Free Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

I LLIH ..... . ..... ..-...............,F..,,.-.._.-....._.............,,._1i...._..........,,.,__.._.._.._....,..._,_____,_,_,_,_______________,___________ ___
N Case 3:03-cv-00194-CFD Document 32 Filed O3/18/2005 Page 1 of 4
l UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
THOMAS E. TYNDALL, )
)
~ Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
NEW ENGLAND TEAMSTERS & TRUCKING )
INDUSTRY PENSION FUND, ) Case No. 3:03cvl 94(CFD)
DAVID W. LAUGHTON, PAUL V. WALSH, )
ANTHONY S. BUONPANE, GEORGE W. )
CASHMAN, J. LEO BARRY, JOHN J. )
MCCARTHY, JR., WILLIAM M. VAUGHN III, )
and J. DAWSON CUNNINGHAM, )
)
Defendants. )
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR A DENIAL AND REJECTION OF DEI+`ENDANT’S
SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Pursuant to the federal rules of civil procedure 56 and local rule 56 of the Civil Rules of
I
the United State District Court for the District of Connecticut. Plaintiff Thomas Tyndall Pro Se k
does request the Court deny Defendant’s motion as a matter of law. Law to the Plaintiffs mind (
means truth, honesty, and integrity. Herein in the papers submitted by Defendant’s Council he
has already submitted false infomation to the Court. I refer to page 12 of Defendant’s
Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant’s Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment.
On page 12 Council has attempted to slip into the records the word DISABLED. Nowhere in
Plaintiff s application for Pension #34422 has Plaintiff mentioned any disability. Plaintiffs
application marked item # .
i

I Case 3:03-cv-00194-CFD Document 32 Filed O3/18/2005 Page 2 of 4
l l
In line with Plaintiff’ s not mentioning disability see the letter of appeal dated October 12, 1
1994- wherein tile Plaintiff refuted all the misinformation the Pension Fund Management had
been feeding him for over 14 years. Marked Item # _.
Next please look at January 1995 Trustee Meeting wherein they state the Plaintiff had not
‘ incurred a brealc in service. Marked Item # ______.
Inline with the January 1995 Trustee Meeting see the August 2001 Trustee Meeting
wherein the first paragraph the Trustee’s Award Plaintiff Mr. Tyndall a because
I the information they previously received was fotmd to be inaccurate and in doing so waived the 6
an months after 49 because Tyndall was not properly advised that his previous credits had not been
cancelled. R
Again nowhere in Mr. Tyndall’s application or in the Trustees findings was the term l
disabled mentioned. This term (disabled) has been inserted by Defense Council and it I
constitutes false éinformation, especially in a legal document. f
Defense has also mentioned Plaintiff "was not disabled in August 1990” in paragraph 15, R
page 4, local rule 56(a)l Statement of Facts. Also in Langone’s Affidavit, 18, Exhibit 7 this E
mentioning of disabled is obviously a tact designed to relieve the Fund of responsibility for their N
lying ways and to lead the Court in a wrong direction. i
As far aséthe Plaintiff is concerned, it is his belief that the Honorable Judge should order
this Pension Fund Council in front of him and strongly admonish or further punish said Council
for attempting to: "pull the wool over his eyes” with this misconception or possible outright lie.
In light ofthe foregoing Plaintiff does request the Court reject and deny any application
for Supplemental Summary Judgment submitted by Defense.

I Case 3:03-cv-00194-CFD Document 32 Filed 03/18/2005 Page 3 of 4
l
{ Because ofthe foregoing the pro se Plaintiff, Thomas Tyndall, would like to ask the
l
Court to reflect back on the previous Decision for Summary Judgment on the first part of this 2
part charge, the same thing happened in the paper work wherein I believe the Court was
mesmerized by the word amendment and in doing the math the Court reached a decision, it is the
fondest wish of this pro se Plaintiff that the Court would vacate that decision and allow the
‘ Plaintiff the right to argue all the points of the first half of this case.
As a postscript, Plaintiff wishes to thank your Honor for the extra time because the
Plaintiff was sick with the flu last month.

` _ - H--- _H';-““—___~“—““;T_—“_;—-Ynl
I Case 3:03-cv-00194-CFD Document 32 Filed O3/18/2005 Page 4 of 4
l Dated this [ 5 nday of March, 2005. H I l
L - Respectfully submitted, 5
l ‘ By the Plaintiff Pro-~Se,
I T£omas E. Tyndall I
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE _ l
I, Thomas E. Tyndall, rp se plaintiff certify that I caused a co y of the foregoing to be served
‘ to the following by [2 on March [ E , 2005.
I 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 Connecticut
Abraham Ribicoff Building
Main Street
Hartford, CT
_ Plaintiff Pro—Se,
_ A . lgomas E. Tyndal$ @5