Free Rejection Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :05-cv-00031-SLR Document 5-2 Filed 03/22/2005 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES’ DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CIVIL ACTION NO.
) 05-0031-SLR
AZUBUKO - ) *3
Plaintiff ) E
EASTERN BANK INCORPORATED - i Q
Defendant af .
ai
PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR THE DEFENDANT TO RETURN
THE CAR
These would be the bases for the head:
01) The Plaintiff sent by certified mail on March l4`h, 2005 the ‘Plaintiff’ s
Motion for Court’s Issuance of Specific Inj unction Against the Defendant’s Re-
possession of the Car’ and on March 15th about 8.30 A.M. t.he Defendant towed the car
from the parking lot of the Boston’s Public School while the Plaintiff was at work.
02) The Plaintiff had interest in the car just like the Plaintiff thus the Plaintiff
had made [hitherto] The Plaintiff did not refuse to effect payment. The Plaintiffs
contention had been that central to erroneous credit reporting, the interest rate was
anomalous and necessitated modification. The Plaintiff in the past had applied for re-
Hnancing, the Defendant denied it, because it deemed the Plaintiff to be a cash-cow. It
was a case of but for doctrine and culminated into an unjust enrichment and
unconscionability.
03) The Plaintiff spoke with an employee of the Defendant, who disclosed her
name only as Cheryl and eventually connected the Plaintiff to one Mr. Parrott. The
Plaintiff discussed with him the illegality of the car’s repossession. He said that the Bank
was not a party to any lawsuit and said that the Plaintiff was “Whistling in the Dixie."
He equally told the Plaintiff that the car would be auctioned after 21-day. More, he said
Page 1 of 4

Case 1:05-cv-00031-SLR Document 5-2 Filed 03/22/2005 Page 2 of 4
that the only way the Plaintiff would re-possess the car would be thus paying off the
balance instantaneously in the amount of S 17,695.74 plus cost of repossession.
04) Importantly, Mr. Parrot acknowledged the receipt of the Plaintiffs
submissions. Prior to that, the Plaintiff had called and disclosed that the Plaintiff desisted
payment, because of the pending legal action. The Plaintiff equally mailed by first-class
‘Notification of Commencement of Proceeding on Account Number 76879752 1’ [to the
Defendant] Evidently, the Plaintiff did what were expected of any reasonable and
prudent person to communicate to the Defendant about the pending lawsuit and to refrain
from repossession of the car: sadly, but to no avail. Certainly, the Defendant had no
respect for the rule ofthe gw. The Defendant maintained that the Plaintiff signed for the
contract and should continue with the Plaintiff as an Act of God and as if circumstances
never effected modification of contracts. He stated: “We are not a party to any lawsuit."
By and large, the Defendant knowingly re-possessed the car despite knowing that there
was a pending lawsuit or the Court was examining the terms of the contract. [42 USC
Section 1981]
05) Indeed, mere notification of the Defendant of the pending lawsuit if the
Defendant had respect for the rule underscored the attachment of “subjud'ice." Granted
that exclusion clause the Defendant created stated that the Plaintiff had to continue with
the payments even if there were development considerably adverse to the Plaintiff" s
interests in the contract. The Defendant was angling for total judicial ouszer in the
contract if non-modification of the contract prevailed despite being palpably legally
defective. Indeed, in the legal kingdom, nothing was absolute. Evidently, the
Defendant’s propensity was tantamount to legal impossibility. The ugly state of things
had bearings on "comm proferenzem" rule. Excerpt in that regard froml read thus:
"Tlre general approach which the courts have adopted to the interpretation of
exclusion clauses is a restrictive one, under which the exclusion clause is interpreted
strictly against the party seeking to rely on it. This rule is called the ‘con!ra proj2rentem'
rule. The effect of the rule is that any ambiguity in the exclusion clause is resolved
against the party seeking to rely on it. Although the contra proferentem rule is applicable
to any ambiguous term in a contract, it has been applied particularly stringently to
exclusion clauses. The ‘proferens’ is simply the person seeking to rely on the exclusion
clause has ‘imposed’ it on the other party (Scottish Special Housing Association v.
Wimpey Contruction UK Ltd 1986 SLT l73)."
I McKendrick, Ewan, "Contract Law," Second Edition, pg 170.
Page 2 of 4

Case 1:05-cv-00031-SLR Document 5-2 Filed 03/22/2005 Page 3 of 4
06) For the sake of Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, the
Defendant’s action amounted to CONTEMPT OF COURT and the Court should act
accordingly irrespective of whose horse was gored. Succinctly, the Court should not
allow that to prevail. If it prevailed, it would be tantamount to “state—action" private
deprivation of Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. Reiteratively, the Plaintiff was
not looking for a free ride; the Plaintiff contended that the interest rate was
unconscionably too high owing to constitutionally defective assembled credit reports and
should be re-financed or re—examined expeditiously. With candor in communications, it
was a mountainous burden to the Plaintiff and others. Naturally, the Defendant being the
benefactor was least interested in that! Truly, "no snake gets fatter without eating
another snake." "The Defendant aimed at living in the sky and on the earth." [Proverbs]
Consequently, the Court should act in keeping with the head and order the Defendant to
return the car at where it towed it [with immediate effect]
07) The Defendant’s conduct associated with damages tortly and factly! That
deserved distinctive forum. Presently, apples should be separated from the oranges to
avoid prostitution of time and energy.
CONCLUSION
The Plaintiff prayed the august Court to grant the Plaintiff prayer expeditiously,
because the Plaintiff was not crying for the moon jurispnidentially. The invaluability of
Equal Protection, Due Process Clauses and Rule of Law would not be over-emphasized.
To the Defendant, the law had been an ass; the Plaintiff agreed on one hand, but on the
other, it was not yet an assinity according to Lord Denning of United Kingdom. In that
regard the Court should not allow the sunrise to meet it where the sunset left it. In
essence, the Court had jurisdiction over the case and general venue was proper, therefore,
the flippancy of the Defendant should not be condoned. More, ‘justice should be done
and be seen to be done," at all material times.
Page 3 of 4

Case 1:05-cv-00031-SLR Document 5-2 Filed 03/22/2005 Page 4 of 4
Respectfully submitted from Boston - Massachusetts — on Wednesday — March 17`h —
2005.
CHUKWUMA E. AZUB O,
Pro Se,
P. O. Box 1351,
Boston — MA 02117-1351.
Telephone: (617) 265 6291.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The Plaintiff certified on the penalties for perjury that a true copy ofthe head was
served upon the Defendant via the United States’ first-class mail on March l'/th — 2005 at
One Eastem Place, Lynn, MA 01901.
CHUKWU$A E. AZUBUKO,
Pro Se.
Page 4 of 4