ISMAIL SLOAN,
Appellant -Petitioner, M - 4579
-against- Index No. V-7266-7/91
DAYAWATHIE RANKOTH,
Appellee - Respondent.
_________________________________________________
REPLY AFFIDAVIT TO AFFIDAVIT OF MARIAN ROSENBERG
ISMAIL SLOAN, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. After making my motion for poor person relief, I find my self being attacked by one Marian Rosenberg, a person previously unknown to me and who obviously knows nothing about the facts of this case.
2. In view of the defamatory accusations made in her affirmation, I am constrained to make some remarks about the facts of this case. First, it is obvious that Marion Rosenberg is in contact with Kimberley White and with Charles and Shelby Roberts of Madison Heights, Virginia, who are members of a religious cult which kidnapped my daughter, Shamema Honzagool Sloan. Indeed, the Roberts have just filed a similar affidavit in another case now before this court, Mr. and Mrs. Charles Roberts v. Ismail Sloan, No. 20991/1986.
3. The record of this case in the Family Court below shows that my children, Michael, George and Anusha, were virtually kidnapped by Sanctuary for Families Inc. during what was intended to be a brief visit to New York by my family, which was then living in Lynchburg, Virginia, after previously arriving from the United Arab Emirates. The record shows that in May, 1991, Dayawathie Rankoth, who was three months pregnant, was admitted to Maimonides Hospital but was then taken out the back door, along with the children, without my knowledge, and was transported to a homeless shelter.
4. Later, the shelter officials interviewed Rankoth Dayawathie. The social worker reports in the file state that Dayawathie was insistent on returning to my mother's home in Lynchburg, where we were living at the time of this incident, and that she did not want to stay in the homeless shelter. Dayawathie also gave the social worker my home telephone number, and the social worker tried to call me several times, but there was no answer. Finally, according to the reports, Dayawathie "agreed" to go to stay in the homeless shelter.
5. When one considers these facts, plus the fact that Dayawathie had only recently arrived in the United States of America on a three month tourist visa, it is obvious that she was coerced to enter the shelter program. It also must be mentioned that she is an illegal alien here, having now overstayed her tourist visa by more than four years.
6. The reports also show that about one month later, the shelter officials became aware of the fact that I had been going from shelter to shelter showing pictures of my wife (we are legally married) and children. Realizing that I was on the verge of finding them, the reports state that they put Dayawathie and the two children in a "safe house" where they could not be located, and where they could not locate me either.
7. Meanwhile, on June 20, 1991, I had filed the instant cases for the custody of the two children. There were numerous court hearings. However, neither the mother nor the children ever appeared in court. The New York City Department of Social Services claimed that they could not either confirm or deny the existence of these three individuals in their shelter program. There was no proof that they were even dead or alive. It was also possible that they might have gone back to Sri Lanka. Because of these factors, Judge Bruce M. Kaplan appointed the New York Society for the Prevention of Children as guardian ad litem to search for the children. That organization searched the morgues, the hospitals and every other conceivable place and were never able to locate their own clients, the children. Eventually, however, they were allowed to see the children in a neutral location, just so that they could be satisfied that the children were alive and healthy. After that, the New York Society for the Prevention of Children withdrew from this case.
8. Prior to my receipt of the affidavit of Marian Rosenberg, I had no verification of the existence of my wife and three children since June, 1991, except that I know from hospital records that our third child, Anusha, was born in St. Vincent's Hospital on November 29, 1991. I have no idea as to the health, well being or whereabouts of Anusha.
9. All of the above can be explained by the type of organization which Sanctuary for Families, Inc. is. According to Charlotte Horowitz, a former high official of the New York City Department of Social Services, "Sanctuary for Families makes a person disappear to such an extent that it seems that the person no longer exists." This is exactly what happened. I have no way of knowing whether my wife and children even exist or not. They might even be dead.
10. The Affidavit of Marian Rosenberg makes the broad accusation that essentially I am a wife beater. If that is the case, why hasn't any action been taken in court? Why is there no affidavit from Dayawathie Rankoth herself stating that? The courts are open for people with allegations such as those made here. Dayawathie could easily apply for an order of protection, if such was the case. Judge Bruce M. Kaplan also raised this point repeatedly in his hearings in the New York Family court. He pointed out that I have a constitutional right to be confronted by the witnesses and the accusations against me. Here, the accusations are being made by a lawyer who has no personal knowledge of the facts. In short, I am being deprived of my constitutional right to the custody of my children and my children are being deprived of their constitutional right to have a father, without any due process of law.
11. At the bottom of all this are Charles and Shelby Roberts, who are members of a cult of religious fanatics who have repeatedly kidnapped or attempted to kidnap my children for their own religious purposes. The Roberts themselves admit that they have spent more than $40,000 to kidnap my children. Prior to the current incident, my son Michael had been kidnapped two times. After the first kidnapping, Michael was abandoned and left on the street with a stranger in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, because he was only two years old and protested too much at being kidnapped. Later, on November 16, 1990, Michael was kidnapped in Lynchburg, Virginia by Sharon Haberer, another cult member affiliated with the Roberts. I eventually brought a court action against Sharon Haberer and was able to recover Michael when Dayawathie ran away from Sharon Haberer with both Michael and newly-born George and came to live in my mother's home in Lynchburg, Virginia.
12. The sole issue before this court is my motion for leave to proceed as a poor person. The affidavit of Marian Rosenberg claims that I am not poor, because I have traveled to numerous court hearings. However, the truth is that I am poor because of these court hearings. Charles and Shelby Roberts hired a professional kidnapper named Boonchoo Yensabai to kidnap my then three children, Shamema, Michael and Jessica in 1990. The children were subsequently spilt up and court cases involving each of the three children were eventually filed, all at the instigation of Charles and Shelby Roberts. The case regarding Jessica took place in California, the cases involving Michael took place in New York and the cases involving Shamema have taken place in Virginia and New York.
13. I was required to travel to California numerous times for the Jessica case. Finally, after a thorough investigation, I was awarded joint custody of Jessica by the Alameda County Superior Court on June 11, 1993.
14. However, meanwhile, Charles and Shelby Roberts, the actual kidnappers of my three children, had filed a false report with the police that I had "attempted" to kidnap my daughter, Shamema, whereas in reality, they are the actual kidnappers.
Based on this false report and the perjured testimony of Shelby Roberts, they were able to have me convicted of the "attempted abduction" of my own daughter. This preposterous result was made possible by the close friendship which the Roberts have with the local judges, prosecutors, sheriff and police in the remote rural area of Virginia where they live. I was sentenced on this charge to five years in prison.
15. Much to the consternation of the Roberts, I was released on parole after two years. Now they have embarked on a letter writing campaign to have me re-arrested and sent bank to prison. A neighbor of Shelby Roberts has quoted her recently as stating, "I will do anything to have Sam put back in the pokey under any pretext just so I can have another two years of peace."
16. In addition, the Roberts have filed numerous lawsuits against me. They even had the audacity to file a suit demanding reimbursement for their costs and expenses in kidnapping my daughter. They have obtained several money judgments against me. All of my bank accounts and property have been attached or frozen. Finally, on September 8, 1994, I was forced to file for bankruptcy to stop a foreclosure sale on my little remaining personal property.
17. It is true that I was released from prison on parole. However, I am in constant contact and communication with my parole officer. He is well aware of my movements and it is up to him to decide whether I am complying with his requirements of not. Marian Rosenberg, who, quite obviously had now joined in the conspiracy with Charles and Shelby Roberts and Kimberley White to kidnap my children, has no right to interfere or to say anything about this matter. It is clear from her affidavit that she is trying to have my parole revoked and to heave me arrested again.
18. It is clear that I am entitled to poor person relief. In addition, on September 1, 1994 I was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis by the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia and that court is well aware of my personal situation.
WHEREFORE it is respectfully prayed that my motion for leave to proceed as a poor person be granted.
Subscribed and sworn to this _____
day of November, 1994
____________________________
Ismail Sloan
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION - FIRST DEPARTMENT
________________________________________________
ISMAIL SLOAN,
Appellant -Petitioner, M-4579
-against- Index No. V-7266-7/91
DAYAWATHIE RANKOTH,
Appellee - Respondent.
_________________________________________________
MOTION FOR REHEARING AND RECONSIDERATION OF THE DECISION OF THIS COURT DENYING MY MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED AS A POOR PERSON
M. Ismail Sloan, being duly sworn, states:
1. I received in the mail an outrageous affidavit from Marilyn Rosenberg requesting that my motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. I prepared the annexed reply affidavit, but before I could file it, I learned that my motion had been denied. Therefore, I request a rehearing.
2. The affidavit of Marilyn Rosenberg states that my motion should be denied because I have been traveling back and forth and therefore I must have a lot of money. However, she has deliberately falsified the facts of this case.
3. As she correctly states, I was recently released from prison on parole. However, I was paroled to California and I was required by my parole officer to travel there. As soon as I got to California, I received a court summons stating that I was required to return to Virginia failing which I would be charged with failure to appear. I wish to note that it was under similar circumstance that I was charged with failure to appear in 1992 and sentenced to five years in prison. On October 4, 1994 the Virginia Court of Appeals rendered a decision affirming this conviction by a 2-1 vote. However, the dissenting judge noted that my conviction "lacks a factual basis". Indeed, it is obvious that no New York Court would ever have convicted me of this frivolous charge. Recently, the Virginia Court of Appeals granted me a rehearing en banc from that decision.
4. I was also required to appear before Judge Phyllis Gangle-Jacob in connection with the suit brought by Charles and Shelby Roberts for the custody of my daughter, Shamema Honzagool Sloan. The name of that case is Mr. and Mrs. Charles Roberts v. Ismail Sloan, No. 20991/1986. I have also appealed that decision to this court and the Roberts have appeared in this appeal. The affidavit filed here by Charles and Shelby Roberts is almost identical with that filed by Marilyn Rosenberg and it is obvious that they are in touch with each other.
5. The fact is that I have seven children and the Roberts are religious fanatics and criminal kidnappers, who keep on kidnapping and attempting to kidnap my children for the purpose of converting them into "born again" Christians. I was actually convicted of the crime for which they are guilty. If this court takes the trouble to check the police records, it will find that there is an outstanding INTERPOL warrant for the arrest of Charles Roberts for the kidnapping of my daughter, Shamema Honzagool Sloan, in the United Arab Emirates. The Roberts are nevertheless seeking the protection of this court.
6. The fact is that I am totally devoted to my children and I love them very much. I happen to be an excellent father to my children. The Alameda County Superior Court of Alameda County, California, after a thorough investigation by several social workers over a period of more than one year, considered all of the matters alleged in the affidavit of Marion Rosenberg and awarded the custody of Jessica, the sister of Michael and George, the subject children here, to me. A copy of the order awarding custody is annexed.
7. Michael and George, the subject children here, were kidnapped away from me by Sanctuary for Families. The record of this case shows that the mother of the children, Dayawathie Rankoth, told their social worker that she wanted to go back to live in my mother's house in Virginia (with me). She gave them my telephone number and the social worker purportedly tried to call me. Receiving no answer, she tried to convince Dayawathie to agree to go to live in a battered woman's shelter. Dayawathie at first refused but finally she agreed, according to the social worker's report. They were then taken to a "safe house" and have not been seen or heard from since. This all happened in June, 1991, more than three years ago.
8. The social worker could not possibly have known that up until that time we had been living in my mother's beautiful $150,000 home in Lynchburg, Virginia, which had facilities vastly superior to any battered woman's shelter. The social worker also could not have known that Dayawathie had a record for abandoning and neglecting her children. Dayawathie abandoned Michael in February, 1989, when he was only eight months old, and went back to her native Sri Lanka, leaving Michael with me. Dayawathie came back briefly to the United Arab Emirates where we were living at the time in November, 1989, but left again in February, 1990. By
June, 1991, when the events which led to the present situation occurred, Michael had just been reintroduced to his own mother and almost certainly did not remember her. Michael had resided with me, his father, continuously since birth and knew who his father was did not know who his mother was.
9. The social worker's report refers to various scratches found on Michael and George. What the social worker obviously did not know was that Dr. Joseph of Maimonides had called the Child Welfare Agency to complain that she had witnessed Dayawathie striking her son. It was this complaint which started this process going. Dr. Joseph made no complaint against me, the father. She only complained against the mother.
10. Finally, it must be said that Dayawathie has toured the world and almost everywhere she has been she has attracted the attention of the police and law enforcement authorities. She was three days in jail in Fujairah, United Arab Emirates. She was nearly arrested in Mexico. I barely managed to save her from being arrested in Madras, India. In June, 1991, I was contacted by Mr. Sebastian Ike of the Child Welfare Agency, who stated that they were just getting ready to initiate removal proceedings to take the children away from the mother and that I should come to New York (as I was in Virginia at the time) to collect the children. I came to New York, but was never to this day able to find them because, as I now know, they had been spirited away by Sanctuary for Families and placed in a "safe house".
11. All these matters should have been the subject of a hearing in the New York Family Court. Instead, Judge Bruce M. Kaplan dismissed my custody petition without any hearing. This was error and clearly required reversal by this court.
12. Because I have seven children, I have repeatedly applied for and have been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the appointment of counsel. Such orders are in effect in the following courts: Brooklyn Surrogates Court, United States District Court in Roanoke, Virginia, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Virginia Court of Appeals, Virginia Supreme Court and California Superior Court. Copies of several orders of these courts are annexed. No court has ever denied me leave to proceed in forma pauperis in view of my obvious indigency and the massive litigation against me. This court also would not have denied my motion, were it not for the false and fraudulent affidavit filed by Marion Rosenberg.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this motion for leave to proceed as a poor person be granted.
Subscribed and sworn this 26th day of November, 1994
______________________
M. Ismail Sloan
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
This is to certify that on November 26, 1994 the undersigned served the within petition motion for leave to proceed as a poor person by mailing a true copy of the same to all counsel of record in this action.
Subscribed and sworn this 26th day of November, 1994
_______________________
Samuel H. Sloan
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION - FIRST DEPARTMENT
________________________________________________
MR. AND MRS. CHARLES ROBERTS,
Appellee -Petitioner,
-against- Index No. 20991/1986
ISMAIL SLOAN,
Appellant - Respondent.
_________________________________________________
MOTION FOR REHEARING AND RECONSIDERATION OF THE DECISION OF THIS COURT DENYING MY MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED AS A POOR PERSON
M. Ismail Sloan, being duly sworn, states:
1. In response to my motion for leave to proceed as a poor person, this court received an affidavit from Charles Roberts stating that I had traveled back and forth from California to Virginia to New York and therefore was not indigent and my motion should be denied. As a result, this court denied my motion.
2. However, the fact is that the reason I have been compelled to travel to various courts in various states is because of Mr. Roberts' incessant filing of cases against me. Mr. Roberts and his ally, Creighton W. Sloan, have filed a total of fourteen cases against me and my mother, of which this is just one. Moreover, Mr. Roberts is constantly making complaints to police and law enforcement agencies around the world. Mr. Roberts has succeeded in having me arrested eight times, in such diverse places as New York City, Guam, Honolulu, Amherst County, Virginia, Queens, Lynchburg, Virginia and San Francisco, California. Right now, Mr. Roberts is trying to have me arrested again. He will keep trying to do this again and again, for as long as he is alive. The reason for this is that Mr. Roberts is a religious fanatic who keeps doing this in an effort to impose his religious views on my family, particularly my children.
3. Mr. Roberts had me arrested in San Francisco and extradited to Virginia in 1992 on the utterly false charge of failure to appear and the attempted abduction of my daughter. I was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison on the false testimony of his wife, Shelby Roberts. This conviction was affirmed by a 2-1 vote of the Virginia Court of Appeals. The dissenting opinion stated that "there is no factual basis for Sloan's conviction." Fortunately, on November 14, 1994, the Virginia Court of Appeals granted my pro se petition for a rehearing en banc (after my weak court appointed lawyer failed to file timely such a petition). Unfortunately, it will take from six months to a year before this en banc rehearing can take place.
4. I was initially denied parole because the Roberts and their religious allies actively lobbied the parole board that I not be let out of prison. However, nearly one year later, on April 13, 1994, the parole board granted me parole, on their last day in office, after they had been summarily fired by the new Governor of Virginia. I am very fortunate to have gotten out, because the new parole board doesn't give parole any more.
5. It should be evident from the affidavit filed in this court by Mr. Roberts that he is trying to have my parole revoked. He complains repeatedly that I have violated the terms of my parole by traveling to New York without permission. That is not true, but, more importantly, it is none of his business. What I do is completely between myself and my parole officer. It is evident that the parole board is tired of receiving complaints from the Roberts about this.
6. Why does Mr. Roberts and his wife, Shelby Roberts, keep doing all of these things to me? The fact is that I have always been very nice to the Roberts family. I have never done anything adverse to them. I hired Shelby Roberts as a typist in 1975 and paid her $4.00 per hour (a good salary at that time.) Later, when my wife, Honzagool, went back to her native Pakistan, abandoning our infant daughter to me, I eventually hired Shelby Roberts as a baby sitter. Shelby Roberts was paid for her services in accordance with the agreement between us. My mistake was that I granted her too much leeway with my daughter. Later, in 1986, after I had taken my daughter to New York City, Mr. and Mrs. Charles Roberts filed the instant suit for the custody of my daughter. This is only one of many such suits filed by the Roberts. They even filed a child custody suit against me in 1990 in the Civil Court of Bangkok, Thailand.
7. When these civil proceedings failed to produce any results, Charles Roberts hired a professional kidnapper named Boonchoo Yensabai to kidnap my by then three children, Shamema, Michael and Jessica. Boonchoo was paid initially $12,000 plus expenses for his services. I understand that Mr. Roberts is still keeping Boonchoo on retainer and has paid him more than $20,000 so far.
8. Boonchoo and his men attempted to kidnap my then 80-year-old mother and my three children in Bangkok, Thailand on September 3, 1990. Mr. Roberts was interested in having my mother kidnapped because my mother has a lot of money. Boonchoo succeeded in kidnapping my mother because of her infirmity, but failed to kidnap my three children. When this initial kidnapping attempt failed, Mr. Roberts sent $2,000 more to have the mother of the youngest child flown in from Singapore. (The three children all have different mothers.) Boonchoo told the mother, whose name in Shanti Vithanage, that "your baby will be dead" if she refused to cooperate in this kidnapping.
9. Shanti flew in from Singapore but, upon arrival in Bangkok, almost immediately ran away from Boonchoo and rejoined us. Together the five of us ran several thousand miles to get away from the professional kidnappers hired by Boonchoo. Eventually, we reached Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. We then took a flight to the United Arab Emirates.
10. However, Boonchoo tracked us down in the United Arab Emirates, and threatened to kill Shanti Vithanage if she did not cooperate. As a result, the three children were kidnapped. However, the middle child, Michael, then aged 2, was abandoned along the way in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. The other two children, Shamema and Jessica were brought to America.
11. For the heinous criminal act of kidnapping these two children, Charles Roberts has been tried, convicted and sentenced to life in prison in Fujairah, United Arab Emirates. Mr. Roberts is now an international fugitive from justice and there is an INTERPOL warrant outstanding for his arrest, but nevertheless he is able to file affidavits in this court.
12. Later, Jessica, the youngest child, was rescued from the Roberts home by her mother, Shanti Vithanage, and taken to California. Mrs. Shelby Roberts then sent a FAX to the Alameda County, California Social Services Agency alleging that I had kidnapped the child, whereas in reality she and her husband had kidnapped the child. Based upon these false allegations by Mr. and Mrs. Charles Roberts, Jessica was detained in foster care for one year. Mr. and Mrs. Charles Roberts provided the California Social Services Agency with my address in Lynchburg, Virginia and I was summoned to appear at a hearing in California. When the Roberts found out that I did in fact attend the hearing in California, they complained to the Lynchburg Commonwealth Attorney and got me arrested in California and extradited to Virginia.
13. Here in this court, Mr. Roberts complains that I traveled to Virginia, to New York and to California. He fails to mention that he has filed or caused to be filed cases against me in all three states. I have to be constantly running back and forth from state to state to attend the hearings required in the cases brought by Mr. Roberts. My next court date in Virginia is on December 9, 1994. Every time I travel, I must obtain permission from my parole officer. It is because of these constant trips and court appearances plus the fact that I spent two years in prison that I am and will remain indigent.
14. All this has been investigated by the California Social Services Agency. They took the claims made by Mr. and Mrs. Roberts very seriously at first, but then found them to be false. As a result, I was granted joint custody of my daughter, Jessica. A copy of the order of the Alameda County Superior Court is annexed. The matter of the custody of the remaining children is pending before this honorable court.
15. It is clear that I am fighting an uneven struggle against a man who is a religious fanatic and who is in no way a relative of any of my children. Mr. Roberts is very heavily armed, with all kinds of guns and weapons in his house. I have no choice but to fight him through the legal system. It is also clear that Mr. and Mrs. Roberts has no standing to appear in this court. "Granting standing to such a person would open the floodgates of litigation and unduly burden and complicate custody proceedings. " Janet S. M. M. v. Commissioner, 158 Misc.2d 851, 857, 601 N.Y.S. 2d 781 (1993). Similarly, "The Family Court Act was designed to prevent spurious and malicious suits ..... by disgruntled third parties who may not approve of the life style of the parent or the manner in which the child is being raised." Matter of Humphrey v. Humphrey, 103 Misc.2d 175, 178, 425 N.Y.S.2d 759 (1980).
16. The last citation is particularly appropriate, because Mr. and Mrs. Charles Roberts are the perfect examples of disgruntled third parties who do not approve of the life style of the parent or the manner in which the children are being raised. Mr. Roberts often objects to the fact that there is religious freedom in this country. He states that if he were in power, he would force all the people to adopt his religion. He overlooks the fact that it is due to the religious freedom which exists in America that a person who is so obviously a nut as he is is allowed to thrive here.
17. All of these facts, plus the supporting documents, prove that I am indigent and am entitled to poor person relief. Also, my children will be the ones to suffer if they are denied the right to have a father due to my inability to obtain a lawyer. Because I have seven children, I have repeatedly applied for and have been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the appointment of counsel. Such orders are in effect in the following courts: Brooklyn Surrogates Court, United States District Court in Roanoke, Virginia, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Virginia Court of Appeals, Virginia Supreme Court and California Superior Court. Copies of several orders of these courts are annexed. No court has ever denied me leave to proceed in forma pauperis in view of my obvious indigency and the massive litigation against me. This court also would not have denied my motion, were it not for the false and fraudulent affidavit filed by Mr. and Mrs. Charles Roberts.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this motion for leave to proceed as a poor person be granted.
Subscribed and sworn this 26 day of November, 1994
______________________
M. Ismail Sloan
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
This is to certify that on November 26, 1994 the undersigned served the within petition motion for leave to proceed as a poor person by mailing a true copy of the same to all counsel of record in this action.
Subscribed and sworn this 26th day of November, 1994
_______________________
Samuel H. Sloan