Petition for Rehearing en banc


Record No. 1211-92-3

M. Ismail Sloan,



Judge Michael Gamble,
Judge Lawrence Janow,



The undersigned petitioner hereby petitions for a rehearing and a rehearing en banc from the decision of this court dated July 24, 1992, which dismissed the petition for a writ of mandamus and prohibition filed herein, on the following grounds:

1. This court has once again displayed its callous disregard for the welfare of the innocent ten-year-old child who is being held prisoner through the nefarious deeds of the respondents to this petition. This petition arises at the result of the kidnapping of Shamema Honzagool Sloan, which took place in the United Arab Emirates on October 7, 1990. Shamema was only eight years old at the time, although she turned nine one week later. This kidnapping has caused outrage in the Muslim world, as both of the parents of Shamema Honzagool are Muslims. The mother of Shamema lives in her native Pakistan.

2. This kidnapping was arranged by Judge Lawrence Janow, one of the respondents to this petition. The child thereafter arrived on a fight to Kennedy Airport on the early morning of October 9, 1990, and was brought immediately to the home of Mr. Charles Roberts who, by his own admission, had paid twelve thousand dollars to a man named Boonchoo for this kidnapping. The child is still being held a prisoner by Mr. Roberts in Amherst County, Virginia to this day.

3. How is this possible? Why are the parents of this child able to do nothing about this? Why hasn't this child been returned to her family? The answer is simple. It is because of the corruption of the Virginia Judicial System, which keeps blocking the legitimate efforts of the parents to recover the kidnapped child.

4. This petition has represented virtually the last chance of the parents of the child to recover their kidnapped daughter. The petition is necessary because of the criminal activities of the two respondent judges. Unless these two judges can be removed from this case, there is no way for this child to be recovered and returned to her family.

5. Although the kidnapping of the child did not occur until 1990, Judge Janow had been trying since September, 1986 to have the child kidnapped and brought to Virginia. On September 5, 1986, Judge Janow, illegally and with no jurisdiction whatever, issued an order stating that "Shamema Honzagool Sloan shall be seized wherever she may be found" and brought to Amherst Country, Virginia. On the basis of this order, Charles Roberts claims that his acts of having the child kidnapped in the United Arab Emirates more than four years later, after previous unsuccessful attempts to have the child kidnapped in Thailand and much earlier in New York City, were perfectly legal because he was merely carrying out Judge Janow's order. Not many people would agree with him, however.

6. Because Judge Janow was personally involved in the kidnapping of the child, it was obvious from the beginning that he was not going to be willing to give the child back once the child arrived in the United States. This has been known for some time. In 1987, the petitioner made his first efforts to remove Judge Janow from this case, citing the fact that Judge Janow had no jurisdiction over this matter. Judge Janow refused to recuse himself, and that refusal continues to this day.

7. The end result of this is that the child has now completely vanished. As far as the parents are concerned, the child is just a fleeting memory. One reason for this is that Charles and Shelby Roberts are members of a fanatical religious group, which does not allow its members to send their children to public school. As a consequence, there is no public school record of this child, and no paper trail where the parents can locate their daughter.

8. More than that, there are layers of protection for this child. In the first place, Charles and Shelby Roberts and their two adult sons are heavily armed and carry guns on their persons at all times, according to their own testimony. They also live on a remote, back country road in Amherst County, Virginia, which is difficult approach. They keep the child under armed guard at all times. They have also a hired bodyguard to protect the child. Their house is under constant protection and surveillance by the county sheriff's department. The child is kept during the daytime mostly in their church, which provides a sanctuary where they can keep the kidnapped child. Finally, they are under the protection of orders by Judge Janow and Judge Gamble, which prohibit the natural parents from having any contact with their child.

9. Why is that? Is this because the natural parents have in some way mistreated their daughter? Not at all. Rather, the reason is that this child was exceptionally brilliant and gifted and, at the same time, the parents of the child were members of a different religion from that of Charles and Shelby Roberts. Therefore, Mr. Roberts wanted to kidnap the child so that the child, like Mr. Roberts, would "get saved" and go to heaven.

10. A remarkable fact which has only about three weeks ago been discovered is that just a few weeks after Shamema Honzagool and her sister, Jessica Vithanage, were kidnapped and brought to Amherst County, Virginia, three other little girls named Sarah, Rebecca and Bethany, aged 8, 7, and 6, were also kidnapped by strangers and brought to the same place. This occurred on November 15, 1990. Those three little girls were brought directly to Amherst County as well, where they are now being kept in Monroe, Virginia in a secret location in the home of another evangelical Baptist who lives on another back country road less than five miles from the house of the Roberts.

11. Like Shamema Honzagool, these three children have international origins. Their grandfather is Juan Carlos Camacho, who is a high official in the Government of Bolivia and is the district attorney of Santa Cruz, one of the largest cities of Bolivia. Juan Carlos Camacho was, in 1991, indicted by the Bush Administration in the federal district court of Los Angeles on two charges. One is that, as the public prosecutor in the city of Bolivia which is one of the world's largest centers for cocaine production, he selectively prosecuted drug traffickers and cooperated with the DEA in the prosecution of those international cocaine smugglers who failed to pay him multi-million dollar bribes. The second charge is that he paid a mole working in the DEA office in Santa Cruz, Bolivia to photocopy documents within the DEA office there so that he could alert those cocaine traffickers who were trying to fulfill their patriotic duty to improve the international balance of payments of Bolivia that the DEA was after them. One of the alleged co-conspirators of Juan Carlos Camacho has been arrested and, as a result, the indictment was recently unsealed. The case is now pending for trial in Los Angeles federal court. Juan Carlos Camacho himself is classified as a "fugitive" and is still in Bolivia.

12. In short, a man who is high on the official United States Government list of "extraditables", has three grandchildren who have been kidnapped and are being held prisoner by strangers on a back country road in Amherst County, Virginia under orders of Judge Janow, the same judge who is the respondent here.

13. Does Judge Janow know about this? The answer is that while Judge Janow knows about the three kidnapped little girls, he almost certainly does not know that their grandfather is one of the most notable persons in Bolivia, whose name is in the newspapers of that country almost every day. This is what happens when a judge goes about willy-nilly kidnapping children, without any knowledge of who their parents are or what their background is.

14. This bizarre fact that a total of at least five little girls with international connections have been kidnapped by non-relatives and brought to Amherst County, Virginia might seem to be a coincidence. However, it is perhaps not coincidental at all. Kidnapping is clearly a non-prosecutable offense in Amherst County, as long as Judge Janow continues to be the judge there. Once the kidnapping of children becomes legal, the kidnappers are not going to pick mentally retarded or disadvantaged children as their targets. Rather, they are going to pick the brightest and the best. It is therefore perhaps not a coincidence that Shamema Honzagool, the subject of the petition for mandamus herein, has a great uncle named Prince Mohay-ud-Din, who is a minister in the cabinet of the current government of Pakistan, whereas the three Wilson-Camacho children have a grandfather who is a high official in Bolivia. In both cases, the children are bright and attractive, and in both cases the blood relatives are too far removed to be able to come and try and fight the long and ultimately futile struggle to get their children back. Finally, in both cases there have been child custody battles between the natural mother and father, with court orders entered in other states, and the kidnappers have exploited this unfortunate situation by intervening and kidnapping the subject children.

15. This court has now dismissed my petition for a writ of mandamus and prohibition with the statement that "no such allegation is made by petitioner" that the respondent judges named herein are acting without jurisdiction. This is absolutely untrue. From the very beginning and at every opportunity thereafter, I have stated that there is no jurisdiction by these judges over this case. I have repeatedly pointed out that at the time Mr. Charles Roberts filed his custody petition, which was on August 27, 1986, neither I, nor the mother, nor the child, were in the state of Virginia. Therefore, Virginia had no jurisdiction. More than that, to this day, the summons and complaint have never been served. Again, this means that there is no jurisdiction. The reason that the summons and complaint were never served is that none of the parties were in the State of Virginia at the time that the custody proceeding filed by Mr. Roberts commenced and therefore the respondents were not amenable to service of process. Moreover, the respondents wisely stayed out of Virginia for the next four years, thereby avoiding service of process. The only way that Charles Roberts could ever possibly have had this child brought to Virginia was to hire a professional kidnapper. That is what he did and that is how the children got here.

16. The Roberts contend that service of process was achieved by the publication of a notice in the "Amherst New Era Progress", a local county weekly, in October, 1986. That might be considered legal in Virginia, but it is certainly in not legal in any other state, especially since the child was not in Virginia at the time of the publication.

17. The second contention of the Roberts is that even before they filed a petition on August 27, 1986, they already had natural custody, by virtue of a previous order dated April 2, 1986 which actually awarded temporary custody to the father.

18. The problem with this argument is that they had never filed a custody petition. Assuming that it was even possible for them to take the custody of this child away from the natural parents, they clearly could not have done so without notice and the opportunity for a hearing.

19. This is a matter of constitutional dimensions. Perhaps the best case on this is Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976). There, the court observed that "the right to be heard before being condemned to suffer a grievous loss of any kind .... is a basic principle of our society."

20. In the case presented here, both Judge Janow and Judge Gamble are claiming the right to deprive the parents of this child of all custody rights whatever without any notice or opportunity for a hearing to the parents. For example, the natural mother, throughout this case in Virginia, has been in Pakistan. There is no evidence that she is an unfit mother. She has done nothing wrong. She merely lacks the wherewithal to come to America and contest this case. On the other hand, while the father has been to America, he has never been served with a summons notifying him that a case is in court in which third-parties went to take away his child. Clearly, no more grievous loss is possible than the loss of a beloved daughter.

21. Going further on this point, it is true that the petitioner-father was allowed to attend hearings in 1991. However, that was after the child had already been kidnapped and taken away from him. The Roberts, who are complete non-relatives, were allowed to hold the child as a hostage throughout these hearings. Moreover, these hearings were not for the benefit of the father or the child. They were conducted at the behest of the Roberts, who hope to adopt the child. The father has been demanding to be heard on this matter since 1986, but no hearing whatever has ever been afforded to him.

22. Judge Gamble, one of the respondents to this petition, then made the preposterous decision that because the petitioner-father Ismail Sloan employed Shelby Roberts as a full-time paid baby sitter during the period 1982 to 1985, he therefore lost the right to have custody of his daughter in 1991. Why didn't the Roberts file a custody petition in the 1982 to 1985 period? The answer to this question, according to their own testimony, is that they did not do so because they knew that if they did so, the father would fire Mrs. Roberts from her job as baby-sitter. In order words, what we have here is an adverse possession claim.

23. The United States Supreme Court case of Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976) has just been cited above. However, I have noticed that the Virginia courts seem almost never to cite Supreme Court cases. They cite rather their own Virginia cases. It seems that the judges of this court are not aware that the War Between the States is over now and Virginia is back in the Union, whether it wants to be or not. There are many Supreme Court cases which establish the constitutional right of parents to the custody of their children, a right which has obviously eluded Judge Janow and Judge Gamble, not to mention the judges of this court.

24. In the Supreme Court decision in Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 124, 109 S. Ct. 2339 (1989), Judge Scalia discussed the parent's constitutional right to make decisions regarding the control, education and health of the child, and the right to prepare the child for additional obligations, which includes the teaching of moral standards, religious beliefs and elements if good citizenship. Clearly, this right is being infringed by the Roberts, who have kidnapped this child for the sole purpose of making her into a Christian, against the wishes of her parents, who are Muslims.

25. Earlier in Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. 842,863 (1977), Justice Rehnquist, concurring, observed:

"If a state were to attempt to force the breakup of a natural family over the objections of the parents and their children, without some showing of unfitness and for the sole reason that to do so was thought to be in the children's best interest, I should have little doubt that the state would have intruded impermissibly on 'the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter'. Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944)."

26. Similarly, the following cases all establish the federal constitutional right to raise a family free from outside governmental interference: Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); Griswald v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. 842-849 (1977); Wisconsin v. Yodler, 406 U.S. 205, 231 (1972) and Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 , 335 (1976). (This last case pertains to constitutional due process rights). Recently, in Michael M. v. Giovanna F., 7 Cal. Rep. 2d 460, 463-5 (Cal. App. 1 Dist 1992), the California Court of Appeal, citing many of the above cases, articulated the "substantive due process right to be free of state interference with personal relations between family members.".

27. I wish to mention here that I recently wrote a published book on the life of Thomas Jefferson, and one thing which Jefferson did, besides father many children, was that he wrote the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom. He expressed the need for this statute because, without it, children in those times could be and often were taken away from their natural parents, if the parents did not believe in the Holy Trinity. One thing which Thomas Jefferson shared with all Muslims of the world was that he did not believe in the Holy Trinity. Therefore, his Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom was intended exactly to prevent people like Charles Roberts from trying to take away the children from a person like me on religious grounds. It seems that this court no longer follows the wisdom of Jefferson, however.

28. The point to all this is that it is abundantly clear that as long as Judge Janow and Judge Gamble are still alive not removed from this case, there in no Chinaman's chance that the petitioner will ever get his kidnapped daughter back. Perhaps this court does not fully realize what is at stake here. Judge Janow and Judge Gamble have positioned themselves in such a way as to prevent any other judge in Virginia from hearing any case pertaining to Shamema Honzagool. Indeed, in February, 1991, Judge Janow stated on the record "I don't want any other judge to hear this case."

29. What the petition herein alleges are facts which show clearly that Judge Janow and Judge Gamble are personally biased against the petitioner and are in clear violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct of the American Bar Association for insisting on hearing this case, over the vehement protests of the petitioner-father. The petition shows that originally, in 1985, the petitioner-father hired Judge Gamble, who was a private lawyer at that time, as his attorney to represent him in the Shamema custody case. However, the next day, Michael Gamble disqualified himself and returned his retainer fee check because he had discovered that his secretary, Lisa Carroll, was a close personal friend of Charles and Shelby Roberts. A few months later, Judge Gamble and his law firm were employed by Alma Coates Dawson to bring a lawsuit against the petitioner for Dawson's claimed one-third "widow's share" of his father's estate. The father of the petitioner herein was Leroy B. Sloan, a lawyer and IRS tax auditor and a member of the Virginia State Bar. The petitioner has always believed that the activities of Judge Gamble and his then law partner, Don Pendleton, hastened the death of petitioner's father by encouraging Alma Dawson to marry him, which she did, in the emergency room of the Lynchburg General Hospital just 19 days before he died. Had Alma Dawson not been advised by Judge Gamble and Don Pendleton of the law which gives the putative widow the right to the "widow's share" of the estate of a decedent, Alma Dawson would never have dragged petitioner's infirm father, aged 75, out of the nursing home and down to the courthouse to get married, which led to his father's collapse and treatment in the emergency room, his hospitalization and finally his death 19 days later.

30. After that, Judge Gamble and the other two members of his law firm were in an adversary relationship with the petitioner, Ismail Sloan. They have been conducting, ever since, an ongoing investigation into petitioner's affairs, trying to discover his fathers "missing millions", which Alma Dawson apparently sincerely believes that the petitioner has hidden away somewhere. Alma Dawson, Judge Gamble's client, in 1988, hired John Miller, a private detective, who approached Judge Janow with an offer of a bribe for information and assistance regarding the Shamema Honzagool case at a breakfast meeting in Howard Johnson's Restaurant in Madison Heights, Virginia. Judge Janow claims that he rejected this offer of a bribe, but he put a memo in the file of this case about this breakfast meeting, which is how the petitioner came to know about it three years later.

31. In October, 1990, after a long effort, Shamema Honzagool was finally kidnapped and brought to Amherst County, Virginia. The petitioner's then attorney was Steve Martin, who promptly, without even consulting the petitioner, who was still in the United Arab Emirates searching for his missing daughter there, moved to dismiss the new custody petition then filed by Charles Roberts on the ground that Mr. Roberts had acquired possession of the child through "self help". Judge Janow refused to rule on this motion, however. Instead, he disqualified Steve Martin from representing the petitioner, on the grounds that, in the meantime, Steve Martin had become the law partner of Michael Gamble, who was at that time in the process of suing Ismail Sloan as the lawyer for Alma Coates Dawson.

32. After that, in about March, 1991, Judge Gamble was appointed as a judge. At that point, Ismail Sloan had a mandamus petition, similar to the petition here, pending in the circuit court against Judge Janow demanding his disqualification form this case. Judge Gamble disqualified himself from hearing that mandamus petition of the grounds of his close personal relationship with Judge Janow. As a result, that mandamus petition is still pending to this day, because no judge in Virginia has been willing to rule upon it.

33. That mandamus petition, like every other pleading filed in court by this petitioner, alleged that Judge Janow has no jurisdiction to hear this matter. In particular, it alleged that this entire child custody proceeding is in violation of the Uniform Child Custody Act. The Uniform Child Custody Act provides that a child custody petition cannot be entertained unless the state where the petition is filed has been the "home state" for the previous six months. Prior to October 23, 1990, when Charles Roberts filed his second custody petition, Shamema Honzagool had been residing in the United Arab Emirates with her father for the preceding four years. Virginia was clearly not then the home state of Shamema Honzagool. Moreover, Shamema had previously been awarded custody to the natural mother by the courts of New York State. Therefore, Charles and Shelby Roberts, who had merely filed a custody petition and had never been awarded custody in 1986, had no legal claim whatever on this child. Most authorities agree that once New York made a custody award, no other state could modify that award, unless both of the parent plus the child had moved to the new state, which was clearly not the case here. The law simply does not allow complete outsiders such as Charles and Shelby Roberts to invade the family and rip away a child like the one here, in spite of the fact that there might be a disputed custody proceeding between the natural parents.

34. This court now states that my petition for a writ of mandamus is "long and rambling". In fact, however, it is only seven pages long. It states in concise form an extremely complicated factual situation. Perhaps this court does not believe all of the facts alleged in the petition. It is otherwise incomprehensible that a judge who, as a private lawyer, was prosecuting a lawsuit against the petitioner-father can then become, upon his appointment as a judge, the judge who judges the very case which is closely related to the case he was handling as a lawyer.

35. What the decision of this court seems to be saying is that in Virginia, no judge can be removed by an appellate court on the grounds of personal bias. That is the only explanation for the decision here. Clearly, all of the papers and pleadings filed in this case demonstrate ample bias by Judge Janow and Judge Gamble against the petitioner. The petition for a writ of mandamus and prohibition herein alleges numerous examples of violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct of the American Bar Association on the part of the two judges who are respondents here.

36. For example, Canon 3-B (8) states: A judge shall dispose of all matters promptly, efficiently and fairly." This canon has clearly been violated. I filed a Shamema child custody petition in Amherst County in January, 1986, against my own best judgment because Michael Gamble, who was a private lawyer at the time, had advised me to do so, even though I had never lived in Amherst County. The reason for filing there was that Judge Harris in Lynchburg, where I lived, had already dismissed two custody petitions filed by me and my mother in this case. My filing in Amherst County took place on January 19, 1986. However, Judge Janow refused to act on it. He procrastinated and delayed for the next five years. The reason that he refused to conduct a hearing on this matter promptly was that he did not want to enter a final, order which would have given me the right to appeal. Judge Janow wanted to stop all possible appeals. It is clear that under Canon 3-B (8), Judge Janow was required to do something with my custody petition such as either grant, deny or dismiss it. His act of waiting five years over my vehement protests at every step of the way was for the purpose of claiming jurisdiction over the matter so that he could have my child arrested and kept in foster care, with no legal way for me to get my daughter back, because of the lack of a final appealable order. The only reason Judge Janow finally decided the case in June, 1991, was that the Amherst Department of Social Services had finally rebelled and stated that they were going to disobey Judge Janow's order and return the child to the father if he did not resolve this matter.

37. Judge janow's refusal to hear this case promptly is by no means a minor matter. Whenever petitioner advances the argument that there was no jurisdiction because Charles Roberts never filed and served a timely custody petition, they respond that it was not necessary for Roberts to file a custody petition because of my custody petition. They also say that once filed, I had no right to withdraw my petition. However, had Judge Janow taken some action on my petition in 1986, which he refused to do, the entire matter would have been moot. Thus, it was his refusal to act on my petition one way or the other in 1986 which, according to him, gave him the legal right to arrange the kidnapping of my daughter in 1990.

38. Another canon which has clearly been violated by both of the respondent judges is Canon 3-E (1)(a), which states: "A judge shall disqualify himself ... in a proceeding ... where ... the judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding." In a remote rural county like Amherst, it should come as no surprise that both Judge Janow and Judge Gamble know Mr. and Mrs. Roberts personally. However, Judge Janow and Judge Gamble did not merely know the Roberts in passing. They clearly had personal knowledge of their situation at an early date. More than that, Judge Gamble was the lawyer for one day in 1985 of the petitioner, but disqualified himself from representing the petitioner because of a conflict of interest. Later, Judge Gamble became the lawyer for Alma Coates Dawson, who was suing the petitioner. Then Judge Gamble became the law partner of Steve Martin, who was already counsel for the petitioner and who testified as a witness for the petitioner at the child custody hearing.

39. Regarding Judge Janow, it is clear in retrospect that he knew about the Shamema situation long before a custody petition was filed in his court. His extra-judicial knowledge of the facts of this case is evidenced by numerous sneaky things he did. It also seems likely that it was due to his interference that Judge Harris refused to hear the matter when custody petitions regarding Shamema were filed in her court by me and my mother in 1983 and 1984.

40. Next, the two respondent judges herein have violated Canon 3-E (1)(b), which states: "A judge shall disqualify himself ... in a proceeding ... where ... the judge served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy or a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning this matter ... ".

41. Prior to becoming a judge, Judge Gamble was the law partner first of Judge Janow and then of Steve Martin. When Judge Gamble became the law partner of Steve Martin, Steve Martin had been since 1986 acting as the lawyer for the petitioner. Gamble and Martin became partners in about 1988, but it was not until two years later, after Shamema has been kidnapped and brought to Amherst County, that Steve Martin was disqualified from appearing in this case by Judge Janow on the grounds of "conflict of interest' relating to his partnership with Judge Gamble.

42. The above facts clearly establish beyond any possible doubt that both Judge Janow and Judge Gamble are disqualified from acting as judges in this case. Still, they absolutely refuse to disqualify themselves. The reason? The reason is clearly that they actually are biased against the petitioner and out to get him. They know that any other judge in Virginia would be prepared to give the petitioner his daughter back, and they are determined to prevent that. When the child custody petition was finally heard before Judge Janow in June, 1991, the Amherst Court Department of Social Services recommended that the child be returned to me, the father. Also, Ed Meeks, the Amherst Commonwealth Attorney recommended that the child be returned to the father. Finally, the court appointed guardian ad litem for the child recommended that the child be returned to the father. Only the attorney for the Roberts asked that the child be handed over to the Roberts. Nevertheless, in spite of all this, the child was given by Judge Janow to the Roberts.

43. Judge Janow would have preferred that the child stay in perpetuity in foster care with the Amherst Department of Social Services, with the Roberts appointed as foster care parents, which would entitle them to receive money and health care benefits from the state. That, indeed, was the original arrangement set up by Judge Janow in 1986, which did not come to fruition only because they were unable to get the child. However, the Amherst Department of Social Services objected to its involuntary role as a court appointed stakeholder. In addition, the Department of Social Services made it clear that it had concluded that the Roberts were unsuitable parent figures. For this reason, the Amherst Department of Social Services had decided to remove the child from the Roberts, if the case was adjourned again beyond June. They were also going to demand that the child attend public school starting in the fall semester, to which the Roberts strenuously objected. This is what caused Judge Janow to stop his endless postponements of this case and to give the child to the Roberts for the first time officially in June, 1991.

44. If there was ever a case where a judge should be removed on the grounds of bias, this is it. However, apparently this court feels that no judge in Virginia can be removed on the grounds of bias. It states that my petition does not allege a lack of jurisdiction. In fact, however, the lack of jurisdiction has been the central theme to all of my petitions. This court has previously dismissed my appeal in an unpublished opinion dated May, 1991 in this same case in which I alleged a lack of jurisdiction. See Sloan v. Amherst Department of Social Services, Virginia Lawyers Weekly, June 3, 1991, page 12.

45. I believe that this court made the above cited erroneous decision in May, 1991, because it believed that I was appealing from an order which merely continued the child in foster care. This court probably assumed that the child had been in foster care since 1986, in view of Judge Janow's decision dated September 5, 1986 awarding custody of the child to the Amherst Department of Social Services. It would have been almost impossible for anyone not knowing better to imagine the truth, which was that Judge Janow well knew on September 5, 1986 that the child was not even in the Commonwealth of Virginia and also that the Amherst Department of Social Services had not requested the custody and placement of the child. In short, Judge Janow has been doing something so completely illegal that no judge or lawyer not personally familiar with the facts of this case can even believe that it could possible happen.

46. In short, it is clear that Judge Janow and Judge Gamble do not now and have never had jurisdiction over this case. I could easily write a lengthy treatise on this point. However, this petition for a rehearing is already on page ten, and this court has already complained about my "long and rambling" seven page petition for a writ of mandamus and prohibition.

47. Finally, this court states in its decision that I am not alleging a clear legal right. This, of course, is not true. The right which I am alleging is that I have a clear legal right to get my kidnapped daughter back. It is clear that my daughter has been kidnapped. Therefore, I want her back. The way to get her back is to remove Judge Janow and Judge Gamble from this case. They have made it clear that as long as they continue to sit as judges, I will never get her back or even be able to speak to her on the telephone.

WHEREFORE, for all of the reasons set forth above, this petition for a rehearing should be granted, Judge Janow and Judge Gamble should be disqualified from hearing this case, and the kidnapped child who is being held hostage by the orders of Judge Janow and Judge Gamble should be returned to her devoted father from whom she was kidnapped forthwith.

DATED: August 5, 1992

M. Ismail Sloan
917 Old Trent's Ferry Road
Lynchburg, VA 24503
(212) 388-2869

To: Barbara J. Gaden, Assistant Attorney General of Virginia, Counsel for Respondents Judge Michael Gamble and Judge Lawrence Janow, 101 North Eighth Street, Richmond, VA 23219 (804) 786-2071


M. Ismail Sloan, being duly sworn deposes and says that he has read the forgoing petition for a rehearing and that everything contained therein is true, except for those matters alleged upon information and belief, and those he believes to be true.

M. Ismail Sloan
Sworn to before me this
5th day of August, 1992


Contact address - please send e-mail to the following address: