Free Reply Brief - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01372-JJF Document 27 Filed O9/27/2005 Paget of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
In re: )
)
AMERICAN METROCOMM ) Bankruptcy No. 00-3358 (P] W)
CORPORATION, et or/., )
)
Debtors, )
THOMAS ABRAMS, )
)
Appellant, )
v. ) Civil Action No. 04-1372 (HF)
)
AMC LIQUIDATING TRUST, )
I ;=""i‘r—
Appellee. ) Q
SHORT REPLY TO APPELLEE BRIEF IN OPPOSI IO Til}? 2 F
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF FINAL O 'm' OF
7/29/2005 tis. aisrsicr count
·—··— msrsaer nr DELAWARE
Appellant pro se Thomas Abrams replies as follows to Appellee AMC
Liquidating Trust’s brief filed 8/22/2005 in opposition to appellant’s Motion
for Reeonsideration of the Final Order of 7/29/2005:
l. This Court had entered its memorandum opinion and final order
granting AMC’s motion to dismiss the appeal shortly before
appellant mail-filed an opposition brief; in other words, the
Court did not have an opportunity to consider the appellant’s
more complete opposition brief with supporting citations prior
to entering its final order.
4

Case 1:04-cv-01372-JJF Document 27 Filed O9/27/2QO5 Page2of4
_ 2. Immediately upon learning of the final order, appellant re—
styled and filed his opposition brief as a Motion for
Reconsideration. Appellee then filed an objection to that
Motion, to which this brief refers.
3. Appellee has submitted, in support of its objection to
reconsideration, certain e—mails sent it by appellant and
attempts to infer from them that appellant "is committed to a
policy of arbitrary, vexatious, obdurate and protracted litigation
without bothering himself with the underlying legal merits of
his position." This is simply untrue.
4. As appellant explained to appellee in follow—up e-mails
(attached hereto), appellant is merely attempting to get his
legitimate claim paid. A litigant does not give up his free-
speech rights in the process, although appellant admits that
because he is not an attorney his method of presentation and
language is not "standard" as attorneys’.
5. Appellant’s obvious ground for seeking re—hearing is that his
reply brief- in opposition to appellee’s dismissal motion based
on procedural grounds — unfortunately had been tiled
(unknowingly) a few days @ this court ordered dismissal.
5

Case 1:04-cv-01372-JJF Document 27 Filed O9/27/2005 Page 3 of 4
Immediately after being served with the Order, appellant re-
styled his reply brief as a Motion for Reconsideration.
6. Furthermore, the merits of appellant’s original claim are not at
issue here; the instant issue is whether appellant violated
procedural rules so seriously that dismissal is required. The
answer is obviously "no" — and the Federal Rules allow this
Court complete discretion in cases of this sort (involving a non-
attomey pro se litigant) to come to the same conclusion.
7. Appellant suggests the Court read the e-mails sent to appellee,
including those sent after appellee’s last pleading (attached
hereto). By doing so, this Court should easily come to the
conclusion that appellant is not "harassing the Estate into
settlement" but simply prosecuting his case and (as all
"attorneys" do) urging settlement during the course.
Respectfully submitted,
5`Hamcw (Mamma, ¢;z%/11*
Certificate ofService
1 hereby certify that a copy of
the foregoing pleading has been
mailed to all parties this 26"‘ day
. of August, 2005.
\`?&a»m (
Thomas Abrams
6

Case 1 :04-cv-01372-JJF Document 27 Filed O9/27/2005 Page 4 0f 4
4 .%.*5 Q <=>Â¥4
4 ,.. +**:·»»» 4, =2J4§;·.; ¢'\-!§ 4·
44 ¤ e 43 Q 'ie §§""‘§ Eé
ag } ·~· J M Z, 5
4 °<;>"`4 4 .`·`
4 4*% 0 4 if I E
E:’§ * 4 ——
ew 64§` 4`*4 E§§%§ 4
x i r 4
l i V 2
E2 S
? 4 g?
qé: - 4 0
4 4 92 ln
¤ ~
44 4;; “% za
(3} 5 Q'?
I 8 ’ ,,4-
5 @[5
) 2.***2 ¤ A
Z4 4 dgx;
2 $4 ,4- ·~ qv
{ Q O Q 4
] » 4
eg 55m?
4
» 44 me L2
_ i&%®“
` . I {ff" v
4 - g wx N
I 4 U
_ Kn X E
4. EM
4 @0 O 4 -