- 10 -
CONSIDER THIS LETTER TO BE THE FORMAL
AUTHORIZATION YOU REQUEST. ALL PRIOR LETTERS ARE
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE. (YOUR STATEMENT ABOUT
RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALLEGED PRESENT RECALCITRANCE IS
IRRELEVANT). I REINSTATE MY DEMAND FOR THE IMMEDIATE
RELEASE OF ALL SEIZED MONIES IN THE KIDDER, PEABODY &
CO., INC. BROKERAGE ACCOUNT.
NOTHING IN THIS LETTER OF DEMAND IS TO BE
CONSTRUED AS SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION IN ANY FORM,
MANNER OR CONTEXT.
Ms. Chervin, on behalf of Kidder Peabody, responded on
November 22, 1991:
I understand your letter to constitute
authorization by you that your account at Kidder,
Peabody & Co. Incorporated, that is, account number 10U
77727 193, be liquidated and that upon liquidation, the
proceeds of the said account be delivered to you,
mailed to the above address.
We have begun to process the liquidation.
Notwithstanding the District Court’s order that he submit
his claims against Kidder Peabody to arbitration, petitioner did
not do so. He instead filed motions and interlocutory appeals
attempting to overcome the order to arbitrate. On September 29,
1992, the District Court entered an order stating: “Because this
action has been stayed pending that arbitration, plaintiff is
enjoined during that pendency from any further filings in this
Court.”
On February 8, 1993, the District Court denied an attempt by
petitioner to have the arbitration order certified and thus
eligible for appeal. Petitioner apparently sought an appeal of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011