Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old August 25th 12, 04:50 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.california,soc.culture.usa
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Goodall Case: Answer to Bank of America's and Guide Dogs for theBlind Motion for Sanctions

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 SAN FRANCISCO


IN

THE GOODALL TRUST

(Mis-Entitled by Opposing Counsel as “In The Matter of the Trust for
Michael created under the Goodall Trust dated September 12, 1990”)


)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
))
Case No. PTR-99-273030


OPPOSITION TO BANK OF AMERICA'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND CROSS-MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST ATTORNEYS GARY ROTHSTEIN, ALICIA A. ADORNATO,
JAMES R. HASTINGS and DON A. LESSER

(Declaration of Samuel H. Sloan)

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

1. Bank of America has filed a Motion for Sanctions against me
personally in addition to in my capacity as Administrator of the
Estate of K. Michael Goodall with Will Annexed, Case No. PR 1100596,
appointed by the Marin County Probate Court. The attorney for the
Estate is away on Summer Vacation. As a result and due to the
shortness of time, I am filing this opposition to the motion for
Sanctions in pro per without being able to consult him, as well as a
cross motion for sanctions against attorneys GARY ROTHSTEIN, ALICIA A.
ADORNATO, JAMES R. HASTINGS and DON A. LESSER.

2. These four attorneys have engaged in egregious and often
illegal misconduct in an effort to steal an estate with the estimated
amount of $2.5 million. I am in the process of compiling complaints to
the Bar of the State of California seeking the disbarment of these
four attorneys. I have already complained to the Internal Revenue
Service seeking a revocation of the 501c3 statues of the Bogus Charity
Guide Dogs for the Blind. I just checked with the IRS and their
investigation into this matter is still open. I have also complained
to the California Secretary of State Division of Notary Public
Licensing against the false notarization of all of these documents by
James R. Hastings. That investigation is also still open.
2. Bank of America and Guide Dogs for the Blind have no right,
none whatever, to the assets of the Goodall Trust or to the Estate of
K. Michael Goodall or of the Goodall parents Kenneth F. Goodall or
Rachel A. Goodall. The claims of Bank of America and Guide Dogs for
the Blind are utterly without basis and constitute attempted Grand
Theft. They keep claiming that they are proceeding under The Goodall
Trust dated September 12, 1990. Yet, in all of the papers and
proceedings they have filed in this case, they have never have
produced a copy of the Goodall Trust dated September 12, 1990. They
have not produced a copy of the purported 1994 Trust either. I have
included the 1990 Goodall Trust in Exhibit C below. Looking at the
trust makes it obvious why they have never included the actual Goodall
Trust in their documents, because it gives everything to Michael
Goodall and nothing to Guide Dogs for the Blind. It also makes Kenneth
Michael Goodall the Trustee of the Goodall Trust upon the deaths of
his parents.
3. “Estate Planner” James R. Hastings has filed declarations
saying that the Goodall parents did not trust their son Mike with
their money and therefore they wanted a “strong trustee”, namely
himself, to handle the money after they died.
4. If that was the case, why does the 1990 Trust name Mike
Goodall as the sole trustee upon their deaths and why did they make a
deathbed change of the trust placing their assets under the control of
Hastings who was the attorney for Bank of America? Why not change it
when they were healthy instead of waiting until the point of death?
5. James R. Hastings is proceeding on the well established legal
principle of “Dead Men Tell No Tales”. His entire practice consists of
“Estate Planning”. It is in the nature of his work that when the
documents he creates come into effect, his clients are already dead
and thus cannot testify against him. He has become a wealthy man by
doing this. He must have done this many times, not only in this
Goodall Case.
6. We submitted a motion on newly discovered evidence based on a
treasure trove of documents I found in a locked box, included a power
of attorney dated August 24, 1994, the same date as the purported 1994
Trust. The copy of the purported 1994 trust in the Locked box was
unsigned. This proves that the Goodall Parents never signed the 1994
trust, which is what I have been saying all along.
7. What is especially important here is that although I labeled
it Newly Discovered Evidence, the Bank of America and James R.
Hastings have had that evidence all along. All of these documents were
created by James R. Hastings. Thus, he has always had them. In order
to keep these documents hidden, he ignored our subpoenas and he
ignored and disobeyed orders of this court. This court seems to have
forgotten that by order dated January 20, 2012, James R. Hastings was
ordered to produce the Goodall Trust unless he could not find it, in
which case he was ordered to file a declaration stating what efforts
he had made to locate it. On February 2, 2012 James R. Hastings filed
a declaration stating that he had searched all his files and could not
find the trust. However, at a hearing in open court on May 7, 2012,
Alicia A. Adornato, attorney for Guide Dogs for the Blind, stated in
open court that James R. Hastings had found the 1994 Trust Document in
the Estate Planning File “at exactly where he always said it was”.
This statement was confirmed at the same hearing by Gary Rothstein,
Attorney for Bank of America.
8. Thus, both attorneys stated that James R. Hastings lied under
oath when he said that he could not find the document. Furthermore,
Hastings is in contempt of court for failing and refusing to produce
the document, as required by the order of January 20, 2102.
9. Previously, Counsel for the Estate of K. Michael Goodall
subpoenaed the relevant documents from Attorney James R. Hastings and
required him to appear at a deposition. Hastings appeared on November
11, 2011 with Attorney Don A. Lesser but did not bring any documents
at all. Among the reasons he gave for refusing to produce any
documents was that to do so would violate the Attorney Client
Privilege of Bank of America. James R. Hastings has been representing
or claiming to represent all parties to this case including the
Goodall Parents, Michael Goodall, the Goodall Trust, the Bank of
America and even the heirs of the Goodall Estate, Frank Thornally and
Roy Hoppe. This is the most outrageous violation of conflict of
interest imaginable. If Hastings is not disbarred for this, the Canons
of Ethics are meaningless.

10. If Hastings had complied with the subpoena properly served
upon him, he would have produced the Power of Attorney the Goodall
Parents gave to Kenneth Michael Goodall on August 24, 2012. That would
have ended the case because that Power of Attorney placed Kenneth
Michael Goodall in complete control of the trust upon the deaths of
his parents. Thus, that document proved that Bank of America was never
the proper trustee of the trust. This would mean that Bank of America
and James R. Hastings would have to pay back to the Trust and to the
Estate all of the money they have stolen from the Trust Assets since
1999, including the money they are using to pay the Attorneys fees of
Gary Rothstein, Attorney for Bank of America here.
11. Attorney Don A. Lesser who appeared at the deposition on
November 11, 2011 as the Attorney for James R. Hastings has since
stated that he has withdrawn as attorney for James R. Hastings but
need not file a notice of withdrawal because he has never appeared in
this case. However, that is not correct. Don Lesser did appear in this
case by filing a pleading Dated December 29, 2011 entitled DECLARATION
OF DON A. LESSER OPPOSING RESPONDENT SAM SLOAN'S MOTION TO COMPEL
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FURTHER DEPOSITION FILED BY PETITIONER
HASTINGS, JAMES. At the deposition on November 11, 2011 I told Don
Lesser that his client James R. Hastings would be going to jail
because we can prove that Hastings never saw Kenneth F. Goodall on
August 24, 1994 or at any other date in 1994. We know this because
Kenneth F. Goodall was hospitalized at that time, being 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. From that point until his death on September
10, 1994, he could not process food or talk in the normal way. Thus,
the only way Hastings could have seen him was by going to the
hospital, which he testified he did not do.
12. Attorney Don Lesser has probably researched this and found
out that his client lied and this explains his insistence that he has
withdrawn from the case even though he has not done so. However, the
damage has been done because, as a result, neither Bank of America nor
James R. Hastings has produced anything at all. They have produced
zero documents. They refuse to produce any sort of accounting or to
provide any information whatever about the Goodall Money. At the time
of the Death of Rachel A. Goodall in June 1999, she had between
$900,000 and one million dollars in cash and securities. None of this
was with Bank of America. It was in other places such as the Kaufman
Fund and Charles Schwab and USAA Investment Management. James R.
Hasting by virtue of his position as “Estate Planner” knew where all
the money was and proceeded to contact all these financial
institutions and have all the money transferred to an account with
Bank of America that he controlled. Mike Goodall, upon seeing the
money in the accounts he had been controlling suddenly slip away and
disappear, filed the instant case, IN THE GOODALL TRUST, Case No.
PTR-99-273030.
13. Here, the Bank of America and Guide Dogs for the Blind make
another false claim. They claim that Mike Goodall is barred by Statute
of limitations from making these claims. Not only is there no such
stature of limitations but Mike Goodall did timely object within the
purported 120 day period. That is the reason he filed this case in
December 1999.
14. Back then, Guide Dogs for the Blind and Bank of America were
trying to steal all the money right away. They were not satisfied to
wait until Mike Goodall died. They wanted the money immediately. As a
result, they filed three pleadings in this case stating that Mike
Goodall was contesting the trust and thus should be cut out of the
will immediately. As usual, Gary Rothstein lied to the court when he
said that Mike Goodall's case was for “Declaratory Relief”.
15. If the court will trouble itself to look at the pleadings
filed in this case (something this court has not done until now) it
will see three separate documents by Bank of America and James R.
Hastings all dated February 2000 stating that Mike Goodall was
contesting the trust and this should be cut out of the estate with the
money presumably going to the Dogs. I have seen correspondence from
Thomas Horton who was already involved in this case in 1999. Thomas
Horton is the “Planned Giving Director” for Guide Dogs for the Blind.
According to the 990 Forms filed with the IRS, Guide Dogs for the
Blind receives an average of $30 million in donations per year. One
wonders why they are so much more successful than other worthy
charities in raising funds. One wonders whether some of this $30
million per year is not criminal theft similar to the $2.5 million
they are trying to steal from the Goodall Estate in this case. Perhaps
some of these “donations” are stolen and not voluntarily given.
16. When Mike Goodall was alive, Bank of America and James R.
Hastings said that he was contesting the trust and thus should be cut
out of the estate under a “No Contest Clause”. However, after he died
they reversed positions and said that he had not contested the trust
and thus was barred from doing so under a statute of limitations.
17. From the first responsive pleading I filed in this case and
at every hearing thereafter, I have objected to the jurisdiction and
the venue of the San Francisco Probate Court. I object again here. It
is obvious that this case does not belong in the San Francisco Courts.
It belongs if at all in Marin County where all the partied resided,
lived, died and are buried. They never had any assets in San
Francisco. All the documents were executed in Marin County. Even the
attorney involved, James R. Hastings, has his only office in Marin
County and rarely comes to San Francisco.
18. It is obvious that Bank of America is relying on the
corruption of the courts in San Francisco. Every observer has noticed
this. All the issues involved in this case have previously been
decided in my favor by the Marin County Superior Court. When Bank of
America loses a motion over there, they file the same motion over
here, without telling the San Francisco Judge that the issue has
already been decided against them by the Marin County Courts.
19. An example of this is their entirely bogus Statute of
Limitations Claim. They filed exactly the same motion in Marin County
and lost. Undaunted, they came over here and filed the same motion
without telling the San Francisco Judge that the issue had already
been decided against them in Marin.
20.We are prepared to prove and will prove at a hearing if given
the opportunity to do so that Kenneth F. Goodall did not and could not
have signed the purported 1994 Trust in the circumstances claimed by
Mr. Hastings. In addition, the notary signatures by James R. Hasting
are obviously improper because they do not state what he is notarizing
and are on separate sheets of paper. He could have added that page or
changed the pages years later.
21. Even if Kenneth F. Goodall did sign the purported 1994
trust, that should not change the outcome because the 1994 purported
trust DOES NOT give the money to Guide Dogs for the Blind unless Mike
Goodall dies before his parents do. Since Mike Goodall outlived the
last of his parents by 11 years in that his father died in 1994, his
mother died in 1999 and Mike died in 2010, all the money goes to Mike
and his estate according to the wording of the 1994 purported trust.
22. The judge's statement in open court that it is “logical” to
give the money to Guide Dogs for the Blind is objectionable.
Apparently, the court was deciding that Guide Dogs was more worthy of
receiving the money rather than the heirs and friends of Mike Goodall.
However, the courts should not be allowed to decide whom they would
like to receive the money. It should be according to what the
documents unambiguously state and in this case the documents
unambiguously state that the money goes to Mike and his heirs.
23. I have shown the purported 1994 Trust to a dozen different
attorneys and they all agree that the wording of the trust DOES NOT
GIVE the money to Guide Dogs for the Blind. Guide Dogs gets the house
and the money if and only if Mike Goodall died before his parents did,
which did not happen. The reason the San Francisco Judge decided
otherwise is he has never read the document.
24. The fact that a judge of this court would make the
ridiculous remark that it is “logical” to give the money to Guide Dogs
for the Blind demonstrates what I have long known which is that the
current judges of the San Francisco Probate Court have never read the
file on this case. I know and can prove this because I have regularly
checked with the record room at 400 McAllister Street and they have
informed me that the case file has been at all times in the court
archives in San Bruno and at no time has the case file been brought up
to San Francisco for the judges to look at it. This case was
extensively litigated in 1999 and 2000 with hearings before Judge
Dorothy McMath who was the Probate Judge at the time. This case was
never finally decided and no judgment was entered. Taking advantage of
this, Bank of America filed a new case under the old case number. I
have contended ever since that this was wrong and should not have been
allowed. Then, to mislead the courts, they have changed the name of
this case. Bank of America keeps calling it “In The Matter of the
Trust for Michael created under the Goodall Trust dated September 12,
1990”. This is false. The correct name of this case is “In The
Goodall Trust”.
25. They made this change in name to mislead the judges of this
court by suggesting that Mike Goodall was deemed by his parents to be
incompetent and incapable of managing his finances and thus set up
this trust to protect him from himself. Nothing could be further from
the truth. The Goodall Parents were devoted to their only child and he
was to them. Even if they had doubts about their son, they would not
have cut him out of their estate, because Rachel A. Goodall was an
invalid who could not walk without help and thus was dependent on
Mike, after his father Col. Goodall had died.
26. After this case was pending before the court for ten years
with no final decision reached, a new judge came on the case in 2011
and, with a wave of the hand and giving no reason for the decision,
decided the case in favor of allowing the Bank of America to proceed
without bothering to read the court file which has been all the time
in San Bruno. This was obviously a corrupt decision.
27. No doubt Guide Dogs for the Blind entered this case thinking
they could easily steal the $2.5 million, as they have done so many
times in the past. Perhaps they should have researched my background.
Had they done so they would have learned that I am famous for arguing
orally and winning a case before the United States Supreme Court, SEC
vs. Samuel H. Sloan, 436 US 103 (1978). What would have been wise for
them to notice is that it took me seven years to win that case. That
case was started in 1971 by a meritless suit the SEC filed against me.
It took me seven years to fight this case all the way up to the US
Supreme Court, where I won. This should have told them that filing
meritless lawsuits against me is not a good idea.
28. Similarly, I am prepared to fight this case for at least
seven years or for however long it takes to with because I know where
the truth lies, which is that Guide Dogs for the Blind has no remotest
right to the money. I plan to put Hastings in jail, to get Rothstein
disbarred, to have Guide Dogs closed down and put out of business by
the IRS, to have all the tax deductions taken by their directors and
donors declared invalid by the IRS, and perhaps even to remove the
corrupt judges from the bench if they keep issuing these boneheaded
and stupid if not corrupt decisions, so be prepared for a long fight.

WHEREFORE, for all of the reasons set forth above, the Motion by
Sanctions by Bank of America must be denied and Sanctions should be
imposed on attorneys GARY ROTHSTEIN, ALICIA A. ADORNATO, JAMES R.
HASTINGS and DON A. LESSER.
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: August 24, 2012




Samuel H. Sloan



Verification:

Samuel H. Sloan declares:
I have read the Answer to BANK OF AMERICA'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS the
CROSS-MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST ATTORNEYS GARY ROTHSTEIN, ALICIA A.
ADORNATO, JAMES R. HASTINGS and DON A. LESSER 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: August 24, 2012




Samuel H. Sloan
  #2   Report Post  
Old August 25th 12, 05:35 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.lawyers,soc.culture.usa
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Goodall Case: Answer to Bank of America's and Guide Dogs for theBlind Motion for Sanctions

The Probate Examiner who has caused us so much trouble in the San
Francisco Probate Court got her job by getting a paralegal
certificate.

Here she is:

http://www.cel.sfsu.edu/paralegal/sp...gal-trowbridge

As everybody knows, the judges do not really decide these cases; the
law clerks do.

However, I always thought that the law clerks were young lawyers. I
never thought that a mere paralegal could be allowed to decide a
million dollar case.

http://www.cel.sfsu.edu/paralegal/sp...gal-trowbridge

Sam Sloan
  #3   Report Post  
Old August 26th 12, 11:20 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2012
Posts: 3
Default Goodall Case: Answer to Bank of America's and Guide Dogs for theBlind Motion for Sanctions

On Saturday, August 25, 2012 9:35:48 AM UTC-7, samsloan wrote:

However, I always thought that the law clerks were young lawyers. I

never thought that a mere paralegal could be allowed to decide a

million dollar case.


Sam Sloan


..... at least she has *SOME* legal training which is more than can be said for you. You are not even qualified to be a paralegal, yet that has not stopped you from appearing as though you were a qualified attorney in the same million dollar case.
  #4   Report Post  
Old August 27th 12, 05:32 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.lawyers,soc.culture.usa
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Feb 2012
Posts: 2
Default Goodall Case: Answer to Bank of America's and Guide Dogs for the Blind Motion for Sanctions

Sam,

She's not a "law clerk". She's a probate examiner, a similar job. As you
point out she's generally well educated (Indiana Univ) and specifically
trained as a paralegal from SF State Univ.
Focus on your case not her credentials. Her credentials seem more than
adequate for probate examiner. Look at the experience/education heading in
the job description here

http://agency.governmentjobs.com/occ...assSpecID=5407

Good luck,
Dave M.


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
Goodall Case: Answer by Sam Sloan to Unlawful Detainer Proceeding samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 3 September 1st 12 07:57 AM
Goodall Case: Answer by Sam Sloan to Unlawful Detainer Proceeding samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 August 18th 12 03:48 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:27 AM.

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