Free Memorandum in Support of Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 425

Filed 09/20/2004

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: SEPTEMBER 17, 2004

DEFENDANT S MEMORANDUM TO HELD PLAINTIFF AND ITS ATTORNEY IN CRIMINAL CONTEMPT This is Defendant Mostafa Reyad in support of motion to held Plaintiff and his attorney in criminal contempt, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 402. Defendant filed on April 18, 2004 a petition to refer Brian E. Ainslie and attorney David Schaefer to United States Attorney General for possible criminal investigation (Doc # 371); pending before the Court, it incorporated hereinwith, however, Plaintiff and his attorney Schaefer committed dual fraud on the Court on May 17, 2000 and thereafter caused Defendant actual damages in the amount of approximately fifteen million dollar, see, Defendant s exhibits # 12, 18, 27-36 filed at trial proceedings. The dual fraud is that, attorney Schaefer on his own prepared eight (8) writs of garnishment, if it is not more than the eight writs, each writ is in the amount of $ 1.6 million and opposite to the Magistrate Order (Doc # 13) which permits

1

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 425

Filed 09/20/2004

Page 2 of 5

Defendant to use personal and business bank accounts to conduct business and reasonable living expenses, attorney Schaefer s writs seized all bank accounts and caused closing Defendant s business as of May 18, 2000, Schaefer also defrauded the District Clerk and was able not to enter the writs on the action s docket sheet. Practically it was Schaefer s Court and not the District Court.

Plaintiff and its attorney s crime by establishing an invisible permanent injunction causing Defendant actual damages in the amount of approximately fifteen million dollar must be referred as practicable as possible to the United States Attorney General s office, it is not a civil matter anymore, it is crimes created a faked pervasive bias emerged from outside source not included in the records of this case. Simply put, the Defendant argument for permanent injunction and the Court cannot see the permanent injunction in the case, it only see the prejudgment remedy of $ 1.6 million, as document # 13, the records do not show that this District issued $ 12.8 million in injunction, the Court Order permits Defendant(s) to use personal and business bank accounts, and the invisible orders garnished both personal and business bank accounts. It is clear fact, it is an injunction, no matter its label, it is attorney Schaefer s injunction and not the District Court.

It is quite impossible for the Court to conduct a fair proceeding before verifying the extend of these crimes. It is the wise discretion of the Court to Order expedited hearing on this matter or refer it directly to the Attorney General. It is

2

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 425

Filed 09/20/2004

Page 3 of 5

also unfair to hang Defendant for this unlawful orders without expedited hearing upon the permanent injunction.

3

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 425

Filed 09/20/2004

Page 4 of 5

The Defendant Mostafa Reyad

By: Mostafa Reyad 2077 Center Avenue # 22D Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Day Phone # 203-325-4100 E-mail [email protected]

CERTIFICATION

The Undersigned certifies that he emailed and mailed a true and correct copy of this Document to Attorney David Schaefer 271 Whitney Avenue, New Haven, CT 06511 and Hand delivered to Wafa Reyad

Mostafa Reyad

4

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 425

Filed 09/20/2004

Page 5 of 5

5