Letter to Hon. Phyllis Gangel-Jacob

Ismail Sloan
331 Flatbush Ave.
Brooklyn NY 11217

August 30, 1994

Hon. Phyllis Gangel-Jacob
New York Supreme Court
60 Center Street
New York NY 10007

Re: People of NY ex. rel. Roberts v. Sloan,
Index No. 20991/1986

Dear Judge Gangel-Jacob,

I wish to have a clarification regarding your ruling of August 26, 1994. Did you simply deny my motion to proceed as a poor person, or did you dismiss my prospective counterclaim and the entire action itself altogether? In the former case, if I can merely come up with the money to pay the filing fees, I can then proceed. In the latter case, I must appeal immediately to the Appellate Division, First Department.

I would like for you to write an order and enter it in the file explaining what you have decided. If it is an appealable order, I will then immediately appeal to the Appellate Division.

Frankly, I find your ruling to be most disturbing. The record clearly shows that Mr. and Mrs. Charles Roberts filed a habeas corpus child custody proceeding against me seeking the custody of my daughter, Shamema Honzagool Sloan. Subsequently, the Roberts abducted the child and disappeared with her. The mother of the child resides in Pakistan and has no connection with this.

Your ruling seems to be that the case is now "dead", as you put it, and that I cannot seek recovery of my kidnapped daughter nor even serve papers on opposing counsel. You state that instead I should devote myself to searching for my daughter. You cannot possibly appreciate the fact that every day for the past nearly four years I have done nothing else but try to obtain the recovery of my kidnapped daughter, which indeed is the reason that I have become a "poor person."

The sole purpose of your ruling seems to be to avoid any trouble and inconvenience for Carole L. Weidman, counsel of record for Mr. and Mrs. Charles Roberts. However, my entire family has been threatened and harassed by the meritless and malicious litigation brought by Ms. Weidman, for which she presumably received a legal fee from the Roberts. What about the trouble and inconvenience we have suffered? Furthermore, Ms. Weidman's letter to your court stating that "I do not even know who these people are," is not a grounds for you to dismiss this case. Rather, it is a grounds for the bringing of disciplinary proceedings by the Bar Association against Ms. Weidman for filing a suit on behalf of persons whom she knows nothing about.

The record shows that Ms. Weidman appeared at least twice in court in this case. Once was before Judge Kristin Boothe Glen on September 11, 1986 and the second was before Judge Harold Baer. Her admission now that she knows nothing about the people whom she represented is shocking.

Frankly, your ruling is one of many by the courts which encourage parents and even third parties to kidnap children. The idea that unscrupulous individuals such as Mr. and Mrs. Charles Roberts can find an unethical and unprincipled attorney like Carole L. Weidman to file a third party child custody proceeding, obtain a writ of habeas corpus, and then disappear with the child, and then the attorney is protected from even the minor inconvenience of receiving papers on behalf of her clients, is shocking.

By making such a ruling, you are making the courts a virtual accomplice to the kidnapping itself.

In the following cases, the courts have ruled that the courts lack even the jurisdiction to entertain third party habeas corpus petitions such as those filed by Mr. and Mrs. Charles Roberts here. Alison D. v. Virginia M., 77 N.Y.2d 651, 569 N.Y.S.2d 586 (Ct.App. 1991); Rogers v. Platt, 245 Cal. Rptr. 532, 199 Cal. App. 3d 1213 (1988); Rogers v. Platt, 641 F. Supp. 381 (D.D.C. 1986); In the Interest of B. G. C., 496 NW2d 239 (Iowa 1992); In re Baby Girl Clausen, 502 NW2d 649 (Mich 1993); Janet S. M. M. v. Commissioner, 158 Misc.2d 851, 857, 601 N.Y.S. 2d 781 (1993); Matter of Humphrey v. Humphrey, 103 Misc.2d 175, 178, 425 N.Y.S.2d 759 (1980); DeBoer by Darrow v. DeBoer, 114 S.Ct. 1 (1993).

I am enclosing a copy of the order to show cause which I tried to present for your signature. I hope that you will reconsider your ruling.

Very Truly Yours,

Ismail Sloan

Copy to: Carole L. Weidman
Counsel of Record for Mr. and Mrs. Charles Roberts
150 East 58th Street
New York NY 10155

Contact address - please send e-mail to the following address: Sloan@ishipress.com