Free Answering Brief in Opposition - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :07-cv-00066-Gl\/IS Document 25 Filed 06/05/2007 Page 1 0f 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Richard Snyder . * 1:07-cv-00066-GMS
Plaintiff I F E Hu ‘i ee · -
if JUN —· 4 ZUUY
GPM2 LLC, et al * . pl . - nl J-- ll
Defendant(s) a d a up yy
OBJECTION TO LETTER(S). MOTION FOR SANCTIONS BD Scan-Md
(1) This is the second “ex parte" communication by this person.
(2). This type of communication is forbidden with the court.
(3) The complaint is perfectly clear .... counsel chooses to “throw it out" on
irrelevant, immaterial, and argumentive technicalities.
(4) Plaintiff was/ and is, ready, willing and able to perform the agreement .... and U
defenda11ts...failed to even check with the land records .... prior to the i‘betterT’ sale. _
(5) Plaintiff statesathat a hearing- is requested...And at the appropriate time...
full details of this unlawful action by the parties shall he fully explained.
(6) The motion to dismiss is premature. It is itself without foundation...and the
filed contract “speaks for itself". Counsel’s actions are sanctionable.
(7) This type of conduct by counsel cannot be sustained...Even a proper motion
should be denied.._._all ' should have their day in court.
avidsonvilIe, MD 21035
Copies of this pleading- have-been mailed to all defendant(s) at theiraddresses of
irecordr GPM2, Felton Ban ty Management, J Ryan,__J.W. ewcomer etc.

Case 1:07-cv-00066-G|\/IS Document 25 Filed 06/05/2007 Page 2 0f 2
0 / ·a 0
fr :I:‘ cj- --: 0 : : l` V
0 ‘ l w. =·— ‘ 0 T 0 0
0 f-{ ifs 0
0 0 Q
0 ==·
I k 0
0 0 / #5 0 O a 5
0 ‘ / m E -0 *2- /
0 0 0 § · 0 0
E 0 0 Q · D gx j¤ j
i - 0 00 l _\ \ 0 T V
e Q- @$5
- Z ` · <,0 l ‘f“’ -
f 0 S<» 0 ::9 5
[ _ - " E`-! ‘ l
·Ew ` Q"!
0 0 -- av 0 0
- - A E 0 l {Y! 0
0 00-0 -
0· 0»-- 5 0