Informal Brief in Sloan vs. Smith Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
samsloan
INFORMAL BRIEF
No. 09-1476, Samuel Sloan v. Christopher Smith
6:09-cv-00005-NKM
1. Jurisdiction (for appellants/petitioners only)
A. Name of court or agency from which review is sought:
United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia,
Lynchburg Division.
B. Date s) of order or orders for which review is sought:
Order dated February 24, 2009 sua sponte dismissing this case.
Order dated April 23, 2009 denying motion to the district judge to
recuse himself from this case
Order dated April 23, 2009 denying a motion for rehearing and
reconsideration of this case
2. Timeliness of notice of appeal or petition for review (for
prisoners only)
Exact date on which notice of appeal or petition for review was placed
in institution's internal mailing system for mailing to court:
Notice of appeal was filed on April 22, 2009
3. Issues for Review
Use the following spaces to set forth the facts and argument in
support of the issues you wish the Court of Appeals to consider. The
parties may cite case law, but citations are not required.
Issue 1.
The opinion of the court below fails to make any mention of the
principal cause of action in this case. The principal cause of action
arises from the fact that the principal defendant in this case, Deputy
Christopher R. Smith, a Deputy Sheriff of Amherst County Virginia, has
made over the past one year repeated telephone calls to various
Internet Service Providers who have been hosting plaintiff's websites
and has been demanding that these ISP's delete and remove plaintiff's
websites from the Internet. Deputy Smith has told these Internet
Service Providers that the hosting of these websites is a violation of
Virginia law, specifically a violation of Section 18.2-186.4 of the
Code of Virginia. Which prohibits publication of “identifying
information” about “a law-enforcement officer”, namely the Sheriff of
Amherst County, Virginia. In particular, Deputy Smith objected to a
letter plaintiff had written to President Clinton in 1998 complaining
about the kidnapping of plaintiff's daughter in which the Sheriff of
Amherst County at that time, Michael Cox, was involved. This letter to
President Clinton had been posted on plaintiff's website since 1998.
The letter from the ISPs to plaintiff stated the following:
We have received a complaint from the Amherst County Sherriff's
Office that one of your webpages is in violation of law. The webpage
indicated in the complaint sent to us is in violation of Section
18.2-186.4 of the Code of Virginia (see attached).
Thereupon, the ISPs all shut down and removed the entire websites of
plaintiff (not just the specific pages about which Deputy Smith
complained.
The complaint alleges that this shutting down of all of plaintiff's
websites, which had been receiving 100,000 hits per day and 20,000
unique visitors per day prior to being shut down, violated among other
things plaintiff's constitutional rights to Freedom of Speech. In
addition, it was part of a continuing conspiracy going back to the
early 1990s to cover-up the kidnapping of plaintiff's mother and eight
year old daughter. Plaintiff's mother, Dr. Helen Marjorie Sloan,
former Director of the Lynchburg Child Guidance Center, had been
kidnapped in Bangkok Thailand on September 3, 1990. Plaintiff's
daughter, Shamema Honzagool Sloan, had been kidnapped in Fujairah,
United Arab Emirates on October 7, 1990. Both the grandmother and her
granddaughter upon being kidnapped have been brought to America. The
80-year-old grandmother had been locked up in a nursing home in Aiken
South Carolina for 12 years until she died in 2002. The 8-year-old
child had been held prisoner by unrelated persons in Amherst County
Virginia until she reached 18 when she volunteered with the US Marines
and went to fight the War in Iraq.
The complaint alleges that all of the defendants are involved in the
cover up of these crimes. Some defendants were directly involved in
committing these crimes, whereas others were merely involved in the
cover-up.
None of this is mentioned in the decision of the court below. Instead
the decision of the court below refers to court proceedings that took
place in the period 1990-1993 and says that plaintiff is trying to re-
litigate those cases. This is not true. The principle acts alleged in
the complaint concern the recent activities of Deputy Smith including
the shutting down of plaintiff's websites in 2008. In addition, the
opinion of the court below repeatedly says that this re-litigating of
the cases is barred by res judicata. This is not true. Although
plaintiff did attempt to raise the issues of the kidnapping of his
mother and daughter back when these events occurred, each time his
complaints were dismissed withjout reaching the merits. In no instance
was there ever a fact adjudication and a judgment based on the facts.
Thus there was no res judicata. See Pierre v. Dyer, 2308 F.3d 394,
399-400 (2d Cir. 2000) holding that “a dismissal of subject matter
jurisdiction is not an adjudication of the merits, and hence has no
res judicata effect”.
The reason that the district judge knows so much about this case is
that HE WAS ONE OF THE JUDGES ON THIS CASE. Back in the period
1990-1993 Judge Moon was a judge of the Virginia Court of Appeals.
Plaintiff repeatedly attempted to appeal to that court. Each time with
Judge Moon on the bench, the appeal was dismissed. Again, there was
never any adjudication on the merits. Plaintiff attempted to appeal in
many different ways. All of his appeals were dismissed with short
summary orders and thus do not appear on Lexis-Nexis. However, the
first one, in which plaintiff's appeal was dismissed in 1991 on the
“no final order” rule, was written up in Virginia Lawyers Weekly.
The complaint alleges that all this happened because the kidnappers
“were allowed to keep the kidnapped child through an “Old Boys
Network” of corrupt local judges and city and county officials. The
reason that these corrupt judges allowed Roberts to keep the child
that he had kidnapped was that they were all controlled by Jerry
Falwell.” It goes on to allege that one of the judges controlled by
Jerry Falwell was Judge James R. Turk, a United States District Judge
who sits on the same bench with Judge Moon.
Although Judge Moon is not named as a defendant in the complaint, it
is obvious that he is a member of the “Old Boys Network” because in
fact he was born in Lynchburg, lives in Lynchburg, and is regularly
involved with the defendants in this case, almost all of whom live in
Lynchburg. So, in short, Judge Moon did as he did by sua sponte
dismissing this complaint because he wanted to protect his fellow
judges including especially Judge Turk from going to prison for
kidnapping. Judge Moon wants to protect himself too, because once the
first domino falls, all of them will go to jail because what we have
here is the kidnapping of an 8-year-old child for religious purposes.
The mother of this child, Honzagool, is a devout Muslim residing in
Chitral, Pakistan. The child was kidnapped by Christian Religious
Fanatics for the sole purpose of converting the child to Christianity,
and for no other reason. All of the defendants became involved in this
kidnapping because they wanted to go to Heaven and also because they
mistakenly believed that the Sloan Family was one of great wealth as a
result of being a scion of the Sloan Family that owned General Motors
Corporation, and also because of the bribes they believed that Leroy
Sloan took as a result of bring with the Audit Division of the
Internal Revenue Service in Lynchburg. So, the Defendants felt that
they would get both a trip to Heaven plus great wealth here on Earth
by kidnapping this 8-year-old child. Eventually, once they realized
that this great wealth did not exist or if it does exist they could
not get it, they had to continue to cover up these crimes to save
themselves from going to jail. That cover-up continues to this day.
Under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
district courts must “accept as true the factual allegations in the
complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom.”
Krantz v. Prudential Investments Fund Management, 305 F.3d 140, 142
(3d Cir. 2002). A complaint may not be dismissed for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted unless it is clear that the
plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would entitle him to relief,
considering documents that are attached to or submitted with the
complaint and any matters incorporated by reference or integral to the
claim, items subject to judicial notice, matters of public record,
orders and items appearing in the record of the case. Buck v. Hampton
Township School District, 452 F.3d 256, 260 (3d Cir. 2006). The
inquiry is not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail in a
trial on the merits, but whether he should be afforded an opportunity
to offer evidence in support of his claim. In re Rockefeller Center
Properties, Inc., 311 F.3d 198, 215 (3d Cir. 2002).
In his decision, the district judge repeatedly refers to “his loss of
custody in the 1980s of his daughter”. However, this is not true.
Plaintiff did not lose custody of his daughter in the 1980s except to
the extent of an order of the Bronx New York Supreme Court awarding
custody of the child to the mother with weekly visitation to the
father. That order was subsequently modified to give full custody to
the father, the plaintiff here. At no time did the Bronx Supreme Court
ever transfer custody proceedings to Virginia. Thus, Virginia was
without jurisdiction to determine the custody of this child. In
addition the first custody hearings did not take place until 1991,
after the Roberts kidnapped the child on October 7, 1990. Thus, at the
time of the kidnapping of the child, the Roberts had no claim of
custody of the child.
This of course provides another reason why Judge Moon is not allowed
and must not be allowed to be the judge on this case. He is personally
involved in this case and has personal knowledge of disputed
evidentiary facts. He is simply trying to save himself and his fellow
judges from going to prison for kidnapping. Therefore he must be
disqualified from hearing this case and the case must be remanded to
the district court for assignment to another judge from outside the
district.
Disqualification of a the justice is required when the justice has
personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceeding. The term "disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceeding" has been interpreted to mean facts involved in the actions
or conduct of persons in a case.
Note: It appears that the involvement of Deputy Smith with the Amherst
County Sheriff's Department was rather limited as he is no longer
listed on their website. Perhaps he was fired because of his actions
that brought about this case.
http://www.amherstsheriff.org/
Supporting Facts and Argument. Issue 2.
Supporting Facts and Argument.
Issue 3.
Supporting Facts and Argument. Issue 4.
Supporting Facts and Argument
4. Relief Requested
Identify the precise action you want the Court of Appeals to take:
5. Prior appeals (for appellants/petitioners only)
A. Have you filed other cases in this Court? Yes [ ] No [ ] B. If you
checked YES, what are the case names and docket numbers for those
appeals and what was the ultimate disposition of each?
Signature
[Notarization Not Required]
[Please Print Your Name Here]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE **********************
I certify that on I served a copy of this Informal
Brief on all parties, addressed as shown below:
Signature
john...@gmail.com
And this is related to chess, how??????
samsloan
INFORMAL BRIEF
No. 09-1476, Samuel Sloan v. Christopher Smith
6:09-cv-00005-NKM
1. Jurisdiction (for appellants/petitioners only)
A. Name of court or agency from which review is sought:
United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia,
Lynchburg Division.
B. Date s) of order or orders for which review is sought:
Order dated February 24, 2009 sua sponte dismissing this case.
Order dated April 23, 2009 denying motion to the district judge to
recuse himself from this case
Order dated April 23, 2009 denying a motion for rehearing and
reconsideration of this case
2. Timeliness of notice of appeal or petition for review (for
prisoners only)
Exact date on which notice of appeal or petition for review was placed
in institution's internal mailing system for mailing to court:
Notice of appeal was filed on April 22, 2009
3. Issues for Review
Use the following spaces to set forth the facts and argument in
support of the issues you wish the Court of Appeals to consider. The
parties may cite case law, but citations are not required.
Issue 1. Supporting Facts and Argument.
The opinion of the court below fails to make any mention of the
principal cause of action in this case. The principal cause of action
arises from the fact that the principal defendant in this case, Deputy
Christopher R. Smith, a Deputy Sheriff of Amherst County Virginia, has
made repeated telephone calls over the past one year to various
Internet Service Providers who have been hosting plaintiff's websites.
Deputy Smith has been demanding that these ISP's delete and remove
plaintiff's websites from the Internet. Deputy Smith has told these
Internet Service Providers that the hosting of plaintiff's websites
is a violation of Virginia law, specifically a violation of Section
18.2-186.4 of the Code of Virginia, which prohibits publication of
“identifying information” about “a law-enforcement officer”, namely
the Sheriff of Amherst County, Virginia. In particular, Deputy Smith
objected to a letter plaintiff had written to President Clinton in
1996 complaining about the kidnapping of plaintiff's daughter, in
which the Sheriff of Amherst County at that time, Michael Cox, was
involved. This letter to President Clinton had been posted on
plaintiff's website since 1996. The letter from the ISPs to plaintiff,
regarding the threats they had received from Deputy Smith, stated in
part the following:
We have received a complaint from the Amherst County Sheriff's Office
that one of your webpages is in violation of law. The webpage
indicated in the complaint sent to us is in violation of Section
18.2-186.4 of the Code of Virginia (see attached).
Thereupon, the ISPs all shut down and removed the entire websites of
plaintiff (not just the specific pages about which Deputy Smith
complained).
The complaint alleges that this shutting down of all of plaintiff's
websites, which had previously been receiving 100,000 hits per day and
20,000 unique visitors per day over a period of ten years prior to
being shut down, violated among other things plaintiff's
constitutional rights to Freedom of Speech. In addition, the closings
of plaintiff's websites was part of a continuing conspiracy going back
to the early 1990s to cover-up the kidnapping of plaintiff's eight
year old daughter and plaintiff's mother. Plaintiff's mother, Dr.
Helen Marjorie Sloan, a former Director of the Lynchburg Child
Guidance Center at 1010 Miller Park Square, had been kidnapped in
Bangkok Thailand on September 3, 1990. Plaintiff's daughter, Shamema
Honzagool Sloan, then aged 8, had then been kidnapped in Fujairah,
United Arab Emirates on October 7, 1990. The kidnappers in both cases
were the same group, which include some of the defendants here. Both
the mother and her granddaughter, upon being kidnapped, had been
brought to America. The 80-year-old grandmother had been locked up in
a nursing home in Aiken South Carolina for 12 years until she died in
2002. The 8-year-old child had been held prisoner by unrelated persons
in Amherst County Virginia until she reached 18, when she volunteered
to join the US Marines and went off to fight the War in Iraq.
The complaint herein alleges that all of the defendants herein are
involved in the cover up of these crimes. Some of the defendants were
directly involved in committing these crimes plus covering them up,
whereas others were merely involved in the cover-up.
None of this is mentioned in the decision of the court below. Instead,
the decision of the court below refers to court proceedings that took
place in the period 1990-1993 and says that plaintiff is trying to re-
litigate those cases. This is not true. The principal acts alleged in
the complaint concern the recent activities of Deputy Smith, including
the shutting down of plaintiff's websites in 2008. The opinion of the
court below repeatedly says that this re-litigating of these cases is
barred by res judicata. This is not true either. Although plaintiff
did attempt to raise the issues of the kidnapping of his mother and
daughter back when these events occurred, in each of those times his
complaints were dismissed without reaching the merits. In no instance
was there ever a fact adjudication and a judgment based on these
facts. Thus, there was no res judicata. See Pierre v. Dyer, 2308 F.3d
394, 399-400 (2d Cir. 2000) holding that “a dismissal of subject
matter jurisdiction is not an adjudication of the merits, and hence
has no res judicata effect”.
The reason that the district judge knows so much about this case is
that HE WAS ONE OF THE JUDGES ON THIS CASE back in 1991-1993. Back in
the period 1990-1993, Judge Norman Moon was a judge of the Virginia
Court of Appeals. Plaintiff repeatedly attempted to appeal to that
court. Each time, with Judge Moon on the bench, the appeal was
dismissed. There was never any adjudication on the merits. Plaintiff
attempted to appeal in many different ways. All of his appeals were
dismissed with short, summary orders and thus do not appear on Lexis-
Nexis. However, the first one, in which plaintiff's appeal was
dismissed in 1991 on the “no final order” rule, was written up in
Virginia Lawyers Weekly.
The complaint herein alleges that all this happened because the
kidnappers “were allowed to keep the kidnapped child through an 'Old
Boys Network' of corrupt local judges and city and county officials.
The reason that these corrupt judges allowed the Roberts to keep the
child that they had kidnapped was that they were all controlled by
Jerry Falwell.” It goes on to allege that one of the judges controlled
by Jerry Falwell was Judge James R. Turk, a United States District
Judge who sits on the same bench with Judge Moon.
Although Judge Moon is not named as a defendant in the complaint, it
is obvious that he is a member of the same “Old Boys Network” because,
in fact, he was born in Lynchburg, lives in Lynchburg, and is
regularly involved with the defendants in this case, almost all of
whom live in Lynchburg. So, in short, Judge Moon did as he did by sua
sponte dismissing this complaint, because he wanted to protect his
fellow judges including especially Judge Turk from going to prison for
kidnapping. Judge Moon wants to protect himself too, because once the
first domino falls, all of them will go to jail, because what we have
here is the kidnapping of an 8-year-old child for religious purposes.
The mother of this child, Honzagool, is a devout Muslim residing in
Chitral, Pakistan. The child was kidnapped by Christian Religious
Fanatics for the sole purpose of converting the child to Christianity,
and for no other reason. All of the defendants became involved in this
kidnapping because they wanted to go to Heaven and also because they
mistakenly believed that the Sloan Family was one of great wealth, as
a result of being a scion of the Sloan Family that owned General
Motors Corporation, and also because of the bribes that they believed
that Leroy Sloan, father of the plaintiff, took as a result of bring
with the Audit Division of the Internal Revenue Service in Lynchburg.
So, the Defendants felt that they would get both a trip to Heaven plus
great wealth here on Earth by kidnapping this 8-year-old child.
Eventually, once they realized that this great wealth did not exist
or, if it does exist, they could not get it, they had to continue to
cover up these crimes to save themselves from going to jail. That
cover-up continues to this day and the dismissal of this lawsuit sua
sponte is part of that cover-up.
Under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
district courts must “accept as true the factual allegations in the
complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom.”
Krantz v. Prudential Investments Fund Management, 305 F.3d 140, 142
(3d Cir. 2002). A complaint may not be dismissed for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted unless it is clear that the
plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would entitle him to relief,
considering documents that are attached to or submitted with the
complaint and any matters incorporated by reference or integral to the
claim, items subject to judicial notice, matters of public record,
orders and items appearing in the record of the case. Buck v. Hampton
Township School District, 452 F.3d 256, 260 (3d Cir. 2006). The
inquiry is not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail in a
trial on the merits, but whether he should be afforded an opportunity
to offer evidence in support of his claim. In re Rockefeller Center
Properties, Inc., 311 F.3d 198, 215 (3d Cir. 2002).
In his decision, the district judge repeatedly refers to plaintiff's
“loss of custody in the 1980s of his daughter”. However, this was not
the case. Plaintiff did not lose custody of his daughter in the 1980s,
except to the extent of an order of the Bronx New York Supreme Court
in 1982 awarding custody of the child to the mother with weekly
visitation to the father. That order was subsequently modified in 1994
to give full custody to the father, the plaintiff here. The child had
been born in New York City. At no time did the Bronx Supreme Court
ever transfer custody proceedings to Virginia. Thus, Virginia was
without jurisdiction to determine the custody of this child. In
addition, the first custody hearings did not take place until 1991,
months after the Roberts kidnapped the child on October 7, 1990. Thus,
at the time of the kidnapping of the child, the Roberts had no claim
nor custody of the child.
This of course provides another reason why Judge Moon is not allowed
and must not be allowed to sit as the judge on this case. He is
personally involved in this case and has personal knowledge of
disputed evidentiary facts. He is simply trying to save himself and
his fellow judges from going to prison for kidnapping. Therefore, he
must be disqualified from hearing this case and the case must be
remanded to the district court for assignment to another judge from
outside the district.
Disqualification of a the justice is required when the justice has
personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceeding. The term "disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceeding" has been interpreted to mean facts involved in the actions
or conduct of persons in a case.
All of the district judge's rendition of “facts” here is based on his
own personal knowledge of this case. He produces no evidence, no prior
court decisions or anything of the like. He refers to other cases
including child custody proceedings (which unfortunately are sealed,
being Family Court cases) and the reader is told to assume that what
he writes is true. However, a judge is not allowed to do that. He
cannot be allowed to make a decision based on what he remembers about
a case in which he was a Virginia Court of Appeals judge decades ago,
long before he was appointed to the federal bench. Everything in his
decision is based on his faulty recollection of the facts from the
1991-1993 period. This cannot be allowed.
* Note: It appears that the involvement of Deputy Smith with the
Amherst County Sheriff's Department may have been limited, as he is no
longer listed on the Amherst County Sheriff's Department website.
Perhaps he was fired because of his actions that brought about this
case. http://www.amherstsheriff.org/
Issue 2. Supporting Facts and Argument.
Under what circumstances can a federal district judge sua sponte
dismiss a complaint?
First it must be noted that plaintiff paid the full filing fee of
$350. This was not an “In Forma Pauperis” case. The same thing
happened when plaintiff filed a case in November 1990 entitled Sloan
vs. Roberts. The plaintiff had spent one solid month in Columbia
University Law Library in New York City researching the law in order
to make sure that he had a legally sound case. However, when plaintiff
filed that case in Lynchburg Federal District Court, with a complaint
that went on 43 pages with detailed information about the
circumstances of the kidnappings of his mother and daughter, Judge
Turk dismissed the complaint the very next day with a one sentence
summary order, citing a case which had nothing even remotely to do
with the case before the court. Again, as here, that was a fully fee
paid case.
Plaintiff-appellant submits that a federal district judge simply does
not have the authority to sua sponte dismiss a complaint simply
because he does not like the plaintiff or disagrees with the case. It
was obvious that Judge Turk never even read the complaint plaintiff
filed in in 1990. Otherwise, he would at least have cited a case that
had something to do with the complaint before the court. Also, there
were two other cases in which plaintiff was a defendant involving the
same facts. Both were entitled United States of America vs. Sloan. The
first was filed in 1987. Plaintiff has searched and no record can be
found of that case, but plaintiff knows it existed because he was
arrested in that case first in Guam and then in Honolulu on June 30,
1998 and brought before a federal district judge in Hawaii, whereupon
he was released. This was reported in the Lynchburg News and Advance
and several other area newspapers at that time.
In the second case of United States of America vs. Sloan which was
filed in 1992, Sloan filed a counterclaim which was 679 pages long
including exhibits. Again, Judge Turk dismissed the counter-claim the
day after it was filed with a short summary order which made no
mention of the issues presented in the counter claim.
Thus, what Judge Moon did here was almost exactly what Judge Turk did
three times in the period of 1990-1994, summarily dismissing a
complaint without saying anything about the issues presented by the
complaint. Here, Judge Moon says nothing about the principal cause of
action here, namely the fact that the Deputy Sheriff of Amherst County
Virginia has repeatedly threatened Internet Service Providers with
criminal prosecution for hosting plaintiff's websites, thereby causing
all of plaintiff's websites to be deleted, thereby depriving him of
the income he would otherwise receive from selling chess books and
other books he has authored on his website.
Plaintiff submits that the district court was not allowed to do this.
It is certainly not implausible that plaintiff's websites were deleted
as a result of threats by the Deputy Sheriff of Amherst County. In
fact, it can easily be demonstrated that this actually happened by
merely searching the way-back machine. It is also not implausible that
an 8-year-old child was kidnapped by Christian Religious Fanatics.
Kidnappings of this sort happen all the time. Finally, it is not
implausible that state and even federal district judges sometimes
commit monstrous crimes including the kidnapping of a child. The
prison cells are filled with former judges who committed crimes like
that and it is manifestly obvious that Judge Janow, Judge Gamble and
Judge Miller are guilty of these criminal acts, not to mention Judge
Turk.
Just to cite a famous example, Judge Sol Wachtler was the Chief Judge
of the New York State Court of Appeals and was one of the most
distinguished jurists in America. Yet, he was convicted and sentenced
to prison for harassing his girlfriend. This was truly amazing. He is
also known for saying "Any prosecutor who wanted to could indict a ham
sandwich." Indeed, the plaintiff here was the ham sandwich, and he was
indicted to cover up the fact that the actual kidnappers of the child
were the defendants herein.
Issue 3. Supporting Facts and Argument.
Is this complaint Time Barred?
Plaintiff made a point of waiting until after the Bush Administration
had left office before filing this complaint. On January 20, 2009, the
day of the inauguration of the new President, plaintiff went to the
federal courthouse in Lynchburg and waited several hours until the
swearing in ceremony of the new president was completed. Then, at
12:05:38 PM plaintiff filed his complaint here.
The reason plaintiff did this was because it was obvious that this
lawsuit accusing members of the Falwell Organization of kidnapping his
child would not be entertained as long as Bush was in office. Even
during the period when Clinton was in office, the Commonwealth of
Virginia was under the control of the Republican Party. The
Republicans needed the support of Falwell to get elected and to hold
onto their jobs. Thus, it was politically unfeasible for questions to
be raised about Falwell's involvement in the kidnapping of a child.
However, with the death of Falwell and the defeat and the wiping out
of the Republican Party in Virginia in the 2008 elections, it suddenly
became possible to open the issues involving a litany of abuses
committed while the Republicans were in power. This kidnapping of an
eight year old child by the Republicans is just one of many many
abuses that are starting to be questioned and which could not be
questioned as long as Falwell was alive and Bush was president.
Because Bush controlled the US Attorneys around the country, it was
impossible to bring up this kidnapping of an 8-year-old little girl by
members of a religious group upon whom Bush depended for support.
Thus, the complaint is not time barred.
Issue 4. Supporting Facts and Argument.
Is the complaint barred by res judicata?
The district judge repeatedly states that the complaint herein is
barred by res judicata. This is simply not true. As noted above, In no
instance was there ever a fact adjudication and a judgment based on
these facts. Thus, there was no res judicata. See Pierre v. Dyer, 2308
F.3d 394, 399-400 (2d Cir. 2000) holding that “a dismissal of subject
matter jurisdiction is not an adjudication of the merits, and hence
has no res judicata effect”.
Issue 5. Supporting Facts and Argument.
Was the district judge required to recuse himself and must Judge Moon
be removed from this case?
It is completely obvious that Judge Moon acted improperly in making a
decision on this case. One of the defendants here is Judge James R.
Turk. Judge Moon sits on the same bench as Judge Turk. Thus, Judge
Moon cannot possibly sit on this case.
Plaintiff filed a motion to Judge Moon that he recuse himself. The
motion was denied. It is clear that this appellate court must reverse
Judge Moon and disqualify himself from the case.
Also, Judge Moon has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts.
The entire opinion of Judge Moon is based on his personal involvement
in this case. Nothing Judge Moon wrote is based on pleadings before
the court. Therefore, Judge Moon must be removed from this case and
the case remanded for assignment to another judge, who should be a
judge from outside of the district.
4. Relief Requested
Identify the precise action you want the Court of Appeals to take:
5. Prior appeals (for appellants/petitioners only)
The decision of the court below should be vacated and the case
remanded for assignment to another judge.
A. Have you filed other cases in this Court? Yes [ ] No [ ] B. If you
checked YES, what are the case names and docket numbers for those
appeals and what was the ultimate disposition of each?
Yes. Plaintiff filed several cases in the period 1990-1995 but has
filed no cases since then, other than a petition for a writ of
Mandamus against Judge Moon filed a few days before the instant
appeal.
The cases are: Sloan vs. Roberts filed in 1990 which was dismissed the
day after it was filed. 6:90-cv-00079-jct Sloan, et al v. Roberts, et
al
Sloan vs, United States of America filed in 1993 as a counter-claim to
United States of America vs. Sloan. This counter-claim too was
dismissed by Judge Turk the same day it was filed. 7:93-cv-00338-jct
Sloan v. USA. The underlying case of United States of America vs.
Sloan does not seem to appear on the PACER System
7:94-cv-00304-jct Sloan, #204991 v. Spagnolo, Jr., et al Sloan vs.
Spagnolo filed in 1994 also dismissed by Judge Turk but it took a
little longer.
Plaintiff also removed or attempted to remove several cases from the
Lynchburg Circuit Court. None of these cases had originally been filed
by plaintiff. They were either filed by Creighton Sloan, brother of
plaintiff, against his own mother, or they were filed by Michael
Gamble who was at that time a private attorney with the law firm of
Pendleton and Gamble but who later became a circuit judge and assigned
the same cases to himself.
The cases were: Alma D. Sloan vs. Sloan, 6:94-cv-00002-jlk, filed by
Michael Gamble who is also a defendant here.
Creighton Wesley Sloan vs. Sovran Bank, et al 6:94-cv-00001-jlk Sloan
v. Sovran Bank, N.A.
Creighton Sloan vs. Sloan, another case filed by Creighton Sloan
against his own mother: 6:94-cv-00003-jlk Sloan v. Sloan, et al
Signature
Samuel H. Sloan
samsloan
INFORMAL BRIEF
No. 09-1476, Samuel Sloan v. Christopher Smith
6:09-cv-00005-NKM
1. Jurisdiction (for appellants/petitioners only)
A. Name of court or agency from which review is sought:
United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia,
Lynchburg Division.
B. Date s) of order or orders for which review is sought:
Order dated February 24, 2009 sua sponte dismissing this case.
Order dated April 23, 2009 denying motion to the district judge to
recuse himself from this case
Order dated April 23, 2009 denying a motion for rehearing and
reconsideration of this case
2. Timeliness of notice of appeal or petition for review (for
prisoners only)
Exact date on which notice of appeal or petition for review was placed
in institution's internal mailing system for mailing to court:
Notice of appeal was filed on April 22, 2009
3. Issues for Review
Use the following spaces to set forth the facts and argument in
support of the issues you wish the Court of Appeals to consider. The
parties may cite case law, but citations are not required.
Issue 1.
The opinion of the court below fails to address of the principal cause
of action in this case.
Supporting Facts and Argument.
The principal cause of action arises from the fact that the principal
defendant in this case, Deputy Christopher R. Smith, a Deputy Sheriff
of Amherst County Virginia, has made repeated telephone calls over the
past one year to various Internet Service Providers who have been
hosting plaintiff's websites. Deputy Smith has been demanding that
these ISP's delete and remove plaintiff's websites from the Internet.
Deputy Smith has told these Internet Service Providers that the
hosting of plaintiff's websites is a violation of Virginia law,
specifically a violation of Section 18.2-186.4 of the Code of
Virginia, which prohibits publication of “identifying information”
about “a law-enforcement officer”, namely the Sheriff of Amherst
County, Virginia. In particular, Deputy Smith objected to a letter
plaintiff had written to President Clinton in 1996 complaining about
the kidnapping of plaintiff's daughter, in which the Sheriff of
Amherst County at that time, Michael Cox, was involved. This letter to
President Clinton had been posted on plaintiff's website since 1996.
The letter from the ISPs to plaintiff, regarding the threats they had
received from Deputy Smith, stated in part the following:
We have received a complaint from the Amherst County Sheriff's Office
that one of your webpages is in violation of law. The webpage
indicated in the complaint sent to us is in violation of Section
18.2-186.4 of the Code of Virginia (see attached).
Thereupon, the ISPs all shut down and removed the entire websites of
plaintiff (not just the specific pages about which Deputy Smith
complained).
The complaint alleges that this shutting down of all of plaintiff's
websites, which had previously been receiving 100,000 hits per day and
20,000 unique visitors per day over a period of ten years prior to
being shut down, violated among other things plaintiff's
constitutional rights to Freedom of Speech. In addition, the closings
of plaintiff's websites was part of a continuing conspiracy going back
to the early 1990s to cover-up the kidnapping of plaintiff's eight
year old daughter and plaintiff's mother. Plaintiff's mother, Dr.
Helen Marjorie Sloan, a former Director of the Lynchburg Child
Guidance Center at 1010 Miller Park Square, had been kidnapped in
Bangkok Thailand on September 3, 1990. Plaintiff's daughter, Shamema
Honzagool Sloan, then aged 8, had then been kidnapped in Fujairah,
United Arab Emirates on October 7, 1990. The kidnappers in both cases
were the same group, which include some of the defendants here. Both
the mother and her granddaughter, upon being kidnapped, had been
brought to America. The 80-year-old grandmother had been locked up in
a nursing home in Aiken South Carolina for 12 years until she died in
2002. The 8-year-old child had been held prisoner by unrelated persons
in Amherst County Virginia until she reached 18, when she volunteered
to join the US Marines and went off to fight the War in Iraq.
The complaint herein alleges that all of the defendants herein are
involved in the cover up of these crimes. Some of the defendants were
directly involved in committing these crimes plus covering them up,
whereas others were merely involved in the cover-up.
None of this is mentioned in the decision of the court below. Instead,
the decision of the court below refers to court proceedings that took
place in the period 1990-1993 and says that plaintiff is trying to re-
litigate those cases. This is not true. The principal acts alleged in
the complaint concern the recent activities of Deputy Smith, including
the shutting down of plaintiff's websites in 2008. The opinion of the
court below repeatedly says that this re-litigating of these cases is
barred by res judicata. This is not true either. Although plaintiff
did attempt to raise the issues of the kidnapping of his mother and
daughter back when these events occurred, in each of those times his
complaints were dismissed without reaching the merits. In no instance
was there ever a fact adjudication and a judgment based on these
facts. Thus, there was no res judicata. See Pierre v. Dyer, 208 F.3d
394, 399-400 (2d Cir. 2000) holding that “a dismissal of subject
matter jurisdiction is not an adjudication of the merits, and hence
has no res judicata effect”.
The reason that the district judge knows so much about this case is
that HE WAS ONE OF THE JUDGES ON THIS CASE back in 1991-1993. Back in
the period 1990-1993, Judge Norman Moon was a judge of the Virginia
Court of Appeals. Plaintiff repeatedly attempted to appeal to that
court. Each time, with Judge Moon on the bench, the appeal was
dismissed. There was never any adjudication on the merits. Plaintiff
attempted to appeal in many different ways. All of his appeals were
dismissed with short, summary orders and thus do not appear on Lexis-
Nexis. However, the first one, in which plaintiff's appeal was
dismissed in 1991 on the “no final order” rule, was written up in
Virginia Lawyers Weekly.
The complaint herein alleges that all this happened because the
kidnappers “were allowed to keep the kidnapped child through an 'Old
Boys Network' of corrupt local judges and city and county officials.
The reason that these corrupt judges allowed the Roberts to keep the
child that they had kidnapped was that they were all controlled by
Jerry Falwell.” It goes on to allege that one of the judges controlled
by Jerry Falwell was Judge James R. Turk, a United States District
Judge who sits on the same bench with Judge Moon.
Although Judge Moon is not named as a defendant in the complaint, it
is obvious that he is a member of the same “Old Boys Network” because,
in fact, he was born in Lynchburg, lives in Lynchburg, and is
regularly involved with the defendants in this case, almost all of
whom live in Lynchburg. So, in short, Judge Moon did as he did by sua
sponte dismissing this complaint, because he wanted to protect his
fellow judges including especially Judge Turk from going to prison for
kidnapping. Judge Moon wants to protect himself too, because once the
first domino falls, all of them will go to jail, because what we have
here is the kidnapping of an 8-year-old child for religious purposes.
The mother of this child, Honzagool, is a devout Muslim residing in
Chitral, Pakistan. The child was kidnapped by Christian Religious
Fanatics for the sole purpose of converting the child to Christianity,
and for no other reason. All of the defendants became involved in this
kidnapping because they wanted to go to Heaven and also because they
mistakenly believed that the Sloan Family was one of great wealth, as
a result of being a scion of the Sloan Family that owned General
Motors Corporation, and also because of the bribes that they believed
that Leroy Sloan, father of the plaintiff, took as a result of bring
with the Audit Division of the Internal Revenue Service in Lynchburg.
So, the Defendants felt that they would get both a trip to Heaven plus
great wealth here on Earth by kidnapping this 8-year-old child.
Eventually, once they realized that this great wealth did not exist
or, if it does exist, they could not get it, they had to continue to
cover up these crimes to save themselves from going to jail. That
cover-up continues to this day and the dismissal of this lawsuit sua
sponte is part of that cover-up.
Under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
district courts must “accept as true the factual allegations in the
complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom.”
Krantz v. Prudential Investments Fund Management, 305 F.3d 140, 142
(3d Cir. 2002). A complaint may not be dismissed for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted unless it is clear that the
plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would entitle him to relief,
considering documents that are attached to or submitted with the
complaint and any matters incorporated by reference or integral to the
claim, items subject to judicial notice, matters of public record,
orders and items appearing in the record of the case. Buck v. Hampton
Township School District, 452 F.3d 256, 260 (3d Cir. 2006). The
inquiry is not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail in a
trial on the merits, but whether he should be afforded an opportunity
to offer evidence in support of his claim. In re Rockefeller Center
Properties, Inc., 311 F.3d 198, 215 (3d Cir. 2002).
In his decision, the district judge repeatedly refers to plaintiff's
“loss of custody in the 1980s of his daughter”. However, this was not
the case. Plaintiff did not lose custody of his daughter in the 1980s,
except to the extent of an order of the Bronx New York Supreme Court
in 1982 awarding custody of the child to the mother with weekly
visitation to the father. That order was subsequently modified in 1994
to give full custody to the father, the plaintiff here. The child had
been born in New York City. At no time did the Bronx Supreme Court
ever transfer custody proceedings to Virginia. Thus, Virginia was
without jurisdiction to determine the custody of this child. In
addition, the first custody hearings did not take place until 1991,
months after the Roberts kidnapped the child on October 7, 1990. Thus,
at the time of the kidnapping of the child, the Roberts had no claim
nor custody of the child.
Judge Moon implies that it was not a kidnapping but it clearly was a
kidnapping. The child, Shamema Honzagool Sloan, was picked up by
unrelated persons from the front yard of plaintiff's house in
Fujairah, United Arab Emirates, where they had lived for the previous
four years and then was brought to America. This was a pure kidnapping
and there is no other way to describe it. Neither of the parents were
involved in this. Defendant Charles Roberts was subsequently tried and
convicted in absentia for this kidnapping. His son, Jay Roberts, has
admitted in his answer filed in this court that he paid for the
airline tickets.
This of course provides another reason why Judge Moon is not allowed
and must not be allowed to sit as the judge on this case. He is
personally involved in this case and has personal knowledge of
disputed evidentiary facts. He is simply trying to save himself and
his fellow judges from going to prison for kidnapping. Therefore, he
must be disqualified from hearing this case and the case must be
remanded to the district court for assignment to another judge from
outside the district.
Disqualification of a the justice is required when the justice has
personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceeding. The term "disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceeding" has been interpreted to mean facts involved in the actions
or conduct of persons in a case.
All of the district judge's rendition of “facts” here is based on his
own personal knowledge of this case. He produces no evidence, no prior
court decisions or anything of the like. He refers to other cases
including child custody proceedings (which unfortunately are sealed,
being Family Court cases) and the reader is told to assume that what
he writes is true. However, a judge is not allowed to do that. He
cannot be allowed to make a decision based on what he remembers about
a case in which he was a Virginia Court of Appeals judge decades ago,
long before he was appointed to the federal bench. Everything in his
decision is based on his faulty recollection of the facts from the
1991-1993 period. This cannot be allowed.
* Note: It appears that the involvement of Deputy Smith with the
Amherst County Sheriff's Department may have been limited, as he is no
longer listed on the Amherst County Sheriff's Department website.
Perhaps he was fired because of his actions that brought about this
case. http://www.amherstsheriff.org/
Issue 2.
Under what circumstances can a federal district judge sua sponte
dismiss a complaint?
Supporting Facts and Argument.
First it must be noted that plaintiff paid the full filing fee of
$350. This was not an “In Forma Pauperis” case. The same thing
happened when plaintiff filed a case in November 1990 entitled Sloan
vs. Roberts. The plaintiff had spent one solid month in Columbia
University Law Library in New York City researching the law in order
to make sure that he had a legally sound case. However, when plaintiff
filed that case in Lynchburg Federal District Court, with a complaint
that went on 43 pages with detailed information about the
circumstances of the kidnappings of his mother and daughter, Judge
Turk dismissed the complaint the very next day with a one sentence
summary order, citing a case which had nothing even remotely to do
with the case before the court. Again, as here, that was a fully fee
paid case.
Plaintiff-appellant submits that a federal district judge simply does
not have the authority to sua sponte dismiss a complaint simply
because he does not like the plaintiff or disagrees with the case. It
was obvious that Judge Turk never even read the complaint plaintiff
filed in 1990. Otherwise, he would at least have cited a case that had
something to do with the complaint before the court. Also, there were
two other cases in which plaintiff was a defendant involving the same
facts. Both were entitled United States of America vs. Sloan. The
first was filed in 1987. Plaintiff has searched and no record can be
found of that case, but plaintiff knows it existed because he was
arrested in that case first in Guam and then in Honolulu on June 30,
1988 and brought before a federal district judge in Hawaii, whereupon
he was released. This was reported in the Lynchburg News and Advance
and several other area newspapers at that time.
In the second case of United States of America vs. Sloan which was
filed in 1992, Sloan filed a counterclaim which was 679 pages long
including exhibits. Again, Judge Turk dismissed the counter-claim the
same day it was filed with a short summary order which made no mention
Issue 3.
Is this complaint Time Barred?
Supporting Facts and Argument.
Plaintiff made a point of waiting until after the Bush Administration
had left office before filing this complaint. On January 20, 2009, the
day of the inauguration of the new President, plaintiff went to the
federal courthouse in Lynchburg and waited several hours until the
swearing in ceremony of the new president was completed. Then, at
12:05:38 PM plaintiff filed his complaint here.
The reason plaintiff did this was because it was obvious that this
lawsuit accusing members of the Falwell Organization of kidnapping his
child would not be entertained as long as Bush was in office. Even
during the period when Clinton was in office, the Commonwealth of
Virginia was under the control of the Republican Party. The
Republicans needed the support of Falwell to get elected and to hold
onto their jobs. Thus, it was politically unfeasible for questions to
be raised about Falwell's involvement in the kidnapping of a child.
However, with the death of Falwell and the defeat and the wiping out
of the Republican Party in Virginia in the 2008 elections, it suddenly
became possible to open the issues involving a litany of abuses
committed while the Republicans were in power. This kidnapping of an
eight year old child by the Republicans is just one of many, many
abuses that are starting to be questioned and which could not be
questioned as long as Falwell was alive and Bush was president.
Because Bush controlled the US Attorneys around the country, it was
impossible to bring up this kidnapping of an 8-year-old little girl by
members of a religious group upon whom Bush depended for support.
Thus, the complaint is not time barred.
Issue 4.
Is the complaint barred by res judicata?
Supporting Facts and Argument.
The district judge repeatedly states that the complaint herein is
barred by res judicata. This is simply not true. As noted above, In no
instance was there ever a fact adjudication and a judgment based on
these facts. Thus, there was no res judicata. See Pierre v. Dyer, 208
F.3d 394, 399-400 (2d Cir. 2000) holding that “a dismissal of subject
matter jurisdiction is not an adjudication of the merits, and hence
has no res judicata effect”.
Issue 5.
Was the district judge required to recuse himself and must Judge Moon
now be removed from this case?
Supporting Facts and Argument.
It is completely obvious that Judge Moon acted improperly in making a
decision on this case. One of the defendants here is Judge James R.
Turk. Judge Moon sits on the same bench as Judge Turk. Thus, Judge
Moon cannot possibly sit on this case.
Plaintiff filed a motion to Judge Moon that he recuse himself. The
motion was denied. It is clear that this appellate court must reverse
Judge Moon and disqualify himself from the case.
Also, Judge Moon has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts.
The entire opinion of Judge Moon is based on his personal involvement
in this case. Nothing Judge Moon wrote is based on pleadings before
the court. Therefore, Judge Moon must be removed from this case and
the case remanded for assignment to another judge, who should be a
judge from outside of the district.
4. Relief Requested
Identify the precise action you want the Court of Appeals to take:
The decision of the court below should be vacated and the case
remanded for assignment to another judge.
5. Prior appeals (for appellants/petitioners only)
A. Have you filed other cases in this Court? Yes [ ] No [ ] B. If you
checked YES, what are the case names and docket numbers for those
appeals and what was the ultimate disposition of each?
Yes. Plaintiff filed several cases in the period 1990-1995 but has
filed no cases since then, other than a petition for a writ of
Mandamus against Judge Moon filed a few days before the instant
appeal.
The cases are: Sloan vs. Roberts filed in 1990 which was dismissed the
next day after it was filed. 6:90-cv-00079-jct Sloan, et al v.
Roberts, et al
Sloan vs, United States of America filed in 1993 as a counter-claim to
United States of America vs. Sloan. This counter-claim too was
dismissed by Judge Turk the same day it was filed. 7:93-cv-00338-jct
Sloan v. USA. The underlying case of United States of America vs.
Sloan does not seem to appear on the PACER System
7:94-cv-00304-jct Sloan, #204991 v. Spagnolo, Jr., et al Sloan vs.
Spagnolo filed in 1994 also dismissed by Judge Turk but it took a
little longer.
Plaintiff also removed or attempted to remove several cases from the
Lynchburg Circuit Court. None of these cases had originally been filed
by plaintiff. They were either filed by Creighton Sloan, brother of
plaintiff, against his own mother, or they were filed by Michael
Gamble who was at that time a private attorney with the law firm of
Pendleton and Gamble but who later became a circuit judge and assigned
the same cases to himself.
The cases were: Alma D. Sloan vs. Sloan, 6:94-cv-00002-jlk, filed by
Michael Gamble who is also a defendant here.
Creighton Wesley Sloan vs. Sovran Bank, et al 6:94-cv-00001-jlk Sloan
v. Sovran Bank, N.A.
Creighton Sloan vs. Sloan, another case filed by Creighton Sloan
against his own mother: 6:94-cv-00003-jlk Sloan v. Sloan, et al
Signature
Samuel H. Sloan
[Please Print Your Name Here]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE **********************
I certify that on I served a copy of this Informal
Brief on all parties, addressed as shown below:
Robert E. Draim
Hudgins Law Firm
515 King Street, Suite 400
Alexandria VA 22314
703-739-3300
Alexander W. Bell
Bell & Schneider
PO Box 739
Lynchburg VA 24505
434-528-0411
Charles Roberts
427 Amelon Road
Madison Heights VA 24572
Jay Roberts
141 Odins Bow Drive
Madison Heights VA 24572
Ray Fitzgerald
U.S. Courthouse Federal Building
255 West Main Street Room 130
Charlottesville Virginia 22902
Julia C. Dudley, US Attorney
310 1st Street S.W., Room 906
Roanoke Virginia 24011
Signature
Sam Sloan
1664 Davidson Ave., Apt. 1B
Bronx NY 10453-7877
foad
"samsloan" <samh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f441c70a-e300-4bc2...@r34g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
Is this complaint Time Barred?
Plaintiff made a point of waiting until after the Bush Administration
had left office before filing this complaint.
[...]
The reason plaintiff did this was because it was obvious that this
lawsuit accusing members of the Falwell Organization of kidnapping his
child would not be entertained as long as Bush was in office.
[...]
However, with the death of Falwell and the defeat and the wiping out
of the Republican Party in Virginia in the 2008 elections, it suddenly
became possible to open the issues involving a litany of abuses
[...]
Thus, the complaint is not time barred.
======
I've hosed the rest, but I didn't want this bit of exquisite
stufuckingpidity to get lost in the torrent of normal stufuckingpidity
samsloan
It can be downloaded on the Federal PACER system at the following
address:
https://ecf.ca4.uscourts.gov/docs1/00401922364
Sam Sloan
> Christopher R.Smith, a Deputy Sheriff of Amherst County Virginia, has
> made repeated telephone calls over the past one year to various
> Internet Service Providers who have been hosting plaintiff's websites.
> DeputySmithhas been demanding that these ISP's delete and remove
> plaintiff's websites from the Internet. DeputySmithhas told these
> Internet Service Providers that the hosting of plaintiff's websites
> is a violation of Virginia law, specifically a violation of Section
> 18.2-186.4 of the Code of Virginia, which prohibits publication of
> “identifying information” about “a law-enforcement officer”, namely
> the Sheriff of Amherst County, Virginia. In particular, DeputySmith
> objected to a letter plaintiff had written to President Clinton in
> 1996 complaining about the kidnapping of plaintiff's daughter, in
> which the Sheriff of Amherst County at that time, Michael Cox, was
> involved. This letter to President Clinton had been posted on
> plaintiff's website since 1996. The letter from the ISPs to plaintiff,
> regarding the threats they had received from DeputySmith, stated in
> part the following:
>
> We have received a complaint from the Amherst County Sheriff's Office
> that one of your webpages is in violation of law. The webpage
> indicated in the complaint sent to us is in violation of Section
> 18.2-186.4 of the Code of Virginia (see attached).
>
> Thereupon, the ISPs all shut down and removed the entire websites of
> plaintiff (not just the specific pages about which DeputySmith
> complained).
>
> The complaint alleges that this shutting down of all of plaintiff's
> websites, which had previously been receiving 100,000 hits per day and
> 20,000 unique visitors per day over a period of ten years prior to
> being shut down, violated among other things plaintiff's
> constitutional rights to Freedom of Speech. In addition, the closings
> of plaintiff's websites was part of a continuing conspiracy going back
> to the early 1990s to cover-up the kidnapping of plaintiff's eight
> year old daughter and plaintiff's mother. Plaintiff's mother, Dr.
> Helen MarjorieSloan, a former Director of the Lynchburg Child
> Guidance Center at 1010 Miller Park Square, had been kidnapped in
> Bangkok Thailand on September 3, 1990. Plaintiff's daughter, Shamema
> HonzagoolSloan, then aged 8, had then been kidnapped in Fujairah,
> United Arab Emirates on October 7, 1990. The kidnappers in both cases
> were the same group, which include some of the defendants here. Both
> the mother and her granddaughter, upon being kidnapped, had been
> brought to America. The 80-year-old grandmother had been locked up in
> a nursing home in Aiken South Carolina for 12 years until she died in
> 2002. The 8-year-old child had been held prisoner by unrelated persons
> in Amherst County Virginia until she reached 18, when she volunteered
> to join the US Marines and went off to fight the War in Iraq.
>
> The complaint herein alleges that all of the defendants herein are
> involved in the cover up of these crimes. Some of the defendants were
> directly involved in committing these crimes plus covering them up,
> whereas others were merely involved in the cover-up.
>
> None of this is mentioned in the decision of the court below. Instead,
> the decision of the court below refers to court proceedings that took
> place in the period 1990-1993 and says that plaintiff is trying to re-
> litigate those cases. This is not true. The principal acts alleged in
> the complaint concern the recent activities of DeputySmith, including
> the shutting down of plaintiff's websites in 2008. The opinion of the
> court below repeatedly says that this re-litigating of these cases is
> barred by res judicata. This is not true either. Although plaintiff
> did attempt to raise the issues of the kidnapping of his mother and
> daughter back when these events occurred, in each of those times his
> complaints were dismissed without reaching the merits. In no instance
> was there ever a fact adjudication and a judgment based on these
> facts. Thus, there was no res judicata. See Pierre v. Dyer, 208 F.3d
> mistakenly believed that theSloanFamily was one of great wealth, as
> a result of being a scion of theSloanFamily that owned General
> Motors Corporation, and also because of the bribes that they believed
> that LeroySloan, father of the plaintiff, took as a result of bring
> with the Audit Division of the Internal Revenue Service in Lynchburg.
> So, the Defendants felt that they would get both a trip to Heaven plus
> great wealth here on Earth by kidnapping this 8-year-old child.
> Eventually, once they realized that this great wealth did not exist
> or, if it does exist, they could not get it, they had to continue to
> cover up these crimes to save themselves from going to jail. That
> cover-up continues to this day and the dismissal of this lawsuit sua
> sponte is part of that cover-up.
>
> Under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
> district courts must “accept as true the factual allegations in the
> complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom.”
> Krantzv. Prudential Investments Fund Management, 305 F.3d 140, 142
> (3d Cir. 2002). A complaint may not be dismissed for failure to state
> a claim upon which relief can be granted unless it is clear that the
> plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would entitle him to relief,
> considering documents that are attached to or submitted with the
> complaint and any matters incorporated by reference or integral to the
> claim, items subject to judicial notice, matters of public record,
> orders and items appearing in the record of the case. Buckv. Hampton
> Township School District, 452 F.3d 256, 260 (3d Cir. 2006). The
> inquiry is not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail in a
> trial on the merits, but whether he should be afforded an opportunity
> to offer evidence in support of his claim. In re Rockefeller Center
> Properties, Inc., 311 F.3d 198, 215 (3d Cir. 2002).
>
> In his decision, the district judge repeatedly refers to plaintiff's
> “loss of custody in the 1980s of his daughter”. However, this was not
> the case. Plaintiff did not lose custody of his daughter in the 1980s,
> except to the extent of an order of the Bronx New York Supreme Court
> in 1982 awarding custody ...
>
Rob
>
> read more »
samsloan
It can be downloaded on the Federal PACER system at the following
address:
https://ecf.ca4.uscourts.gov/docs1/00401922364
Sam Sloan
Rob the Robber is at it again, overwriting the topic titles of others.
samsloan
My sources inside Amherst County Virginia inform me that Deputy
Sheriff Christopher Smith has in fact been fired as Deputy Sheriff of
Amherst County Virginia for calling all the Internet Service Providers
who were hosting Sam Sloan's websites and threatening them for arrest
if they did not take down Sloan's websites.
Deputy Smith probably did not realize that the former Sheriff of
Amherst County Virginia really was guilty of participating in the
kidnapping of Sam Sloan's Daughter and that, by threatening Sloan's
Internet Service Providers, he was exposing the Sheriff's Department
to the million dollar lawsuit that Sloan subsequently filed.
foad
> My sources inside Amherst County Virginia inform me that Deputy
> Sheriff Christopher Smith has in fact been fired as Deputy Sheriff of
> Amherst County Virginia for calling all the Internet Service Providers
> who were hosting Sam Sloan's websites and threatening them for arrest
> if they did not take down Sloan's websites.
Is this the same Deputy Smith who was on administrative leave following a
police shooting and who was just last week avoided a grand jury indictment
on charges stemming from the shooting?
Mike Murray
>"samsloan" <samh...@gmail.com> wrote
>> My sources inside Amherst County Virginia inform me that Deputy
>> Sheriff Christopher Smith has in fact been fired as Deputy Sheriff of
>> Amherst County Virginia for calling all the Internet Service Providers
>> who were hosting Sam Sloan's websites and threatening them for arrest
>> if they did not take down Sloan's websites.
>Is this the same Deputy Smith who was on administrative leave following a
>police shooting and who was just last week avoided a grand jury indictment
>on charges stemming from the shooting?
Heh, heh, heh. A little Tufte of wisdom, Sam:
Empirically observed covariation is a necessary but not sufficient
condition for causality.
Rob
from the March shooting of a Lynchburg man by an Amherst County
sheriff’s deputy did not return an indictment against either man.
Botetourt County Commonwealth’s Attorney Joel Branscom, a special
prosecutor appointed to handle the case, said he presented an
indictment of unlawful wounding against Investigator Chris Smith for
the shooting of 68-year-old Mack Berkley, as well as an indictment
against Berkley for cocaine possession.
“I wanted the grand jury to consider it rather than just me,” Branscom
said. “It was a close case and I wanted the community to have a
voice.”
Five county residents sat on Wednesday’s special meeting of the grand
jury, which typically only meets every two months in Amherst County.
The grand jury, which meets and makes its decisions behind closed
doors, only hears the prosecutor’s side of the case. Its function is
to decide if there is probable cause to believe a person committed a
crime and should stand trial.
Sheriff Jimmy Ayers said Wednesday afternoon that after he is assured
the entire criminal matter has concluded, an administrative
investigation conducted by the sheriff’s office into Smith’s actions
also would end.
“Then, hopefully, the officer can return to work,” Ayers said.
Branscom, who was dismissed from his duties as special prosecutor
Wednesday afternoon by Circuit Court Judge Michael Gamble, said the
criminal matter was over unless any new information comes to light.
According to an affidavit filed by Virginia State Police Special Agent
Dino Cappuzzo, the investigator who handled the case, the shooting
happened during an undercover drug investigation.
In the affidavit, Cappuzzo wrote that an informant had contacted a
Lynchburg woman named Davida Harsley to set up the purchase of $600 of
crack cocaine in the Food Lion parking lot in Madison Heights during
the afternoon of March 20.
Harsley unexpectedly arrived as the passenger in a car driven by
Berkley, Branscom said Wednesday after the grand jury hearing.
The prosecutor said evidence showed that a marked sheriff’s car pulled
up on the driver’s side of Berkley’s vehicle. Another unmarked car
pulled up on the passenger side, he said.
Branscom said Smith exited the unmarked car and that deputies, with
weapons drawn, told the occupants of Berkley’s car to put their hands
up.
He said that the dashboard camera from the marked car showed Harsley
moving “up and down,” and that Berkley put his hand in his pocket
twice when ordered to put his hands up.
He said Smith shot Berkley twice through the windshield of the car,
striking him in the torso.
“Police officers are put in a tough position,” Branscom said. “They
could have found that (Smith) was put in fear.”
The question then, the prosecutor said, was whether that fear was
reasonable.
Berkley had faced charges of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and
possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute before Branscom
dropped them late last month pending the completion of the state
police investigation.
Branscom said a small amount of cocaine was found as emergency workers
were cutting off Berkley’s clothes. Because of the severity of
Berkley’s injuries, he said, there could have been problems proving he
had any knowledge of the drugs, a key element of the possession charge
considered by the grand jury. Berkley, he said, doesn’t remember
anything.
The prosecutor said there was no evidence to support drug charges
against Harsley, which also were dropped last month.
Smith, who is listed as a computer crimes investigator in a directory
on the Amherst County government Web site, has been on paid
administrative leave since the shooting.
The sheriff said he was glad the matter was over for Smith’s sake and
for that of the entire department. He said he was pleased by the grand
jury’s decision.
“It’s one of those situations we never want to be put in,” Ayers said.