Mandela T. Brock v. Amazon Prime

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: January 22, 2021
• Docket: 1:20-cv-09055
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

FROM: Mandela Brock 366 West 127th Street, Apt 5F New York, NY 10027 718-690-0204 mandela-brock@mymail.berkeleycollege.edu December 28, 2020 MEMO ENDORSED TO: My HonorableVALERIE CAPRONI United States District Judge United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, New York 10007 CC: My Honorable Ona T. Wang United States Magistrate Judge United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, New York 10007 BCC: Melissa D. Hill, Partner 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178-0060 +1.212.309.6318 Melissa.hill@morganlewis.com Re: Mandela T. Brock v. Amazon Prime, et al. Case No. 1:20-cv-9055 Dear My Honorable, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon careful reflection, research, and consideration the ​ Complainant, Mandela Brock has discovered that the defendant’s ‘Notice of Removal’ to federal court ​ was both timely and prudent, therefore he asks that the court consider his ‘Motion to Remand’ as ​ ‘moot’ and instead decide the ‘federal questions’ put forward in plaintiff’s ‘Amended Complaint.’ ​ ​ ​ Complainant contends that while the defendant’s ‘Notice of Removal’ for ‘diversity of ​ citizenship’ was a different tack and or defense which kind of caught him off guard. After careful reflection Complainant remembers reading about corporations incorporating in Delaware, because of the lower corporate taxes, and then headquartering in another state because that is where they really want to be at but the higher corporate taxes prevent that. I always thought that this was fairly odd and bordered on tax evasion if not being actual tax evasion. Complainant contends that being that it has all the appearances of tax evasion, that is what it is, thereby defendants started out their business with “Unclean Hands.” ​ Furthermore, in defendant’s ‘Notice of Removal’ they did say in paragraph 15, “Accordingly, ​ ​ ​ Defendant Prime Now LLC is a citizen of Delaware and Washington and is not a citizen of the State of New York” and Complainant vehemently contends that that is a legal impossibility therefore exemplify prima facie evidence of their ‘intentional fraudulent misrepresentations’ for the United ​ ​ States Supreme Court said, "fraud is a broad term, which includes false representations, dishonesty ​ and deceit." United States v. Grainger, 701 F.2d 308, 311 (4th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 461 U.S. ​ ​ 947 (1983). For is it not a false representation to claim citizenship in two separate states? ​ Particularly when in one of the states the corporation is listed as a ‘foreign corporation’ because how ​ could you be both a ‘citizen’ and ‘foreign’ at the same time? ​ ​ Additionally, the actions complained of, occurred in the Southern District of New York ​ within the jurisdictional boundaries of New York State and while defendants legal maneuvering created a burdensome obstacle to Complainant, the Complainant, Mandela Brock, now appreciates defendant’s wisdom in removing matters over to federal court. For there are some serious ‘federal ​ questions’ that should and could only be answered in The United States District Court for the Southern i.e., ‘Sovereign’ District of New York and ‘diversity of citizenship’ is not one of them, ​ because defendants cannot truly expect the court to send this action to two separate jurisdictions, that defendants claim citizenship in, to be concurrently adjudicated for that would effectively trample upon the ‘states rights’ of both states, that defendants claim citizenship in, because one ruling may cancel out the other, creating a cascade of jurisdictional defects.

In closing, the defendant's attorneys of record stated: “To that end, we are happy to arrange to accept service of the Amended Complaint on the individual defendants, including the newly-added putative defendants, to facilitate the anticipated motion on behalf of all defendants” and complainant, Mandela brock hereby accepts their consent to be served on behalf of ‘all’ defendants.

WHEREFORE, Complainant, Mandela Brock, humbly requests that the court declares his ‘Motion to Remand’ as ‘moot and instead contend with the ‘federal questions’ put forward in the ‘Amended Complaint’ in conjunction with the civil and probable criminal violations committed by defendants along with the referrals to both My Honorable Audrey Strauss, United States Attorney for the ‘Sovereign District’ of New York and the New York State Bar Association.

Sincerely, Application Granted. Plaintiff's motion to remand is DENIED as moot. WALA { ¢ Defendants’ response to the amended complaint is due by February 22, 2021. The Clerk is Mandela T. Brock, sui Juris Pro Se, respectfully directed to close ECF 9. In Propria Persona; Without Prejudice, Under Protest, 366 West 127th Street, Apt 5F SO ORDERED. New York, NY 10027 mandela-brock@mymail.berkeleycollege.edu CLE i 718-690-0204

PY caae Ona T. Wang 1/22/21 U.S. Magistrate Judge