July 5, 1992
Re: Sloan v. Judge Janow et al, Civil Case No. 3937
Dear Honorable Sir:
Thank you for your letter dated June 29, 1992. First, I wish to state that I do appreciate the fact that you write me letters from time to time.
I would like to treat your latter dated June 29, 1992 as an order denying my motion for a rehearing and denying my motion to vacate the injunction you have entered. I intend to appeal from this.
However, it would make matters much easier if you would follow the better practice of granting my motion for a rehearing and, upon rehearing, denying my motion to vacate the injunction. This would leave no doubt as to the appealability of your order. I am sure that, unlike certain other judges, it is not your plan or intention deliberately to thwart my legitimate efforts to appeal.
I actually do not recall whether or not I filed a notice of appeal as to your dismissal of the complaint as to Judge Janow, while allowing the complaint as to the other defendants to stand. However, with regard to the case against Judge Janow, I wish to make some remarks.
As you will recall, the main thrust of this particular complaint before you against Judge Janow was his illegal issuance of two capiases and his subsequent false arrest of me on these capiases.
Now, I have done more research on this matter and have further information establishing that the actions of Judge Janow were entirely illegal.
The important point is that each capias was itself issued illegally. The pertinent section regarding capiases is Sec. 19.2-128, which requires that a capias may not be issued by a judge except "after notice to all parties" and even then only not "unless one of the parties can show good cause" as to why it should not be issued.
The normal and required procedure is that when the trial or hearing date arrives, the clerk calls the calendar, the name of the party is called, the judge looks around the courtroom and, if the party is not present, asks his attorney why the party did not come. If the attorney has no good excuse, the judge may then issue a capias.
None of this was done in my case. Steve Martin, my attorney at the time, who diligently prosecuted the matter, testified at a hearing before Judge Gamble on September 25, 1991 that the last time there was ever a hearing or court appearance on this matter was August 25, 1986. In other words, the clerk never called the calendar on October 8, 1986, the parties were never notified of the possible issuance of the capias and no opportunity was afforded to my attorney to provide "good cause" for my non-appearance.
In short, Judge Janow just issued the capiases completely on his own, without telling anybody about it. This was clearly illegal and in violation of the statute.
Next, getting to the point about the fact that Judge Janow carried the capias around in his pocket for the next four years, it clear that under section 19.2-76.1, Judge Janow was required to deliver the capias to the sheriff, who in turn was required to report the unexecuted capias to the Commonwealth Attorney on a quarterly basis. In that event, the Commonwealth Attorney had the authority to destroy the unexecuted capias if it appeared to be "unprosecutable .... for any reason".
It is clear that Judge Janow never provided the capias to the sheriff or that the sheriff never reported the capias to the Commonwealth Attorney for the reason that the Commonwealth Attorney has stated on the record many times that he was not aware of the capias until the moment of my arrest on November 13, 1990. It is inconceivable that this capias could have been reported to the Commonwealth Attorney every quarter over a period of more than four years and the Commonwealth Attorney still not have any knowledge of it.
More than that, since 1986, the statute has been amended. The new version of Sec. 19.2-76.1 requires that in all cases, the capias must be destroyed after three years, except in cases of capital murder. This clearly includes the misdemeanor contempt charges under which these two capiases were issued.
As to the motivation which Judge Janow might have for carrying the two capiases around in his pocket for four years, the fact is that the initial warrant for my arrest was taken out by Shelby Roberts on the evening of August 25, 1986, but was "nol prosed" a few days later by the Amherst Commonwealth Attorney. At a hearing before Judge Goad on November 16, 1990, the Amherst Commonwealth Attorney characterized the case against me as "frivolous". The Amherst Commonwealth Attorney has never expressed much interest in prosecuting me for any crime. If the Roberts want to get me arrested, they always have to go to Lynchburg to get the Commonwealth Attorney there to do that.
Therefore, Judge Janow must have known that if he complied with the statute and gave the capias to the sheriff to be reported to the Amherst Commonwealth Attorney, it would be destroyed in accordance with the procedures set forth in Sec. 19.2-76.1.
In short, this establishes the illegality of the behavior of Judge Janow and the fact that Judge Janow acted "in total absence of all jurisdiction to do so." Therefore, I have a valid cause of action for my lawsuit against the judge.
Regarding the statement in paragraph 7 of your decision that the matter before Judge Janow had been concluded approximately two weeks prior to the hearing before you on July 10, I now have a copy of a decision which states clearly that the final decision of Judge Janow was dated July 17, 1991, one week after the hearing before you, and clearly the matter was not concluded before the date of the written decision.
However, that is of little moment. Judge Janow had me arrested on November 13, 1990 and had me brought before him that same evening. At that time, I demanded an immediate trial and hearing on the spot. I knew that Judge Janow was going to convict me anyway and my only chance would come from an appeal, and therefore I wanted an immediate trial to get the appellate process moving.
However, Judge Janow refused to try the matter, just as, back in 1986, he had refused to give me a prompt hearing on my custody petition. I already knew from the 1986 experience that it is the custom and habit of Judge Janow deliberately to delay the proceedings solely to vex and harass litigants such as myself appearing before him. Incidentally, I have recently found out that there is a man from Bolivia who lives in California who has had his three little daughters kidnapped by Judge Janow in a very similar manner. The hearing in his case is still at a preliminary stage and was just postponed again for another two months. His case has gone for just as long as mine. His three daughters were kidnapped on November 15, 1990 by Judge Janow and he has not seen them since and does not even know where they are, except that they are in Amherst County. As in my case, neither he nor the mother of the three children have ever lived in Amherst County. It seems that Judge Janow went on a spree of kidnappings at about the same time. That man has joint custody of the three children in California and has never been to Virginia and has no plans to go there either.
It was clearly the intention of Judge Janow at the time of my arrest on November 13, 1990 to keep me in jail indefinitely. He did not anticipate that I would be able to appeal the bond successfully to Judge Goad and get released. Thereafter, Judge Janow refused to try the case, again following the same pattern as 1986. I persistently wrote letters demanding an immediate trial or hearing on this matter, which Judge Janow refused to provide. When I appeared for the scheduled trial on the morning of December 19, 1990, Judge Janow did not even bother to come to court, and neither did the Amherst Commonwealth Attorney.
There was a statutory requirement that Judge Janow try the case within nine months. The time from my arrest until the entry of the final order was eight months. This shows that Judge Janow finally tried the case only to avoid the automatic dismissal of the proceedings against me under the statute.
All of this plus many additional facts, too numerous to mention in this letter, show that I have valid grounds for a lawsuit against Judge Janow.
Finally, I wish to express great concern about the statement in your letter that you assume that I have filed the original of my petition with the clerk. I can assure you that I did file the original petition with the clerk at the same time that I sent a copy to you.
What concerns me is the fact that at one time Judge Gamble placed a standing order that I was not to be allowed to file any papers with the Amherst County Clerk and any papers which I attempted to file should be mailed back. This, however, should only apply to the cases before Judge Gamble, not to the cases which have been assigned to you. I would like to find out if there is some way to establish that the clerk did accept my papers for filing and did not dispose of them in some other way.
Regarding your statement that you directed the clerk to serve me with a copy of your injunction, the fact is that he did not do so. The first time that I ever received a copy of your injunction was under a cover letter to the Virginia Court of Appeals by Barbara J. Gaden dated May 26, 1992. It is possible that the Amherst County Clerk sent a police car to my house to serve me in that way, because I have been allergic to police cars coming to my house lately. However, the normal way to serve me is by mail, and the postal service is still working.
Again, I wish to state that I do appreciate the fact that you do write me letters from time to time. I have never yet received a letter from Judge Gamble and it is my impression that he does not even read the letters which I send him, at least until somebody else calls him up and asks him about it.
Very Truly Yours,
M. Ismail Sloan
Copy to: Barbara J. Gaden
William S. Kerr