In the Supreme Court of the United States Samuel H Sloan Vs Bank of America, James R. Hastings and Guide Dogs for the Blind Petition for a Writ of Cer - Tapa blanda

Supreme Court of the United States Samuel H. Sloan, Administrator of Estate of K. Michael Goodall with Will Annexed vs. Bank of America N. A. James R. Hastings and Guide Dogs For the Blind, Inc. Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four This is a petition for a writ of certiorari filed in the United States Supreme Court regarding the Estate of Michael Goodall, a well known and prominent chess personality and FIDE international arbiter and organizer, recognized by the World Chess Federation. Immediately following the death of Mike Goodall in October 2010, Bank of America moved to seize the entire Goodall Assets, even to the point of burglary, breaking into the Goodall mansion and stealing all of the property. Petitioner Samuel H. Sloan, Administrator of the Goodall Estate, filed a petition in Marin County Probate Court thereby forcing Bank of America to return the Goodall property. However, Bank of America filed a counter petition in San Francisco Probate Court to take over all the assets of the Goodall Estate, even though none of the Goodall assets were in San Francisco County. For the last nearly three years this case has been running in parallel in two different and conflicting courts with neither court willing to transfer the case to the other court because of the huge amount of money involved. This conflict has led to this case being filed in the United States Supreme Court.

Samuel Howard Sloan is an American chess player and publisher. In 2006, Sloan served on the Executive Board of the United States Chess Federation. In 1970, Sloan established a registered broker-dealer that traded over-the-counter stocks and bonds. Sloan had no formal legal training but orally argued a case before the Supreme Court after litigating against the Securities and Exchange Commission over policies regarding the trading of penny stocks. The Court ruled in his favor, 9–0, concerning his claim that the "tacking" of 10-day summary suspension orders for an indefinite period was an abuse of the agency's authority and a deprivation of due process. He was the last non-lawyer to argue orally before the US Supreme Court.