Complaint about Judge Douglas S. Wong
Sam Sloan
Sloan
1664 Davidson
Ave., Apt. 1B
Bronx NY 10453
October 6,
2005
Hon. Guy DePhillips
Supervising Judge
Queens Family Court
151-20 Jamaica Avenue
Jamaica NY 11432
Re: Judge Douglas S. Wong
Docket No. V-11657-05
Dear Honorable Sir,
I am hereby bringing charges against Judge Douglas Wong of grave
misconduct. Judge Wong must immediately be removed from any cases
involving me and my family, must be bounced and removed from the
bench, and must be arrested and jailed for endangering my 13-year-old
daughter. I further demand that my case be reheard today on an
emergency basis by another judge.
I had a scheduled hearing on my case today, October 6, 2005. Judge
Wong committed several acts of serious misconduct. First I must say
that before my case was called I saw several other cases where
litigants were pulled yelling and screaming from Judge Wong's
courtroom. In those cases, I spoke to some of the litigants and
advised them to calm down, and even though their complaints may be
valid, yelling and screaming would not help their case and would only
make matters worse. Then, after my case was called, I had the same
reaction to the egregious misconduct of Judge Wong and had to be
dragged yelling and screaming from his court room. The fact that Judge
Wong evokes this response in many people should be evidence that he is
unfit for his position on the bench.
My case involves my daughter Anusha Rankoth Sloan, age 13, who lives
with her mother Dayawathie Rankoth at 40-08 12th Street, Apt. 3E, Long
Island City NY 11101 along with two of my other children, Michael and
George Sloan.
About one year ago, Dayawathie got involved with two brothers she met
over the Internet who were residing in Tioga County, Pennsylvania
16946. She went out to Pennsylvania to meet them, and came back
pregnant. I know the location only because she asked me to take care
of one of her children while she was gone. She called me regularly
from a neighbor's house in Tioga County because, she said, the
brothers would not allow her to call from their own phone.
Incidentally, the number she called from was 570-835-5380.
Later, they started coming to visit her from time to time. I often
came to see Dayawathie or she would call me on the phone. (She does
not have a working number). However, in early March I received calls
from the neighbors informing me that Dayawathie had gone away for some
weeks and had left two drug dealers in her apartment along with my
daughter, Anusha.
Naturally, I came to see what was going on. I went to the apartment
and would knock on the door. I could see from the spyhole in the door
that there was someone inside, but nobody ever spoke. Dayawathie would
have always come to the door if she was there, so she was definitely
not at home.
In late March, she came back. She had given birth. She called me over
to show me her "cute little baby" of which she was very proud.
However, after that I never saw her, until today. The neighbors
informed me that the two brothers from Pennsylvania had moved into her
apartment full time and were dealing drugs. The neighbors told me that
I had better to court and do something about this. They were very
upset that somebody like this, who are basically white hillbillies
from the Appalachian Mountains, had moved into their project, which is
the Queensbridge North Housing Project. In particular, Anusha's best
friend who lives in another building in the project told that I better
go to court to get some protection for her friend.
At first, I did not believe that they were dealing drugs, because they
did not look like pot-heads. However, I did a little research and
learned that Tioga County, Pennsylvania and similar areas are centers
for methamphetamine production, precisely because they are far away
from any city and methamphetamine production involves basically
cooking fertilizer which creates a horrible stench. I realized that
these two brothers exactly fit the profile of the typical
methamphetamine producer and user. Before this, I had never even heard
of methamphetamine.
On July 20, I filed my petition in court for the custody of Anusha. By
that time, I had not seen Dayawathie or any of my three children with
her in three months, whereas previously I had seen them weekly. I was
surprised when the judge set a far future date for the hearing, which
was October 6, today.
For the last 14 years since June, 1991, I have had running conflicts
with Sister Theresa Coutney and Dorchen Leidholdt of Sanctuary for
Families, who basically kidnapped Dayawathie and the kids away from me
in June, 1991, when I had just brought Dayawathie into the country on
a tourist visa. Anusha had not been born yet. In 1992, I filed a
federal lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York, against Sanctuary
for Families for kidnapping my children, which they got dismissed by
claiming that they had no contact with Dayawathie, which was a lie.
These have been numerous court proceedings involving them ever since.
Their strategy every time has been to get me arrested and then move
Dayawathie and the kids so that I cannot find them and then default
the case and claim that they do not know where they are any more. They
moved Dayawathie and the kids five times during 1995 to 1997. They
stopped doing this when they realized that every time they move
Dayawathie, she would call me and tell me her new location.
Thereafter, when Sister Theresa came to see Dayawaythie, Dayawathie
would hide me in the closet until she left.
I was hoping that now that Dayawathie obviously has two men living
illegally in her apartment with our children and has given birth, they
would stop this boring practice of trying to have me arrested as a way
to defeat my right to custody of my children. I was wrong, as that is
exactly what they tried to do again today.
Their new lawyer, Alexander Reid Karam, was just admitted to the bar
this year, 2005. He was in elementary school when this litigation
started 14 years ago and probably has no idea of this history or what
they sent him into. I heard him tell the court attorney, Mr. King,
that he wanted me arrested, which Mr. King refused to do. However, Mr.
King did advise Mr. Karam on how to draw up a petition to accomplish
his purposes. This I feel was the first of many ethical violations by
Judge Wong, because Mr. King told me that he works for Judge Wong, and
I saw Mr. Karam writing out papers and petitions and giving them to
Mr. King and Mr. King taking them into Judge Douglas Wong for his
signature.
This was clearly an egregious ethical violation because I was there
and yet some secret proceeding was taking place which I was not being
told about, as Mr. King refused to talk to me.
My case was scheduled to be heard at 9:30 AM. However, my case was not
called. Instead, for hours there was going back and forth between Mr.
King and Mr. Karam and the judge, while Mr. Karam called Dorschen
Leidholdt on his cell phone to receive instructions from her.
Meanwhile, I called home and told my wife that they were trying to
arrest me. In a mad panic, my wife who had been on her way to work
instead took off from work to come to the courthouse with my baby
thinking she would not see me again.
Finally, my case was called at 3:30 PM. By that time Mr. Karam had
prepared a counter petition based on instructions he had received from
Mr. King. Dayawathie signed this new petition in the courthouse.
Although he talked many times at length to Mr. Karam, Mr. King refused
to speak to me, thereby depriving me of the right to explain all of
the above.
When the case was finally called six hours later at 3:30 PM, Mr.
Karam, I, and the law guardian, Vladimir Cadet, entered the courtroom.
Mr. Karam had previously told me that he was going to have Mr. Cadet
removed from the case and he was going to represent my daughter as
well. Mr. Cadet was allowed to address the court at great length.
However, I was not allowed to speak AT ALL. I had documents in my
possession which would have immediately proven that what Mr. Karam
told the court was a lie. In particular, the petition Mr. Karam filed
in open court stated "Petitioner attempted to enter respondents home
on multiple occasions between September 26 and September 29, 2005".
However, I had with me an affidavit of service signed by a police
officer, Officer A. Fong, which stated that on September 29, 2005 at
1720 PM he had entered the apartment and served Dayawathie Rankoth
personally with the summons in this case. Obviously, if I had engaged
in some sort of misconduct, I would have been arrested at that time.
What had really happened was that the court had ordered that
Dayawathie be served with the summons eight days before the October 6
hearing date. For that reason, police officers repeatedly went to her
address between September 26 and 29 to try to serve the summons. I did
not go there. I never entered the building. I did not knock on her
door. The New York City police did that.
What really happened is that knowing that there was going to be
trouble if I hired a normal process server to serve the court papers,
I went to the New York Housing Police Department located at 35th
Avenue and 21st Street in Astoria, Queens and asked them to serve the
papers for me. The first time I did this, I waited in the police
station for four hours while waiting for the police officer to serve
the papers. Finally a police officer came back with the papers at 1:20
AM saying that he had knocked on the door real hard several times and
nobody had answered. This probably explains the knocks on the door
that Mr. Karam complained about.
I came back on September 28. This time the officer on duty sent me to
the housing project and told me to wait for the police there. Four
police officers came. Two went into the building to serve Dayawathie
with the papers. The other two waited outside with me. They obviously
knew there could be trouble. However, the two who went up soon came
down saying that a girl (probably my daughter, Anusha) had answered
the door and stated that her mother was in the hospital. I later
called the hospitals and there was no such person there.
I came again on September 29. It happened on the way to the police
station that I saw the two drug dealers from Tioga, Pennsylvania
sitting on the bench directly in front of Dayawathie's house. However,
when I came back with the police who had brought me in a police van
this time, the two drug dealers had disappeared. The police told me to
get out of the van and wait in front of the building. Again, two
police officers went up to serve Dayawathie Rankoth and the other two
police officers waited with me outside the building. While waiting I
was able to observe through the stairwell window Officer Fang and the
other police officer enter her apartment. They spent five to ten
minutes inside the apartment, during which I am sure Dayawathie was
talking their heads off. They came down, informed me that she had been
served, signed the papers, gave them to me, and basically told me to
get the Hell out of there, which I did.
If I had been allowed to speak in the courtroom of Judge Wong, I was
going to show this affidavit of service from a New York City Police
Officer and explain all this, which would have disproven the claims
made by Mr. Karam. However, Judge Wong would not allow me to speak at
all, not one word, yet he allowed Mr. Karam to hand up documents which
the judge then read and signed. This is grave misconduct. Surely, any
competent judge would want to see an affidavit from a New York City
Police Officer, relevant to the case. Judge Wong's behavior was more
than merely discourteous. He repeatedly yelled and screamed at me and
over and over again said that I was going to be incarcerated if I said
anything at all.
Mr. Karam also alleged, "On or about October 3, 2005, Petitioner
approached Respondent outside her apartment building and said words to
the effect of 'You're not going to see Anusha after Thursday,' and,
"I'm going to take one child at a time away from you.'"
This is pure fiction. I have not seen Dayawathie since April. No such
conversation has ever taken place and I would never say any such
thing, and obviously so, because after he served the papers on
September 29, 2005, Officer Fong who was accompanied by three other
police officers strictly warned me not to come around that house
again. I would have been crazy to go back there only four days later
in the face of such a warning and only three days before the scheduled
court hearing on October 6, especially since that housing project is
under constant police surveillance. The police are around there all
the time. The police also know that particular apartment well because
911 was called more than one hundred times while Surinder Singh was
living there with Dayawathie during 1998-2001. Surinder Singh was
arrested six times in that apartment and was finally presumably
deported.
Obviously, what this was all about was that Mr. Karam wanted to claim
that there was some recent incident which merited an order of
protection, so he invented this story. Again, because Judge Douglas
Wong allowed Mr. Karam to wax eloquent and speak at great length while
refusing to allow me to say even one word, I was deprived of my right
to refute this obvious falsehood.
In addition, the law guardian, Mr. Vladimir Cadet, was allowed to
speak. Mr. Cadet told the court that he had interviewed Anusha and
Anusha had told him that her mother, Dayawathie, never uses drugs in
the apartment. However, that is not the issue here. I have never
claimed that Dayawathie uses drugs and I believe that she does not use
drugs. She does not even smoke or drink, nor do I. However, she has
two men living in her apartment with my 13-year-old daughter and she
leaves my daughter alone with these men for extended periods of time.
That is my allegation, which was not denied. I suspect that there are
warrants for their arrest in Tioga, Pennsylvania, which is why they
came to New York, but since I do not know their names I cannot check
on this. It seems odd that two white hillbillies are living in an
almost all black New York City Housing Project.
The end result was that Judge Wong considered a petition which was
handed up in open court by Mr. Karam which I was never allowed to see.
I believe that it was the hand written document that Mr. King earlier
in the day had instructed Mr. Karam to fill out. Judge Wong then
issued an order of protection that I am not to approach Dayawathie or
my kids. In so doing, he granted Mr. Karam's petition which I never
got to see or respond to while at the same time refusing to consider
my petition which I had filed on July 20. Judge Wong adjourned the
case to November 22.
This means that by doing this while ignoring every known legal
procedure, Judge Douglas Wong has effectively given legal custody of
my 13-year-old daughter Anusha to the two drug dealers who are living
in Dayawathie's apartment, at least until November 22.
I think now you understand why I am demanding that Judge Douglas Wong
be removed from my case and removed from the bench and indeed arrested
and prosecuted. It is outrageous that any judge would allow one side
to speak while prohibiting the other side from saying anything at all.
I further demand that my case be reheard today on an emergency basis
by another judge.
Very Truly
Yours,
Samuel H.
Sloan
Copy to:
Alexander R. Karam
Sanctuary for Families
67 Wall Street, Suite 2211
New York NY 10006
www.sanctuaryforfamilies.com
(212) 349-6006 ext. 320
Vladimir Cadet
89-31 161st Street, Suite 505
Jamaica NY 11432
718-297-0004
Judge Douglas S. Wong
Queens County Family Court
151-20 Jamaica Avenue
Jamaica NY 11432
Phil
wrote:
> Samuel H.
>Sloan
<a mighty snip>
The very least you could do, Sam, when posting your manifestos, is to
take out everyone's addresses and phone numbers.
Phil
======
visit the New York City Homebrewers Guild website:
http://www.hbd.org/nychg
Sam Sloan
><a mighty snip>
>
>The very least you could do, Sam, when posting your manifestos, is to
>take out everyone's addresses and phone numbers.
>
>
>Phil
>======
>visit the New York City Homebrewers Guild website:
>http://www.hbd.org/nychg
Why should I do that?
Sam Sloan
Phil
wrote:
>On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 13:42:07 GMT, sl...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan)
>wrote:
>
> Because those involved may not want such information made
>available on Usenet.
> If someone is interested enough, they can find the information
>on-line. You don't need to hand it to them.
That pretty much covers. You may like the attention and the
possibility6 of phone calls and visitors, but not everyone does.
slim
Phil wrote:
>
> On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 08:07:27 GMT, sl...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan)
> wrote:
>
> > Samuel H.
> >Sloan
>
> <a mighty snip>
>
> The very least you could do, Sam, when posting your manifestos, is to
> take out everyone's addresses and phone numbers.
Hey Phil,
Here is our yearly agreement on something.
SAM SLOAN: YES, please, please, please LEAVE OUT THE PERSONAL INFO!!!!
--
Donald Rumsfeld: "If you're asking if there's a direct
link between 9/11 and Iraq, the answer is no."
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4865948/
On May 01, 2003, President Bush declared that,
"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended."
"I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain --
I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the
interesting thing about being the president.
Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they
say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody
an explanation. "
- George "Dubya" Bush
slim
To protect whatever privacy and little dignity they have after having
you in thier lives.
cdh
"slim" <pickin's...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:43474675...@nyc.rr.com...
>
>
> Phil wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 08:07:27 GMT, sl...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan)
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Samuel H.
> > >Sloan
> >
> > <a mighty snip>
> >
> > The very least you could do, Sam, when posting your manifestos, is to
> > take out everyone's addresses and phone numbers.
>
> Hey Phil,
>
> Here is our yearly agreement on something.
>
> SAM SLOAN: YES, please, please, please LEAVE OUT THE PERSONAL INFO!!!!
>
>
> --
Actually, the adresses and phone numbers posted appear to be PUBLIC
information....and to be honest, I have first hand knowledge myself of how
fubarred our family and juvenile courts are.....so, if the judges, and sorry
attorneys who dont care, dont want to deal with the calls, then they can
either find new jobs; or they can start doing their jobs properly.
flash
particularly public officials.... at least i didn't see a problem with
that.....
he is posting people's private home phone numbers and addresses,
including that of his own child (very surprising)..... of whom photos
are available on his website
- worst case scenario - some pervert decides to pay the family a
visit..... best case scenario, prank calls etc etc
i wonder if he realises he is compromising his own daughter's
safety....
for my part - my phone # and address are not public information and i
would never post them on usenet for millions of people to have access
to for an indefinite length of time
let alone if i had as many enemies as mr sloan
slim
flash wrote:
>
> ummm i think the concern is not over someone's office # being posted,
> particularly public officials.... at least i didn't see a problem with
> that.....
> he is posting people's private home phone numbers and addresses,
> including that of his own child (very surprising)..... of whom photos
> are available on his website
> - worst case scenario - some pervert decides to pay the family a
> visit..... best case scenario, prank calls etc etc
>
> i wonder if he realises he is compromising his own daughter's
> safety....
Sloan most certainly does NOT.
Phil
wrote:
Being public record does not mean Sam has the right to publish it in a
public forum for his own self gratification.
Phil
>ummm i think the concern is not over someone's office # being posted,
>particularly public officials.... at least i didn't see a problem with
>that.....
>he is posting people's private home phone numbers and addresses,
>including that of his own child (very surprising)..... of whom photos
>are available on his website
>- worst case scenario - some pervert decides to pay the family a
>visit..... best case scenario, prank calls etc etc
>
>i wonder if he realises he is compromising his own daughter's
>safety....
>
>for my part - my phone # and address are not public information and i
>would never post them on usenet for millions of people to have access
>to for an indefinite length of time
>
>let alone if i had as many enemies as mr sloan
I would take Sam's list of enemies with a grain of salt.
Sam Sloan
wrote:
>On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 13:42:07 GMT, sl...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan)
>wrote:
>
> Because those involved may not want such information made
>available on Usenet.
Exactly the point and, in the future, they may decide not to give
custody of my children to drug dealers for that reason.
Sam Sloan
Phil
wrote:
>On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 02:48:15 GMT, Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 13:42:07 GMT, sl...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 08:28:53 -0400, Phil <dogg...@yahoooo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>><a mighty snip>
>>>>
>>>>The very least you could do, Sam, when posting your manifestos, is to
>>>>take out everyone's addresses and phone numbers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Phil
>>>>======
>>>>visit the New York City Homebrewers Guild website:
>>>>http://www.hbd.org/nychg
>>>
>>>Why should I do that?
>>>
>>>Sam Sloan
>>
>> Because those involved may not want such information made
>>available on Usenet.
>
>Exactly the point and, in the future, they may decide not to give
>custody of my children to drug dealers for that reason.
>
I don't think so. Sounds like extremely petty extortion.
Sam Sloan
CITY OF NEW YORK - QUEENS COUNTY
PART: CVO INTAKE
_________________________________________________
In the matters of:
SAMUEL SLOAN,
Petitioner,
Docket # V-11657/05
-against
DAYAWATHIE RANKOTH,
Respondent.
_________________________________________________X
DAYAWATHIE RANKOTH,
Petitioner
Docket # O-18182/05
-against
SAMUEL SLOAN,
Respondent.
------------------------------------------------- X
H E L D
October 6, 2005
151-20 Jamaica Avenue
Jamaica, New York 11432
BEFORE:
DOUGLAS S. WONG, Judge
APPEARANCES:
Dayawathie Rankoth:
Santuary for Families
67 Wall Street, New York, New York
10005
BY: ALEXANDER KARAM, ESQ.
Law Guardian for the Child:
VLADIMIR CADET, ESQ.
Assigned pursuant to 18-b
STEPHEN E. GENDEL
Official Court Reporter
Proceedings
COURT OFFICER: Calendar number 5 and 39
MR. SLOAN: Your Honor, I need
COURT OFFICER: Sir, be quite. Stand up.
Calendar number 5 and 39, in the matter of Rankoth and Sloan.
Counsel?
MR. KARAM: Sanctuary for Families, by Alexander Karam, for Ms.
Rankoth.
MR. CADET: Vladimir Cadet. assigned counsel for the child
Anusha Rankoth.
(Whereupon, the parties were duly sworn by the court officer.)
COURT OFFICER: State your name and relationship to the child.
MS. RANKOTH: Dayawathie Rankoth, mother.
MR. SLOAN: Samuel Sloan. I'm the father of Anusha.
THE COURT: Mr. Sloan, I just want to warn you, you're in a
courtroom in a court of law, and you're going to act in an appropriate
manner in terms of listening to court officers' directions and not
arguing. If there is a problem with you, then, I can sanction you,
which means putting you in jail. So, there better not be any problems
with you in this courtroom.
MR. SLOAN: Your Honor, may I be heard?
THE COURT: No. Okay. As to Mr. Sloan's custody petition
against Ms. Rankoth, I understand she's going to accept service and
jurisdiction of the court, is that correct?
MR. KARAM: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Even though Mr. Sloan doesn't have an affidavit.
MR. KARAM: Yes, your Honor. Service wasn't timely, but she
will accept service, yes.
THE COURT: Respondent accepts service and jurisdiction. Issue
is joined.
Now, this was already discussed with you with my court
attorney. It's the same thing I just discussed with Ms. Rankoth. She
filed a petition today for an order of protection. Normally, you could
either wait to be served with the paperwork by her, and she would have
to bring back an affidavit of service, Mr. Sloan. However, if you want
to, you can agree to service and jurisdiction of the court on that
case today so that both cases can proceed ahead. That's up to you. Do
you want to wait to be served with the paperwork by Ms. Rankoth, or do
you want to accept service and jurisdiction?
MR. SLOAN: I will accept service, but I want to speak to the
issue.
THE COURT: I'm not dealing with the issue now. I want to know
--
MR. SLOAN: I'm trying to move to disqualify this attorney
because I have had conflicts with his law firm for fourteen years.
THE COURT: Any motion has to be in writing. Respondent accepts
service and jurisdiction. Issue is joined on all cases.
Since there is no consent on these cases, the cases will be
proceeding ahead to a hearing. Each of you can bring in all your
evidence and witnesses on the next date for the hearing. You can
testify at the hearing if you want to do so. You can question each
other's witnesses at the hearing. At the end of the hearing, a judge
listening to all the evidence on each petition, will make a final
decision whether to grant a final order of protection or not, and also
make a decision on the custody and visitation petition involving the
child.
MR. SLOAN: Your Honor, she has two methyl amphetamine addicts
living in her home.
THE COURT: Okay, sir. I just warned you about interrupting me,
and I'm not going to warn you again. All those issues that you're
presenting, you should save those for the hearing in front of a judge.
I'm not -interested in those issues at this time.
MR. SLOAN: I would like to be heard.
THE COURT: The incident with the order of protection from
October 3, did your client report that to the police?
MR. KARAM: She did not, your Honor. Other than the contact and
the threatening words spoken, there was nothing else related to it.
She conveyed that to me, as well as the incidents that happened a week
before when Mr. Sloan appeared at the apartment and banged on the
door.
THE COURT: What about these allegations from 1988?
MR. KARAM: At the time, the parties were living in Abu Dhabi
in the United Arab Emirates.
MR. SLOAN: Your Honor, may I be heard?
THE COURT: No. I did receive this answer to the custody petition and
counterclaim. Once again, I'm putting that in the file for the judge
who conducts the hearing, but I have reviewed it and informed ACS of
the allegations.
ACS will be doing a full investigation of this matter and
reporting their findings back to the Court. Both sides have to
cooperate with the Administration for Child Services' investigation
and report.
How old is the child here?
MR. KARAM: There are five children living -in the home. The
child in question is going to turn fourteen next month.
THE COURT: Are the children all with your client at the
current time?
MR. KARAM: Yes. Three of them she has in common with Mr.
Sloan. Two are not related to Mr. Sloan. THE COURT: Okay, and Mr.
Cadet, do you have a report for the Court?
MR. CADET: Yes, Judge. I did have an opportunity to speak with
my client. She denied all of the allegations in Mr. Sloan's custody
petition alleging drug use in the home. She indicated there is no
problem in the home.
She also indicated she wanted no contact with her father. I
asked her why. She expressed to me concerns that her older sibling had
told her when she was younger Mr. Sloan would often walk into the
bathroom when she was bathing, just open the door. She's afraid about
that, and also that she was aware that allegedly in the past, Mr.
Sloan had abducted two of her siblings and went to California.
MR. SLOAN: May I address this, your Honor?
THE COURT: No. As I indicated, you'll be able to address all
these issues at the hearing.
MR. SLOAN: Well, especially the part about the police corning
to her house
THE COURT: Just get out your calendars.
MR. SLOAN: I would like to address
COURT OFFICER: Quiet.
THE COURT: Sir, I'm not going to warn you again about
interrupting me and talking out of turn. If you do that again, you're
going to be held in contempt of court and you're going to be
incarcerated.
Pick a date for each of the hearings. November 22,
23, 28, 29 or 30?
MR. CADET: November 28, your Honor.
THE COURT: Part 9, November 28. I'm actually going to be
putting in the order, all sides must cooperate with ACS and law
guardian investigation and reports, and I will be granting your
client, on her petition, the order of protection.
MR. SLOAN: Your Honor, may I address that?
THE COURT: Mr. Sloan is not to commit any criminal offense
against her, and this includes the children; not to assault, harass,
threaten or menace her or the children. He has to stay away from her
and the children at all times.
MR. SLOAN: Your Honor, I need to speak.
THE COURT: If you violate the order of protection, after being
served with the order, then, you'll be arrested for violating the
order of protection.
Also, there will be no communication or have anybody else
contact her on your behalf.
MR. SLOAN: I need to address the Court on this.
THE COURT: Part 9, November 28, for the hearing. Thank you.
Just wait outside.
MR. SLOAN: I'm making a complaint against you. You did not
allow me to speak.
THE COURT: Step out, sir.
COURT OFFICER: Let's go, sir. Step out. (Whereupon, the matter
was adjourned.)
Certified to be a true and accurate transcript.
STEPHEN E. GENDEL, Official Court Reporter
Sam Sloan
DAYAWATHIE RANKOTH,
Respondent.
_________________________________________________X
SAMUEL SLOAN,
Respondent.
------------------------------------------------- X
APPEARANCES:
Proceedings
I'm not interested in those issues at this time.
Here are some things noteworthy about this.
The first thing the judge says, before I have had a chance to say
anything at all, is that if I say anything he is going to have me
thrown in jail. It should be pointed out that I am the petitioner
here, not the respondent, so I should be allowed to speak first. As
will be seen, the respondents attorney is allowed to speak at length
several times, but I am never allowed to say anything at all.
Next, Jodge Wong says:
THE COURT: Even though Mr. Sloan doesn't have an affidavit.
At this point I have said nothing. In fact, I did have an affidavit of
service by a New York City Police Officer. Nobody had asked me about
an affidavit of service. Opposing attorney had been allowed to go into
the courtroom several times without my presents and had had several
private conversations with the court attorney, Mr. King which I was
not allowed to listen to. Opposing attorney had also given documents
to Mr. King and later to the court which I was not allowed to see. To
this day I still have not been allowed to see the documents opposing
attorney had handed up.
This shows that there was ex-party communications between opposing
counsel and the judge which is of course a violation of all ethical
rules.
I asked to speak ten different times. Each time the judge refused to
allow me to speak and even threatened me with arrest if I said
anything.
Had I been allowed to speak I could easily have refuted the
allegations, because I had an affidavit of service from a New York
City Police Officer dated September 29, 2005, the same date that
counsel alleged that I banged on her door. Obviously, since four
police officers were present I would have been arrested if I had done
anything illegal. However, by refusing to allow me to speak and also
refusing to allow me to see what was being alleged I was deprived of
the opportunity to tell Judge Wong what really happened.
In conclusion, without any hearing or testimony of any kind or even
service of papers, Judge Wong issues an order prohibiting me from
seeing my children, thereby effectively granting custody of my three
children to the two male drug dealers from Tioga County, Pennsylvania
who are living in their home.
Sam Sloan
slim
Sam, you are a douchebag.
--
http://mindprod.com/politics/iraq.html
"How many American casualties is Saddam worth?
The answer is not very damned many."
- Dick Cheney, Seattle, August 1992
Donald Rumsfeld: "If you're asking if there's a direct
link between 9/11 and Iraq, the answer is no."
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4865948/
On May 01, 2003, President Bush declared that,
"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended."
"I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain --
I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the
interesting thing about being the president.
Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they
say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody
an explanation. "
- George Bush, Washington Post, 11-19-02