Free Motion to Set Aside - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 474-2

Filed 08/28/2006

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 28, 2006

DEFENDANT S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE COURT DECISION DATED JULY 26, 2006 This is Defendant Mostafa Reyad Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Set Aside this Court Decision dated July 26, 2006 (Doc # 466). Plaintiff has committed Fraud Upon The Court . Plaintiff s Fraud had been perpetrated by two officers of the Court, namely Attorney David R. Schaefer and Attorney Rowena A. Moffett, so that the judicial machinery could not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging the instant action; Hadges, 48 F. 3d at 1325, mandated Setting Aside the above Court Decision, pending the Ruling on the instant motion.

1

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 474-2

Filed 08/28/2006

Page 2 of 5

ELEMENTS OF FRAUD

Constructive fraud consists of any such act or omissions and concealments involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or confidence, and resulting in damages to another, Id Barrett v. Bank of America (1986) 183 Cal. App. 3d, 1362, 1368 [229 Cal. Rptr. 16]. In the instant action, the two (2) officers of the Court, acted as imposters, specifically after the Defendant filed Second Motion in Limine dated November 26, 2003 (Doc # 308), Defendant attached to that second motion, two certificates of qualifications of 1) Warehouse Lending Corporations of America and Independent Lending Corporation certified by California Secretary of State that Independent Lending Corporation had surrendered its right to transact intrastate business effective February 23, 1998, and 2) IndyMac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. and the latter does not include any relation to either Warehouse Lending Corporation of America or Independent Lending Corporation, in any respect whatsoever. The Court Denied Defendant s Second Motion to Limine without opinion, despite that Plaintiff did not respond to the contents of the above two (2) certificates.

Due to the absence of the opinion reasoning the denial of Defendant s second motion in limine, which attacked the existence of Plaintiff s list of exhibits marked # 17 filed on November 18, 2003 (Doc # 306), Plaintiff at trial did not present the related exhibits Certificate of Ownership and Merger Merging Independent Lending Corporation into CWM Mortgage Holdings, Inc. , because

2

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 474-2

Filed 08/28/2006

Page 3 of 5

either Plaintiff had a forged document, or he does not have anything, and Plaintiff s List of Exhibits may contain forged documents.

Plaintiff continued his fraudulent act by attacking Defendant s Motion For Reconsideration, and in his response in opposition dated August 23, 2006 (Doc # 472) p. 2; Plaintiff stated:

Similarly, the Court has denied numerous motions claiming that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter because IndyMac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. (one of the two original named Plaintiffs in his action, and the predecessor in interest to the current plaintiff, IndyMac Bank, F.S.B.) was not authorized to do business under the trade name Warehouse Lending Corporation of America. See 3/31/04 Endorsement Order (doc # 351) denying Mostafa Reyad s Second Motion in Limine (doc # 308).

There is no doubt, that Plaintiff fraudulent act is a Fraud Upon The Court, prejudiced Defendant, effectuated this Court Decision, this Court could not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging the instant action.

Plaintiff s fraud resulted in unlawful Court opinion based on a series of mergers and properly registered name changes never occurred, furtherly the Court Ruled Independent Lending Corporation ultimately changed its name to IndyMac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., one of the initial named plaintiffs in this action, which is incorrect. The Court based its Decision on the fraudulent statements of Plaintiff. The evidence of the fraud are the attachment to motion (Doc # 470), pending before the Court.

3

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 474-2

Filed 08/28/2006

Page 4 of 5

CONCLUSION The Court should Rule on this Motion to determine whether Plaintiff s act is a fraud upon the Court, and if the Court determined in the positive, Defendants are entitled to punitive damages in the amount of thirty million dollar ($ 30 Mil), Defendants requested it with their answer and counterclaims dated August 14, 2002, or in the alternative another amount deems proper under the circumstances. In the interim the Court should Set Aside its Decision dated July 26, 2006 (Doc # 466) Pending disposition of the instant motion.

4

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 474-2

Filed 08/28/2006

Page 5 of 5

The Defendant Mostafa Reyad

By:

/ss/ 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