Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv—00034-SLR Document 23 Filed 05/30/2007 Paget of 3
DAVID BUCHANAN
34806 HUDSON RD.
. LAUREL, DE 19956
S ` fj_,E].léLD..
May 29, 2007
Chiefludge Sue L. Robinson sue t. aoaiusou
U.S. District Court District of Delaware U.S. DISIWCT JUDGE
844 King Street BD Scmwrne nl
U.S. Courthouse
Wilmington, DE 19801
Ref;
U.S. District Court Case No. 06-711-SLR
U.S. District Court Case No. 07-34-SLR
Your Honor:
In review of the Order from the Delaware Supreme Court, Case No. 562, 2006,
for which a copy had been sent to you by both Linda M. Carmichael, and Jennifer L.
Story, in defense of their parties, I have taken exceptional notice to the 3'° note on page 2,
where the Supreme Court recognizes the Attorney/Law Firm Defendants as to represent
Buchanan’s former wife in matters before the Family Court, the Bankruptcy Court, and
the Supreme Court, where such appearance in Bankruptcy Court places subject matter
jurisdiction over financial disclosure of funds paid to counsel within that of the District
Court, as well as within that of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.
Before you on appeal under Facts Relevant to Appeal, page 6, paragraph 3,
referencing access to marital funds enjoined by stay, and on pages 5-6 of the transcripts
submitted on appeal of Bankruptcy matters, subject of Bankruptcy docket #90-91, stating
that the Bankruptcy Court will not enforce Enancial disclosure of attorneys who have not
filed an appearance with the Bankruptcy Court, and then before you on Case No. 06-711-
SLR, is a Motion to Quash Subpoena, and a Motion to Stay Discovery, both Hled by S
Opposing Counsel in avoidance of disclosing funds taken by their Attorney clients from
marital funds protected by stay, as well as funds belonging to the Buchanan’s minor
children left in control of Plaintiif s ex-wife. Where Counsel for the Delaware Department
of Justice has submitted a Delaware Supreme Court Order for consideration by the
District Court, acknowledging the appearance of Counsel in the District Courts, and
where such discovery including accounting is subject matter core to both cases before you,
there is no reason not to compel discovery as previously requested, in support of both case
tiles. Furthermore as noted in letter to you dated February 13, 2007, attached to
Defendant’s Motion to Quash Subpoena, where copy of motion had been sent to Anne M.
Aamland (CNA claims agent) claim No. LE 1005051MF, acknowledging that a "claim"
had been submitted to the Defendant’s professional insurance, such "c1aim" and any

Case 1:07-cv-00034-SLR Document 23 Filed 05/30/2007 Page 2 of 3
· — 2 — May 29, 2007
payment of "clairn” to defending counsel acknowledges circumstance of liable for which a
dismissal pursuant to F.C.R. l2(b) is no longer available to Defendants.
Resp ftfully,
J
David J anan if
cc: Linda Carmichael, Esquire
Jennifer L. Story, Esquire
Joseph S. Shannon, Esquire
John A. Elzufon, Esquire
John F. Brady, Esquire
Thomas Vecchio, Esquire

Case 1:07-cv-00034-SLR Document 23 Filed 05/30/2007 Page 3 of 3
/
1- U
E §2.
. 9. cx ¤·
" l'.
ca I ‘
. rn § Q
$3 ” ¤¤
a 25* 5
3- Z3
FJ- `
a_;,`! ·‘‘— ~
sm-
¤ZCZ* é
{nfs
..{.. gg L4
.3..% 2 J:. ¤
·:-·r V-‘ ·"‘ nm ¤°S‘
H @¤¤° a
Egaa
0 U3, E. °'°
P g 5; ?‘
E *9* ° gd a
s 5 5
E]. g E3 § 2
°"` !'* lr;
. . Q`]
-·--·· G za
EEE ,7* - *- ==
ep f"
?§ a zaazaa
ZII.... E 1; . ‘¥~
. Q 2E`%
iii: § f E.?
ar 5;; ....
$2...,..
Eg Y *0
{ Qi
ff f _
$%¤
%E%%ai