(718) 305-0289
1-347-351-9352
sloan@ishipress.com
February 17, 2003
|
|
However, allowing you to remain on the case will just delay proceedings indefinitely. You are clearly not prepared to do what is required by law to be done in this case, and the result will be more delays, appeals and protracted litigation, which will just be an extension of the litigation which started in 1986 and enveloped my mother's life until she died last year at age 92.
I might as well tell you now that I have already sought and will continue to seek the arrest, criminal prosecution and long prison sentences of various South Carolina residents and officials arising from the fact that my mother was kidnapped in Bangkok, Thailand on September 3, 1990 and then was brought briefly to Maryland. After it developed that the officials of Maryland were not willing to participate in the plan to keep my mother locked up for the rest of her life and to take away her money, my mother was brought to South Carolina where my mother had never been before but where the absence of laws to protect elderly women from being abused were conducive to keeping my mother locked up and taking away all her money and where the local officials were willing to keep my mother physically confined.
You obviously already know all this, because I have learned from your online biography that in addition to being a judge you are an Internet webmaster. Therefore, you are undoubtedly aware from the Internet that the kidnapping and imprisonment of my mother for 12 years until she died has long been a great controversy. You undoubtedly want to save your fellow South Carolinians from going to prison for their crimes against my mother, and for that reason you have delayed and refused to hear this case for the more than five months since you were assigned to be the judge.
Among your actions which make it abundantly clear that you are not impartial in this case and cannot be allowed to continue are the following:
A hearing was set by you to be held on November 20, 2002 at 2:00 PM. I retained counsel and drove with my wife and infant daughter from New York City to Columbia, South Carolina to attend this hearing. However, on the afternoon of November 19, 2002, while I was sitting in my attorney's office, a clerk called from the court to inform us that your friend had died and that you were going to deliver an eulogy at the funeral which was going to held at the same time that the court hearing was scheduled, so therefore the hearing would have to be postponed.
Naturally, we assumed that this meant that the hearing would be postponed for a few hours or a day or two, but the clerk said that no, that there would have to be a new 20-day notice. This was, of course, outrageous. It often happens that a case has to be postponed for one reason or another. Just because a hearing has to be adjourned does not mean that the case has to be started all over again. In addition, there were three other judges in your court and any one of them could have heard the case, especially since it was uncontested.
On the morning of November 20, 2002, I went to your courtroom. I expected to find you bereaved at the death of your friend, but instead you were sitting on the bench conducting cases normally and the courtroom was filled with people waiting for their cases to be called.
Later, while I was in the clerk's office photocopying all of the files in this case, you came out and ordered me to pick up the telephone (pointing out a telephone which was about to ring) and to do what my attorney was going to tell me to do.
If you think that my attorney was going to agree that your actions were proper, you were mistaken. My attorney agreed with me fully that your actions were improper. However, she told me that it was counter-productive to argue over it and that I should leave the courthouse immediately.
Frankly, I doubt that it was even true that you had had a friend who died. I found out that either you or your clerk had called my brother and had spoken to him. You had told him to file papers contesting the appointment of me as the personal representative.
This was outrageous. Perhaps you thought that my brother was not aware of his legal rights. If you thought that, you were mistaken. My brother is extremely litigious. He often files frivolous lawsuits. My brother filed five lawsuits against his own mother, most of which are still pending. My brother has gotten his mother's bank accounts and assets frozen since 1986. He also stole her house in Lynchburg, Virginia. My mother filed three counter-suits against my brother. My brother ultimately had his own mother kidnapped by professional kidnappers in Bangkok, Thailand on September 3, 1990. My brother was also involved in the kidnapping of three of my children, Shamema, Michael and Jessica, in the United Arab Emirates on October 7, 1990. My brother had his own mother locked up and held prisoner in a nursing home for 12 years until she died at age 92.
With this background, for you to call up my brother and tell him to file a pleading in court is outrageous. What is obviously going on is that you want to protect certain persons in South Carolina from being criminally prosecuted for kidnapping and for looting my mother's assets. My mother, who was a retired medical doctor and child psychiatrist who was listed in the First Edition of Who's Who in American Women, was receiving $6,000 per month in pension and social security. If you add that up for the 12 years between the date she was kidnapped until the date of her death 12 years later and add accumulated interest, you will see that she received more than one million dollars, almost all of which has disappeared. She had never even been to South Carolina prior to being kidnapped in 1990 and taken there.
In addition to the total of more than one million dollars in pension and Social Security which the kidnappers of my mother received, there is the frozen bank account with Bank of America in Lynchburg with $200,000 in the account, there is another $35,000 which has disappeared, and there is my mother's house now worth $300,000 which has been stolen and should be returned, so the total amount involved in this case is more than one and a half million dollars.
You want to protect those who stole the money, primarily my brother Creighton but also some South Carolina officials and judges who were co-conspirators in this, from going to prison.
You gave my brother until the end of January to file his petitions. I waited politely until then. That date has passed and still he has filed nothing. I called the clerk's office and spoke to Gillian Brewer. She said that Creighton had filed something on January 15, but that it lacked a certificate of service. She said that you were waiting to receive a certificate of service before proceeding with this case. I called again just before 5:00 on Friday, February 14. The clerk told me that still nothing has been filed and no date has been set. The papers my brother submitted on January 15 still had not been filed.
Everybody familiar with this case agrees as to what is going to happen. You are waiting for my brother to file papers so that you can appoint him or somebody else to be the personal representative. This is improper behavior for a judge. Moreover, it would be improper for you to appoint Creighton as the personal representative, because Creighton has lawsuits pending against his mother in Virginia. He cannot be allowed to sue himself. The name of the first case was Sloan vs. Sovran Bank, which is still pending in the Lynchburg Circuit Court. In that case, Creighton got all of his mother's bank accounts frozen. The Virginia courts obviously had no jurisdiction to do that, since my mother was not in Virginia but was residing in Dubai, United Arab Emirates at the time. My mother had fled to that country to get away from Creighton.
One reason I want to be appointed as the personal representative of my mother is to appear in court in the Virginia Cases and get those assets unfrozen. I am in touch with the clerk of the Lynchburg Circuit Court and he informs me that those funds, which now come to more than $200,000, will not be unfrozen until a petition has been filed in court. My brother is not a proper person to file such a petition, because he is the plaintiff in that case. Creighton had my mother kidnapped in 1990 and had her held prisoner until she died last year. During those twelve years, Creighton could have applied to the Virginia Courts to lift the freeze on his mother's assets. He did not do so then, and he has not done so since his mother died.
In addition, my brother filed another court case against his own mother in the Lynchburg Circuit Court in 1992 entitled Sloan vs. Sloan, even though he was holding her prisoner in a nursing home South Carolina at the time. He used that court case to take possession of her house in Lynchburg, Virginia and he sold it to an associate for $75,000, a ridiculously low sum since the house was easily worth $150,00 and is now worth more than $300,000. The entire $75,000 has disappeared. At least $40,000 of that was taken for legal fees and moving and storage expenses. The remainder has disappeared and the lawyer involved has since died.
The sale of my mother's house was clearly illegal under Virginia law, for many reasons. There was no jurisdiction for the courts of Virginia to do this. I intend to apply to the courts of Virginia for recovery of the house. Again, since Creighton sold the house in 1994, he is not the proper person to do this. He stole more than one million dollars from his mother and it is obvious that if he is appointed as her personal representative, he is not going to return it.
Appointing a third party will not work either. Already several banks and other third parties have been asked to take this case and all have declined. Everybody quickly finds out that this case has been snarled in litigation since 1986 and nobody wants to be sued.
Under these circumstances, you must be removed from this case. You have had this case for five months since September. You have not held a hearing nor even scheduled one and you refuse to proceed until my brother files papers. You initial refusal to hear this case on the scheduled date because your friend had died was patently ridiculous. I doubt that your friend had even died. It is obvious that when you finally hear this case you will rule against me. Since your bias is so obvious, it is clear that you cannot be allowed to proceed.
Please note that all of the judges of Virginia have already disqualified themselves from this case. It appears that the same thing is in the process of happening in South Carolina. This case was assigned to you because the judges in Aiken had disqualified themselves. Therefore, I propose that a judge in North Carolina be appointed, to handle this case which has tangled up the courts of both Virginia and South Carolina for the past 17 years.
Very Truly Yours,
Samuel H. Sloan
Here are links: