Free Memorandum in Opposition - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :05-cv-00031-SLR Document 20 Filed O2/O1/2006 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES’ DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
DOCKET NUMBER:
) 1:05-031-SLR
AZUBUKO — )
Plaintiff )
) APPEALS’ COURT NO.
“ i 05 ii i» I it
EASTERN BANK - ) 3 V ”"""""";
Defendant ) S
) g Q FEB l EDOS i E
1>LA1NT1FF*s OBJECTION TO cAsE TRANSFER .. . ?t.!2¥iet§§¤t’.i;§ i_., . W:
Lately, the Appellant received the Court’s "Memorandum Order" and another one
could describe as actual transfer of the proceedings to the Massachusetts’ District Court —
Massachusetts. They were dated January 20th and 24Lh respectively.
By and large, the action markedly deviated from what the Third Circuit expected.
The transfer action should be recanted. It was proper, but too late. In jurisprudence
anything could be possible! If the Massachusetts’ Court wobbled over the case, then the
necessary parties had to start the appeal process all over. In the course of engagement on
certain actions, one should make mountainous effort to distinguish feelings from
thinkings. Without mincing words, the transfer measure was crassly nnproper and was
not within the scope of the Third Circuit’s aim of remand. It fertilized ground for
prostitution of much-needed time and societal resources. The Court really swooped a
horse in the nnd-stream. lf the Cotut had- embarked on the measure initially, it would be
comprehensible and efficient. The proceedings had been appealed and should not be
outside the control of the Third Circuit. \lVhat an uncanny or unorthodox precedent!
Who liked to flogging a dead horse?
. CONCLUSION
Reiteratively, the transfer measure should be recanted without delay. Of course, l
the timing was extraordinarily harmful, abuse of discretion and queer. The Third
Circuit’s remand Order never meant transfer. The Appellant never knew where remand
Page l of 2

Case 1:05-cv-00031-SLR Document 20 Filed O2/O1/2006 Page 2 of 3
order associated or triggered off transfer to another jurisdiction. In view of the subject
matter of the proceedings, the lower Court had in personam or general jurisdiction,
though it could trivialize it. The facts and the law unquestionably existed. Hopefully, the
Plaintiff prayed the Court effusively to act in manners, which irrefutably matched with
the spirit of the law and intelligent administration of justice. Could "An Israelite in
whom there is no deceit"1 notion be associated with the matter in question? With candor
in communications, the stable should not be closed after the horse had been stolen!
Respectfully submitted on Monday — J anuary 30m — 2006.
I . Ewmiil Us
CHUKWUM . AZUBUKO,
Pro Se,
' P. O. Box 1351,
Boston — MA 02117-1351.
Telephone: (617) 265 6291.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The Plaintiff under the penalties for perjury certified that a true copy of
the head was served upon:
Ol) The Clerk,
United States’ Court of Appeals,
21400 United States’ Courthouse,
601 Market Street,
Philadelphia — PA 19106 and
02) M. Robert Dushmarr, Esquire,
Brown Rudnick,
One Financial Center,
Boston — MA 02111
via the United States’ pre—paid first-class mail on Monday — January 30th — 2006.
CHUKWUMA AZUBUKO,
Pro Se,
P. O. Box 1351,
Boston ~ MA 02117-1351.
Telephone: (617) 265 6291.
I The calling ofMathias as one ofthe Disciples in the Bible — New Testament
Page 2 of 2

Case 1 :05-cv-00031-SLR Document 20 Filed O2/O1/2006 Page 3 of 3
r 3 *
·eea
*1j » s_ <·1" ‘ ‘
~ U {]._J1S21I;l I A C) [
3 " y e ~=*~ ;·~¤
3 L/» O
` • z IA si Q? Ps
— _”‘,‘ ; 1 ,
gi Q?. gi; C] 3 3 3
_ :5:. Q; J {:5 E
.. ;; * 1» Z `E
fh ‘ ""
_ AI ·r . Cb, Q
/ SJUQ F Qi?
/ ` JI.,
3 3 IZ ..f.
’ fi':
3 I W A ·*··*
ew iw
3 O fi ©©