|
n the nearly two months since the Aiken County Probate Court ruled in
favor of Creighton and appointed him as his mother's personal
representative, Creighton has done absolutely nothing to implement the
court's decision. He has not taken any steps to post a bond as he was
required to do, not has he turned over the funds to his lawyer. In
short, the situation is exactly the same as it was before the hearings
in court. Creighton has stolen more that one million dollars of his
mother's money and has possesssion of thise funds in violation of
numerous court orders and has shown no inclination to distribute the
funds in his possession to the rightful heirs.
Creighton has claimed that he has not been able to implement the
court's decision, because he has been unable to take off time from
work. However, I have found out that only last week Creighton
travelled to Las Vegas Nevada where he attended a party and engaged in
gambling and other activities. I have found a picture of Creighton
taken at the New York New York Hotel in Las Vegas and posted on the
Internet on December 21, 2003. That picture can be found at:
http://f2.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/joebarrington/detail?.dir=/vegas+small+pics&.dnm=Imag0066.jpg
In this picture, Creighton's face appears directly above the head of
the groom.
It appears that Creighton was trying to hide his face and did not want
his picture appearing because this is the only picture of Creighton
among the 50 posted photos of this wedding party. However, there are
several clear pictures of his son, Cassel Sloan, from the same party,
for example at:
http://f2.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/joebarrington/detail?.dir=/vegas+small+pics&.dnm=Imag0033.jpg
Cassel is standing at the left facing away from the camera.
Also, in the same group of pictures are several clear photos of
Charles and Shelby Roberts. For example at:
http://f2.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/joebarrington/detail?.dir=/vegas+small+pics&.dnm=Imag0001.jpg
These are the same religious fanatics who have repeatedly kidnapped or
tried to kidnap my children. Charles Roberts also filed a claim
against my mother's estate. It is to be recalled that Creigton
testified in court under oath that he had no involvement with the
Roberts. Yet, here is the proof that they travelled from Virginia and
South Carolina to Las Vegas to attend the same party together.
It is obvious from Creighton's entire conduct during the 17 years that
this litigation has been going on that he intends to keep all of the
money for himself and never to distribute it.
Sam Sloan
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA )
) IN THE PROBATE COURT
COUNTY OF AIKEN )
IN RE: )
ESTATE OF HELEN M. SLOAN)
)
CREIGHTON W. SLOAN )
)
)
Plaintiff ) ORDER
) 02-ES-02-489
vs. )
)
SAMUEL H. SLOAN )
)
Defendant )
______________________________)
This matter came before the Court pursuant to Petitions for the Formal
Appointment of Personal Representative filed by both parties. This
case was tried on October 7 and 29, 2003. The Plaintiff was
represented by Catherine H. Kennedy of the Richland County Bar. The
Defendant appeared pro se, however, he was previously represented by
Patricia Harrison of the Richland County Bar who was relieved as
counsel by prior Court Order.
The sole issue before the Court was which son of the decedent would
better serve as Personal Estate.
The Court carefully reviewed and considered two days of trial
testimony along with seventeen (17) Exhibits in evidence by the
Plaintiff and sixty-six (66) Exhibits in evidence by the Defendant.
The following findings and conclusions are made:
l. That this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this
action and parties hereto.
2. That the Plaintiff and the Defendant are the sole children of the
decedent.
3. That the Estate appears to be worth a total of approximately
$258,000.00 consisting of three bank accounts.
4. That the Plaintiff has in the past for his mother served as
Attorney-in-fact, temporary Conservator, and Guardian.
5. That the Plaintiff is employed at the Savannah River Plant, is a
South Carolina resident within the Court's jurisdiction, has stable
employment, has never filed bankruptcy, and has and presumably will
have the fine and capable representation by Catherine Kennedy in this
Estate.
6. That the Defendant filed bankruptcy in 1994, was cited by the
Securities and Exchange Commission for records and bookkeeping
violations in the 1970's, was recently facing eviction from his
residence for being unable to pay rent, has a rather uncertain and
varied employment history, and is a New York resident. Also, the
Defendant is the current administrator on his father's Estate,
however, the Estate was opened in 1986 and has never been closed.
Finally, the Defendant repeatedly throughout the trial of this case
questioned critically the validity and judicial integrity of the court
system in Virginia and Aiken County, South Carolina.
7. The Defendant presented a sordid and bizarre history of this family
in an attempt to justify this Court in appointing him as Personal
Representative. Numerous allegations, somewhat unbelievable and
spectacular at times, were levied against the Plaintiff involving
kidnappings, mishandling of money, and acts of hatred and dislike for
the decedent. The evidence presented by the Defendant, and with most
of it being remote and irrelevant having alleged to have occurred in
the 1980's and early 1990's, did not rise to the level of a
preponderance of the evidence standard that must be shown to sustain a
party's burden of proof. The Defendant even admitted during testimony
that "a lot of this is based upon supposition". The Defendant's case
was simply a display of the longstanding feud and sad relationship
between these brothers. Quite remarkable too, the Defendant also
admitted during testimony that the reason for wanting to be appointed
Personal Representative was to "regain ownership of his mother's house
in Virginia so he and his eight children would have a place to live".
8. Based upon the credibility of the testimony and evidence presented,
the Plaintiff should be the party to be appointed Personal
representative. Due to the fact that a bond would be appropriate
(without attorney involvement), it would appear that the Plaintiff
would have the better chance of securing a bond than the Defendant
would have.
Based upon the above, it is
HEREBY ORDERED that Creighton W. Sloan is appointed as Personal
Representative of this Estate.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bond is required prior to the receipt of
an
|
| |
| |
|
