quote:

---

> STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE CIRCUIT COURT
> : SECOND JUDICIAL
> CIRCUIT
> COUNTY OF AIKEN )
>
> HELEN SLOAN AND CREIGHTON W. )
> SLOAN, )
> )
> Plaintiff, ) Motion to Dismiss
> Appeal
> ) 03-CP-02-1681
> -vs- )
> )
> SAMUEL H. SLOAN, )
> )
> Defendant ) ORIGINAL
> )
>
>
> ****
> April 6, 2004
> ****
>
>
> Held Before the Honorable
> James Williams
>
>
> APPEARANCES:
> For the Plaintiff: For the Defendant:
> Catherine Kennedy, Esquire Pro Se
>
>
> Court
> Reporter:
> Hilda M.
> Jordan, CVR
>
> THE COURT: All right, I think what we're hearing in this case
> is a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal on the grounds that it was untimely
> filed; is that not right?
> MS. KENNEDY: Yes, sir. That's correct.
> I'm Catherine Kennedy representing Creighton Sloan.
> THE COURT: Yes, ma'am.
> Mr. Sloan., I've looked at the file, and it appears to me that
> she�fs right:
> MR. SLOAN: Your Honor, first I want to address a point. We had
> a hearing last -- on February 4, in which Judge William Keesley said
> -- nearly as close as I heard him, Judge Keesley said he's not
> prepared to decide that motion until the transcript or the record of
> the proceeding below him have been filed. I received a letter in the
> mail indicating that the transcript had been filed. I came up here to
> Court yesterday -- I came from New York, and I was surprised to look
> and there's no transcript in the record, there's no tape recordings in
> the record. There is no -- usually -- I understand when there is no
> transcript or tape recordings that the lower court makes of the
> parties. There were about sixty-five exhibits, I think, made by the
> Defendant in there, but the Judge below him didn't like what these
> exhibits are all about. He didn't -- described the positions of the
> parties. He didn't really tell me anything about what this case is
> really all about.
> THE COURT: All right.
> MR. SLOAN: Judge Keesley said --
> THE COURT: All right, sir. I appreciate all that. I don't see
> where that has anything to do with the issue before me, which is that
> you didn't file your appeal under the time limits required by the
> statute.
> MR. SLOAN: Well, I disagree, Your Honor, because I came down
> here right after a year before we were -- I came down here in April,
> but the hearing was in March, and I asked the time to appeal, I spoke
> with Barbara Riggs, and she told me the time to appeal the case was
> thirty days.
> After the hearing on February 4th, appeared before Judge
> Barbara Riggs -- before Barbara Riggs and again I asked the same
> question again, she said the time to appeal was thirty days.
> Now, I disagree with you especially she's like it's based on
> the time the decision is received. Well, I don�ft know what time the
> decision was received. I don't think anybody knows what time the
> decision is received. But the thirty days is pretty well standard.
> I filed -- I came back in thirty days and-the reason why I
> waited until the thirteenth day was because I was hoping my brother
> would take some steps to comply with the Court order and, in fact, he
> didn�ft do anything to comply with the court order and he had thirty
> days he could have gotten the Order and finalized the whole thing in
> thirty days if he wanted to do so. He didn't raise even the first
> finger towards trying to (inaudible) decision. He has gotten in his
> control and bank account -- the minute they signed this Order he got
> $250,000.00. All he has to do is write checks for the money. He
> doesn't have to anything. I don't -
> THE COURT: All right.
> MR. SLOAN: -- need -- realize that those checks
> THE COURT: All right. Have a seat over there. That�fs your
> table.
> MR. SLOAN: Right. Yes, sir.
> THE COURT: And let me hear from Ms. Kennedy.
> Just put the dates on the record. Please
> Now, listen to these very carefully, Mr. Sloan. And let me
> know if you disagree with anything that she's reciting into the
> record.
> MS. KENNEDY: Your Honor, Judge Hocker issued an order -- he
> was appointed as a Special Probate Judge in Aiken County, he issued an
> Order on November 3, 2003, the affidavit from the clerk of Judge
> Hocker indicates that she mailed the order on November 4, 2003,
> together with a statement of costs concerning tapes for the hearing.
> She mailed that both to Mr. Sloan and, to myself. Thereafter, sometime
> between November 5, 2003 and November 10, 2003, Samuel Sloan called
> her regarding the statement of cost, clearly indicating that he had
> received the statement from her, which again, was included in the
> Order.
> THE COURT: All right.
> MS. KENNEDY: Was included in the package of the Order.
> THE COURT: All right. Hold on one second.
> Now, Mr. Sloan, Ms. Kennedy is saying that you called her --
> MS. KENNEDY: No, sir. I'm sorry. He called the clerk.
> THE COURT: You called the Clerk of Court before November 10th
> and asked her questions about what the Clerk had mailed you.
> Do you recall that?
> MR. SLOAN; Yes. I don't remember any dates. I know what I've
> called many times the Clerk of this Court, Barbara Riggs. I've called
> the Clerk of the Laurens Court. I've also -- this case went through
> three other judges before it got here. I mean three other Probate
> Judges: It went to -- it went to -- Columbia -- then it went to -- I
> can't remember the name of the other county, and then it went to --
> THE COURT: Okay. So your answer is no, you don't remember
> that?
> MR. SLOAN: No, I don't remember that.
> THE COURT: All right. That's fine. Thank you, sir. You may be
> seated.
> All right. Continue, please, ma'am.
> MS. KENNEDY: Your Honor, on December 1st, he dated his Notice
> of Intent to Appeal. I received it on December 3rd, and it was also
> filed in the Probate Court on December 3rd. It was not filed in
> Circuit Court until some time thereafter, I believe December 18th,
> because of failure to pay the filing fee it was returned to him. And
> then thereafter it came back with the appropriate filing fee.
> That was the Notice of Intent to Appeal untimely filed, but
> also the grounds for appeal was -- it's dated January 15th. It was
> filed in the Probate Court on January 28th. South Carolina Code
> Section 62-1-308(a) governs appeals from the Probate Court requiring
> that the Intent to Appeal be filed within ten days of the date he
> received the Order.
> We know he received it at least by November 10th. That would
> have thereafter,, at least, November 20th or 21st to file it. It was
> not even dated until December 1, and the forty-five day time frame for
> filing grounds for appeal and those were not actually filed with the
> Court until January 28th, some seventy-seven days after he actually
> could have pursued the order.
> There are three cases in South Carolina that deal with this --
> the Court of Appeals decision from 1996 mirrors a Supreme Court
> decision from 1985, in a Court of Appeals decision from 2002; all are
> cited in my memorandum, and I do have copies for both you and Mr.
> Sloan, if you would like to see them, indicating that the statutory
> time frame for appealing from a Probate Court is the time frame and in
> that the grounds must be file and the Notice of Intent must be filed
> in accordance with that statutory time frame. If it's not, then the
> appellate court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to deal with the
> appeal. And therefore I'm asking for this appeal to be dismissed and I
> have submitted to the Court a statement of costs, and I would ask that
> you direct that costs in the amount of $1,046.75 be assessed against
> Mr. Sloan. .
> MR. SLOAN: Your Honor, may I respond to that?
> THE COURT: Yes, sir.
> MR. SLOAN: Okay. Your Honor, first place, about the costs I --
> like I say, after the hearing was held before Judge Hocker I drove
> down there from Laurens to Aiken, and I went to the Clerks office, and
> I asked them exactly about how much was the filing fee to file an
> appeal. I told them I was going to file an appeal, but I wanted to
> give my brother a little bit of time to comply with the Court Order in
> case -- in the off-chance he would decide to comply with it. They told
> me that they did not know what the filing fee was. But what I should
> just do was go ahead and file a Notice of Intent to Appeal and then if
> they -- once they found out what the filing fee was they would send it
> back to me and they would notify me as to what the filing fee was. So
> I did exactly what -- what they told me to do. You can ask them in the
> Clerk's office and I'm sure they remember the conversation that we had
> about this filing fee.
> Now, I'd also like to point out that Ms. Kennedy was in
> default for one year in this case. My mother died in May -- in May
> 16th of 2002. I filed -- as soon as I found out my brother didn't file
> anything, I'm the one who filed the death certificate and started this
> whole proceeding. My brother did not appear in this case until January
> 2003, nine months later. And that appearance wasn't served on my
> either I didn't finally get service on the proceedings until August of
> 2003, and then finally this case was transferred around to several
> different judges, and finally wound up here. So they are one year late
> in appearing in this case. They are in default a couple of months
> after my mother died in May 2002. So here they come in saying I'm two
> days late. Another thing about the transcript is, Judge Hocker made
> the statement in open court that he was not ready to receive any
> filings from me by mail. As a matter of fact, I had sent him a
> pleading and he -- he had the envelop in open court and -- in Laurens.
> He said, I received this in the mail, I'm not going to open any
> envelops from you at all. And he handed it back to me in the presence
> of Ms. Kennedy, my adversary. And here he's making a statement that
> he's not willing to open any mail that I send him about the case; any
> pleadings, any motions, any affidavits, anything like that. He
> wouldn't even open the letter. So how can he suddenly come around and
> say that I'm two days late for filing the grounds for appeal when he
> isn't even -- he's on record, and that's why, again, I say that the
> transcripts of this case is very necessary, because if the transcript
> is here I can show you exactly where he said this.
> I also asked him questions about the time to appeal. He said,
> well, I'm not here to give legal advice. Very strange that a judge
> would say of the time limits and not admitting -- things like that,
> that he would say he's not going to give legal advice. That's not
> legal advice, that's procedure. Procedure varies from courtroom to
> courtroom from state to state. I live in New York. In New York the
> time to appeal starts with service of a Notice - an affidavit of
> service with Notice of Entry. That's - Affidavit of Service with
> Notice of Entry starts the time limit of thirty days to run an appeal
> in New York. That's a case I'm familiar with.
> By the way, you may not know this about me, but I once argued
> orally before the United States Supreme Court. It's a famous case. I'm
> the last non-lawyer ever to argue and win a case in the United States
> Supreme Court.
> THE COURT: And I hope you stuck to the subject matter before
> the Supreme Court in Washington better than you're doing today.
> Because most of what you said doesn't have anything to do with the
> issue before the Court.
> MR. SLOAN: Well, I get -- that Judge Keesley - we had a
> hearing; we can get a transcript of that hearing. On February 4, he
> said he was not going to rule on the motion that Ms. Kennedy filed
> until he had received a transcript. We haven't got the transcript. I'm
> willing to pay for the cost of the transcript: It's not a question of
> costs. I keep calling over and over again, calling the clerks of these
> Courts trying to find out what is the procedure and they keep saying
> you'll have to ask the Judge about that. So now you're the judge, two
> months ago it was a different judge, Judge Keesley, who made a
> different ruling than you seem like you're heading for right now. So
> it's a very difficult situation, especially me being out of state, to
> deal with.
> THE COURT: Did Judge Keesley take this matter under advisement
> or something like that?
> MS. KENNEDY: Your Honor, Judge Keesley issued an order
> directing the Probate Court to submit documentation to the Circuit
> Court regarding this matter, which Judge Hocker did. He submitted all
> the original exhibits that were submitted, he submitted his court
> order and you should have that order issued by Judge Keesley -
> THE COURT: But, he did not deal with this issue, he did not
> deal with the time limits of the filing?
> MS. KENNEDY: He indicated that he could not deal with it until
> the return and transmittal of the record was entered by the Probate
> Court. That is in his of February 3, 2004. And thereafter Judge Hocker
> on February 20, 2004, filed the Probate Court Return. That's a letter
> to the clerk here in Aiken County. So the Return was filed with this
> Court in accordance with Judge Keesley's Order on February 20th.
> MR. SLOAN: Your Honor, may I say something about this?
> THE COURT: Yes, sir.
> MR. SLOAN: Okay.
> THE COURT: Could you pass me up a copy of that order. I mean,
> the file's about four inches thick. You can probably do that before I
> can find it in this file. I mean, everything is very neatly organized
> and all of that. It's just so big that I don't know where to look for
> it. Is that his handwritten order?
> MS. KENNEDY: Yes, sir.
> THE COURT: Of February 4th?
> MS. KENNEDY: Yes, sir.
> THE COURT: Okay. I've got it. It's right here.
> MS. KENNEDY: Okay. The next thing in my file, Your Honor, is a
> letter of February 20th, with a return signed by Donald B. Hocker,
> Special Probate Judge for Aiken County. I have a copy of that if Your
> Honor would like to see that?
> THE COURT: No, ma'am.
> Yes, sir?
> MR. SLOAN: Yes. In the hearing before Judge Keesley, I think
> that's his name -- anyway. I'm sorry. I brought up the point that when
> this case -- the - guardianship case appeal had been heard --
> there was an appeal in the guardianship case back in 1991 before Judge
> Peeples, and Judge Peeples had said that he had spent several hours
> reviewing the tapes of the hearings in the guardianship case. He had
> actually had the tape recorder running, listening to the testimony of
> the guardianship case. And I was wondering if Judge Keesley is going
> to do that again, and his reply was that he doesn't have time to be
> listening to lengthy tape recordings, specially case like this which
> was back over two days, probably about eight hours of testimony; he
> didn't have time to be listening to lots of tapes. He wanted a typed
> transcript made -- and -- that was his ruling in this court, we could
> probably get a transcript of what he said back then on February 4th,
> and you'll see that he said that he specially wanted a typed
> transcript made. Now, here we have a record coming with no tape
> recording. They have the tape recordings. I have a copy of -- Ms.
> Kennedy also purchased a copy of the tapes -- of the thing -- so that
> we know they have the tapes, but he did not send those tapes to this
> Court. So you cannot listen to -- all these things I'm talking about,
> Judge Hocker said this, Judge Hocker said that, I can verify that if I
> have the transcript before or if I have the tapes before me. I can
> show you exactly where he said these things, and, for example, he
> said_ that he's not willing to receive anything in the mail from me.
> He's not willing to even open the envelops that I sent to the
> Courthouse. That's certainly relevant on the question of time limits.
> So he said he's not even going to open any mail I send him. So -- I
> submit that without those transcripts and tapes or any kind of
> statement from the Court about what I -- what took place, what
> witnesses were called, all the other things that lower court judges
> usually transfers to the higher courts you can't rule on this thing,
> and I'd also like to point out again, we have a million and a-half
> dollars involved in this case. This is not a small case. This is a
> very big case.
> I happen to be walking down the street yesterday and it was a
> lawyer standing in front of his new office, and I had exchanged
> pleasantries with him, you know, how's the building -- this kind of
> stuff. And then I happen to notice he's a lawyer. And I said, let me
> tell you about -as long as you're a lawyer, let me tell you about my
> case. My mother is a child psychiatrist -- my mother was kidnapped
> from Bangkok, Thailand and she was brought here to Aiken, South
> Carolina in 1991. He said, oh, I know exactly this case. Your mother
> was Dr. Marjorie Sloan, she was a child psychiatrist, and I wish you
> the best of luck and by the way, I'm not willing to take this case and
> no lawyer in Aiken will take this case, because every lawyer in Aiken
> knows that this case is such a mess that nobody will touch it. You'll
> notice that Ms. Kennedy comes from Columbia. The lawyer that was on
> this case back in 1991, his office is directly across the street from
> this courthouse, Mr. Tucker, he's two minutes walk from here. He's is
> not going to come for this case because he knows this terrible mess.
> My brother has been stealing money from my mother for the last -- this
> case has been going on for eighteen years. And my brother has been
> stealing money -- he stole a million and a-half from us -- from my
> mother. He's got it hidden in various places. We don't know where it
> is. He stole my mother's house in 1993, even though a conservator was
> appointed in 1991. He had no right to sell her house. He took money
> out of her bank account, he took her social security check for
> $6,000.00 a month over a period of eleven years. Now, that money was
> supposed to go to the court appointed conservator. A conservator he
> had appointed. He had the conservator appointed. And he turns around
> and he doesn't give any money to the conservator. He keeps all the
> money himself, a million and a-half dollars. And that's what we're
> talking about is a million and a-half dollars. Plus I've got eight
> children to take care of including this one sitting right here. And --
> and he's got all the money and nobody knows where it is. He's not
> going to tell the lawyer where it is.
> She's expecting to get paid from the proceeds of this estate,
> and by the way, I got news for her, he's not getting any money. She's
> not going to get paid if that's the way she's going to get paid if by
> him. She's just so much out of luck. That's what this case is all
> about -and I -
> THE COURT: All right, sir.
> MR. SLOAN: -- and I'm convinced that we have to have that
> transcript here and the record according to the ruling of Judge
> Keesley in order to proceed on -- to rule on her motion.
> THE COURT: All right. Thank you, sir.
> I've read Judge Keesley's Order. I've -- I don't know what the
> purpose of his order was, but there's nothing in his Order that
> prohibits me from hearing this Motion to Dismiss the Appeal, and the
> very narrow issue that's been raised before me in this Court. I would
> certainly not tread on Judge Keesley's turf. I will not attempt to
> make an order contradictory to his, but -- I find that the appeal was
> untimely filed, the appeal is dismissed. That order is granted.
> Now, Ms. Kennedy your requests for costs and the attorney fees
> -- I don't have a copy -- It appears to me that the decision has to be
> set by the Supreme Court and then the Supreme Court set it at a
> thousand dollars in an order in 1997, did they set it only for Supreme
> Court Appeals or for any appeal. I don't have a copy of that order.
> MS. KENNEDY: Your Honor, I'm just referring to - -
> THE COURT: The rule says it has to be set by the Supreme
> Court, which would indicate to me that it had to be an appeal to the
> Supreme Court for you to be entitled to attorneys fees.
> MS. KENNEDY: Your Honor, I don't know the answer It is in the
> South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, which may or may not apply to
> this particular appeal.
> THE COURT: Well, I tend to think that the first part of 222(b)
> applies, but then it says, in addition the parties shall entitled to
> recover an attorney fee in the amount which shall be set by Order of
> the Supreme Court.
> MS. KENNEDY: Yes, sir. I understand and I don't have the
> Order. All I've got is the citation in the Rule that just says that
> the amount of attorneys fees was set at $1,000.00 applicable to any
> appeal or an exclusion is filed on or after July -
> THE COURT: All right. I will take your request under for
> costs -- I'll grant the $36.75 and I'll take the matter of the
> $1,000.00 under advisement until I can determine whether that -- I'll
> get a copy of that order and determine whether it applies.
> MS. KENNEDY: Thank you, Your Honor.
> THE COURT: Now, Mr. Sloan, when you want legal advice you
> should contact a lawyer and not somebody on the street. And not
> somebody in the Clerk's office.
> MR. SLOAN: Well, certainly I don't think that particularly
> matters at this point.
> HE COURT: Well, but they're not lawyers and they are not
> allowed to give you legal advice. So when you get this order that I'm
> going to sign when Ms. Kennedy has prepared it, and when you get this
> Order you need to see a lawyer if you want to appeal it.
> MR. SLOAN: Okay. Well, I'm going to appeal -I'll tell you
> right now, I'm appealing. I'll tell you that right now today, before I
> go back to New York.
> THE COURT: Good luck to you.
> MR. SLOAN: Your Honor, I believe ultimately, the Court of
> Common Pleas is going to have to take original jurisdiction over this
> case. This case is clearly beyond the competence of the Probate Court.
> It's a lot of money involved in this case; there's kidnapping
> involved. My brother had my mother kidnapped -- had her kidnapped from
> Bangkok, Thailand. She never lived in this city at all. She never
> lived in South Carolina in her entire life. She never even came here
> in her entire life until my brother had her kidnapped and brought here
> and had her locked up for twelve years until she died.
> He belongs in jail. I can't understand why you -
> THE COURT: All right. Thank you very much.
> MR. SLOAN: -- he stole all this money, which is perfectly
> obvious from the documents you have in front of you. Those exhibits
> show you that he stole money from his money.
> THE COURT: Thank you very much.
> MR. SLOAN: So anyway, I'm going to get a transcript of this
> because I'm appealing your ruling to the South Carolina Supreme Court.
> THE COURT: Once you get the Order then you will need to
> contact the court reporter and have a transcript prepared, and I think
> they require you to make a deposit.
> MR. SLOAN: That's no problem about money. This case involves a
> million and a-half dollars and -
> THE COURT: All right.
> MR. SLOAN: -- and we know that we will never get a dime from
> Creighton. He's already told everybody that's his friends that he's
> never going to give me a single dime. At the very minimal I'm entitled
> to $150,000.00 out of this deal.
> THE COURT: All right, sir. Thank you very much.
> MS. KENNEDY: Your Honor, I do have a proposed Order I'd like
> to sent to you to look at.
> THE COURT: I'm not going to sign it today. I've printed it off
> last night and left my copy at home, but I can't sign it until I look
> up the statute on costs.
> MR. SLOAN: Okay.
> THE COURT: But she'll be filing it with the Clerk of Court and
> then my suggestion is that you contact an attorney.
> MR. SLOAN: Well, Your Honor, nobody will take -
> THE COURT: Listen -- Attorneys all over the state of South
> Carolina. The only advice I'm giving you is you need a lawyer. Thank
> you. Good day.
> MS. KENNEDY: Thank you, Your Honor.
> (The proceeding was concluded.)
>

quote:

---

>ROTFLMFAO. Sam, you couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag.
>
>

quote:

---

> But remember, he's an invalid. Did you avctually read this through?