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

_;.L.i...Li. ,,,., U., A... ....;.- ·-·—·-·-··—·-———-——
_ g I
_ ‘ Case 3:03-cv-00194-CFD Document 49-2 Filed O9/OQQUOSU /F?ag—e,i off
UNITED smrss Disrtucr count " " ```' l` `‘L`
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT U U
IW (I lj if P 8
THOMAS E. TYNDALL, ) _ p
) ‘ . A A I
Plaintiff] )
)
v. ) .
) i
NEW ENGLAND TEAMSTERS & TRUCKING ) g
INDUSTRY PENSION FUND, ) Case No. 3:03cvl 94(CFD) '
DAVID W. LAUGHTON, PAUL V. WALSH, ) p
ANTHONY S. BONPANE, GEORGE W. ) ,
CASHMAN, J. LEO BARRY, JOHN J. )
MCCARTHY, JR., WILLIAM M. VAUGHN III, ) I
and J. DAWSON CUNNINGHAM, )
)
Defendants. )
I
AFFIDAVIT OF THOMAS TYNDALL IN RESPONSE TO THE QUASI, PH%§NY
AFFIDAVIT FILED INTO THE DOCKET ON AUGUST 17 2005 BY DEFE ISE

ATTORNEY JONATHAN M. CONTI, ESQ. i
The above “Affidavit" by Jonathan M. Conti, Esq. is not a true affidavit in many ivays
I
because of untruths stated by Attorney Conti plus the fact it was never certified by, Notarb
Public, Court Officer or any one else. See iinal sentence Page 3. I
The first four (4) paragraphs are accepted by Plaintiff Thomas Tyndall as being okay,
however, Plaintiff disputes the number five (5) paragraph that either Conti or his secretary did
sent by Certified Mail to Plaintiff Thomas Tyndall in as much as Conti did not exhibit copies of
I the certification receipt P,S. Form 3800 of this mailing nor did Conti send a copy of P.S. Form
3811 that would have had to be signed by someone (receptionist) upon the return of said package
of documents. Conti is well aware of these forms, see paragraph number nine (9) attached
Exhibit #1 of affidavit of Jonathan M. Conti.
` * "?·'i’f£.Lh.iiii§;C‘ i%‘·1·.i Ti¥5;`¤i4iJ€!i-iii} in-35-¥£i¥T%L(=s ':-¤# -we--¤·~.i-.7 . . .
' — "'”·’
‘ I Case 3:03-cv-00194-CFD Document 49-2 Filed O9/O9/2005 Page 2 of 4 {
Paragraph Number Six (6) is accepted by Plaintiff but please note that Hnal sentence
which states, “with Exhibits A through D".
Paragraph Number Seven (7)
Plaintiff agrees that Attorney Brockett did present to the Court on July 1, 2005 th
documents sent by Defense Council Conti but herein is the quirk that Plaintiff disagrees sgith.
Conti mentions Exhibits A through D but in the Court filing there are at least twenty—seven (27)
exhibits attached to that filing. These twenty-seven exhibits were never filed with Plaintiff
Plaintiff Thomas Tyndall when appearing at the Federal Court Clerks Office at 450 Maim Street,
Hartford, CT to look at the Docket did note the differenoed between that which had been A ailed
to him and that which is in the docket. Plaintiff Thomas Tyndall did request of the Court Ferk to
weigh on their mailing scale the difference in their weight. The weight of the Docket Filip gs
#43-44-45-46 scaled out at four and one—half pounds (4.5). The weight of the documents
received by Plaintiff scaled out at a little less than one (1) pound. The weighing was done by
Court Clerk Linda K. R
Paragraph Number Eight (8) (
In this paragraph Mr. Conti does state that the Post Office did return to his office tlhe
aforementioned documents due to a lack of sufficient postage if indeed this return had taken
place then Form #381 l would have had to be signed by the receiver and would have been taken
back to the Post Office where it would have been entered into the Post Office computer ahd then
been mailed back to Jonathan M. Conti’s office and Jonathan M. Conti would have copietll this
form and entered it as an Exhibit to prove that this farce which he has sworn to actually did
happen. Also in Paragraph Eight (8) Conti states that the documents presented to the Court and
i l

`
' { Case 3:03-cv-00194-CFD Document 49-2 Filed O9/O9/2005 Page 3 of 4
the documents mailed to Plaintiff were the same. See Paragraph #8 above — (4.5 pound package I
and less than one (1) pound package the same)???
Paragraph Number Nine (9) I
Agreed, Please Note Exhibit #1
Paragraph Number Ten (10)
Plaintiff when visiting Federal Court Clerk’s Office did inquire of Court Clerk Liiida K.
about the time element of documents presented to the Clerks’ Office on July l and not filed until
July 19. Court Clerk Linda K. did give Plaintiff sufdcient reason why. ,
Paragraph Number Eleven (11)
Attorney J. M, Conti states that UPS does not deliver overnight packages to Post {Office
boxes. When Conti speaks of UPS does he mean United Parcel Service or does he speak bf
United States Postal Service which indeed does accept overnight packages to Post Officeiboxes.
Just another ploy perpetrated on the Court and the Plaintiff J ,
In summation of this Affidavit, I, Thomas Tyndall, Plaintiff Pro Se do again request the 1
Court do strike from the Docket all documents filed on July 1, 2005 and entered on the Diacket
on July 19, 2005 as not being filed properly with identical copies to the Court and to the Plaintiff
as stated in the Rules of Federal Court Procedure. i
1
t
i J


l . l
l ` l Case 3:03-cv-00194-CFD Document 49-2 Filed O9/O9/2005 Page 4 of 4 f
SIGNED UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PEFLJURY THIS cf-j' DAY OF September 2005. l
/"/I
/
TH MAs TYND LL I
Then personally appeared the above-named Thomas Tundall and acknowledged t e I
foregoing instrument to be his free act and deed, before me, `
‘ ` l
Notary Public
mar.`—e» (Fi J-.»‘n£¢¤ _ L
Mi C0Y“Yn"&S;00 Evlffj _` l°‘3,°`O I

a
I
l
l
l
I
l
I
l