A Chess forum. ChessBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ChessBanter forum » Chess Newsgroups » rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Sloan v Smith, Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing en banc



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 27th 09, 01:06 AM posted to alt.politics.bush,soc.culture.usa,va.politics,rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
samsloan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,871
Default Sloan v Smith, Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing en banc

UNITED STATES UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
__________________________________________
Samuel H Sloan a/k/a M. Ismail Sloan

Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 6:09-cv-00005-nkm
-against-
No. 09-1476

Christopher P. Smith, Sheriff J. L. Ayers III, Michael W. Cox,
William Starke Mundy III, James C. Turk, William G. Petty,
Richard S. Miller, Roy B. Willett, Lawrence Janow,
Michael Gamble, Stephen R. Pattison, Morgan Scott III,
Ray Fitzgerald, John P. Butler, Eugene Wingfield,
Frank G. Davidson III, Richard Groff, Lisa L. Schenkel,
Leighton S. Houck, Killis T. Howard, Sue H. Roe,
Catherine H. Kennedy, Dorchen Leidholdt, Rosemonde Pierre-Louis,
Jill Zuccardy, Alexander Karam, Salvatore J. Modica,
Charles Roberts, Jay Roberts, Lane Vance, Verio.net, Khalid Shaikh
Muhammed, George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, United States Department
of Justice, United States of America

Defendants
__________________________________________

PETITION FOR REHEARING AND
SUGGESTION THAT THE REHEARING BE EN BANC
__________________________________________

Plaintiff-Appellant hereby submits the within petition for rehearing
and rehearing en banc because the petitioner believes that the panel
of this honorable court must have failed to understand that one of the
judges of this panel is specifically named as a defendant in this case
and thus is disqualified from appearing in this case, as the case is
against him.

1. Specifically, paragraph 29 of the complaint herein alleges: “In
addition, the Fourth Circuit at that time was controlled by a judge
even worse than Judge Turk, namely the rabid right wing lunatic Chief
Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III.”

2. This same “rabid right wing lunatic Chief Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson
III” made himself a judge on the panel of judges who decided this
appeal.

3. Thus, this decision cannot be allowed to stand and this rehearing
en banc must be granted.

4. The judges on the panel that “decided” this appeal are J. Harvie
Wilkinson III, M. Blane Michael and Clyde H. Hamilton. All three of
these judges are judges who date back to the time when the kidnappings
that underlie this complaint occurred. None of the many more recently
appointed judges were on this panel.

5. This case arose because the Deputy Sheriff of Amherst County
Virginia, Christopher P. Smith, contacted all of the Internet service
providers of Plaintiff and threatened them with arrest and criminal
prosecution of they did not remove Plaintiff's web pages and email
address from the Internet. Because of this action by the Deputy
Sheriff of Amherst County, Plaintiff's primary websites and his
primary email address and contact list was deleted. This has caused
great economic harm to plaintiff and financial loss to his business of
selling chess books on the Internet.

6. Paragraph 14 of the complaint herein alleges that plaintiff's then
8-year-old daughter, Shamema Honzagool Sloan, and his 80-year-old
mother, Dr. Helen Marjorie Sloan, were kidnapped in 1990. His mother
kidnapped in Bangkok, Thailand and his daughter was kidnapped in the
United Arab Emirates. The kidnappers “were allowed to keep the
kidnapped child through an 'Old Boys Network' of corrupt local
Lynchburg Virginia judges and city and county officials. The reason
that these corrupt judges allowed Roberts to keep the child that they
had kidnapped was that they were all controlled by Jerry Falwell.” The
complaint alleges that these corrupt judges and officials participated
in the kidnapping of this child for two reasons (1) to go to Heaven as
Promised by Jerry Falwell and (2) to gain great wealth while still
here on Earth due to their mistaken belief that the family of
Plaintiff was one of great wealth.

7. These corrupt judges obviously included Judge Norman K. Moon, who
at that time was not yet a federal judge but was a Virginia State
Court of Appeals judge. Because Judge Moon was the only Lynchburg
Judge on the Virginia Court of Appeals, every time the plaintiff here
attempted to appeal, the appeal came to Judge Moon and Judge Moon had
every appeal dismissed on one pretext or another. Plaintiff filed
about six appeals to the Virginia Court of Appeals. All of those
appeals came to Judge Moon and all were summarily and immediately
dismissed without any of the normal submission of the record and
briefs and the normal procedures that all proper appellate courts go
through.

8. Thus, the fix was clearly in. It all started with Judge Lawrence
Janow, who, as the complaint alleges, masterminded and planned for the
kidnapping of this child during a meeting held on May 21, 1986 with
Frank G. Davidson III, attorney for Charles and Shelby Roberts.
Later, as other fellow judges realized that one of their fellow judges
was a criminal kidnapper, they rallied around and protected the judge
by instantly dismissing every case and every appeal, thereby
preventing a hearing of any kind into this kidnapping.

9. The sua sponte instant dismissal of the case by Judge Moon in the
District Court, the same judge who dismissed all these appeals back in
the period 1990-1993 when Plaintiff was trying to bring these issues
before the state courts, followed by the dismissal of the appeal by J.
Harvie Wilkinson III of this court, the same judge who dismissed all
of these appeals back then, when Plaintiff tried to bring the issues
before this court. This is all part of a continuing pattern of
covering up the kidnapping of an 8-year-old child.

10. It is obvious that this was a kidnapping because there is no way
that this child, Shamema Honzagool Sloan, could ever have legally even
arrived in the United States of America. Neither of the parents nor
any close relative of this child resided in America. The mother
resided in her native Pakistan. The father and grandmother resided
with the child in the United Arab Emirates. No relative of this child
authorized the bringing of this child across international boundaries.
Thus, the child was clearly kidnapped.

11. What we have here is a criminal gang of judges bent on kidnapping
an 8-year-old child away from BOTH of her parents. Please note that
the mother has never relinquished her rights to custody of this child
either. There is simply no legal way that any third party could ever
have obtained custody of this child by legal means without a showing
that both of the parents were unfit. In this case, neither parent was
shown to be unfit nor was ever there even an allegation that either
parent was unfit.

12. The statement is often made that this child was “better off” being
kidnapped from her parents and brought to America and to Virginia. The
Jerry Falwellites in Lynchburg Virginia often make the same argument
about the African slaves, saying that the slaves were better off being
brought to America for sale than if they had been allowed to stay in
their home countries.

13. It must be emphasized that this was not the normal child custody
case between the mother and father of a child. This was a case brought
by unrelated third-persons who were members of a fanatical religious
group with no legal claim on this child but who wanted this child for
their religious purposes.

14. What makes this case different from the Branch Davidians and other
extremist religious groups (none of whom have ever been accused of
kidnapping somebody else's child) is that the group that kidnapped
Shamema Honzagool Sloan, the 8-year-old daughter of the plaintiff,
were members of a supposedly main stream religious organization, the
Jerry Falwellites, who controlled the politicians, the judges and the
courts of Lynchburg, Virginia.

15. Judge Moon himself is one of those Falwellites. He regularly
attended the Falwell Church up until the death of Jerry Falwell. Judge
Moon was a devout worshiper of Jerry Falwell. He was a devoted
follower and practitioner of Falwellian Doctrines, even though Judge
Moon lives out in Rivermont, near the home of Plaintiff and his
parents.

16. This alone, along with Judge Moon's personal association with most
of the named defendants in this case, including especially Judge Turk,
was more than enough to disqualify him from being a judge in this
case.

17. However, Plaintiff knew that the fix was in and that all of these
judges are all criminals when he filed this case. Therefore, the
complaint herein is concerned primarily with another issue, namely the
actions of Christopher P. Smith, Deputy Sheriff of Amherst County,
Virginia, who contacted all of the Internet Service Providers that
carried the websites of Plaintiff and threatened them with arrest and
criminal prosecution if they did not remove from the Internet the
websites that linked the Sheriff of Amherst Country Virginia to the
kidnapping of Plaintiff's daughter and mother. Deputy Smith told the
Internet Service Providers that Plaintiff's websites violated Virginia
Law by linking these kidnappings to a law enforcement officer, namely
the sheriff, his boss.

18. Because many Internet Services Providers such as AOL are
headquartered in Virginia, the threat of arrest by a Virginia's Law
Enforcement officer such as Deputy Sheriff Christopher Smith was a
matter of serious concern and as a result all of Plaintiff's websites
were deleted except for one minor website in California, and in that
case the pages concerning the kidnapping of Plaintiff's mother and
daughter were stripped off of the website.

19. Subsequent to the filing of this lawsuit, Deputy Christopher Smith
shot a man in Amherst County and for that reason was suspended from
duty by the Amherst County Sheriff's Department. Later, a grand jury
in Amherst County was convened but the grand jury failed to return an
indictment of Deputy Smith. Deputy Sheriff was quoted in the Lynchburg
newspapers as stating that he expected to be reinstated after the
failure of the grand jury to indict him. Apparently this has happened,
because Deputy Smith is now again listed as a member of the Amherst
County Sheriff's Department.

20. Judge Moon now as a district court judge stated that Plaintiff had
“lost custody of his daughter in the 1980s”. This is absolutely not
true. The subject child was born in New York City. Attached hereto as
Exhibit A is an order of the Bronx New York Supreme Court awarding
custody of the child to the mother, Honzagool, with weekly visitation
to the father, the Plaintiff here.

21. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is an order of the same court, the
Bronx Supreme Court, modifying the original order and awarding custody
to the father, the Plaintiff here.

22. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is an order dated April 1986 by Judge
Janow of the Amherst County Juvenile Domestic Relations Court awarding
legal custody of the child to Ismail Sloan, the plaintiff here. There
is legal doubt as to whether Judge Janow had jurisdiction to issue
this order, as jurisdiction has never been transferred from New York
to Virginia, but this seemed to be of no moment at the time. It later
became apparent in retrospect that this order was part of a long range
plan to give custody to the clients of Mr. Davidson, with whom Judge
Janow had secretly met at that time.

23. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is another order, this one dated
August 25, 1986, again giving legal custody to the father, the
Plaintiff here. Plaintiff actually never received this order until
months later, as he was not around when the order was issued, but
again it seemed to be of no moment because the Plaintiff had custody
in every jurisdiction.

24. At the time of the date of this last order, Plaintiff had the
absolute legal right to take the child anywhere he wanted, and did so.

25. A few days later, Shelby Roberts, realizing that she had been
dismissed as the child's babysitter and that Plaintiff and the child
were no longer in Virginia, filed for legal custody through her
attorney, Frank G. Davidson III. This was the first time the Roberts
had ever appeared in this case. Of course, the Amherst County Court
had no jurisdiction because the child was not in Amherst County or
even in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

26. Four years passed. During this four years, the Roberts and their
Falwell allies made incessant and repeated efforts to have this child
kidnapped and brought to them. Kidnapping attempts were made in
Argentina, Sri Lanka, Thailand and perhaps in other places as well.
The child was eventually kidnapped in October 1990 in Fujairah, United
Emirates.

27. The next order was an order by Judge Janow stating that the child
“has been returned” to Amherst County Virginia, after having been
“unlawfully” removed from that county. This order is Annexed as
Exhibit E. One wonders what “law” Judge Janow was referring to, as
Plaintiff was never charged with that. More significantly, Judge Janow
used the passive voice. He says that the child “has been returned”. He
makes no mention of whom returned the child. In fact, the child had
been brought to Amherst County by Charles Roberts, who had picked up
the child at Washington National Airport after paying $16,000 to
professional kidnappers to kidnap this child.

28. Obviously, Charles Roberts should have been arrested as soon as it
was discovered what he had done. The reason Charles Roberts was not
arrested was that the Sheriff of Amherst County was a neighbor of
Charles Roberts and attended the same church with Charles Roberts.
Thus began the long history of this case of police officials and
judges covering up a heinous criminal act in the name of their
religion.

29. Plaintiff brought numerous cases in both state and federal court
to redress this obvious case of kidnapping. Many of the lawyers and
judges recused themselves, realizing that this case was a hot potato.
This left only the few completely crooked and dishonest lawyers and
judges as the only ones who would handle the case. Those completely
crooked and dishonest lawyers and judges are named as defendants in
this lawsuit.

30. Plaintiff tried many different approaches. For example, Plaintiff
sued the Director of the Department of Education of Virginia in Sloan
vs. Spagnolo, on the ground that this child was not attending school
in violation of the compulsory education law of Virginia. Followers of
Jerry Falwell never allow their children to attend school, because
schools teach heathen beliefs such as Evolution. Thus, the child of
Plaintiff never attended school as long as she was under the control
of the Falwellites. Like all other cases, this suit was instantly and
immediately dismissed by Judge Turk, who is as crooked a judge as has
ever been born.

31. The surprising thing about Judge Turk is that he rode up and down
the elevator with my father every day for twenty years. My Father
worked in the federal building in Lynchburg, which is now City Hall,
in the same building with Judge Turk. My father, Leroy B. Sloan. was
the director of the Lynchburg Branch of the Audit Division of the
Internal Revenue Service. Judge Turk was a federal judge. His office
was a few doors down the hall from the office of my father. I assume
that Judge Turk knew that Leroy B. Sloan was my father.

32. One person who certainly did know who my father was was Frank G.
Davidson III, attorney for Charles and Shelby Roberts. This is because
my father was an attorney for the IRS. Frank G. Davidson III and his
father Frank G. Davidson Jr. had as a substantial part of his practice
the representation of tax cheats. These cases often came before Judge
Turk, with Frank. G. Davidson representing the tax cheat and my father
representing the government. If fact, one of my theories as to why
Frank G. Davidson III was so intent on kidnapping my children was to
get revenge on my father for prosecuting so many of his clients.

33. Another case I brought was Sloan vs. United States of America as a
counter claim to the case United States of America vs. Sloan. My basis
for this suit was false arrest. I obviously had a strong case because
I had been arrested three times by the FBI, each time at the behest of
the Falwell Group. However, in spit of being arrested three times,
once in Guam, once in Honolulu and once in San Francisco, I had never
been charged with anything. Each arrest was for the purpose of holding
me just long enough to get my child away from me so as to get custody
of my children. There was never any intent by the government to
actually prosecute me for anything for anything. Thus, it was clear
cases of false arrest.

34. Again, Judge Turk dismissed this case instantly the same day it
was filed, even though my complaint included more 600 pages of
exhibits which Judge Turk obviously never read. This time, Judge Turk
said that my case was improper because I was trying to overturn my
state court conviction. This was not true. My suit against the federal
government could not possibly be for the purpose of overturning a
state court conviction. Judge Turk must think that I am awfully stupid
if he believed that, or else it must be Judge Turk who is the stupid
one.

35. All of these obviously wrong decisions by Judge Turk were appealed
up to Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, the same “rabid right wing
lunatic Chief Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III” that dismissed this
appeal too. It as long been obvious that as long as the same group of
crooked and dishonest judges keep assigning these cases to themselves,
it will never been possible for Plaintiff to win a case or even to
obtain a hearing on these issues..

POINT II

The Rule requiring all pro se appellants to file only an “informal
brief” deprives pro se appellants of their constitutional rights

36. The Fourth Circuit has a rule that no other circuit has. The rule
is that pro se appellants are not allowed to file a normal brief and
appendix. Instead, they are limited to filing what the circuit calls
an “informal brief”. This informal brief is essentially a two-page
question and answer questionnaire, with questions like “what are you
complaining about” and “what do you want the court to do”, with only
two lines allowed for handwritten answers to these questions.

37. This questionnaire is obviously insufficient for a complex case
such as this one. Plaintiff-Appellant demanded the right to file a
normal brief and appendix, citing case like a normal appeal does. This
right was denied.

38. Plaintiff-Appellant is forced to point out that he has the
distinction of having argued orally before the United States Supreme
Court and having won a 9-0 decision of that court, the only pro se non-
lawyer in the 20th century to have done so. SEC vs Samuel H. Sloan,
436 US 103 (1978). Thus, Plaintiff knows how to write and file a
persuasive brief. This court's rule treating non-lawyers differently
than lawyers is a clear deprivation of constitutional rights. It would
be different if this circuit made it an option allowing pro se
appellants to file an informal brief. In the Fourth Circuit, an
informal brief is “required” and a normal brief that lawyers file is
not allowed. On this ground alone, the decision of this court must be
reversed.

WHEREFORE, for all of the reasons set forth above, this petition for
rehearing and rehearing en banc should be granted and, upon rehearing,
the decision of the district court that sua sponte dismissed this case
much be reversed.

/s/_______________________
Samuel H. Sloan
1664 Davidson Ave., Apt. 1B
Bronx NY 10453-7877
1-917-507-7226
1-917-659-3397


  #2  
Old December 27th 09, 01:30 AM posted to misc.legal,soc.culture.usa,rec.games.chess.politics,va.general,misc.kids
samsloan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,871
Default Sloan v Smith, Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing en banc

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
__________________________________________
Samuel H Sloan a/k/a M. Ismail Sloan

Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 6:09-cv-00005-nkm
-against-
No. 09-1476

Christopher P. Smith, Sheriff J. L. Ayers III, Michael W. Cox,
William Starke Mundy III, James C. Turk, William G. Petty,
Richard S. Miller, Roy B. Willett, Lawrence Janow,
Michael Gamble, Stephen R. Pattison, Morgan Scott III,
Ray Fitzgerald, John P. Butler, Eugene Wingfield,
Frank G. Davidson III, Richard Groff, Lisa L. Schenkel,
Leighton S. Houck, Killis T. Howard, Sue H. Roe,
Catherine H. Kennedy, Dorchen Leidholdt, Rosemonde Pierre-Louis,
Jill Zuccardy, Alexander Karam, Salvatore J. Modica,
Charles Roberts, Jay Roberts, Lane Vance, Verio.net, Khalid Shaikh
Muhammed, George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, United States Department
of Justice, United States of America

Defendants
__________________________________________

PETITION FOR REHEARING AND
SUGGESTION THAT THE REHEARING BE EN BANC
__________________________________________

Plaintiff-Appellant hereby submits the within petition for rehearing
and rehearing en banc because the petitioner believes that the panel
of this honorable court must have failed to understand that one of the
judges of this panel is specifically named as a defendant in this case
and thus is disqualified from appearing in this case, as the case is
against him.

1. Specifically, paragraph 29 of the complaint herein alleges: “In
addition, the Fourth Circuit at that time was controlled by a judge
even worse than Judge Turk, namely the rabid right wing lunatic Chief
Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III.”

2. This same “rabid right wing lunatic Chief Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson
III” made himself a judge on the panel of judges who decided this
appeal.

3. Thus, this decision cannot be allowed to stand and this rehearing
en banc must be granted.

4. The judges on the panel that “decided” this appeal are J. Harvie
Wilkinson III, M. Blane Michael and Clyde H. Hamilton. All three of
these judges are judges who date back to the time when the kidnappings
that underlie this complaint occurred. None of the many more recently
appointed judges were on this panel.

5. This case arose because the Deputy Sheriff of Amherst County
Virginia, Christopher P. Smith, contacted all of the Internet service
providers of Plaintiff and threatened them with arrest and criminal
prosecution of they did not remove Plaintiff's web pages and email
address from the Internet. Because of this action by the Deputy
Sheriff of Amherst County, Plaintiff's primary websites and his
primary email address and contact list was deleted. This has caused
great economic harm to plaintiff and financial loss to his business of
selling chess books on the Internet.

6. Paragraph 14 of the complaint herein alleges that plaintiff's then
8-year-old daughter, Shamema Honzagool Sloan, and his 80-year-old
mother, Dr. Helen Marjorie Sloan, were kidnapped in 1990. His mother
kidnapped in Bangkok, Thailand and his daughter was kidnapped in the
United Arab Emirates. The kidnappers “were allowed to keep the
kidnapped child through an 'Old Boys Network' of corrupt local
Lynchburg Virginia judges and city and county officials. The reason
that these corrupt judges allowed Roberts to keep the child that they
had kidnapped was that they were all controlled by Jerry Falwell.” The
complaint alleges that these corrupt judges and officials participated
in the kidnapping of this child for two reasons (1) to go to Heaven as
Promised by Jerry Falwell and (2) to gain great wealth while still
here on Earth due to their mistaken belief that the family of
Plaintiff was one of great wealth.

7. These corrupt judges obviously included Judge Norman K. Moon, who
at that time was not yet a federal judge but was a Virginia State
Court of Appeals judge. Because Judge Moon was the only Lynchburg
Judge on the Virginia Court of Appeals, every time the plaintiff here
attempted to appeal, the appeal came to Judge Moon and Judge Moon had
every appeal dismissed on one pretext or another. Plaintiff filed
about six appeals to the Virginia Court of Appeals. All of those
appeals came to Judge Moon and all were summarily and immediately
dismissed without any of the normal submission of the record and
briefs and the normal procedures that all proper appellate courts go
through.

8. Thus, the fix was clearly in. It all started with Judge Lawrence
Janow, who, as the complaint alleges, masterminded and planned for the
kidnapping of this child during a meeting held on May 21, 1986 with
Frank G. Davidson III, attorney for Charles and Shelby Roberts. Later,
as other fellow judges realized that one of their fellow judges was a
criminal kidnapper, they rallied around and protected the judge by
instantly dismissing every case and every appeal, thereby preventing a
hearing of any kind into this kidnapping.

9. The sua sponte instant dismissal of the case was by Judge Moon in
the District Court, the same judge who dismissed all these appeals
back in the period 1990-1993 when Plaintiff was trying to bring these
issues before the state courts, followed by the dismissal of the
appeal by J. Harvie Wilkinson III of this court, the same judge who
dismissed all of these appeals back then, when Plaintiff tried to
bring the issues before this court. This is all part of a continuing
pattern of covering up the kidnapping of an 8-year-old child.

10. It is obvious that this was a kidnapping because there is no way
that this child, Shamema Honzagool Sloan, could ever have legally even
arrived in the United States of America. Neither of the parents nor
any close relative of this child resided in America. The mother
resided in her native Pakistan. The father and grandmother resided
with the child in the United Arab Emirates. No relative of this child
authorized the bringing of this child across international boundaries.
Thus, the child was clearly kidnapped.

11. What we have here is a criminal gang of judges bent on kidnapping
an 8-year-old child away from BOTH of her parents. Please note that
the mother has never relinquished her rights to custody of this child
either. There is simply no legal way that any third party could ever
have obtained custody of this child by legal means without a showing
that both of the parents were unfit. In this case, neither parent was
shown to be unfit nor was ever there even an allegation that either
parent was unfit.

12. The statement is often made that this child was “better off” being
kidnapped from her parents and brought to America and to Virginia. The
Jerry Falwellites in Lynchburg Virginia often make the same argument
about the African slaves, saying that the slaves were better off being
brought to America for sale than if they had been allowed to stay in
their home countries.

13. It must be emphasized that this was not the normal child custody
case between the mother and father of a child. This was a case brought
by unrelated third-persons who were members of a fanatical religious
group with no legal claim on this child but who wanted this child for
their religious purposes.

14. What makes this case different from the Branch Davidians and other
extremist religious groups (none of whom have ever been accused of
kidnapping somebody else's child) is that the group that kidnapped
Shamema Honzagool Sloan, the 8-year-old daughter of the plaintiff,
were members of a supposedly main stream religious organization, the
Jerry Falwellites, who controlled the politicians, the judges and the
courts of Lynchburg, Virginia.

15. Judge Moon himself is one of those Falwellites. He regularly
attended the Falwell Church up until the death of Jerry Falwell. Judge
Moon was a devout worshiper of Jerry Falwell. He was a devoted
follower and practitioner of Falwellian Doctrines, even though Judge
Moon lives out in Rivermont, near the home of Plaintiff and his
parents.

16. This alone, along with Judge Moon's personal association with most
of the named defendants in this case, including especially Judge Turk,
was more than enough to disqualify him from being a judge in this
case.

17. However, Plaintiff knew that the fix was in and that all of these
judges are all criminals when he filed this case. Therefore, the
complaint herein is concerned primarily with another issue, namely the
actions of Christopher P. Smith, Deputy Sheriff of Amherst County,
Virginia, who contacted all of the Internet Service Providers that
carried the websites of Plaintiff and threatened them with arrest and
criminal prosecution if they did not remove from the Internet the
websites that linked the Sheriff of Amherst Country Virginia to the
kidnapping of Plaintiff's daughter and mother. Deputy Smith told the
Internet Service Providers that Plaintiff's websites violated Virginia
Law by linking these kidnappings to a law enforcement officer, namely
the sheriff, his boss.

18. Because many Internet Services Providers such as AOL are
headquartered in Virginia, the threat of arrest by a Virginia's Law
Enforcement officer such as Deputy Sheriff Christopher Smith was a
matter of serious concern and as a result all of Plaintiff's websites
were deleted except for one minor website in California, and in that
case the pages concerning the kidnapping of Plaintiff's mother and
daughter were stripped off of the website.

19. Subsequent to the filing of this lawsuit, Deputy Christopher Smith
shot a man in Amherst County and for that reason was suspended from
duty by the Amherst County Sheriff's Department. Later, a grand jury
in Amherst County was convened but the grand jury failed to return an
indictment of Deputy Smith. Deputy Sheriff Smith was quoted in the
Lynchburg newspapers as stating that he expected to be reinstated
after the failure of the grand jury to indict him. Apparently this has
happened, because Deputy Smith is now again listed as a member of the
Amherst County Sheriff's Department.

20. Judge Moon now as a district court judge stated that Plaintiff had
“lost custody of his daughter in the 1980s”. This is absolutely not
true. The subject child was born in New York City. Attached hereto as
Exhibit A is an order of the Bronx New York Supreme Court awarding
custody of the child to the mother, Honzagool, with weekly visitation
to the father, the Plaintiff here.

21. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is an order of the same court, the
Bronx Supreme Court, modifying the original order and awarding custody
to the father, the Plaintiff here.

22. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is an order dated April 1986 by Judge
Janow of the Amherst County Juvenile Domestic Relations Court awarding
legal custody of the child to Ismail Sloan, the plaintiff here. There
is legal doubt as to whether Judge Janow had jurisdiction to issue
this order, as jurisdiction has never been transferred from New York
to Virginia, but this seemed to be of no moment at the time. It later
became apparent in retrospect that this order was part of a long range
plan to give custody to the Roberts, the clients of Mr. Davidson, with
whom Judge Janow had secretly met at that time.

23. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is another order, this one dated
August 25, 1986, again giving legal custody to the father, the
Plaintiff here. Plaintiff actually never received this order until
months later, as he was not around when the order was issued, but
again it seemed to be of no moment because the Plaintiff had custody
in every jurisdiction.

24. At the time of the date of this last order, Plaintiff had the
absolute legal right to take the child anywhere he wanted, and did so.

25. A few days later, Shelby Roberts, realizing that she had been
dismissed as the child's babysitter and that Plaintiff and the child
were no longer in Virginia, filed for legal custody through her
attorney, Frank G. Davidson III. This was the first time the Roberts
had ever appeared in this case. Of course, the Amherst County Court
had no jurisdiction because the child was not in Amherst County or
even in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

26. Four years passed. During this four years, the Roberts and their
Falwell allies made incessant and repeated efforts to have this child
kidnapped and brought to them. Kidnapping attempts were made in
Argentina, Sri Lanka, Thailand and perhaps in other places as well.
The child was eventually kidnapped in October 1990 in Fujairah, United
Emirates.

27. The next order was an order by Judge Janow stating that the child
“has been returned” to Amherst County Virginia, after having been
“unlawfully” removed from that county. This order is Annexed as
Exhibit E. One wonders what “law” Judge Janow was referring to, as
Plaintiff was never charged with that. More significantly, Judge Janow
used the passive voice. He says that the child “has been returned”. He
makes no mention of whom returned the child. In fact, the child had
been brought to Amherst County by Charles Roberts, who had picked up
the child at Washington National Airport after paying $16,000 to
professional kidnappers to kidnap this child.

28. Obviously, Charles Roberts should have been arrested as soon as it
was discovered what he had done. The reason Charles Roberts was not
arrested was that the Sheriff of Amherst County was a neighbor of
Charles Roberts and attended the same church with Charles Roberts.
Thus began the long history of this case of police officials and
judges covering up a heinous criminal act in the name of their
religion.

29. Plaintiff brought numerous cases in both state and federal court
to redress this obvious case of kidnapping. Many of the lawyers and
judges recused themselves, realizing that this case was a hot potato.
This left only the few completely crooked and dishonest lawyers and
judges as the only ones who would handle the case. Those completely
crooked and dishonest lawyers and judges are named as defendants in
this lawsuit.

30. Plaintiff tried many different approaches. For example, Plaintiff
sued the Director of the Department of Education of Virginia in Sloan
vs. Spagnolo, on the ground that this child was not attending school
in violation of the compulsory education law of Virginia. Followers of
Jerry Falwell never allow their children to attend school, because
schools teach heathen beliefs such as Evolution. Thus, the child of
Plaintiff never attended school as long as she was under the control
of the Falwellites. Like all other cases, this suit was instantly and
immediately dismissed by Judge Turk, who is as crooked a judge as has
ever been born.

31. The surprising thing about Judge Turk is that he rode up and down
the elevator with my father every day for twenty years. My Father
worked in the federal building in Lynchburg, which is now City Hall,
in the same building with Judge Turk. My father, Leroy B. Sloan. was
the director of the Lynchburg Branch of the Audit Division of the
Internal Revenue Service. Judge Turk was a federal judge. His office
was a few doors down the hall from the office of my father. I assume
that Judge Turk knew that Leroy B. Sloan was my father.

32. One person who certainly did know who my father was was Frank G.
Davidson III, attorney for Charles and Shelby Roberts. This is because
my father was an attorney for the IRS. Frank G. Davidson III and his
father Frank G. Davidson Jr. had as a substantial part of his practice
the representation of tax cheats. These cases often came before Judge
Turk, with Frank. G. Davidson representing the tax cheat and my father
representing the government. In fact, one of my theories as to why
Frank G. Davidson III was so intent on kidnapping my children was to
get revenge on my father for prosecuting so many of his clients.

33. Another case I brought was Sloan vs. United States of America as a
counter claim to the case United States of America vs. Sloan. My basis
for this suit was false arrest. I obviously had a strong case because
I had been arrested three times by the FBI, each time at the behest of
the Falwell Group. However, in spite of being arrested three times,
once in Guam, once in Honolulu and once in San Francisco, I had never
been charged with anything. Each arrest was for the purpose of holding
me just long enough to get my child away from me so as to get custody
of my children. There was never any intent by the government to
actually prosecute me for anything. Thus, it was clear cases of false
arrest.

34. Again, Judge Turk dismissed this case instantly the same day it
was filed, even though my complaint included more 600 pages of
exhibits which Judge Turk obviously never read. This time, Judge Turk
said that my case was improper because I was trying to overturn a
state court conviction. This was not true. My suit against the federal
government could not possibly be for the purpose of overturning a
state court conviction. Judge Turk must think that I am awfully stupid
if he believed that, or else it must be Judge Turk who is the stupid
one.

35. All of these obviously wrong decisions by Judge Turk were appealed
up to Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, the same “rabid right wing
lunatic Chief Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III” that dismissed this
appeal too. It as long been obvious that as long as the same group of
crooked and dishonest judges keep assigning these cases to themselves,
it will never been possible for Plaintiff to win a case or even to
obtain a hearing on these issues..

POINT II

The Rule requiring all pro se appellants to file only an “informal
brief” deprives pro se appellants of their constitutional rights

36. The Fourth Circuit has a rule that no other circuit has. The rule
is that pro se appellants are not allowed to file a normal brief and
appendix. Instead, they are limited to filing what the circuit calls
an “informal brief”. This informal brief is essentially a two-page
question and answer questionnaire, with questions like “what are you
complaining about” and “what do you want the court to do”, with only
two lines allowed for handwritten answers to these questions.

37. This questionnaire is obviously insufficient for a complex case
such as this one. Plaintiff-Appellant demanded the right to file a
normal brief and appendix, citing case like a normal appeal does. This
right was denied.

38. Plaintiff-Appellant is forced to point out that he has the
distinction of having argued orally before the United States Supreme
Court and having won a 9-0 decision of that court, the only pro se non-
lawyer in the 20th century to have done so. SEC vs Samuel H. Sloan,
436 US 103 (1978). Thus, Plaintiff knows how to write and file a
persuasive brief. This court's rule treating non-lawyers differently
from lawyers is a clear deprivation of constitutional rights. It would
be different if this circuit made it an option allowing pro se
appellants to file an informal brief. In the Fourth Circuit, an
informal brief is “required” and a normal brief that lawyers file is
not allowed. On this ground alone, the decision of this court must be
reversed.

WHEREFORE, for all of the reasons set forth above, this petition for
rehearing and rehearing en banc should be granted and, upon rehearing,
the decision of the district court that sua sponte dismissed this case
much be reversed.

/s/_______________________
Samuel H. Sloan
1664 Davidson Ave., Apt. 1B
Bronx NY 10453-7877
1-917-507-7226
1-917-659-3397



  #3  
Old December 27th 09, 03:10 AM posted to misc.legal,soc.culture.usa,rec.games.chess.politics,va.general,misc.kids
samsloan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,871
Default Sloan v Smith, Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing en banc

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
__________________________________________
Samuel H Sloan a/k/a M. Ismail Sloan

Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 6:09-cv-00005-nkm
-against-
No. 09-1476

Christopher P. Smith, Sheriff J. L. Ayers III, Michael W. Cox,
William Starke Mundy III, James C. Turk, William G. Petty,
Richard S. Miller, Roy B. Willett, Lawrence Janow,
Michael Gamble, Stephen R. Pattison, Morgan Scott III,
Ray Fitzgerald, John P. Butler, Eugene Wingfield,
Frank G. Davidson III, Richard Groff, Lisa L. Schenkel,
Leighton S. Houck, Killis T. Howard, Sue H. Roe,
Catherine H. Kennedy, Dorchen Leidholdt, Rosemonde Pierre-Louis,
Jill Zuccardy, Alexander Karam, Salvatore J. Modica,
Charles Roberts, Jay Roberts, Lane Vance, Verio.net, Khalid Shaikh
Muhammed, George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, United States Department
of Justice, United States of America

Defendants
__________________________________________

PETITION FOR REHEARING AND
SUGGESTION THAT THE REHEARING BE EN BANC
__________________________________________

Plaintiff-Appellant hereby submits the within petition for rehearing
and rehearing en banc because the petitioner believes that the panel
of this honorable court must have failed to understand that one of the
judges of this panel is specifically named as a defendant in this case
and thus is disqualified from appearing in this case, as the case is
against him.

1. Specifically, paragraph 29 of the complaint herein alleges: “In
addition, the Fourth Circuit at that time was controlled by a judge
even worse than Judge Turk, namely the rabid right wing lunatic Chief
Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III.”

2. This same “rabid right wing lunatic Chief Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson
III” made himself a judge on the panel of judges who decided this
appeal.

3. Thus, this decision cannot be allowed to stand and this rehearing
en banc must be granted.

4. The judges on the panel that “decided” this appeal are J. Harvie
Wilkinson III, M. Blane Michael and Clyde H. Hamilton. All three of
these judges are judges who date back to the time when the kidnappings
that underlie this complaint occurred. None of the many more recently
appointed judges were on this panel.

5. This case arose because the Deputy Sheriff of Amherst County
Virginia, Christopher P. Smith, contacted all of the Internet service
providers of Plaintiff and threatened them with arrest and criminal
prosecution of they did not remove Plaintiff's web pages and email
address from the Internet. Because of this action by the Deputy
Sheriff of Amherst County, Plaintiff's primary websites and his
primary email address and contact list was deleted. This has caused
great economic harm to plaintiff and financial loss to his business of
selling chess books on the Internet.

6. Paragraph 14 of the complaint herein alleges that plaintiff's then
8-year-old daughter, Shamema Honzagool Sloan, and his 80-year-old
mother, Dr. Helen Marjorie Sloan, were kidnapped in 1990. His mother
kidnapped in Bangkok, Thailand and his daughter was kidnapped in the
United Arab Emirates. The kidnappers “were allowed to keep the
kidnapped child through an 'Old Boys Network' of corrupt local
Lynchburg Virginia judges and city and county officials. The reason
that these corrupt judges allowed Roberts to keep the child that they
had kidnapped was that they were all controlled by Jerry Falwell.” The
complaint alleges that these corrupt judges and officials participated
in the kidnapping of this child for two reasons (1) to go to Heaven as
Promised by Jerry Falwell and (2) to gain great wealth while still
here on Earth due to their mistaken belief that the family of
Plaintiff was one of great wealth.

7. These corrupt judges obviously included Judge Norman K. Moon, who
at that time was not yet a federal judge but was a Virginia State
Court of Appeals judge. Because Judge Moon was the only Lynchburg
Judge on the Virginia Court of Appeals, every time the plaintiff here
attempted to appeal, the appeal came to Judge Moon and Judge Moon had
every appeal dismissed on one pretext or another. Plaintiff filed
about six appeals to the Virginia Court of Appeals. All of those
appeals came to Judge Moon and all were summarily and immediately
dismissed without any of the normal submission of the record and
briefs and the normal procedures that all proper appellate courts go
through.

8. Thus, the fix was clearly in. It all started with Judge Lawrence
Janow, who, as the complaint alleges, masterminded and planned for the
kidnapping of this child during a meeting held on May 21, 1986 with
Frank G. Davidson III, attorney for Charles and Shelby Roberts. Later,
as other fellow judges realized that one of their fellow judges was a
criminal kidnapper, they rallied around and protected the judge by
instantly dismissing every case and every appeal, thereby preventing a
hearing of any kind into this kidnapping.

9. The sua sponte instant dismissal of the case was by Judge Moon in
the District Court, the same judge who dismissed all these appeals
back in the period 1990-1993 when Plaintiff was trying to bring these
issues before the state courts, followed by the dismissal of the
appeal by J. Harvie Wilkinson III of this court, the same judge who
dismissed all of these appeals back then, when Plaintiff tried to
bring the issues before this court. This is all part of a continuing
pattern of covering up the kidnapping of an 8-year-old child.

10. It is obvious that this was a kidnapping because there is no way
that this child, Shamema Honzagool Sloan, could ever have legally even
arrived in the United States of America. Neither of the parents nor
any close relative of this child resided in America. The mother
resided in her native Pakistan. The father and grandmother resided
with the child in the United Arab Emirates. No relative of this child
authorized the bringing of this child across international boundaries.
Thus, the child was clearly kidnapped.

11. What we have here is a criminal gang of judges bent on kidnapping
an 8-year-old child away from BOTH of her parents. Please note that
the mother has never relinquished her rights to custody of this child
either. There is simply no legal way that any third party could ever
have obtained custody of this child by legal means without a showing
that both of the parents were unfit. In this case, neither parent was
shown to be unfit nor was ever there even an allegation that either
parent was unfit.

12. The statement is often made that this child was “better off” being
kidnapped from her parents and brought to America and to Virginia. The
Jerry Falwellites in Lynchburg Virginia often make the same argument
about the African slaves, saying that the slaves were better off being
brought to America for sale than if they had been allowed to stay in
their home countries.

13. It must be emphasized that this was not the normal child custody
case between the mother and father of a child. This was a case brought
by unrelated third-persons who were members of a fanatical religious
group with no legal claim on this child but who wanted this child for
their religious purposes.

14. What makes this case different from the Branch Davidians and other
extremist religious groups (none of whom have ever been accused of
kidnapping somebody else's child) is that the group that kidnapped
Shamema Honzagool Sloan, the 8-year-old daughter of the plaintiff,
were members of a supposedly main stream religious organization, the
Jerry Falwellites, who controlled the politicians, the judges and the
courts of Lynchburg, Virginia.

15. Judge Moon himself is one of those Falwellites. He regularly
attended the Falwell Church up until the death of Jerry Falwell. Judge
Moon was a devout worshiper of Jerry Falwell. He was a devoted
follower and practitioner of Falwellian Doctrines, even though Judge
Moon lives out in Rivermont, near the home of Plaintiff and his
parents.

16. This alone, along with Judge Moon's personal association with most
of the named defendants in this case, including especially Judge Turk,
was more than enough to disqualify him from being a judge in this
case.

17. However, Plaintiff knew that the fix was in and that all of these
judges are all criminals when he filed this case. Therefore, the
complaint herein is concerned primarily with another issue, namely the
actions of Christopher P. Smith, Deputy Sheriff of Amherst County,
Virginia, who contacted all of the Internet Service Providers that
carried the websites of Plaintiff and threatened them with arrest and
criminal prosecution if they did not remove from the Internet the
websites that linked the Sheriff of Amherst Country Virginia to the
kidnapping of Plaintiff's daughter and mother. Deputy Smith told the
Internet Service Providers that Plaintiff's websites violated Virginia
Law by linking these kidnappings to a law enforcement officer, namely
the sheriff, his boss.

18. Because many Internet Services Providers such as AOL are
headquartered in Virginia, the threat of arrest by a Virginia's Law
Enforcement officer such as Deputy Sheriff Christopher Smith was a
matter of serious concern and as a result all of Plaintiff's websites
were deleted except for one minor website in California, and in that
case the pages concerning the kidnapping of Plaintiff's mother and
daughter were stripped off of the website.

19. Subsequent to the filing of this lawsuit, Deputy Christopher Smith
shot a man in Amherst County and for that reason was suspended from
duty by the Amherst County Sheriff's Department. Later, a grand jury
in Amherst County was convened but the grand jury failed to return an
indictment of Deputy Smith. Deputy Sheriff Smith was quoted in the
Lynchburg newspapers as stating that he expected to be reinstated
after the failure of the grand jury to indict him. Apparently this has
happened, because Deputy Smith is now again listed as a member of the
Amherst County Sheriff's Department.

20. Judge Moon now as a district court judge stated that Plaintiff had
“lost custody of his daughter in the 1980s”. This is absolutely not
true. The subject child was born in New York City. Attached hereto as
Exhibit A is an order of the Bronx New York Supreme Court awarding
custody of the child to the mother, Honzagool, with weekly visitation
to the father, the Plaintiff here.

21. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is an order of the same court, the
Bronx Supreme Court, modifying the original order and awarding custody
to the father, the Plaintiff here.

22. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is an order dated April 1986 by Judge
Janow of the Amherst County Juvenile Domestic Relations Court awarding
legal custody of the child to Ismail Sloan, the plaintiff here. There
is legal doubt as to whether Judge Janow had jurisdiction to issue
this order, as jurisdiction has never been transferred from New York
to Virginia, but this seemed to be of no moment at the time. It later
became apparent in retrospect that this order was part of a long range
plan to give custody to the Roberts, the clients of Mr. Davidson, with
whom Judge Janow had secretly met at that time.

23. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is another order, this one dated
August 25, 1986, again giving legal custody to the father, the
Plaintiff here. Plaintiff actually never received this order until
months later, as he was not around when the order was issued, but
again it seemed to be of no moment because the Plaintiff had custody
in every jurisdiction.

24. At the time of the date of this last order, Plaintiff had the
absolute legal right to take the child anywhere he wanted, and did so.

25. A few days later, Shelby Roberts, realizing that she had been
dismissed as the child's babysitter and that Plaintiff and the child
were no longer in Virginia, filed for legal custody through her
attorney, Frank G. Davidson III. This was the first time the Roberts
had ever appeared in this case. Of course, the Amherst County Court
had no jurisdiction because the child was not in Amherst County or
even in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

26. Four years passed. During this four years, the Roberts and their
Falwell allies made incessant and repeated efforts to have this child
kidnapped and brought to them. Kidnapping attempts were made in
Argentina, Sri Lanka, Thailand and perhaps in other places as well.
The child was eventually kidnapped in October 1990 in Fujairah, United
Emirates.

27. The next order was an order by Judge Janow dated October 24, 1990
stating “the child having been returned” to Amherst County Virginia,
and “the child having been returned to the United States” after having
been “wrongfully” removed from that county. This order is Annexed as
Exhibit E. One wonders what “wrongful” act Judge Janow was referring
to, as Plaintiff was never charged with that. More significantly,
Judge Janow uses the passive voice. He says that the child “having
been returned”. He makes no mention of whom returned the child or how
the child had been returned. In fact, the child had been brought to
Amherst County by Charles Roberts, who had picked up the child at
Washington National Airport after paying $16,000 to professional
kidnappers to kidnap this child.

28. Obviously, Charles Roberts should have been arrested as soon as it
was discovered what he had done. The reason Charles Roberts was not
arrested was that the Sheriff of Amherst County was a neighbor of
Charles Roberts and attended the same church with Charles Roberts.
Thus began the long history of this case of police officials and
judges covering up a heinous criminal act in the name of their
religion.

29. Plaintiff brought numerous cases in both state and federal court
to redress this obvious case of kidnapping. Many of the lawyers and
judges recused themselves, realizing that this case was a hot potato.
This left only the few completely crooked and dishonest lawyers and
judges as the only ones who would handle the case. Those completely
crooked and dishonest lawyers and judges are named as defendants in
this lawsuit.

30. Plaintiff tried many different approaches. For example, Plaintiff
sued the Director of the Department of Education of Virginia in Sloan
vs. Spagnolo, on the ground that this child was not attending school
in violation of the compulsory education law of Virginia. Followers of
Jerry Falwell never allow their children to attend school, because
schools teach heathen beliefs such as Evolution. Thus, the child of
Plaintiff never attended school as long as she was under the control
of the Falwellites. Like all other cases, this suit was instantly and
immediately dismissed by Judge Turk, who is as crooked a judge as has
ever been born.

31. The surprising thing about Judge Turk is that he rode up and down
the elevator with my father every day for twenty years. My Father
worked in the federal building in Lynchburg, which is now City Hall,
in the same building with Judge Turk. My father, Leroy B. Sloan. was
the director of the Lynchburg Branch of the Audit Division of the
Internal Revenue Service. Judge Turk was a federal judge. His office
was a few doors down the hall from the office of my father. I assume
that Judge Turk knew that Leroy B. Sloan was my father.

32. One person who certainly did know who my father was was Frank G.
Davidson III, attorney for Charles and Shelby Roberts. This is because
my father was an attorney for the IRS. Frank G. Davidson III and his
father Frank G. Davidson Jr. had as a substantial part of his practice
the representation of tax cheats. These cases often came before Judge
Turk, with Frank. G. Davidson representing the tax cheat and my father
representing the government. In fact, one of my theories as to why
Frank G. Davidson III was so intent on kidnapping my children was to
get revenge on my father for prosecuting so many of his clients.

33. Another case I brought was Sloan vs. United States of America as a
counter claim to the case United States of America vs. Sloan. My basis
for this suit was false arrest. I obviously had a strong case because
I had been arrested three times by the FBI, each time at the behest of
the Falwell Group. However, in spite of being arrested three times,
once in Guam, once in Honolulu and once in San Francisco, I had never
been charged with anything. Each arrest was for the purpose of holding
me just long enough to get my child away from me so as to get custody
of my children. There was never any intent by the government to
actually prosecute me for anything. Thus, it was clear cases of false
arrest.

34. Again, Judge Turk dismissed this case instantly the same day it
was filed, even though my complaint included more 600 pages of
exhibits which Judge Turk obviously never read. This time, Judge Turk
said that my case was improper because I was trying to overturn a
state court conviction. This was not true. My suit against the federal
government could not possibly be for the purpose of overturning a
state court conviction. Judge Turk must think that I am awfully stupid
if he believed that, or else it must be Judge Turk who is the stupid
one.

35. All of these obviously wrong decisions by Judge Turk were appealed
up to Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, the same “rabid right wing
lunatic Chief Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III” that dismissed this
appeal too. It as long been obvious that as long as the same group of
crooked and dishonest judges keep assigning these cases to themselves,
it will never been possible for Plaintiff to win a case or even to
obtain a hearing on these issues..

POINT II

The Rule requiring all pro se appellants to file only an “informal
brief” deprives pro se appellants of their constitutional rights

36. The Fourth Circuit has a rule that no other circuit has. The rule
is that pro se appellants are not allowed to file a normal brief and
appendix. Instead, they are limited to filing what the circuit calls
an “informal brief”. This informal brief is essentially a two-page
question and answer questionnaire, with questions like “what are you
complaining about” and “what do you want the court to do”, with only
two lines allowed for handwritten answers to these questions.

37. This questionnaire is obviously insufficient for a complex case
such as this one. Plaintiff-Appellant demanded the right to file a
normal brief and appendix, citing case like a normal appeal does. This
right was denied.

38. Plaintiff-Appellant is forced to point out that he has the
distinction of having argued orally before the United States Supreme
Court and having won a 9-0 decision of that court, the only pro se non-
lawyer in the 20th century to have done so. SEC vs Samuel H. Sloan,
436 US 103 (1978). Thus, Plaintiff knows how to write and file a
persuasive brief. This court's rule treating non-lawyers differently
from lawyers is a clear deprivation of constitutional rights. It would
be different if this circuit made it an option allowing pro se
appellants to file an informal brief. In the Fourth Circuit, an
informal brief is “required” and a normal brief that lawyers file is
not allowed. On this ground alone, the decision of this court must be
reversed.

WHEREFORE, for all of the reasons set forth above, this petition for
rehearing and rehearing en banc should be granted and, upon rehearing,
the decision of the district court that sua sponte dismissed this case
much be reversed.

/s/_______________________
Samuel H. Sloan
1664 Davidson Ave., Apt. 1B
Bronx NY 10453-7877
1-917-507-7226
1-917-659-3397





UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
__________________________________________
Samuel H Sloan a/k/a M. Ismail Sloan

-against-
Affidavit of Service
Christopher P. Smith, et al
__________________________________________

On December 19, 2009 the undersigned served the within Petition for
Rehearing and Rehearing en banc by mailing a true copy of the same in
a secured envelope with postage fully paid addressed to:


Norman K. Moon
US District Judge
PO Box 657
Lynchburg, VA 24505

Robert E. Draim
Hudgins Law Firm
515 King Street, Suite 400
Alexandria VA 22314
703-739-3300

Alexander W. Bell
Bell & Schneider
PO Box 739
Lynchburg VA 24505
434-528-0411

Charles Roberts
427 Amelon Road
Madison Heights VA 24572

Jay Roberts
141 Odins Bow Drive
Madison Heights VA 24572

_______________________
Samuel H. Sloan

Sworn to before me this
19th day of December 2009


_______________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
  #4  
Old December 27th 09, 07:42 PM posted to alt.politics.bush,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
Teddybear[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 122
Default Re USENET SPAM

no connection to the subject of the group, garbage post


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sloan vs. Truong Petition for Rehearing En Banc has been postedonline samsloan rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 1 May 28th 09 09:01 PM
Sloan vs. Truong Petition for Rehearing En Banc has been postedonline samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 1 May 28th 09 09:01 PM
Sloan vs. Truong Petition for Rehearing En Banc has been postedonline samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 1 May 28th 09 09:01 PM
Petition for Rehearing in Sloan vs. Smith samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 16 April 24th 09 06:57 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright ©2004-2017 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.