VIRGINIA: IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA M. ISMAIL SLOAN -against- Record No. 1389-96-3 Charles E. Roberts et al Circuit Court No. 9216IN REPLY TO ISMAIL SLOAN'S ANSWER TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE DATED AUGUST 8, 1996, HIS REPLY IS DATED AUGUST 22, 1996
Come now Charles E. and Shelby H. Roberts, husband and wife, in response to M. Ismail Sloan's statement of 'FACTS OF THIS CASE' as presented in his answer to order to show cause and state: any and all of our rebuttals of Sloan's 'FACTS OF THIS CASE' will be verified by exhibits which should be contained in the previously submitted court files of this case from the Circuit Court of Amherst County. If there should arise any questions regarding verification of any of our rebuttals we can supply these upon request. Also, since Sloan failed to number the paragraphs in his 'STATEMENT OF FACTS' we have arbitrarily done so and supplied a numbered copy in order to facilitate the speedy location of those portions referred to which are as follows:
Paragraph 2: Sloan omits that the custody order of the Bronx Supreme Court directed that the child not be taken out of the state of New York or from the jurisdiction of that court. He also states that the mother (Honzagool) went to Pakistan, implying as he has in other instances, that she abandoned the child (Shamema) while the child was still within the State of New York when in fact he (Mr. Sloan) abducted the child from the mother's custody during visitation in violation of the New York court order. Later he had the mother "deported to Pakistan" according to his own testimony.
Paragraph 4: Sloan states that neither court awarded custody to the Roberts. Actually, J & D court Judge Lawrence Janow in his initial ruling awarded joint legal custody to the father and present custodians (Roberts) with the present custodians (Roberts) having physical custody . This ruling was of course a temporary, emergency decision pending the continuation and conclusion of the case but was never the less in effect when he (Sloan) abducted her the second time in August, 1986. Here again he was directed not to remove the child from the jurisdiction of that court. The higher courts have for some reason failed to mention that joint-legal custody was in effect when he (Sloan) abducted her the second time, perhaps because shortly thereafter Judge Janow ordered the Amherst County Dept. of Social Services to assume custody of Shamema taking it out of our hands. Before the child was returned to the jurisdiction of the Amherst County Court, we were in contact with the Department of Social Services regarding what we might be able to do, if anything, in an effort to bring her back and were informed that we could do anything not illegal including flying to Bangkok, Thailand to escort her back if she were taken into custody there. In other words, even though they were forced to assume legal custody, they still considered us partially responsible for her physical custody.
Paragraph 5: Sloan states that we arranged to have the child kidnapped and we stated that we had spent $40,000 for this purpose. This is totally false. We have not kidnapped this child at any time, neither have we violated any court orders pertaining to her and certainly we have not so stated. We paid some money to a law firm in Bangkok, Thailand to represent us in an effort to have her returned to the United States (which authorities Sloan managed to elude) but most was spent locally to defend this child and us from his onslaught of frivolous lawsuits. Shamema contacted us by phone in august, 1989 (approximately a year before) and said she wanted to return to the United States escorted by one of Sloan's "wives." It was a little over a year later when Shanti informed me that she had finally obtained a visa and had the passports in her possession. (Sloan was in jail at the time.) I proceeded then to provide prepaid airline tickets through a local travel agency and Shamema and Sloan's "wife" planned their own return to the United States.
Paragraph 7: The only warrant we obtained for Sloan was a felony warrant for parental abduction which later was upgraded to a federal unlawful flight to avoid prosecution warrant because he fled the country but both were eventually dropped by the Lynchburg Commonwealth's Attorney who refused to extradite Sloan. His various arrests and jail time have been the results of his own actions.
Paragraph 8. Mr. Sloan has insisted that the Virginia courts have never had jurisdiction over this case even though he first filed a petition for custody of this child in the Amherst County J & D Court in early 1986 thereby submitting himself to the jurisdiction of that court. On the one hand he says that Judge Janow gave him custody of Shamema (which he did not have in New York) and on the other hand he says that Virginia courts do not have jurisdiction when the rulings are unfavorable to him. The mother (Honzagool) also corresponded with the Amherst Courts through her attorney effectively placing herself under the jurisdiction of the same courts. Her only objection was to the father having custody. Moreover, Judge Janow corresponded with the New York judge and New York agreed to relinquish jurisdiction to Virginia even though a court order to that effect was apparently never sought.
On October 25, 1994 Mr. Sloan apparently located an associate justice of the Bronx Supreme Court who obviously knew nothing about the initial case (and apparently failed to check the records) who subsequently believed the misinformation Sloan gave to her, modified the 1982 New York order to give Sloan custody of the child after jurisdiction had been relinquished to Amherst County, Virginia. After we furnished more complete information from the Amherst County court files to set the record straight, Justice Irene Duffy vacated the modified 1994 order.
Mr. Sloan continues to insist that we kidnapped the child and that the Virginia courts did not have the jurisdiction to award us (the Roberts) custody, both contentions being blatantly false. Moreover, the child (Shamema, now nearly fifteen years old) has testified in court that she does not want to live with her father or to visit with him - only to correspond by mail. Sloan has never shown any consideration for her wishes.
Because of the above true facts of this case, we, Charles and Shelby Roberts, husband and wife, respectfully pray that this court deny Ismail Sloan's appeal.
Charles E. Roberts, pro se
Date: September 11, 1996
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Charles E. Roberts and Shelby H. Roberts state that on September 11, 1996 IN RESPONSE to Ismail Sloan's 'STATEMENT OF FACTS' a true copy of such response was mailed to the following:
2420 Atherton Street,
Berkeley, California 94704
J. Thompson Shrader, Esquire
P. 0. Box 428
709 South Main Street
Amherst, Virginia 24521
Lisa L. Schenkel, Esquire
1602 Graves Mill Road
P. 0. Box 11315
Lynchburg, Virginia 24506
Honzagool c/o Raja Abdul Rashid
House No. 252, Street No. 52
Charles E. Roberts
Shelby H. Roberts
Date: September 11, 1996
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY/COUNTY OF: Lynchburg
Appeared before me this 11 day of September 1996, Charles E. Roberts and Shelby H. Roberts whose signatures are affixed hereto the foregoing instrument.
Patricia R. Lovera
My commission expires February 28, 1997