be put up for adoption if he did not go to California and contest the matter. The Jessica case had also been brought originally before Judge Janow, during a period when Jessica had been in the house of Roberts for three and a half months. Judge Janow, without jurisdiction, had enjoined Ismail Sloan from contact with Jessica and with her mother and had enjoined the parties from taking the child out of state. (The appeal from this order was dismissed by the Virginia Court of Appeals in about December, 1991). Then, in January, 1991, Roberts discovered that Shamema and the mother of Jessica had a plan to run away from the house of Roberts and rejoin Sloan. The mother of Jessica along with Jessica were kicked out of the house of Roberts, but Roberts retained Shamema Honzagool. The mother brought Jessica to the house of Ismail Sloan. When Judge Janow found out about this, he had three police cars sent to the house Ismail Sloan, where Jessica and her mother were staying. The mother of Jessica absconded with Jessica to California, because of the well founded fear that Charles Roberts and Judge Janow were going to steal her Jessica just as they had stolen Shamema.
31. The mother of Jessica went to live in a homeless shelter in California. On October 24, 1991, Jessica was taken into foster care in California. The California authorities did not know who or where the father was, so they contacted Charles Roberts. Mr. Roberts gave them the name and address of Ismail Sloan in Lynchburg, Virginia. The California authorities then arranged service of process there. As a result of the threat to put Jessica up for adoption, Ismail Sloan went to California to attend the frequent hearings in that case. This made it impossible for him to go down to the Amherst Courthouse on a daily basis and inquire as to whether any orders had been entered against him. However, he assumed that the opposing party would be required to serve him by mail with a copy of any adverse judgment, as is required in most states.
32. As it happens, Virginia, unlike just about every other state, does not seem to have any rule requiring the notification of a party of an adverse judgment. There is nothing under Virginia law to stop a judge from carrying around a judgment in his pocket until the time to appeal has elapsed. One would assume that no judge would do such a thing, but those making such an assumption do not know Judge Janow and Judge Gamble.
33. What happened was that the date for the hearing of the Jessica case in California was set to be one day prior to next appeal day in the case before Judge Gamble. The Jessica case was obviously more urgent, since all Judge Gamble intended to do on that date in his case was to set the next date for trial. Ismail Sloan notified his attorney in Virginia that he needed to appear in court on the Jessica case and the attorney said that he would arrange an adjournment.
34. What happened was that, to the surprise of everybody including the court appointed attorney for Ismail Sloan, Judge Gamble, in spite of his previous statement that he was only going to set a date for trial, instead decided to try this case in absentia and, more than that, disqualified the court appointed attorney for Ismail Sloan from further appearing in the case.
35. The court appointed attorney for Ismail Sloan was James H. Massie III. He is perhaps the most active attorney in the Lynchburg and Amherst area, with a case load of hundreds of cases. He spends almost all of the time in the courtroom and is almost impossible to reach on the telephone. Because of the impossibility of reaching Mr. Massie, plus the previous statement by Mr. Massie that all that Judge Gamble was going to do was set a date for trial, it took a long time for Sloan to find out what had really happened on the date in question.
36. What had happened was that almost as soon as Ismail Sloan had gone to California to try to get his daughter there back, Judge Gamble had seized that opportunity to enter an order against him and to try him in absentia. This trial in absentia apparently took place in December, 1991. Ismail Sloan was never informed that there would be a trial on that date. Ismail Sloan was not the only one who was not informed. The Roberts, the complaining party, also did not know about this and were not present for the trial. Rick Groff of the Amherst County Department of Social Services, who had testified as a witness when the case was before Judge Janow also did not know about this and was not present. Since no witnesses were present, Judge Gamble took the testimony of Miss Groome, the attorney for the Roberts, even though Miss Groome was not even in the Lynchburg area nor was she yet the attorney for the Roberts in 1986 when the events in question took place. In short, nobody personally familiar with the facts of the case was present at the so-called trial. Moreover, Judge Gamble invented a new charge and a new theory of the case. He convicted Sloan of "violating the status quo" by firing Shelby Roberts as his baby-sitter. This sort of kangaroo court was so blatantly illegal that it requires the disqualification of Judge Gamble. In addition, as soon as the trial was over, Judge Gamble disqualified Sloan's attorney from representing him, so he was not even able to inform him of what had happened, nor could he file a notice of appeal. (Again, Ismail Sloan did not file a notice of appeal sooner because Ismail Sloan did not receive a copy of Judge Gamble's decision and has not received a copy of it even until this day.)
37. Now the question before this court is whether a criminal defendant who has been the target of two unscrupulous judges who have been engaged in a concerted effort to kidnap his beloved daughter by entire illegal means can defeat his right to appeal by such tactics as refusing the hear the case promptly, disqualifying his attorney, trying him in absentia and concealing from him the judgment of the court.
38. Just to provide some background, the mother, whose name is Honzagool, of Shamema Honzagool Sloan, is from a strict Muslim family in Pakistan, just eight miles from the border with Afghanistan. The mother of Shamema had never in her life been more than three miles from her house at the time in 1980 that she was married to Ismail Sloan. The mother of Shamema is required by her tribal customs to strictly observe "purdah", which means that she keeps her face covered at all times. Shamema is a Muslim religious name meaning "a sweet smelling fragrance". Honzagool is a local girls name among certain tribes of Afghanistan. It means "the flower of the queen". (Contrary to what many newspapers in Pakistan have reported about this case, the name "Honzagool" has nothing to do with the Hunza Valley, which is a remote valley in Northern Pakistan next to China). Many of the immediate relatives of the mother of Shamema have been heavily involved in the war in Afghanistan, which has just concluded, which explains their inattention to the situation here.
39. Although she grew up in poverty and destitution, the mother of Shamema is a member of the royal family of her region of Pakistan. Her great-great-great-grandfather was the King of Chitral. He is said to have been descended from both Ghengis Khan and Alexander the Great. The royal family of Chitral was kicked out of power in 1971 when some form of democracy came along. However, in 1992, the uncle of Honzagool, Prince Mohay-ud-Din, was appointed as the Minister of State of Tourism and Development in Pakistan. Therefore, the great uncle of the child who is the subject of this case is a minister in the current government of Pakistan.
40. However, the question before this court is whether the father can now appeal from the order of Judge Gamble.
41. It must be stated that this case comes in an unusual posture involving as it does a trial in absentia. Such trials are not entirely illegal but are extremely rare, except in traffic ticket cases. The Code of Virginia appears to prohibit all trials in absentia on felony charges. This however, was a misdemeanor case.
42. The rules involving trials in absentia are set forth in cases such as United States v. Peterson, 524 F.2d 167, 183-185 (4th Cir. 1975) and United States v. Muzevsky, 760 F.2d 83 (4th Cir. 1985). United States v. Peterson was a complex case involving eight defendants and more than twenty witnesses, many of which were difficult to trace. When the trail date arrived, one of the defendants did not show up and his attorney had no idea what had happened to him or why he did not come. For that reason, the judge felt that he had no choice but to try the case in absentia.
43. In this case, however, the Roberts at least knew exactly where Sloan was, because they knew about the case in California even before Sloan did. Sloan had appeared many times previously in the Amherst County Court and had always been ready for trial. However, in each case, the Commonwealth had refused to proceed. There is no doubt whatever that had Judge Gamble simply set the case for trial, which he had previously stated that he was going to do, Sloan would have appeared and the trail would have taken place. There was no reason why Sloan would not appear now, after having appeared on so many previous occasions.
44. On this point, it must be recalled that Judge Gamble was holding Sloan's daughter as a hostage. Naturally, Sloan had to attend court to get his daughter back. This was a stronger need than any sort of cash bond which could possibly be set. However, Sloan had a second daughter who had also been kidnaped initially by Roberts who was now in California. Therefore, Sloan needed to be in two places at once.
45. Judge Gamble, of course, knew all of this. He undoubtedly knew that Sloan would attend court on whatever date he would set. For this reason, he decided to try Sloan in absentia. Judge Gamble knew that in a fair trial Sloan would be acquitted, and for this reason decided to conduct an unfair trial in absentia.
46. Regarding the standards set in the case of United States v. Peterson, one point mentioned was the unavailability of witnesses on any other date. However, here we had the opposite situation. Here, none of the possible witnesses came, because they all understood that the trial would be held on some other date. Judge Gamble therefore tried the case without any witnesses at all, which was clearly unfair and prejudicial. (Of course, in this case, there really were no witnesses at all, because there was no actual contempt.)
47. There still remains the primary question of whether this court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
48. Again, this disqualification of his counsel had taken place without any notice to Sloan. Mr. Massie, of course, knew that Ismail Sloan intended to appeal any adverse judgment. Everyone familiar with this case knows that there is nothing more important to Sloan than getting his kidnapped daughter back. However, Mr. Massie could not file a notice of appeal, because he was no longer his lawyer, having been removed by Judge Gamble.
49. Again, it is submitted that this is illegal. It is submitted that Judge Gamble lacked the legal authority to remove Sloan's court appointed lawyer from the case, especially since his only reason for doing so was to stop his appeals.
50. In short, the reasons why Ismail Sloan did not file a notice of appeal sooner are that (1) a standing order was issued by Judge Gamble that Ismail Sloan not be allowed to file papers with the clerk, (2) Ismail Sloan was not allowed to know about the final judgment of the court and (3) his court appointed counsel was disqualified and removed from the case before he had a chance to file a notice of appeal.
51. These circumstances raise a constitutional due process issue. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that Ismail Sloan cannot be deprived of liberty without due process of law. Here, he is being deprived of his constitutional right to raise a family, because his daughter has been given to a criminal kidnapper who paid twelve thousand dollars to have her abducted. Where is the due process of law? In fact, there is no due process of law in Amherst County. The judges there just make up their own law as they go along.
52. The general rule in other states is that the time to file a notice of appeal commences with the service of the judgment on the adverse party with notice of entry of the judgment. This is the only fair and sensible rule. Otherwise, as here, a judge can frustrate an appeal simply by concealing an adverse order from the defeated party.
53. Having checked the law of various states, in each state it has been found that there is a rule of some sort that a defeated party must be given notice and, if he does not receive notice, remedies are available. See e. g. Williams v. Forbes, 550 N.Y.S.2d 903 (N.Y. 1990); Custom Moulders v. Roper Corp, 401 S.E. 2d 96 (N.C. 1991); Shouse v. State, 376 S.E. 2d 911 (Ga. 1988). In the latter case, the Georgia Court of Appeals ruled that the failure to provide the pro se appellant with notice, thereby depriving him of his right to appeal, was a matter of "constitutional dimensions".
54. This case raises even greater questions of a constitutional nature because, in his case, not only did Judge Gamble enter an order without notice to him, but he also almost simultaneously removed his attorney from the case without notice to him. Since Ismail Sloan was in California at the time, there was no way for him to be appraised of the situation until long after thirty days had elapsed.
55. A further factor is that Ismail Sloan has actually filed four notices of appeal in this case. However, two were deemed to be premature and the other two were deemed to be too late. This includes a notice of appeal Ismail Sloan filed in the Supreme Court of Virginia regarding the denial of his petition or a writ of habeas corpus, plus the notice of appeal which was dismissed by the Virginia Court of Appeals in May, 1991, for lack of a final order. See Sloan v. Amherst Department of Social Services (unpublished May, 1991 decision by the Court of Appeals dismissing his appeal). This was reported in "Virginia Law Weekly", June 3, 1991, page 12.
56. The Supreme Court of Virginia has held that the filing of a notice of appeal too soon in a child custody case does not deprive the appellate court of jurisdiction. Lackey v. Lackey, 278 S.E.2d 811 (Va. Sup. 1981). That has also been the ruling in other states which have considered this issue. See e.g. Spano v. County of Onondaga, 565 N.Y.S.2d 665 (N.Y. 1991).
57. It is submitted that somewhere in between these four notices of appeal, Sloan should be allowed to have appellate review of this case, especially in view of the Draconian nature of the judgment below. The effect of the judgment of the court below is that his daughter no longer has a father, no longer has a mother, no longer has a grandmother, no longer has three brothers and no longer has three sisters. His daughter is now the personal property of a crazy religious fanatic named Roberts, to do with her as he pleases.
58. From this it is clear that the reason that Sloan did not file a notice of appeal sooner is not the result of any error or neglect on his part. Rather, it is the result of deliberate malfeasance on the part of the lower court judge, who deliberately concealed the existence of the orders from him so as to prevent him from filing a timely appeal. For this reason, the appeal should be reinstated, or else the case should be remanded to another judge with instructions to conduct further hearings (as it was in the case of Shouse v. State, 376 S.E. 2d 911 (Ga. 1988)), or some other remedy should be provided to correct this unfair and inequitable situation.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this petition for a rehearing be granted and that, upon rehearing, this appeal shall be reinstated, the order of conviction vacated and the contempt proceedings should be summarily dismissed with prejudice.
__________________________
M. Ismail Sloan
917 Old Trent's Ferry Road
Lynchburg, VA 2450
Sworn to before me this 6th day of July, 1992.
________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC
I hereby certify that on July 6, 1992 I mailed a true copy of this petition for a rehearing to W. Edward Meeks, Amherst Commonwealth Attorney, P. O. Box 358, Amherst, VA 24521
______________________
M. Ismail Sloan