executed pursuant to a confessed judgment the basis of which is contested at least would be constitutionally suspect. For purposes of due process, it is difficult to conclude that a judgment debtor is entitled to a prompt hearing on a claim that some of his attached property is exempt but not on a claim that all of his property has been attached unjustifiably or even fraudulently, on the basis of an unsupportable or even spurious pleading. The pertinent considerations in either context are whether the applicable attachment procedures minimize the risk of an inappropriate seizure and ensure an opportunity. to be heard in opposition at a meaningful time. See Di-Chem, 419 U.S. at 607-08, 95 S.Ct. at 722-23; Fuentes v. She-vin, 407 U.S. 67, 97, 92 S.Ct. 1983, 2002, 32 L.Ed.2d 556 (1972) (<HOLDING>); Finberg, 634 F.2d at 58-59; Jonnet, 530 F.2d
holding that when majority of class lived in new jersey maryland pennsylvania and virginia the eastern district of pennsylvania was a desirable forum holding pennsylvania replevin statute unconstitutional holding pennsylvania state ethics act unconstitutional as applied to former judges holding pennsylvania foreign attachment procedures unconstitutional holding replevin statute unconstitutional although it merely authorized the seizure of property which occurred only after the order was given to the sheriff