Letter to the Lynchburg Public Defender

According to the relevant sections of the Virginia State Code, the Commonwealth Attorney is required to set a matter for trial within nine months after the case has been certified to the circuit court by the district court. According to my arithmetic, that nine months period has now expired and therefore the prosecution of me on the charge of a violation of 18.2-47 is time barred.

I wish to point out that my trial, which was originally set for January 10, 1992, was cancelled and continued generally by Judge Gamble on January 2, 1992. At that time, I fully intended to appear for trial on January 10, 1992 and my letter dated December 22, 1991, which Judge Gamble used as the basis for continuing the trial generally, reflected that. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, the clock is ticking against the Commonwealth. I still fully intend to appear at any trial, once a trial has been scheduled.

I am aware that you do not agree with my motion to disqualify Judge Gamble from being the judge on this case. However, please understand that you do not see the full picture. There are about six cases against me and my mother involving Judge Gamble, and you are only handling one of them. Judge Gamble has done a lot of things in those other cases which you don't know about which require his disqualification. In fact, I keep finding out about new things which I did not previously know about which Judge Gamble has done which require his disqualification.

For example, sometime in early December, 1991 (I do not know the exact date), Judge Gamble suddenly decided to have a trial on a contempt charge dating back to 1986. This "trial" took place in absentia without notice to me or to anybody else. Even the Roberts did not know about it and were not present. Judge Gamble then convicted me without witnesses. He also disqualified my attorney, James Massie, from representing me, also without notice to me. He then entered an order against me, a copy of which I still have not been able to obtain. By the time I had learned about all of this, my time to appeal had run. My notice of appeal has now been dismissed by the Court of Appeals.

Moreover, this was the contempt matter of which I have been demanding an immediate trial since November, 1990. I have written letters to the court demanding a trial, plus complained to the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission, complained to the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court of Virginia and filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, all of which demanded an immediate trial of this 1986 case, especially since I needed to get back the one thousand dollars bond which I had posted. Nevertheless, first Judge Janow and then Judge Gamble refused to try this case promptly. Then, after a total delay of one year and one month, Judge Gamble suddenly tried it summarily at a time when he well knew that I could not possibly be present and still I have not been allowed to obtain a copy of the decision.

I have just now noticed another reason for the disqualification of Judge Gamble. It appears that on December 19, 1991, Judge Gamble revoked my bond and ordered my arrest. Such an action, however, could not have been taken except on the application of the Commonwealth Attorney and with you present. The judge simply cannot do this sua sponte on his own motion. It is clear that the Commonwealth Attorney did not request this action and also that you were not notified.

Section 19.2-128 and other pertinent sections require that a bond may not be revoked by a judge except "after notice to all parties" and even then only not "unless one of the parties can show good cause". At that time, Judge Gamble was well aware that I was required to be in California to attend court hearings regarding my other daughter, Jessica Sloan, who had been taken into foster care as sexually abused child, which was a matter of much greater urgency and certainly constituted "good cause". In fact, Charles Roberts is the one who provided the California authorities with my residence address in Lynchburg so that I could be served with a summons. His wife, Shelby Roberts, later faxed a copy of Judge Gamble's letter opinion to the California authorities, which was introduced by them into evidence against me.

These and many other illegal acts without notice by Judge Gamble parallel nearly identical acts taken by Judge Janow over a period of five years. As you know, Judge Janow is the former law partner and is also the friend and neighbor of Judge Gamble. These and a long list of similar acts create a clear impression in my mind that I cannot possibly get a fair trail before Judge Gamble.

What I would like you to do is to contact the Commonwealth Attorney and find out if he is still interested in the prosecution of this case. If he is willing to proceed, I am prepared to attend trial. However, I must request that the judge be some judge other than Judge Gamble.

I have reasons for believing that the Commonwealth Attorney may no longer be interested in pursuing this matter. In particular, section 18.2-47 specifically states that I cannot be prosecuted for a felony under this section if the same acts are also punishable as contempt of court. However, according to a newspaper interview of Linda Groome, the attorney for the Roberts, Judge Gamble has now issued three warrants for my arrest, one on the felony charge and two for contempt. Since the statute does not allow a person such as myself to be charged twice, once criminally and once civilly, for the same act, the Commonwealth Attorney is required to dismiss the felony charge.

Moreover, as you are well aware, I am manifestly not guilty of any violation of 18.2-47, which is interstate kidnapping. The child never left the state. Moreover, the person who actually is guilty is Charles Roberts, who had just previously taken my child to South Carolina, in clear violation of the order of Judge Janow, and for the purpose of depriving me of my weekly visitation rights. The acts of Charles Roberts of taking my daughter to South Carolina constitute a clear violation of 18.2-49.1, which is a class 6 felony, and yet he has not been prosecuted. Moreover, Charles Roberts is not a parent, nor did he even have custody at the time of the South Carolina trip, so his act is one of outright kidnapping, rather than mere parental kidnapping.

Furthermore, I have discovered another federal law, the International Child Kidnapping and Retention Act, 42 U.S.C. 11601, which bars the prosecution of this case, since my daughter got to the United States only as a result of an international kidnapping. This federal law codifies the Hague Convention, to which the United States is a signatory.

Another factor concerns the airline ticket. I have found out that the travel agent who issued the ticket is Chandra Malik, (212) 779-2003. Mr. Malik was at that time based in San Francisco but now is in New York. Mr. Bozulich has been calling Mr. Malik for the purpose of trying to get a refund on his ticket, which is still in the possession of the Lynchburg Commonwealth Attorney. The problem is that Mr. Malik informs Mr. Bozulich that such tickets are not fully refundable because, once the departure date has passed, the ticket is no longer valid for travel. This was a special "bulk rate" ticket, normally issued to members of a tour group in connection with a rental car and hotel reservations. I have not recently seen the ticket myself, but, if you see it, it will probably have the words "bulk rate" or something to that effect written on it. As you know, the flight date had passed at the time of my arrest. As a result, the ticket was no longer valid for travel.

Mr. Bozulich has been trying to get Mr. Malik to call the Lynchburg Commonwealth Attorney to explain this to him. Incidentally, Mr. Malik has apparently never been contacted by the police or by the Lynchburg Commonwealth Attorney regarding this ticket, as he should have been had they been seriously interested in investigating this matter. As you know, the ticket is the linchpin to the Commonwealth Attorney's case. Once it is established that the ticket was not valid for travel at the time of my arrest, they have no case against me. This is in addition to the fact that the ticket was issued in the name of Mr. Bozulich, and not in my name.

The truth of the matter is that this case was false from the start. I should never have been arrested. The Commonwealth Attorney has an old grudge against me and my father (a former IRS tax collector) which explains his actions not only in this case but going back to 1986 when he issued another illegal warrant for my arrest and even before that, when he refused to investigate Alma Coates Dawson regarding the circumstances of the death of my father and opposed in court an autopsy. Incidentally, Alma Coates Dawson was represented by Michael Gamble, who is now a judge.

Now, nine months have passed and the Commonwealth Attorney has not yet scheduled this case for trial. I therefore suspect that the Commonwealth Attorney might be prepared to dismiss the charges. If not, I request that you make a motion to that effect.

Very Truly Yours,

M. Ismail Sloan