Free Rejection Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 99.6 kB
Pages: 3
Date: March 23, 2005
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 944 Words, 6,179 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/9348/6-2.pdf

Download Rejection Letter - District Court of Delaware ( 99.6 kB)


Preview Rejection Letter - District Court of Delaware
_ Case 1 :05-cv-00031-SLR Document 6-2 Filed 03/23/2005 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES’ DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER:
) 05-0031-SLR
AZUBUKO - )
Plaintiff )
)
vs. )
)
EASTERN BANK, INC. — )
Defendant )
)
PLAINTIFF’S FOR COURT’S ISSUANCE OF SPECIFIC INJUNCTION
AGAINST THE DEFENDANT’S RE—POSSESSION OF THE CAR
The would be the bases for the head:
01) With or without the head, the Defendant should not re-possess the car
central to subjudice. To be on the safe side, the Plaintiff deemed it intelligent to motion
for the injunction. [Fed. R. Civ. P. 65]
O2) On more scores than one, the Plaintiff’ s prayer to the Court hinged on:
a) The alleged Plaintiffs student loan reflected on the calculation of the
interest rate for the car in question and previous loan contract. By and large, the Plaintiff
constructive repaid the loan, but it was knowingly rejected. That violated the law.
{Uniform Commercial Code Chapter 106; Massachusetts’ General Law Chapter
(M.G.L.c.) 106: Section 3—604 Discharge by cancellation or Renunciation]
b) The credit reports against the Plaintiff markedly deviated from the
constitutional provisions. In essence, they were made without due diligence — due
process was sacrificed. Regardless to the composition of the 15 USC Section 168li
F0 ..;
entitled: "Procedure incase of disputed accuracy." The Constitution distinctively state£
that no life, property and liberty should be taken without due process. Nonetheless, th$
N
inclusion was modiiied. [15 USC Sections l681n—o] Of course, there was conilict of N
law. Generally, the statutory yielded to the Constitution! g 2
Page 1 of 3 gg
B,

Case 1:05-cv-00031-SLR Document 6-2 Filed 03/23/2005 Page 2 of 3
O3) The Plaintiff last summer was sued vis-it-vis the alleged non-amortized
student’s loan at the Massachusetts’ West Roxbury District Court. The case being a
federal question under 20 USC Section omitted was removed to the United States’
District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana. Contrary to the Plaintiff s strong
opposition, it was transferred to the District of Massachusetts. The said Court’s ruling
characteristically was perfunctory and crassly unintelligent. However, it was moot on the
issue of repayment. It was moot, because the Plaintiff acted in conformity with the law -
repayment and subsequent rejection. The Court would have disclosed if it were
interested or not to execute supplemeriirzl jurisdiction given there existed no federal law
to justify the matter in question. Courts had assumed jurisdiction where such a situation
had prevailed. The Massachusetts’ Court docket number was: 04-12690-NMG [for ease
of reference]
04) The Plaintiff was not a free rider. The Defendant disclosed that the
balance was $16,695.74. Indeed, for the Plaintiff to continue with the payment meant
allowing the Defendant to unjustly enrich itself in the face of illega/ity. The credit
reporting agencies assembled the negative information negligently or with “. .. exercise
their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the consumer’s
right to privacy.” [15 USC Section l68l(a)(4)]
05) The credit agencies’ reports flagrantly violated the statute oflimimiions
provision of the Fair Credit Report Act. [15 USC Section 168l(C). The so-called
defaulted student’s loan should not have been reported in view of the time the loan was
taken — 1994/94 academic year. For ease of reference, the loan was taken in October
2003. Unfortunately, it was reported and it reflected on the Plaintiff' s interest
computation. Succinctly, the reports mountainously deviated from the law. [15 USC
Section 168 l(a) entitled: "Congressional findings and statement of purpose"] Without
mincing words, the reports were not investigative as the law demanded. Sadly, the credit
reporting agencies preferred Burger K.ing’s reports to recherche or careful ones. The
credit agencies immolated due diligence for carelessness. That was not the fault of the
Plaintiff and the Plaintiff would not be engaged on constructive slavery for their
negligence. The Plaintiff understood that the Defendant’s had to make profits, but the
interest rate was abnormal or usurious. At the time of the loan, the prime rare was at 3.1
Page 2 of 3

Case 1:05-cv-00031-SLR Document 6-2 Filed 03/23/2005 Page 3 of 3
A or 3.2. Undoubtedly, the Defendant took unconscionable advantages of the Plaintiff,
because there existed irrefutable inequality of bargaining power. Courts inteivention
when an ninjas: enrichment prevailed was not a virgin measure on the case.
CONCLUSION
The Plaintiff prayed the Court to grant his motion expeditiously or in a manner of
urgency. Hopefully, ‘justice will be done and be seen to be done." The loan should be
refinanced without taking into consideration the legally defective assembled reports. The
Plaintiff was not the author of the United States’ Constitution, which specified that life,
liberty and property should not be taken without Due Process or an opportunity to
confront one’s accuser/s. When there existed conflict of law the constitutional source/s
would not be trivialized. The reports matched with "trial by ambus/1" or “reporting by
ambush." With candor in communications, the Plaintiff would oppose any overture to
using him as a cash cow by anyone no matter how highly place. History spoke for itselfl
The Plaintiff thunderously prayed for prevalence of the rule of law unanimously and not
judicial tokenism or whimsicality.
Respectfully submitted from Boston, Massachusetts on Saturday — March 12"` — 2005.
CHUKWUMA E. AZUBUK
Pro Se,
P. O. Box 1351,
Boston — MA 02117-1351.
Telephone: (617) 265 6291.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The Plaintiff upon the penalties for perjury certified that a copy of the head was
served upon the Defendant via the United States’ Postal Service Certified Mail No. 7002
2030 0007 1965 9485 on Monday — March 14"‘ — 2005.

Pro Se.
Page 3 of 3