Free Index to Record on Appeal - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

. ..-. ........ ..--......._--._.L_._. ._.____._.__._,.,,_,,_._“,_.__,_,_,,,_,___ _ ,,` ____J_ ‘ ________ I
Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD Document 492 Filed O4/O3/2007 Page 1 f 3
{2qAT A »: ._' rl:
· if {Wl " U 1
April 2, 2007 V l _ r p ° //.· lr. 7 l
Jane R. Bauer, Esq. i ·— I A
Deputy Clerk
United States District Court
District of Connecticut
450 Main Street
Hartford, CT 06901
RE: Case #: 3:00-CV-00835-CFD; Notice of Interlocutory Appeal dated March 2 ,
2007 (Doc # 490).
Esquire Bauer,
Thank you for your immediate response to my tiling for "Interlocutory Appeal ’
on March 27, 2007, and thanks for the regulations to assist me in the said filing. I con end
that, the law does not mandate hiring attorney for a defendant in a civil case, howev ,
the Second Circuit Court of Appeal has recently approved hiring an attorney in a very
rare civil cases, I may be one eligible to that request, the Circuit should hire an attorn y
in this interlocutory appeal, due to the facts supported by Court Documents attached i
herein. The attached documents show, that, by tiling Plaintiff complaint on May 8, 20 0,
the undersigned Defendant was deprived from any dollar, he can claim, and the
attachment orders effectuated closing his business, deprived him from any income, an of l
course, he could not hire an attorney. I hope, you do not understand,that, I am asking you '
to do the impossible, I am fully aware that whatever the rules and regulations would
apply under the circumstances of this action.
l. The Notice of Interlocutory Appeal is an appeal from a Hnal judgment issued n
May 17, 2000 under the label of prejudgment remedy garnishing the then Fle
Bank, all bank accounts in the amount of $ 1.6 million, and because all bank
accounts never has $ 1.6 million, the business closed on May 18, 2000. These
records are not clear to the Appellate Court. By reading the docket sheet, no o e '
can recognize, there are garnishment orders in the total amount of $ 12.8 milli n,
and it is conflicting with the Court Order # 13 which permits the undersigned tp
maintain personal and business bank accounts, and permits Defendant to cond ct
his business.
Careful reading to the docket sheet for the two entries dated 05/ 1 7/2000 and
06/ l 9/2000, each entry shows WRIT of garnishment, not a plural, not specified to I
whom.
”"—"T`*`*—*———+---4.-.; ;_; ;_ Q_ · — ——--- - 4·-..r.;.Q..;;QQ;;;;__,Whwg___mm- _

" T"*—*`—*—»——— 4.- a..;;,;__n g A — -—--— -··~m-...,.;;l§;jQQT,___,vWM_,________,

I
_. _, Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD Document 492 Filed O4/O3/2007 Page 2 f 3
2. The Notice of Interlocutory Appeal is also an appeal from "Motion pressing
perjury charges" dated August 17, 2001 (Doc # 160); Order referring: [160-1] ]
motion pressing perjury charges referred to Mag. Judge William I. Gariinkel -
(signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney) dated 03/12/2002 (Doc # 208); Ord
issued Dening motion # 160 dated 03/14/2002 [entered on the docket sheet];
Motion by Mostafa Reyad and Wafa Reyad for reconsideration of endorsemen
order dated 03/14/2002 re: [160-1] dated 03/20/2002 (Doc # 211); Order
referring: [211-1] motion for reconsideration of endorsement order dated 03/ 1 /02 ,
re: [160-1] to Mag. Judge William I. Garlinkel dated 07/11/2002 (Doc # 238);
OBJECTION re: 07/15/02 endorsement order dated 03/14/02 re: [160-1] dated =
07/22/2002 (Doc # 240); and Judicial NOTICE dated 06/28/2005 (Doc # 459). It ]
is impossible for a motion to stay pending for more than 5 years. It is appealab e
for the long duration, and it may not be reviewable at the time of final judgme t. ]
The following is the list of motions related to the interlocutory appeal. ·
1. Plaintiffs’ complaint dated 05/08/2000 (Doc # 1)
2. Aiiidavit of Brian E. Ainslie dated 05/08/2000 (Doc # 10)
3. Ruling dated May 17, 2000 (Doc # 13)
4. WRIT of garnishrnent dated 05/17/2000 [attached hereto]
5. WRIT of garnishment dated 06/19/2000 [attached hereto]
6. Ruling dated 08/13/2001 (Doc # 150)
7. Motion dated 08/17/2001 (Doc # 160)
8. Amended Complaint dated 09/07/2001 (Doc # 165)
9. Ruling dated 09/19/2001 (Doc # 177)
10. Objection dated 09/28/2001 (Doc # 182)
11. Endorsement overruling [182-1] dated 09/23/2003
12. Order dated 03/12/2002 (Doc # 208)
13. Endorsement dated 03/14/2002
14. Motion dated 03/20/2002 (Doc # 211)
15. Order dated 07/11/2002 (Doc # 238) n
16. Objection dated 07/22/2002 (Doc # 240)
17. Motion in Limine filed with Trial Brief dated 11/18/2003 (Doc # 306) ;
18. Motion for reconsideration dated 05/11/2004 (Doc # 382) Q
19. Proposed findings dated 06/16/2005 (Doc # 458) i
20. Judicial Notice dated 06/28/2005 (Doc # 459)
21. Memorandum of Decision dated 07/26/2006 (Doc # 466)
22. Motion for reconsideration dated 08/02/2006 (Doc # 470)
23. Motion to Dismiss dated 08/09/2006 (Doc # 471)
24, Motion to set aside dated 08/28/2006 (Doc # 474) [
25. Brief dated 11/07/2006 (Doc # 480) .
26. Order dated 03/05/2007 (Doc # 488)
Again, I thank you for all your deligint work. I
I
“·—""" “"`”" “““”;‘T"*T_”"'"';_ “"”“_`_"`

J. _.. Case 3:00-cv-00835-CFD Document 492 Filed O4/O3/2007 Page 3 f 3
\
W
/40/J6/%~4 7
Mostafa Reyad `
2077 Center Ave # 22D
Fort Lee, NJ 07024
Day Phone: 203 -325-4 1 00
Home Phone: 201-585-0562
Email. [email protected]
I
7