Courting
Please copy, share whatever you want from this blog – it is ad-free, unmonitored. Thank you for paying that forward.
Feel free to access almost all of my other posts through The links here: http://www.appleofmyeyes.org/2018/04/table-of-contents.html
The word "courting" has different meanings which I really can't wrap my head around. The courts are so corrupted where I live and courting there only means death of your case. if all else fails, they will break every law with their "Because I can" agenda.
It is February 9 and I began listening to the Relaxing Music Channel on YouTube. I will be sharing the document I efiled today just to let people know how constantly pathetic the courts are in Connecticut. They are the ones who covered up the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting hoax. They probably engaged themselves in planning it. The court in Danbury created a bogus affirmation that the shooting was real. They are all going down and frankly every one of them should be in prison for the harm they have caused people!
They consider themselves higher than the federal government. They consider the report by the supervising agent to be easily swallowed up by the blue whale - The FBI Director in 2012. Well, that whale can only hold Jonah for so long - and when it regurgitates, it will end the corruption by a large measure!
I will be posting my Motion in a short while. Well, the short while turned to a long one due to internet snags.//
2/13/2018: The below motion was amended but at least I got it efiled before courthouse closed last Friday, to be timely. I am pasting the amended copy here, which should be easier to read. I will include the confirmations once I efile the amended motion.
Note, 2/19/2019: The top portion of this motion was cut off which had the actual trial court case number since this is a pre-appeal. And a blank part for S.C. since they issue a different freaking S.C. number for each corresponding motion reflecting the same case = records fraud opportunity to mess up everything. I had to create my own docket sheet as well. And I did submit that to the Supreme Court when I motioned for a review. Lying is what they consider as "good lawyering". My observation.
Additionally, Appendix D is not listed on the last page. There is an Appendix D. These documents reflect the erroneous processing even more. That is what happens when court lies. Their noses get longer and longer, so to speak. Like Pinochio.
2/21/2018 - Motion For Permission for Supreme Court to mail me the correct ruling on my Motion for Extension Of Time - pasted below
2/28/2018 - THIRD Pre-Appeal Motion For Extension of Time due to abuse of procedures by the court, denial of Due Process of Law - hopefully I will be able to scan all attachments later in the day, but I have to do them one by one and it is a timely issue.
S.C.
CR160091188 (Ref SC 17503) : STATE OF CONNECTICUT
STATE
OF CONNECTICUT
:
SUPREME COURT
VS.
: AT HARTFORD
ANNE
M. BRADLEY : February 21, 2018
DEFENDANT’S
PRE-APPEAL
MOTION
FOR PERMISSION OF THE SUPREME COURT TO REMIT THE CORRECT RULING ON MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
Pursuant to PB 66-1 AND Due
Process of Law, Pre-Appellant Pro Se Defendant Motions Supreme Court of
Connecticut for Permission to receive the correct ruling on its Extension of
Time to submit Motion For Articulation on Motion For Review.
History
Pre-Appellant was illicitly
arrested by Trooper Jon Naples, who was accompanied by Trooper Torres on
February 4, 2016. Thereafter, the court
failed to produce probable cause and comply with other evidentiary rules, to
include what is reflected on elements of the charges: Threatening (felonious charge), Breach of
Peace (requiring public appearance), and
Interfering with an officer (when the officer actually assaulted the
defendant). Case was to be heard
regarding defendant’s demand for trial by jury. Exchange of information was to
take place in order to prepare for trial, which should have been placed on the
calendar, yet the court refused to provide a calendar date. Defendant claimed requesting exchange of
information prior to the issuance of date was erroneous. At this hearing an erroneous court order of a
Nolle on the uninformed alteration of charges – no amended Long Form was
presented to the defendant yet the court altered the audio as if they mentioned
it in court - (which defendant claimed to be also illegal, reducing the case to
one charge of a misdemeanor of threatening, which she would have never agreed
to a Nolle for since the court aggressively attempted to get her to agree to a
Nolle in February 20167 and she stated the case should be dismissed, she did
nothing wrong, her Motion To Dismiss should be heard and ruled on, she refused
to stipulate they had valid charges against her, the police broke the law – not
her)
Facts
1. Attached is the Supreme Court’s Ruling on a different case,
which they have done twice in a row now.
Never has this occurred to the defendant on any case from this
court.
2. Even though specific attention would be required on their
prior abuse of procedure, the court reflects a Modis Operandi by doing the same
thing again. Case which the court issued
an order on is PSC 170300, Luongo Construction v James MacFarlane. This was a denial of Petition For
Certification, which should have been sent to their attorney, not defendant.
Defendant does not know these people.
3. Date of Defendant’s Motion For Extension of Time to File
Motion For Articulation was submitted on February 13, 2018. Attached is the e-filing confirmation at
Appendix A.
4. Date of the Supreme Court’s Order is dated February 14,
2018. Defendant checked her mail on
February 16 – there was no order in her mail until
yesterday, February 21. February 19 was President’s Day and the
courthouse was closed. The Post Office
was closed.
5. Defendant is therefore efiling this Motion For Permission to
be sent the actual ruling on her Motion for Extension Of Time.
6. Defendant claims the Court is abusing procedure to keep her
from filing a timely Motion For Articulation and therefore the ruling should
have the extended time as requested with affirmation that the ruling should be
issued two weeks from the date defendant receives the ruling to avoid further
abuse of procedure by the court.
7. Although the court should have the obligation to treat every
party the same, they enjoy only notifying their select parties when it rules on
motions. Defendant has only been
notified one time on a ruling the day they mailed it, which was years ago.
Law
CT PB 66-1
(b) (emphasized) Motion to extend the time limit for filing
ANY appellate document, OTHER THAN THE APPEAL, shall be filed with the
appellate clerk….
Due Process of Law – 5th
Amendment
Summary (no changes to the Summary previously
submitted)
Pre-Appellant Defendant has
had to spend a great deal of time and money on this case, which she considers
lacking grounds for the unlawful arrest, the lies, the altering of the audio, the
refusal of providing her a copy of what was on the video cam, and transcripts
in the trial court which were altered by the officials. They all point to ABUSE OF PROCEDURE,
supporting an unlawful arrest and assault by a trooper who impinged her shoulder,
most likely because the one speaking to him through his earphone was telling
him to assault her to make her go to the hospital. This would also support why they looked at
her when they got off the elevator, yet turned in the opposite direction and
walked ten feet and pivoted back, not looking at any apartment doors – yet
expecting the defendant to run back to her apartment. Defendant had no clue who they were
seeing. She was just waiting for the
elevator to use the library, with no jacket on.
She has been cheated out of approximately $3,000 of her own money,
suffered from not being able to get dental care for over seven months due to
the costs and overwhelming amount of time she has had to spend on her own
defense. This has obviously been a
gangstalking situation, which the Milford Court expected to easily shove under
the rug by illegally forcing her in prison, depriving her of all her rights,
and enjoying keeping her from contacting anyone for help. Extension of time should be granted in order
to provide the transcripts and prepare a substantive motion for the court to
hear. The process of hearing a motion
REQUIRES certain elements which have been deprived the pro se defendant in
trial court and in Appellate Court. The
pre-appellant defendant will continue her defense even if it means submitting
an appeal to the US Supreme Court upon receiving a final decision by the
Connecticut State Supreme Court.
WHEREFORE, Defendant motions
this court to grant Extension of Time at least two weeks from the date it is
granted AND received by the defendant.
Appendix
A – Proof of e-filing of
Motion For Extension Of Time on February 13, 2018
B – Copy of the Order mailed
to the defendant – which defendant claims to be abuse of procedure.
Prepared And Submitted,
Pro
Se Defendant
___________________
Anne
M. Bradley, Pro Se
Order
Aforesaid Motion having
been heard is hereby
GRANTED/DENIED _________________
THE COURT
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify, pursuant to Practice Book 66-3, that
this motion For Extension Of Time applies with provisions of the Practice Book
and Pursuant to PB 60-7, 60-8, and 62-7, that a true and accurate copy of the
foregoing will be served by first class mail on this day, February 21, 2018, to
the following:
State’s Attorney
Superior Court – Milford
14 West River Street
Milford, CT 06460
_______________________
Anne
M. Bradley
S.C. 17503 : STATE OF CONNECTICUT
STATE
OF CONNECTICUT
:
SUPREME COURT
VS.
: AT
HARTFORD
ANNE
M. BRADLEY : February 9, 2018
DEFENDANT’S
SECOND PRE-APPEAL
MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
Amended
and efiled 2/13/2018
Pursuant to PB 66-1,
Pre-Appellant Pro Se Defendant Motions Supreme Court of Connecticut for
Extension of Time to submit Motion For Articulation on Motion For Review.
History
Pre-Appellant was illicitly
arrested by Trooper Jon Naples, who was accompanied by Trooper Torres on
February 4, 2016. Trooper Naples also
assaulted defendant, impinging her shoulder.
Defendant refused medical treatment, fully knowing it was a trick to
force her at the local psychiatric facility as part of their human trafficking
agenda. Trial court erroneously entered
a Nolle on an uninformed, misdemeanor of Threatening after 12 hearings
comprising over seven months – despite the fact the defendant refused to
stipulate that they had valid charges against her for anything although they
charged her a felony and two misdemeanors AFTER she was assaulted by the
trooper when disabled defendant posed no threat to them. Again, she reminded them: they had no complaint or evidence from the
alleged victim against the defendant; no evidence; police cannot cold-call
residences and accuse someone just because they feel like arresting them. Defendant
claimed they had no probable cause, they evaded from showing probable cause at
the preliminary hearing at which time they had shackled defendant and the
public defense attorney told defendant that she could not talk to him because
he was not her defense attorney – which thereafter defendant has claimed to be
a dishonest and unlawful act. Trial court refused to take defendant’s appeal
documents which were submitted the day the trial judge entered the unlawful
Nolle. Thereafter, trial court refused
to take any more documents from the defendant, which defendant has claimed to
be unlawful. Defendant submitted several pre-appeal motions to Appellate Court
– all of which were denied without stipulation, denying all motions for
articulation as well as immediate hearing in order to get her rights. Defendant submitted a Motion For Review of
the Appellate Court’s rulings to the state Supreme Court. Defendant claimed they were insufficient,
lacking in opinions and repeatedly refused to even indicate a law which gave it
the right to refuse to compel the trial court to follow the law and take the
appeal. The State Supreme Court ordered
a denial on the Appellate Court’s dismissal of motion, which was a strange
denial of the motion. Defendant
submitted a timely motion for Extension of Time to Submit Motion For
Articulation, which she submitted a replacement for a few days thereafter for
further clarification, with several transcripts and the certification section. Motion For Extension of Time was submitted on
November 22, Transaction Confirmation Number 113972. The date of submission for
the replacement motion was November 27, 2017.
This replacement motion included a Certification Section, which is also
the same thing confirmed when e-filing, yet the court requests it to be
certified in writing as well as through e-filing. Weekend days encompassed this time. No decision by the clerk was made and despite
the numerous times which defendant called for follow-up, they continued to
state no decision by the clerk was made.
At no point did they indicate the clerk had left the office and nobody
took her place.
Last week, defendant called
their office again and was transferred to Attorney Dullae who claimed the
reason the clerk did not submit a decision was because the clerk was no longer
there. Defendant was aggravated, saying they obviously had no right to stop
proceeding or responding with court cases and it has been nearly three months
for a decision on the Extension of Time, which is normally ruled on within a
matter of days. Supreme Court altered this Motion For Extension of Time to file
Motion For Articulation as a Motion to file a Petition for Certification. Attached is the Motion which was Properly
efiled on November 27, 2017.
Attorney Dullea stated, “You
can’t submit a Petition for Certification because you don’t have an appeal”.
Defendant did not believe she submitted such a motion, and told her to review
the documents submitted. Attorney Dullea
said she would review them and provide her the decision in the mail, saying,
“You can call me and we will talk about it.”
Facts
1. Attached is the motion for extension of Time To File Motion
For Articulation, dated November 27, 2017.
This replacement motion included a Certification Section, which is also
the same thing confirmed when e-filing, yet the court requests it to be
certified in writing as well as through e-filing. Transcripts which were
supplemented on October 11 and 23 through efiling yet the court defined them as
“Motion For Review” and rejected the transcripts.
2. Attached
are the documents which Attorney Dullea mailed to the defendant. The documents
were dated February 2, 2018. They were not received by the defendant until
February 8, 2018.
3. Defendant
does not have to have an appeal on record to file a Motion For
Articulation. Defendant did NOT file for extension of time to even file a
Petition For Certification. This is a Pre-Appellant Motion which Attorney Dulea
claimed on the phone was for extension of time to file Petition For
Certification, even though she had the file in front of her.
4. Defendant opines she does not have to have an appeal on
record to even file a Petition For Certification when she has been
aggrieved by the Appellate Court for failing to compel the state court to
accept her appeal documents. Yet a
Petition For Certification has not been attempted by the pre-appellant
defendant. This is a deliberate
unconstitutional act by both State and Appellate Courts.
5. Defendant
was deprived of having her timely trial court motions ever heard, including her
Motion To Dismiss which was submitted in February 2016. Additionally, over the course of seven
months, defendant obtained transcripts of every hearing, and the court denied
her fee waivers. This is another
unlawful act since defendant’s income is federal poverty level and she had to
pay for them.
6. Defendant was ordered to pay bail, yet deprived of seeing a
bondsman and was unlawfully detained for six days in a state prison under an
unlawful Mittimus Order – which are only used for convicted persons.
7. Trial court secretly altered the charge of felonious
threatening, breach of peace, and interfering with officer – to one misdemeanor
charge of threatening, with no amended Long Form and nothing stated in the
court at the time the erroneous Nolle was entered. Again, the court had no
grounds to charge her anything. The
court was continuing the gangstalking they used police for. The court insisted they had all the evidence
they needed to charge her the felony and
two misdemeanors, yet refused to comply with Rules of Evidence and Elements of
Charges and even secretly altered this case the seventh month when trial was requested
and confirmed! The bail money she paid should have been reimbursed by the
court.
8. Defendant has been cheated out of $3,000 due to these
expenses and claims she should be compensated for unlawful imprisonment.
9. The state should not have any records of any arrests due to
the unlawfulness of their processing and failure to administer the law.
10. As a reminder, the bail commissioner lied at the preliminary
hearing when in fact she FIRST should have assured that probable cause was
entered on record. She did not do this and also lied about the history of the
defendant, which the defendant stated in writing to the commissioner as well as
in proceedings to the court. These
documents have been provided to the Appellate Court.
11. The public defender, by the name of John Williams, who works
right in that office at the Milford Courthouse, lied to the defendant during
the preliminary hearing, saying, “I am not your attorney” and refused to
request her to correct the record or strike her responses due to her lies. There
was no actual preliminary hearing and the court failed to disclose probable
cause before issuing bail, which defendant claimed was illegal. When the court on its own order had Attorney
Williams replaced by Attorney Bansley Law Office, Attorney Bansley entered an
unlawful appearance the 5th day of the case, leaving who he was
replacing blank. Defendant removed
Bansley Law Office from the case due to their misconduct on numerous
circumstances.
12. Motion For Ext of Time efiled 11/24/2017, acting on Court
Order dated November 15, 2017 – DISSMISSAL of Motion For Review, dated and efiled
October 11. 2017 - which was also included – already on file with Supreme
Court.
13. Letter to Chief Court Reporter requesting reprinting of ALL
transcripts of ALL hearings, which have already been paid for by pre-appellant
defendant has already been provided to the Supreme Court to prove efforts in
resolving her needs to complete the record in order to submit a Motion for
Articulation. (partial covering of transcripts certified were efiled yet the
court rejected them, for consideration with the Motion For Review)
14. AFFIDAVIT on Transcript Submittals, prepared 10/10/2017 were
submitted to Supreme Court since no order on the Motion For Extension of Time
was acted upon.
15. Supplements (first pages only, No 1 and No 2) 10/23 and 10/27 with confirmations of Motion
For Review and Supplement No. 2, which the court defines as entered on 10/26 –
have been received and rejected by the Supreme court.
16. Defendant’s Statement Regarding Bail Commissioner’s use of Of
Allegation of Previous Conviction, CGS Sec 54-62 was provided to the Supreme Court.
17. The documents which Attorney Dullea mailed to the
pre-appellant defendant failed to act on her Motion For Extension of Time to
file Motion For Articulation.
Additionally, Attorney Dullea even included an order to a George Michael
Leniert – which has nothing to do with this matter and this is no person which
pre-appellant defendant has any knowledge of.
18. An Appellate Document INCLUDES pre-appeals motions.
19. No ruling on the prior Motion For Extension of Time to File
Motion For Articulation was issued. This
court claimed it was a different motion only recently, even though the motion
was submitted months ago.
20. Aforesaid motion has been revised to emphasize clarity and
conformity. Intent remains the same. The
Courthouse was closed February 10th, 11th, and 12th.
21. Defendant has been significantly traumatized by the unlawful
arrest and abuse of procedure by trial court, to include breaking her
constitutional rights to Due Process Of Law.
The assault by the police officer was very traumatizing. They desired to take her through public
entrance to make a scene for themselves, to make people believe she was a
danger to their community and they were the heroes. A woman in a cell across the hall from her –
at the prison she was ILLEGALLY detained in - was obviously murdered yet the prison
documented it as suicide by hanging; there was no place she could hang herself.
Law
CT PB 66-1
(b) (emphasized) Motion to extend the time limit for filing
ANY appellate document, OTHER THAN THE APPEAL, shall be filed with the
appellate clerk….
Due Process of Law – 5th
Amendment
Summary (no changes to the Summary previously
submitted)
Pre-Appellant Defendant has
had to spend a great deal of time and money on this case, which she considers
lacking grounds for the unlawful arrest, the lies, the altering of the audio,
the refusal of providing her a copy of what was on the video cam, and
transcripts in the trial court which were altered by the officials. They all point to ABUSE OF PROCEDURE,
supporting an unlawful arrest and assault by a trooper who impinged her
shoulder, most likely because the one speaking to him through his earphone was
telling him to assault her to make her go to the hospital. This would also support why they looked at
her when they got off the elevator, yet turned in the opposite direction and
walked ten feet and pivoted back, not looking at any apartment doors – yet
expecting the defendant to run back to her apartment. Defendant had no clue who they were
seeing. She was just waiting for the
elevator to use the library, with no jacket on.
She has been cheated out of approximately $3,000 of her own money,
suffered from not being able to get dental care for over seven months due to
the costs and overwhelming amount of time she has had to spend on her own
defense. This has obviously been a
gangstalking situation, which the Milford Court expected to easily shove under
the rug by illegally forcing her in prison, depriving her of all her rights,
and enjoying keeping her from contacting anyone for help. Extension of time should be granted in order
to provide the transcripts and prepare a substantive motion for the court to
hear. The process of hearing a motion
REQUIRES certain elements which have been deprived the pro se defendant in
trial court and in Appellate Court. The
pre-appellant defendant will continue her defense even if it means submitting
an appeal to the US Supreme Court upon receiving a final decision by the
Connecticut State Supreme Court.
WHEREFORE, Defendant motions
this court to grant Extension of Time at least two weeks from the date it is
granted.
Appendix
A – Defendant’s Pre-Appeal
Replacement Motion For Extension of Time, November 27, 2017
B – Efiling record by
Supreme Court – transcripts supplemented were rejected.
C – Documents which Attorney
Dullea mailed to the pre-appellant Anne M. Bradley, received February 8, 2018.
Prepared And Submitted,
Pro
Se Defendant
___________________
Anne
M. Bradley, Pro Se
Order
Aforesaid Motion having
been heard is hereby
GRANTED/DENIED _________________
T THE COURT
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify, pursuant to Practice Book 66-3, that
this motion For Extension Of Time applies with provisions of the Practice Book
and Pursuant to PB 60-7, 60-8, and 62-7, that a true and accurate copy of the
foregoing will be served by first class mail on this day, February 13, 2018, to
the following:
State’s Attorney
Superior Court – Milford
14 West River Street
Milford, CT 06460
_______________________
Anne
M. Bradley
I did NOT file a Petition of Certification! I filed a Motion For Ext of Time! She had the file right in front of her and was deliberately lying. I taped the phone call. I am submitting a transcription with this motion. I did not want to call them again. They "play house" - they don't do their jobs!
That is all I am doing with this tonight. This was an exhausting day.As I finally read over what I had to prepare in a matter of an hour or hour and a half, I see there are some errors in spelling, repeated words, etc. So I will need to prepare an errata and efile that as well on Tuesday. No way will I use my computer to efile. I have no trust in this state. Any opportunity to ruin my computer will be taken. I had to have my hard drive replaced twice, the second time back in 2013.
S.C.
CR160091188 :
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
STATE
OF CONNECTICUT
:
SUPREME COURT
VS.
: AT
HARTFORD
ANNE
M. BRADLEY : November 24, 2018
DEFENDANT’S
THIRD PRE-APPEAL
MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
February
28, 2018
Pursuant to PB 66-1,
Pre-Appellant Pro Se Defendant Motions Supreme Court of Connecticut for
Extension of Time to submit Motion For Articulation on The Supreme Court’s
ruling which it made when it heard Motion For Review.
History
Pre-Appellant was illicitly
arrested by Trooper Jon Naples, who was accompanied by Trooper Torres on
February 4, 2016. Trooper Naples also
assaulted defendant, impinging her shoulder.
Defendant refused medical treatment, fully knowing it was a trick to
force her at the local psychiatric facility as part of their human trafficking
agenda. Trial court erroneously entered
a Nolle on an uninformed, misdemeanor of Threatening after 12 hearings
comprising over seven months – despite the fact the defendant refused to
stipulate that they had valid charges against her for anything although they
charged her a felony and two misdemeanors AFTER she was assaulted by the
trooper when disabled defendant posed no threat to them. Defendant demanded trial. Again, she reminded them: they had no complaint or evidence from the
alleged victim against the defendant; no evidence; police cannot cold-call
residences and accuse someone just because they feel like arresting them. Defendant
claimed they had no probable cause, they evaded from showing probable cause at
the preliminary hearing at which time they had shackled defendant and the
public defense attorney told defendant that she could not talk to him because
he was not her defense attorney – which thereafter defendant has claimed to be
a dishonest and unlawful act. Trial court refused to take defendant’s appeal
documents which were submitted the day the trial judge entered the unlawful
Nolle. Thereafter, trial court refused
to take any more documents from the defendant, which defendant has claimed to
be unlawful. Defendant submitted several pre-appeal motions to Appellate Court
– all of which were denied without stipulation, denying all motions for
articulation as well as immediate hearing in order to get her rights. Defendant submitted a Motion For Review of
the Appellate Court’s rulings to the state Supreme Court. (Appendix E) on October 11, 2017. Defendant claimed the Appellete Court was
insufficient, lacking in opinions and repeatedly refused to even indicate a law
which gave it the right to refuse to compel the trial court to follow the law
and take the appeal. The State Supreme
Court ordered a denial
on the Appellate Court’s dismissal of motion, which was a
strange denial of the motion. This
ruling was on November 15, 2017, although not received by the defendiant in a
timely manner. The Supreme Court Ruling
was received almost the tenth day after it was issued. Defendant submitted a timely motion for
Extension of Time to Submit Motion For Articulation. Motion For Extension of Time was submitted
on November 24, 2017. A replacement/amended
motion was submitted a few days thereafter for further clarification, with
several transcripts and the certification section. Weekend days encompassed this time. Transaction
Confirmation Number 113972. The date of submission for the replacement motion
was November 27, 2017. This
replacement motion included a Certification Section, which is also the same
thing confirmed when e-filing, yet the court requests it to be certified in
writing as well as through e-filing.
The Appellate-Supreme Court did NOT reject the prior entry until AFTER
an amended motion to replace it was issued by the defendant. For months, No decision by the clerk was
made and despite the numerous times which defendant called for follow-up, they
continued to state no decision by the clerk was made. At no point did they indicate the clerk had
left the office and nobody took her place.
Defendant called their office again the first week in February 2018, and
was transferred to Attorney Dullae who claimed the reason the clerk did not
submit a decision was because the clerk was no longer there. (Affidavit and transcript
of call at Appendix S) Defendant was aggravated, saying they obviously had no
right to stop proceeding or responding with court cases and it has been nearly
three months for a decision on the Extension of Time, which is normally ruled
on within a matter of days. Supreme Court altered this Motion For Extension
of Time to file Motion For Articulation as a Motion to file a Petition for
Certification. Attached is the Motion
which was Properly efiled on November 27, 2017. (Appendix B). along with the ruling which
Attorney Dullea submitted in February 2018 – nearly three full months after the
Motion For Extension of Time was properly efiled. Attorney Dullea stated on the phone
(Transcript is Appendix A): You can’t
submit a Petition for Certification because you don’t have an appeal. .
Defendant did not believe she submitted such a motion, and told her to review
the documents submitted. Attorney Dullea
said she would review them and provide her the decision in the mail, saying in
the same phone call: “You can call me
and we will talk about it.” Defendant
has not called the court back nor will call the court back due to their
deliberate abuse of procedure. Thereafter, the ruling they submitted was on a
completely different case of someone who the Defendant did not know. (Appendix
B) Therefore, Defendant Submitted a Second Pre-Appellant’s Motion For Extension
of Time to Submit her Motion For Articulation on the Supreme Court’s Ruling of
her Motion for Review. (NOTE: Supreme Court ruled on the Motion For
Review yet defendant is dissatisfied due to lack of articulation. There is no
opinion or Memo of Decision issued.) Upon Submitting a Second Pre-Appellant’s Motion
For Extension of Time For Motion For Articulation on the Supreme Court’s ruling
of her heard motion for Review, (Appendix E) the court sent the defendant a SECOND time –
ruling on a different case.(Appendix C)
Defendant had to submit on February 21, 2018, “Motion For Permission of
The Supreme Court to Remit The Correct Ruling On Motion For Extension of Time” (Appendix
D) since the Supreme Court Clerks claim permission is always required first,
despite the fact efiling does not reflect that in pre-appeal motions which the
Supreme Court hears, nor is it in the Rules of Court. The court now claims this same Motion is
never heard by the Supreme Court, claiming that the Supreme Court “only hears
motions reflecting Petitions For Certification” appeals. Defendant claims they are “changing their
story”, using abuse of procedure, and failing to rule on the very legitimate
facts, never once attacking extension of time, and cannot be denied due to lack
of diligence by defendant, since the defendant has been very diligent. Therefore, Defendant again presents a THIRD
Motion For Extension of Time to submit a Motion For Articulation on the Supreme
Court’s Ruling of her Motion For Review.
Facts
1 Defendant claims the right to Motion the Supreme Court
Extension of Time to Motion For Articulation on this pre-appeal Ruling of the Supreme
Court.
2. Attached is the FIRST timely Pre-Appeal Motion For Extension
Of Time To File Motion For Articulation on the Supreme Court’s Ruling of Defendant’s
Motion For Review, dated November 27, 2017.
A replacement motion (Appendix B) was efiled thereafter, and included a
Certification Section, which is also the same thing confirmed when e-filing,
yet the court requests it to be certified in writing as well as through e-filing.
3. Attached is the SECOND timely Pre-Appeal Motion For
Extension Of Time To File Motion For Articulation on the Supreme Court’s Ruling
of Defendant’s Motion For Review (Appendix C), dated February 13, 2018..
4. Attached is the Motion For Permission for the Supreme Court
to Remit the Correct Ruling on the Second Timely Motion for Extension of Time,
as stated in No. 3 above. Appendix D, February 21, 2018 (which was efiled on the
closest selection to the purpose of filing a Second Motion since the first
Motion was not even heard properly)
5. Attached is a notarized Transcript of the phone call made to
the Supreme Court the first week in February 2018, involving the pre-appellant
defendant, an unknown clerk, and Attorney Dullea. (Appendix A)
6. Attached
are the documents which Attorney Dullea mailed to the defendant. The documents
were dated February 2, 2018. They were not received by the defendant until
February 8, 2018. These documents were supposed to respond to the Defendant’s
Motion for Extension Of Time, dated November 27, 2018.
7. Defendant
does not have to have an appeal on record to file a Motion For
Articulation on a Supreme Court Ruling. Defendant did NOT file for extension of
time to even file a Petition For Certification. This is a Pre-Appellant Motion
which Attorney Dulea claimed on the phone was for extension of time to file
Petition For Certification, even though she had the file in front of her.
8. Transcripts which supplemented The Defendant’s Motion For
Review were efiled prior to ruling on October 11 and 23 yet the court defined
them as rejected the transcripts, claiming no Motion For Review can include
transcripts unless the Defendant submits a Motion For Permission. These documents are included in Appendix E.
9. Defendant opines she does not have to have an appeal on
record to even file a Petition For Certification when she has been
aggrieved by the Trial Court on Matters
Directly in disobedience of the United States Constitution. Yet a Petition For Certification has not been
attempted by the pre-appellant defendant.
She is unable to file one due to either court due to the cost filing, and
the deliberate, unlawful refusal of the trial court to take her fee waiver and appeal
papers to be heard either by Appellate Court or the Supreme Court on matters
regarding violations of the United States Constitution, the State Laws of Connecticut, and the Rules of Court. This is a deliberate unconstitutional act by both
State and Appellate Courts, to evade from their lawful responsibility for a
cure and deprive the defendant her rights.
10. Defendant
was deprived of having her timely trial court motions ever heard, including
her Motion To Dismiss which was submitted in February 2016. Additionally, over the course of seven
months, defendant obtained transcripts of every hearing, and the court denied
her fee waivers. This is another
unlawful act since defendant’s income is federal poverty level and she had to
pay for them, and suffer from dental care which she could not afford to get due
to this unlawful lack of Due Process of Law.
11. Defendant was ordered to pay bail, yet deprived of seeing a
bondsman and was unlawfully detained for six days in a state prison under an
unlawful Mittimus Order – which are only used for convicted persons.
12. Trial court secretly altered the charge of felonious
threatening, breach of peace, and interfering with officer – to one misdemeanor
charge of threatening, with no amended Long Form and nothing stated in the
court at the time the erroneous Nolle was entered. Again, the court had no
grounds to charge her anything. The
court was continuing the gangstalking they used police for. The court insisted they had all the evidence
they needed to charge her the felony and
two misdemeanors, yet refused to comply with Rules of Evidence and Elements of
Charges and even secretly altered this case the seventh month when trial was
requested and confirmed! The bail money she paid should have been reimbursed by
the court.
13. Defendant has been cheated out of $3,000 due to these expenses
and claims she should be compensated for unlawful imprisonment.
14. The state should not have any records of any arrests due to
the unlawfulness of their processing and failure to administer the law, and the
complete innocence of the defendant.
15. As a reminder, the bail commissioner lied at the preliminary
hearing when in fact she FIRST should have assured that probable cause was
entered on record. She did not do this and also lied about the history of the
defendant, which the defendant stated in writing to the commissioner as well as
in proceedings to the court. These
documents have been provided to the Appellate Court.
15. The public defender, by the name of John Williams, who works
right in that office at the Milford Courthouse, lied to the defendant during
the preliminary hearing, saying, “I am not your attorney” and refused to
request her to correct the record or strike her responses due to her lies. There
was no actual preliminary hearing and the court failed to disclose probable
cause before issuing bail, which defendant claimed was illegal. When the court on its own order had Attorney
Williams replaced by Attorney Bansley Law Office, Attorney Bansley entered an
unlawful appearance the 5th day of the case, leaving who he was replacing
blank. Defendant removed Bansley Law
Office from the case due to their misconduct on numerous circumstances. These
documents and many more have been presented to the Appellate Court.
16. Motion For Ext of Time efiled 11/24/2017 (Appendix B), acting
on Court Order dated November 15, 2017 (Appendix A) DISSMISSAL of Motion For Review (Appendix A),
dated and efiled October 11. 2017 - which was also included – already on file
with Supreme Court..
17. Letter to Chief Court Reporter requesting reprinting of ALL
transcripts of ALL hearings, which have already been paid for by pre-appellant
defendant has already been provided to the Supreme Court to prove efforts in
resolving her needs to complete the record in order to submit a Motion for
Articulation. (partial covering of transcripts certified were efiled yet the
court rejected them, for consideration with the Motion For Review)
18. AFFIDAVIT on Transcript Submittals, prepared 10/10/2017 were
submitted to Supreme Court since no order on the Motion For Extension of Time
was acted upon.
19. Supplements (first pages only, No 1 and No 2) 10/23 and 10/27 with confirmations of Motion
For Review and Supplement No. 2, which the court defines as entered on 10/26 –
have been received and rejected by the Supreme court.
20. Defendant’s Statement Regarding Bail Commissioner’s use of Of
Allegation of Previous Conviction, CGS Sec 54-62 was provided to the Supreme Court.
21. The documents which Attorney Dullea mailed to the
pre-appellant defendant failed to act on her Motion For Extension of Time to
file Motion For Articulation.
Additionally, Attorney Dullea even included an order to a George Michael
Leniert – which has nothing to do with this matter and this is no person which
pre-appellant defendant has any knowledge of.
22. An Appellate Document INCLUDES pre-appeals motions.
23. No ruling on the prior Motion For Extension of Time to File
Motion For Articulation was issued. This
court claimed it was a different motion only recently, even though the motion
was submitted months ago.
24. Aforesaid motion has been revised to emphasize clarity and
conformity. Intent remains the same. The
Courthouse was closed February 10th, 11th, and 12th.
25. Defendant has been significantly traumatized by the unlawful
arrest and abuse of procedure by trial court, to include breaking her
constitutional rights to Due Process Of Law.
The assault by the police officer was very traumatizing. They desired to take her through public
entrance to make a scene for themselves, to make people believe she was a
danger to their community and they were the heroes. A woman in a cell across the hall from her –
at the prison she was ILLEGALLY detained in - was obviously murdered yet the prison
documented it as suicide by hanging; there was no place she could hang herself.
Law
CT PB 66-1
(b) (emphasized) Motion to extend the time limit for filing
ANY appellate document, OTHER THAN THE APPEAL, shall be filed with the
appellate clerk….
Due Process of Law – 5th
Amendment
Summary
The Supreme Court heard
pre-appellant Defendant’s motion and ruled on it with no articulation. Defendant filed a Motion For Extension of
Time to File Motion For Articulation as a matter of right. This court repeatedly abuses procedure,
Deprives her Due Process of Law, rather
than allow her to proceed by Motioning Supreme Court for Articulation on a
wrongful dismissal of her motion after hearing her Motion For Review.
WHEREFORE,
Defendant motions this court to grant Extension of Time at least two weeks
from the date it is granted.
Appendix
A – Affidavit and Transcript of call when speaking to Attorney
Dullea, February 2018 and Affidavit titled Constitutionality Notice by Defendant due claims of Denial of Due
Process.
B – Defendant’s Pre-Appeal Motion (Amended) For Extension of Time (11/27/2017),
And Order
C – . Defendant’s Second Pre-Appeal Motion For Extension of Time
(2/13/2018) And Order
D – Defendant’s Motion For Permission For Court To Send a Correct
Ruling with Order it mailed dated 2/21/2018
E -- Defendant’s Motion For Review, dated 10/11/2017. Order dated
11/15/2017.
Prepared And Submitted,
Pro
Se Defendant
___________________
Order
Aforesaid Motion having
been heard is hereby
GRANTED/DENIED _________________
THE COURT
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify, pursuant to Practice Book 66-3, that
this Motion For Extension Of Time applies with provisions of the Practice Book
and Pursuant to PB 60-7, 60-8, and 62-7, that a true and accurate copy of the
foregoing will be served by first class mail on this day, February 28, 2018, to
the following:
State’s Attorney
Superior Court – Milford
14 West River Street
Milford, CT 06460
_______________________
Anne
M. Bradley
.png)
Comments