Affidavit in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Appeal
samsloan
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
_____________________________
APPEAL FROM AIKEN COUNTY PROBATE COURT
Donald B. Hocker, Special Probate Judge for Aiken County
Case No. 2002ES02-00489
Creighton W. Sloan, Personal Representative of the
Estate of Helen Marjorie
Sloan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Respondent
v.
Samuel H.
Sloan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appellant
--------------------------------------------------------
AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
____________________________________
State of New York:
County of Bronx:
Samuel H. Sloan, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. The motion to dismiss this appeal is entirely frivolous and without
merit. Indeed, this motion is just the most recent in a long series of
dirty tricks by Creighton W. Sloan and the various attorneys he has
retained over the past twenty-one years that this litigation which
started in 1986 has been pending.
2. Opposing counsel claims that I filed my notice of appeal one day
late. It was not late. I sent in my notice of appeal by US Postal
Service Express Mail Guaranteed Two Day Delivery on the same day that
I received a copy of the decision from which I was appealing.
3. Please note that I live in Bronx New York. Obviously, it took a few
days for the decision that was sent by mail from South Carolina to
reach me in New York and a few days for my notice of appeal mailed
from Bronx New York to reach South Carolina.
4. However, there is a special additional problem in this case because
there has been a running argument between the Aiken County Court and
Judge Hocker, who actually sits in Laurens County. The last time I was
in the Clerks Office in Aiken County, Judge Little told me that there
had been a disagreement between her office and the office of Judge
Hocker as to in which court the case was supposed to be pending. Judge
Little told me that this matter had been resolved and from now on the
case would be pending in Laurens County, not in Aiken County. Later, I
received a notice that the case had been transferred to Laurens
County.
5. However, this notice has apparently been ineffective because I
later received documents from my opponent indicating that she was
filing in Aiken County. One example of this is the instant motion.
6. So, it seems that this case has been bouncing back and forth
between the two counties, each one wanting the other county to take
it.
7. But that is only the beginning: Judge Hocker has been refusing to
allow me to file anything in this case. Many times I have filed
motions, pleadings, affidavits and other documents. Judge Hocker has
refused to accept them and even has had his clerk mail envelopes
received from me back to me unopened. Judge Hocker has even held me in
contempt for filing or attempting to file pleadings. Judge Hocker even
had me locked up and put in jail briefly during the last hearing in
open court in Laurens, South Carolina. Judge Hocker had the court
officer put handcuffs on me and take me away. I believe that Judge
Hocker should be disqualified and removed from hearing this case. I
have many times requested that Judge Hocker recuse himself from
hearing this case.
8. At the last court hearing in Laurens, I handed up a pleading in
open court stating that I was filing it as a motion. This was similar
to a document I had sent in which had been returned by Judge Hocker by
mail. I felt that if I handed up my opposing papers in open court,
Judge Hocker would be forced to accept, read and consider my
pleadings. Instead, however, Judge Hocker merely marked it as a
exhibit, not as a motion, and obviously never read or considered it. I
include it as an exhibit herein.
9. But even that is only the beginning. The last time I appealed,
Judge Hocker wrote a letter and then had his clerk write a second
letter to the appellate judge asking that the appeal be dismissed. It
is impermissible and a violation of the canons of judicial conduct for
a lower court judge to try to influence the proceedings before an
appellate court. On that occasion too, Judge Hocker claimed that my
notice of appeal had been filed late. That was not true. My notice of
appeal was not late because JUDGE HOCKER HAD NEVER FILED HIS DECISION
WITH THE AIKEN COUNTY PROBATE COURT. Thus, the time to appeal had
never even started to run.
10. It is obvious and well known that the time to appeal starts with
the date that the decision if filed with the clerk of the court. Judge
Hocker had his secretary in Laurens County write a letter to the
appellate court stating that based on a telephone conversation she had
had with me I knew about Judge Hocker's decision. However, telephone
conversations do not count. It is the date and time stamp on the
document being filed that determines the time to appeal.
11. I never received a copy of this affidavit from Judge Hocker's
secretary to the appellate judge. The only reason I know about the
affidavit is that it was read in open court by my adversary, Miss
Kennedy, to the judge. Here is what she said in open court on April 6,
2004:
"The affidavit from the clerk of Judge Hocker indicates that she
mailed the order on November 4, 2003, together with a statement of
costs concerning tapes for the hearing. She mailed that both to Mr.
Sloan and, to myself. Thereafter, sometime between November 5, 2003
and November 10, 2003, Samuel Sloan called her regarding the statement
of cost."
12. On the basis of the above statement read in open court, Judge
Williams dismissed my appeal. However, the judge was in error because
the affidavit was from Judge Hocker's secretary in Laurens, which is
82 miles from Aiken. The time to appeal starts from when Judge
Hocker's decision is filed with the clerk in Aiken. I have checked the
record and found that Judge Hocker's decision was never filed in
Aiken. Thus, my appeal was if anything premature, not late.
13. Another question concerns the impropriety of Judge Hocker having
his secretary send an affidavit to the appellate judge. This is highly
irregular and improper. That affidavit was not a proper part of the
record of this appeal and should never have been considered. Indeed, I
have never seen the original letter and was not sent a copy of it.
14. Please note that this was three years ago regarding a hearing that
took place four years ago. At the last hearing, opposing counsel said
that I am supposed to receive $107,000. At the time of my mother's
death, in May 2002, the amount I was supposed to get was $200,000. I
have yet to receive a dime. What the court needs to understand is that
these funds are not in some frozen secure bank account. In the
mid-1990s, after he had had our mother kidnapped from the Bangkok
General Hospital in Bangkok Thailand, Creighton set up and established
several bank accounts in Lynchburg Virginia and in South Carolina. As
our mother was receiving in excess of $5,000 per month in pension and
social security checks, including a social security check in the
amount of $1500 and a pension check in excess of $3500, he took these
checks for the next 12 years from 1991 to 2002 and deposed them all in
checking accounts where he had signing authority. Judge Sue H. Roe had
appointed the Bank of America as Conservator starting in April 1991,
but the Bank of America never received the funds. I have spoken with
the head of the Trust Department at Bank of America and he has
confirmed that not even one of these monthly checks ever reached Bank
of America.
15. In short, Creighton stole the money. It is as simple as that.
16. If you will look at the files of the Aiken County Probate Court
you will see numerous handwritten letters from my mother complaining
that Creighton was stealing her pension and social security checks.
More than that, she filed suit against Creighton about this. One such
suit was filed in the Charlottesville Circuit Court. Judge Sweet, now
deceased was the judge in that case. Another suit was filed in the
Lynchburg Circuit Court and Judge Ballou was the judge. If you will
check the files of the Lynchburg Circuit Court you will see at least
five of these Sloan vs. Sloan cases were pending before various judges
at the moment that Creighton had his mother kidnapped in Bangkok,
Thailand. Indeed, she had fled to Thailand just to get away from
Creighton and to stop him from stealing her money.
17. After having his mother kidnapped out of her hospital room on
September 3, 1990, he had her transported by the kidnappers to Silver
Spring, Maryland, where she was held for two months. Note that she was
not brought to South Carolina initially. Only after the Maryland
authorities ruled that she was free to walk out of the nursing
facility where she was being held against her will, did Creighton have
her brought to South Carolina. This was all testified to by Cassel
Jacobson who testified that he paid $60,000 for the kidnapping. This
testimony was before Judge Sue H. Roe of the Aiken South Carolina
Probate Court. The tapes of that testimony have been lost. Nobody can
seem to find them.
18. I believe that the reason Judge Hocker acts the way he does it to
protect Judge Roe and other South Carolina authorities from facing
federal kidnapping charges. Anybody who looks at the court records can
plainly see that my mother was kidnapped and that she would never have
come voluntarily to South Carolina, where she was locked up in a
nursing facility until she died 12 years later.
19. When my father died on January 19, 1986 (one way to remember this
date is that it was the same date as the Space Shuttle Challenger
disaster), I was appointed by the Lynchburg Circuit Court as father's
personal representative and I paid to Creighton all the money he was
entitled to receive as one half of my fathers estate in less than a
month, even though a lot of litigation was pending over my father's
estate. (I later realized that Creighton had encouraged and perhaps
even helped finance some of this litigation.) I was prohibited by
Judge Hocker from testifying about this. Judge Hocker even threatened
to hold me in contempt and to have me locked up if I persisted in
testifying about this. (At a later court hearing Judge Hocker had me
locked up briefly for testifying about something else he did not want
me to testify about.) Then, after refusing to allow me to testify
about the circumstances of my father's death and the litigation which
followed it (which he said was irrelevant even though he knew nothing
about it) he then implied in his decision that I had withheld money
from Creighton.
20. Please note that I paid Creighton all his money only one month
after our father had died. I did not need a court order to do it. I
just paid him the money even though litigation was pending. I would
have been fully justified in not paying him anything until the
litigation was settled. (It has still not been settled.) My mother
died on May 16, 2002, which is five years ago. Creighton has not paid
me one dime even though he has the money in his own checking accounts.
My wife and children are suffering and meanwhile Creighton had been
photographed in a gambling casino in Las Vegas.
21. It has always been obvious since 1986 that he plans to keep all
the money for himself and not to give me anything. Otherwise, why
would he spend four years chasing his mother around the world,
repeatedly hiring professional kidnappers to kidnap her, finally
succeeding on September 3, 1990, and then steal all her money, her
savings, life insurance and pension and social security checks, have
her house in Lynchburg Virginia sold in violation of court order and
have all of her personal possessions deposited in a trash dump in
Lynchburg and then give me half the money? Anybody who examines the
court record of this case can clearly see that Creighton is a criminal
who belongs in jail, which is where his mother was trying to put him.
22. Please note that opposing counsel DOES NOT STATE WHEN SHE RECEIVED
MY NOTICE OF APPEAL. Obviously, I sent the notice of appeal to the
court at the same time as I sent it to opposing counsel. Since the
courts in Aiken and Laurens Counties were having a disagreement over
which court was handling this case, each one wanting the other court
to take it, they might have sent this and other court papers back and
fourth between the courts, causing a delay in file stamping it.
Nevertheless, opposing counsel says that my notice of appeal was file
stamped only 11 days after Judge Hocker signed the order. She is
apparently claiming that the normal three days for mailing does not
apply in South Carolina, even though I am in Bronx New York and the
case is pending in Aiken, South Carolina. This is the basis for her
claim that my notice of appeal was filed late. Obviously her claim is
frivolous and without merit.
WHEREFORE, for all of the reasons set forth above, the motion to
dismiss my appeal should be denied.
__________________________
Samuel H. Sloan
1664 Davidson Ave., Apt. 1B
Bronx NY 10453-7877
Sworn to before me this 3rd
Day of May 2007
______________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
Samuel H. Sloan, being duly sworn, deposes and says that on May 3,
2007 he mailed the within NOTICE OF APPEAL to all counsel at the
following addresses:
Catherine H. Kennedy
Attorney for Creighton Sloan
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP
1320 Main Street, 17th floor
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Patricia L. Harrison
611 Holly Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29205
__________________________
Samuel H. Sloan
Sworn to before me this 3rd
Day of May 2007
______________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
Ray Gordon, creator of the pivot
you're an investigative journalist. get a move on it sloan. the entire
scholastic community will vote for you if you can expose lux to
protect the kids. here's your chance to be elected. he's gay and he
likes young boys just like robert snyder.
samsloan
_____________________________
Case No. 2002ES02-00489
v.
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________
State of New York:
County of Bronx:
exhibit, not as a motion or an affidavit in opposition, and obviously
never read or considered it. I include it as an exhibit herein. It is
dated September 5, 2006.
9. In addition please find attached as an exhibit an affidavit I filed
dated April 6, 2006. You will see in the lower right-hand a corner a
file stamp stating "RECEIVED APR. 12, 2006 LAURENS COUNTY PROBATE
COURT". All of the exhibits attached thereto have this same file
stamp. However, there is a red X crossed through each of the file
stamps. This was done by his clerk. Then the original filing was
mailed back to me with a note stating that my filing had been rejected
by Judge Hocker. Thus, there is no record of this filing with the
court.
10. It is clearly improper and a violation of all kinds of judicial
rules for a judge to direct the clerk of his court to mail back a
document which has already been file stamped.
11. But even that is only the beginning. The last time I appealed,
Judge Hocker wrote a letter and then had his clerk write a second
letter to the appellate judge asking that the appeal be dismissed. It
is impermissible and a violation of the canons of judicial conduct for
a lower court judge to try to influence the proceedings before an
appellate court. On that occasion too, Judge Hocker claimed that my
notice of appeal had been filed late. That was not true. My notice of
appeal was not late because JUDGE HOCKER HAD NEVER FILED HIS DECISION
WITH THE AIKEN COUNTY PROBATE COURT. Thus, the time to appeal had
never even started to run.
12. It is obvious and well known that the time to appeal starts with
the date that the decision if filed with the clerk of the court. Judge
Hocker had his secretary in Laurens County write a letter to the
appellate court stating that based on a telephone conversation she had
had with me, I knew about Judge Hocker's decision. However, telephone
conversations do not count. It is the date and time stamp on the
document being filed that determines the time to appeal.
13. I never received a copy of this affidavit from Judge Hocker's
secretary to the appellate judge. The only reason I know about the
affidavit is that it was read in open court by my adversary, Miss
Kennedy, to the judge. Here is what she said in open court on April 6,
2004:
"The affidavit from the clerk of Judge Hocker indicates that she
mailed the order on November 4, 2003, together with a statement of
costs concerning tapes for the hearing. She mailed that both to Mr.
Sloan and, to myself. Thereafter, sometime between November 5, 2003
and November 10, 2003, Samuel Sloan called her regarding the statement
of cost."
14. On the basis of the above statement read in open court, Judge
Williams dismissed my appeal. However, the judge was in error because
the affidavit was from Judge Hocker's secretary in Laurens, which is
82 miles from Aiken. The time to appeal starts from when Judge
Hocker's decision is filed with the clerk in Aiken. I have checked the
record and found that Judge Hocker's decision was never filed in
Aiken. Thus, my appeal was if anything premature, not late.
15. Another question concerns the impropriety of Judge Hocker having
his secretary send an affidavit to the appellate judge. This is highly
irregular and improper. That affidavit was not a proper part of the
record of this appeal and should never have been considered. Indeed, I
have not seen the original letter and was not sent a copy of it.
16. Please note that this was three years ago regarding a hearing that
took place four years ago. At the last hearing, opposing counsel said
that I am supposed to receive $107,000. At the time of my mother's
death, in May 2002, the amount I was supposed to get was $200,000. I
have yet to receive a dime. What the court needs to understand is that
these funds are not in some frozen secure bank account. In the
mid-1990s, after he had had our mother kidnapped from the Bangkok
General Hospital in Bangkok Thailand, Creighton set up and established
several bank accounts in Lynchburg Virginia and in South Carolina. As
our mother was receiving in excess of $5,000 per month in pension and
social security checks, including a social security check in the
amount of $1500 and a pension check in excess of $3500, he took these
checks for the next 12 years from 1991 to 2002 and deposed them all in
checking accounts where he had signing authority. Judge Sue H. Roe had
appointed the Bank of America as Conservator starting in April 1991,
but the Bank of America never received the funds. I have spoken with
the head of the Trust Department at Bank of America and he has
confirmed that not even one of these monthly checks ever reached Bank
of America.
17. In short, Creighton stole the money. It is as simple as that.
18. If you will look at the files of the Aiken County Probate Court
you will see numerous handwritten letters from my mother complaining
that Creighton was stealing her pension and social security checks.
More than that, she filed suits against Creighton about this. One such
suit was filed in the Charlottesville Circuit Court. Judge Sweet, now
deceased was the judge in that case. Another suit was filed in the
Lynchburg Circuit Court and Judge Ballou was the judge. If you will
check the files of the Lynchburg Circuit Court you will see at least
five of these Sloan vs. Sloan cases were pending before various judges
at the moment that Creighton had his mother kidnapped in Bangkok,
Thailand. Indeed, she had fled to Thailand just to get away from
Creighton and to stop him from stealing her money.
19. After having his mother kidnapped out of her hospital room on
September 3, 1990, he had her transported by the kidnappers to Silver
Spring, Maryland, where she was held for two months. Note that she was
not brought to South Carolina initially. Only after the Maryland
authorities ruled that she was free to walk out of the nursing
facility where she was being held against her will, did Creighton have
her brought to South Carolina. This was all testified to by Cassel
Jacobson who testified that he paid $60,000 for the kidnapping. This
testimony was before Judge Sue H. Roe of the Aiken South Carolina
Probate Court. The tapes of that testimony have been lost. Nobody can
seem to find them.
20. I believe that the reason Judge Hocker acts the way he does it to
protect Judge Roe and other South Carolina authorities from facing
federal kidnapping charges. Anybody who looks at the court records
will plainly see that my mother was kidnapped and that she would never
have come voluntarily to South Carolina, where she was locked up in a
nursing facility until she died 12 years later.
21. When my father died on January 19, 1986 (one way to remember this
date is that it was the same date as the Space Shuttle Challenger
disaster), I was appointed by the Lynchburg Circuit Court as father's
personal representative and I paid to Creighton all the money he was
entitled to receive as one half of my father's estate in less than a
month, even though a lot of litigation was pending over my father's
estate. (I later realized that Creighton had encouraged and perhaps
even helped finance some of this litigation.) I was prohibited by
Judge Hocker from testifying about this. Judge Hocker even threatened
to hold me in contempt and to have me locked up if I persisted in
testifying about this. (At a later court hearing Judge Hocker had me
locked up briefly for testifying about something else he did not want
me to testify about.) Then, after refusing to allow me to testify
about the circumstances of my father's death and the litigation which
followed it (which he said was irrelevant even though he knew nothing
about it) he then implied in his decision that I had withheld money
from Creighton.
22. Please note that I paid Creighton all his money only one month
after our father had died. I did not need a court order to do it. I
just paid him the money even though litigation was pending. I also did
not pay myself any fees for administering the estate. By contrast,
Creighton has paid himself the excessive amounts of $13,000 and his
attorney $37,000 out of estate funds for doing nothing, as the entire
estate consisted only of bank accounts, Creighton having sold or
disposed of everything else prior to her death. With regard to my
father's estate, I would have been fully justified in not paying
Creighton anything until the litigation was settled. (It has still not
been settled.) My mother died on May 16, 2002, which is five years
ago. Creighton has not paid me one dime even though he has the money
in his own unencumbered checking accounts. My wife and children are
suffering and meanwhile Creighton had been photographed in a gambling
casino in Las Vegas.
23. It has always been obvious since 1986 that he plans to keep all
the money for himself and not to give me anything. Otherwise, why
would he spend four years chasing his mother around the world,
repeatedly hiring professional kidnappers to kidnap her, finally
succeeding on September 3, 1990, and then steal all her money, her
savings, life insurance and pension and social security checks, have
her house in Lynchburg Virginia sold in violation of court order and
have all of her personal possessions deposited in a trash dump in
Lynchburg and then give me half the money? Anybody who examines the
court record of this case can clearly see that Creighton is a criminal
who belongs in jail, which is where his mother was trying to put him.
24. Please note that opposing counsel DOES NOT STATE WHEN SHE RECEIVED
Sam Sloan
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
_____________________________
APPEAL FROM AIKEN COUNTY PROBATE COURT
Donald B. Hocker, Special Probate Judge for Aiken County
Case No. 2002ES02-00489
Creighton W. Sloan, Personal Representative of the
Estate of Helen Marjorie Sloan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Respondent
v.
Samuel H. Sloan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appellant
--------------------------------------------------------
MOTION FOR REHEARING AND RECONSIDERATION ON DECISION TO DISMISS APPEAL
____________________________________
State of New York:
County of Bronx:
Samuel H. Sloan, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. This court has committed a major oversight in its decision because
the decision of the court below from which I am appealing was NEVER
ENTERED.
2. It is well known that the time to appeal starts from the DATE OF
THE NOTICE OF ENTRY OF THE ORDER.
3. There was no notice of entry because there was no enter. The
decision of the Aiken County Probate Court is NOT IN THE FILE OF THIS
COURT OR IN THE FILE OF THE AIKEN COUNTY PROBATE COURT.
4. This is because Judge Hocker did here the same thing he did the
last time, which is that he insists in sitting in his own courtroom in
Laurens County and not in the courtroom in Aiken where the case is
actually pending. He has refused to allow the case to be transferred
from Aiken to Laurens, a distance of 82 miles.
5. Then, when he makes a decision he gives it to his own clerk in
Laurens but does not send it to the clerks office in Aiken. Thus, the
only record of his decision comes from a copy I filed when I filed my
notice of appeal.
6. As my exhibit A, I enclose a copy of the cover of the file folder
of this case in the Aiken County Court of Common Pleas. Here are the
entries:
12-15-2003 Filed Acknowledgment of Receipt of File from Judge Hocker
1-21-2003 Filed Correspondence from Catherine Kennedy Attorney At Law
2-24-2004 Filed Correspondence from Laurens Country Probate Court
12-13-2004 Filed Order from Laurens County Probate Court
4-17-2006 Filed Correspondence from Samuel H. Sloan
9-12-2006 Filed Correspondence From Samuel H. Sloan
10-31-2006 Filed Notice of Appeal
3-29-2007 Filed Copy of Motion/Order Information Form and Cover Sheet
Motion to Dismiss Appeal and to access costs and memorandum in support
by Catherine H. Kennedy
5-8-2007 Correspondence from Samuel H. Sloan (In Reference to Motion
to Dismiss Appeal)
7.Please noted the dates above carefully. It can be seen that although
I filed a notice of appeal on October 31, 2006 there is no entry of
the order from Judge Hocker from which I am appealing.
8. Thus, Mrs. Kennedy’s statement is false. I did file my notice of
appeal in the Aiken County Court of Common Pleas on a timely basis and
indeed there was no time limit at all because neither Mrs. Kennedy nor
the clerk had ever entered the order from which I am appealing.
9. In addition I went downstairs to the clerks office of the Aiken
County Probate Court. I checked the entire file, every document in the
file. Nowhere in the files of the Aiken County Probate Court is Judge
Hockers Order, either entered or non-entered. Judge Hocker simply
never sent his order to the clerk for entry,
10. Accordingly, I am herewith filing another Notice of Appeal from
the same order. Although the order is dated October 20, 2006 it has
never been entered. Thus, my second appeal is timely too and even if
I filed it next year it would still be timely unless in the meantime
the order has been entered.
11. This is far from a triviality. Judge Hocker signed his order in
Laurens County on October 20, 2006. Even though I had not received his
order I had heard that he was going to sign it, so I mailed in my
notice of appeal on the same day or possible actually the day before
he signed it. It seems that I have ten days to file a notice of appeal
from the Probate Court unlike the standard 30 days from other courts.
12. There is another special problem. The official address of the
Aiken County Clerk’s Office DOES NOT EXIST. I realize that you will
not believe this, but I will prove it.
13. First, go to the official website of the Aiken County Clerks
office. You will find it at:
http://www.aikencountysc.gov/DspDept.cfm?qDeptID=COC
14. Now go to the United States Postal Service website to look up that
address. You will find it at http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/welcome.jsp
15. Now, enter the address above for the Aiken County Clerk’s Office
of 109 PARK AVENUE SW, Aiken SC
16. You will see that it says: "This address is NON-DELIVERABLE".
17. In other words, there is no such address.
18. This has direct impact on me because I am in Bronx New York.
Because of the distaance involved I have been using the United States
Postal Service Express Mail. Normally, the postal service guarantees
Next Day Delivery. However, since Aiken is a small town it is two day
delivery. However, due to the fact that the post office does not
recognize this address they do not give any guarantee AT ALL.
19. Please note that the order signed by Judge Hocker bears the date
October 9, 2005. This is an obvious error in date. This problem would
have been solved had the order been entered in the usual way with a
mechanical time and date stamp which would have shown the correct year
of 2006. My notice of appeal bears the file stamp Filed: 10-31-2006
Sue H. Roe Judge of Probate. Even opposing counsel does not claim that
the October 9, 2005 date is correct. She gives the date October 20,
2006. Her contention is that since the court in Aiken received my
notice of appeal on October 31, 2006 it was ONE DAY LATE.
20. I cannot imagine any circuit court of appellate court unholding
this claim that my appeal must be dismissed because of being one day
late when I am in New York City and must send my pleadings by mail to
Aiken South Carolina. However, it is not necessary to reach this issue
because as I have demonstrated Judge Hocker never filed his decision
with the court and therefore my appeal was if anything too early, not
too late.
21. In addition, the decision of this court violated the LAW OF THIS
CASE. In a prior appeal in this same case a hearing was held before
Judge Keesley on February 4, 2004. The issue was exactly the same.
Opposing counsel moved to dismiss my appeal on the ground that the
grounds for appeal had been filed one week late. However, Judge
Keesley ruled that he could not rule on the motion to dismiss because
the record had not been transmitted from the Probate Court to the
Court of Common Pleas. Judge Keesley ruled that without the record
from the court below before him he could not rule on the motion to
dismiss because he could not see the record. Therefore, hec ordered
the Probaste Court to transmit the record.
22. However, the lower court did not transmit the record. Instead
Judge Hocker had his secretary write a letter to the Court of Common
Pleas stating that she had spoken to me on the telephone around five
days after Judge Hocker’s decision and therefore I had notice of the
decision. Unfortunately, Judge Hocker’s secretary did not send me a
copy of the letter. Thus, I was blindsided. I did not know about the
letter or how to respond when it was read in open court by opposing
counsel.
23. The letter was bogus because. The situation there was the same as
here. Again, Judge Hocker had failed to file the order with the Aiken
County Court. That is the reason that the court had accepted my notice
of appeal. Not knowing the date of entry of the order, they have no
way of knowing when the time to appeal ends.
24. It is important to understand what is involved here. The money
that remains, $206,000 is not in a frozen or restricted bank account
as is normally the case. It is in a general unrestricted checking
accounbt for which Creighton is the signerr. This is because before
her death he moved all of the money out of her bank accounts and put
all of it except for a relatively nominal amount into his own account.
Thus, he has no incentive to close the estate. If it is never closed
he just keeps the money.
25. Now, how did he get the money? He stole it! He has a history of
stealing his mother’s pension and social security checks going back to
at least 1984. He also kidnapped her. She escaped and fled the country
in September 1986. In September, 1990, he had her kidnapped in the
Bangkok General Hospital in Bangkok Thailand and brought back to
America and she was held for two months in Silver Spring Maryland.
Then in November 1990 he had her brought to Aiken, South Carolina. In
January 1991 he applied ex parte for an order appointing him as her
guardian and conservator. This order was granted the same day without
notice or a hearing. I eventually found out about it although I was
never served and demanded a hearing. At a hearing before Judge Sue H.
Roe in April 1991 Creighton was removed as her conservator. He was
ordered by the court to hand over all funds he was holding for her to
the Conservator, which was NCNB Bank, which was later succeeded by
Bank of America.
26. However, because of the ex parte order by Judge Roe dated Jabnuary
1991, he had served that order on the Virginia Supplemental Retirement
System where she was receiving a check in the amount of $3500 a month
and on the Social Security Department which sent her a check for $1500
a month. He got those checks diverted to his address. Then, in spite
of the April, 1991 order directing him to turn over the funds to Bank
of America, he just kept the money. Each month from then on until her
sdeath in 2002 when the checks for $5000 per month instead of
depositing those chgecks in the conservator account with Bank of
America he put the checks into his own bank accounts where he had
signing authority. In defiance of the order dated April 1991 he opened
new back accounts in the name of his mother using an invalid power of
attorney that she had revoked in 1986 and again in 1987 and deposited
the checks into those bank accounts.
27. All of this is the subject of 65 exhibits submitted by both
petitioner and respondent and marked and admitted into evidence in the
hearings before Judge Hocker. However, Judge Hocker makes no mention
of those 65 exhibits in his decision. It is as though they do not
exist. By ignoring all this evidence Judge Hocker has violated one of
the basic rules of court which state that the decision must discuss
the testimony and the evidence before him. Surely 65 marked and
admitted exhibits justify an explanation, yet there is none.
28. Judge Hocker in his decision claims that there is not a million
dollars involved in this case. But there is a million dollars
involved. Just multiply. Starting in Janyary 1991 and every month
thereafter until her death in May 2002 Creighton received checks
beginning in the amount of $5,000 and increasing with COLA Cost of
Living Allowances thereafter. This comes to 137 months at $5000 per
month which is $685,000 plus accumulated interest. In an affidavit
Creighton filed in Lynchburg Circuit Court in March 1994 he said her
living expenses were $2000 per month. Thus he was pocketing $3000 per
month, or a total of $411,000.
29. But that is only the beginning because there was another $200,000
in as frozen bank account at Sovran Bank in Lynchburg Virginia. He
apparently claims that the account was unfrozen by court order and he
was allowed to take the money. However, I have been to the Lynchburg
Circuit Court and checked the court files and there is no such order.
In any case, he somehow apparently got the money. That money too had
disappeared.
30. Finally, he sold his mother's house in Lynchburg Virginia in 1994
again in violation of the order of the Aiken County Probate Court
which appointed Bank of America as the Conservator. I had been
basically living in that house with my wife and children while trying
to fight this case and by selling the house out from under us he
evicted us and grabbed that money as well. I believe that the sale of
the house was illegal abnd viod and I want to be appointed the
personal representative so we can get the house back.
31. All of these acts by Creighton Sloan were obviously crimes and the
judges of the courts of both South Carolina and Virginia who are
obviously aware of all of this are co-conspirators and complicit in
these crimes. That is why they keep covering up by repeatedly using
dirty tricks to dismiss my appeals.
32, To summarize, my appeal is not untimely. I filed notices of appeal
in both the Probate Court and the Circuit Court. Also, I filed Grounds
for Appeal before I filed notices of appeal. No need to file them
again. And, lastly, I am herewith filing new notices of appeal and a
new grounds for appeal since the order of Judge Hocker of October 2006
but dated October 2005 still has not been entered yet.
33. I wish to add that I believe that no matter what Creighton will
NEVER pay me the month. He stole the money. He had his mother and my
daughter kidnapped. He is a criminal. He has gotten away with this for
these past 21 years because he has successfully involved judges and
courts including this court in his schemes. Before filing this motion
I called his attorney and asked whether, if I agreed to drop this
appeal she would give me a date certain when I would get my money. She
was unable or unwilling to do that. I am sure that she too realizes
that in view of his history it is uncertain and unlikely that the
money will ever be paid.
WHEREFORE, for all of the reasons set forth above, the motion to
dismiss my appeal should be denied.
__________________________
Samuel H.
Sloan
1664 Davidson
Ave., Apt. 1B
Bronx NY
10453-7877
Sworn to before me this 23rd
Day of July 2007
______________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
Samuel H. Sloan, being duly sworn, deposes and says that on July 23,
2007 he mailed the within Affidavit in Opposition to the Motion to
Dismiss to all counsel at the following addresses:
Catherine H. Kennedy
Attorney for Creighton Sloan
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP
1320 Main Street, 17th floor
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Patricia L. Harrison
611 Holly Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29205
__________________________
Samuel H.
Sloan
Sworn to before me this 23rd
Day of July 2007
______________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
Sam Sloan
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
_____________________________
APPEAL FROM AIKEN COUNTY PROBATE COURT
Donald B. Hocker, Special Probate Judge for Aiken County
Case No. 2002ES02-00489
Creighton W. Sloan, Personal Representative of the
Estate of Helen Marjorie Sloan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Respondent
v.
Samuel H. Sloan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appellant
--------------------------------------------------------
MOTION FOR REHEARING AND RECONSIDERATION ON DECISION TO DISMISS APPEAL
____________________________________
State of New York:
County of Bronx:
Samuel H. Sloan, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
WHEREFORE, for all of the reasons set forth above, the motion to
dismiss my appeal should be denied.
__________________________
Samuel H.
Sloan
1664 Davidson
Ave., Apt. 1B
Bronx NY
10453-7877
Sworn to before me this 23rd
Day of July 2007
______________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
Samuel H. Sloan, being duly sworn, deposes and says that on July 23,
2007 he mailed the within Affidavit in Opposition to the Motion to
Dismiss to all counsel at the following addresses:
Catherine H. Kennedy
Attorney for Creighton Sloan
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP
1320 Main Street, 17th floor
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Patricia L. Harrison
611 Holly Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29205
__________________________
Samuel H.
Sloan
Sworn to before me this 23rd
samsloan
_____________________________
Case No. 2002ES02-00489
v.
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________
State of New York:
County of Bronx:
3. There was no notice of entry because there was no entry. The
decision of the Aiken County Probate Court is NOT IN THE FILE OF THIS
COURT OR IN THE FILE OF THE AIKEN COUNTY PROBATE COURT.
4. This is because Judge Hocker did here the same thing he did the
last time, which is that he insists in sitting in his own courtroom in
Laurens County and not in the courtroom in Aiken where the case is
actually pending. He has also refused to allow the case to be
transferred from Aiken to Laurens, a distance of 82 miles.
5. Then, when he makes a decision he gives it to his own clerk in
Laurens but does not send it to the clerks office in Aiken. Thus, the
only record of his decision in the Aiken Courts comes from a copy I
filed when I filed my notice of appeal.
6. As my exhibit A, I enclose a copy of the cover of the file folder
of this case in the Aiken County Court of Common Pleas. Here are the
entries:
12-15-2003 Filed Acknowledgment of Receipt of File from Judge Hocker
1-21-2003 Filed Correspondence from Catherine Kennedy Attorney At Law
2-24-2004 Filed Correspondence from Laurens Country Probate Court
12-13-2004 Filed Order from Laurens County Probate Court
4-17-2006 Filed Correspondence from Samuel H. Sloan
9-12-2006 Filed Correspondence From Samuel H. Sloan
10-31-2006 Filed Notice of Appeal
3-29-2007 Filed Copy of Motion/Order Information Form and Cover Sheet
Motion to Dismiss Appeal and to access costs and memorandum in support
by Catherine H. Kennedy
5-8-2007 Correspondence from Samuel H. Sloan (In Reference to Motion
to Dismiss Appeal)
7. Please noted the dates above carefully. It can be seen that
although I filed a notice of appeal on October 31, 2006 there is no
entry of the order from Judge Hocker from which I am appealing.
8. Thus, Mrs. Kennedy's statement is false. I did file my notice of
appeal in the Aiken County Court of Common Pleas on a timely basis and
indeed there was no time limit at all because neither Mrs. Kennedy nor
the clerk had ever entered the order from which I am appealing.
9. In addition, I went downstairs to the clerk's office of the Aiken
County Probate Court. I checked the entire file, every document in the
file. Nowhere in the files of the Aiken County Probate Court is Judge
Hocker's Order, either entered or non-entered. Judge Hocker simply
never sent his order to the clerk for entry,
10. Accordingly, I am herewith filing another Notice of Appeal from
the same order. Although the order is dated October 9, 2005 it has
never been entered. Thus, my second appeal is timely too and even if
I filed it next year it would still be timely unless in the meantime
the order has been entered.
11. This is far from a triviality. Judge Hocker signed his order in
Laurens County dated October 9, 2005. Even though I had not received
his order, I had heard that he was going to sign it, so I mailed in my
notice of appeal on the same day or possibly actually the day before
he signed it. It seems that I have ten days to file a notice of appeal
from the Probate Court unlike the standard 30 days from other courts.
12. There is another special problem. The official address of the
Aiken County Clerk's Office DOES NOT EXIST. I realize that you will
not believe this, but I will prove it.
13. First, go to the official website of the Aiken County Clerk's
Office. You will find it at:
http://www.aikencountysc.gov/DspDept.cfm?qDeptID=COC
14. It says that the address is: 109 PARK AVENUE SW, Aiken SC 29801.
Now go to the United States Postal Service website to look up that
address. You will find it at http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/welcome.jsp
15. Now, enter the address above for the Aiken County Clerk's Office
of 109 PARK AVENUE SW, Aiken SC.
16. You will see that it says: "This address is NON-DELIVERABLE".
17. In other words, there is no such address.
18. This has direct impact on me because I am in Bronx New York.
Because of the distance involved I have been using the United States
Postal Service Express Mail. Normally, the postal service guarantees
Next Day Delivery. However, since Aiken is a small town it is two day
delivery. However, due to the fact that the post office does not
recognize this address, they do not give any guarantee AT ALL. In one
of these appeals, (not the current appeal) a document I sent by
Express Mail sat in the US Post Office in Aiken for one week because
of this problem of the mailing address. The problem is that the
address of the courthouse does not have a nine-digit zip code. For
some reason, the extra four digits were never assigned.
19. Please note that the order signed by Judge Hocker bears the date
October 9, 2005. This is an obvious error in date. The correct year is
2006. This problem would have been solved had the order been entered
in the usual way with a mechanical time and date stamp which would
have shown the correct year of 2006. My notice of appeal bears the
file stamp Filed: 10-31-2006 Sue H. Roe Judge of Probate. Even
opposing counsel does not claim that the October 9, 2005 date is
correct. She gives the date I received the order as October 20, 2006.
Her contention is that since the court in Aiken received my notice of
appeal on October 31, 2006 it was ONE DAY LATE.
20. I cannot imagine any circuit court or appellate court upholding
this claim that my appeal must be dismissed because of being one day
late, when I am in New York City and must send my pleadings by mail to
Aiken South Carolina. However, it is not necessary to reach this issue
because as I have demonstrated Judge Hocker never filed his decision
with the court and therefore my appeal was if anything too early, not
too late.
21. In addition, the decision of this court violated the LAW OF THIS
CASE. In a prior appeal in this same case, a hearing was held before
Judge Keesley on February 4, 2004. The issue was exactly the same.
Opposing counsel moved to dismiss my appeal on the ground that the
grounds for appeal had been filed one week late. However, Judge
Keesley ruled that he could not rule on the motion to dismiss because
the record had not been transmitted from the Probate Court to the
Court of Common Pleas. Judge Keesley ruled that without the record
from the court below before him he could not rule on the motion to
dismiss because he could not see the record. Therefore, he ordered the
Probate Court to transmit the record.
22. However, the lower court did not transmit the record. Instead,
Judge Hocker had his secretary write a letter to the Court of Common
Pleas stating that she had spoken to me on the telephone around five
days after Judge Hocker's decision and therefore I had notice of the
decision. Unfortunately, Judge Hocker's secretary did not send me a
copy of this letter. Thus, I was blindsided. I did not know about the
letter nor how to respond when it was read in open court by opposing
counsel.
23. The letter was bogus because the situation there was the same as
here. Again, Judge Hocker had failed to file the order with the Aiken
County Court. That is the reason that the court had accepted my notice
of appeal. Not knowing the date of entry of the order, they have no
way of knowing when the time to appeal ends.
24. It is important to understand what is involved here. The money
that remains, $206,000 is not in a frozen or restricted bank account
as is normally the case. It is in a general unrestricted checking
account for which Creighton is the signer. This is because before our
motherr's death he moved all of the money out of her bank accounts and
put all of it except for a relatively nominal amount into his own
account. Thus, he has no incentive to close the estate. If it is never
closed, he just keeps the money.
25. Now, how did he get the money? He stole it! He has a history of
stealing his mother's pension and social security checks going back to
at least 1984. He also kidnapped her in 1984 and 1985. She escaped and
fled the country in September 1986. In September, 1990, he had her
kidnapped in the Bangkok General Hospital in Bangkok Thailand and
brought back to America and she was held for two months in Silver
Spring Maryland. Then, in November 1990 he had her brought to Aiken,
South Carolina. In January 1991, he applied to the Aiken County
Probate Court ex parte for an order appointing him as her guardian and
conservator. This order was granted the same day without notice or a
hearing. I eventually found out about it although I was never served
and demanded a hearing. At a hearing before Judge Sue H. Roe in April
1991 Creighton was removed as her conservator. He was ordered by the
court to hand over all funds he was holding for her to the
conservator, which was NCNB Bank, which was later succeeded by Bank of
America.
26. However, because of the ex parte order by Judge Roe dated January
1991, he had served that order on the Virginia Supplemental Retirement
System where she was receiving a retirement check in the amount of
$3500 a month (our mother was a retired medical doctor) and on the
Social Security Department which sent her a check for $1500 per month.
He got those checks diverted to his address. Then, in spite of the
April, 1991 order directing him to turn over the funds to Bank of
America, he just kept the money. Each month, from then on until her
death in 2002, when the checks for $5000 per month arrived, instead of
depositing those checks in the conservator account with Bank of
America, he put the checks into his own bank accounts where he had
signing authority. In defiance of the order dated April 1991 he
subsequently opened new back accounts in the name of his mother using
an invalid power of attorney that she had revoked in 1986 and again in
1987 and deposited the checks into those bank accounts.
27. All of this is the subject of 65 exhibits submitted by both
petitioner and respondent and marked and admitted into evidence in the
hearings before Judge Hocker. However, Judge Hocker makes no mention
of those 65 exhibits in his decisions. It is as though they do not
exist. By ignoring all this evidence, Judge Hocker has violated one of
the basic rules of court which state that the decision must discuss
the testimony and the evidence before him. Surely 65 marked and
admitted exhibits justify an explanation, yet there is none.
28. In addition, Judge Hocker refused to allow me to subpoena the
records of the banks to enable me and the court to establish how much
money he took and what he did with it. Starting in 1986 when Creighton
filed his first lawsuit against his mother and continuing until her
death in 2002, Creighton never filed any bank statements and none have
been produced. It is obvious that he is hiding and spiriting away
large amounts of money. Also, I believe that he used this money to pay
the kidnappers of his mother and my daughter Shamema. In other words,
he used her own money to pay the criminals who kidnapped her out of
the Bangkok General Hospital in Thailand.
29. Judge Hocker in his decision claims that there is not a million
dollars involved in this case. But there is a million dollars
involved. Just multiply. Starting in January 1991 and every month
thereafter until her death in May 2002 Creighton received checks
beginning in the amount of $5,000 and increasing with COLA Cost of
Living Adjustments thereafter. This comes to 137 months at $5000 per
month which is $685,000 plus accumulated interest. In an affidavit
Creighton filed in Lynchburg Circuit Court in March 1994, he said her
living expenses were $2000 per month. Thus he was pocketing $3000 per
month, or a total of $411,000 plus interest.
30. But that is only the beginning because there was another $200,000
in a frozen bank account at Sovran Bank in Lynchburg Virginia. He
testified that the account was unfrozen by court order and he was
allowed to take the money. However, I have been to the Lynchburg
Circuit Court and checked the court files and there is no such order.
In any case, he somehow apparently got the money. That money too has
disappeared.
31. Finally, he sold his mother's house in Lynchburg Virginias in 1994
again in violation of the order of the Aiken County Probate Court
which appointed Bank of America as the Conservator. I had been
basically living in that house with my wife and children while trying
to fight this case and by selling the house out from under us he
evicted us and grabbed that money as well. I believe that the sale of
the house was illegal and void and I want to be appointed the personal
representative so we can get the house back.
32. All of these acts by Creighton Sloan were obviously crimes and the
judges of the courts of both South Carolina and Virginia who are
obviously aware of all of this are co-conspirators and complicit in
these crimes. That is why they keep covering up by repeatedly using
dirty tricks to dismiss my appeals.
33, To summarize, my appeal is not untimely. I filed notices of appeal
in both the Probate Court and the Circuit Court. Also, I filed Grounds
for Appeal before I filed notices of appeal. No need to file them
again. And, lastly, I am herewith filing new notices of appeal and a
new grounds for appeal since the order of Judge Hocker of October 2006
but dated October 2005 still has not been entered yet.
34. I wish to add that I believe that no matter what Creighton will
NEVER pay me the money. He stole the money. Can anybody really believe
that he will give half of it back? He had his mother and my daughter
Shamema kidnapped. He is a criminal. He has gotten away with this for
these past 21 years because he has successfully involved judges and
courts including this court in his schemes. Before filing this motion
I called his attorney, Catherine Kennedy, and asked whether, if I
agreed to drop this appeal, she would give me a date certain when I
samsloan
1664 Davidson Ave., Apt. 1B
Bronx NY 10453
Tel. 917-507-7226
sams...@samsloan.com
July 23, 2007
Liz Goddard, Clerk
Aiken County Court of Common Pleas
PO Box 583
Aiken SC 29801
Re: Estate of Helen Marjorie Sloan
Dear Ms. Goddard,
Enclosed are notices of appeal from the Aiken County Probate Court to
your Court and from your court to the South Carolina Court of Appeals.
The reason I have taken this unusual step is that the decision of the
Aiken County Probate Court is dated October 9, 2005 (not 2006) and has
never been entered. Note that there are none of the customary time and
date stamps showing that the order has been entered. I have also
checked both the Aiken County Probate Court downstairs and your court
and the original order of Judge Hocker is not there.
Since opposing counsel made complaints about my last notice of appeal
I am filing new notices of appeal which I believe that I am entitled
to do because the order has never been entered.
Also, I am filing a petition for rehearing of Judge Cothran's
decision. I am hoping that Judge Cothran will grant my petition for a
rehearing thereby making it unnecessary for me to appeal to the Court
of Appeals or at least extending the time for me to file my notice of
appeal.
Since I am unfamiliar with the rules of your court I would appreciate
your guidance in these matters.
Very Truly Yours,
Samuel H. Sloan
Copy to:
samsloan
COUNTY OF AIKEN PROBATE COURT
IN THE MATTER OF HELEN M. SLOAN
CASE NO. 2002ES02-00489
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
Samuel H. Sloan, appeals from the decision of this court dated
October, 2005 (which was obviously meant to be dated October 2006) on
the following grounds.
1. The decision of the Aiken County Probate Court, Hocker, J., fails
to comply with the rules of court which require the judge to explain
what happened in the proceedings before him. The hearings in this case
were lengthy over several court dates for which Samuel Sloan was
required to travel from New York City to Laurens, South Carolina each
time. In this case there were a total of 65 exhibits admitted in to
evidence as part of the case of both petitioner and respondent. Judge
Hocker makes no mention of these exhibits which were obviously
important as they were in most cases documents from the underlying
court cases of Sloan vs. Sloan in Virginia and South Carolina. The
failure of Judge Hocker to explain these exhibits and why he failed to
consider them was judicial error.
2. The attorney's fees of $37,000 claimed by counsel for Creighton
Sloan was excessive and the fees Creighton paid himself of $13,000 was
excessive because he did no work on this case.
3. The court ignored the fact that Creighton Sloan is disqualified
from serving as the personal representative of his mother because, at
the time of her death, there were numerous lawsuits pending between
Creighton Sloan and his mother Helen Marjorie Sloan. The gist of there
lawsuits was that Helen Marjorie Sloan was accusing Creighton Sloan of
stealing her money including her bank accounts and her pension and
social security checks and Creighton Sloan was claiming that he had a
right to those funds. Among these suits were Creighton Sloan vs.
Sovran Bank in which Creighton requested and obtained an ex-party
freeze on the bank accounts of Helen Marjorie Sloan, Creighton Sloan
vs. Helen Marjorie Sloan in which Creighton Sloan falsely claimed to
be the conservator of his mother and obtained the sale of her house
and kept the money and Helen Marjorie Sloan vs. Creighton Sloan filed
in the Circuit Court for the City of Charlottesville Virginia in which
Helen Marjorie Sloan demanded an accounting of all the funds taken by
Creighton Sloan. All of these lawsuits are still pending as no final
judgment or decree has been entered in any of them. It is especially
significant that in the Charlottesville case, Helen Marjorie Sloan
demanded an accounting of the funds from both Creighton and the Sovran
Bank (now Bank of America) and neither Creighton nor the bank has ever
provided an accounting. At the hearing before Judge Hocker, Creighton
still failed and refused to provide any accounting of the funds and it
was demonstrably proven that Creighton has persistently been removing
funds from his mother's bank accounts and has been stealing his
mother's pension and social security checks, amounting to a total of
about $5,000 per month, since at least 1985. Judge Hocker ruled that
events dating back to 1985 were not relevant, but the court was in
error because Creighton never stopped stealing his mother's money.
This has been his persistent pattern for a very long time. Although
the Bank of America was appointed the conservator in 1991 on
Creighton's petition, the record shows that from then until the death
of Helen Marjorie Sloan in May 2002, 11 years later, not even one
pension or social security check reached the Bank of America. Instead
Creighton was taking the checks and depositing them in other bank
accounts he controlled. This constituted grand larceny for which
Creighton should be punished in accordance with law, especially since
it was proven at trial that the total funds taken by Creighton amount
to more than one million dollars.
4. Creighton Sloan was in default in this case and failed to appear
for nearly one year after his mother's death. He has still never
notified the banks that his mother has died or provided them with a
copy of her death certificate. Sam Sloan filed a petition to be
appointed his mother's personal representative in July 2002. Although
no opposition to this petition was filed, Judge Amy McCullough of the
Columbia Probate Court scheduled a hearing for November 20, 2002.
Creighton W. Sloan never filed anything and did not appear for the
hearing. However, just before the hearing Judge McCullough announced
that her friend had died and therefore she could not conduct the
hearing because she had to be at the funeral at the same time. The
name of this friend who died has never been identified. Later the same
day Judge McCullough said that she would not schedule a hearing until
Creighton Sloan filed a competing petition which he had until the end
of January to do. This showed bias by the courts against the only then
petitioner, Samuel Sloan. Finally, Creighton Sloan filed a competing
petition on January 23, 2003, more than eight months after his mother
had died, but did not file proof of service of that petition on the
other parties. Again, no hearing was scheduled awaiting the filing of
this proof of service. The petition of Creighton Sloan was not served
on the parties until August 15, 2003, now 15 months after the death of
Helen Marjorie Sloan. This petition should never have been accepted by
the courts as it was filed more than one year after the time for
filing had expired.
5. After accepting this tardy petition for filing, and after several
judges had disqualified themselves from the case, Judge Hocker made
the bizarre ruling that only Creighton's petition was before the court
and Sam Sloan's petition filed one year earlier was not before the
court because it was an "informal petition" even though Sam Sloan had
used the same form for filing as Creighton Sloan. Judge Hocker then
deemed Creighton as "plaintiff" in the case and Samuel Sloan as the
respondent.
6. Samuel Sloan had retained counsel, Patricia L. Harrison, at an
early stage of this case in 2002 when it was uncontested. Creighton
Sloan did not retain counsel until 2003. By October 2003, the retainer
fee paid by Samuel Sloan to Patricia Harrison had been exhausted.
Meanwhile, Creighton had virtually unlimited funds to pay counsel
because he had stolen more than one million dollars from his mother
and had the remainder of those funds in the Sun Trust Bank in
Lynchburg Virginia and in the First Citizens Bank in Columbia, South
Carolina. Thereupon, Judge Hocker allowed Patricia Harrison to
withdraw as counsel. This gave Creighton Sloan an unfair and indeed
decisive advantage in this case. It is apparent from the final
decision made by Judge Hocker that had Patricia Harrison still been on
the case, Samuel Sloan would have prevailed especially since Judge
Hocker suggested that the funds be held by a lawyer for one of the
parties and Creighton Sloan was the only party still having a lawyer.
It was by no means the fault of Samuel Sloan that the case continued
for one year beyond the originally scheduled November 2002 hearing
date. His rights should not be adversely affected as a result.
7. The record of this case clearly establishes that Creighton
committed perjury many times and has often disobeyed court orders.
Just a few of the many examples are that in April 1991, the Aiken
County Probate Court appointed NCNB Bank (now Bank of America) as the
conservator for Helen Marjorie Sloan. Obviously, that bank was
supposed to start receiving the pension and social security checks of
Helen Marjorie Sloan amounting to five thousand dollars per month.
Instead, the bank never received the checks. Creighton got the checks.
Creighton opened new bank accounts with banks unfamiliar with this
case and deposited the checks in those accounts. These included Sun
Trust Bank in Lynchburg and First Citizens Bank in Columbia. Helen
Marjorie Sloan never had an account with either of these banks or with
their predecessors. Helen Marjorie Sloan had an account only with
Sovran Bank in Lynchburg where she had established a trust account to
stop Creighton Sloan from stealing her money. Creighton Sloan invaded
the trust account and first obtained a freeze on the trust account and
withdrew all the funds from all the other accounts of Helen Marjorie
Sloan. There has never been an accounting of those funds. Recently or
at least subsequent to 1994 Creighton Sloan somehow was able to obtain
possession of the remaining funds amounting to about two hundred
thousand dollars. The whereabouts of those funds are unknown.
Creighton has possibly secreted them in an unknown bank account
undisclosed to the courts or has simply spent, stolen or
misappropriated the money. By appointing Creighton Sloan as the
personal representative of his mother Judge Hocker has closed the door
to any inquiries as to the whereabouts of these funds. Creighton's
lawyer even argued that this should be done to close the door to end
the controversy. Thus, the court has shown that its intention to seal
the door and to prevent the rightful heirs from ever finding out what
happened to the funds of Helen Marjorie Sloan. This is improper and
requires reversal.
8. Further examples of lying by Creighton Sloan: He testified that his
mother moved to South Carolina in 1985. On other occasions he
testified that she moved to South Carolina in 1986. The difference is
critical because in August 1986 Helen Marjorie Sloan fled from her
home in Lynchburg Virginia for fear of Creighton. On September 3,
1986, Creighton had his mother briefly arrested and detained in New
York City. For this reason and again in fear of Creighton, she fled
the country. On September 3, 1990 Creighton Sloan had his mother
kidnapped in Bangkok, Thailand and brought back to America. He then
had her held in nursing homes in Maryland, not in South Carolina.
After she tried to escape from there several times, he had her brought
to South Carolina where he had her locked up in nursing homes until
she died 12 years later. Thus Helen Marjorie Sloan never had a
residence in South Carolina. She was never even in that state prior to
1990. Her residence was Virginia and the courts of South Carolina have
no jurisdiction over this case.
9. In 1993, two years after the NCNB Bank, now Bank of America, was
appointed as the conservator, Creighton Sloan sold his mother's house
at 917 Old Trent's Ferry Road in Lynchburg and kept the money. In his
decision, Judge Hocker ridiculed Samuel Sloan's claim that he wanted
to be appointed as the personal representative to recover possession
of the house. However, Samuel Sloan's claim is valid because Creighton
had no legal right to sell that house. Thus the sale of the house was
invalid and the house which has considerable value is still the
property of the estate. It is obvious that Creighton was not the
conservator when he sold the house. The bank was the conservator.
10. At trial, Creighton contradicted himself and lied many times. For
example, at one point the testified that he had been appointed the
conservator in Virginia. This was a lie, as no such appointment has
ever been made. On another occasion he testified that the appointment
of the bank as conservator only was valid in South Carolina and does
not apply to Virginia. This was another material misrepresentation
because the transcript of the proceedings in Virginia show that
Creighton testified there that he was the conservator in South
Carolina and therefore had the right to sell his mother's house. As
this took place in 1994 and the bank was appointed conservator in
April, 1991, this was a clear lie. It is obvious that Creighton has
lied repeatedly to the various courts and judges and attorneys and by
these lies has been able to gain control of almost all of his mother's
funds which he has treated as his own.
11. All of the above can readily be seen from a transcript of the
trial. It is obvious that Judge Hocker ruled as he did to protect the
old boy network of judges and lawyers in South Carolina. It is obvious
that Creighton needs to spend substantial prison time for kidnapping
his mother and also for arranging the kidnappings of several children
of Samuel Sloan and Judge Hocker realizes that several of his fellow
judges will go to prison as well for aiding and abetting Creighton
Sloan in these endeavors. Therefore, Judge Hocker has become a co-
conspirator and a participant in these crimes, because anybody can see
that large amounts of money has been stolen, and kidnappings have
occurred and by ruling as he has done the door has been forever closed
to an investigation into these matters.
12. Judge Hocker should have realized that his order of the court
would never be implemented. In fact, since the date of the decision of
November 3, 2003, absolutely nothing has been done to implement the
court's decision. Creighton Sloan had not posted a bond nor has he
turned the funds over to his lawyer. He obviously has no intention of
ever doing so, and why should he since he already has possession of
the majority of the funds of his late mother. He claims that he has
not been able to do this because he could not take off time from work.
However, he has traveled to Las Vegas Nevada where on December 20,
2003 he attended a party and a wedding reception and engaged in
gambling activities. He also paid money to Charles and Shelby Roberts,
who kidnapped Shamema Sloan, daughter of Samuel Sloan, and who were
then claiming custody of Jessica Sloan, another daughter of Samuel
Sloan. Creighton Sloan told the Roberts that he will see to it that
Samuel Sloan will never get a dime of the inheritance money from his
mother and that the Roberts will get some of that money. All of this
should have been obvious from the facts adduced at the hearing before
the probate court.
13. Respondent Samuel Sloan, who is really the original petitioner,
has repeatedly demanded that judge Hocker disqualify and recuse
himself in view of his obvious bias. Judge Hocker even had petitioner
Samuel Sloan arrested and briefly incarcerated. It was judicial error
for Judge Hocker not to recuse himself.
14. Judge Hocker has refused to allow Samuel Sloan to file any papers
or pleadings in this case. Motions, answers and other documents mailed
by petitioner to the courts have been returned to Samuel Sloan with
the envelopes unopened or in some cases with the FILED stamps crossed
out. As a result, Samuel Sloan has been unable to make a record from
which an appeal can be taken.
This is just a short list of the many errors committed by the probate
court. In summary, Creighton Sloan has been stealing money from his
mother for a long time. The judges and the lawyers before the courts
all know this, but they dare not say anything about this because that
will mean that they too are guilty of a crime. Therefore, they remain
silent and allow Creighton to continue to steal the money.
For all of these reasons, the decision of Judge Hocker must be
reversed.
Dated: July 23, 2007
Respectfully Submitted,
Samuel H. Sloan
1664 Davidson Ave., Apt. 1B
Bronx NY 10453-7877
Samuel H. Sloan, being duly sworn, deposes and says that on July 23,
2007 he mailed the within grounds for appeal to all counsel at the
following addresses:
Catherine H. Kennedy
Attorney for Creighton Sloan
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP
1320 Main Street, 17th floor
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Patricia L. Harrison
samsloan
1664 Davidson Ave., Apt. 1B
Tel. 917-507-7226
sams...@samsloan.com
July 23, 2007
Liz Goddard, Clerk
Aiken County Court of Common Pleas
PO Box 583
Aiken SC 29801
Re: Estate of Helen Marjorie Sloan
Dear Ms. Goddard,
Enclosed are notices of appeal from the Aiken County Probate Court to
your Court and from your court to the South Carolina Court of Appeals.
The reason I have taken this unusual step is that the decision of the
Aiken County Probate Court is dated October 9, 2005 (not 2006) and has
never been entered in that court. Note that there are none of the
customary time and date stamps showing that the order has been entered
in Aiken County. I have also checked both the Aiken County Probate
Court downstairs and your court and the original order of Judge Hocker
is not there.
Just to explain what happened, by way of illustration, Judge R.
Ferrell Cothran normally sits in Clarendon County. However, in when he
made his decision in this case, he did not have it entered in
Clarendon County. Rather, he had it entered in Aiken County, because
the case is pending here. Naturally, several days passed between the
date he signed the order and the date that you received it and entered
the order.
Judge Hocker did not do that. When he made his decision in this case,
he did not have it entered in Aiken County. Rather, he had it entered
in Laurens County, where he lives. As a result, the order of Judge
Hocker is nowhere to be found in the Aiken County Courthouse, neither
in the Probate Court, nor in the Court of Common Pleas.
Since opposing counsel made complaints about my last notice of appeal,
I am filing new notices of appeal which I believe that I am entitled
to do because the order has never been entered.
Also, I am filing a petition for rehearing of Judge Cothran's
decision. I am hoping that Judge Cothran will grant my petition for a
rehearing, thereby making it unnecessary for me to appeal to the Court
of Appeals or at least extending the time for me to file my notice of
appeal.
Since I am unfamiliar with the rules of your court I would appreciate
your guidance in these matters.
Very Truly Yours,
Samuel H. Sloan
Copy to:
Catherine H. Kennedy
samsloan
1664 Davidson Ave., Apt. 1B
Bronx NY 10453
Tel. 917-507-7226
sams...@samsloan.com
August 13, 2007
Liz Godard, Clerk
Aiken County Court of Common Pleas
109 Park Ave. SE
Aiken SC 29801-4581
Re: Estate of Helen Marjorie Sloan
Dear Ms. Godard,
Thank you for your letter dated August 9, 2007.
Enclosed please find a check for $25 and a check for $150, payable to
the Clerk of the Aiken County Court.
I am unfamiliar with the rules of your particular court but I am well
aware that my adversary, Mrs. Kennedy, is constantly straining to find
some technical grounds to dismiss all my appeals, to avoid any
adjudication on the merits.
It is my intention that the $25 is to pay for a petition for a
rehearing and, should that fail, the $150 is for that appeal.
I have now finally figured out that the correct address of your
courthouse is 109 Park Ave. SE, Aiken SC 29801-4581.
Thank you for informing me that your clerk has notified the webmaster
that there is an error on the Aiken County Government website in your
address. However, I have just checked the website, and the error is
still there.
If you will go to the Aiken County Government website at
http://www.aikencountysc.gov/DspOfc.cfm?qOfcID=COC
you will see that the address provided there is 109 Park Ave. SW,
Aiken SC 29801.
Your webmaster probably thinks that the difference between SE and SW
is trivial, but there is a big difference because 109 Park Ave SW is
also a legal address in Aiken SC and I have been consistently mailing
all my papers and pleadings over the past five years to the 109 Park
Ave SW address, because that is the advertised address of your
courthouse.
This explains why there have consistently been delays in my papers
being filed, which my opponent has thoroughly exploited by repeatedly
having my court filings dismissed for lateness.
The most recent example on this being the latest case where she
contends that my notice of appeal was filed ONE DAY LATE.
This problem comes up because I am in New York City, so I have been
filing all my pleadings by Express Mail. However, Express Mail
requires a full 9-digit zip code to be effective. Without it, the
postal service cannot guarantee delivery by a specific date. In one
instance, my Express Mail sat in the US Post office in Aiken for one
full week because of the lack of a 9-digit zip code. (One would think
that the US Post Office in Aiken SC knows where the Aiken County
Courthouse is, but apparently they do not.)
I am enclosing a copy of the Aiken County Government website I just
printed out, which shows that the wrong address is still provided
there.
Also, your letter notes that my pleadings were filed on July 31 and
August 1. The reason for this is I sent everything in duplicate, once
to the courthouse street address, 109 Park Ave. SW, and one to the PO
Box. The PO box addressed set arrived in your courthouse one day
later. The obvious reason for this is you send someone to pick up the
mail in the post office once a day, in the morning, but the express
mail parcels arrived in the post office in the afternoon and thus in
this instance the one addressed to your street address got delivered
one day earlier.
I hope that this matter eventually gets rectified so my appeal can
proceed in your court. Also, I would like to note that my adversary
contends that I only filed my notice of appeal in the Probate Court
and not in the Court of Common Pleas. However, my examination of the
file folder in your courthouse clearly shows that my notice of appeal
arrived in both the probate court and in the court of common pleas on
the same date. On the other hand, the order from which I am appealing
is nowhere to be found in your courthouse, in either court. The
original order is probably still in Judge Hocker's chambers in Laurens
SC and he probably never bothered to send it in for entry in the
clerks offices in Aiken.
Very Truly Yours,
Samuel H. Sloan
cc: Catherine H. Kennedy, Atty for Creighton Sloan
Hon. Ralph Ferrell Cothran
Hon. Sue H. Roe, Aiken County Probate Judge
Hon. Donald B. Hocker, Laurens Co. Assoc. Probate Judge
Sam Sloan
attend yet another court hearing scheduled in Aiken SC.
The hearing will be at 10:00 AM on Monday March 3, 2008 in the Aiken
County Courthouse 109 Park Ave SE, Courtroom #4, Aiken SC 29801,
before Judge Doyet A. Early III presiding.
The issue is the same. There has been no progress, none whatever,
since the last hearing you attended several years ago.
I will be carrying my cell phone so please call me if you have the
chance. My cell phone number is 347-869-2465
My home number in the Bronx is 917-507-7226
Sam Sloan
samsloan
1664 Davidson Ave., Apt. 1B
Bronx NY 10453-7877
Tel. 917-507-7226
sams...@samsloan.com
April 12, 2008
The Honorable Doyet A. Early, III
Post Office Box 90
Bamberg SC 29003
Re: Estate of Helen Marjorie Sloan, Case No. 03-CP-02-1681
Dear Honorable Sir,
I am deeply shocked to learn that you have signed an order submitted
by my adversary filled with ridiculous and completely untrue
statements which cannot be supported by the record and, more than
that, you have never even seen the record from which this appeal has
been taken.
I know that you have never seen the record because the Probate Judge,
Judge Hocker has still never submitted for filing the record to the
Clerk of the Probate Court. Judge Hocker is keeping the record in his
chambers in Laurens, South Carolina, which is 82 miles from the Aiken
County Probate Court.
As I informed you in the hearing, when this same situation came up
before Judge Keesley, he ruled that he could not make a ruling on this
appeal until Judge Hocker submitted the record. I enclose the order of
Judge Keesley dated February 4, 2004. It states:
“The Probate Court has written a letter stating that he is not going
to file a return because the appeal was not timely. The court needs a
return and a transmittal of the record and directs the filing of such
within 30 days.”
This order by Judge Keesley was in response to a letter from Judge
Donald B. Hocker which I also enclose and which stated the following:
“The purpose of this letter is to advise you that a Return will not be
filed in your office pursuant to Section 62-1-308, Code of Laws for
South Carolina (Supp.) due to the fact that the appellant has not
timely filed his grounds for appeal with this court pursuant to the
above Section.”
In response to this letter, Judge Keesley made the obviously correct
ruling that it is not up to the lower court judge to decide whether
the proper procedures have been filed in taking the appeal. It is up
to the court to which the appeal is taken to decide whether the lower
is correct or not. That is why we have appeals.
However, even after Judge Keesley's order, Judge Hocker still did not
comply with the rules of court. Instead he had his secretary send an
affidavit to the court stating that my appeal should be dismissed.
However, nether a copy of this affidavit nor a copy of the previous
letter from Judge Hocker was sent to me. I happened to find these
documents in the court file when I came down from New York to South
Carolina in connection with this appeal. Otherwise, I would never have
known about them.
The affidavit from the secretary, Sherri T. Osborne, which I also
enclose, states:
“2. I mailed the order, dated November 3, 2003 to Catherine Kennedy
and Samuel Sloan on November 4, 2003. . . . . 3. That after November
5, 2003 and before November 10, 2003 Samuel Sloan called me and asked
me a question.”
This affidavit was dated 23 March 2004, which was four months after
the events described.
This affidavit, which I never received, was read aloud to Judge
Williams when Catherine Kennedy filed another of her motions to
dismiss this appeal. Since I had not seen the letter, I was caught off-
guard and did not know how to respond.
Had I been able to think on my feet I would have pointed out that
Sherri T. Osborne is a secretary for Judge Hocker in Laurens County.
However, this case is pending in Aiken County, 82 miles away. It is
the bizarre decision of Judge Hocker to conduct all his hearings in
Laurens County even though the case is pending in Aiken County. (This
is also a great inconvenience to me because there is no bus or other
public transportation in Laurens County and I have to travel from New
York City to attend all these many hearings.)
When Sherri T. Osborne said that she mailed an order to me on November
4, 2003 that was dated November 3, 2003 this means that the order had
not been entered yet, unless she got in her car and drove the 82 miles
to Aiken County to enter the order. In fact, the record of the Aiken
County Probate Court shows that the November 3, 2003 has never to this
very day five years later been entered.
Now, opposing counsel seeks to overcome this little problem by saying
that the order does not have to be entered. This is preposterous and
ridiculous. Everybody knows that a court order does not become
official until it is entered by the clerk, which happens after the
clerk puts one of those little red time and date stamps on the order.
To date, none of the orders of Judge Hocker have been entered by the
Clerk of the Aiken County Probate Court. Judge Hocker simply signs the
order, puts it in his desk drawer, and leaves it there. It seems that
he also sends a photocopy of his orders to my adversary, Catharine
Kennedy.
Now, her claim that I was one day late in filing my notice of appeal,
in that the notice of appeal is supposed to be filed in 10 days and
mine was not clocked in until the 11th day, is based on the time that
she says that she sent me the order. Also, her claim that I took a
little longer than 15 days to file grounds of appeal back in July 2007
is based on which she says, because those documents are in Judge
Hocker's Chambers in Laurens and are NOT in the court file in Aiken.
In short, she is telling you to dismiss my appeal based entirely on
what she tells you, and not on what is in the record which, once
again, you have never seen.
I have been to Columbia and spoken to the clerks of both the South
Carolina Supreme Court and the South Carolina Court of Appeals about
this exact issue because it keeps coming up in anything involving
Judge Hocker. Both clerks say the same thing: The time to appear
starts running from the date of service of the order WITH NOTICE OF
ENTRY. I have asked this question again and again to make sure that I
understand them and they understand me. The rules require that THE
ORDER BE ENTERED. There must be NOTICE OF ENTRY. If the order has not
been entered, as it the case with all of the orders of Judge Hocker
here, then the time to appeal has not started to run.
Furthermore, the standard rule in New York is that all of these time
limits are extended FIVE DAYS FOR MAILING. Catherine Kennedy is
claiming that in South Carolina there is no provision for time in the
mail. She says that I was served on October 20, 2006 and therefore I
had until October 30, 2006 exactly to file my notice of appeal with
the Clerk of the Aiken County Probate Court and since it was not filed
until October 31, 2006 it was one day late and thus the courts have no
jurisdiction to hear my appeal. However, she cites no case law on
this. The cases she cites involve appeals filed weeks after the
normally 30 deadline had passed. No case she cites involves a ten day
appeal period where the notice of appeal was marked received on the
11th day.
She also says that I did not file my notice of appeal with the Court
of Common Pleas and that I only filed it with the Probate Court.
However, this is simply false, a lie. I enclose a copy of the file
folder from the Court of Common Pleas that clearly states that my
notice of appeal was filed in that court on October 31, 2006 as well.
Again, I am astounded that you would sign a court order submitted by
my adversary without doing some basic fact checking to see if the
statements she makes are true before you sign her order.
Now I will address a question that others keep asking and perhaps you
will be asking too, which is: Why do I not just wait until I get the
money and then I can just pursue my further legal remedies? At the
last hearing, the amount was said to be $214,000 of which I get half,
which is $107,000.
The answer is: CREIGHTON WILL NEVER PAY THE MONEY.
This case has already been going on for 22 years since 1986 and will
probably go for another 22 years if we live that long. The case really
started with the Death of our father on January 19, 1986.
The current phase started with the death of our mother on May 16,
2002. I alone petitioned the court to be appointed her personal
representative. Creighton filed nothing. Although I was unopposed, the
courts did not appoint me. They never gave a reason but the reason was
obvious: I have been complaining that my mother was kidnapped out of
her hospital room in the Bangkok General Hospital in Bangkok Thailand
on September 3, 1990 and Creighton has had her locked up ever since
while stealing her money which came to more than one million dollars.
I have proved all this in court with the documents that Judge Hocker
will not allow you to see because they are in his chambers. So, the
courts do not want to appoint me because my allegations make them
complicit in the crimes of kidnapping and grand theft which are proven
by documents in the court files under their care and custody.
Finally, Creighton filed a counter-petition to be appointed Personal
Representative and served it in August 2003, one year and three months
after the death of our mother and one year after I filed mine.
Later, I appealed from the aforementioned order dated November 3,
2003. By the same trickery that Catherine Kennedy is using now, she
got my appeal dismissed from the South Carolina Court of Appeals in
November 2004.
I could have appealed further but I decided just to wait until I got
the money.
I waited two years. Nothing happened. I never received a dime.
Creighton was just sitting on the money. Finally, Catherine Kennedy
said that the delay was because of the need to file income tax
returns. Previously, Creighton had testified that all of the taxes had
been paid. So, I just waited and waited and waited.
Finally, Catherine Kennedy made a motion for a new hearing on her
application for additional attorneys fees. She wanted a fee of $37,000
and a fee for Creighton of $13,000. By the way, when I was appointed
the Personal Representative of my father by the Lynchburg Circuit
Court after his death on January 19, 1986, I never took a dime as my
own fee.
Now, in view of your order, Catherine Kennedy says that she is going
to go back again to Judge Hocker and make another application for more
fees for her and this process will continue in an endless cycle.
What you must understand is that Creighton is under no pressure to
conclude this case because CREIGHTON ALREADY HAS THE MONEY. Even
before our mother had died, Creighton had already looted her assets.
In 1994, he sold her house in Lynchburg to a relative of his lawyer
for the ridiculously low amount of $75,000, most of which went for
attorneys and storage fees. He grabbed her bank account in Sovran Bank
in Lynchburg which had $200,000 in it. Most importantly, our mother
was receiving $6,000 per month, consisting of $1500 per month in
Social Security and $4,500 per month from the Virginia Supplemental
Retirement System, as retirement for her years of service as a medical
doctor working for the State of Virginia. Creighton was receiving this
$6,000 per month from January 1991 until her death in May 2002.
Multiply this all out and add interest and you will see that it comes
to well over one million dollars.
Creighton is living in a mansion in Aiken which he bought with the
million dollars he stole from his mother, while my wife and I and
eight children are living on the edge of poverty as I try to eek out a
living as a small-time publisher of books. Creighton's kids have all
moved out. He has never had verifiable employment in more than twenty
years. He claims to be doing CIA type secret work, but of course this
cannot be verified.
We in the family know that Creighton has had a problem with
kleptomania all his life. He also has a history of demolishing his
car. The most important point is that all of this money was taken by
Creighton ILLEGALLY. The Aiken Probate Court appointed NCNB Bank,
which was later taken over by Bank of America, as the conservator on
April 12, 1991. That court also ordered both me and Creighton to
deposit all funds belonging to our mother with that bank. I did not
have any funds. Creighton had all the funds he had stolen from his
mother up until that point. He was also receiving and continued to
receive checks amounting to $6,000 per month. NONE OF THOSE CHECKS
WERE EVER DEPOSITED WITH THE BANK OF AMERICA CONSERVATOR ACCOUNT.
Creighton put all the money into his own bank accounts.
I demanded before Judge Hocker the right to subpoena the bank records.
Judge Hocker refused to allow this. Thus, Creighton is getting away
scott free with the theft of more than one million dollars.
I am enclosing a copy of the Grounds for Appeal I filed dated July 23,
2007. As the Grounds for Appeal are filed in the Probate Court, not in
your court, I believe that you do not have it. Catherine Kennedy has
it of course because I served it on her at that time. This was the
document she says was 15 days late. However, as you can see, it was
filed nearly one year ago and she has never responded. That was the
Second Grounds for Appeal I filed.
The Grounds for Appeal shows overwhelming grounds for which Judge
Hocker's orders must be reversed. Also, note that Judge Hocker mis-
dated his order. He dated it one full year earlier than the date he
actually signed it. This illustrates one of the reasons why it is
vital that all court orders be clocked in with the clerk of the court.
I am enclosing a court order I am asking you to sign. This proposed
court order merely directs Judge Hocker to file a return and transmit
the record to the clerk of the court. This is much the same as the
order of Judge Keesley dated February 4, 2004. It is obvious that
until you have the full record in front you and you can actually look
at it, you cannot make a proper disposition of this appeal.
Very Truly Yours,
Samuel H. Sloan
Copy to:
samsloan
1664 Davidson Ave., Apt. 1B
Bronx NY 10453-7877
Tel. 917-507-7226
samh...@gmail.com
April 12, 2008
Dear Honorable Sir,
County Probate Court shows that the November 3, 2003 order has never
to this very day five years later been entered.
Now, opposing counsel seeks to overcome this little problem by saying
that the order does not have to be entered. This is preposterous and
ridiculous. Everybody knows that a court order does not become
official until it is entered by the clerk, which happens after the
clerk puts one of those little red time and date stamps on the order.
To date, none of the orders of Judge Hocker have been entered by the
Clerk of the Aiken County Probate Court. Judge Hocker simply signs the
order, puts it in his desk drawer, and leaves it there. It seems that
he also sends a photocopy of his orders to my adversary, Catherine
Kennedy.
Now, her claim that I was one day late in filing my notice of appeal,
in that the notice of appeal is supposed to be filed in 10 days and
mine was not clocked in until the 11th day, is based on the time that
she says that she sent me the order. Also, her claim that I took a
little longer than 15 days to file grounds of appeal back in July 2007
is based on what she says, because those documents are in Judge
million dollars he stole from his mother, while my wife and I and my
eight children are living on the edge of poverty as I try to eek out a
living as a small-time publisher of books. Creighton's kids have all
moved out. He has never had verifiable employment in more than twenty
years. He claims to be doing CIA type secret work, but of course this
cannot be verified.
We in the family know that Creighton has had a problem with
kleptomania all his life. He also has a history of demolishing his
car. The most important point is that all of this money was taken by
Creighton ILLEGALLY. The Aiken Probate Court appointed NCNB Bank,
which was later taken over by Bank of America, as the conservator on
April 12, 1991. That court also ordered both me and Creighton to
deposit all funds belonging to our mother with that bank. I did not
have any funds. Creighton had all the funds he had stolen from his
mother up until that point. He was also receiving and continued to
receive checks amounting to $6,000 per month. NONE OF THOSE CHECKS
WERE EVER DEPOSITED WITH THE BANK OF AMERICA CONSERVATOR ACCOUNT.
Creighton put all the money into his own bank accounts.
I demanded before Judge Hocker the right to subpoena the bank records.
Judge Hocker refused to allow this. Thus, Creighton is getting away
scott free with the theft of more than one million dollars.
I am enclosing a copy of the Second Grounds for Appeal I filed dated
July 23, 2007. As the Grounds for Appeal are filed in the Probate
Court, not in your court, I believe that you do not have it. Catherine
Kennedy has it of course because I served it on her at that time. This
was the document she says was 15 days late. However, as you can see,
it was filed nearly one year ago and she has never responded. That was
the Second Grounds for Appeal I filed.
The Grounds for Appeal shows overwhelming grounds for which Judge
Hocker's orders must be reversed. Also, note that Judge Hocker mis-
dated his order. He dated it one full year earlier than the date he
actually signed it. This illustrates one of the reasons why it is
vital that all court orders be clocked in with the clerk of the court.
I am enclosing a court order I am asking you to sign. This proposed
court order merely directs Judge Hocker to file a return and transmit
the record to the clerk of the court. This order I am asking you to
sign is virtually identical to the order of Judge Keesley dated
samsloan
)
COUNTY OF AIKEN ) THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
Creighton W. Sloan, ) Civil Action No. 03-CP-02-1681
)
Petitioner / Respondent )
)
vs. )
)
Samuel H. Sloan )
)
Respondent / Appellant )
)
IN RE: ESTATE OF HELEN MARJORIE SLOAN )
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
There is a Pending Appeal from the Probate Court and a Pending Motion
to Dismiss the Appeal based on the alleged failure to file the notice
of appeal and the grounds for appeal on time.
As of this date the Special Probate Judge still has not filed a return
in spite of having been previously ordered by another judge of this
court to do so.
This court needs a return and a transmittal of the record and directs
the filing of such within thirty days.
All documents in the record and all 65 exhibits marked and offered
into evidence in the proceedings in the Probate Court plus all tape
recordings of the hearings in the Probate Court are to be filed in
this court within thirty days.
The prior order of this court dismissing this appeal is hereby
vacated. Counsel if so advised may reinstate the motions to dismiss
this appeal after the Probate Court has complied with this order by
filing a return and the record of this case with this court.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED
_________________________________
Doyet A. Early, III, Presiding Judge
Court of Common Pleas, Third Judicial Circuit
April _____, 2008
______________, South Carolina
foad
Bork.
"samsloan" <samh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7eeb0c00-34dd-4703...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Sam Sloan
<rayg...@seductive.com> wrote:
>did you know that ------ is a child molestor like you? and i thought
>you're an investigative journalist. get a move on it sloan. the entire
>scholastic community will vote for you if you can expose ----- to
>protect the kids. here's your chance to be elected. he's gay and he
>likes young boys just like robert snyder.
I just happened to notice this posting from the election campaign last
year.
It is by "The Fake Ray Gordon" whom we now know to be Paul Truong.
We know this because the Fake Ray Gordon always uses
rayg...@seductive.com whereas the Real Ray Gordon always uses
r...@cybersheet.com
Typically of all postings by the Fake Sam Sloan who is the same person
as the Fake Ray Gordon, he makes a sexual reference accusing a rival
candidate of being gay.
I have put ----- over the name of the person so as not to subject him
to any more of this than he has already been subjected.
The Real Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
wrote:
There were many of these letters by Paul Truong a/k/a The Fake Ray
Gordon accusing a rival candidate for election (not me) of being a gay
pedophile. I have been asked not to further publicize them but I have
at least 20 of them in my computer and will provide them to anybody
with a legitimate need to know.
Sam Sloan