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

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 476

Filed 09/01/2006

Page 1 of 5

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: AUGUST 31, 2006 DEFENDANT S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF S CONSOLIDATED MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT S MOTION TO DISMISS AND DEFENDANT S MOTION TO SET ASIDE COURT DECISION

ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED

Defendant Mostafa Reyad, hereby respectfully submits the instant reply to Plaintiff s consolidated memorandum in opposition to Defendant s motion to dismiss and Defendant s motion to set aside Court Decision, dated August 30, 2006 (Doc # 475).

Defendant affirms his prior stipulation, and ready to sit on the stand to state it again under oath, that, Plaintiff has committed Fraud Upon The Court effectuated this Court Decision. It is impossible to believe, that, the Court accepts Plaintiff s false statement that Independent Lending Corporation has merged with CWM, and disregard the Certification issued by California Secretary of State

1

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 476

Filed 09/01/2006

Page 2 of 5

certifying that, Independent Lending Corporation had surrendered its certificate to transact intrastate business effective February 23, 1998, unless the Court is in the opinion that the Certification is forged. The Certification acknowledged by the Court as Defendants Exhibit # 14, at no objection from Plaintiff was provided by Defendant, if it is forged, the Defendant will be guilty of forgery upon the United States; and will be punished by a prison sentence. It is also impossible to believe that a corporation merged with another corporation and later ceased to exist, because if it merged, it disappear and the new corporation will appear. Plaintiff committed Fraud Upon The Court , and committed fraud upon Defendants. The Court should held a hearing for determination of the fraud, and must dismiss Plaintiff s entire complaint as a matter of law, because both Warehouse Lending Corporation and Independent Lending Corporation had surrendered its certificates; pursuant to Cal. Corp. C. Sec. 2203 (c), both corporations cannot maintain any action or proceedings.

The record of the Court shows that the parties filed on November 18, 2003 Joint Trial Memorandum (Doc # 306), which includes Stipulations of Fact and Law. In the same document, Defendant raised the same defense Plaintiff cannot maintain any action pursuant to California Corporations Code Section 2203 (c) and section 2105 (a) and (b), see Article B of Joint Trial Memorandum p. 6-16. Thus, Defendant s answered the Court that he signed Joint Trial Memorandum, and affirmed again that he signed it only to the extend explained Thoroughly in Article B p. 3-43 of Joint Trial Memorandum, see Defendants Proposed Findings

2

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 476

Filed 09/01/2006

Page 3 of 5

of Facts and Conclusions of Law, dated June 16, 2005 (Doc # 458) p.4. Thus, Plaintiff s statement on Plaintiff s memorandum (Doc # 475) p. 2 Defendant may not now dispute these facts in a belated effort to avoid liability following the issuance of the Court s Decision , is improper, should be stricken, because it is not a new defense, in fact the same defense was raised on November 18, 2003, even before Defendant obtained the Certificates from California Secretary of State, authenticated on November 24, 2003.

Furtherly, I certify under oath that, I did not prepare that stipulation of fact and law. Defrauders have certain skills to be successful in their fraud. It should be noted that it is impossible I agreed that Independent Lending Corporation has merged with CWM and then I wrote pages 6-16 in The Joint Trial Memorandum, to attack Plaintiff s statements, included within the same document.

Defendant filed Defendants Exhibits # 14 and # 15 with the Court on November 26, 2003 (Doc # 308), the Court denied Defendant s motion despite no defense proferred by Plaintiff, and at Trial Defendant presented Defendants Exhibit # 14 and # 15, and Plaintiff did not object by a single word.

It should be noted that Plaintiff does not respond to the content of the Exhibits, and never objected it, and relies only on the denial of Defendant s motions, while the Court did not articulate that denials, blocking Defendant from reconsideration, that does not mean that Defendants Exhibits # 14 and # 15 are

3

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 476

Filed 09/01/2006

Page 4 of 5

meaningless. Neither Defendant nor Plaintiff knows why the motions denied, it is improper to raise that defense, because a mere denial could be procedurally, legally, irrelevancy or any other reason.

CONCLUSION

1. Plaintiff lacks standing, pursuant to Article III of The U.S. Constitution, the Court has jurisdiction which can never be waived or forfeited, lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter; pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12 (b)(1) must dismiss Plaintiff s entire complain. 2. The Court should schedule a hearing for the determination of Defendant s allegation of fraud, if it is positive; Defendants are entitled to be awarded punitive damages.

4

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 476

Filed 09/01/2006

Page 5 of 5

The Defendant Mostafa Reyad

By: Mostafa Reyad 2077 Center Avenue # 22D Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Home Phone # 201-585-0562 Day Phone # 203-325-4100 Email: [email protected]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

Mostafa Reyad

5