Letter to Judge Roy B. Willett

Ismail Sloan
2420 Atherton St., Suite 6
Berkeley CA 94704
(415) 673-7123
FAX (415) 929-7500

September 28, 1994


Judge Roy B. Willett
Roanoke County Circuit Court
305 East Main St.
P. O. Box 1126
Salem VA 24153

Re: Sloan v. McFarland, No. 680CL90015617
Lynchburg Circuit Court
Dear Judge Willett,

Thank you for your letter informing me and my adversaries that you have scheduled a hearing in this matter for October 14, 1994.

Unfortunately, however, although I am now out of prison, I am on parole. Primarily for my own safety and protection, I was allowed to have my parole transferred to California. However, almost as soon as I arrived in California, I started receiving notices that my attendance was required at various court hearings scheduled in Virginia. I have already made two trips to the East Coast during the short period of time that I have been in California, to attend these hearings.

Although each of these trips was with the full permission of my parole officer, Dennis C. Copenhaver, he has indicated that he is growing exasperated at my constant need to attend these court hearings and that if this continues he will be inclined to require my permanent return to Virginia.

Meanwhile, Charles and Shelby Roberts, the very people who are actually guilty of criminally kidnapping my daughter, have been writing letters to the Governor, to their Congressmen and Senators, and to the President, asking to have my parole revoked and to have me sent back to prison. As you are aware, these people are "born again" Christians, affiliated with Jerry Falwall, and consequently have great political clout in Virginia. Indeed, were it otherwise, they themselves would be in prison for the monstrous and heinous crimes of kidnapping which they have very obviously committed.

Accordingly, it is much too dangerous for me to undertake a trip to Virginia at this time. I appreciate the trouble to which you have gone to schedule your court dates to set up this hearing in Lynchburg. However, if there is to be any hearing, I personally would prefer Salem, so as to get as far away from the Roberts as possible.

Moreover, I feel that the motion filed by my adversary lacks merit. First, however, I must compliment him on the research which he has done. In these series of cases, I have often been confronted with obviously unqualified attorneys who make ridiculous and preposterous assertions as to what they think the law is or ought to be. The motion by Mr. Erwin is certainly not in that category. However, the cases he cites all involve police officers engaging in legitimate police activities, such as chasing down fleeing criminals.

In the case presented here, there was no "hot pursuit". Instead, Officer F. D. McFarland, who had obviously accepted the theory propounded by Charles and Shelby Roberts that any random person has the right to kidnap and keep my children, escorted Sharon Haberer for several hours around Lynchburg, helped her to find my child, helped her to kidnap the child, and even got her on the Greyhound Bus to New York City, at a time when Sharon Haberer had never even previously seen my two-year-old little boy in her life and clearly had no claim to this child.

The defendants here claim that all this was done at the behest of the child's mother. However, the mother, Rankoth Pedigedera Dayawathie, informs me that she has never in her life spoken a word to Officer McFarland. She states that she made no request of him that he do anything. It is clear from this that it was Sharon Haberer who wanted the child kidnapped, not Rankoth Dayawathie, who had left our son with me several months earlier when she had gone to New York to give birth to our second child. (We now have three).

Dayawathie claims that a friend of Sharon Haberer in New York later on offered to "buy" Michael and our then newborn son George for $10,000 (ten thousand dollars). This fact also points to the conclusion that it was Sharon Haberer who wanted the child kidnapped, not the mother, Rankoth Dayawathie.

The fact that Rankoth Dayawathie subsequently, in effect, kidnapped the child back from Sharon Haberer, ran away with the child, and returned with our son back to my home in Lynchburg, Virginia, does not relieve Officer McFarland of any liability in this case. Indeed, it does exactly the opposite. All three of my children were kidnapped at least once or twice during the period in question. Although I was eventually able to get back the two youngest children, Michael and Jessica, I still to this day have not recovered the oldest, Shamema. I clearly have the right to sue for the wrongful kidnapping of my children by a police officer, who acted without the benefit of any court order.

I will be off parole in July, 1995, assuming that my adversaries have not succeeded in their efforts to have me arrested again before then. At that time, I will be free to come to Virginia any time you want to attend a hearing or trial. I also have hopes that my conviction will be reversed on appeal. The appeal is still pending.

If you schedule a trial before then, I will try to obtain permission from my parole officer to attend the trial. However, I feel that it would be extremely foolish and risky for me to come to Lynchburg under the present circumstances just to attend a routine hearing, unless my presence is absolutely required.


Very Truly Yours,


M. Ismail Sloan

Copy to: Walter C. Erwin, III
City Attorney
City Hall
900 Main St.
Lynchburg VA 24504

William S. Kerr
P. O. Box 706
Appomattox VA 24522

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