Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 528

Filed 09/06/2007

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B. Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:00CV835 (CFD)

V.

MOSTAFA REYAD AND WAFA REYAD Defendants DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2007

DEFENDANTS REPLY TO PLAINTIFF S OPPOSITION TO HOLD PLAINTIFF S ATTORNEY IN CONTEMPT This is the Reply of Defendant Mostafa Reyad and Co-Defendant Wafa Reyad to Plaintiff s Opposition to Motion to Hold Plaintiff s Attorney in Contempt , dated August 28, 2007 (Doc # 526). For reasons stated here-below, Defendants Motion to Hold Plaintiff s Attorney in Contempt should be Granted in its entirety.

Marshal is Plaintiff s Representative and not an Escrow Agent The State Marshal who has executed this Court Orders is the same person whom has been Ordered by this Court s Appointment to serve process, pursuant to this Court Order dated June 25, 2007 (Order # 503), Mr. Sanford Levine executes Orders of the Court under the sole directions of Plaintiff. There is nothing in Connecticut law, nor its case law shows that State Marshal can act in

1

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 528

Filed 09/06/2007

Page 2 of 4

the capacity of escrow agent. Contrary to Plaintiff s assertion, Connecticut law mandates Pending the hearing upon exempt properties, the execution shall be stayed , pursuant to C.G.S. Sec. 52-361(b)(e), and subsection (g) does not relief the judgment creditor or levying officer from liability for return of any exempt property.

Moreover, see 52-361(b)(h) If a levying officer is in doubt as to whether certain property necessary to satisfy a judgment is exempt, he may certify the question of exemption to the Court for a hearing and determination . It is undisputed that Plaintiff in this action is well aware since June 6, 2000, that, Defendants inundated continuous claims of insurance policies and annuities in at least 16 motions in the last 7 years. Thus Plaintiff s unprofessional opposition by citation of section 52-361b(d) and blaming the District Clerk for not giving notices to third parties garnishees does not relief Plaintiff or the State Marshal from liability.

Defendants reiterate their request stated in their motion, that, Plaintiff s attorney Rowena A. Moffett should be held in contempt, and Order Plaintiff to return the claimed exempt New England Financial, a Metlife Affiliate, contract number V435143 in the amount of $ 26,288.00 seized on July 27, 2007, see New England Financial Statement dated the same attached hereto. Furtherly, Defendants reiterate invoking Nokia v. Uzan et al, case number 05-0938-CV (2nd Cir. October 5, 2005), Nokia s Court Ordered a judgment in contempt to be entered automatically by the Clerk within one week, and to pay Defendants two

2

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 528

Filed 09/06/2007

Page 3 of 4

times the full amount unlawfully executed in the sum of $ 52,576, if Plaintiff would not return the said contract amount to New England Financial.

3

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 528

Filed 09/06/2007

Page 4 of 4

The Defendant Mostafa Reyad

The Defendant Wafa Reyad

By: Mostafa Reyad 2077 Center Ave # 22D Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Day Phone 203-325-4100

By: Wafa Reyad 2077 Center Ave # 22D Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Home Phone 201-585-0562

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that he hand delivered on the captioned date a true and correct copy to Attorney David Schaefer at 271 Whitney Avenue, New Haven, CT 06511

Mostafa Reyad

4