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.

This proceeding is brought under Election Law Sections 16-100 and 16-102 and other provisions of New York Law. Sam Sloan is a candidate for Mayor of the City of New York. Richard Bozulich is a candidate for Comptroller of the City of New York. Thomas R. Stevens is a candidate for Public Advocate of the City of New York. At the Hearing on the Order to Show Cause before Justice Paul Wooten on August 5, 2013, Defendant Board of Elections in the City of New York provided only one grounds for throwing the petitioners of the ballot. That ground was that under Section 132 (2) of New York Election law the subscribing witnesses to a Designating Petition must be registered to vote as a member of the Party whose nomination is being sought, and the subscribing witnesses were not Republicans with only two exceptions. Petitioners had submitted approximately 4500 signatures to run for election whereas only 3750 are required. (There are some differences in the count of the total number of signatures but all counts agree that more than 4200 were filed.) A few of the 4500 signatures collected were found invalid for various reasons including bad address or not registered to vote. However, a core of 3905 signatures were found to be good but invalid for one reason only which is that the Subscribing Witnesses to those petitions were not registered to vote as members of the Republican Party. In other words, had those 3905 signatures been witnessed by a Registered Republican Party Voter, then all three petitioners would be on the ballot. However, because they were witnessed by other voters, including Democrats, Libertarians and Blanks, those 3905 signatures were deemed invalid. Petitioner Sam Sloan is a long standing registered voter in the Republican Party and he also circulated and witnessed some of the petitions and signed one of the petitions himself. The petitions he witnessed were deemed valid but all or almost all of the others were deemed invalid on the ground that the subscribing witness was not registered as a Republican. Frankly, the petitioners are newcomers to this process and were not aware that there was any requirement that the signatures be witnessed by members of any political party. Had they known about this they might have tried to find witnesses who are Republicans but failing that they would likely have given up trying to run for election as finding any witnesses is a difficult task under any circumstances. Witnesses must sign a declaration equivalent to an affidavit under penalty of perjury and must be prepared to be subpoenaed to testify in court under oath. Obviously, not many people are going to be willing to do that. Now that the petitioners have found out the hard way that there is a rule as interpreted by the Board of Elections that says that petitions for Republican Party Candidates must be witnessed (as well as being signed) by REGISTERED voters in the Republican Party, petitioners contend that such a requirement is unconstitutional under the First Amendment right "To Petition the Government." It seems obvious that a requirement that the signatures to a petition of any type are deemed valid if and only if they are witnessed by Registered Republicans cannot be Constitutional. This is an infringement to the constitutional right "to Petition the Government."

SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO APPEALS DIVISION IN RE The Goodall Trust Appeal No. A137739 Superior Court No. PTR-99-273030 SAM WARE, Movant and Respondent, vs. SAMUEL H. SLOAN Defendant and Appellant, v. Bank of America, N. A. Plaintiff _____________________________________________________ CLERK'S TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO APPEAL FILED ON 01/28/13 THE HONORABLE PETER J. BUSCH VOL 3 of 5 The Record of this Case includes the following documents: Sloan vs. Ware and Bank of America Appellant's Opening BriefISBN 4-87187-370-6 Sloan vs. Ware and Bank of America Clerk's Transcript on Appeal Vol. 1ISBN 4-87187-371-4 Sloan vs. Ware and Bank of America Clerk's Transcript on Appeal Vol. 2ISBN 4-87187-372-2 Sloan vs. Ware and Bank of America Clerk's Transcript on Appeal Vol. 3ISBN 4-87187-373-0 Sloan vs. Ware and Bank of America Clerk's Transcript on Appeal Vol. 4ISBN 4-87187-374-9 Sloan vs. Ware and Bank of America Clerk's Transcript on Appeal Vol. 5ISBN 4-87187-375-7 In Re The Goodall Trust Appeal No. A137189ISBN 4-87187-361-7 In Re The Goodall Trust Appeal No. A137190ISBN 4-87187-362-5 Goodall Estate Petition for Review Case No. S208891 California Supreme CourtISBN 4-87187-363-3 Goodall Estate Petition for Review Case No. S208895 California Supreme CourtISBN 4-87187-364-1

First series, books 1-43, includes "Notes on U.S. reports" by Walter Malins Rose.

This primer on legal reasoning is aimed at law students and upper-level undergraduates. But it is also an original exposition of basic legal concepts that scholars and lawyers will find stimulating. It covers such topics as rules, precedent, authority, analogical reasoning, the common law, statutory interpretation, legal realism, judicial opinions, legal facts, and burden of proof. In addressing the question whether legal reasoning is distinctive, Frederick Schauer emphasizes the formality and rule-dependence of law. When taking the words of a statute seriously, when following a rule even when it does not produce the best result, when treating the fact of a past decision as a reason for making the same decision again, or when relying on authoritative sources, the law embodies values other than simply that of making the best decision for the particular occasion or dispute. In thus pursuing goals of stability, predictability, and constraint on the idiosyncrasies of individual decision-makers, the law employs forms of reasoning that may not be unique to it but are far more dominant in legal decision-making than elsewhere. Schauer’s analysis of what makes legal reasoning special will be a valuable guide for students while also presenting a challenge to a wide range of current academic theories.