http://www.chessbanter.com A chess forum covering all aspects of chess acting as a gateway with the best chess newsgroups en Thu, 23 May 2013 02:17:16 GMT vBulletin 60 http://www.chessbanter.com/images/002/misc/rss.jpg http://www.chessbanter.com http://www.chessbanter.com/showthread.php?t=54051&goto=newpost Wed, 22 May 2013 19:58:20 GMT The NY Times obit on Lothar Schmid mentions his great chess library.
This library is said to contain a full set of a series called "The
Palamede" which was a set of 1-4 page sheets printed in Huttmann's
chess rooms in the early 1840s, full of chess gossip of the time. Most
of what seems to be known about this publication is from Tomlinson's
Chess Annual of 1856.

It would be very interesting to see someone digitize this extremely
rare publication.

Jerry Spinrad
]]> rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) jeremy.p.spinrad@vanderbilt.edu http://www.chessbanter.com/showthread.php?t=54051 http://www.chessbanter.com/showthread.php?t=54050&goto=newpost Wed, 22 May 2013 11:40:18 GMT I have just published another Story by Ling Mengchu on Kindle http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00CXIXXFG Story 34 - In the Inner Quarters by Ling Mengchu (Surprising Stories to Make One Slap the Desk) This is one of the most famous stories of Ling Mengchu. It is depicted on the cover of this book and in many other places. The cover of this book shows four women looking up. They are looking at the man... I have just published another Story by Ling Mengchu on Kindle

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00CXIXXFG

Story 34 - In the Inner Quarters by Ling Mengchu (Surprising Stories
to Make One Slap the Desk)

This is one of the most famous stories of Ling Mengchu. It is depicted
on the cover of this book and in many other places. The cover of this
book shows four women looking up. They are looking at the man on top
of the wall. Other depictions show the man on top of the wall or
climbing down.

This is a story from a collection of 40 erotic stories from the Ming
Dynasty. The author, Ling Mengchu, lived from 1580 to 1644.

An English translation of the title in Chinese is "Ren Junyong Gave
Rein to his Sexual Indulgence in the Inner Quarters / Commander Yang
found amusement in Gelding his Retainer".

This story involves a man who access to women inside a harem and how
he was caught and punished for this. In the Panda Books translation,
it is Tale 15 in Amazing Tales - Second Series. The title there is
"You Use-Me Lustily Revels with Confined Women / Minister Yang
Sinisterly Castrates His Literary Hack"

As with all stories by Ling Mengchu, it is a double story.

WARNING: These stories are addictive. Once you have read a few of
them, you will want to keep reading them. Like sex itself, once you
have tried it, you will want to keep doing it.

These stories by Ling Mengchu are filled with sexual situations,
including wife swapping, gay sex, lesbian sex, group sex, sex with
ghosts and sex with dead people. We are surprised to read these
stories in Chinese because we cannot imagine such events going on in
ancient China. We did not know that they were doing this in ancient
China and they are probably still doing it there today.

These stories are so famous that every Chinese person has read them or
is familiar with them. Even school girls in China today read them.
There are many editions of these works. Each of these 40 stories is a
double or a triple story. First the author tells us about how certain
people did certain things. Usually, it worked out well or there was a
happy or at least an uneventful ending. However, in the second part of
the story, from a different time and a different place, different
people did much the same thing and the results were tragic, often
involving death.

The complete collection of these 40 stories has been published in
Chinese by Ishi Press ISBN 4871872122

I am here translating a few of the stories from Chinese. All of these
stories have also been translated by others. I found the other
translations difficult to follow because of the wide cast of
characters and the use of Chinese terms. I have re-translated them,
trying to get to the heart and the main point of the stories, leaving
out details unnecessary to the main plot. Although each story contains
lines of poetry, I have dropped the poetry, as it loses all meaning in
English.

Because the author, Ling Mengchu, uses actual names, dates and places
and recites historical events, we cannot be sure whether he is writing
fiction or fact. He seems to be giving us factual accounts. It is also
possible that these stories have been passed down from history and he
is just recounting them from other sources. Each story recites
historical events that must have been well known back then, but of
which we know little today.

Another unusual feature of the works of Ling Mengchu is he gives the
moral to the story at the beginning, not at the end. In this story, he
starts by saying that monks may be excited by erotica and spill the
blood of a visitor and a beautiful woman may provide the motive for
murder.

Different publications of the works of Ling Menchu have different
numbering sequences for the stories and different titles. One must
search with difficulty to find the same story published in a different
book. Here, one can find this story with a search using the Chinese
language title to this story which is found at the bottom of the last
page.

You can find many slightly different versions of this story. The best
way to tell that it is the same story is the names of the characters
and the places remain the same. Here in all translations the main
characters are Jade-Beauty, Rosy Cloud, Beautiful Moon, Sister Smile
and Aunt Flower.

In the Inner Quarters

There is not a rich man in the world who does not keep a bevy of
beautiful concubines in his home. He is proud of being flanked by
girls and having rows of beauties dancing and singing before him.
However, does he not realize that women crave sex as much as men do?
It is difficult for a man to satisfy even one woman let alone a dozen.
They will seek every chance they can get to have relations with other
men. Even if they are surrounded by high walls and carefully guarded,
they will find a way out. When he dies, they will scatter and find
positions as concubines in the homes of other men. Is he not
embarrassed by this? Perhaps he does not care what will happen to the
women after he dies.

Ling Mengchu in Chinese is 凌濛初;

The title to this story in Chinese is

卷三十四 闻人生野战翠浮庵 静观尼昼锦黄沙弄

Links to this entire story can be found on the Internet, provided that
you can read Chinese. It can be found in many places by typing the
above Chinese characters into www.google.com or www.baidu.com

http://www.amazon.com/dp/4871872122

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...SBN=4871872122
]]> rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) samsloan http://www.chessbanter.com/showthread.php?t=54050 http://www.chessbanter.com/showthread.php?t=54049&goto=newpost Wed, 22 May 2013 11:40:18 GMT I have just published another Story by Ling Mengchu on Kindle http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00CXIXXFG Story 34 - In the Inner Quarters by Ling Mengchu (Surprising Stories to Make One Slap the Desk) This is one of the most famous stories of Ling Mengchu. It is depicted on the cover of this book and in many other places. The cover of this book shows four women looking up. They are looking at the man... I have just published another Story by Ling Mengchu on Kindle

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00CXIXXFG

Story 34 - In the Inner Quarters by Ling Mengchu (Surprising Stories
to Make One Slap the Desk)

This is one of the most famous stories of Ling Mengchu. It is depicted
on the cover of this book and in many other places. The cover of this
book shows four women looking up. They are looking at the man on top
of the wall. Other depictions show the man on top of the wall or
climbing down.

This is a story from a collection of 40 erotic stories from the Ming
Dynasty. The author, Ling Mengchu, lived from 1580 to 1644.

An English translation of the title in Chinese is "Ren Junyong Gave
Rein to his Sexual Indulgence in the Inner Quarters / Commander Yang
found amusement in Gelding his Retainer".

This story involves a man who access to women inside a harem and how
he was caught and punished for this. In the Panda Books translation,
it is Tale 15 in Amazing Tales - Second Series. The title there is
"You Use-Me Lustily Revels with Confined Women / Minister Yang
Sinisterly Castrates His Literary Hack"

As with all stories by Ling Mengchu, it is a double story.

WARNING: These stories are addictive. Once you have read a few of
them, you will want to keep reading them. Like sex itself, once you
have tried it, you will want to keep doing it.

These stories by Ling Mengchu are filled with sexual situations,
including wife swapping, gay sex, lesbian sex, group sex, sex with
ghosts and sex with dead people. We are surprised to read these
stories in Chinese because we cannot imagine such events going on in
ancient China. We did not know that they were doing this in ancient
China and they are probably still doing it there today.

These stories are so famous that every Chinese person has read them or
is familiar with them. Even school girls in China today read them.
There are many editions of these works. Each of these 40 stories is a
double or a triple story. First the author tells us about how certain
people did certain things. Usually, it worked out well or there was a
happy or at least an uneventful ending. However, in the second part of
the story, from a different time and a different place, different
people did much the same thing and the results were tragic, often
involving death.

The complete collection of these 40 stories has been published in
Chinese by Ishi Press ISBN 4871872122

I am here translating a few of the stories from Chinese. All of these
stories have also been translated by others. I found the other
translations difficult to follow because of the wide cast of
characters and the use of Chinese terms. I have re-translated them,
trying to get to the heart and the main point of the stories, leaving
out details unnecessary to the main plot. Although each story contains
lines of poetry, I have dropped the poetry, as it loses all meaning in
English.

Because the author, Ling Mengchu, uses actual names, dates and places
and recites historical events, we cannot be sure whether he is writing
fiction or fact. He seems to be giving us factual accounts. It is also
possible that these stories have been passed down from history and he
is just recounting them from other sources. Each story recites
historical events that must have been well known back then, but of
which we know little today.

Another unusual feature of the works of Ling Mengchu is he gives the
moral to the story at the beginning, not at the end. In this story, he
starts by saying that monks may be excited by erotica and spill the
blood of a visitor and a beautiful woman may provide the motive for
murder.

Different publications of the works of Ling Menchu have different
numbering sequences for the stories and different titles. One must
search with difficulty to find the same story published in a different
book. Here, one can find this story with a search using the Chinese
language title to this story which is found at the bottom of the last
page.

You can find many slightly different versions of this story. The best
way to tell that it is the same story is the names of the characters
and the places remain the same. Here in all translations the main
characters are Jade-Beauty, Rosy Cloud, Beautiful Moon, Sister Smile
and Aunt Flower.

In the Inner Quarters

There is not a rich man in the world who does not keep a bevy of
beautiful concubines in his home. He is proud of being flanked by
girls and having rows of beauties dancing and singing before him.
However, does he not realize that women crave sex as much as men do?
It is difficult for a man to satisfy even one woman let alone a dozen.
They will seek every chance they can get to have relations with other
men. Even if they are surrounded by high walls and carefully guarded,
they will find a way out. When he dies, they will scatter and find
positions as concubines in the homes of other men. Is he not
embarrassed by this? Perhaps he does not care what will happen to the
women after he dies.

Ling Mengchu in Chinese is 凌濛初;

The title to this story in Chinese is

卷三十四 闻人生野战翠浮庵 静观尼昼锦黄沙弄

Links to this entire story can be found on the Internet, provided that
you can read Chinese. It can be found in many places by typing the
above Chinese characters into www.google.com or www.baidu.com

http://www.amazon.com/dp/4871872122

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...SBN=4871872122
]]> rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) samsloan http://www.chessbanter.com/showthread.php?t=54049 http://www.chessbanter.com/showthread.php?t=54048&goto=newpost Wed, 22 May 2013 00:52:08 GMT Samuel H. Sloan Administrator of Estate of K. Michael Goodall with Will Annexed 461 Peachstone Terrace San Rafael CA 94903 (415) 419-5980 917-659-3397 samhsloan@gmail.com Samuel H. Sloan
Administrator of Estate
of K. Michael Goodall
with Will Annexed
461 Peachstone Terrace
San Rafael CA 94903
(415) 419-5980
917-659-3397


SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF MARIN


BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Trustee of the Trust for Michael created under
the Goodall Trust Dated September 12, 1990

Plaintiff,

vs.

SAMUEL H. Sloan, an individual;
KAYO KIMURA, an individual; and DOES 1-10, inclusive,

Defendants
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV 1301196


VERIFIED ANSWER TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY BANK OF AMERICA IN
COMPLAINT FOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER


Defendant Samuel H. Sloan individually as as Administrator of the
Estate of K. Michael Goodall with Will Annexed alleges as follows:

1. This motion for summary judgment apparently seeks to enforce
an order of the San Francisco Superior Court. The motion filed in this
court says that the time to appeal in that case in San Francisco has
expired. This is not true. Indeed almost everything counsel for Bank
of America says in their motion for summary judgment is untrue. That
San Francisco case is now under appeal in the California Court of
Appeal, Case No. A137739. The transcript of the record of that appeal
in 1715 pages (one thousand seven hundred fifteen pages) long. I filed
my opening brief on April 25, 2013. Bank of America now has until May
28, 2013 to file their answering brief. According to the division
clerk in the California Court of Appeal, Mr. Channing Hoo, that appeal
will likely be heard around the end of this year. Attached as an
exhibit hereto is a copy of the briefing schedule for that appeal. I
have sent a copy of the transcript of the record of that appeal to
this court.

2. This motion for 搒ummary judgment� is substantially identical
to a motion that was denied under a different case number for the same
relief. That was Case No. CIV 1204541. That motion was denied on
November 28, 2012. Although the judge of this court directed counsel
for Bank of America to prepare an order for his signature, counsel for
Bank of America never did so. Instead, Bank of America defaulted and
the case was dismissed.

3. This is the third case filed by Bank of America making
essentially the same allegations. The first was Case No. 1203665. That
case was dismissed on default by Bank of America on December 31, 2012.
The second case was Case No. 1204541. So now Bank of America has filed
three cases for the same thing, all making the same allegations.
Instead of appealing, they just keep filing new cases perhaps hoping
to get a different judge or a different ruling. This court should
consider sanctions against Bank of America for these utterly
fraudulent and repetitive cases.

4. Defendant Samuel H. Sloan is the Administrator of the Estate
of K. Michael Goodall with Will Annexed, Case No. PR 1100596. Samuel
H. Sloan was appointed as administrator by order of the Marin County
Probate Court dated March 11, 2011. A copy of the order of the court
is annexed hereto and included in Exhibit A.

5. In his petition to be appointed Administrator of the Estate
of K. Michael Goodall, Samuel H. Sloan listed among the assets of the
estate the house located at 461 Peachstone Terrace, San Rafael where
he has resided since 1998. Bank of America was served with this
petition. An officer of Bank of America, Jacquel Hutchings in Dallas,
Texas, called Sloan to ask about this. When informed that the property
located at 461 Peachstone Terrace was an asset of the estate and was
referenced in the petition, Jacquel Hutchings stated that she was
hiring Gary Rothstein, an attorney in San Francisco, to represent the
Bank of America in this case.

6. Subsequently, the Probate Examiner Dean Ross had a three-way
telephone conference call with me, Samuel H. Sloan, and with Gary
Rothstein, Counsel for Bank of America. Then the Marin County Probate
Judge adjourned the hearing on the petition by Samuel H. Sloan to be
appointed administrator of this estate for two weeks in order to give
Bank of America and their attorney Gary Rothstein the opportunity to
appear in this case. In spite of being given an extra two weeks to
appear and in spite of the fact that Bank of America knew that the
house at 461 Peachstone Terrace was listed as an asset of the estate,
they did not appear and did not oppose the petition and still to this
day have not opposed nor objected to the petition or to the
appointment or to the order of the court.

7. The order of the court Marin County Probate Court dated March
11, 2011 gives Samuel H. Sloan as Administrator the right and the
power to sell the house located at 461 Peachstone Terrace. However, he
has not sold it. He is living in it with his daughter, Sandra, aged
11. Bank of America keeps filing these cases which constitute
collateral attacks on the jurisdiction of the Marin County Probate
Court. It is impossible to wind up this Goodall Estate probate matter
in Marin County Probate Court because of these cases that Bank of
America keeps filing in other courts rather than file their claims in
the right court of proper jurisdiction in Marin. As can be seen, Bank
of America really does not have a claim to file. They are not the
owner of the house located 461 Peachstone Terrace and have no claim to
file concerning this property.

8. Plaintiff Bank of America N. A. is NOT the Trustee of the
Trust for Michael and indeed no such trust exists or has ever existed.
The claims made by Bank of America in this and other proceedings are
utterly false and without basis. Their claims made in San Francisco
Probate Court are made in a court that does not have jurisdiction over
the property located at 461 Peachstone Terrace, as the property is
located in Marin County. Their claims constitute an improper
collateral attack on the orders of the Marin County Probate Court.
Their claims must be dismissed.

9. Defendant Samuel H. Sloan has persistently demanded that Bank
of America produce the documents upon which they base their claim.
Bank of America has failed and/or refused to produce any such
documentation or any documents at all. It has become obvious that no
such documents exist. In particular, Bank of America has never
produced and refuses to produce the document which they claim is dated
August 24, 1994 and upon which their entire case rests. This 1994
Purported Trust is Essential to the claims made by Bank of America
because the 1990 Trust made Security Pacific Bank the Successor
Trustee. James R. Hastings was the attorney for Bank of America and
thus the beneficiary of the 1994 Purported Trust whereas he had no
such relationship with Security Pacific Bank. The 1994 Purported Trust
added a No-Contest Clause which Bank of America and its attorney James
R. Hastings later used to frighten Kenneth Michael Goodall that he
would be cut out of the estate entirely and left homeless with nothing
if he contested the Purported Trust. The 1990 Trust does not contain a
no-contest clause. In spite of the fact that the Purported 1994 Trust
is so essential to Bank of America's claims, they would have the
courts believe that they have never had a copy of the Purported 1994
Trust and that James R. Hastings who had the only copy has lost his
copy.

10. When a hearing was held in this court on November 28, 2012
on the previous case, counsel for Bank of America made a number of
false statements. Here is part of the colloquy:
5 What happened in San Francisco in the probate

6 proceedings wouldn't change what the title is; it just

7 allowed us to proceed as if it were an asset of the

8 Goodall Trust.

11. The above statement was not true. The action in the San
Francisco Court was brought by Bank of America for the specific
purpose of changing the title to the Goodall Property, as the lengthy
petition filed in that court makes clear. Paragraph 6 of the petition
filed by Bank of America there contains the following noteworthy
statement.
No title documents have been found placing title in the residence in
the name of petitioner [Bank of America] as Trustee of the Trust for
Michael.� (See Record, Volume I, page 189)

12. What Bank of America was asking there was that the title to the
Goodall Mansion be changed by order of the San Francisco Superior
Court. However, as Appellant Sloan pointed out in his pro se answer to
this petition, 揑t is HORNBOOK Law that any proceeding involving real
property must be filed in the jurisdiction where the property is
located.� (See Record, Volume I, page 287)
13. Paragraph 6, note 1 of the petition filed there by Bank of
America contains another noteworthy statement.
* * * * 揟he Provisions of the Bypass Trust are somewhat unclear with
respect to the proper beneficiaries of the Trust for Michael in the
wake of Mike Goodall's Death.� (See Record, Volume I, footnote at the
bottom of page 189)

14. 揝omewhat unclear� is a massive understatement or
misstatement. The trust documents have been shown to several attorneys
specializing in such matters. All them say that the trust documents
are nonsense. 揂bsurd�, 搑idiculous� and several other adjectives are
used to describe these trust documents. A well known San Francisco
attorney said that the attorney who drew up this trust should be
disbarred for incompetence.

15. Michael Goodall died on October 5, 2010 in his home known as
揟he Goodall Mansion� at 461 Peachstone Terrace in San Rafael, Marin
County, California. Petitioner found the Goodall Will among his papers
and filed it in Marin County Probate Court on January 28, 2011. On
February 1, 2011, Petitioner filed a petition in probate. After
consents were obtained from all of the heirs of the Goodall Estate,
petitioner petitioned and after two hearings was appointed
administrator of the estate.

16. Defendant had the key to the house, as he has been a
resident of the house. However, on February 28, 2011, while petitioner
was away for a few days, there was a break-in and burglary in the
house. The entire contents of the house was removed including all
legal papers and documents of the Goodalls and the locks to the doors
had been changed. When the burglary was discovered, 911 was called and
this was reported as a burglary. Deputy Anthony Savas of the Marin
County Sheriff's Department responded to the call. Deputy Savas said
that he had been patrolling the area during the previous days and had
observed a large trash dumpster in front of the house with a Spanish
guy bringing stuff out of the house and putting it in the dumpster.
However, Deputy Savas had not stopped to inquire, as this had seemed
to be a routine case of somebody moving out. It eventually became
apparent that this burglary had been committed by Hamilton Kipp, an
official of Bank of America.

17. On April 21, 2011, Bank of America by way of collateral
attack filed a petition in San Francisco Superior Court seeking
essentially to overturn the Marin County Probate Order which had
listed among other things the Goodall Mansion as an asset of the
Goodall Estate. In filing this new petition, Bank of America had used
an old case number, PTR 99-273030. That was the number of a case
Michael Goodall had filed in December 21, 1999 shortly after his
mother had died in which he sought the removal of Bank of America as
Trustee on many grounds including the grounds that Bank of America was
not the bank named in the Trust documents and that the proper trustee
was Michael Goodall himself and if not himself then at least some bank
not openly hostile to him as Bank of America was.

18. Page 18 of a trust document, which Bank of America claims
has been lost but they claim is controlling, but which we are prepared
to prove was never signed by any of the Goodalls, especially since
Col. Goodall was hospitalized and on his death bed with Esophageal
cancer, had a feeding tube inserted in his abdomen, as shown by his
death certificate, was unable to speak and died 17 days later, does
not give Bank of America or Guide Dogs for the Blind any right to
estate property unless Mike Goodall dies before his parents do and
leaves no wife nor children, which did not happen. Mike Goodall
outlived both his parents by 11 years and thus Guide Dogs for the
Blind is entitled to nothing.

19. In their motion papers Bank of America keeps referring to a
Goodall Trust document dated September 12, 1990 which they say makes
them the Trustee of the Goodall Trust. However, in their motion papers
they do not include this document. They did not include the trust
document in the papers they filed in the San Francisco Superior Court
either. It was apparent that the judge in San Francisco never read the
Trust document, as he never made any reference to its specific terms.
He probably thought it was the standard living trust, which it was
not. Anybody who reads the document will realize that neither Bank of
America nor Guide Dogs for the Blind has any claim under this trust. I
am including herewith the entire trust document dated September 12,
1990, the document that Bank of America relies upon in its papers. In
addition there was an amendment to the Goodall Trust dated January 19,
1999 that made Mike Goodall co-trustee of the Goodall Trust following
the death of his father. That is annexed as an exhibit as well. None
of these documents have been presented by Bank of America to this
court or to the San Francisco Court.

20. Samuel H. Sloan was a close personal 搒pecial friend� of K.
Michael Goodall who was the rightful Trustee of the Goodall Trust.
Michael Goodall was made Trustee of the Goodall Trust by the Second
Amendment of the Goodall Trust, a copy of which is Annexed hereto as
Exhibit C.

21. The Goodall Trust was a living trust dated September 12,
1990. A copy of this trust is annexed as Exhibit B. The purpose of
this trust was to insure that the property located at 461 Peachstone
Terrace San Rafael California 94903 not be subject to probate and to
avoid estate taxes. There was no money in the trust; only the house.
The trust documents provided that if Mike died before his parents did
the trust would go to a charity but if Mike died after his patents did
the trust would go to his heirs. Paragraph 7.2 of the 1990 Trust makes
Kenneth Michael Goodall the successor trustee after his parents have
died and, if he is unable to act, makes Security Pacific Bank the
successor trustee.

22. Col Kenneth F. Goodall was born 01 Mar 1916 and died 10 Sep
1994 at age 78. His Social Security Number was 444-40-8884. Rachel A.
Goodall was born 23 May 1916 and died 07 Jun 1999. Her Social Security
Number was 359-07-1738. Kenneth Michael Goodall was born 13 Jan 1946
and died 05 Oct 2010. His Social Security Number was 559-70-3352. All
of them died and are buried in Marin County. All of their property and
assets were located in Marin County. Thus, the Marin County Courts
have exclusive jurisdiction over this case. Since Michael died after
his parents died he and his heirs are the sole beneficiaries of the
trust. In addition, the trust was terminated and ceased to exist by
its terms upon his death nearly two years ago. Bank of America has no
surviving claims. Bank of America does not own the property nor have
any right to it.

23. The relevant documents in this case clearly show that the
house located at 461 Peachstone Terrace is an asset of the Estate. The
relevant documents are the Trust dated September 12, 1990, two 損our
over� wills executed by the Goodalls on August 24, 1994 and the Will
of K. Michael Goodall which is on file with the Marin County Probate
Court. The 損our over� wills are disputed because the witness to the
wills, Nancy Rodgers, states that she did not sign them and is
prepared to so testify. Nevertheless, this does not change the outcome
of this case. The wills are marked Exhibit D and Exhibit E. It is
noteworthy that the wills do not contain the words 揳s amended�. They
refer to the trust dated September 12, 1990 and not to any purported
amendment to the trust.

24. Bank of America has followed a persistent pattern of making claims
in the Marin County Probate Court and when their claims are denied
they make the same claims over in the San Francisco Probate Court
without telling the San Francisco Judge that their claims have been
denied already by another court or even that there is a case pending
on the same subject matter in another court.

25. Bank of America made a claim in the Marin County Probate Court
that objections to a purported 1994 trust are barred by a Statute of
Limitations. This claim was denied by Judge Adams, the probate judge
in Marin County, in a lengthy and reasoned opinion citing relevant
case law. Undaunted, Bank of America went over to San Francisco and
filed exactly the same statute of limitations claim without telling
the San Francisco Judge that this claim had already been denied in
Marin.

26. Similarly, here, Bank of America has filed this Unlawful Detainer
Proceeding without telling this court that Samuel H. Sloan is the
Administrator of the Estate of K. Michael Goodall and that the house
located at 461 Peachstone Terrace is subject to the proceedings in
Marin County Probate Court. In summary, the conduct by Bank of America
in these cases is utterly fraudulent.

27. The proceedings cited in the Amended Complaint filed by Bank of
America in San Francisco have not been finally decided. No Final
Judgment has been Entered. The Estate has filed four notices of
Appeal. Thus the matter is now pending before the California Court of
Appeal, Case No. A 137739. Regardless of the Outcome of the Appeal,
Bank of America will still not own the house. The Trust was terminated
almost three years ago by the Death of Mike Goodall. Thus, there is no
trust and under no circumstances does Bank of America have a claim on
the house. Samuel H. Sloan has objected to the jurisdiction of the San
Francisco court from the first pleading for the same reason in that
the San Francisco Courts have no jurisdiction over real property
located in Marin County. Defendants are confident of the success of
this appeal which will result in the entire proceedings in San
Francisco being thrown out. This case should be stayed until that
appeal is decided.

28. Bank of America has committed fraud upon the courts by constantly
calling the trust by the name of 揟he Trust for Michael� as though the
Goodall parents regarded their son Michael as incompetent and unable
to handle his finances. There is no such thing as the Trust for
Michael. There is only the Goodall Trust. The Goodall parents had full
confidence in their son Michael as evidenced by the 1990 Trust that
made him the Successor Trustee and by a Power of Attorney they gave
their son Michael on August 24, 1994, essentially on the death bed of
Col. Kenneth Goodall, who died 17 days later. Col. Goodall suffered a
lingering and painful death and in the end gave up and decided to die.
This power of attorney was prepared by the attorney for Bank of
America, James R. Hastings, and therefore Bank of America has known
about it all along. However, it was concealed from K. Michael Goodall
and from the Defendants in this case until recently when it was
discovered in a locked box that Bank of America had taken but later
returned. A copy of this power of Attorney is annexed hereto and
marked Exhibit F.

29. In the same locked box was found an unsigned copy of the purported
August 24, 1994 Amendment to the Goodall trust. This is the amendment
which James R. Hastings unsuccessfully attempted to induce the
Goodalls to sign. It was the custom of James R. Hastings to bring two
copies of any document he wanted the Goodalls to sign. The Goodalls
would sign both documents and Hastings would notarize and witness
them. He would keep one of the documents and leave the other with the
Goodalls. The presence of an unsigned copy of the purported 1994 trust
in the same lockbox with a bunch of other signed documents bearing the
same date proves that the Goodalls never signed and refused to sign
the purported 1994 Trust.

30. In the last stage of his life, Col. Kenneth F. Goodall was
terminally ill with Cancer of the Esophagus. On July 25, 1994, an
operation was preformed for a Feeding Jejunostomy in which a feeding
tube was inserted in his abdomen. This is shown by his Death
Certificate. From that point until his death on September 10, 1994, he
could not process food or talk in the normal way. Yet, James R.
Hastings has claimed that Col. Goodall came to his office in San
Anselmo in August 1994 and asked for changes in his will and trusts to
be made. Defendants are prepared to prove that this could not be true
because Col. Goodall was bedridden and hospitalized at the time and
was incapable of going anywhere. The doctor who performed the
operation for a Feeding Jejunostomy still is practicing medicine as a
cancer specialist in Marin and remembers this case and can be called
to testify that Col. Goodall was incapable of doing the things that
James R. Hastings claims that he did.

31. Defendants have repeatedly demanded that Bank of America and their
attorney at the time James R. Hastings produce the 1994 Trust which
they claim governs this case. First Defendants subpoenaed this
document and when Hastings failed to produce it Defendants obtained a
court order requiring that he produce it. Hastings then claimed that
he had lost the document. A copy of the declaration by James R.
Hastings stating that he has lost this vitally important document is
annexed hereto and marked Exhibit G.

32. Subsequently, the attorney for Guide Dogs for the Blind,
Alicia A. Adornato, has admitted in open court that James R. Hastings
has had the document all along. However, Bank of America has never
admitted this. Now they claim that they are not required to produce
this document under a statue of limitations. They are also saying that
they have administrated a trust for now 14 years without ever having a
copy of the trust document. This is an entirely bogus claim and has
already been dismissed by the Marin County Probate Judge.

33. Rather than produce the original document, they have produced a
2008 dated FAX that purports to depict the original. However, FAX
documents are not admissible in court for good reason. A FAX is
created by horizontal black lines across a page. The FAX machine
sprinkles black dots and distorts the image. A Fax document does not
show the kind of paper used, the kind of pen or writing instrument
used, or the kind of ink used. It can also conceal missing or changed
pages. It also distorts the size and shape of the signature. In short,
a FAX is ideal for concealing a forgery.

34. Defendants have submitted a dozen known and authentic
original signatures of Col. Kenneth F. Goodall including the known
original signature on the power of attorney dated August 24, 1994
along with a copy of the FAX submitted by Bank of America bearing the
same date to a Forensic Document Examiner, David S. Moore, who has
previously worked with the FBI. This Forensic Document Examiner
immediately noticed a number of significant differences between the
all the known signatures of Col. Goodall and the purported signature
on the FAX, especially in the creation of the FG in the signature of
Kenneth F. Goodall. The key point according to the forensic document
examiner is that in the known signatures of Kenneth Goodall he signs
the FG with one stroke of the pen. However, in the trust document, the
top of the F is a different stroke right to left. A blowup of these
two signatures is annexed as Exhibits H and I.

35. A close look at where the different strokes meet shows that they
are not together. The questions about the signatures can be better
understood using a blowup of the two signatures. Here using Adobe
Photoshop blowing up the key letters F and G in the signature of
Kenneth F. Goodall, look especially at the letters F and G in the
known signature of Kenneth F. Goodall. This is the first thing the
forensic document examiner David S. Moore noticed. The signature on
the F followed by the G is made in one continuous non-stopping
movement. First the top of the F is formed and then the pen loops
around to make the G. The pen never leaves the paper.

36. In the purported trust document, the movement of the hand is
shaky. The bottom of the F and then the G is formed and then the pen
leaves the paper and comes back to make the top of the F as a straight
line from right to left. There is also a break in the bottom of the F
and a difference in the loops in the bottom of the Gs.

37. In the various documents and records signed over a period of years
that we have, Kenneth F. Goodall signed his name as in the top
signature every time. He never signed his name in the shaky halting
way he supposedly signed the bottom signature here. Several additional
differences between the top and bottom signatures are plainly obvious.
You do not have to be a forensic document examiner or any kind of
expert to see them. It also appears that the documents were signed
with a different pen, which is odd since they were both supposedly
signed at the same time on the same date and place. After examining
these documents to the extent that they are available, the Forensic
Document examiner David S. Moore has concluded that he cannot
determine if the signatures on the 1994 Trust are legitimate or a
forgery without seeing the original actual documents. Bank of America
and their attorney James R. Hastings nevertheless has refused to allow
the Defendants here or the Forensic Document Examiner to see the
original. The Declaration by the Forensic Document Examiner stating
this is annexed hereto as Exhibit J.

38. The notary signatures and seals on the purported 1994 Trust
document are improper and invalid. It is a legal requirement that
Trust documents of this sort must be notarized by a notary public.
Here the notary public was James R. Hastings, who was also according
to his own declaration the attorney for Michael Goodall, Col. Kenneth
Goodall, the Goodall Trust and Bank of America all at the same time,
in an obvious conflict of interest. In addition, we know that Kenneth
F. Goodall was not at his home on that date of August 24, 1994. He was
hospitalized recovering from an operation for esophageal cancer on
that date. In order to sign these documents, his wife Rachel must have
brought them to the hospital. It was utterly impossible for Kenneth F.
Goodall to have gone to the office of James Hastings to sign them on
that date as Mr. Hastings claims he did.

39. The notary signatures of James R. Hastings are improper.
Defendant Samuel H. Sloan has passed the notary public test in
Sacramento and knows that under California notary public law if a
Loose Acknowledge is used to complete a notarization it must be
stapled to the back of the signature page of the document.*It must be
stapled in the left upper most corner.*The words 搒ee attached
certificate� or 搒ee attached Notary certificate� should be placed on
the signature page.*Loose notarial certificates are generally used
because there is no notary language on the document or the language is
not based on the then current law OR the language is there but there
is not enough room to place your Notary seal.*In the case of incorrect
notarial language you use one line to strike out the unapproved
notarial language.

40. The law on thumbprints is that you MUST obtain a right
thumbprint in your Notary journal for all Deeds (quitclaim deed, grant
deed, warranty deed, deed of trust, security agreement, mortgages
etc.) and on all Power of Attorney documents.*The exceptions for the
deeds are Foreclosure Deeds and Reconveyance Deeds.

41. As will be seen when and if the Bank of America ever
produces the document, the words 搒ee attached certificate� or 搒ee
attached Notary certificate� do not appear on the signature page and
the acknowledgments page does not refer back to the signature page
either.*In addition, the Notary Journal maintained by James R.
Hastings does not have any thumbprints of Kenneth F. or Rachel A.
Goodall and it does not show what photo ID Kenneth and Rachel
provided. 揚ersonal knowledge� is not allowed for notary signatures in
California. There have been no changes in the notary public law
between 1994 and the present on these points.

42. Bank of America claims that Mike Goodall did not contest the
trust within 120 days of the death of his mother and thus is barred by
statute of limitations. This claim is utterly false and without basis.
There is no such statute of limitations. In 1994, Mike Goodall was
living in his apartment at 2420 Atherton Street in Berkeley CA.
Defendant Samuel H. Sloan was living there too in that same apartment
and thus is familiar with these events. Mike Goodall would probably
not have known what his parents did or did not sign in San Rafael and
on what dates. Bank of America has produced no evidence that Mike
Goodall ever received or saw the 1994 purported trust during the
relevant time period. Their documents only show that Mike knew about
the 1990 Trust of which he was the sole beneficiary and thus unlikely
to challenge it. The claim by Bank of America that Mike Goodall did
not challenge the trust within the 120 day purported time period is
not true either. When that case was filed in 1999, Bank of America
contended that Mike Goodall was challenging the trust. That issue was
never decided. In three different documents dated in 2000, Bank of
America stated that his petition WAS a challenge to the trust.

43. Almost every time this case has to court, Gary Rothstein,
attorney for Bank of America, has lied to the court. On July 19, 2012,
he said that the 1999 case was 揻or declaratory relief�. That was not
true. The 1999 case was to remove Bank of America as Trustee. Here as
Exhibits K, L and M are three documents by Bank of America and its
attorney stating that this action is to contest the trust.

44. Exhibit K is a Declaration by Susan D. Scribner for Bank of
America as Trustee in Opposition to petition Re Determination of the
Particular Action does not constitute a contest dated February 2,
2000. In the last sentence of this declaration she 揳sks the court to
confirm that such action is a contest to the trust�.

45. Exhibit L is Points and Authorities by James R. Hastings,
Attorney for Bank of America, in Opposition to petition Re
Determination of the Particular Action does not constitute a contest
dated February 2, 2000.

46. Exhibit M is Proof of Service of Points and Authorities in
Opposition to petition Re Determination of the Particular Action does
not constitute a contest and Declaration by Susan D. Scribner for Bank
of America as Trustee in Opposition to petition Re Determination of
the Particular Action does not constitute a contest.

47. Each of these documents states that Mike Goodall was
contesting the trust and, in view of the no contest clause, Mike
Goodall should be dis-inherited and left with nothing. This case was
still pending before the courts in 2010 when Mike Goodall died and
thus was never finally decided. In an improper action, Bank of America
bootstrapped themselves into the San Francisco Court after they had
lost the case over here in Marin County by filing a pleading under
Case Number: PTR-99-273030 Title: IN RE: THE GOODALL TRUST for an
entirely different cause of action.

48. Bank of America has reversed positions on this case. Now
that Mike Goodall is dead they are making the opposite claims from the
claims they made while he was alive. None of these documents were
disclosed by Bank of America and their attorneys to the San Francisco
judge.

49. In a hearing before Retired Judge John Dearman when the
regular San Francisco Probate Judges were not willing to hear this
case, Bank of America demanded that Defendants be evicted from the
house located at 461 Peachstone Terrace in San Rafael. Defendant
Samuel H. Sloan objected on the ground that the San Francisco Probate
Court lacks jurisdiction over real property located in Marin County.
Judge Dearman decided that Defendant Samuel H. Sloan pay rent to be
deposited in a neutral bank account such that whomever wins this case
would get the money. The parties subsequently agreed to a rent amount
of $1650 in spite of the dilapidated condition of the house. However,
Bank of America has since insisted that the rent checks be made
payable to 揃ank of America as Trustee of the Trust for Michael�.
Since Defendants contend that the Trust for Michael does not exist and
also that Bank of America was never the lawful trustee of that or any
other trust, Samuel H. Sloan made checks payable to 揟rustee of the
Goodall Trust� even though the Goodall Trust no longer exists.
However, Bank of America refused and returned these checks. Another
judge then told them to take the checks. Bank of America then took the
checks but did not timely deposit them. However, they did deposit the
check for the July Rent on August 1, 2012. They are holding the other
checks.

50. Defendant Samuel H. Sloan stands ready to give more checks but
demands to know what Bank of America is doing with those checks as the
order of Judge Dearman was to put them into a neutral bank account.
The endorsement on the one check that has cleared the bank does not
reveal what has happened to the money or if the court order is being
complied with. A copy of that check is annexed hereto as Exhibit N.
Defendant Sloan stands ready to pay more checks provided it is
established what Bank of America is doing with the money in compliance
with the decision of Judge Dearman.

51. Heirs to the Goodall Estate, Frank Thornally and Roy Hoppe, were
搒pecial friends� of the deceased Mike Goodall and were not paying
rent at the time of his death. They should be allowed to continue to
live in the house on the same basis. However, Roy Hoppe was threatened
with arrest by James R. Hastings back in January 2011 unless he moved
out. Fearful of being arrested, Hoppe moved out and has resided in a
homeless shelter at the Former Hamilton Air Force Base awaiting the
outcome of this case but comes to the house daily to pick up his mail.

52. According to pleadings in the 1999 case and to documents
left in the house, at the time of the death of Rachel A. Goodall on
June 7, 1999 she had between $900,000 and one million dollars in cash
and securities including mutual funds and the like. The Goodall Trust
had no money as the only asset of the trust was the house. However,
James R. Hastings, pretending to be the attorney for both the Goodalls
and Bank of America and having acquired knowledge of where all the
Goodall assets were as a result of being their estate planner,
contacted all the bank and brokerage companies holding Goodall assets
and had them transfer the funds to Bank of America. Prior to that
time, the Goodall parents had no banking relationship with Bank of
America at all, not even a simple checking account.

53. Since then, Bank of America and James R. Hastings have completely
stonewalled. They refused to reveal anything about how much money they
have, where they got it from or what they have done with it.

54. The Defendants believe that the total value of the Estate of K.
Michael Goodall to be in the estimated amount of $2.5 million.
However, with Bank of America and James R. Hastings charging
administration, trustee and legal fees for the past 13 years since
1999 it is likely that these funds are substantially depleted.
Defendant Samuel H. Sloan, as administrator of the Estate of K.
Michael Goodall, is demanding that the entire amount of $2.5 million
be reinstated to the trust plus interest since 1999. This explains why
Bank of America and their allies in this case have nine attorneys
working on their side of this case. They have probably already spent
the money.

55. Plaintiff Bank of America through its attorney Gary Rothstein has
repeatedly threatened Defendant Samuel H. Sloan with personal
sanctions and his attorney with sanctions plus disciplinary proceeding
before the bar for defending the rights and claims of the Estate of K.
Michael Goodall of which Samuel H. Sloan is the administrator with
will annexed. This has caused defendant and his counsel to become more
cautious and milk-toast and less assertive than they could and should
be considering the circumstances of this case. After Counsel for Bank
of America filed three successive motions for sanctions against
counsel for the Goodall Estate, counsel for the Goodall Estate became
frightened in view of the power of Bank of America and withdrew from
the case. This is the reason Defendant Samuel H. Sloan is appearing
pro se because his attorney for the Goodall Estate withdrew. The Legal
Aid Society located at 30 North San Pedro initially prepared answers
in these cases but upon seeing the one hundred page motion filed by
Bank of America said that they could not handle this case because this
one case would tie up their entire legal staff and they would not be
able to serve any of their indigent defendants. However, James R.
Hastings, author of the Goodall Trust, is teaching a class in Estate
Planning 101 located at Redwood High School in Larkspur on June 18,
2013 at 7:00 PM with tuition being $25 so Defendant is planning to
take that class to learn more about probate matters so as to defend
this case.


WHEREFORE, for all of the reasons set forth above, summary judgment
should be denied and this Unlawful Detainer Proceeding must be
dismissed.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State
of California and the contents thereof are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief.

DATED: May 20, 2013




Samuel H. Sloan



Verification:

Samuel H. Sloan declares:
I have read the Answer to the Complaint in the Unlawful Detainer
Proceeding Opposition filed in this matter, and I declare under
penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the
contents thereof are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief.



DATED: May 20, 2013




Samuel H. Sloan










Exhibit A

Briefing Schedule in California Court of Appeal Case No. A137739
Showing that Bank of america has until May 28, 2013 to File their
Answering Brief


Death Certificate of Col. Kenneth Goodall showing that he had a
feeding tube inserted in his abdomen at the time of a purported
amendment to a Goodall Trust



Order of Marin County Probate Court Appointing Samuel H. Sloan as
Administrator of the Estate of K. Michael Goodall with Will Annexed



Exhibit B

The Goodall Trust dated September 12, 1990
Exhibit C

Second Amendment of the Goodall Trust intending to make K. Michael
Goodall Trustee of the Trust of September 12, 1990 dated January 19,
1999




Exhibit D

Purported Last Will of Kenneth F. Goodall


Exhibit E


Purported Last Will of Rachel Goodall



Exhibit F

Power of Attorney by Rachel Goodall given to Michael Goodall endorsed
by Col. Kenneth Goodall



Exhibit G

Declaration filed by James R. Hastings in San Francisco Probate Court
stating among other things that he is the attorney for all parties on
both sides of this case







Exhibit H

Purported Signatures of the Kenneth and Rachel Goodall from the FAX
produced by Bank of America on top compared with known actual
signatures of Kenneth and Rachel Goodall on bottom from the same date.
Note that in the real signatures Kenneth and Rachel Goodall used a
light blue pen but the FAX supposedly from the same time and date is
in heavy black ink.

Exhibit I

Blowups of the Letters FG from the known signatures of Kenneth F.
Goodall compared with the purported signature from the FAX. In the
known signatures of Kenneth Goodall he signs the FG together with one
stroke of the pen. However, in the trust document the top of the F is
a different stroke right to left.


Exhibit J


Declaration by Forensic Document examiner David S. Moore stating that
there are significant differences between the known signatures of
Kenneth and Rachel Goodall and the signatures on the 1994 Trust such
that he cannot determine if the signatures are real or forgeries
without seeing the originals.








Exhibit K

Declaration by Susan D. Scribner for Bank of America as Trustee in
Opposition to petition Re Determination of the Particular Action does
not constitute a contest dated February 2, 2000.








Exhibit L

Points and Authorities by James R. Hastings, Attorney for Bank of
America, in Opposition to petition Re Determination of the Particular
Action does not constitute a contest dated February 2, 2000.




Exhibit M

Proof of Service of Points and Authorities in Opposition to petition
Re Determination of the Particular Action does not constitute a
contest and Declaration by Susan D. Scribner for Bank of America as
Trustee in Opposition to petition Re Determination of the Particular
Action does not constitute a contest.



Exhibit N

The endorsement on the one check that has cleared the bank which does
not reveal what has happened to the money or if the court order is
being complied with. Defendant Sloan stands ready to pay more checks
provided it is established what Bank of America is doing with the
money in compliance with the decision of Judge Dearman.

Exhibit O

Blank signature pages of the unsigned 1994 purported trust

PROOF OF SERVICE
I hereby state that I am not a party, I am over 18 years of age and I
served a copy of this answer and the exhibits attached thereto to the
following:

James R. Hastings
1003 3rd Street
San Rafael, CA 94901

Bank of America
1000 4th St.
San Rafael, CA 94901

Gary D. Rothstein
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
One Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor
San Francisco CA 94111

Alicia A. Adornato
Attorney for Guide Dogs for the Blind
Reed Smith LLP
101 Second Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco CA 94105

Don A. Lesser
Attorney for James R. Hastings
1010 B Street
Suite 350
San Rafael CA 94901

Sam Ware
700 Larkspur Landing Circle, #199
Larkspur, CA 94939

Roy Hoppe
461 Peachstone Terrace
San Rafael CA 94903

Frank Thornally
461 Peachstone Terrace
San Rafael CA 94903


Julia Bentley Lemons
Apt. 308
12800 Marion Lane W
Minnetonka, MN 55305-1368
Surviving Sibling of Rachel Goodall

Robert Bentley
Bradford Village #504
906 N Boulevard Street
Edmond, OK 73030
Surviving Sibling of Rachel Goodall

Helen Beth Bentley Perry
7926 Praver Drive W
Jacksonville,FL 32217
Surviving Sibling of Rachel Goodall

Clenda Fern Bentley Zinar
4536 Chatman Street
The Colony, TX 75056

Beverly Gale Bentley Young
2316 Trenton
McKinney, TX 75070

Vickie Bentley Hankins
14580 NE 6th
Choctaw, OK 73020

Jeffrey Bentley
4701 N Douglas Boulevard
Spencer, OK 73084

Chad Everett Bentley
1609 Teepee Trail
Kingsland, TX 78639

Jeanette Goodall Phillips
152 S llth Street
Salina, Kansas 67401



Kristin Kane
University of California
Berkeley College of Engineering
College Relations
208 Mclaughlin Hall #1722
Berkeley, CA 9472A-1722

Guide Dogs for the Blind
Mr. Thomas Horton
Planned Potential Beneficiary
Giving Director
Guide Dogs for the Blind, Inc.
350 Los Ranchitos Road
San Rafael, CA 94903
]]> rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) samsloan http://www.chessbanter.com/showthread.php?t=54048 http://www.chessbanter.com/showthread.php?t=54047&goto=newpost Wed, 22 May 2013 00:52:08 GMT Samuel H. Sloan Administrator of Estate of K. Michael Goodall with Will Annexed 461 Peachstone Terrace San Rafael CA 94903 (415) 419-5980 917-659-3397 samhsloan@gmail.com Samuel H. Sloan
Administrator of Estate
of K. Michael Goodall
with Will Annexed
461 Peachstone Terrace
San Rafael CA 94903
(415) 419-5980
917-659-3397


SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF MARIN


BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Trustee of the Trust for Michael created under
the Goodall Trust Dated September 12, 1990

Plaintiff,

vs.

SAMUEL H. Sloan, an individual;
KAYO KIMURA, an individual; and DOES 1-10, inclusive,

Defendants
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV 1301196


VERIFIED ANSWER TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY BANK OF AMERICA IN
COMPLAINT FOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER


Defendant Samuel H. Sloan individually as as Administrator of the
Estate of K. Michael Goodall with Will Annexed alleges as follows:

1. This motion for summary judgment apparently seeks to enforce
an order of the San Francisco Superior Court. The motion filed in this
court says that the time to appeal in that case in San Francisco has
expired. This is not true. Indeed almost everything counsel for Bank
of America says in their motion for summary judgment is untrue. That
San Francisco case is now under appeal in the California Court of
Appeal, Case No. A137739. The transcript of the record of that appeal
in 1715 pages (one thousand seven hundred fifteen pages) long. I filed
my opening brief on April 25, 2013. Bank of America now has until May
28, 2013 to file their answering brief. According to the division
clerk in the California Court of Appeal, Mr. Channing Hoo, that appeal
will likely be heard around the end of this year. Attached as an
exhibit hereto is a copy of the briefing schedule for that appeal. I
have sent a copy of the transcript of the record of that appeal to
this court.

2. This motion for 搒ummary judgment� is substantially identical
to a motion that was denied under a different case number for the same
relief. That was Case No. CIV 1204541. That motion was denied on
November 28, 2012. Although the judge of this court directed counsel
for Bank of America to prepare an order for his signature, counsel for
Bank of America never did so. Instead, Bank of America defaulted and
the case was dismissed.

3. This is the third case filed by Bank of America making
essentially the same allegations. The first was Case No. 1203665. That
case was dismissed on default by Bank of America on December 31, 2012.
The second case was Case No. 1204541. So now Bank of America has filed
three cases for the same thing, all making the same allegations.
Instead of appealing, they just keep filing new cases perhaps hoping
to get a different judge or a different ruling. This court should
consider sanctions against Bank of America for these utterly
fraudulent and repetitive cases.

4. Defendant Samuel H. Sloan is the Administrator of the Estate
of K. Michael Goodall with Will Annexed, Case No. PR 1100596. Samuel
H. Sloan was appointed as administrator by order of the Marin County
Probate Court dated March 11, 2011. A copy of the order of the court
is annexed hereto and included in Exhibit A.

5. In his petition to be appointed Administrator of the Estate
of K. Michael Goodall, Samuel H. Sloan listed among the assets of the
estate the house located at 461 Peachstone Terrace, San Rafael where
he has resided since 1998. Bank of America was served with this
petition. An officer of Bank of America, Jacquel Hutchings in Dallas,
Texas, called Sloan to ask about this. When informed that the property
located at 461 Peachstone Terrace was an asset of the estate and was
referenced in the petition, Jacquel Hutchings stated that she was
hiring Gary Rothstein, an attorney in San Francisco, to represent the
Bank of America in this case.

6. Subsequently, the Probate Examiner Dean Ross had a three-way
telephone conference call with me, Samuel H. Sloan, and with Gary
Rothstein, Counsel for Bank of America. Then the Marin County Probate
Judge adjourned the hearing on the petition by Samuel H. Sloan to be
appointed administrator of this estate for two weeks in order to give
Bank of America and their attorney Gary Rothstein the opportunity to
appear in this case. In spite of being given an extra two weeks to
appear and in spite of the fact that Bank of America knew that the
house at 461 Peachstone Terrace was listed as an asset of the estate,
they did not appear and did not oppose the petition and still to this
day have not opposed nor objected to the petition or to the
appointment or to the order of the court.

7. The order of the court Marin County Probate Court dated March
11, 2011 gives Samuel H. Sloan as Administrator the right and the
power to sell the house located at 461 Peachstone Terrace. However, he
has not sold it. He is living in it with his daughter, Sandra, aged
11. Bank of America keeps filing these cases which constitute
collateral attacks on the jurisdiction of the Marin County Probate
Court. It is impossible to wind up this Goodall Estate probate matter
in Marin County Probate Court because of these cases that Bank of
America keeps filing in other courts rather than file their claims in
the right court of proper jurisdiction in Marin. As can be seen, Bank
of America really does not have a claim to file. They are not the
owner of the house located 461 Peachstone Terrace and have no claim to
file concerning this property.

8. Plaintiff Bank of America N. A. is NOT the Trustee of the
Trust for Michael and indeed no such trust exists or has ever existed.
The claims made by Bank of America in this and other proceedings are
utterly false and without basis. Their claims made in San Francisco
Probate Court are made in a court that does not have jurisdiction over
the property located at 461 Peachstone Terrace, as the property is
located in Marin County. Their claims constitute an improper
collateral attack on the orders of the Marin County Probate Court.
Their claims must be dismissed.

9. Defendant Samuel H. Sloan has persistently demanded that Bank
of America produce the documents upon which they base their claim.
Bank of America has failed and/or refused to produce any such
documentation or any documents at all. It has become obvious that no
such documents exist. In particular, Bank of America has never
produced and refuses to produce the document which they claim is dated
August 24, 1994 and upon which their entire case rests. This 1994
Purported Trust is Essential to the claims made by Bank of America
because the 1990 Trust made Security Pacific Bank the Successor
Trustee. James R. Hastings was the attorney for Bank of America and
thus the beneficiary of the 1994 Purported Trust whereas he had no
such relationship with Security Pacific Bank. The 1994 Purported Trust
added a No-Contest Clause which Bank of America and its attorney James
R. Hastings later used to frighten Kenneth Michael Goodall that he
would be cut out of the estate entirely and left homeless with nothing
if he contested the Purported Trust. The 1990 Trust does not contain a
no-contest clause. In spite of the fact that the Purported 1994 Trust
is so essential to Bank of America's claims, they would have the
courts believe that they have never had a copy of the Purported 1994
Trust and that James R. Hastings who had the only copy has lost his
copy.

10. When a hearing was held in this court on November 28, 2012
on the previous case, counsel for Bank of America made a number of
false statements. Here is part of the colloquy:
5 What happened in San Francisco in the probate

6 proceedings wouldn't change what the title is; it just

7 allowed us to proceed as if it were an asset of the

8 Goodall Trust.

11. The above statement was not true. The action in the San
Francisco Court was brought by Bank of America for the specific
purpose of changing the title to the Goodall Property, as the lengthy
petition filed in that court makes clear. Paragraph 6 of the petition
filed by Bank of America there contains the following noteworthy
statement.
No title documents have been found placing title in the residence in
the name of petitioner [Bank of America] as Trustee of the Trust for
Michael.� (See Record, Volume I, page 189)

12. What Bank of America was asking there was that the title to the
Goodall Mansion be changed by order of the San Francisco Superior
Court. However, as Appellant Sloan pointed out in his pro se answer to
this petition, 揑t is HORNBOOK Law that any proceeding involving real
property must be filed in the jurisdiction where the property is
located.� (See Record, Volume I, page 287)
13. Paragraph 6, note 1 of the petition filed there by Bank of
America contains another noteworthy statement.
* * * * 揟he Provisions of the Bypass Trust are somewhat unclear with
respect to the proper beneficiaries of the Trust for Michael in the
wake of Mike Goodall's Death.� (See Record, Volume I, footnote at the
bottom of page 189)

14. 揝omewhat unclear� is a massive understatement or
misstatement. The trust documents have been shown to several attorneys
specializing in such matters. All them say that the trust documents
are nonsense. 揂bsurd�, 搑idiculous� and several other adjectives are
used to describe these trust documents. A well known San Francisco
attorney said that the attorney who drew up this trust should be
disbarred for incompetence.

15. Michael Goodall died on October 5, 2010 in his home known as
揟he Goodall Mansion� at 461 Peachstone Terrace in San Rafael, Marin
County, California. Petitioner found the Goodall Will among his papers
and filed it in Marin County Probate Court on January 28, 2011. On
February 1, 2011, Petitioner filed a petition in probate. After
consents were obtained from all of the heirs of the Goodall Estate,
petitioner petitioned and after two hearings was appointed
administrator of the estate.

16. Defendant had the key to the house, as he has been a
resident of the house. However, on February 28, 2011, while petitioner
was away for a few days, there was a break-in and burglary in the
house. The entire contents of the house was removed including all
legal papers and documents of the Goodalls and the locks to the doors
had been changed. When the burglary was discovered, 911 was called and
this was reported as a burglary. Deputy Anthony Savas of the Marin
County Sheriff's Department responded to the call. Deputy Savas said
that he had been patrolling the area during the previous days and had
observed a large trash dumpster in front of the house with a Spanish
guy bringing stuff out of the house and putting it in the dumpster.
However, Deputy Savas had not stopped to inquire, as this had seemed
to be a routine case of somebody moving out. It eventually became
apparent that this burglary had been committed by Hamilton Kipp, an
official of Bank of America.

17. On April 21, 2011, Bank of America by way of collateral
attack filed a petition in San Francisco Superior Court seeking
essentially to overturn the Marin County Probate Order which had
listed among other things the Goodall Mansion as an asset of the
Goodall Estate. In filing this new petition, Bank of America had used
an old case number, PTR 99-273030. That was the number of a case
Michael Goodall had filed in December 21, 1999 shortly after his
mother had died in which he sought the removal of Bank of America as
Trustee on many grounds including the grounds that Bank of America was
not the bank named in the Trust documents and that the proper trustee
was Michael Goodall himself and if not himself then at least some bank
not openly hostile to him as Bank of America was.

18. Page 18 of a trust document, which Bank of America claims
has been lost but they claim is controlling, but which we are prepared
to prove was never signed by any of the Goodalls, especially since
Col. Goodall was hospitalized and on his death bed with Esophageal
cancer, had a feeding tube inserted in his abdomen, as shown by his
death certificate, was unable to speak and died 17 days later, does
not give Bank of America or Guide Dogs for the Blind any right to
estate property unless Mike Goodall dies before his parents do and
leaves no wife nor children, which did not happen. Mike Goodall
outlived both his parents by 11 years and thus Guide Dogs for the
Blind is entitled to nothing.

19. In their motion papers Bank of America keeps referring to a
Goodall Trust document dated September 12, 1990 which they say makes
them the Trustee of the Goodall Trust. However, in their motion papers
they do not include this document. They did not include the trust
document in the papers they filed in the San Francisco Superior Court
either. It was apparent that the judge in San Francisco never read the
Trust document, as he never made any reference to its specific terms.
He probably thought it was the standard living trust, which it was
not. Anybody who reads the document will realize that neither Bank of
America nor Guide Dogs for the Blind has any claim under this trust. I
am including herewith the entire trust document dated September 12,
1990, the document that Bank of America relies upon in its papers. In
addition there was an amendment to the Goodall Trust dated January 19,
1999 that made Mike Goodall co-trustee of the Goodall Trust following
the death of his father. That is annexed as an exhibit as well. None
of these documents have been presented by Bank of America to this
court or to the San Francisco Court.

20. Samuel H. Sloan was a close personal 搒pecial friend� of K.
Michael Goodall who was the rightful Trustee of the Goodall Trust.
Michael Goodall was made Trustee of the Goodall Trust by the Second
Amendment of the Goodall Trust, a copy of which is Annexed hereto as
Exhibit C.

21. The Goodall Trust was a living trust dated September 12,
1990. A copy of this trust is annexed as Exhibit B. The purpose of
this trust was to insure that the property located at 461 Peachstone
Terrace San Rafael California 94903 not be subject to probate and to
avoid estate taxes. There was no money in the trust; only the house.
The trust documents provided that if Mike died before his parents did
the trust would go to a charity but if Mike died after his patents did
the trust would go to his heirs. Paragraph 7.2 of the 1990 Trust makes
Kenneth Michael Goodall the successor trustee after his parents have
died and, if he is unable to act, makes Security Pacific Bank the
successor trustee.

22. Col Kenneth F. Goodall was born 01 Mar 1916 and died 10 Sep
1994 at age 78. His Social Security Number was 444-40-8884. Rachel A.
Goodall was born 23 May 1916 and died 07 Jun 1999. Her Social Security
Number was 359-07-1738. Kenneth Michael Goodall was born 13 Jan 1946
and died 05 Oct 2010. His Social Security Number was 559-70-3352. All
of them died and are buried in Marin County. All of their property and
assets were located in Marin County. Thus, the Marin County Courts
have exclusive jurisdiction over this case. Since Michael died after
his parents died he and his heirs are the sole beneficiaries of the
trust. In addition, the trust was terminated and ceased to exist by
its terms upon his death nearly two years ago. Bank of America has no
surviving claims. Bank of America does not own the property nor have
any right to it.

23. The relevant documents in this case clearly show that the
house located at 461 Peachstone Terrace is an asset of the Estate. The
relevant documents are the Trust dated September 12, 1990, two 損our
over� wills executed by the Goodalls on August 24, 1994 and the Will
of K. Michael Goodall which is on file with the Marin County Probate
Court. The 損our over� wills are disputed because the witness to the
wills, Nancy Rodgers, states that she did not sign them and is
prepared to so testify. Nevertheless, this does not change the outcome
of this case. The wills are marked Exhibit D and Exhibit E. It is
noteworthy that the wills do not contain the words 揳s amended�. They
refer to the trust dated September 12, 1990 and not to any purported
amendment to the trust.

24. Bank of America has followed a persistent pattern of making claims
in the Marin County Probate Court and when their claims are denied
they make the same claims over in the San Francisco Probate Court
without telling the San Francisco Judge that their claims have been
denied already by another court or even that there is a case pending
on the same subject matter in another court.

25. Bank of America made a claim in the Marin County Probate Court
that objections to a purported 1994 trust are barred by a Statute of
Limitations. This claim was denied by Judge Adams, the probate judge
in Marin County, in a lengthy and reasoned opinion citing relevant
case law. Undaunted, Bank of America went over to San Francisco and
filed exactly the same statute of limitations claim without telling
the San Francisco Judge that this claim had already been denied in
Marin.

26. Similarly, here, Bank of America has filed this Unlawful Detainer
Proceeding without telling this court that Samuel H. Sloan is the
Administrator of the Estate of K. Michael Goodall and that the house
located at 461 Peachstone Terrace is subject to the proceedings in
Marin County Probate Court. In summary, the conduct by Bank of America
in these cases is utterly fraudulent.

27. The proceedings cited in the Amended Complaint filed by Bank of
America in San Francisco have not been finally decided. No Final
Judgment has been Entered. The Estate has filed four notices of
Appeal. Thus the matter is now pending before the California Court of
Appeal, Case No. A 137739. Regardless of the Outcome of the Appeal,
Bank of America will still not own the house. The Trust was terminated
almost three years ago by the Death of Mike Goodall. Thus, there is no
trust and under no circumstances does Bank of America have a claim on
the house. Samuel H. Sloan has objected to the jurisdiction of the San
Francisco court from the first pleading for the same reason in that
the San Francisco Courts have no jurisdiction over real property
located in Marin County. Defendants are confident of the success of
this appeal which will result in the entire proceedings in San
Francisco being thrown out. This case should be stayed until that
appeal is decided.

28. Bank of America has committed fraud upon the courts by constantly
calling the trust by the name of 揟he Trust for Michael� as though the
Goodall parents regarded their son Michael as incompetent and unable
to handle his finances. There is no such thing as the Trust for
Michael. There is only the Goodall Trust. The Goodall parents had full
confidence in their son Michael as evidenced by the 1990 Trust that
made him the Successor Trustee and by a Power of Attorney they gave
their son Michael on August 24, 1994, essentially on the death bed of
Col. Kenneth Goodall, who died 17 days later. Col. Goodall suffered a
lingering and painful death and in the end gave up and decided to die.
This power of attorney was prepared by the attorney for Bank of
America, James R. Hastings, and therefore Bank of America has known
about it all along. However, it was concealed from K. Michael Goodall
and from the Defendants in this case until recently when it was
discovered in a locked box that Bank of America had taken but later
returned. A copy of this power of Attorney is annexed hereto and
marked Exhibit F.

29. In the same locked box was found an unsigned copy of the purported
August 24, 1994 Amendment to the Goodall trust. This is the amendment
which James R. Hastings unsuccessfully attempted to induce the
Goodalls to sign. It was the custom of James R. Hastings to bring two
copies of any document he wanted the Goodalls to sign. The Goodalls
would sign both documents and Hastings would notarize and witness
them. He would keep one of the documents and leave the other with the
Goodalls. The presence of an unsigned copy of the purported 1994 trust
in the same lockbox with a bunch of other signed documents bearing the
same date proves that the Goodalls never signed and refused to sign
the purported 1994 Trust.

30. In the last stage of his life, Col. Kenneth F. Goodall was
terminally ill with Cancer of the Esophagus. On July 25, 1994, an
operation was preformed for a Feeding Jejunostomy in which a feeding
tube was inserted in his abdomen. This is shown by his Death
Certificate. From that point until his death on September 10, 1994, he
could not process food or talk in the normal way. Yet, James R.
Hastings has claimed that Col. Goodall came to his office in San
Anselmo in August 1994 and asked for changes in his will and trusts to
be made. Defendants are prepared to prove that this could not be true
because Col. Goodall was bedridden and hospitalized at the time and
was incapable of going anywhere. The doctor who performed the
operation for a Feeding Jejunostomy still is practicing medicine as a
cancer specialist in Marin and remembers this case and can be called
to testify that Col. Goodall was incapable of doing the things that
James R. Hastings claims that he did.

31. Defendants have repeatedly demanded that Bank of America and their
attorney at the time James R. Hastings produce the 1994 Trust which
they claim governs this case. First Defendants subpoenaed this
document and when Hastings failed to produce it Defendants obtained a
court order requiring that he produce it. Hastings then claimed that
he had lost the document. A copy of the declaration by James R.
Hastings stating that he has lost this vitally important document is
annexed hereto and marked Exhibit G.

32. Subsequently, the attorney for Guide Dogs for the Blind,
Alicia A. Adornato, has admitted in open court that James R. Hastings
has had the document all along. However, Bank of America has never
admitted this. Now they claim that they are not required to produce
this document under a statue of limitations. They are also saying that
they have administrated a trust for now 14 years without ever having a
copy of the trust document. This is an entirely bogus claim and has
already been dismissed by the Marin County Probate Judge.

33. Rather than produce the original document, they have produced a
2008 dated FAX that purports to depict the original. However, FAX
documents are not admissible in court for good reason. A FAX is
created by horizontal black lines across a page. The FAX machine
sprinkles black dots and distorts the image. A Fax document does not
show the kind of paper used, the kind of pen or writing instrument
used, or the kind of ink used. It can also conceal missing or changed
pages. It also distorts the size and shape of the signature. In short,
a FAX is ideal for concealing a forgery.

34. Defendants have submitted a dozen known and authentic
original signatures of Col. Kenneth F. Goodall including the known
original signature on the power of attorney dated August 24, 1994
along with a copy of the FAX submitted by Bank of America bearing the
same date to a Forensic Document Examiner, David S. Moore, who has
previously worked with the FBI. This Forensic Document Examiner
immediately noticed a number of significant differences between the
all the known signatures of Col. Goodall and the purported signature
on the FAX, especially in the creation of the FG in the signature of
Kenneth F. Goodall. The key point according to the forensic document
examiner is that in the known signatures of Kenneth Goodall he signs
the FG with one stroke of the pen. However, in the trust document, the
top of the F is a different stroke right to left. A blowup of these
two signatures is annexed as Exhibits H and I.

35. A close look at where the different strokes meet shows that they
are not together. The questions about the signatures can be better
understood using a blowup of the two signatures. Here using Adobe
Photoshop blowing up the key letters F and G in the signature of
Kenneth F. Goodall, look especially at the letters F and G in the
known signature of Kenneth F. Goodall. This is the first thing the
forensic document examiner David S. Moore noticed. The signature on
the F followed by the G is made in one continuous non-stopping
movement. First the top of the F is formed and then the pen loops
around to make the G. The pen never leaves the paper.

36. In the purported trust document, the movement of the hand is
shaky. The bottom of the F and then the G is formed and then the pen
leaves the paper and comes back to make the top of the F as a straight
line from right to left. There is also a break in the bottom of the F
and a difference in the loops in the bottom of the Gs.

37. In the various documents and records signed over a period of years
that we have, Kenneth F. Goodall signed his name as in the top
signature every time. He never signed his name in the shaky halting
way he supposedly signed the bottom signature here. Several additional
differences between the top and bottom signatures are plainly obvious.
You do not have to be a forensic document examiner or any kind of
expert to see them. It also appears that the documents were signed
with a different pen, which is odd since they were both supposedly
signed at the same time on the same date and place. After examining
these documents to the extent that they are available, the Forensic
Document examiner David S. Moore has concluded that he cannot
determine if the signatures on the 1994 Trust are legitimate or a
forgery without seeing the original actual documents. Bank of America
and their attorney James R. Hastings nevertheless has refused to allow
the Defendants here or the Forensic Document Examiner to see the
original. The Declaration by the Forensic Document Examiner stating
this is annexed hereto as Exhibit J.

38. The notary signatures and seals on the purported 1994 Trust
document are improper and invalid. It is a legal requirement that
Trust documents of this sort must be notarized by a notary public.
Here the notary public was James R. Hastings, who was also according
to his own declaration the attorney for Michael Goodall, Col. Kenneth
Goodall, the Goodall Trust and Bank of America all at the same time,
in an obvious conflict of interest. In addition, we know that Kenneth
F. Goodall was not at his home on that date of August 24, 1994. He was
hospitalized recovering from an operation for esophageal cancer on
that date. In order to sign these documents, his wife Rachel must have
brought them to the hospital. It was utterly impossible for Kenneth F.
Goodall to have gone to the office of James Hastings to sign them on
that date as Mr. Hastings claims he did.

39. The notary signatures of James R. Hastings are improper.
Defendant Samuel H. Sloan has passed the notary public test in
Sacramento and knows that under California notary public law if a
Loose Acknowledge is used to complete a notarization it must be
stapled to the back of the signature page of the document.*It must be
stapled in the left upper most corner.*The words 搒ee attached
certificate� or 搒ee attached Notary certificate� should be placed on
the signature page.*Loose notarial certificates are generally used
because there is no notary language on the document or the language is
not based on the then current law OR the language is there but there
is not enough room to place your Notary seal.*In the case of incorrect
notarial language you use one line to strike out the unapproved
notarial language.

40. The law on thumbprints is that you MUST obtain a right
thumbprint in your Notary journal for all Deeds (quitclaim deed, grant
deed, warranty deed, deed of trust, security agreement, mortgages
etc.) and on all Power of Attorney documents.*The exceptions for the
deeds are Foreclosure Deeds and Reconveyance Deeds.

41. As will be seen when and if the Bank of America ever
produces the document, the words 搒ee attached certificate� or 搒ee
attached Notary certificate� do not appear on the signature page and
the acknowledgments page does not refer back to the signature page
either.*In addition, the Notary Journal maintained by James R.
Hastings does not have any thumbprints of Kenneth F. or Rachel A.
Goodall and it does not show what photo ID Kenneth and Rachel
provided. 揚ersonal knowledge� is not allowed for notary signatures in
California. There have been no changes in the notary public law
between 1994 and the present on these points.

42. Bank of America claims that Mike Goodall did not contest the
trust within 120 days of the death of his mother and thus is barred by
statute of limitations. This claim is utterly false and without basis.
There is no such statute of limitations. In 1994, Mike Goodall was
living in his apartment at 2420 Atherton Street in Berkeley CA.
Defendant Samuel H. Sloan was living there too in that same apartment
and thus is familiar with these events. Mike Goodall would probably
not have known what his parents did or did not sign in San Rafael and
on what dates. Bank of America has produced no evidence that Mike
Goodall ever received or saw the 1994 purported trust during the
relevant time period. Their documents only show that Mike knew about
the 1990 Trust of which he was the sole beneficiary and thus unlikely
to challenge it. The claim by Bank of America that Mike Goodall did
not challenge the trust within the 120 day purported time period is
not true either. When that case was filed in 1999, Bank of America
contended that Mike Goodall was challenging the trust. That issue was
never decided. In three different documents dated in 2000, Bank of
America stated that his petition WAS a challenge to the trust.

43. Almost every time this case has to court, Gary Rothstein,
attorney for Bank of America, has lied to the court. On July 19, 2012,
he said that the 1999 case was 揻or declaratory relief�. That was not
true. The 1999 case was to remove Bank of America as Trustee. Here as
Exhibits K, L and M are three documents by Bank of America and its
attorney stating that this action is to contest the trust.

44. Exhibit K is a Declaration by Susan D. Scribner for Bank of
America as Trustee in Opposition to petition Re Determination of the
Particular Action does not constitute a contest dated February 2,
2000. In the last sentence of this declaration she 揳sks the court to
confirm that such action is a contest to the trust�.

45. Exhibit L is Points and Authorities by James R. Hastings,
Attorney for Bank of America, in Opposition to petition Re
Determination of the Particular Action does not constitute a contest
dated February 2, 2000.

46. Exhibit M is Proof of Service of Points and Authorities in
Opposition to petition Re Determination of the Particular Action does
not constitute a contest and Declaration by Susan D. Scribner for Bank
of America as Trustee in Opposition to petition Re Determination of
the Particular Action does not constitute a contest.

47. Each of these documents states that Mike Goodall was
contesting the trust and, in view of the no contest clause, Mike
Goodall should be dis-inherited and left with nothing. This case was
still pending before the courts in 2010 when Mike Goodall died and
thus was never finally decided. In an improper action, Bank of America
bootstrapped themselves into the San Francisco Court after they had
lost the case over here in Marin County by filing a pleading under
Case Number: PTR-99-273030 Title: IN RE: THE GOODALL TRUST for an
entirely different cause of action.

48. Bank of America has reversed positions on this case. Now
that Mike Goodall is dead they are making the opposite claims from the
claims they made while he was alive. None of these documents were
disclosed by Bank of America and their attorneys to the San Francisco
judge.

49. In a hearing before Retired Judge John Dearman when the
regular San Francisco Probate Judges were not willing to hear this
case, Bank of America demanded that Defendants be evicted from the
house located at 461 Peachstone Terrace in San Rafael. Defendant
Samuel H. Sloan objected on the ground that the San Francisco Probate
Court lacks jurisdiction over real property located in Marin County.
Judge Dearman decided that Defendant Samuel H. Sloan pay rent to be
deposited in a neutral bank account such that whomever wins this case
would get the money. The parties subsequently agreed to a rent amount
of $1650 in spite of the dilapidated condition of the house. However,
Bank of America has since insisted that the rent checks be made
payable to 揃ank of America as Trustee of the Trust for Michael�.
Since Defendants contend that the Trust for Michael does not exist and
also that Bank of America was never the lawful trustee of that or any
other trust, Samuel H. Sloan made checks payable to 揟rustee of the
Goodall Trust� even though the Goodall Trust no longer exists.
However, Bank of America refused and returned these checks. Another
judge then told them to take the checks. Bank of America then took the
checks but did not timely deposit them. However, they did deposit the
check for the July Rent on August 1, 2012. They are holding the other
checks.

50. Defendant Samuel H. Sloan stands ready to give more checks but
demands to know what Bank of America is doing with those checks as the
order of Judge Dearman was to put them into a neutral bank account.
The endorsement on the one check that has cleared the bank does not
reveal what has happened to the money or if the court order is being
complied with. A copy of that check is annexed hereto as Exhibit N.
Defendant Sloan stands ready to pay more checks provided it is
established what Bank of America is doing with the money in compliance
with the decision of Judge Dearman.

51. Heirs to the Goodall Estate, Frank Thornally and Roy Hoppe, were
搒pecial friends� of the deceased Mike Goodall and were not paying
rent at the time of his death. They should be allowed to continue to
live in the house on the same basis. However, Roy Hoppe was threatened
with arrest by James R. Hastings back in January 2011 unless he moved
out. Fearful of being arrested, Hoppe moved out and has resided in a
homeless shelter at the Former Hamilton Air Force Base awaiting the
outcome of this case but comes to the house daily to pick up his mail.

52. According to pleadings in the 1999 case and to documents
left in the house, at the time of the death of Rachel A. Goodall on
June 7, 1999 she had between $900,000 and one million dollars in cash
and securities including mutual funds and the like. The Goodall Trust
had no money as the only asset of the trust was the house. However,
James R. Hastings, pretending to be the attorney for both the Goodalls
and Bank of America and having acquired knowledge of where all the
Goodall assets were as a result of being their estate planner,
contacted all the bank and brokerage companies holding Goodall assets
and had them transfer the funds to Bank of America. Prior to that
time, the Goodall parents had no banking relationship with Bank of
America at all, not even a simple checking account.

53. Since then, Bank of America and James R. Hastings have completely
stonewalled. They refused to reveal anything about how much money they
have, where they got it from or what they have done with it.

54. The Defendants believe that the total value of the Estate of K.
Michael Goodall to be in the estimated amount of $2.5 million.
However, with Bank of America and James R. Hastings charging
administration, trustee and legal fees for the past 13 years since
1999 it is likely that these funds are substantially depleted.
Defendant Samuel H. Sloan, as administrator of the Estate of K.
Michael Goodall, is demanding that the entire amount of $2.5 million
be reinstated to the trust plus interest since 1999. This explains why
Bank of America and their allies in this case have nine attorneys
working on their side of this case. They have probably already spent
the money.

55. Plaintiff Bank of America through its attorney Gary Rothstein has
repeatedly threatened Defendant Samuel H. Sloan with personal
sanctions and his attorney with sanctions plus disciplinary proceeding
before the bar for defending the rights and claims of the Estate of K.
Michael Goodall of which Samuel H. Sloan is the administrator with
will annexed. This has caused defendant and his counsel to become more
cautious and milk-toast and less assertive than they could and should
be considering the circumstances of this case. After Counsel for Bank
of America filed three successive motions for sanctions against
counsel for the Goodall Estate, counsel for the Goodall Estate became
frightened in view of the power of Bank of America and withdrew from
the case. This is the reason Defendant Samuel H. Sloan is appearing
pro se because his attorney for the Goodall Estate withdrew. The Legal
Aid Society located at 30 North San Pedro initially prepared answers
in these cases but upon seeing the one hundred page motion filed by
Bank of America said that they could not handle this case because this
one case would tie up their entire legal staff and they would not be
able to serve any of their indigent defendants. However, James R.
Hastings, author of the Goodall Trust, is teaching a class in Estate
Planning 101 located at Redwood High School in Larkspur on June 18,
2013 at 7:00 PM with tuition being $25 so Defendant is planning to
take that class to learn more about probate matters so as to defend
this case.


WHEREFORE, for all of the reasons set forth above, summary judgment
should be denied and this Unlawful Detainer Proceeding must be
dismissed.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State
of California and the contents thereof are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief.

DATED: May 20, 2013




Samuel H. Sloan



Verification:

Samuel H. Sloan declares:
I have read the Answer to the Complaint in the Unlawful Detainer
Proceeding Opposition filed in this matter, and I declare under
penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the
contents thereof are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief.



DATED: May 20, 2013




Samuel H. Sloan










Exhibit A

Briefing Schedule in California Court of Appeal Case No. A137739
Showing that Bank of america has until May 28, 2013 to File their
Answering Brief


Death Certificate of Col. Kenneth Goodall showing that he had a
feeding tube inserted in his abdomen at the time of a purported
amendment to a Goodall Trust



Order of Marin County Probate Court Appointing Samuel H. Sloan as
Administrator of the Estate of K. Michael Goodall with Will Annexed



Exhibit B

The Goodall Trust dated September 12, 1990
Exhibit C

Second Amendment of the Goodall Trust intending to make K. Michael
Goodall Trustee of the Trust of September 12, 1990 dated January 19,
1999




Exhibit D

Purported Last Will of Kenneth F. Goodall


Exhibit E


Purported Last Will of Rachel Goodall



Exhibit F

Power of Attorney by Rachel Goodall given to Michael Goodall endorsed
by Col. Kenneth Goodall



Exhibit G

Declaration filed by James R. Hastings in San Francisco Probate Court
stating among other things that he is the attorney for all parties on
both sides of this case







Exhibit H

Purported Signatures of the Kenneth and Rachel Goodall from the FAX
produced by Bank of America on top compared with known actual
signatures of Kenneth and Rachel Goodall on bottom from the same date.
Note that in the real signatures Kenneth and Rachel Goodall used a
light blue pen but the FAX supposedly from the same time and date is
in heavy black ink.

Exhibit I

Blowups of the Letters FG from the known signatures of Kenneth F.
Goodall compared with the purported signature from the FAX. In the
known signatures of Kenneth Goodall he signs the FG together with one
stroke of the pen. However, in the trust document the top of the F is
a different stroke right to left.


Exhibit J


Declaration by Forensic Document examiner David S. Moore stating that
there are significant differences between the known signatures of
Kenneth and Rachel Goodall and the signatures on the 1994 Trust such
that he cannot determine if the signatures are real or forgeries
without seeing the originals.








Exhibit K

Declaration by Susan D. Scribner for Bank of America as Trustee in
Opposition to petition Re Determination of the Particular Action does
not constitute a contest dated February 2, 2000.








Exhibit L

Points and Authorities by James R. Hastings, Attorney for Bank of
America, in Opposition to petition Re Determination of the Particular
Action does not constitute a contest dated February 2, 2000.




Exhibit M

Proof of Service of Points and Authorities in Opposition to petition
Re Determination of the Particular Action does not constitute a
contest and Declaration by Susan D. Scribner for Bank of America as
Trustee in Opposition to petition Re Determination of the Particular
Action does not constitute a contest.



Exhibit N

The endorsement on the one check that has cleared the bank which does
not reveal what has happened to the money or if the court order is
being complied with. Defendant Sloan stands ready to pay more checks
provided it is established what Bank of America is doing with the
money in compliance with the decision of Judge Dearman.

Exhibit O

Blank signature pages of the unsigned 1994 purported trust

PROOF OF SERVICE
I hereby state that I am not a party, I am over 18 years of age and I
served a copy of this answer and the exhibits attached thereto to the
following:

James R. Hastings
1003 3rd Street
San Rafael, CA 94901

Bank of America
1000 4th St.
San Rafael, CA 94901

Gary D. Rothstein
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
One Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor
San Francisco CA 94111

Alicia A. Adornato
Attorney for Guide Dogs for the Blind
Reed Smith LLP
101 Second Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco CA 94105

Don A. Lesser
Attorney for James R. Hastings
1010 B Street
Suite 350
San Rafael CA 94901

Sam Ware
700 Larkspur Landing Circle, #199
Larkspur, CA 94939

Roy Hoppe
461 Peachstone Terrace
San Rafael CA 94903

Frank Thornally
461 Peachstone Terrace
San Rafael CA 94903


Julia Bentley Lemons
Apt. 308
12800 Marion Lane W
Minnetonka, MN 55305-1368
Surviving Sibling of Rachel Goodall

Robert Bentley
Bradford Village #504
906 N Boulevard Street
Edmond, OK 73030
Surviving Sibling of Rachel Goodall

Helen Beth Bentley Perry
7926 Praver Drive W
Jacksonville,FL 32217
Surviving Sibling of Rachel Goodall

Clenda Fern Bentley Zinar
4536 Chatman Street
The Colony, TX 75056

Beverly Gale Bentley Young
2316 Trenton
McKinney, TX 75070

Vickie Bentley Hankins
14580 NE 6th
Choctaw, OK 73020

Jeffrey Bentley
4701 N Douglas Boulevard
Spencer, OK 73084

Chad Everett Bentley
1609 Teepee Trail
Kingsland, TX 78639

Jeanette Goodall Phillips
152 S llth Street
Salina, Kansas 67401



Kristin Kane
University of California
Berkeley College of Engineering
College Relations
208 Mclaughlin Hall #1722
Berkeley, CA 9472A-1722

Guide Dogs for the Blind
Mr. Thomas Horton
Planned Potential Beneficiary
Giving Director
Guide Dogs for the Blind, Inc.
350 Los Ranchitos Road
San Rafael, CA 94903
]]> rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) samsloan http://www.chessbanter.com/showthread.php?t=54047 http://www.chessbanter.com/showthread.php?t=54046&goto=newpost Tue, 21 May 2013 10:09:39 GMT In my book I devote a chapter to how England could win the Chess Olympics.
I predict that a large and welcome influx of East Europeans would increase the overall strength of English chess.
Americans must not be ashamed too admit that a similar effect happened to its own chess atmosphere in the 1980s & 1990s.
Onwards and upwards to the top!
Of course Israel benefited as well.
And now England.
We will go to the 2048 chess olympics.
We will help you on with your mink coat.
We will help you into your car.
And we will wave your car goodbye!
]]> rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) Offramp http://www.chessbanter.com/showthread.php?t=54046 http://www.chessbanter.com/showthread.php?t=54045&goto=newpost Tue, 21 May 2013 03:19:23 GMT On May 19, 5:48*pm, bruceykin...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Good to see you again Sam. *Goichberg has always had tremendous influence over the ED and for that matter all actions at USCF. *To be honest I can't think of any ED in the past 20 years that hasn't rubbed at least someone the wrong way. *I dropped out of USCF in 2003 or so partly...]]> On Monday, May 20, 2013 3:07:54 AM UTC-4, samsloan wrote:
> On May 19, 5:48*pm, wrote:
>
> > Good to see you again Sam. *Goichberg has always had tremendous influence over the ED and for that matter all actions at USCF. *To be honest I can't think of any ED in the past 20 years that hasn't rubbed at least someone the wrong way. *I dropped out of USCF in 2003 or so partly because I saw that hanging around was basically not going to significantly change anything.
>
> >
>
> > Just my opinion Al Lawrence who once lived here in Nebraska was probably the best ED that the USCF has had in many years. *I didn't really know Hall because I left before the move to Crossville or his appointment to be ED.
>
> >
>
> > I still remember meeting with the ED and Bill Goichberg in Framingham after the U.S. Open ended in 2001. *I can't even remember the guy's name now, but just remember Bill and I both insisted that the TLA policy had to change. * Now of course I don't even think the organization has a Chess Life Magazine hard copy anyway so that whole issue would be moot.
>
> >
>
> > I know that Jerry Hanken died Sam but do you know what became of some of the other people like Tom Dorsch and Jim Eade? *Also Steve Doyle. *Is Doyle still alive or around?
>
>
>
> Steve Doyle is alive and still running the US Amateur Team East where
>
> I saw him in February, Tom Dorsch has dropped out completely, divorced
>
> his wife and moved back with his mother in Nebraska. Eade is inactive
>
> but I saw him at the USCF Delegates Meeting last year.
>
>
>
> The Executive Director in 2001 was George DeFeis. He turned out to be
>
> a terrible, awful Executive Director. Revenues dropped about 50%
>
> during his short term of office. Financial figures he produced during
>
> his term were pure fiction. Between him and his successor Frank Niro
>
> more than one million dollars in LMA or Life Membership Assets
>
> disappeared. We still do not know what happened to all the money but
>
> by 2003 the USCF was virtually bankrupt.
>
>
>
> I agree that Al Lawrence was by far the best executive director and
>
> right now I am lobbying for them to give him his old job back.
>
>
>
> Regarding the TLA fees in 2001, Goichberg was right. Under DeFeis TLA
>
> Fees had quintipled, multiplied by 5 times. Tournament organizers
>
> could not afford to advertise in Chess Life any more. One casualty was
>
> the Manhattan Chess Club that stopped advertising because of the high
>
> TLA Fees and soon thereafter closed down and went out of business and
>
> has never returned.
>
>
>
> Because of having two very bad, possibly criminal executive directors
>
> DeFeis and Niro the USCF made some very bad decisions such as stopping
>
> the sale of books and equipment and putting Chess Life on the
>
> Internet. USCF sales and revenues were $6.5 million in 1999. Now they
>
> are less than $2 million. Membership is dropping like a stone. The
>
> best thing that can be said about Bill Hall is he is not as bad as
>
> DeFeis or Niro. Bill Hall should have been fired in 2006 when we
>
> realized how bad he was. Actually, Goichberg wanted to fire him back
>
> then. Hall survived by becoming Goicberg's lackey, changing Goichberg
>
> from being an opponent to being a supporter of Hall.
>
>
>
> By the time I got on the board in 2006-2007 the USCF was under One Man
>
> Rule. Goichberg was running the USCF. Goichberg never contacted the
>
> other board members. We had no idea what he was doing or what was
>
> going on until we read about it on the website. Hall was his
>
> mouthpiece. Hall kept his job by saying what ever Goichberg told him
>
> to say. Goichberg through Hall did things that none of the other board
>
> members would have agreed to had we known about it before it was
>
> announced.
>
>
>
> A case in point is at the end of December 2006 Hall announced that the
>
> US Championship would be played as a knock-out tournament played over
>
> the Internet at regional centers. Merrill Lynch was said to be the
>
> sponsor. This was a ridiculous idea and illegal because that was a
>
> zonal year and zonal tournaments must be conducted in accordance with
>
> FIDE regulations, over the board and not on the Internet. Also, nobody
>
> at Merrill Lynch had ever authorized this. This was a 100% Goichberg
>
> fantasy. Later Joel Benjamin wrote an article published in New in
>
> Chess Magazine blaming me, Sam Sloan, for the collapse of this
>
> Internet championship idea. (You can look that up.) Goichberg also
>
> blamed me for the fact that this Internet idea never came to fruition.
>
> I had nothing to do with it. There was no money for it. I have no idea
>
> why Goichberg thought Merrill Lynch would provide the money. Also, all
>
> the players were opposed to this Internet championship except Joel
>
> Benjamin. Benjamin just wanted a big payday.
>
>
>
> I could write an entire book on all the bad things Goichberg did.
>
> However, the name of Goichberg never appears. Unless you know what is
>
> going on inside the USCF you would not know that the relationship Bill
>
> Hall had with Goichberg was the same as the relationship Charlie
>
> McCarthy had with Edgar Bergen. Hall wanted to keep his job (without
>
> working because Hall was often missing nowhere to be found) so he just
>
> said whatever Goichberg told him to say.
>
>
>
> At my first board session, in August 2006, Joel Channing passed around
>
> a hand written note basically saying that Bill Hall should be fired. I
>
> was new on the board so I had no idea how bad Hall was. Jerry Hanken
>
> later said that I was the swing vote. The vote was otherwise 50-50
>
> split on whether to fire Hall or not. Hall seemed to me at the time to
>
> be a good guy. That was before I got to know him. Because of my vote
>
> in favor of Hall he was not fired at that time and kept his job for
>
> another seven years until he was finally at last fired last week.
>
>
>
> A good word must be put in about the staff. The USCF is blessed with
>
> long serving staff members such as Judy, Joan, Walter Brown, Mike
>
> Nolan, Traci Lee and others. They keep the USCF running. All of these
>
> people were with the USCF before Hall arrived. Hall stopped by the
>
> office occasionally to visit. By the way, before him Frank Niro was
>
> even worse. I understand that often weeks went by without Frank Niro
>
> ever coming to the office.
>
>
>
> Sam Sloan

The world according to Sam.
]]> rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) None http://www.chessbanter.com/showthread.php?t=54045 http://www.chessbanter.com/showthread.php?t=54042&goto=newpost Mon, 20 May 2013 05:16:15 GMT
Is this getting overrated? Chessbase came out with the list of the
youngest GM's and the top 35 ( Magnus is 3rd but can't count him yet)
to attain the title and none of the 35 has won a world title until you
get to number 36 which is Bobby Fischer! Only Leko has played for a
world title but lost who is in the 35. Since Fischer is 36th what
makes the others in front of him so special? Even more when Fischer
was 19 he was probably stronger than any of them when they were 19
though Magnus could be the exception.

EZoto
]]> rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) EZoto http://www.chessbanter.com/showthread.php?t=54042 http://www.chessbanter.com/showthread.php?t=54041&goto=newpost Sun, 19 May 2013 22:54:22 GMT I'm not an advanced player. I used to like Chessmaster for the graphics and a
friendly game, but it never worked well and crashed a lot. Now I understand
it's gone.

So what can I get for the PC that has that good a graphics, and I can play a
decent relaxed game, without getting my butt kicked 100% of the time, which
is discouraging?

I used to like playing Chessmaster without a timer, and setting my opponent
to be a good challenge but not to always kill me.

Used to like the staunton wood boards on Chessmaster, in 2D. Nice graphics
but not too crude and not too fancy.

]]> rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) http://www.chessbanter.com/showthread.php?t=54041 http://www.chessbanter.com/showthread.php?t=54037&goto=newpost Wed, 15 May 2013 02:17:33 GMT I was just informed that a post of mine was pulled from the USCF Issues Forum as an alleged AUG violation, for the first time ever. My post objected to the pulling of other posts in the thread "ED job listing?".

Anyone with two brain cells and a clue about USCF could guess that Mr. Hall's departure was not all sweetness and light, on one or both sides. So it goes: That often happens in such cases. Seems to me that is a legitimate topic for discussion on a forum limited to USCF members over 16 who choose to be there.

USCF legal counsel does not agree, according to the Forum moderators. What legal counsel sometimes does not consider in such cases: Clamping down on free speech and circling wagons will send conspiracy theorists into overdrive.

Thus my return to rgcp after many years.

I hope this is just standard HR/PC/legalese nonsense and there is nothing to see. One thing I can tell you from experience. If there 'is' a story here and a real reporter gets ahold of it---and gets the treatment I just got---he will never let go of it. Ever.

Does anyone know the scoop on this?

Thanks.

Eric Mark
]]> rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) ericmark4@gmail.com http://www.chessbanter.com/showthread.php?t=54037 http://www.chessbanter.com/showthread.php?t=54034&goto=newpost Tue, 14 May 2013 11:27:15 GMT Dear Madam Executive Director: I move to amend Article VI, Section 13 of the USCF bylaws to allow appeals for USCF members banned from posting to the USCF web site. Article VI. Section 13. Website Access. 匱his includes the option of temporarily or permanently banning an EB member or candidate from posting� Amendment: It is proposed that Article VI, Section 13, shall read Dear Madam Executive Director:

I move to amend Article VI, Section 13 of the USCF bylaws to allow appeals for USCF members banned from posting to the USCF web site.

Article VI. Section 13. Website Access. 匱his includes the option of temporarily or permanently banning
an EB member or candidate from posting�

Amendment:

It is proposed that Article VI, Section 13, shall read

Section 13. Website Access. Executive Board members and candidates for the Executive Board are subject to the same rules, restrictions and sanctions as other USCF members with regards to information posted by them on the USCF website, such as in the USCF Forums. This includes the option of temporarily or permanently banning an EB member or candidate from posting. The Elections Committee may, at its discretion and convenience, post all candidate statements as they appear in Chess Life on the USCF website. However, all USCF members shall have a right to appeal any temporary or permanent ban from posting to the forums to the USCF Board of Delegates, with the effective date of any successful appeal being the date of meeting of the Board of Delegates. [Underlined, bold faced Text inserted as the amendment].

I am currently banned from posting to the USCF forums, without appeal. I object to this treatment.

Please tell me if you will accept this amendment in final forum with an overnight letter USPS Expressed mailed to you or your representative, and instruct me how to proceed with my proposed amendment to the USCF bylaws. The final version of the proposed bylaw amendment will be in writing from me to you or your representative to be placed on the Delegates advanced agenda.

Please respond with instructions as to how to place the proposed amendment on the bylaws, and how to appeal my current ban on posting to the forums.

Sincerely,

Marcus Roberts
Member, Board of Delegates, Texas
]]> rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) mwr1969@gmail.com http://www.chessbanter.com/showthread.php?t=54034 http://www.chessbanter.com/showthread.php?t=54035&goto=newpost Tue, 14 May 2013 10:47:01 GMT Hi, I have been following the on-line commentary with Dirk Jan ten Geuzendam and Simen Agdestein from the currently ongoing chess tournament in Norway with most of the top players in the world. Dirk Jan, who is Dutch, sports a very well-articulated commenting style with a polished British accent that is a pleasure to listen to most of the time, though he has a little bit of difficulty with his... Hi, I have been following the on-line commentary with Dirk Jan
ten Geuzendam and Simen Agdestein from the currently ongoing
chess tournament in Norway with most of the top players in
the world.

Dirk Jan, who is Dutch, sports a very well-articulated commenting
style with a polished British accent that is a pleasure to listen
to most of the time, though he has a little bit of difficulty with
his v-sounds, such as addressing the current world champion as
Fishy Anand when interviewing him. (Vishy didn't seem to mind though)

However, one thing that caught my attention was when he described
one of the players as being on a rampage, pronouncing it "rampidge".

I am wondering, is this pronunciation totally and unequivocally
wrong, as I would have thought, or is it just an unusual variant that
is actually in use by native speakers in some corner of the world?

Thanks for any comments, forkstorm
]]> rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) forkstorm http://www.chessbanter.com/showthread.php?t=54035 http://www.chessbanter.com/showthread.php?t=54033&goto=newpost Tue, 14 May 2013 04:55:34 GMT I received the following private message on the USCF Issues Forum: The topic initiated by your post below has been pulled. We have been instructed not to allow any speculation about the departure of the ED on these forums, and your post at least hints in that direction. Mike samsloan wrote:Golden Parachutes are often awarded as a thank you for a job well done. Sometimes they are awarded as... I received the following private message on the USCF Issues Forum:

The topic initiated by your post below has been pulled. We have been
instructed not to allow any speculation about the departure of the ED
on these forums, and your post at least hints in that direction.

Mike

samsloan wrote:Golden Parachutes are often awarded as a thank you
for a job well done. Sometimes they are awarded as a buffer against
lawsuits or as a way to keep the departing executive quiet.

What is our policy on Golden Parachutes?

Mike Schulte
Kalamazoo, MI

http://www.uschess.org/content/view/12199/141/
]]> alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) samsloan http://www.chessbanter.com/showthread.php?t=54033 http://www.chessbanter.com/showthread.php?t=54031&goto=newpost Tue, 14 May 2013 02:08:00 GMT I was wondering exactly when and why we abandoned the ancient tradition of saying check. I know as late as the 19th century, there were at least 3 concrete differences in some versions of the rules as a result of saying/not saying check; I am curious how many of these differences you can guess. One is fairly obvious, the others seem a bit obscure. Jerry Spinrad I was wondering exactly when and why we abandoned the ancient
tradition of saying check. I know as late as the 19th century, there
were at least 3 concrete differences in some versions of the rules as
a result of saying/not saying check; I am curious how many of these
differences you can guess. One is fairly obvious, the others seem a
bit obscure.

Jerry Spinrad
]]> rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) jeremy.p.spinrad@vanderbilt.edu http://www.chessbanter.com/showthread.php?t=54031 http://www.chessbanter.com/showthread.php?t=54029&goto=newpost Mon, 13 May 2013 01:30:29 GMT How's it going Sam, long time no see. I thought I would check in and see who's still around other than you of course. :) Any word on who is winning (or won) the U.S. Championship in St. Louis? A friend of mine told me Kamsky dropped a piece in one of his games.

]]> rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) bruceykins49@gmail.com http://www.chessbanter.com/showthread.php?t=54029