Free Status Report - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

I ·*- ‘*` Case 3:02-cv-O162@'@CH Document 27 Filed 11/1 Ev/$003 Page 1 of 3
I United States District Court Case No. 302 CVQIQQQQQSCK) I
I District of Connecticut A
EES} i~E¥}‘.’ \3 W I2? Mb
l %_;l;» *-»~?_4=_;_¤;*,g.‘· I
I iMac ;.r»n .» I
Dick Mattleson (Petitioner)
80 Tremont Street
I Hartford, Connecticut I
06105-3069 I
AKA dmatt89@ ahoo.com ·
l
AKA dmatt89 I
l
l
Emile Boyle (Respondent)
8354 Forrester Blvd I
I Springfield, VA
22152 I
AKA [email protected] I
AKA liveride I
Petitionews Settlement Summary and Status Report
As of November 7'h, 2003
l
l
l
l
I
l
l
l E
I





R Case 0:02-cv-O16&;)CH Document 27 Filed 11/1€jZ§)O3 Page20f3
Now comes Dick Mattleson, the Petitioner, to summarize the 1
settlement status. As of this date, in communicating with 1
the Respondent, the Respondent feels still that he was 1
defrauded. The Respondent feels that a certain sum of - 1
$440.00 was stolen from him by the Petitioner. Therefore, 1
the Petitioner and Respondent have different philosophies 1
of thinking which ultimately the Court will examine then 1
I
make a decision. 1
M
l
The Respondent will settle this case, if no monies are to T
be paid out as damages. The Respondent feels that his
agreement to have the libel removed from Ebay should be
sufficient as damages paid in full. The Respondent has
“forgiven” the Petitioner. The Petitioner makes note that 1
the reason the Respondent agreed to the removal of the L
libel is due to the Respondent can not substantiate his j
comments, not for the ulterior motive of striving for peace 1
and settlement. 1
1 I
The Petitioner has provided the Respondent a proposal good
on or before November 14dL 2003. The Petitioner will agree
to a settlement for the sum of $10,000 which is basically 1
the cost of a year’s worth of expenses while on Ebay, plus 1
all court costs to date, plus some miscellaneous expenses 1
1
E


P` Case 3:02-cv-O162@QlCH Document 27 Filed 11/13j§)O3 Page3of3
l
i.e. storage. The Petitioner did not receive any answer
! back from the Respondent as of this writing.
l
i
! The Petitioner is also exploring whether or not attempted
§ mail fraud has been committed by the Respondent surrounding
E the handling of the return of the ze shipment to him. The
Respondent claims he used the U.S. Postal service for the
i return of merchandise, however, he can not provide any
evidence to support this. His waiting 6 weeks after
shipping to report his actions to the Petitioner is very
suspect. When he sought relief of additional merchandise
or refund, and the Petitioner did not comply, the wrath of
libel and consequences were delivered.
On November 14, 2003, the Petitioner will show that the
Respondent could have easily followed the terms and
conditions set forth by the Petitioner, but failed to do so
due to lax and irresponsible handling on the part of the
Respondent. The Petitioner will demonstrate that 3 times ·
BEFORE the transaction took place, the Respondent was
informed in clear easy to understand layman language of the
terms and conditions of sale. The Petitioner will then
demonstrate that when the l“ shipment was not returned per
agreement, and the Petitioner and Respondent agreed to