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

’ iiii ”‘ ti“”*_miiT’““T“‘“——’_‘*—§T»$T"*”—l
· O Case 3:03-cv-00194-CFD Document 49 Filed O9/O9/262)% médgzcé 5 4/0 i
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT " *1 I ‘_ {
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT `
ini; -~·a if
THOMAS E. TYNDALL, ) p l .
) `
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
NEW ENGLAND TEAMSTERS & TRUCKING )
INDUSTRY PENSION FUND, ) Case No. 3 :03cvI 94(CFD)
DAVID W. LAUGHTON, PAUL V. WALSH, ) -
ANTHONY S. BONPANE, GEORGE W. )
CASHMAN, J. LEO BARRY, JOHN J. )
MCCARTHY, JR., WILLIAM M. VAUGHN III, )
- and J. DAWSON CUNNINGHAM, )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE FROM THE DOC T ALL
DOCUMENTS FILED ON JULY 1, 2005 THAT WERE PLACED ON THE DOC T ON
JULY 19, 2005 AS NOT BEING SERVED PROPERLY ON ALL PARTIES, PLA TIFF
HAS NOT BEEN SERVED WITH THE ENTIRE FILING AS OF THIS DAY — T O (2)
MONTHS LATER. W
Defendants state that they did place the documents in the U.S. Mail on June 30, 2 05 but
the package was returned on July 5, 2005 due to insufficient postage, and re-mailed on J y 5,
2005 -— Plaintiff believed that this is a made up story, a lot of bunk — first place this pack e of l
documents to be certified would have to be tendered to a U.S. Postal Clerk who would w igh the
package to insure proper postage. He then would give the person mailing the package a r ceipt
(P.S. Form 3800) Defendants have not cited any copy of Form 3800 as yet.
Second, when and if this package was retumed to Defendants Law Office it woul have
to be signed for by someone in said law office. This signed Return Receipt (P.S. Form 38 I)
would then be returned to the Post Office where it would be scanned and then returned to the
sender. Defendant has not cited Form 3811 yet.
I
“ l
, _ “"’;i"""““"‘j°`;""*""i3';"‘i;"5**‘ ""‘*‘3"*°‘=“’*‘“""='*·"‘*‘*:"*'*’**5""’T"r""‘·""’“‘°`*‘*’*""*"·’“·"·""L""r’“'J·""‘*'*·'£""·*"’*e"“"%**
- .**#+++++%¥;‘ifaire“riirr‘rtriir·vii‘rjjcrwewaterrrr-r:cmeat·rc·rr·vc··r·rmm-·*r“·‘*r·rar*rrr·r·*~

` Case 3:03-cv-00194-CFD Document 49 Filed O9/O9/2005 Page 2 ff 3
I
I For Defendant Council to state the forgoing that these documents were mailed vi I
Certified Mail and have no receipts to prove this mailing is the same as out and out lying to both
the court and the Plaintiff. To top off this fabricated story about identical packages being sent to
#1 Attorney Brockett which Attorney Brockett submitted to the Court on July 1, 2005 an to #2
Pro Se Plaintiff Thomas Tyndall is again a lie. The package of documents sent to the Pla` tiff
had Exhibits A—B—C—D attached to the documents, the documents filed by Attorney Broc ett into
the Court has no less than twenty-seven (27) exhibits.
The difference in the documents between those stated by Defense Council J. M. onti as
being identical was pointed out to the Court Clerk Linda K. at the Clerks Office and Plai tiff
requested that the Clerk please weigh both documents and there was a 3.5 pound disparit .
In conclusion, Attorney Conti states that either he or his secretary sent by certifie mail
all the items in docket numbers 43-44-45-46, but to this day Plaintiff has not received the _s_a_n;e
documents that were served upon the Court either by mail or manually served. From Jun 30,
2005 (original date) to September 8, 2005 is an unbelievable time for the Post Office to s rve
that mailing. I
Instead of continuing on this course, Ido believe Attorney Conti is this laintiff
and also the Court. Plaintiff Thomas Tyndall does intend to investigate Conti’s claims fu her. I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I

n h Case 3:03-cv-00194-CFD Document 49 Filed O9/O9/2005 Page 3 •· 3 N
Dated this K day of September, 2005. E
l
Respectfully submitted,
By the Plaintiff, Pro-Se, i
,.2 U
2 J ,.:4 ff °' f I
Thomas E. Tyndal
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Thomas E. Tyndall, Pro Se Plaintiff] certify that I caused a copy of the foregoing to be erved
to the following by »-mlfi; { |»-— on September , 2005.
Thomas M. Brockett, Local Counsel for the Defendants -
Robert M. Cheverie & Associates, P.C. |
333 East River Drive
East Hartford, CT 06108
United States District Court for the District of Comiecticut g
Abraham Ribicoff Building
Main Street 2
Hartford, CT 1
Plaintiff Pro—Se, I
O I
ii ¤ "' by ’
omas E. Tyndal V