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

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 409

Filed 07/14/2004

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: JULY 14, 2004

DEFENDANT S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF S OPPOSITION TO CORRECT THE RECORDS

This is Defendant Mostafa Reyad s reply to Plaintiff s opposition to Defendant s motion to correct the records dated July 6, 2004 (Doc # 408). Plaintiff alleging that Defendant s request in this regard is unnecessary and factually inaccurate. Defendant s request is as of right should be Granted as a matter of law.

Surprisingly, Plaintiff cites the same case Defendant cited it in his motion In Re: Martin-Trigona, indeed, Defendant agree with Plaintiff that Defendant s request adds burden on the Court, but Defendant vigorously defending his rights. The validity of a judgment or order is its entry in the records of the case pursuant to Federal Rules. In the instant case the records forwarded to the Second Circuit

1

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 409

Filed 07/14/2004

Page 2 of 4

having only one Order issued on May 17, 2000 (Doc # 13), and see the docket sheet dated 5/17/00 [Writ of Garnishment issued; original and two attested copies handed to attorney for service (mel) (Entry date 5/17/00)], the records is incorrect, because it is not original and two attested copies, and it is different writs each one of them is a separate writ directed to named garnishee. The copies of these writs show that it was not prepared by the Court, and it were prepared by Plaintiff s attorney David R. Schaefer. Moreover, it is evidence that Honorable Magistrate Garfinkel engaged in unilateral communication with Plaintiff s attorney. This unilateral communication is a legal ground raising Defendant s right to file a motion to Recuse the Magistrate, and immediate disqualification of Plaintiff s attorney off this case.

The hardest motion ever, is litigatant s motion to recuse a Judge. Unfortunately, Defendant pro se has this burden now, however, if a litigant has the right to request Judge Recusal who engaged in unilateral communication with one party, then the litigant has the right to request immediate disqualification of Plaintiff s attorney and his law firm.

It is not a plain error, the records do not show that the prejudgment remedy has been converted to a permanent injunction opposite to the Order entered in the records (Doc # 13), which caused Defendants damages approximately fifteen million dollar. The Presiding Judge, and the Second Circuit will not be able to

2

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 409

Filed 07/14/2004

Page 3 of 4

determine the injunction unless the records to be corrected, and when it will be corrected it will show the permanent injunction in the amount of $ 12.8 million.

Defendant s motion to correct the records dated June 30, 2004 (Doc # 406) should be Granted as a matter of law.

3

Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD

Document 409

Filed 07/14/2004

Page 4 of 4

The Defendant Mostafa Reyad

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that he mailed a true and correct copy of this document to Attorney David Schaefer at 271 Whitney Avenue, New Haven, CT 0651 and Hand delivered to Wafa Reyad.

Mostafa Reyad

4