| |
Main
Date: 03 Sep 2008 23:37:44
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: U.S. Supreme Court brief in SEC vs. Samuel H. Sloan, 435 US 103 (1978)
|
I am in the process of reprinting the brief I filed in the U.S.
Supreme Court in SEC vs. Samuel H. Sloan, 435 US 103 (1978)
This, plus the oral argument presented to the United States Supreme
Court, resulted in a 9-0 decision in my favor.
My brief when it comes out in about a week will be available at
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891226
I have just discovered that an audio recording of the oral argument I
presented before the United States Supreme Court is available online
at:
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_1607/argument-2/
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_1607/argument-1/
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_1607/opinion/
http://supreme.justia.com/us/436/103/case.html
On the above tapes you can hear Sam Sloan present his oral argument
before the United States Supreme Court and respond to questions
propounded by Chief Justice Berger and Associate Justices Rehnquist,
Stevens, Powell, Marshall and Stewart.
You can also hear future SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt try to defend the
SEC's actions in this case and even hear the audience laugh in
derision when Harvey Pitt tries to advance some especially ridiculous
contentions.
An article in American Lawyer magazine, October 11, 2002, states that
this was "the last time and apparently the only time in the past
century that the that a nonlawyer argued before the Court. Sloan won,
and the record reveals that the advocate arguing against him was an
SEC lawyer by the name of Harvey Pitt."
|
|
| |
Date: 10 Sep 2008 17:00:57
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: U.S. Supreme Court brief in SEC vs. Samuel H. Sloan, 435 US 103 (1978)
|
My US Supreme Court brief is now online and available at
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891226
This is one important accomplishment during my recent trip to San
Francisco August 15-23, 2008. I was able to recover some of my old
possessions including old scrapbooks, old photo albumns, my old hard
disks from 1986 to 1990 and this successful Supreme Court brief which
I filed.
Back when this brief was filed many school libraries acked me for a
copy but I did not have enough extra copies to fulfill all these
requests, so now I have reprinted it and made it available on Amazon.
I need to thank my girlfriend at the time, Anda Baumanis, who later on
became my wife, for typing this Supreme Court brief. (She was a much
better girlfriend than a wife.)
An audio recording of the oral argument I presented before the United
States Supreme Court is available online at:
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_1607/argument-2/
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_1607/argument-1/
I won the case and the decision is at
http://laws.findlaw.com/US/436/103.html
Sam Sloan
On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 23:37:44 GMT, [email protected] (Sam Sloan)
wrote:
>I am in the process of reprinting the brief I filed in the U.S.
>Supreme Court in SEC vs. Samuel H. Sloan, 435 US 103 (1978)
>
>This, plus the oral argument presented to the United States Supreme
>Court, resulted in a 9-0 decision in my favor.
>
>My brief when it comes out in about a week will be available at
>http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891226
>
>I have just discovered that an audio recording of the oral argument I
>presented before the United States Supreme Court is available online
>at:
>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_1607/argument-2/
>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_1607/argument-1/
>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_1607/opinion/
>http://supreme.justia.com/us/436/103/case.html
>
>On the above tapes you can hear Sam Sloan present his oral argument
>before the United States Supreme Court and respond to questions
>propounded by Chief Justice Berger and Associate Justices Rehnquist,
>Stevens, Powell, Marshall and Stewart.
>
>You can also hear future SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt try to defend the
>SEC's actions in this case and even hear the audience laugh in
>derision when Harvey Pitt tries to advance some especially ridiculous
>contentions.
>
>An article in American Lawyer magazine, October 11, 2002, states that
>this was "the last time and apparently the only time in the past
>century that the that a nonlawyer argued before the Court. Sloan won,
>and the record reveals that the advocate arguing against him was an
>SEC lawyer by the name of Harvey Pitt."
|
| |
Date: 04 Sep 2008 10:40:02
From: =?Windows-1252?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: AW: U.S. Supreme Court brief in SEC vs. Samuel H. Sloan, 435 US 103 (1978)
|
Sam Sloan wrote:
> I am in the process of reprinting the brief I filed in the U.S.
> Supreme Court in SEC vs. Samuel H. Sloan, 435 US 103 (1978)
>
> This, plus the oral argument presented to the United States Supreme
> Court, resulted in a 9-0 decision in my favor.
>
> My brief when it comes out in about a week will be available at
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891226
>
> I have just discovered that an audio recording of the oral argument I
> presented before the United States Supreme Court is available online
> at:
> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_1607/argument-2/
> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_1607/argument-1/
> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_1607/opinion/
> http://supreme.justia.com/us/436/103/case.html
>
> On the above tapes you can hear Sam Sloan present his oral argument
> before the United States Supreme Court and respond to questions
> propounded by Chief Justice Berger and Associate Justices Rehnquist,
> Stevens, Powell, Marshall and Stewart.
>
> You can also hear future SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt try to defend the
> SEC's actions in this case and even hear the audience laugh in
> derision when Harvey Pitt tries to advance some especially ridiculous
> contentions.
>
> An article in American Lawyer magazine, October 11, 2002, states that
> this was "the last time and apparently the only time in the past
> century that the that a nonlawyer argued before the Court. Sloan won,
> and the record reveals that the advocate arguing against him was an
> SEC lawyer by the name of Harvey Pitt."
Apparently you have been bragging about this event on a daily basis
for 30 years. The blind pig does occasionally find an acorn. Obviously
your rambling argument contributed nothing to the case.
More typical of Sloanian excursions in the courts is this kind of thing,
having to do with the substance of the same matter:
Sloan, a securities broker-dealer, has had more than his share of litigation
in this court. In January 1974, he was found to have violated rules of the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) relating to record-keeping and
net capital, and was enjoined from further violations. SEC v. Sloan,
369 F.Supp. 996 (S.D.N.Y.1974). His appeal from this order was dismissed
by this court, SEC v. Sloan, Dkt. No. 74-1436 (2d Cir. Jan. 7, 1976),
because Sloan was a fugitive from justice when the case came on to
be heard,2 having apparently fled the jurisdiction to escape sentencing
for contempt of a preliminary injunction restraining still further
violations of SEC rules and requiring Sloan to permit SEC examination
of his books and records. An appeal from this injunction was dismissed
on the same day and on the same ground. SEC v. Sloan, Dkt. No. 75-7056
(2d Cir. Jan. 7, 1976).3 Sloan's registration as a broker-dealer has been
revoked by the SEC and he has been barred from association with any
broker or dealer, Samuel H. Sloan, Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 11376 (April 28, 1975), appeal docketed, Sloan v. SEC,
Dkt. No. 75-4087, 2d Cir., May 7, 1975.4
In this action, Sloan mounts a massive though diffuse attack on the SEC
and various private agencies in the securities industry. In effect,
he challenges the legality of the entire structure of securities regulation
in the United States. We agree with Judge Griesa that the attack is
frivolous.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Sep 2008 15:41:27
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: U.S. Supreme Court brief in SEC vs. Samuel H. Sloan, 435 US 103
|
On Sep 4, 1:40 am, J=FCrgen R. <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> The blind pig does occasionally find an acorn.
Not true -- you, J=FCrgen, have never found any.
Wlod
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2008 09:20:51
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: AW: U.S. Supreme Court brief in SEC vs. Samuel H. Sloan, 435 US 103 (1978)
|
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) wrote:
> On Sep 4, 1:40 am, J�rgen R. <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> The blind pig does occasionally find an acorn.
>
>
> Not true -- you, J�rgen, have never found any.
>
> Wlod
Right - I haven't. Sorry to have forgotten to mention that.
|
| | |
Date: 04 Sep 2008 10:22:20
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: AW: U.S. Supreme Court brief in SEC vs. Samuel H. Sloan, 435 US 103 (1978)
|
That 1975 decision was overruled by the 1978 decision by the United
States Supreme Court.
http://laws.findlaw.com/US/436/103.html SEC v. Samuel H. Sloan, 436
U.S. 103 (1978)
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Sep 2008 15:30:10
From: =?Windows-1252?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: AW: AW: U.S. Supreme Court brief in SEC vs. Samuel H. Sloan, 435 US 103 (1978)
|
Sam Sloan wrote:
> That 1975 decision was overruled by the 1978 decision by the United
> States Supreme Court.
>
> http://laws.findlaw.com/US/436/103.html SEC v. Samuel H. Sloan, 436
> U.S. 103 (1978)
Nonsense - only the specific issue of successive 10-day trading suspensions
was
considered by the Supreme Court.
Your fraudulent practices and the loss of your license are not affected by
this decision.
|
| | |
Date: 04 Sep 2008 10:43:40
From: =?Windows-1252?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: AW: U.S. Supreme Court brief in SEC vs. Samuel H. Sloan, 435 US 103 (1978)
|
J�rgen R. wrote:
> Sam Sloan wrote:
>> I am in the process of reprinting the brief I filed in the U.S.
>> Supreme Court in SEC vs. Samuel H. Sloan, 435 US 103 (1978)
>>
>> This, plus the oral argument presented to the United States Supreme
>> Court, resulted in a 9-0 decision in my favor.
>>
>> My brief when it comes out in about a week will be available at
>> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891226
>>
>> I have just discovered that an audio recording of the oral argument I
>> presented before the United States Supreme Court is available online
>> at:
>> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_1607/argument-2/
>> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_1607/argument-1/
>> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_1607/opinion/
>> http://supreme.justia.com/us/436/103/case.html
>>
>> On the above tapes you can hear Sam Sloan present his oral argument
>> before the United States Supreme Court and respond to questions
>> propounded by Chief Justice Berger and Associate Justices Rehnquist,
>> Stevens, Powell, Marshall and Stewart.
>>
>> You can also hear future SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt try to defend the
>> SEC's actions in this case and even hear the audience laugh in
>> derision when Harvey Pitt tries to advance some especially ridiculous
>> contentions.
>>
>> An article in American Lawyer magazine, October 11, 2002, states that
>> this was "the last time and apparently the only time in the past
>> century that the that a nonlawyer argued before the Court. Sloan won,
>> and the record reveals that the advocate arguing against him was an
>> SEC lawyer by the name of Harvey Pitt."
>
> Apparently you have been bragging about this event on a daily basis
> for 30 years. The blind pig does occasionally find an acorn. Obviously
> your rambling argument contributed nothing to the case.
>
> More typical of Sloanian excursions in the courts is this kind of
> thing, having to do with the substance of the same matter:
>
> Sloan, a securities broker-dealer, has had more than his share of
> litigation in this court. In January 1974, he was found to have
> violated rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
> relating to record-keeping and net capital, and was enjoined from further
> violations. SEC v. Sloan,
> 369 F.Supp. 996 (S.D.N.Y.1974). His appeal from this order was
> dismissed by this court, SEC v. Sloan, Dkt. No. 74-1436 (2d Cir. Jan. 7,
> 1976),
> because Sloan was a fugitive from justice when the case came on to
> be heard,2 having apparently fled the jurisdiction to escape
> sentencing for contempt of a preliminary injunction restraining still
> further
> violations of SEC rules and requiring Sloan to permit SEC examination
> of his books and records. An appeal from this injunction was dismissed
> on the same day and on the same ground. SEC v. Sloan, Dkt. No. 75-7056
> (2d Cir. Jan. 7, 1976).3 Sloan's registration as a broker-dealer has
> been revoked by the SEC and he has been barred from association with
> any broker or dealer, Samuel H. Sloan, Securities Exchange Act Release
> No. 11376 (April 28, 1975), appeal docketed, Sloan v. SEC,
> Dkt. No. 75-4087, 2d Cir., May 7, 1975.4
>
> In this action, Sloan mounts a massive though diffuse attack on the
> SEC and various private agencies in the securities industry. In effect,
> he challenges the legality of the entire structure of securities
> regulation in the United States. We agree with Judge Griesa that the
> attack is frivolous.
Conclusion of the same dismissal:
While we do not in this case invoke the provisions of Fed.R.App.P.
38 to assess penalties against appellant, we note that these are
available, and may be appropriate if the same arguments which
we have dismissed as frivolous are put before us again in the future.
|
|
