Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old December 30th 05, 09:35 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
Sam Sloan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Order to Show Cause to Hold TLC in Contempt

Court of the State of New York,
Held in and for the County of
New York at the Courthouse,
thereof, 60 Centre Street, New
York, N.Y. on the 6th day of
May, 2002


PRESENT: Hon: DIANE A. LEBEDEFF


_________________________________________________
Samuel H. Sloan,
Petitioner


For a Judgment Pursuant to
CPLR Article 78


ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
-against-
INDEX NO. 123003/2002


New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission,


Respondent
_________________________________________________


Upon reading and filing the verified petition of Samuel H. Sloan,
sworn to the 6th day of May 2002 and the exhibits attached thereto,
and upon all of the papers and proceedings had herein


LET the respondents and their attorneys show cause at IAS Part
8, Room _____, of this court to be held at the Courthouse, 60 Centre
Street, New York, NY on the _____ day of May 2002 at _____ o'clock in
the forenoon of that day or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard
why an order should not be made:


1. Holding Respondents in Contempt of Court for Disobedience of an
order of this court dated February 27, 2002 and filed and served March
4, 2002 which annulled the determination of the respondent denying the
application for TLC License Number 50812121 and remanded the matter to
the agency for further administrative action on such application.


2. Directing the respondent to issue TLC License numbers 5081212,
5093363 and 496476.


3. Directing full refund of all the moneys and school fees paid by
petitioner for the issuance of TLC Licenses, both license number
5081212 and 5093363, because petitioner should have been allowed to
renew license number 496476.


4. Requiring the respondents to produce for copying the entire file
and record of license numbers 496476, 5081212 and 5093363 and any
other documents or evidence pertaining to that hearing or to this
case.


Sufficient cause appearing therefore, let personal service of a copy
of this order, and the verified petition and other papers upon which
this order is granted upon the respondents New York City Taxi and
Limousine Commission and the Corporation Counsel of the City of New
York on or before the ___ day of December, 2001 be deemed good and
sufficient. A copy of an affidavit or other proof of service shall be
filed with the County Clerk immediately after service and the original
thereof shall be presented to this court on the return date directed
in the second paragraph of this order, and in the meantime it is


ORDERED that pending hearing and determination of this application the
respondents are directed to issue taxi license numbers 5081212,
5093363 and 496476.


ENTER


_______________________
J. S. C.


SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK


_________________________________________________


Samuel H. Sloan,
Petitioner


For a Judgment Pursuant to
CPLR Article 78


Verified Petition
-against-
INDEX NO. 123003/2002


New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission,


Respondent
_________________________________________________


Samuel H. Sloan, being duly sworn, deposes and says:


1. I am the petitioner herein. I reside at 39-75 56th Street, Apt. 5A,
Woodside, NY 11377. On February 27, 2002, this court issued a judgment
in my favor. This judgment was entered, filed and served on the New
York City Taxi and Limousine Commission on March 4, 2002. Attacked
hereto as Exhibit A is the cover page showing that the judgment was
filed and served with a notice of entry on that date.


2. Since then, more than two months have passed. The TLC has not
complied with the order of the court and quite obviously has no
intention of ever complying with the order of this court. In my view
the order of this court should be read to require the issuance of a
hack license. Even if it does not require it, it certainly requires
the TLC to process my application. Instead, as discussed below, they
have demanded non-existent documents of no relevance to my application
and have refused to act.


3. The TLC is taking exactly the same position that it took when I
first filed this case back in December, 2001. Their position at that
that time was that they have the absolute discretion to decide whether
or not to issue a taxi driver's license and they have decided in their
discretion not to issue the license. They say the same thing now. It
is as if this court never issued a decision dated February 27, 2002.
The TLC obviously regards the decision of this court as a meaningless
legal nullity, which changes nothing.


4. The TLC has a history of doing exactly this. Many taxi drivers have
won court cases against the TLC. In every case of which I am aware,
the TLC refused to comply with the court order and the victorious taxi
driver had to go back to court again and again to obtain enforcement
of his judgment.


5. It is clear that the TLC is carrying out a personal vendetta
against me. Not only has the TLC not complied with the order of this
court, but it has not done any of the other things it promised to or
is legally required to do. It never filed the complete record of the
proceedings before the TLC, as it is required to do by Article 78. In
addition, in the Article 78 Petition I filed in this court, I
complained that the TLC had not responded to my Freedom of Information
Law request. (Exhibit R of my petition). In response, the TLC stated:
"TLC is currently processing petitioner's FOIL request." (See Verified
Answer of the TLC dated December 20, 2001, page 6, paragraph 36).


6. More than four months have since passed. The TLC has still not
responded to my Freedom of Information Law request. I have called
counsel for the TLC many times to demand compliance and counsel has
been non-responsive.


7. More that that, Officials of the TLC have LIED about this. I went
to a public meeting of the Business Committee of New York City Counsel
on March 15, 2002. I sat in the audience listening to TLC Chairman
Matthew W. Daus tell lie after lie about how well things are going at
the TLC. I heard Committee Chairman John Liu and other members of the
City Counsel compliment and praise Matthew W. Daus about what a fine
job he is doing. At the end of the questioning, I stood up and
attempted to ask a question of Matthew Daus. The question I was trying
to ask was when was he going to comply with the order of this court
and give me my taxi license. I was not allowed to ask this question.
However, Matthew Daus said that he would answer my questions outside
the chambers. Then, Lisa Rana, who is TLC Chief of Staff, went out of
the room with me. After she had identified herself and given me her
card, I identified myself and asked when was she going to comply with
the order of the court by giving me my license. Lisa Rana replied that
she did not have to comply with the order of the court because the
case had been appealed. By that time, Peter M. Mazer, TLC General
Corporate Counsel, had come out of chambers. I told Lisa Rana and
Peter Mazer that I had not received a notice of appeal. They both
stated that the case had been appealed. Lisa Rana then instructed
Peter Mazer not to discuss the case with me because litigation was
pending.


8. I later went over to the Supreme Court House at 60 Centre Street
and spent more than one hour locating and checking the appeal book. I
found out that no notice of appeal had been filed. I then went home
and waited several days for the notice of appeal to arrive. I
eventually found out that they had not appealed and had no intention
of appealing, because in their view the decision of this court dated
February 27, 2002 was meaningless and changed nothing.


9. Regarding the lies told to me by Lisa Rana and Peter Mazer when
they said that they had appealed when they had not, I have since
learned that both Lisa Rana and Peter Mazer were previously
administrative law judges of the TLC. This demonstrates a conflict of
interest. A judge, even an administrative law judge, is supposed to be
independent of the agency he is judging. However, TLC judges, unlike
many other administrative law judges, are hired and fired by the TLC.
If an administrative law judge decides a case against the TLC, the
judge can be fired for this. This explains why TLC judges always
decide their cases in favor of the TLC. They do not want to lose their
jobs. This is obviously a violation of the constitutional rights of
the unfortunate taxi drivers who invariably are found guilty by the
TLC judges and are made to pay enormous fines.


10. More than that, part one of this court's order said that there
would be a hearing before a special referee for the $280 fine which
started this entire situation. That hearing was scheduled for April
24, 2002 in Room 148. The TLC appeared and requested an adjournment
until May 14, which was granted. It is obvious that I did appeal on
time, which is the only issue to be decided by the Special Referee,
plus this court has already ruled that the $280 fine was illegal since
I was not a taxi driver on the date in question. Rather than simply
refund my $280 (which I desperately need now because I have a five
months old baby to feed), the TLC is wasting the New York City
taxpayer's money by sending attorneys to court to fight the appeal.


11. It is very important to point out here that had the TLC complied
with my FOIL Request which I made in October 2001 and which in
December they said that they were processing, the documents which they
would have been required to produce would have included my notice of
appeal. This their non-compliance with my FOIL Request is part of
their scheme to unlawfully deprive me of my taxi license and my money.


12. On March 15, 2002, top officials of the TLC refused to discuss the
case with me because, they said, litigation was pending. I told them
that litigation was not pending because I won the case and a final
judgment had been entered.


13. Meanwhile, while refusing to obey the order of the court, while
asking for adjournments of the hearing before the Special Referee and
while not complying with my FOIL request, they have sent me a barrage
of letters and demands. Rather than repeat and reiterate which has
been said in this exchange of correspondence, I have attached it as an
exhibit. They hsve not responded to any of my letters to them.


14. The bottom line is that the TLC has refused to obey the order of
this court which stated on page 11: "Accordingly, the petition is
granted to the extent it seeks to annul the determination of the
respondent denying the application for TLC License number 5081212 and
the matter remanded to the agency for further administrative action on
such application."


15. The clear intent of this order was that I should be issued my
license. They have not done so or even scheduled a hearing on this
matter. Instead, they stick to their untenable position that the
decision to grant or not to grant a license is purely discretionary
with the TLC and, in their infinite discretion, they have chosen not
to issue me a license.


16. I need to explain that on the day after I filed the Article 78
Petition in this case, I received a call from Marc Hardekopf who
stated that the hearing then set for December 13, 2001 was being
postponed. The reason he gave was not that this case had been filed
(he did not seem to be aware of the existence of this case) but that
none of the judges of the TLC were willing to hear this case because
they all knew ALJ Michelle Manzione personally and this had become a
case of me against ALJ Manzione. Mr. Hardekopf stated that since no
TLC ALJ had been found to hear this case, that a request was bring
made of the Office of Administrative Law Judges to provide a judge for
this case.


17. It is apparent that no judge of the Office of Administrative Law
Judges would be willing to decide this case in a manner favorable to
the TLC, so they are simply writing letters refusing to hear or
consider either my hack licenses or my FHV license.


18. It is to be recalled that when I first filed this case, I named as
defendants Michelle Manzione, Charles Tortorici, Mayor Rudy Giuliani,
Diane McGrath-McKechnie, Elias Arout, Harry Giannoulis, Marvin
Greenberg, Harry Rubinstein, Elliott G. Sander, Alberto Torres, Ramona
M. Whaley, Matthew W. Daus, Bin K. Huang, Valerie Greaves, Roger
Morgan, Cici Pulyam, Jeanmarie Ariola, and Marc T. Hardekopf. As I
stated at the time, the reason I took this unusual action was that I
was aware that the TLC had a history of non-compliance with court
orders. It is also impossible to put the City of New York in Jail.
However, individual defendants can be put in jail. I therefore request
that the personally named defendants be reinstated in this case and be
confined to New York City Jail until they have complied with the order
of this court.


19. In addition, this problem started because the TLC refused to renew
my original license, number 496476, when I applied for renewal in
December 1999. This court may have felt that it made no difference
whether the TLC was ordered to reinstate the old license number 496476
or to issue a new license number 5081212. However, it is now apparent
that there is a difference, and so I request that this court order the
TLC to reinstate license number 496476.


20. This entire case has been going on for more than one year. It all
started because of improper actions of members of the TLC staff.
Meanwhile, I have been prevented from working. Which the TLC needs is
a nice jail sentence because nothing less will have any meaning for
them. All of the grounds they provided previously for denying me a
taxi license have been rejected by this court. They had a so-called
"hearing" and the results have been reversed by this court. They
cannot be allowed infinite time to come up with an infinite number of
reasons to deny me a taxi license.


21. No prior application has been made for the relief requested
herein.


WHEREFORE, I respectfully pray for an order:


1. Directing the respondent to issue TLC Licenses numbered 5081212 and
5093363 and 496476.


2. Holding Respondents in Contempt of Court for Disobedience of an
order of this court dated February 27, 2002 and filed and served March
4, 2002 which annulled the determination of the respondent denying the
application for TLC License Number 50812121 and remanded the matter to
the agency for further administrative action on such application.


3. Directing full refund of all the moneys and school fees paid by
petitioner for the issuance of TLC Licenses, both license number
5081212 and 5093363, because petitioner should have been allowed to
renew license number 496476.


4. Requiring the respondents to produce for copying the entire file of
license numbers 496476, 5081212 and 5093363 and any other documents or
evidence pertaining to this case.


Respectfully Submitted,


Samuel H. Sloan


Sworn to before me this 6th
Day of May, 2002


______________________
NOTARY PUBLIC

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Petition for a rehearing from order dismissing appeal Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 December 30th 05 09:34 PM
The Sam Sloan TV Show Taylor rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 0 December 28th 05 06:30 AM
The Sam Sloan TV Show Taylor rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 December 28th 05 06:30 AM
The Sam Sloan TV Show Taylor rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 December 28th 05 06:30 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:40 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017