Objections to Order Imposing Sanctions

M. Ismail Sloan, being duly sworn, states:

1. On June 9, 1992, three days ago, I received for the first time in my life a copy of the decision of this court dated November 27, 1991 which, among other things, enjoined me from filing new lawsuits against Judge Lawrence Janow pertaining to his acts of having my three children kidnapped. Since I never previously received a copy of this court order, in spite of my diligent efforts to obtain a copy, I now ask that it be vacated or that, in any event that I be granted a rehearing of this matter.

2. I did receive, many months ago, a copy of a letter from Judge Peatross directing that Barbara J. Gaden, Assistant Attorney General of Virginia, serve me with a copy of the order. However, she never complied with this directive of the court and therefore I did not receive it until this week. I also did not have any idea of what the order contained.

3. More than that, the only reason that I received it now was that it was attached as an exhibit to a motion to the Court of Appeals with a cover letter dated May 26, 1992 for dismissal of my petition for a writ of mandamus and prohibition against Judges Gamble and Janow. The Assistant Attorney General of Virginia contends that by filing my latest mandamus petition, I have violated the order of this court.

4. It is obvious that I cannot be found to have violated an order unless I know about it. However, making that sort of contention has never helped me before. Indeed, Judge Janow claims that he was justified in having my children kidnapped and brought to America on the grounds of my violations of his court orders, even though it can be demonstrably proven that I had never been served with a copy of his court orders and, more than that, I was out of the State of Virginia at the time they were entered. Indeed, the only service of the entire custody proceedings ever made was service by notice of publication in the "Amherst New Era Progress" in about October, 1986.

5. It is clear that the latest tricky device that the respondents are employing is not to allow me to know about any orders which have been entered. In addition, Mr. James H. Massie, who represented me previously, has been disqualified from acting as my counsel by order of Judge Gamble, which indeed is one of my grounds for filing a mandamus petition against him. Therefore, I am left totally in the dark and have no means for finding out what is going on in all of the multitude of court proceedings against me.

6. The fact that the Assistant Attorney General of Virginia has failed and refused to serve me with a copy of this court's order during the six months of its existence is in itself sufficient grounds for requiring that it be vacated.

7. There are many further grounds beyond that. The order of this court completely misstates the facts. For example, on page 2 paragraph two it states that two previous suits were dismissed by the trial courts. Although that is true, the fact it that both dismissals were without prejudice. The cases were Helen Sloan v. Richard S. Miller et al and M. Ismail Sloan v. Charles Roberts et al. It the latter case, the dismissal without prejudice took place just two days after the complaint was filed and almost certainly the federal judge in question never read the complaint, as he just took a brief recess in the middle of a protracted criminal trial to enter his order of dismissal without prejudice. In addition, his reason for dismissing the suit was that I had not exhausted my state court remedies, and he stated that once I had exhausted those remedies, I could refile that suit.

8. The earlier case filed by my mother entitled Helen Marjorie Sloan v. Richard S. Miller et al was dismissed by Judge Ernest W. Ballou without prejudice on the grounds that my mother was refusing to return to Virginia and therefore no order of the court would be effective against her. At the time of that order of dismissal, my then 80-year-old mother was seriously ill in the hospital in Bangkok, Thailand and was on the brink of death (although she survived).

9. Almost immediately after my mother filed a notice of appeal from the order of Judge Ballou, the defendants to that lawsuit hired a professional kidnapper named Boonchoo to have me and my mother arrested and to have my mother kidnapped out of her hospital room in Thailand. Boonchoo was paid a total of $27,000 to kidnap my mother and was paid a further $12,000 to kidnap my children. The reason that I know these amounts is that the kidnappers themselves testified that this money was paid. For example, in a hearing before Judge Gamble in about September 24, 1991, my brother, Creighton W. Sloan, one of the defendants in my mother's suit, testified that Boonchoo was paid $27,000. Charles Roberts then testified that a further $12,000 was paid by Roberts to Boonchoo. The reason for this testimony was that they want the courts to order them to be reimbursed for these amounts from the $160,000 in my mother's bank account. In other words, they want my mother to pay for her own kidnapping and the kidnapping of her grandchildren.

10. Regarding the statement in this courts decision that "Dr. Sloan denied knowledge of the Lynchburg Circuit Court suit", what this refers to is the fact that after my mother was kidnapped out of her hospital room on September 3, 1990 and brought to America on September 5, 1990, there was within a few days prepared for her signature a bunch of letters in which she professed a lack of knowledge of this lawsuit. However, her signature was so scrawled as to be unrecognizable. It is significant to note that the defendants claimed that they seized my mother's bank account, containing at the time $125,000 in the account (the amount later on grew due to interest over the six years since the account was seized) on the grounds that she was incompetent. However, the first thing which they did upon obtaining her forcible return to America was to insist that she sign a bunch of letters which they then used to file a motion for the dismissal of her appeal.

11. It is submitted that the defendants must maintain a consistent view as to whether my mother is competent or incompetent. Starting in April, 1984, my brother has been claiming that our mother has been incompetent and that she has had "Alzheimer's Disease", even though she was still working in her office on the staff of the Western State Hospital at the time (she retired in July, 1984). Nevertheless, in spite of claiming that she had Alzheimer's Disease and was incompetent in April, 1984, Creighton got her to sign a power of attorney in his behalf in North Carolina in October, 1984. He then confiscated all of her bank accounts on the basis of this power of attorney in September, 1986. She then revoked that power of attorney and got her bank accounts restored in October, 1986. He then seized her bank accounts a second time in December, 1986 and January, 1987 on the basis of an ex-parte order of Judge Richard S. Miller, again on the claim that she was incompetent. She then revoked that power of attorney a second time at the U.S. Embassy in Abu Dhabi, in February, 1987. Creighton then eventually through the help of Judge Miller got her kidnapped. Then, in September, 1990, Creighton W. Sloan and the other defendants got her to sign letters in their behalf so that they could move to have her appeal dismissed.

12. I would like to point out that Attorney Roy Cohen (of House Un-American Activities Committee fame) was disbarred from the practice of law for doing something exactly like that. In particular, Roy Cohen had a client sign a will with a signature so badly scrawled as to be unrecognizable. If one takes a look at the letters which my mother signed just after she had been kidnapped out of her hospital room, it will be seen that they are just as unrecognizable as was the signature on the will obtained by Roy Cohen. In short, what I am suggesting here is that Barbara J. Gaden should be disbarred from the practice of law. If one takes the trouble to compare my mother's signature on the notarized complaint filed in the Sloan v. Miller lawsuit with the signature on the letters to which Ms. Gaden refers, one will readily see that my mother was strong and healthy when she signed the complaint but was extremely ill when she signed the letters which benefit Ms. Gaden.

13. Moreover, when Ms. Gaden asserts that my mother did not know about the lawsuit she had filed, she is in effect stating that the United States Consulate in Dubai was in on the conspiracy because my mother's signature was witnessed by the consular officer there and a copy was kept in the embassy files.

14. In addition, my mother has an attorney in a parallel case of Helen Sloan v. Sovran Back named David C. Dickey and at no time has he alleged that my mother did not know about the lawsuits she had filed.

15. Finally, the thrust of my mother's lawsuit was to obtain recovery of the $125,000 which had been seized by the defendants to that action. Why should there be any doubt that she knew what she was doing, when it was clearly in her interest to get her own money back? Indeed, if she had not filed a lawsuit to obtain recovery of her confiscated funds, then there would be some doubt as to her competency.

16. Finally, it must be noted that the reason that my mother's appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court was not perfected was that she, by that time, was not only still seriously ill but she was a prisoner of the defendants to her lawsuit first in Maryland until November 11, 1990 and then in South Carolina. She has never been allowed to return to her own home in Lynchburg, Virginia since she was kidnapped.

17. On page 3, paragraph 4, the decision of this court refers to a petition for a writ of mandamus which I filed in the Amherst Circuit Court. In fact, that petition is still pending today. Judge Gamble disqualified himself and Fred Hodnett has been unable to find any judge in Virginia willing to take it. I have several times suggested that the matter be referred to either Judge Peatross or to Judge Ballou, but both judges have refused to take that case.

18. Moreover, the major thrust of my petition for a writ of mandamus was to obtain the return of the one thousand dollars cash appearance bond which I had posted. The only condition on that bond was that I appear in court on December 19, 1990 at 9:30 A.M. I did in fact appear in court on December 19, 1990 at 9:30 A.M. but Judge Janow was not even there and my case was not on the calendar. The judge who was there said that he knew nothing about my case, but he did note my appearance for the record.

19. Every lawyer I have talked to agrees that under these circumstances, I am entitled to get my one thousand dollars back. Still, I have not gotten my money back and, more than that, in July, 1991 (more than seven months later) Judge Janow declared the one thousands dollars to have been forfeited. This was clearly illegal.

20. Regarding my complaint to the Virginia Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission, it is true that I later on was compelled to testify that the source for some of my information was a used car dealer who had lived in Amherst for some twenty years. However, just because he was a used car dealer does not automatically make his statements false. In addition, nobody has ever accused me of inventing these allegations. They know who that used car dealer is and I have no doubt that if they have gone to him he has told them the same things about Judge Janow that he told me. I know for a fact that he has been questioned by the police about this.

21. In addition, the statements made by the used car dealer concern historical matters to the extent that, according to him, Judge Janow is a notorious womanizer who is interested in being a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Judge because in that way he gets to solicit sexual favors from the divorced women who regularly appear in cases before him. By the nature of that sort of allegation, I do not know whether it is true or not, nor do I even have a personal opinion. I was simply and accurately relating the facts as they were told to me, and so stated. In addition, I subsequently found out that the judge who is more famous for this was named Judge Kilgore. According to everybody I have asked in Amherst County, it was well known that Judge Kilgore regularly had sexual intercourse with the women who were appearing before him in cases where he was the judge. This has been going on in Amherst for many years and nobody has been able to do anything about it. I later went back to my informant and asked him whether it was not possible that he had gotten Judge Janow mixed up with Judge Kilgore. He said that although Judge Kilgore does this more often, Judge Janow does it too.

22. It must be noted that complaints to the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission are privileged. There is a specific statute which states that nothing in a complaint to that commission can be used to take action against the person making the complaint. Yet, this court has now issued an injunction against me on the grounds of making that complaint. Even more significantly, Judge Janow cited my complaint to the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission as a grounds for denying me the custody of my daughter. He instead awarded custody to third party strangers, Charles and Shelby Roberts. This was clearly highly improper.

23. Regarding my complaint against Judge Janow that he masterminded the conspiracy to have my children kidnapped and brought to America, the court makes it appear that my complaints are fanciful or imaginary. However, this is hardly the case. It is well known and easily verifiable that my daughters disappeared from my home in Fujairah, United Arab Emirates on October 7, 1990 and arrived in the home of Mr. Charles Roberts on October 9, 1990. My oldest daughter, Shamema, was only eight years at the time (she turned nine one week later). Her mother was in Pakistan and knew nothing about this. Since neither the mother nor the father of an eight year old child gave permission for the child to be brought half way around the world from the United Arab Emirates to America and since she clearly could not have made such a trip on her own, it is obvious that she was kidnapped. Furthermore, Charles Roberts has admitted that he purchased the airline tickets costing a total of $4448 to have Shamema brought to America plus he paid $12,000 to Boonchoo to have her kidnapped. However, Charles Roberts claims that this conduct was legal because he had been authorized by Judge Janow to have Shamema kidnapped and brought to America.

24. Another point which must be mentioned here is that everyone seems to think that Charles Roberts had already been awarded legal custody by Judge Janow. In fact, the Bangkok newspapers reported that according to Charles Roberts, he had already adopted Shamema. However, this was entirely false. The first time that Charles Roberts ever had legal custody of Shamema was on July 18, 1991, after this case was argued before this court. Thus, the act by Charles Roberts of having my daughter brought to America was clearly an act of kidnapping. It was also a violation of the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, 42 U.S.C. 11601. Indeed, it can be readily verified by having a law enforcement officer call the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Interpol, in Washington, D.C. that there is an international warrant outstanding for the arrest of Charles Roberts on kidnapping charges. This fact can also be verified by calling Stan Ogden of the Virginia State Police in Appomattox, Virginia, because Stan Ogden was assigned by the Virginia State Police to investigate this Interpol complaint. Still, in spite of this, Charles Roberts has since been awarded custody of my kidnapped daughter by Judge Janow.

25. Regarding paragraph 7 on page 4 of the decision of this court, it is said that I made false statements to the court that a matter was pending before Judge Janow when it was not. In fact, however, Judge Janow did not enter his decision and order on this matter until July 18, 1991. That was eight days after the matter was argued before this court, which was on July 10, 1991. It is obvious that until there is an actual decision filed with the clerk, the matter is still pending irrespective of what the judge might happen to say in open court in a "court not of record". Thus, my statement that the matter was still pending before Judge Janow (if indeed that is what I said because it is my clear recollection that this was the statement made by Ms. Gaden, not by myself) would still be accurate.

26. More importantly, whatever Judge Janow did or did not do in June, 1991 was irrelevant to the point of whether he was holding open these proceedings for the purpose of harassing me, because my mandamus petition was filed in March, 1991. Charles and Shelby Roberts filed their first custody petition on August 27, 1986. However, Judge Janow did not conduct a hearing on this matter. Instead, he issued an ex-parte order dated September 5, 1986, that "Shamema Honzagool Sloan shall be seized wherever she may be found" and brought to Virginia. The issuance of that order was clearly illegal and without jurisdiction. It is on the basis of this illegal order that Charles Roberts claims that he had the right to have my child kidnapped and brought to America. Starting in 1987, I repeatedly wrote letters from the United Arab Emirates demanding that Judge Janow schedule a hearing on this matter, but he refused to do so. The reason he refused to do so was that he obviously knew that if he conducted a hearing and ruled against me, I would be able to appeal, and it was his strategy not to allow any appeals by me.

27. Four years passed during which Judge Janow refused to schedule a hearing. He then succeeded in having my daughter kidnapped and brought to America. I then called Ed Meeks, the Amherst County Commonwealth Attorney, who told me that after a computer check it appeared that there was no outstanding warrant for my arrest. I then came to Amherst County, but was immediately arrested on the personal order of Judge Janow, who had been carrying two capias around in his pocket for these four years. The reason that he had kept these capias in his pocket was to prevent any other judge from taking action on them in case he happened to be out of town when I showed up. Ed Meeks has many times since stated that he was unaware of these two capias until after I had already been arrested.

28. When I returned to America, Judge Janow had me arrested on November 13, 1990. I demanded an immediate trial on the spot. Judge Janow refused. He set the matter to me heard on December 19, 1990, more than one month later, because he believed that there would be no way for me to get out of jail. Contrary to his expectations, I appealed the bond to Judge Goad, who ordered the bond reduced so that I could get out of jail. Judge Janow then refused to try the matter, in spite of my persistent demands that the matter be resolved so that I could get my one thousand dollars back. The only reason he finally conducted a five minute hearing in June, 1991 was to get out from under my mandamus petition which was pending at the time.

29. Furthermore, one reason for my current petition for a writ of mandamus and prohibition against Judge Gamble is that he continued exactly the same policy of refusing to hear these two contempt matters. After Judge Janow entered his order on July 18, 1991, I promptly appealed. On each occasion thereafter, I demanded an immediate hearing on the contempt matters so that I could get my one thousand dollars back. Following the same pattern of Judge Janow, Judge Gamble refused to hear the contempt matters. In fact, the contempt matters were entirely frivolous. I was charged with contempt for failure to attend a hearing on October 8, 1986, even though I had never been served with notice (which is a requirement for me to be held in contempt) and even though the October 8, 1986 hearing never took place, having been called off by Judge Janow himself several weeks prior to that date.

30. Furthermore, Judge Gamble has done another thing which follows the same pattern of Judge Janow. I was supposed to have a trial on January 10, 1992 on the charge of interstate kidnapping pursuant to 18.2-47. This is another frivolous case because I am being charged with taking my daughter out of state whereas the only person who has actually taken her out of state is Mr. Charles Roberts, who took her to South Carolina in order to defeat my right to visitation. To avoid the certainty of the dismissal of these kidnapping charges, Judge Gamble on January 2, 1992, called off the trial scheduled for January 10, 1992 and has refused to schedule a new trial, so the charges are left pending and there is nothing I can do about it nor can I get my daughter back.

31. Finally, regarding my distribution of a flyer on election day, I am deeply sorry about this. Instead, I should have conducted a mass mailing to all the voters of the State of Virginia plus put display ads in the "Richmond Times Dispatch", as indeed I have the constitutional right to do, but I did not have the money and had just gotten out of jail. Anyway, my book, "The Slave Children of Thomas Jefferson", is finally out and I have to some extent made up for this lapse by mentioning in the book that it was due to the on-going criminal activities of Judge Janow that this book got written. I did manage to mail a copy of my flyer to every member of the Virginia State Legislature, but apparently Judge Janow was reappointed as a judge anyway.

32. Finally, regarding the provisions of the order itself, the order purports to enjoin me from filing any more lawsuits against Judge Janow in state or federal court. However, this court has neither the right nor the power to stop me from filing any case in federal court. More than that, as long as my daughter is illegally detained by Judge Janow, I have every intention to keep coming up with new ideas on how to try to get my daughter back and all possibilities are open. Until he gives me my kidnapped daughter back, I will keep this up. I have, however, advised Ms. Gaden that I am willing to conclude this litigation by agreeing not to file any more lawsuits against Judge Janow provided only that he agree to give me my daughter back and not to have her kidnapped again.

33. In part (b) of the order of this court, I am enjoined from filing any lawsuit based on theories previously adjudicated adversely to Sloan. However, again, the only legal theory adjudicated adversely to me is the one in this lawsuit before this court. All of the other cases are either still pending or were dismissed "without prejudice". Moreover, even in the instant lawsuit, Judge Peatross has repeatedly stated that he has never read the underlying record of this case. Therefore, he is not qualified to make a ruling on the matter. In fact, it is clear from the decision of this court that Judge Peatross has never read my mandamus petition or my federal complaint or any other of the documents I have filed. Otherwise, he would understand that each lawsuit is for something different.

34. Furthermore, as I read the order of injunction, not only am I not allowed to file any more lawsuits against Judge Janow, but I am not allowed to file any more lawsuits at all against anybody. I am only allowed to defend lawsuits filed by others against me. It must be mentioned that my brother Creighton W. Sloan since the date of this court's injunction filed yet another lawsuit against me and my mother. This means that my brother has now filed three lawsuits against his mother and my mother has filed two counter suits against him, for a total of five suits in all.

35. All of my suits were filed against people who had already sued me first. If one counts the number of lawsuits which they filed against me with the number of suits which I filed against them, it will be seen that they have filed a much larger number against me, and at an earlier date. Four suits were filed against me and my family within the space of a few weeks in 1986, which is why we abruptly left town and they had to spend the next four years hunting us down. In addition, they are always trying to get from me things which belong to me and my family to which they have no right. The things which they have sued me to obtain are my daughter, my mother, my mother's money, my father's money, my money, my mother's house and so on. Each of the above involves a separate suit. Judge Gamble was one of those suing me before he became a judge. These people like to sue me and my family because my family is perceived as having a lot of money and these people are all broke. I only counter sue to get these things back after they have stolen them. This court now rules that they can sue me but I cannot sue them.

36. Regarding paragraph (c), this paragraph enjoins me from distributing any documents complaining about Judge Janow. As I read it, this means that my book "The Slave Children of Thomas Jefferson" is now officially banned in the State of Virginia. I must make a point of mentioning this in my advertisements for the book. It is submitted that I have the absolute First Amendment constitutional right to distribute literature stating that Judge Janow masterminded the criminal kidnapping of my daughter, especially since it is unquestionably true that he did, in fact, mastermind the criminal kidnapping of my daughter. To say otherwise is a bit like a judge saying that it is not raining outside when, in fact, the rain is falling down.

37. Finally, I must state that by failing to serve me with a copy of the order of injunction, the defendants have cheated me out of the opportunity to appeal. I am shocked to have learned recently that, unlike in other states, the time to file a notice of appeal runs from the date of the entry of the order, not the date of notification of the defeated party. Because the Assistant Attorney General disobeyed the order of this court and never served me with a copy of this injunction until three days ago, I now cannot appeal. The same thing happened in my child custody suit. I have recently learned that Judge Gamble delayed ruling on my child custody suit until November, 1991, and then disqualified my attorney without notice to me, so that I did not find out about his decision until more than thirty days had elapsed. He also apparently tried me for contempt in absentia after refusing to conduct the trial on the many occasions when I was present and again ordered forfeited my one thousand dollars cash appearance bond.

38. Therefore, in the interest of fundamental fairness, I believe that this court should at least order a rehearing which will at least give me the opportunity to appeal.

39. Lastly, the decision of this court refers many times to a trial transcript. I have been trying for a long time to obtain a copy of a trial transcript but have been unable to do so. I therefore request that the respondents be compelled to serve me with a copy of the transcript so that I can respond to their various points and contentions.

WHEREFORE, this petition for a rehearing should be granted and, upon hearing, the motions for sanctions should be dismissed and the case restored to the calendar.

______________________ M. Ismail Sloan

Sworn to before me this day of June, 1992

________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC

CERTIFICATE

I hereby certify that I have mailed a true copy of the same to Barbara J. Gaden and Sam Kerr.

______________________ M. Ismail Sloan