PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Hopefully I can rewrite this Petition.
Meantime, I found this as I was sorting out papers and want to share it.
Today's date: 11/30/2022 (6 pictures)
Bear in mind, 2007 was when Phil Giordano was supposedly sentenced to 37 years for raping and molesting children! CIGNA got a new CEO a month later! It was obviously Giordano! Thanks to CIA and the courts!
With a little plastic surgery on his eyes and mouth area, his identity was changed!
I sent this email to some very corrupted politicians; I knew that. I did it in the interest of Justice, not them. I was going to school full time at night; and attending the Hayes and Komisarjevsky trials, which should have been combined since they conspired on the same crimes! They were obviously contracted and the promise was to get them off! They got Giordano off - and how many more????
Five more scans, so difficult to upload here - obviously the technocrats are interfering! CYBER CRIME IS NO BIG DEAL IN CONNECTICUT!
https://thunderflower2021.blogspot.com/2021/10/table-of-contents.html?m=1
link for this blogpost:
http://www.publiusroots.com/2022/09/petition-for-writ-of-certiorari.html
I don't have it highlighted so you can copy it easier
UPDATE #4 24 Oct 2022
The letter I got in the mail was dated Oct 11 - on Oct 21. She sent me a copy because she expected I would receive the package WHICH I WAS NOT EXPECTING BACK. AND NO ONE CALLED ME TO LET ME KNOW IT WAS MAILED.
I now have a contact.
I need to revise my DEFENDANT on the Writ
I need to send copies to the DEFENDANTS
The Fed Court has the electronic copy but the document I scanned in and VERIFIEDprepared a Request For Permission To Appeal.
I tried to screen print it but it disappears when I do that.
I am not looking forward to re-scanning the Petition again!
I will be submitting my preliminary appeal papers. The Federal Court doesn't seem to request Preliminary Statement, so I prepared a Request For Permission To Appeal. Just in case
If anything you read seems off, most likely it was hacked. I have had to delete a number of things, which I did not type.
10/24/2022
It is now 1:16a.m. and I just hope this hasn't been hacked. I am not getting anywhere with the US Supreme Court. I need to plead to the Circuit Court. That is all I have time for today. I need some sleep. This has been an immense battle, especially due to CYBER CRIME AND RECORDS FRAUD.
I am so fed up with the corruption - so sick of living in this hell hole of a society that rewards the liars, FRAUDS and love using CYBER CRIME AND getting away with that too!
They kill people! They get away with it!
This is all I have time for:
Petition For Certiorari Case No._____________ U.S. Supreme Court
Anne M. Bradley : of the United States
Vs : 1 First St NE
Speaking of Flip, this is very hard to edit because they flipped my blog. I can only have access to the widgets freely if I start from the end and work up. Depraved Minds = CYBER CRIME. Navigating using the side bar is nearly impossible because it goes to the end. 10/18 -10:24pm/ Replaced with FINAL copy 10/20/2022. To be mailed 10/20/2022 - FINAL COPY
Petition For Certiorari Case No._________ : U.S. Supreme Court
Anne M. Bradley : of the United States
Vs : 1 First St NE, Washington, DC
Storquest Storage Association : October 20, 2022
EMERGENCY MOTION
FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
THIRD SUPPLEMENT
l PETITION FOR CERTIORARI CASE
Petitioner, Pro Se, IFP, has found it necessary to provide a THIRD SUPPLEMENT due to unexpected discoveries upon printing prior documents on aforesaid Petition, in order to update the record, since it is EVIDENT BY MODUS OPERANDI THAT RECORDS ARE FRAUDED AND FURTHER VIOLATION OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT HAS TAKEN PLACE.
1. SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO THE EMERGENCY MOTION EMPHASIZED THE EMERGENCY MOTION FOR INJUNCTION WAS MOTIONED TO THE US SUPREME COURT.
a) Yet TWICE, as shown in Appendix the Federal Court entered their COPIES OF SUPPLEMENTS as supplements to her Application of Injunction into their court, which the
1
federal court failed to fully adjudicate before dismissing, and of which Petitioner then requested full return of the file since there was no DUE PROCESS OF LAW; and of which is deliberate RECORDS FRAUD. Case was closed at the time Petitioner filed a Petition For Writ Of Certiorari to the US Supreme Court.
i. THEY WERE OBVIOUSLY SUPPLEMENTS TO THE
EMERGENCY MOTION; WHICH THE FEDERAL COURT RECEIVED A COPY OF AS ORDERED BY US SUPREME COURT.
ii. FEDERAL COURT ALTERED THEM TO REFLECT SUPPLEMENTS TO HER PREVIOUSLY-DENIED APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION TO THAT LOWER COURT. THUS, FRAUDING RECORDS.
1. THE CASE WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF MERIT; NO FURTHER PLEADINGS WERE ALLOWED; THUS IS THE REASON FOR FILING A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
b) PETITIONER, Anne M. Bradley, emphasizes she was APPLICANT in the Federal Court, she was PLAINTIFF in
2
the Superior Court. It is specified right on the front page of the Petition For Certiorari. A copy of this page is in Appendix.
c) The only document submitted to the Federal Court since PETITION FOR CERTIORARI HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, was a REQUEST FOR RETURN OF THE FILE SINCE THE FEDERAL COURT FAILED TO FULLY ADJUDICATE WHAT WAS ENTERED AND IT WOULD BE USEFUL FOR HER PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI.
i. As previously relayed to the US Supreme Court in this Petition, the Federal Court docketed her Application as a case, requiring full argument by both parties, with deadlines in October.
1. Rather than carry this out, the court disrupted its own docket by dismissing an unheard case, falsifying facts, and thereafter refusing to allow any further pleading.
2. Email from US Supreme Court has nothing to do with this case and is MARKED AS SPAM. Upon a search in the email, there is no other email from the US Supreme Court! Provided in Appendix.
3
a) This aforesaid case, Petition For Writ of Certiorari referencing the other party as THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT OF CONNECTICUT (AS PER ATTACHED, FIRST PAGE OF PETITION OF CERTIORARI, FIRST PAGE OF EMERGENCY MOTION)
b) US SUPREME COURT instructed PRO SE, IFP PETITIONER TO SERVE A COPY OF HER PETITION TO THE PARTY OF WHICH IT IS AGGRIEVED BY. IT WAS CERTIFIED AS SUCH. THAT PARTY IS THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT.
i. Federal District Court has only partnered with the Superior Court rather than enforce the US Constitution -
namely the 14th Amendment.
ii. ABUSE OF PROCEDURE SOLVES NOTHING!
3. The US Supreme Court fails to return calls from the aforesaid Petitioner, Anne M. Bradley.
4. It was expected that the US Supreme Court would at least send an email acknowledging receipt of the Petition of Writ of Certiiorari, and thereafter provide a File Number.
a) THIS HAS NOT TAKEN PLACE.
4
b) Only SPAM messages are sent to the Petitioner; of which she has marked SPAM AND WILL NOT RECEIVE THESE NEFARIOUS EMAILS UNDER THE US SUPREME COURT.
5. Copies of the wrongfully-entered documents from Federal District Court, along with a letter to the Federal District Court emphasizing their frauding records is included with this aforesaid Supplement.
6. TRANSPARENCY is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. There has been no transparency coming from the US Supreme Court thus far, to include disclosing any mandate to the Federal District Court of which Petitioner is aggrieved by directly, yet the Federal Court took it upon itself to upload Supplements to the Emergency Motion For Injunction, motioned to the US Supreme Court, CONVERT THEM AS SUPPLEMENTS TO THE APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION IN FEDERAL COURT, not uploading the motion itself, nor showing any mandate by US Supreme Court, which would, in fact reflect that the US Supreme Court failed to provide a copy to Petitioner. This reflects RECORDS FRAUD and perversion of justice. Petitioner is NOT on CMECEF system; the court has abused its procedure by assuring her that she does not
5
need to be; it is just an opportunity for them to send her emails. Those emails are deficient since there is no indication that rulings are not provided in full and literally hidden from the Petitioner, who was Applicant in Federal Court.
7. Petitioner’s Appearance includes her email address. It does not include PERMISSION TO SEND POLITCAL SPAM. The US
Supreme Court has no right to side with political parties; which have no real value in this country anyway due to the role-playing they take part in.
8. This Petition of Writ of Certiorari remains active. There is no guarantee that (non-appearing defendant in Superior Court) Storquest will not continue to breach the lease even if they do restore it and pay the small claim of $5,000. There were THREE - not FIVE COMPLIANCE REQUESTS, as the federal judge indicated in his ruling--obviously partnering with the Superior court, which frauded records by uploading FIVE MOTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE, issued Entry Numbers of motions, yet only one of
them was the motion, of which included THREE compliance defects. THERE WAS NOT A REQUEST; YET THE FEDERAL JUDGE CLAIMED IT WAS A REQUEST. Since it is well-stated and accepted for city governments to be sued because they
6
are like a corporation AND CORPORATIONS
CAN BE SUED, the Petitioner emphasizes that Superior Court and Federal Court dismissing both junctures for lack of merit is WITHOUT REASONING, and certainly under color of the law.
i. EMPHASIS ON AGGRIEVEMENTS, set forth in Application for Injunction to the Federal Court; and Emergency Motion for Injunction to the US Supreme Court:
1. RESTORE THE LEASE WHICH THEY ERRONEOUSLY TERMINATED
2. PAY THE SMALL CLAIM OF $5,000
3. NO MORE BREACHES OF LEASE
9. LEGAL COSTS UPDATED
a) Time that previously added to this worksheet would be 72 hours, and the time will continue to run since there is no
resolve caused by abuse of procedure, Violation of 14th
Amendment, etc.
i. 72 x $29.36 = $2,113.92.
b) Mailing cost reported: $47 on 10/6; and another $37 for the day following, to mail the supplement overnight as well as mail a copy to the chief judge in Bridgeport. It was also
7
delivered in person to the federal court, though their office was closed. Petitioner dropped it off in the locked document box which the federal police have at their location
along with a stamping machine to date it.
c) Cost For Preparing Motion For Injunction in Federal Court (as already stated)
d) Cost for Aforesaid Supplement: 4 hrs x $29.36
i. Mailed First Class to Federal District Court (Certification Provided)
ii. Mailed First Class to US Supreme Court
e) Running total to date: $8,439.60 ________ (initials)
i. 7,265.08 + 1,056.96 + 117.56 (this supplement) = $8,439.60
f) Storquest Manager sent an email indicating she would see the Petitioner to discuss the lease renewal as well as the small claim for costs affected by this nefarious activity/fraudulent billing/breach of contract. She indicated an appointment could be set up after Tuesday, yet Tuesday arrived and she has not set anything up to date. Emails reflecting Petitioner’s efforts are Appendixed.
8
LAW
Section 37 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963
37. Temporary and perpetual injunctions.—
(1) Temporary injunctions are such as are to continue until a
specified time, or until the further order of the court, and they may be granted at any stage of a suit, and are regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).
(2) A perpetual injunction can only be granted by the decree made at the hearing and upon the merits of the suit; the defendant is thereby perpetually enjoined from the assertion of a right, or from the commission of an act, which would be contrary to the rights of the plaintiff.
SOURCE: Bona Law website bonalaw.com
Legal Background of Preliminary Injunctions
Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs injunctions and restraining orders. It sets specific
requirements for two types of orders that courts may issue before a full trial on the merits: preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders (TROs).
If a court grants either type of order, Rule 65 requires the court to include the following information:
· The reason(s) for issuing the order;
· The specific terms of the order; and
· The act(s) enjoined, restrained, or required, providing a reasonable amount of detail.
Preliminary Injunctions vs. Temporary Restraining Orders
9
A court cannot grant a preliminary injunction without notice to the other party and a hearing. A preliminary injunction lasts until a further order of the court, which could happen while the case is still ongoing, or after a
trial on the merits. This could be months, or even years.
A plaintiff may obtain a TRO without notice to the defendant if the plaintiff meets strict requirements set by Rule 65, including a notarized statement detailing
the need for immediate action. If the court grants a TRO under these circumstances, it will be in force for a
maximum of 14 days. The court can extend its duration only for good cause.
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908)
Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations
Annotation
Primary Holding
If government officials attempt to enforce an unconstitutional law, sovereign immunity does not prevent people whom the law harms
from suing those officials in their individual capacity for injunctive
relief. This is because they are not acting on behalf of the state in this situation.
Facts
Minnesota imposed harsh penalties on railroads that violated state limits on what they could charge within the state. Northern Pacific Railway shareholders asserted that the laws violated the Fourteenth Amendment and the Dormant Commerce Clause, that the railroads should be released from the need to comply with the law, and that state Attorney General Edward T. Young should be enjoined from enforcing the law. The federal court granted the request for an injunction, since it was unpersuaded by Young that the Eleventh Amendment removed its jurisdiction over a case in which a state was sued by a citizen of another state (in this case, the shareholders).
10
Having lost the case in federal court, Young brought an action in state court that would have required the railroads to comply with the law. His claim was based on the same argument that had failed in federal court, so Young was held in contempt and taken into custody by a U.S. Marshal. He filed for a writ of habeas corpus for his release.
Opinions
Majority
§ Rufus Wheeler Peckham (Author)
§ David Josiah Brewer
§ Melville Weston Fuller
§ Edward Douglass White
§ Joseph McKenna
§ Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
§ William Rufus Day
§ William Henry Moody
The majority was forced to reconcile the Eleventh Amendment's ban on individuals suing states with the Fourteenth Amendment's requirement that states respect the due process rights of individuals. Although Peckham easily found that the Minnesota laws were unconstitutional, he still needed to resolve whether the state could be prevented from enforcing them. He found that the prohibition on suing a state itself did not need to be extended to a prohibition against an injunction requiring a state official to act or not act in a certain way on the state's behalf. Peckham also was sympathetic to parties facing harsh penalties under a law that was likely unconstitutional, and he felt that they should have the opportunity to challenge it before being subject to sanctions. Young had suggested that the railroads could comply with the law while they waited to test it in the courts. This would force them to incur unnecessarily onerous costs, according to the majority.
Rejecting Young's argument that he was acting on behalf of the state, the Court found that an official who engages in an unconstitutional action cannot be held to be performing it on behalf of the state, even if the official complies with the state's own laws.
11
Peckham reached this curious result based on the Supremacy Clause, which makes the Constitution superior to all contrary laws. Violating the Supremacy Clause reduces a government official to the level of a private citizen, who can be sued. In arriving at this conclusion, Peckham managed to find that the official could be a state actor under the Fourteenth Amendment, which meant that his infringements on due process rights could be challenged, but a private individual under the Eleventh Amendment, which meant that he also could be sued.
Dissent
§ John Marshall Harlan (Author)
Harlan had little patience for the majority's tortuous reasoning in finding that the official but not the state could be sued. He pointed out that the official was being sued for the sole reason that he represented the state, and that states function only through the actions of their officials, so this decision threatened to vitiate the Eleventh Amendment. Also, Harlan felt that state courts could hear actions based on constitutional claims.
Case Commentary
The Eleventh Amendment does not prohibit suits between states or suits by the United States against a state. More subtly, it allows individuals to sue local governments because they are viewed as
more similar to corporations than state governments.
UNDER COLOR OF LAW
Acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority,
The appearance of an act being performed based upon legal right or enforcement of statute, when in reality no such right exists.
Title 18 USC 242
12
PREPARED AND SUBMITTED,
____________________
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se IFP
PO Box 206514
New Haven, CT 06520
Phone: 203-909-9131
APPENDIX
A - FRONT PAGE OF PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
B - EMAIL FROM US SUPREME COURT (POLITICAL SPAM ONLY), DATED 10/18/2022
C - AFFIDAVIT (NOTARIZED) 10/6/2022
D - PROOF OF DELIVERY TO FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
PROOF OF DELIVERY TO US SUPREME COURT
RE: SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO EMERGENCY MOTION FOR INJUNCTION
(COPIES WHICH HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT AS PER INSTRUCTIONS BY US SUPREME COURT - NO CONFIRMATION, NO RETURN CALLS FROM US SUPREME COURT)
13
E - Previously sent: THREE emails from Federal District Court entering SUPPLEMENTS which were to the US Supreme Court - NOT Federal District Court (EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION) and RETITLING THEM AS SUPPLEMENTS TO (APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION CHANGED TO) MOTION FOR INJUNCTION; ALSO FIRST PAGE OF EMERGENCY MOTION SENT TO US SUPREME COURT; TWO PAGE APPENDIX ON EMERGENCY MOTION TO US SUPREME COURT
F - Storquest Email/scheduling to Meet Letter to Storquest
G - Federal Court & Superior Court: NOTICE OF APPEAL
Accompanying documents for US Supreme Court: Letter to Federal District Judge, 9/6/2022; Notice of Intent to Plead on Judicial Ruling of September 12, 2022 (dated September 13, 2022); Pro Se Applicant’s Request For Immediate Return of File Due To Lack of Litigation 9/15/2022.
Prepared and Submitted,
FOR THE PETITIONER, IFP, PRO SE
____________________
Anne M. Bradley
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
PETITIONER, Anne M. Bradley, IFP applicant, certifies that a copy of the aforesaid THIRD SUPPLEMENT has been mailed USPS
FIRST CLASS to the Federal District Court in New Haven, CT, on
this day, October 20, 2022.
Submitted,
FOR THE PETITIONER, PRO SE
_______________________
Anne M. Bradley
15
UPDATE 7 October 2022
I FINALIZED IT AND MAILED IT OUT. I AM DELETING WHAT IS HERE - after the caracature image.......scroll down a bit. I posted it and hope it looks okay. I need some sleep.
I also submitted an Emergency Motion For Temporary Injunction, which does not require a hearing. Though the lower courts failed to issue it, their reasons were BUNK. JUNK. and far from being FUNK. I would copy and paste but I had to type it on the court computer. I am not sure how it can be retrieved. I don't think they allow flash drives. The court service center clerk couldn't even print anything for me. The flash drive didn't work.
IT'S CYBER CRIME, IF YOU ASK ME!
29SEP 2022: I read through this on my phone last night. The fonts were changed - to mix things up - I think a reasonable person will realize what my notes are and the what the ruling was. I will fix it asap but my big goal is to get this mailed tomorrow, Friday.
now and type it. It is short.
<insert> I placed this towards the end, and will place it here/I was able to use the widget to link the article, so you can tap it here, not towards the end of this:
10/8/2022 - inserted article. I can't make this type red because the widgets disappear when I navigate using the curser - a real WTF time I am having. Note, The Touci case is the poster child case of the Anti-Injunction law 28 U.S.C. 2283 - Defendant Insurance Company motioned for STAY OF PROCEEDINGS to get an INJUNCTION against the Plaintiff! This is an article about it. Most articles are not accessible unless you give them your heart and soul of your internet privacy. SO MUCH FOR TRANSPARENCY! I cannot link this because the widgets are gone. I may try later but am really fed up working on this!
https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2776&context=umlr
28 U.S.C. 2283
28 U.S. Code § 2283 - Stay of State court proceedings
Stay of Proceedings
A cease and desist order places an injunction on a company or an individual prohibiting an activity that has been deemed suspicious. It typically takes the form of a temporary injunction that will remain in place until the issue is legally resolved. One possible income is a permanent injunction.
2018 Connecticut General Statutes
Title 38a - Insurance
Chapter 706 - Private Employer Workers' Compensation Group Self-Insurance
Section 38a-1019 - Cease and desist orders. Violations. Penalties. License and certificate revocation.
(a) After notice and opportunity for a hearing, the commissioner may issue an order requiring a person or group to cease and desist from engaging in an act or practice found to be in violation of any provision of subsection (e) of section 31-288 or section 31-289b, 31-316, 31-345 or 38a-1000 to 38a-1023, inclusive, or of any rules or regulations adopted pursuant to said sections.
(b) Upon a finding, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, that any person or group has violated any cease and desist order, the commissioner may do either or both of the following: (1) Impose a monetary penalty of not more than ten thousand dollars for each and every act or violation of the order not to exceed an aggregate monetary penalty of one hundred thousand dollars; or (2) revoke the group's certificate of approval for the group or any insurance license held by the person.
(P.A. 96-267, S. 20.)
SELF-STORAGE FACILITIES ARE UNCHECKED - THE STATE LAW ONLY IS WRITTEN TO FAVOR THE NEFARIOUS COMPANIES TO STEAL PROPERTY RATHER THAN COMPLY WITH THE 14TH AMENDMENT.
NO CEASE & DESIST ON ILLEGAL LIENS - CONSIDER HOW MUCH THAT SOUNDS LIKE ILLEGAL ALIENS - AND UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH THE ORGANIZED CRIME USES CYPHERS, CODES, PHRASES FOR ALL KINDS OF NEFARIOUS PURPOSES, INCLUDING SOOTHING THEIR CONSCIENCES!
Primary tabs
A ruling by a court to stop or suspend a proceeding or trial temporarily or indefinitely. A court may later lift the stay and continue the proceeding. Some stays are automatic, but others are up to judicial discretion. Usually, the pendency of an appeal usually stays proceedings in the court below. In Long v. Robinson, 432 F.2d 977 (4th Circuit, 1970) the court held that a party seeking a stay must show: (1) that he will likely prevail on the merits of the appeal; (2) that he will suffer irreparable injury if the stay is denied; (3) that the other parties will not be substantially harmed; and (4) that the public interest will be served by granting the stay.
THIS IS THE ACTUAL PETITION I SENT TO THE US SUPREME COURT
I ALSO INCLUDED AN APPLICATION FOR FEE WAIVER ...
aka IFP
Writ 4Oct2022 FINAL
No. 3:22-cv-01101-CSH (Federal District Court)
NOT A LAWSUIT!
No. NNH-CV-22-5054091(Superior Court, New Haven, CT)
LAWSUIT AGAINST STORQUEST STORAGE ASSOCIATION
PETITION OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI
INFORMA PAUPRERIS APPLICANT
US SUPREME COURT NUMBER: __________________
ANNE M. BRADLEY
BY “PETITIONER” on aforesaid matter
“APPLICANT” on Federal Case, Lower Court
“PLAINTIFF” on Superior Court Case, Lower Court
VS
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, NEW HAVEN
SUPERIOR COURT, NEW HAVEN
THIS IS NOT A LAWSUIT!
COVER PAGE
QUESTION PRESENTED
I. HOW CAN A FEDERAL JUDGE DEFINE A PLAINTIFF’S CASE AS A REQUEST TO STAY ITS OWN PROCEEDINGS, WHEN THE PRO SE PLAINTIFF CLAIMS TO BE AGGRIEVED OF THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR STAY OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW; FAILING TO PROCEED ON HER APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF and then DISMISS THE CASE CLAIMING PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT STAYED, WHEN PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER REQUESTED THAT HER PROCEEDINGS NOT BE STAYED, AS IF THAT SATISFIES DUE PROCESS OF LAW?
LIST OF PARTIES
THIS FEDERAL CASE INVOLVED AN APPLICATION, NOT A LAWSUIT.
Case No. 3:22-cv-01101-CSH
Definition of application:
Party involved: Petitioner
PETITIONER HAS BEEN AGGRIEVED BY THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEW HAVEN, CT
This is Request for an order; Petition
No argument is involved. The court must grant or deny it on the merits presented in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
LOWER COURT CASE
Superior Court of New Haven, CT
Anne Bradley vs Storquest Storage Association
PLAINTIFF: ANNE M. BRADLEY
2
DEFENDANT: THIS WAS NEVER RESOLVED; SINCE THE SUPERIOR COURT FAILED TO ACT ON MOTION FOR DISCOVERY! SUPERIOR COURT WAS NEFARIOUSLY STAYING PROCEEDINGS, VIOLATING THE 14TH AMENDMENT.
NO APPEARANCE BY DEFENDANT! COURT CLERK FAILED TO COMPLY WITH CPB 17-20(d) WHICH REQUIRES IT TO GRANT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT!
COMPANY TO WHICH SHE HAD BEEN PAYING HER STORAGE RENT TO IS NOT REGISTERED IN CONNECTICUT; HAS NO AGENT OF SERVICE FOR LEGAL ACTIONS, AND MORE - ALL STATED TO SUPERIOR COURT AND FURTHER STATED TO FEDERAL COURT WITH ABSOLUTELY NO ACTION
I. LACK OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW, 14TH AMENDMENT;
II. CONSPIRING WITH DEFENDANT
NOTE: STATE COURT FAILS TO IMPLEMENT AN ACCOUNTABLE PROCESS TO ENSURE JUDGES ABIDE BY THEIR OATHS, DO THEIR JOBS, ADMINISTER THE LAW
BASED ON PRIOR EXPERIENCE, THE APPLICANT/PLAINTIFF
KNOWS FOR A FACT THAT THE STATE COURT WILL NOT PROCESS A JUDICIAL COMPLAINT IN A FORTHRIGHT MANNER
3
AND IGNORES THE ILLEGITAMATICIES COMMITTED. IT IS ONLY WHEN A JUDGE FAILS TO SERVE THE NEFARIOUS WANTS OF IRRESPONSIBLE AND LAW-BREAKING POLITICIANS OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT THAT THESE JUDGES ARE TARGETED AND ACCUSED/FRAMED TO BE REMOVED
DEFENDANT MAY BE STORQUEST; MAY BE WILLIAM WARREN GROUP. NEITHER ARE REGISTERED IN THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT. INFORMATION ON RESEARCH BY PLAINTIFF ONLY PROVED NOTHING WAS VALIDATED.
THE LAWSUIT CANNOT BE CARRIED OUT IF THE COURT FAILS TO DETERMINE WHO IS IN CHARGE OF THEIR FINANCES; WHO ARE ITS OFFICERS; WHERE ITS HEADQUARTERS IS, AND SO FORTH.
4
RELATED CASES
NOTE: DUE TO LACK OF RESOURCES, SUFFERING WITH TRAUMA/STRESS, AND HAVING
This was hacked! I have not been at the public library for over 7 years! It may have referenced the law library because the judge obviously hacks it and I think a reference librarian working in a separate office helps him get access! I left the library! It is too entangled of a web to mention in a few words! Nevertheless, it was the LAW library that happened recently - not public libary. I would have distinguished that if I had typed it. There is so muych cyber crime - they alter every damn thing they can online - including saved on your flash drives!
THE COMPUTER HACKED WHEN PETITIONER USES THE LIBRARY COMPUTER,
MORE DETAIL CANNOT BE PROVIDED, YET BELOW IS AN OVERVIEW. Due to Cyber Crime, Plaintiff-Petitioner is unable to present more, including referencing specific documents in the Appendix. She is blocked from internet using her laptop at home. This is not a normal circumstance. Her laptop was cyber attacked and she did not even have access to it for a month during the time she prosecuted a Superior Court Case against Storquest, which they failed to appear on. There are many other circumstances beyond this indigent Petitioner’s control which intercept her efforts in defending her rights to ownership of her own possessions, and her rights to remain a customer at Storquest. Their breaching the contract should not make her liable. They harmed her. They would not even correct their fraudulent actions and enjoy abusing power to “make it stick”.
INVOLVING HON. JOHN ABRAMS
Housing: Corey Spruill vs Anne M. Bradley
5
Summary: Plaintiff filed a Notice To Quit without merit, based on the fact the lease indicated he was required to file a 60 day notice first. HOUSING COURT, headed by John Abrams, decided to conspire with Corey Spruill and the corrupted city government of New Haven, rather than throw the case out. According to law, the case could not be brought up again once thrown out, for a certain length of time, or ever, on the merits which the plaintiff presented, which were haphazzard, dishonest. As a result of the gangstalking by the city government and court, disabled defendant Anne M. Bradley was forced out of her apartment, to include Marshal Miller breaking the law by smashing in her door and accessing her ADT system with an ILLEGAL SECRET CODE to keep police from coming to her apartment. Anne Bradley’s Emergency Motion to Supreme Court of the United States was received timely; yet Ruth Ginsberg refused to act on it UNTIL Anne Bradley was thrown out of her house and home and her cats had to be taken to the Humane Society. The city counsel Representative Juan Candelaria, lived right next door to her and rather than act on these illegal actions which harmed her, he got his teenage daughter to refuse to accept any more documents and refuse any assistance, WHICH WAS HIS DUTY OF OFFICE. THIS
6
WAS A VERY TRAUMATIC EXPERIENCE OF WHICH WAS ENJOYED BY VERY DEPRAVED LEADERS IN THE COMMUNITY. (Occurred on or about March 2010; Anne Bradley was forced homelessness until SHE figured out a way to attain rental assistance. Neither offered help by the homeless shelter or anyone else. She had to discover it on her own and apply)
Civil - FRAUDULENT BILLING
Case Name: Anne M. Bradley vs Public Storage
SUMMARY: Public Storage owed Anne Bradley $450 from a prior case which she countersued on. Due to the trauma of the housing case, she forgot about this dynamic and due to the cyber crimes of the state manipulating library and school computers, this case was hidden when she worked on her rights as she was a full-time business major in college/ and an active citizen in the community.
ACTIVE CITIZEN: MAIN PROJECT 2011-2012
Petitioner Anne M. Bradley fervently attended the two SEPARATE trials on the same case, involving two men conspiring to brutally torture and murder THREE VICTIMS in Cheshire, CT: A mom and her two daughters - all burned to death. The cases were divided up in preference of the accused (Steven Hayes and Joshua
7
Komisarjevsky, who was an American born male adopted by a
nice Russian couple who were professional artists in drama and other areas of art) As a concerned citizen that justice would not prevail since the accused were getting the preference, rather than the murder victims, Anne Bradley committed to attending the hearings of each trial and shared her concerns/notes with an FBI agent she knew publically. There was never interraction regarding the notes she shared. She left it up to him to determine what could be done. The trials were obviously nefariously run at several junctures, in her opinion, reflecting an “Ends Justify The Means” agenda. They already knew what they were going to make the outcome to be and were crafting the hearings with that goal in mind. For instance, the state forensics expert witness had to interject the fact that Jennifer Hawke Petit was still alive and did not die from the strangling of Steven Hayes; she died from being burned to death. Yet even in the summary arguments by BOTH prosecutor and and defense attorneys, they all agreed that Jennifer Hawke Petit was strangled and the cause was RAGE by Steven Hayes, who calmly kidnapped them and took them to the bank to get the planned amount of money they must have been
8
contracted to get. No mention of just draining the accounts. It was a SPECIFIED amount, reflecting they were doing what they were told to do. There were many other circumstances which reflected that neither trial was held justiciably, professionally, etc. The only times which Dr. Petit spoke up were when Anne Bradley made strong emphasis that she would be sharing these deliberate mishaps with Agent William Aldenburg without any conversation since she was not a certified expert,she was a concerned citizen. There was much more which reflected “tricks of the trade” rather than justice, including sentencing Steven Hayes to death to scare an innocent accused person, Raymond Clark, who was forced in prison for two years for a murder he did not commit, nor could he have committed it due to the circumstances which would reflect more than one person. Annie Le was chopped up and placed in the maintenance tool box, NOT THE WALL AS THE MEDIA LIED ABOUT. Yet the cadaver dogs could find no blood, no evidence. Obvious proof that more than one person did the killing while Raymond Clark was at home. They failed to use video footage to determine who was at the doors and when. A simple opportunity to determine the actual killers. Yet Raymond Clark was forced on psyche meds, abused in prison and forced to change his plea of
9
not guilty to guilty to a lesser count of murder - all because he was deprived of DUE PROCESS OF LAW. HE PLED NOT GUILTY, nothing of which the media admitted and nothing of which his own defense did anything about. It was definitely a role-played case which left the true killers at large. Chopping this victim up the day before she was going to be married also reflected suspicious intent of a Satanic Cult wanting her blood for adrenachrome. As a concerned citizen, Anne Bradley had the opinion of great discust in the deliberate lack of justice, perversion of justice. She was sure Raymond Clark was not guilty, based on a close friend of the best man who was going to be in the wedding the following day. All of this evidence and more were suppressed, frauded, and Raymond Clark, who was a Yale grad with a masters degree, no record whatsoever in the courts of New York or Connecticut, was framed and charged with MURDER. The case had so many “holes” in it that she was baffled how the Bansley Law firm* could lobby for the overturn of the Death Penalty - all to help Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky to get away with a contracted murder; rather than give attention to the falsehoods in Raymond Clark’s case, which proved he had nothing to do with the death of HIS
10
FRIEND AND COWORKER, who he was planning to attend her wedding and she was planning to attend his wedding after she returned from their honeymoon.
ILLICIT CRIMINAL ARREST ON PETITIONER, 2016
WHICH HER SECTION 8 LANDLORD CONSPIRED
WITH STATE POLICE ON
RESULTS: THOUGH THERE WAS NO PRELIMINARY HEARING, NO REVIEW OF PROBABLE CAUSE, THE JUDGE ORDERED PETITIONER TO PLEA. SHE REFUSED. SHE SAID THERE WAS NO DUE PROCESS OF LAW. NO POLICE OFFICER HAS A RIGHT TO STALK HER; GET THE MANAGEMENT TO USE SECURITY CAMERAS AS A SPY WEAPON TO LET POLICE KNOW WHEN SHE WAS LEAVING HER APARTMENT, SO THEY COULD ASSAULT HER AND ILLICITLY ARREST HER. YET THE JUDGE UNLAWFULLY RULED A NOLLE DESPITE HER REFUSAL TO PLEA. SHE THEN APPEALED AND THE COURT VIOLATED DUE PROCESS OF LAW AGAIN BY REFUSING TO ALLOW HER TO APPEAL. THEY FORCED HER IN PRISON AS A MEANS OF KIDNAPPING. A WOMAN IN THE CELL ACROSS FROM HER, WHERE SHE WAS GOING TO BE PLACED YET THEY MADE LAST-MINUTE CHANGES, WAS OBVIOUSLY STRANGLED AND THE PRISON CLAIMED SHE
11
COMMITTED SUICIDE BY HANGING. NO BOND WAS ALLOWED ON THE PETITIONER IN THIS CASE; MORE LACK OF DUE PROCESS. AFTER THESE SIX DAYS AND SURVIVING A POSSIBLE ATTEMPT TO LINE HER UP TO BE MURDERED, PETITIONER WAS BONDED THROUGH THE HELP OF A MARSHAL WHO ASSURED HER SHE COULD SEE A BONDSMAN, THEY COULD NOT DEPRIVE HER RIGHTS. THE EXCESSIVE COST OF $2,500 BOND SHOULD HAVE BEEN REIMBURSED DUE TO NO PROBABLE CAUSE; FAILURE OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW; AND ILLEGAL DISPOSITION OF THE CASE. YET IT WAS NOT. THEY CHEATED HER OUT OF THIS MONEY, DESPITE HAVING A $13,000 INCOME.
ASSIGNMENT OF BANSLEY LAW FIRM
RESULTED IN REMOVAL OF ATTORNEY SINCE
HE WAS NOT DEFENDING HER; HE WAS AIDING AND ABETING THE WHIMS OF THE COURT, WHICH WAS ALSO FAILING TO ADMINISTER DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
*The court assigned this Bansley firm to FORCE A DEFENSE ATTORNEY ON Anne Bradley when she was illicitly arrested at her current residence in 2016. Rather than address probable cause at the preliminary hearing, they did nothing, depriving her of a preliminary hearing, refusing to provide her a Long Form
12
Information, and forcing her in prison without opportunity to bail out - ALL ON FRAMED CHARGES BY STALKING STATE POLICE WHO WAITED FOR EMPLOYEE KAREM SINGH TO TELL THEM WHEN HE SAW ANNE BRADLEY LEAVER HER APARTMENT USING THE SECURITY VIDEO SYSTEM AS A SPY WEAPON.
EVICTION BY STORQUEST/NEFARIOUS VACATING LEASE
NO CUSTOMER CAN BE EVICTED FROM A STORAGE UNIT; THEY ARE NOT A TENANT!
EVICTION ATTEMPT BY LANDLORD
RECENTLY KAREM SINGH, WHO THEY PROMOTED TO MANAGER OF THE APARTMENT BUILDING, DENIED GETTING HER RENT CHECK IN ATTEMPTS TO GET HER EVICTED AGAIN, YET WAS UNSUCCESSFUL. THE OFFICE HAS DONE THIS BEFORE. Anne Bradley shared this with leaders she trusted, emphasizing they just wanted to kick her when she was down, having to contend with fraudulent billing by Storquest, which was attempting to steal her possessions just as Public Storage had; and the common person involved with Judge John Abrams.
PRIOR FEDERAL CASES
PETITIONER NEVER GOT HER RIGHTS
SUMMARIES ARE NOT AVAILABLE. THIS WRIT WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO PREPARE DUE TO CYBER CRIME
13
AND OTHER SETBACKS, INCLUDING HAVING A VERY SMALL APARTMENT, NOT GEARED FOR LITIGATING A CASE, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE COURTS ABUSED PROCEDURE AND VIOLATED THE 14TH AMENDMENT TO SERVE ITS PERSONAL WHIMS RATHER THAN ABIDE BY THE OATHS OF OFFICE.
14
TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUESTION PRESENTED……………………………………………1
LIST OF PARTIES……………………………………………………..2
LOWER COURT CASE…………………………………………2
RELATED CASES WITH SUMMARIES…………………..5
RULINGS OF COURT (APPENDIX B); STATEMENT………15
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………16
CONSTITITUTIONALITY STATEMENT……………………….18
STATEMENT OF THE CASE………………………………………20
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT……………………….25
ARGUMENT……………………………………………………………27
CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………75
i
INDEX TO APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - Application For Injunctive Order
Petitioner is providing a CD Rom of her copy of the Federal Court File; the Federal Court refused to provide her a copy at her request in writing; despite not fully litigating the Application For Injunctive Relief.
EMPHASIZED IN APPLICATION
1. Letter to Chief Judge, Faxed / Total Pages:
2. Letter to Chief Judge, Faxed / Total Pages:
3. Storquest Revised Lien indicating possessions
to be auctioned off 11 October 2022
4. Plaintiff’s Motion For Default Judgment DENIED
a) Plaintiff’s Motion For Compliance
5. This could not be completed in detail due to CYBER CRIME, CONTINUOUS ILLEGAL ENTRIES (my landlord never changed my lock to my door and even admitted it in court; housing judge would not rule on my motion to change the lock because he was trying to get me evicted. The case was ruled in my favor because he was pressured to do his job. The Housing Authority refused to do anything about it; they did not even inspect my apartment before I moved in, delaying my move-in for almost a month, telling me that they had to inspect it; when I had given my prior landlord a 30-day notice.
- Small Claim Writ Form & Complaint 278 PAGES
APPENDIX B - RULINGS OF THE COURTS
APPENDIX C - RECORDS, SUPERIOR COURT
APPENDIX D - Affidavit to US Supreme Court
This had to be modified in order to get this mailed timely; Affidavit to Federal Court is provided; Application To Federal Court For Injunctive Order without the Appendix is provided - please note! MICROSOFT IS HACKING MY LAPTOP ON A CONTINUOUS BASIS AND I HAVE HAD TO RETYPE, REPRINT OFTEN!
APPENDIX E - LAWS
APPENDIX F - CASELAWS - STATEMENT REGARDING “There are no caselaws which a Plaintiff motions the court for Stay of their own proceedings; this case was not a lawsuit against the state as the federal judge indicated by citing law 28 U.S.C. 2283
RULINGS OF THE COURTS
APPENDIX B
1. Note, in every case which was cited by Federal Judge Haight, there was not one of them in which the plaintiff requested the court to SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS. These cases involved lawsuits, as well.
2. Aforesaid case involves AN APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE ORDER ONLY. NO PLAINTIFF-DEFENDANT DYNAMIC. IN FACT, EVEN THOUGH THE COURT SET THE CASE ON DOCKET, TO INCLUDE RESPONSES BY ALLEGED PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT, THERE WAS NO SERVICE PROCESS!
3. Though many inept actions were addressed by letter to the chief judge, TWICE (Appendix A-1 and A-2) there was no remedy of DUE PROCESS OF LAW. It was apparent that no one wanted to admit their wrongdoing and they continued to nefariously administer the case.
4. Plaintiff/Applicant Anne M. Bradley further addresses these inept actions and more in this Writ AS THEY APPLY TO THE TOPICS, NAMELY QUESTION PRESENTED, which is used to
construct this Writ, to the best of her ability, contending with
15
CYBER CRIME, having the expense of continuing to defend her rights to her own property/possessions and other interferences in her life WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
JURISDICTION
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED
CASES
There is no case in which a plaintiff requests the court to STAY PROCEEDINGS SET FORTH BY THE PLAINTIFF. That is not only non-existent; but completely illogical. Should a plaintiff choose to stay its proceedings, a simple withdrawal of its prosecution and request to the court to close the matter is done, unless the stay of proceedings involves a coutersuit, which does not align with this case with a nonappearing defendant who created DEFAULT and the court was OBLIGATED to grant plaintiff-petitioner’s MOTION FOR DEFAULT, which she had to prepare on the computer belonging to Tyco Copies, standing up and also experiencing some hacking, which was out of her control as well as Tyco’s at the time, since the computers are there for customer use only, not
16
for supervision and assistance in typical circumstances.
STATUTES AND RULES
DUE PROCESS OF LAW, 14TH AMENDMENT
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
JUDICIAL RULING BASED ON SEGMENT IN ANTI- INJUNCTION ACT, 28 U.S.C. 2283
Copy of which is provided in Appendix _______
OTHER: QUOTATIONS FROM PUBLICATIONS
REFER TO PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTION TO US SUPREME COURT
DEFECTIVE CASELAWS BY FEDERAL JUDGE
NO PLAINTIFF REQUESTED THE COURT TO STAY THEIR OWN PROCEEDINGS!
Note, by creating the illegal dynamic of Obstruction of Justice, no justiciable ruling on the APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION, BY PRO SE APPLICANT EVER TOOK PLACE. JUSTICE, IN ESSENCE, WAS DEAD, NON-EXISTENT. THERE WAS NO CURE; YET THE INDIGENT APPLICANT SPENT NUMEROUS HOURS AND
17
EXPENSE FAXING TO ATTAIN A CURE THROUGH THE FEDERAL COURT OF CONNECTICUT AND NOW FACES THE THEFT OF HER POSSESSIONS BY STORQUEST, WHICH WAS THE OFFENDER ON THIS CASE, BREACHING THE LEASE ON MANY COUNTS!
APPLICANT/PLAINTIFF’S COST OF CREATING THIS WRIT OF CERTIORARI WILL BE PROVIDED IN THIS WRIT AS A REVISED WORKSHEET, WHICH HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE LOWER COURTS.
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED
CONSTITUTIONALITY STATEMENT
CITED LAW: 14TH AMENDMENT, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
STATEMENT:
No citizen should be withheld their rights on
(a) Breach of Contract;
(b) Failure to Appear by Defendant;
(c) Failure to Grant Motion For Default Judgment iaw CPB 17-20 (d) and STATE LAW due to nonappearing defendant (CGS 52-84)
(d) ABUSE OF COURT PROCEDURE, TO INCLUDE
18
(e) FRAUDING RECORDS, TO FURTHER IMPEDE JUSTICE AND CONSPIRE WITH A BUSINESS THAT IS NOT EVEN LEGALLY REGISTERED IN THE STATE IT IS OPERATING
(f) Further be denied rights to injunctive order by the higher court, Federal Court, AS A MATTER OF LEGAL DUTY WHEN A PRO SE PARTY HAS BEEN DEPRIVED RIGHTS ACCORDING TO LAW -- All of which reflect perversion of the law and deliberate lack of DUE PROCESS OF LAW, AS DECLARED IN THE 14TH AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
19
APPENDIX C
INVENTORY OF SUPERIOR COURT RECORDS
FORM NO. PAGE (DESCRIPTION ON SEPARATE LINE)
100.30 1
Small Claim was served on defendant 6/16/2022 w/ proof of service; Court refused to accept plaintiff’s appearance form; DEFECTIVE SMALL CLAIM - CREATED WITH ASSUMPTION THAT NO COMPANY CAN BE SUED! ALSO DEFECTIVE FORM COVERING DEFAULT, REQUIRING WEEKLY PAYMENTS, WHICH IS ABSURD T O PURSUE ON A COMPANY; STATEMENT REGARDING EMAIL was entered 6/16/2022, accompanying the Small Claim which the plaintiff required the court to return in full and replace with Revised Small Claim. Instead, they frauded records. Small Claim was revised because the originial small claim was already being frauded by the superior court. Plaintiff meticulously paginated all submissions, included a document control and/or Appendix to ensure documents were not frauded by the court, based on past circumstances.
THIS SUPERIOR COURT FRAUDED RECORDS ON MANY COUNTS ON THIS CASE, WHICH WAS BROUGHT UP TO THE FEDERAL COURT, WHICH THE FEDERAL COURT DELIBERATELY CONSPIRED, COVERED-UP. COMPARE THIS WITH PRO SE PETITIONER’S ACTUAL SMALL CLAIM FILE, WHICH WAS SCANNED IN AS IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENTEREED BY THE COURT.
NOTED BY PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Accumulated total pages should be 159”, No. 10 on Memorandum
No fee waiver was granted for three weeks; yet the court backdated it to 6/18/2022. 6/16/2022 - very significant to the case history! The Judge signed it three weeks later and backdated it to 6/16/2022! This was a deliberately evil tactic; more proof that the court judge, John Abrams, is still targeting the Petitioner!
STATEMENT OF AGENT OF SERVICE, DATED 6/20/2022 emphasizing the company is not legitamate; supporting the need of MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE, WHICH WAS submitted the same time the Small Claim was submitted, 6/16/2022. The Motion was not withdrawn! The Complaint was Revised! The court frauded records!
NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFF, 11/30/2012 - SEPARATED OUT TO FRAUD THIS CASE! THIS WAS TO SUPPORT JUDGE ABRAMS’ TACTICS AS MODUS OPERANDI, IN FACT THIS SUPERIOR COURT OFFICE CLERK ORDERED PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF TO HAVE A MARSHAL SERVE THE SMALL CLAIM. SHE REFUSED. SHE SAID SHE KNEW WHAT HER RIGHTS WERE AND KNEW IT WAS A TACTIC, SINCE JUDGE ABRAMS GOT THE MARSHAL TO REFUSE SERVING THE SMALL CLAIM ONLY UPON RECEIPT IN THE MAIL TO DISRUPT HER EFFORTS IN PROSECUTION. HE RETURNED DOCUMENTS ALL MIXED UP TO FURTHER DISRUPT HER EFFORTS.
NOTE!
LVNV VS ANNE BRADLEY
Case No.
New Haven Superior Court denied COUNTERCLAIM
GRANTED THE CORRUPTED CLAIM!
Petitioner recorded the hearing on anchor.fm/terra-cotta; refusing to give anyone a penny for they CHEATED HER, FRAUDED HER AND IT COST HER MUCH TIME, SUFFERING, EXPENSE! ALL ON A CASE WITHOUT MERIT! THAT IS HOW LAWLESS THAT COURTHOUSE IS!
THEY HACK THE COMPUTER IN THE LAW LIBRARY WHEN PETITIONER USES IT! THEY DELETED RECENTLY SAVED DOCUMENTS WHEN SHE COMPLAINED THEY WERE HACKING AND SHE LEFT THE LIBRARY!
Even just comparing this nefarious collection on MEDICAL BILLING ON THE SMALL CLAIM FORM,
YET DEFINED AS AMAZON BILLING IN THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AND ARGUED AS AMAZON BILLING IN THE SMALL CLAIMS HEARING
EVEN THOUGH THE COUNTERCLAIM INDICATED HOW FRAUDULENT IT WAS ON MANY COUNTS; TO INCLUDE IMPROPER SERVICE MARKED WITH A RETURN ADDRESS OF AN OUT OF STATE ENTITY - YET THERE WAS NO TRACKING INFORMATION! THE STILLMAN LAW OFFICE FRAUDED MAIL!
YET THIS COURT ONLY ENJOYED BEING PART OF THE CORRUPTION AS THEY ARE ON THE AFOREMENTIONED CASE, ANNE BRADLEY VS STORQUEST (WHICH HAS NO REGISTRATION AS A BUSINESS! BUT NONE OF IT MATTERS BECAUSE THEY ONLY SERVE THE CORRUPTED!)
DEFECTIVE FORM JD-CV-123 HAS NO CITED RULE; REMOVED BY THE STILLMAN LAW ATTORNEY! FRAUDING RECORDS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A CRIME!
PRIORITY MAIL WITH DELIVERY CONFIRMATION - HAD NO DELIVERY CONFIRMATION!
CHRISTOPHER MOYLAN, A CONNECTICUT ATTORNEY, FILED AS A PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY AS IF HE WAS OUT OF STATE! HE WAS NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO FRAUDED HIS APPEARANCE.
THE POINT IN ALL THIS IS THAT THE NEW HAVEN CIVIL COURT WAS CONSPIRING AND REFUSED TO ADMINISTER THE LAW! A FRAUDULENT CASE WITH NO MERIT, ILLEGAL SERVICE OF SMALL CLAIM, SMALL CLAIM FORM INDICATING SHE OWED MEDICAL BILLS AND YET THEY CLAIMED IT WAS AMAZON! THIS STATE’S BAR ASSOCIATION DECLARED THEY COULD ROB PEOPLE BY SIMPLY USING FRAUDULENT RECORDS LIKE THIS AND ILLEGALLY ENTERING PEOPLE’S HOMES, LIKE THEY DO THE PETITIONERS ON A REGULAR BASIS, STEALING AND VANDALIZING FOR NEARLY TEN YEARS! SHE WAS ALSO BURGLARIZED AND OBVIOUSLY RAPED, DRUGGED! THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT DESERVE TO BE IN SOCIETY!
THE ATTORNEY CREATED A STATEMENT OF SERVICE; FALSIFYING RECORDS!
TRACKING INFORMATION WAS NOT EVEN AVAILABLE ON RECORD THROUGH USPS; THEY OBVIOUSLY PLACED THE PRIORITY MAIL IN THE MAILBOX AT HER RESIDENCY, CONSPIRED BY THE LANDLORD. THE MAILMAN INFORMED THE PETITIONER THAT HE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DELIVER THE PACKAGE BECAUSE THE SCAN WOULD SHOW NO TRACKING AND IT WOULD BE RETURNED TO THE SENDER, MEANING IT WAS NOT PROCESSED BY THE USPS.
TRACKING NUMBER 9405509898642965858839
Petitioner produced printout proving NO TRACKING INFORMATION; IT WAS ONLY AT THIS POINT THAT THIS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE STATEMENT OF SERVICE WAS ERRONEOUSLY ENTERED BY THE COURT! The attorney typed it! And named this as Form JD-CV-123 New 1-11/ with File # 20-140304 / CT-0117 at the bottom of the 2 pages
This tracking number is used this year, 2022, because upon searching the tracking information now, it shows that it was delivered to WAYNE, NJ 07470 June 13, 2022 at 3:14pm! Date of search: 9/28/2022
For the attorney to type it, rather than print it off record, he can argue “I made a mistake” if he is caught - yet fraud is so commonplace in the New Haven Superior Court, they would only congratulate him for frauding the record! That is why Judge Abrams is so welcomed; he is a career criminal!
But petitioner made copies of the priority mail and printed the fact it had no tracking information! They created tracking information AFTER the attorney added the false information to the case! That is why he didn’t print it off the USPS website! The New Haven Superior Court was more than happy to oblige the corruption! A simple check of the tracking number would have proved fraud! The judges were deliberately covering it up!
Thereafter, the mailman who told petioner that no priority mail package can be delivered by a mailman without a tracking history - was hired by the landlord, Bozzuto, Inc - as a “consultant”
Thereafter, that USPS record was altered to reflect what the attorney had typed, when he simply could have printed it if it really existed on record! THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS.
NEVERTHELESS, IT WAS IMPROPER SERVICE; ANOTHER REASON WHY THE SMALL CLAIM HAD NO MERIT AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DOCKETED! IMPROPER SERVICE FROM OUT OF STATE, ILLINOIS OFFICE THAT HAD NO JURISDICTION; AND SMALL CLAIM INDICATING PETITIONER OWED ON MEDICAL RECORDS YET SUPPORTING FAKE DOCUMENTS WITH NO LEDGER INFORMATION CLAIMED SHE OWED AMAZON. COMPLETELY FRAUDULENT, WHICH JUDGE ABRAMS HAS MODUS OPERANDI / HISTORY OF CORRUPTION AS A JUDGE OF THE STATE COURTS!
AND ALL THIS STATE COURT DOES IS TARGET THE PETITIONER AND LABLE “IMPROPER” TO MOCK WHAT SHE HAS ALREADY PROVEN TO BE FRAUD BY THEM.
APPENDIX C
INVENTORY OF SUPERIOR COURT RECORDS
FORM NO. PAGES (DESCRIPTION ON SEPARATE LINE)
100.32 4 This was extracted out of another ` document sent to the court! Pages 66-68. An Affidavit sent to Storquest before the small claim was even filed! Attempt to obtain DISCLOSURE - failed! Yet the court denied Disclosure motion!
100.33 69 THE COURT DESCRIBES AS “EXHIBITS”
THIS UPLOAD BEGINS WITH A PAGE 52, THEN GOES TO A PAGE PAGE A-1. THE APPENDIX, WHICH IS NOT CONSISTANT WITH THE DOCUMENTS ENTERED ON THE SECOND REVISION OF THE SMALL CLAIM! THOUGH THE COURT ERRONEOUSLY RECORDED IT GRANTED THE FEE WAIVER ON 6/16, THE SAME DAY IT WAS SUBMITTED, THAT WAS FRAUD! HAD THEY DONE THIS, THEY SHOULD HAVE UPLOADED THE COMPLAINT, THE FIRST REVISED COMPLAINT, AND THE THIRD REVISED COMPLAINT! INSTEAD, THE COURT HAS JUGGLED PAPERS THAT EVEN HAVE TWO AND THREE PAGE NUMBERS, WHICH MEANS THEY WERE TAKEN FROM SOMETHING ELSE! BECAUSE THE COURT FRAUDS RECORDS. THE “PAGE 52” WAS OBVIOUSLY EXTRACTED FROM A DIFFERENT DOCUMENT! THIS WAS THE FAX SENT TO THE COURT AND THEY SHOULD HAVE FILED IT AS WAS SUBMITTED. THEY SHUFFLE PAPERS AS WELL AS DISCARD WHAT THEY CHOOSE TO DISCARD! THEY ARE ALTERING THE CASE AS THESE DOCUMENTS FOR THE PETTION ARE PREPARED AS WELL!
LAST PAGE HAD NO NUMBER. THIS WOULD NOT BE AS IT WAS SUBMITTED!
LABLED ON THE LEDGER PAGE, WHICH WAS MADE PART OF APPENDIX OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
LANDLORD CONSPIRED WITH STORQUEST; SENDING RENT DUE NOTICE
WHEN THEY ALREADY CASHED CHECK JUNE 2022
SOURCE: SUPERIOR COURT CASE NNH-CV-22-5054091
DOCUMENT 100.33; A-65; WHICH IS ONLY A PARTIAL OF THE APPENDIX COMPRISING OF 95 PAGES!
APPEARANCE BY THE PLAINTIFF/PETITION WAS FILED DUE TO DEFECTIVE SMALL CLAIM FORM AS A CURE. THE COURT LITERALLY REFUSED TO STAMP IT IN OR PROCESS IT! THEY DISCARDED THE ORIGINAL!
9/28/2022
There is no point to further inventory this case other than manually due to CYBER CRIME, USED AS A WEAPON BY THE COURTS - both state and federal! Petitioner has lost full days creating documents that are deleted by hackers - MICROSOFT HAS BEEN PLACING HER DOCUMENT IN THE CLOUD WITHOUT HER PERMISSION AND THEY ALTER HER DOCUMENTS! She is not even registered for their cloud “service” finding it more CYBER CRIME.
This has been an enormous burden, stress factor, typical trauma from this corrupted state!
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
PRELIMINARY/BACKGROUND
Applicant Anne M. Bradley suffered from BILLING FRAUD by Storquest Storage Association, with unknown headquarters, no registration as a business in Connecticut, and no Agent Of Service. Applicant spent at least 80 hours contacting various people through Storquest, emphasizing that she cannot be charged insurance, it is not required. She had been a customer for nearly ten years, during which time she was severely injured by a man as she was getting on the train, November 2013, suffering a Grade 4 hamstring tear yet deprived medical treatment by the Emergency Room at Yale New Haven Hospital. The ER doctor agreed with the ultra-sound technician, that they could not determine any injury because there was too much blood! Petitioner had to suffer for three weeks at home before she could see a doctor, who turned out to be living in the same apartment building. Thereafter, she was illicitly assaulted and arrested February 2016, by stalking state police of Connecticut, at her current apartment; in 2017 was attacked by a remote weapon, causing an avulsion behind her knee, and this landlord attempted to evict her in 2019 through a
20
nefarious court process on a case with no merit, reflecting again that Petitioner is a TARGETED PERSON, yet lost the case due to pressure on the judge to do his job and stop conspiring with the landlord. THIS LAYS THE GROUNDWORK OF BEING A TARGETED PERSON, WHICH HAS BEEN THROUGHOUT HER RESIDING IN CONNECTICUT.
SUPERIOR COURT, NEW HAVEN
In order to resolve the billing fraud issue with Storquest’s Storage Association’s facility at 140 Ferry Street, New Haven - it became imperative for the Applicant/Plaintiff to file a Small Claim against Storquest. Though they did not even file an appearance, let alone take any action on the case, the Superior Court broke Law CGS 52-84 by not granting Applicant’s Motion For Default and other matters. It became imperative to file an APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE ORDER, as a matter of right in the higher court, THE FEDERAL COURT OF CONNECTICUT, DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN.
IFP APPLICATION WAS ISSUED TO THE PLAINTIFF-APPLICANT, RATHER THAN A PRO SE FEE WAIVER APPLICATION, The court clerk claimed that there was no form, other than this aforesaid TEMPLATE, PETITION FOR ORDER OF INJUNCTION AND
21
COMPLAINT which has no laws cited for Pro Se Plaintiff to use as a guide. The clerk’s office indicated that they go hand-in-hand and the court realizes this is not a lawsuit. Pro Se Plaintiff - Applicant/Petitioner made it very clear on the document that this was an Application for Injunctive Order only.
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, NEW HAVEN
Oddly, despite the fact that the Federal Court PROVIDES the template for APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE ORDER, and her IFP was granted, which reflects the case had merit, and the court docketed the case, marking orders that were scheduled for October and thereafter, though recognizing the fact that nonappearing Storquest had scheduled auction of her possessions September 13, 2022 - which the Petitioner claimed was conspiring with the lower court to cause mootness (a similar tactic which Chief Justice Ruth Ginsberg did to the Petitioner when she was illicitly evicted from her home; since an emergency motion was timely submitted to circumvent the nefarious eviction) the federal judge in New Haven, CT abruptly dismissed the case for lack of merit, not remedying or correcting its orders scheduled out to October and thereafter, claiming they do not issue injunctive orders despite
22
cases are invited requesting injunctive orders! Plaintiff/Applicant issued a long letter to the Chief Judge on September 6, 2022, Appendix A-1, and thereafter at Appendix A-2 had to issue another letter since it was obvious they set up the case to rule as moot since they refused to address the IRREPERABLE HARM OF A SCHEDULED AUCTION OF HER POSSESSIONS, WHICH STORQUEST WAS TAKING UPON THEMSELVES TO DO EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE THE ONES WHO BREACHED CONTRACT, NOT HER. THEY FAILED TO EVEN FILE AN APPEARANCE IN THE LOWER COURT, THUS PROVING THEIR GUILT, LACK OF DILIGENCE.
AGGRIEVEMENT IS CURRENT AND VERY SERIOUS, INCLUDING THE FACT THAT STORQUEST IS STILL TAKING IT UPON THEMSELVES TO STEAL HER POSSESSIONS AFTER THEY INADVERTENTLY VACATED THE LEASE, WHICH IS ONE OF THE BREACHES. APPENDIX A-3 and in APPENDIX B/LAWS, REVISED LIEN AT APPENDIX INDICATING THEY ARE AUCTIONING OFF
HER POSSESSIONS ON OCTOBER 11. NOTE, THE LIEN IS
23
DEFECTIVE, THE LEDGER IS FRAUDULENT. THEY REMOVED THE CHARGE OF INSURANCE ON A CURRENT LEDGER, RATHER THAN CORRECT THEMSELVES.
24
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
1. The Applicant/Plaintiff has been violated, deprived of DUE PROCESS OF LAW, TO INLCLUDE THE DELIBERATE THEFT OF HER POSSESSIONS AND FRAUDULENT BILLING; BOTH OF WHICH SHE SOUGHT REMEDY ON TO NO AVAIL, COSTING HER MANY MORE HOURS OF EXPENSE IN TIME AND COSTS.
2. Federal Court not only failed to follow its own Rules of Court Procedures; it joined/partnered the same behavior of Superior Court as a strange way to administer its wants and whims, rather than administer justice. Pro Se Petitioner seeks a correction in the broken justice system, which should have simply ruled in her favor due to failure to appear at the Superior Court level.
3. IRREPERABLE HARM WAS DELIBERATELY IGNORED BY THE FEDERAL COURT AND HAS CREATED AN EVEN MORE URGENT MATTER. Storquest has scheduled to auction off physically-disabled Petitioner’s property OCTOBER 11, 2022 when they have no legal right to do so and engaged in criminal activity of fraud and affiliated matters.
4. STORQUEST STORAGE ASSOCIATION IS ILLEGALLY OPERATING AS A BUSINESS AND FURTHERS THAT ILLEGAL
25
5. DYNAMIC BY BREACHING APPLICANT/PLAINTIFF’S LEASE ON SEVERAL COUNTS WITH NO RELIEF BY THE COURT TO ADMINISTER APPLICANT’S LAWFUL RIGHTS.
6. IT IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF EVERY CITIZEN TO HAVE PROTECTION OF LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY.
26
ARGUMENT
27
NO STAY OF PROCEEDINGS WAS REQUESTED
I. HOW CAN A FEDERAL JUDGE DEFINE A PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER’S CASE AS A REQUEST TO STAY ITS OWN PROCEEDINGS, WHEN THE PRO SE DISABLED PLAINTIFF CLAIMS TO BE AGGRIEVED OF THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR STAYING OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW; FAILING TO PROCEED ON HER APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF and then DISMISS THE CASE CLAIMING STAY OF PROCEEDINGS WAS DENIED ON LAWSUIT AGAINST THE SUPERIOR COURT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 2283 WHEN APPLICANT-PETITIONER REQUESTED INJUNCTION TO THWART THE ERRONEOUS PROCEEDINGS WHICH VIOLATED DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND DID NOT EVEN SEEK TO SUE THE SUPERIOR COURT?
I. STAY OF PROCEEDINGS AND LACK OF DUE PROCESS HAVE FAMILIAR MEANINGS YET SHOULD NOT BE TWISTED AND USED AS ONE IN THE SAME. THE CONCEPT OF PROCESS AND PROCEEDINGS ARE THE SAME.
1. At no point did the Petitioner request a Stay Of her Proceedings. Petitioner was aggrieved the Superior Court of New Haven with Abuse of Proceedure and depriving her of her rights!
28
i. Defendant failed to disclose its information as a business - no agent of service - not registered in the state - not registered with Internal Revenue yet it collects taxes. None of this would have been discovered had it not been for FRAUDULENT BILLING. Appendix A specifically covers documents referred to in this section, with paginations. Additionally, Storquest’s (or WWG Storquest, never determined and the court refused to seek Disclosure) account ledger printed in August proved that they only charged the Petitioner for insurance in June, which Petitioner claimed was fraudulent when they refused to correct the billing. The ledger covers the Petitioner’s full time as a customer, over 9 years.
a) On September 29, 2022, the Petitioner had to go to the Storquest Storage Facility at 140 Ferry Street to obtain its REVISED LIEN, WHICH THEY REVISED TWO WEEKS AGO ACCORDING TO CUSTOMER SERVICE OF STORQUEST - YET NEVER SENT IT TO THE PETITIONER. THE MANAGER CLAIMED SHE SENT IT CERTIFIED MAIL TO HER RESIDENCE, DESPITE FULLY KNOWING THAT ALL
29
b) MAIL WAS TO BE SENT TO THE PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF PO BOX, AS DEFINED IN THE SMALL CLAIM AND ALL PLEADINGS WHICH THEY RECEIVED IN EMAILS AS WELL AS PRIORITY MAIL, THOUGH FIRST CLASS MAIL WAS ALL THAT THE COURT REQUIRED. IT WAS NOT ONLY IN ALL THE PLEADINGS WHICH WERE SENT PRIORITY MAIL AS WELL AS EMAILED, BUT ALSO STATED SPECIFICALLY IN EMAILS. UNFORTUNATELY, CYBER CRIME IS THE REASON WHY PETITIONER CANNOT PRODUCE THESE PROOFS. PETITIONER TOLD THE MANAGER THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE USPS TO PROCESS CERTIFIED MAIL TO HER SINCE SHE FILED A CHANGE OF ADDRESS FOUR WEEKS PRIOR TO THAT, TO THE USPS OFFICIALLY, DUE TO THE LANDLORD DELIBERATELY IGNORING HER REQUESTS IN WRITING AND BY EMAIL, NOT TO ACCEPT CERTIFIED MAIL OR PACKAGES AT HER RESIDENCE.
30
a) THE OFFICIAL CHANGE OF ADDRESS WAS SUBMITTED TO THE PETITIONER ON AUGUST 26. THE CHANGE OF ADDRESS WAS ACTIVE AT THE TIME STORQUEST MANAGER INADVERTENTLY SENT A CERTIFIED MAIL TO PETITIONER’S RESIDENCY, FULLY KNOWING THAT IT WAS AGAINST HER REQUESTS.
II. APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IS A MATTER OF RIGHT, which is why the FEDERAL court provides a template for Pro Se Parties requesting Injunctive Relief. Thereafter claiming that injunctive relief is prohibiited in its Ruling is illogical.
a) Superior Court’s Law Library has a Section on Injunctive Orders - how to obtain them, what three types there are. The Superior Court has the power to transfer any small claim case to civil court should they deem it necessary to administer law on any matter, including a temporary injunction (which does not require a hearing before issuing a ruling). Plaintiff-Petitioner was intentionally seeking a permanent injunction yet had the court offered a temporary one for this billing fraud case, it may have been that Storquest would Cease and Desist further billing fraud activity on its own and the case may have been dismissed
31
before trial. It is conceivable that Storquest did not want to make its appearance due to its fraudulent activity which they did not want to be accountable for.
2. The following was stated by Pro Se Applicant-Petitioner, to the best of her ability, in the Federal Application For Injunctive Relief:
I. Basis For Jurisdiction
a) FEDERAL QUESTION
i. FEDERAL STATUTES
1. 27 U.S. Code Section 122a - refer to Section on LAW
Injunctive Relief In Federal District Court
2. Contract Law
a) Laws Printed, in Appendix
b) Source: Cornell University website
3. Due Process - 14TH Amendment
4. Failure to Appear on Case
a) As Stated on Cornell Univ website
5. Judicial Misconduct
a) As stated in Rules of Professional Conduct
b) IRREPERABLE HARM
(1) There is no adequate remedy at the NEW HAVEN SUPERIOR COURT level due to repeated, deliberate LACK OF DUE PROCESS, use of court clerk to implement unlawful orders, and more
(2) Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction; LOSS OF HER POSSESSIONS; CAUSED BY STORQUEST STORAGE ASSOCIATION BREACHING LEASE CONTRACT
(3) Plaintiff claims she should prevail on the merits of this Application
(4) The balance of the equities tips in Plaintiff’s favor.
II. RELIEF SOUGHT BY INJUNCTIVE ORDER
Superior Court of New Haven must order
1. Storquest to CEASE & DESIST (Pre-Trial motion
for Cease and Desist
32
by Petitioner/Plaintiff
2. submitted with served Complaint, along with Certified Mailing Prepared - removed because it was hacked by cyber crime
a) Motion FOR COMPLIANCE has been entered on Superior Court’s Denials of all plaintiff’s motions, entered at the same time, August 11, 2022, which plaintiff considers to be inept)
a. Fraudulent Billing
b. Remove Charge of Insurance
c. Insurance NOT REQUIRED
a) Lease says:
To the extent occupant does not maintain such insurance, occupant shall be deemed to have ‘self insured’ totally
d. DISABLED PLAINTIFF TO CONTINUE AS A STORAGE CUSTOMER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LEASE ON RECORD.
AND
3. For this Federal District Court to Order New Haven Superior Court to order DEFAULT JUDGMENT AS MOTIONED BY PLAINTIFF, PRO SE, IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF, ANNE M. BRADLEY, DUE TO LACK OF DILIGENCE BY STORQUEST - INCLUDING NON-APPEARANCE AND FAILURE TO ANSWER ON THE CASE. (Motion to Argue has been entered on Superior Court’s Denial of Motion For Default Judgment, which plaintiff considers to be inept) This was hacked in, REMOVED BY PETITIONER. DEEMED TO BE CYBER CRIME. THERE WAS NO MOTION TO ARGUE. IN FACT, THE COURT MARKED EVERYTHING NONARGUABLE.
AND
4. ORDER New Haven Superior Court to act on MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE; due to the very fact Storquest was not registered as a business in the State of Connecticut, has no agent of service, is NOT a member of the local Greater New Haven Chamber of Commerce, is not in the database of the Better Business Bureau, provides no physical address of its corporate office on its website, and refuses to provide plaintiff this public information which is NOT public.
33
Emphasis: Though William Warren Group is a member of the Greater New Haven Chamber of Commerce and 38 companies are shown when performing the search (as clearly shown in Appendix to the Federal District Court), there is 0 on a search for Storquest and Storquest is not listed as one of the 38 companies.
III. EMPHASIS ON VIOLATION OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT BY THE LOWER COURT WAS SPECIFIED IN FULL TO THE HIGHER COURT, FEDERAL COURT, DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN. Appendix provided is voluminous; yet was created by the Petitioner to avoid more CYBER CRIME, ALTERING THE SUPERIOR COURT CASE AND FEDERAL COURT CASE. Note, Petitioner timely requested to the Federal Judge for a full set of copies of what she provided to the federal court since the case was not fully adjudicated prior to its dismissal. Motions are still permitted in a timely manner, should the court rule a dismissal on its own motion with no apparent reason. THEREFORE, the federal district court judge again violated the IFP, Pro Se, Petitioner’s right to a full set of copies, yet it was denied. Petitioner is therefore presenting the copies which she has, though they may have deficiencies as a result of CYBER CRIME.
IV. LACK OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW INCLUDING FRAUDING RECORDS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEPRIVE DUE PROCESS OF LAW HAS OCCURRED SINCE PETITIONER FILED HER SMALL
34
CLAIM ON JUNE 16, 2022. PLEASE REFER TO THE BELOW COMMENTS BY THE PETITIONER, SPECIFICALLY ON THE SIX-PAGE JUDICIAL RULING WHICH SHE DID NOT KNOW EVEN EXISTED, BASED ON THE EMAIL WHICH THE FEDERAL DISTRICT SENT HER,
ARGUMENT
ON THE SIX-PAGE RULING ON COMPLAINT
NOTE: The Ruling is typed in full in this section FOR CLARITY and to avoid twisting of words by the US Supreme Court.
The Ruling text: Arial Black print
PETITIONER’S COMMENTS/TEXT:
PLAIN TIMES ROMAN
TO DISTINGUISH ONE FROM THE OTHER.
##########
1. BACKGROUND. Pro se plaintiff Anne M. Bradley
Petitioner went to the local federal courthouse asking them for the paperwork to file a PETITION FOR INJUNCTIVE ORDER.
35
NOTHING MORE. They ordered her to complete the template which the federal court has online FOR PRO SE parties, yet there are no laws or rules cited on the template to guide and/or support the Pro se on their circumstances, particularly relating to DELIBERATE FAILURE OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN THE SUPERIOR COURT. Pro se party Anne Bradley completed what they told her to completeluding IFP Appendix instead of Pro Se Fee Waiver Petitioner-Applicant literally lined through sections of the IFP regarding request for defense attorney, etc. STILL, THEY GRANTED REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY REPRESENTATION WHICH WAS FRAUDULENT AND A DECEPTIVE WAY TO ABUSE PROCESS, PETITIONER CONSIDERS THIS ALLOWING AN UNKNOWN ATTORNEY TO COLLECT MONEY AND ALSO IMPEDE HER RIGHTS AS A GREATLY DAMAGED CITIZEN BY A FRAUDULENT STORAGE COMPANY, WHICH DOES NOT EVEN HAVE AN AGENT OF SERVICE ON RECORD, AMONG MANY OTHER THINGS.
has filed a “Complaint and Request For an Injunction”
36
requesting that this Court enjoin the Connecticut
Rather than act as a higher court to issue an order by enjoining, to cure a Constitutional violation, this federal court PARTNERED WITH THE SUPERIOR COURT. THIS IS A HIGHER COURT; they have the power to order the lower court when the US Constitution and/or federal law is impeded. The request was to overturn the inept rulings of the Superior Court which falsified the case and failed to cure the very basic issue of a defendant - company that was a fraud, at which time the court’s responsibility on a Pro se case would be to issue a Discovery Order as MOTIONED by the appearing plaintiff, Anne Bradley, the Petitioner of this Writ due to the falsification and perversion of laws by the federal court! The fact that this federal court did not even care that the defendant was illegal and failed to appear should be an obvious reflection of the commonplace illegal tactics in this system which is perverted by many dishonest people who deliberately fail to abide by their oaths of office.
Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven, by
37
AGAIN, FALSIFICATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE!
entering orders to reverse those made by the state court in the pending small claims action of Bradley v. Storquest Self Storage Association, NNH-CV22-5054091-S (Conn. Super. Ct 2022) On or about July 6, 2022, plaintiff commenced her state action, seeking
THE SUPERIOR COURT CASE WAS BASED ON BREACH OF CONTRACT, MOTION FOR CEASE AND DESIST! HAD THE COURT JUST GRANTED THE CEASE AND DESIST, THE CASE WOULD HAVE BEEN RESOLVED! THE FAILURE OF THE DEFENDANT TO APPEAR WOULD NOT EVEN HAVE BEEN AN ISSUE. THIS WAS INDEED A CONSPIRED PLAN, AT WHICH THE COURT ASSURED THIS CROOKED COMPANY THAT THEY WOULD “TAKE CARE OF IT” BY ABUSING POWER, FALSIFYING AND DELAYING ACTIONS - ALL FOR WHAT? A SIMPLE CURE OF A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER DUE TO BREACHES OF CONTRACT WOULD HAVE
38
TAKEN CARE OF IT. NO TRIAL WOULD HAVE BEEN NECESSARY! YET THEIR DESIRE TO TARGET ANNE BRADLEY TOOK PRESIDENCE!
to recover $5,000 plus prejudgment interest due to allege “fraudulent billing” by defendant Storquest Self Storage Association (Storquest) for taxes and insurance on a New Haven rental unit Plaintiff has rented for nine years.
This federal court fraudulently describing that Petitioner complained on paying taxes was only to put it in the books to assist the fraudulent company, Storquest WHATEVER, since there is no validation of its real name, not registered, no agent of service, and more! The co-founder was sentenced to life in prison for raping and molesting, yet US Supreme Court is known for proseltyzing paedophilia and most likely is a fugitive from justice as former Waterbury Mayor, Phil Giordano is, getting a new identity and over $119 million in wealth, to include a prestigious position as CEO of CIGNA Insurance, headquartered in Bloomfield, CT!
See Bradley, NNH-CV22-5054091-S, Doc 100.30 (Small
39
Claims Writ and Notice of Suit). According to Plaintiff, in response to her demand to remove an insurance charge from her monthly rent, Storquest terminated her lease and ordered her to retrieve her property or lose it. Id at 2.
Again, this court has FALSIFIED THE FACT THAT BREACH OF CONTRACT ON MANY COUNTS WAS THE ISSUE! REGARDING THE INSURANCE, THE CHARGE WAS ADDED TO HER RENT AFTER RENTING THERE 9 YEARS AND 7 MONTHS! PROOF THAT SHE WAS NOT CHARGED INSURANCE WAS PROVIDED! PROOF THAT INSURANCE WAS NOT REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LEASE WAS PROVIDED! THOUGH THESE COURTS ENJOY A “BEST LIAR WINS” DYNAMIC, THEY MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR DISHONESTY AND PERVERSION OF JUSTICE, CAUSING THIS PETITIONER GREAT HARM!
2. In the state action, during the months of July and
The Small Claim was signed on June 14 and submitted on June 16,
40
2022 - with a prepared complaint and Motion For Cease And Desist! The Court abused power to delay processing with no reason, and obvious attempt to help Storquest auction off her possessions despite the fact they had no legal right! The court was informed that rent was being withheld in escrow until full disposition of the case! Thereby proving diligence of the prosecuting plaintiff/Petitioner who would never request the court to
STAY PROCEEDINGS - none of the cases citied showed a plaintiff requesting the court to stay its own proceedings! That is completely idiotic and the fact this is documented only shows abuse and perversion of justice! The fact that the rulings should have been overturned was and is obvious reflection the courts are not only allowing the corruption to continue but participating in it themselves! They are a higher court, not a partner of the lower court!
August of 2022, Plaintiff filed a series of motions,
There was no series of motions! A motion was filed; the court would not hear it or rule on it! Another motion would be filed; the court would not hear it or rule on it! The court, in fact would not
41
even upload the Motion To Change Venue! They said they did not have to unless it was marked EMERGENCY MOTION. All of this has been recorded and shared with individuals in the public! An Emergency Motion To Change Venue was thereafter entered! All this time, the court was not hearing or ruling on the pretrial motions - not even for discovery on the defendant who had no agent of service and many other fraudulent actions!
and the Connecticut Superior Court denied each one. See Bradley, NNH-CV22-5054091-S,
Judge John Abrams, the supervising judge of civil cases, tactfully TACTICALLY - BIG DIFFERENCE - THANK CYBER CRIME FOR THIS! There have been been other areas of word alterations which I skipped over because it is so freaking hard to navigate on my blog - popups disrupting, and more! But this was a biggee! had all motions ruled on the same day, to impede justice again - causing much stress on the pro se, indigent plaintiff/Petitioner of this case! THERE WAS NO DUE PROCESS OF LAW!
a) Doc. 102 (Motion for Order For Disclosure or to Accept Service)
i. Doc 102.10 (Order denying No 102 for failure to attach Proof of Delivery to the Statement of
42
Service regarding Priority Mail
NO PROOF OF PRIORITY MAIL SERVICE WAS EVEN REQUIRED! THE SMALL CLAIMS PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS ONLY NEED TO BE SERVED VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL; YET THE PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER WAS NOT ONLY EMAILING THEM TO THE NON-APPEARING DEFENDANT BUT ALSO SENDING THEM PRIORITY MAIL. ALL MAIL WAS CERTIFIED AS SENT BY THE PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT/PETITIONER.
THIS COURT ENJOYED THE FACT THAT THEY DESTROYED THE ACTUAL AND ONLY RECEIPT COVERING THE PAYMENT OF THE PRIORITY MAIL - WHICH WAS CLIPPED TO THE COPY OF THE MAIL AND ALSO SENT PRIORITY MAIL TO THIS SUPERIOR COURT AT THE SAME TIME USING THE SAME MAILING MACHINE AT YALE UNIVERSITY POST OFFICE SINCE THE POST OFFICE WAS CLOSED BY THE TIME SHE FINISHED IT, HAVING FIRST TO USE
43
THE SERVICES AT TYCO COPY CENTER. THE MAIL MACHINE WAS CALIBRATED BY SOMEONE TO NOT ALLOW PROOF OF MAILING RECEIPTS, WHICH WAS OUTSIDE OF NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES. NOTE, SHE DID NOT HAVE USE OF HER NOTEBOOK FOR A FULL MONTH DUE TO CYBER CRIME WHICH HELPED THE COURT - THEY DISABLED HER NOTEBOOK AND EVEN BLOCKED IT FROM BOOTING UP. THIS HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN SUPERIOR AND FEDERAL COURTS! BOTH COURTS WERE NOTIFIED OF THIS, WHICH THEY OBVIOUSLY WERE AWARE OF ANYWAY SINCE CYBER CRIME IS ONE OF THEIR STRONGEST WEAPONS TO PERVERT JUSTICE. MORE PERVERSION OF JUSTICE, ABUSE OF POWER, CORRUPTION TO CONSPIRE WITH CROOKED MULTIBILLION DOLLAR COMPANIES, RATHER THAN ADMINISTER THE LAW!
44
b) Doc 103 (Motion for Cease and Desist Order) to order Storquest to Cease and Desist the breaking of the lease agreement
i. Doc 103.10 (Order denying because issues will be raised at trial)
There was no trial, nor did they even have intent to have trial! They got the OFFICE CLERKS to order plaintiff/petitioner NOT TO SUBMIT ANY DOCUMENTS, JUST TAKE THEM TO TRIAL. Plaintiff was well aware of their tactics as MODUS OPERANDI, and demanded they upload them to the case - instead, more perversion of justice since the paginated documents were separated and uploading was haphazzard to pervert justice!
c) Doc 104 & 106 (Motion/s for Transfer of Case to Milford Court
i. Doc 104.10 and 106.10 (Order denying transfer of case to Milford because venue in will be
45
improper)
Note the dates that these motions were entered into court! The court fraudulently uploads and fails to hear them as a matter of DUE PROCESS OF LAW; ABUSING PROCEDURE TO MAKE THE HARMED PLAINTIFF TO WORK EVEN HARDER TO GET HER RIGHTS EVEN THOUGH THE LAW WAS BROKEN ON SEVERAL COUNTS. THEY ONLY PROVE TO BE LAWLESS THEMSELVES!
b) Doc 105 (Motion For Default Judgment)
i. Doc 105.10 (Order denying request for default without prejudice in light of plaintiff’s failure to attach proof of delivery, 102.10)
THE FEDERAL COURT JUDGE DELIBERATELY AND DISHONESTLY ALTERED RECORDS, DESPITE HAVING ALL MOTIONS AND ORDERS TOGETHER! See Appendix A, Page 21! Motion for Default was ILLEGALLY DENIED! That was part of the reason for filing an application for injunctive order with a higher court - not partner of the superior court!
46
d) Plaintiff has also filed five requests for
FALSE! ONE Motion For Compliance was filed! It was not heard properly or legitamately! The MODUS OPERANDI in the room is what deprives the plaintiff/Petitioner her rights! Appendix A, Page 22 is the court ruling on this Motion For Compliance! THERE WAS NEVER A TRIAL SCHEDULED. THEY HAD NO INTENT TO HAVE TRIAL! THEY LIE, FRAUD, AND USE CYBER CRIME AS A WEAPON!
COMPLIANCE, asking for the state court to inter alia,
NOT ASKING, MOTIONING IN THE LOWER COURT! BIG DIFFERENCE! MORE LIES, FALSEHOODS, ALL DELIBERATE! NOT ONLY WAS A COPY OF THAT MOTION SENT TO NONAPPEARING STORQUEST, BUT IT WAS EMAILED TO THEM TWICE! THE LOWER COURT, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW HAVEN, UPLOADED FIVE MOTIONS TITLED “COMPLIANCE” - ALL ENTERED AS SEPARATE ENTRY MOTION NUMBERS. THERE WAS ONLY ONE MOTION FOR COMPLIANCE AND IT WAS NOT
47
PROPERLY TITLED AS SUCH. THE COURT UPLOADED A PRIOR MOTION AS COMPLIANCE AND UPLOADED THE REAL MOTION FOR COMPLIANCE AS 104.00. THIS IS A FRAUDULENT DYNAMIC
order Storquest to pay the small claim of $5,000 and to set a date for Plaintiff to resume her lease and pay storage rent without insurance) Bradley, NNH-CV22-5054091-S, Doc 107.00-111.00. The state court has filed no responsive pleading to those five COMPLIANCE REQUESTS. And the action remains pending.
MOTION FOR COMPLIANCE WAS SUBMITTED TO SUPERIOR COURT AFTER THE ENTERING OF THIS APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION, WHICH THE COURT SHOWED NO ACCOUNTABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY IN, MARKING IT AS A LAWSUIT, SCHEDULING IT PAST THE DATE MARKED FOR AUCTION TO CONSPIRE WITH STORQUEST AND THE NEW HAVEN SUPERIOR COURT TO STEAL THE PETITIONER’S POSSESSIONS AND AUCTION
48
THEM OFF, DESTROY ALL HER LEGAL FILES - WHICH WOULD FINALIZE THEIR CRIMES SINCE ALL OF HER FLASHDRIVES WERE STOLEN IN NEW YORK CITY. IT IS REALLY PATHETIC THEY GET PEOPLE TO STALK AND ABUSE POWER TO FURTHER ORGANIZED CRIME, RATHER THAN DO THEIR JOBS, ABIDE BY THE OATHS OF OFFICE THEY TAKE. THEY DON’T EVEN ABIDE BY THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, WHICH BARACK OBAMA HAD TAKEN OUT OF SCHOOLS AND TRIED TO HAVE COMPLETELY REMOVED TO MAKE IT EASIER TO COMMIT CRIMES!
In the present federal action, filed in this Court on August 31, 2022, Plaintiff’s Complaint requests injunctive relief against the New Haven Superior Court in her state “Small Claims” action, alleging irreperable harm “due to the repeated deliberate lack
FALSE AGAIN! THE IRREPERABLE HARM WAS DUE TO BREACH OF CONTRACT, STEALING PETITIONER’S
49
POSSESSIONS, AND FAILURE OF DUE PROCESS, VIOLATION OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT, BY THE STATE SUPERIOR COURT IN NEW HAVEN, CT!
of due process” and the “use of the state court court clerk to implement unlawful orders” Doc 1, at 2 (capitalization omitted). In particular, she requests this Court to order the Superior Court to order Storquest to cease its “fraudulent billing”, “remove the charge of insurance”, “clarify that insurance is
INSTEAD, THIS COURT OBVIOUSLY GOT STORQUEST TO CONTINUE FRAUDULENT BILLING, SENDING AN ILLEGAL LIEN TO AN ADDRESS SHE TOLD THEM THEY COULD NOT SEND ANYTHING TO, TO USE THE ADDRESS ON COURT RECORD. AS ALREADY STATED, THE PETITIONER HAD TO PHYSICALLY GO TO STORQUEST AND REQUEST
50
WHATEVER WAS SENT CERTIFIED MAIL. HE SAID HE COULD NOT DO THAT, THEY DO NOT RETAIN COPIES! WHAT WAS DONE WITH THE CERTIFIED MAIL THAT WAS RETURNED WAS UNKOWN TO THIS EMPLOYEE, BY THE NAME OF FRANKIE. HE PRESUMED IT WAS THE LIEN, WHICH WAS CREATED 2 1/2 MONTHS AFTER THE STORQUEST MANAGER ERRONEOUSLY VACATED THE LEASE. FRANKIE REFUSED TO SIGN IT, HE DID NOT CREATE IT. THERE IS NO SIGNED LIEN ON RECORD. THE LIEN CHANGED THE BILLING BY REMOVING THE INSURANCE CHARGES, CONTRARY TO THEIR BILLING, APPENDIX A, PAGE 24, CHARGING
Notice Date: June 14, 2022
Unpaid Balance: 153.51
Monthly Rent rate: $134.00
51
Taxes: ERRONEOUSLY REMOVED!
LATE FEE: $20
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE: 173.31
That leaves a difference of $19.00 which they claimed was cost of insurance. THIS IS FRAUDULENT BILLING. THE AMOUNT PAID MONTHLY WAS $142.51, WHICH WAS $134 AND TAX CHARGES - WHICH PETITIONER FOUND OUT THEY WERE NOT EVEN PAYING TO DEPT OF REVENUE!
not required”, and allow the “disabled plaintiff to continue as a storage customer in accordance with the lease” id at 3 (capitalization omitted) She aserts that if she does not receive the requested injunctive relief, she will lose the possessions she has stored in her Storquest rental unit. Id at 2-3.
THIS IS AGAIN, FRAUDING THE FACTS! THE AUCTION
52
WAS SCHEDULED TO TAKE PLACE ON SEPTEMBER 13,
2022. THIS FEDERAL JUDGE REFRAINED FROM ADMITTING THIS BECAUSE OF HIS DEVIL’S CHESSBOARD TRICKS SCHEDULING OUT THE APPLICATION AND NEFARIOUSLY TREATING IT AS A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE STATE! THE STATE WAS NOT EVEN SERVED ON THIS CASE! ONLY A DRAFT OF THE APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION WAS SUBMITTED TO THE SUPERIOR COURT TO UPLOAD TO SHOW DILIGENCE AND WRONGFULNESS BY THIS COURT WHICH WAS PLAYING CONSTANT “DEVIL’S CHESSBOARD” TRICKS RATHER THAN ADMINISTER THE LAW!
In addition, rather than awating trial or further order of the state court, Plaintiff asks this Court to reverse the state court’s rulings on Plaintiff’s motion
THE APPLICATION WAS FOR AN INJUNCTIVE ORDER! NOT PLAY WITH THE SUPERIOR COURT! THIS IS A HIGHER COURT! THEY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER THE
53
LOWER COURT WHEN THEY VIOLATE FEDERAL LAWS, AND IN PARTICULAR THE US CONSTITUTION! BOTH OF WHICH THEY DID! THE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEFAULTED AND THE PETITIONER HAD A RIGHT TO COLLECT THE $5,000 AND THE COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED STORQUEST TO REINSTITUTE THE LEASE WHICH THEY BREACHED ON SEVERAL COUNTS!
for default judgment and motion for order of disclosure. Id at 3-4. Furthermore, in light of her disagreement with these rulings, Plaintiff questions the integrity of Small Claims Magistrate Ruth Beardlsley,
In light of the above false statement and more, the federal judge only frames the court as enjoying a dynamic of corruption rather than administering the law, TARGETING THE PETITIONER ANNE BRADLEY, RATHER THAN STATE FACTS, SLANDERING THE PETITIONER INSTEAD, BY CLAIMING SHE IS SEEKING
54
REVENGE FOR A JUDGE THAT RULES NOT TO HER LIKING - RATHER THAN A JUDGE THAT PROVES SHE IS ONLY RULING ON CORRUPTED WHIMS RATHER THAN THE LAW.
alleging that her decisions “reflect deceptive intent” Id at 21
THE LAWLESSNESS IN THE JUDICIAL REVIEW COUNCIL ONLY PROVES THAT IT IS A WASTE OF TIME TO FILE A JUDICIAL COMPLAINT, AND THE JUDGES WHO VIOLATE PARTIES ACTUALLY ENJOY THIS PROCESS SINCE THEY ALWAYS COME OUT “SMELLING LIKE A ROSE” AND DELAY PROCEDURE SO THE COURT CAN GET AWAY WITH MORE LAWLESSNESS. JUDGES WHO DO NOT FIT THE WHIMS OF LAWLESSNESS ARE THE JUDGES AT RISK FOR THEIR JOBS.
The Court herein resolves Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief.
THERE IS NO RESOLVE. THIS COURT FILED AN UNLAWFUL RULING, FALSIFYING FACTS AND RULING ON
55
A LAW WHICH DOES NOT EVEN APPLY. THERE IS NO LAWSUIT AGAINST THE STATE COURT. THEY WERE NOT SERVED ANY SUMMONS. THEY WERE NOT SERVED ANYTHING. PLAINTIFF ONLY NOTIFIED THE COURT THAT AN APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF WAS BEING PURSUED IN FEDERAL COURT. AND PLAINTIFF DID NOT REQUEST THE FEDERAL COURT TO STAY ITS OWN PROCEEDINGS, STOP PROSECUTION. THAT IS IDIOTIC, AND A DELIBERATE DECEPTIVE TACTIC TO KEEP THE CORRUPTION GOING.
I. DISCUSSION
Pursuant to the “Anti-Injunction Act”, a court of
DOES NOT APPLY!
Not in any of these cases did the plaintiff request the court to STAY THEIR PROCEEDINGS! YET THIS COURT CLAIMS THAT PETITIONER HAD DONE JUST THAT! THAT IS FRAUD AND COMPLETELY IDIOTIC! IF SOMEONE HAD DONE THIS,
56
THEY WOULD HAVE ADVISED THEM TO WITHDRAW THEIR CASE, NOT GRANT THE FEE WAIVER FOR APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF!
the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State Court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.” 28 U.S.C. Section 2283 See also Mitchum v Foster, 407 U.S. 225, 230 (1972) (The national policy forbids federal courts to stay or enjoin pending state court proceedings except under special circumstances” (citation omitted) This statute thus generally prohibits federal court injunctions of state court proceedings in progress.
THIS IS ALL FRAUDULENT, ABUSE OF PROCEDURE, AND ADDITIONAL VIOLATION OF THE 14TH AMENDEMENT!
57
“The policy of the anti-injunctive statute, 28 U.S.C. 2283, is to prohibit enjoining of state court suits except in those situations where the real or potential conflict threatens the very authority of the federal court. Vernitroln Corp v Benjamin, 440 F. 2d 105, 108 (2d Cir. 1971) cert denied, 402 U.S. 987 (1971). “Proceedings in state courts thus, should normally be allowed to continue unimpaired by intervention of the lower federal courts, with relief from error, if any, through, the state appellate courts and ultimately the Supreme Court. “United States v Schurkman, 728 F 3d 129, 135 (2d Cir 2013) (quoting Atl Coast Line R.R. Co v Bhd of Locomotive Eng’rs, 398 U.S. 281, 287 (1970) The “explicit wording” of Section 2283 and the “fundamental principle of a dual system of courts” indicates that “any doubts as to the propriety of a federal injunction against state court proceedings should be resolved in favor of permitting the state courts to
58
proceed in an orderly fashion to finally determine the controversy” Schurkman, 728 F. 3d at 135 (quoting Atl Coast Line R.R. Co., 398 U.S. at 297)
Where, asin the present case, the litigation involves private parties, the policy of Section 2283 becomes “much more compelling” because the requested injunction “threatens to draw the two judicial systems - state and federal - into conflict. Studibaker Corp v Gittlin, 360 F. 2d 692, 697 (2d Cir 1966) As the Second Circuit noted, “There is no reason why a state court cannot or should not determine issues of fact and state law relevant thereto as they come up in the state litigation” Ret Sys of Ala v JP Morgan Chase & Co., 386 F 3d, 419, 429 (2d Cir 2004) (quoting Vernitron, 440 F @d at 108)
Based upon the facts presented, the case at bar implicates no express exception to 28 U.S.C. Section 2283. There is thus no applicable statute by Congress
59
that would allow this Court to enjoin the state court in this instance. Moreover, the state court poses no threat to this Court’s jurisdiction, and there is no federal judgment “to protect or effectuate” with such an injunction, 218 U.S.C. Section 2283. The state action simply poses no threat to “the very authority of this federal court” Vernitron, 440 F. 2d at 108.
Clearly Plaintiff has endured personal difficulties during this dispute over her storage unit rental. She is displeased with the state court’s adverse rulings on her motions and has a sincere belief that she needs outside relief to alter and expedite those proceedings. However, because her case does not fall within any “expressly authorized” exception to Section 2283, this Court is statutorily barred from providing the relief she seeks in her Complaint. Furthermore, because Plaintiff’s request
60
for an injunction forms the crux of her entire Complaint, that pleading states no claim upon which relief may be granted.
As previously emphasized: This court granted the fee waiver, which determines the case as to have merit. Additionally, this court marked it on the docket, scheduled out the order of the case as if it was a lawsuit, and yet never remedied that error, and instead whimsically dismisses the case for lack of merit!
Under most circumstances, the Court would grant leave for Plaintiff, a pro se litigant, to amend the Complaint to state a legal ground for relief. Here, however, applying the most liberal reading afforded to pro se pleadings, the Court derives no legal basis upon which Plaintiff may proceed.
This six-page Ruling was obviously written AFTER the applicant/petitioner submitted her NOTICE OF INTENT to further plead.
Sec e.g. Gallop v Cheney, 642 F. 3d 364, 368 (2d Cir 2011)
61
(district court may dismiss an action as “clearly baseless” when it is satisfied that the action contains “factually frivolous” claims (quoting Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992)
A district court has the power to dismiss an action sua sponte if it determines the action is “frivolous”
The District Court has the power to deny fee waiver if it determines the case lacks merit but in this case, it ruled that the case had merit.
Fitzgeral v First E. Seventh St. Tenants Corp. 221, F. 3d 362, 363, (2d Cir 2000). Because there are no facts that Plaintiff could allege to cure her pleading (i.e., to obtain an injunction against the state court) I will decline to grant leave to amend and dismiss the action. See Hill v. Curcione, 657 F 3d 116, 123 (2d Cir 2011) affirming district court’s dismissal of complaint without leave to amend because “where a proposed amendment would be futile, leave to amend need not be given” Moritsugu, 222
62
F. 3d 99, 112 (2d Cir 2000) (if “better pleading will not cure the claim} the court need not give the plaintiff an opportunity to amend as such efforts would be “futile”; Hariprasad v New York, 722 F. App’x 102, 103, (2d Cir 2018) Despite plaintiff’s pro se status, “amendment would be futile, as there is no indication that Hariprasad might plead a valid claim….}
There is no indication that this judge has or had any intent to administer the law! He violated the 14th Amendment!
II. CONCLUSION
Pursuant to the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 2283, this Court is precluded from granting Plaintiff’s request to enjoin the Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven, in the small claims action of Bradley v. Storquest Self Storage Association, NNH-CV22-5054091-S (Conn Super Ct 2022) Upon conclusion of the state court proceedings, Plaintiff may, if she so chooses,
63
file a proper appeal in state court.
This federal judge is well aware that Small Claims cases cannot be appealed!
If appropriate, that would be her legal remedy for relief from the state court’s action.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief against the Connecticut Superior Court is DENIED. Her Complaint against that entity is hereby DISMISSED in its entirety with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close the file.
Petitioner emphasizes that first, this is a typical request for an injunctive order when the lower court violates the US Constitition. Injunctive orders are a matter of practice/cure when the lower court has violated DUE PROCESS OF LAW, THE 14TH AMENDMENT. The state law library has relayed a procedure for Pro Se Parties to MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE ORDER - which the court has the power to issue in three different ways; two of which are Temporary
64
or Permanent. The Federal Court has the similar power. The Federal Court has the obligation to administer justice, not further the FRAUD. Appendix shows that the lower court has frauded uploaded records, to include the most obvious, which is thereafter attaching documents which are dated PAST the date the upload was dated as. This is why the Petitioner has presented the documents in as much of a completeness as possible. A Document Control Sheet may be accompanied to further detail the Appendix.
What does MERIT mean when it comes to Due Process of Law, determining MERIT of the case when the fee waiver is granted?
According to Black’s Law Dictionary, Merits means: The elements or grounds of a claim or defense; the substantive considerations to be taken into account in deciding a case, as opposed to extraneous or technical points, esp of procedure. THE GROUNDS OF THE CASE HAVE BEEN PERVERTED even though the Federal Court granted the IFP Motion, which proves the Merits were approved. This is more than deceptive. It is WRONG, it is another violation of DUE
PROCESS OF LAW. NOTE: Petitioner emphasizes that the
65
email she received describing that the judicial order was a few sentences was also deceptive. There was no message indicating it was not the full Ruling! This 6-page ruling came as a surprise almost a week later, disrupting the Petitioner’s efforts in defending her rights. Additionally, it is obvious that this unavailable ruling was altered, simply because the federal court was aware that the Petitioner would not have seen it yet AND Petitioner attempted to submit her NOTICE OF INTENT to further plead on this case with a copy of the emailed ruling. That day, a Friday, the court office was closed. There was no holiday. It should have been open. The federal police could not give reason why they closed it. They permitted the Petitioner to enter that NOTICE OF INTENT with a date stamp, and place it in a document box in their work area. The court obviously altered the actual ruling - and added that this dismissal
66
provided no other form of action, which is not even true since the aggrieved party, who is the petitioner in this case, may by rights enter a Petition for Certiorari. Additionally, and ineptly, the federal judge emphasized that Petitioner had a right to appeal in the Superior Court, which is outright false. The Superior Court does not allow appeals of Small Claims. Petitioner knows this all to well. A Motion To Open may be attempted, which is a long, drawn-out process, in which the courts further abuse power by creating mootness rather than assure DUE PROCESS OF LAW. Now that this Petitioner has a printed copy of the judicial ruling, the ruling is much less likely to be altered, yet CYBER CRIME AND OTHER NEFARIOUS TACTICS COULD ALSO DISRUPT THAT.
67
It is SO ORDERED.
DATED: NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT
SEPTEMBER 12, 2022
________________________
CHARLES S. HAIGHT, JR.
Sr. United States District Judge
There was no lawsuit, Plaintiff, Pro Se, was applying for an injunctive order only. The court told her to choose an attorney as well. Applicant said that was so bizarre, having to create a letter to Chief Judge Stefan Underhill in Bridgeport, requesting the record to be corrected. (This was one of TWO letters sent to the Chief Judge and in both circumstances, There was no correction on record.) Yet the judge assigned to the case, Hon. Charles S. Haight, Jr, took it upon himself to go against the record they created and ordered a dismissal
68
WHICH IS DEPRIVATION OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW. Not that the Applicant considered the pleadings they ordered to be valid, the order in which this federal case was to be heard HAD TO BE CORRECTED. It was evident the only solution was to emphasize TAKE PAPERS ONLY, since the court was not following its own process for APPLICATIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE ORDER. THIS WAS NOT PERTAINING TO ANY LAWSUIT AGAINST THE STATE, AS THE FEDERAL JUDGE DECEPTIVELY STATED IN ITS “RULING ON COMPLAINT”
LAWS
(ALSO REFER TO APPENDIX B)
CITED BY PETITIONER AS REASON FOR APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION, BASED ON LIMITED RESOURCES IN LAW-SEARCHING; FINDING THAT HER COMPUTER IS HACKED WHEN SHE GOES TO THE LAW LIBRARY - MOST LIKELY A JUDGE BEING THE NUISANCE; CAUSING HER TO GET UP AND LEAVE.
AS A PRO SE, THE HIGHER COURT. BEING FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, SHOULD ALLOW A PRO SE TO USE A FORM CITED FOR JUST THIS PURPOSE, WITH THE APPROPRIATE LAW CITED; RATHER THAN VIOLATE TRANSPARENCY AND MANIPULATE CASES TO FIT WHIMS OF LAW-BREAKING COMPANIES THAT HAVE LARGE WEALTH AND LITTLE OR NO TRANSPARENCY ON
69
WHAT THAT WEALTH REPRESENTS: WHETHER IT IS EARNED HONESTLY OR THROUGH ORGANIZED CRIME.
10/8/2022 - inserted article. I can't make this type red because the widgets disappear when I navigate using the curser - a real WTF time I am having. Note, The Touci case is the poster child case of the Anti-Injunction law 28 U.S.C. 2283 - Defendant Insurance Company motioned for STAY OF PROCEEDINGS to get an INJUNCTION against the Plaintiff! This is an article about it. Most articles are not accessible unless you give them your heart and soul of your internet privacy. SO MUCH FOR TRANSPARENCY! I cannot link this because the widgets are gone. I may try later but am really fed up working on this!
https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2776&context=umlr
Sec. 52-473. Injunctions may be granted immediately or after notice. (a) An injunction may be granted immediately, if the circumstances of the case demand it, or the court or judge may cause immediate notice of the application to be given to the adverse party, that he may show cause why the injunction should not be granted.
(b) No temporary injunction may be granted without notice to the adverse party unless it clearly appears from the specific facts shown by affidavit or by verified complaint that irreparable loss or damage will result to the plaintiff before the matter can be heard on notice. It shall be sufficient, on such application for a temporary injunction, to present to the court or judge the original complaint containing the demand for an injunction, duly verified, without further complaint, application or motion in writing.
(1949 Rev., S. 8209; P.A. 82-160, S. 174.)
History: P.A. 82-160 rephrased the section and inserted Subsec. indicators.
See Sec. 52-481 re temporary injunction to abate nuisance created by a manufacturer.
Ex parte injunction without bond disapproved. 77 C. 402. Discretion of court in granting ex parte injunction; review. 80 C. 430. Cited. 153 C. 661. In divorce or separation action, husband cannot be punished for civil contempt unless final judgment itself awards damages for such civil contempt. 157 C. 470. Tenants of a building where sewage disposal system was causing water pollution were not adverse parties requiring notice. 180 C. 568. Cited. 181 C. 492; 186 C. 725.
Cited. 29 CA 105.
Cited. 26 CS 290.
Stipulation entered into between parties that breach of their agreement by defendant would result in issuance of injunction forthwith is sufficient grounds for ex parte issuance of injunction sought; no jury trial was required where defendant was charged with civil contempt. 5 Conn. Cir. Ct. 724. Cited. 6 Conn. Cir. Ct. 105.
Enjoining is a matter of restraint - it is puzzling to the Petitioner Pro Se that this judge used this term for the simple matter at hand:
69
Curing Violation of Due Process of Law.
“An injunction may be granted immediately, if the circumstances of the case demand it, or the court or judge may cause immediate notice of the application to be given to the adverse party, that he may show cause why the injunction should not be granted.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-473(a) (2021).
TEMPORARY INJUNCTIONS DO NOT REQUIRE A HEARING
PERMANENT INJUNCTIONS REQUIRE A HEARING OR TRIAL
PETITIONER HAS EMPHASIZED ALL ALONG, THIS IS NOT A QUASI-CRIMINAL MATTER; THIS IS A SMALL CLAIM MATTER. PETITIONER IS SEEKING HER RIGHTS AS A CUSTOMER WITH A LEASE THAT HAS BEEN BREACHED BY THE STORAGE FACILITY ON MANY COUNTS.
EMPHASIS THAT THE STORAGE FACILITY COULD HAVE IMMEDIATELY CURED THIS BY REMOVING THE NEFARIOUS INSURANCE CHARGE. YET THEY WOULD NOT EVEN THOUGH THEY PROMISED TO; THEY REVERSED THEIR RESPONSE, FAILING TO EXPLAIN WHY.
FURTHER, THE SUPERIOR COURT MAY HAVE CURED THE MATTER BY ISSUING A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION. THIS ATTENTION TO THE NEED FOR THEM TO CEASE & DESIST THE BILLING FRAUD WOULD HAVE MOST LIKELY CURED FURTHER ACTION AND NOT CREATED SUCH HIGH COSTS ON THE HARMED PETITIONER.
“An action for an injunction being equitable, whether or not a plaintiff is entitled to relief is determined, not by the situation existing when it is begun, but by that which is developed at the trial.” E.M. Loew’s Enterprises, Inc. v. International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees et al., 127 Conn. 415, 419 (1941).
“It [an action for an injunction] is a preventive remedy and not punishment for past conduct.” William Schollhorn Co. v. Playthings Jewelry & Novelty Workers International Union, 14 Conn. Supp. 22, 27 (1946).
NONAPPEARING DEFENDANT IN THE LOWER COURT COULD NOT USE THIS AS AN EXCUSE FOR THE COURT TO NOT ORDER A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION!
“No temporary injunction may be granted without notice to the adverse party unless it clearly appears from the specific facts shown by affidavit
70
or by verified complaint that irreparable loss or damage will result to the plaintiff before the matter can be heard on notice. It shall be sufficient, on such application for a temporary injunction, to present to the court or judge the original complaint containing the demand for an injunction, duly verified, without further complaint, application or motion in writing.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-473(b) (2021).
PERMANENT INJUNCTION COULD HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED AT TRIAL; THE COURT WAS NOT GOING TO SUBPOENA THE REAL COMPANY, LET ALONE SEEK DISCLOSURE ON WHO THE ACTUAL OFFICER OF THE COMPANY IS AND WHY DO THEY NOT HAVE AN AGENT OF SERVICE, ETC. THEY MUST HAVE DISCLOSURE OF THEIR MONETARY ACCOUNT TO VALIDATE THEY CAN BE SUED. AND IF THEY CANNOT BE SUED, THE COMPANY IS NOT A LEGITAMATE COMPANY. THEY HAD A RIGHT TO COUNTERSUE. INSTEAD, THEY SHOWED NO DILIGENCE, RELYING ON THE INEPT MANIPULATIONS OF THE COURT, DEPRIVING DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
“…Before a permanent injunction may be issued, it must be decided upon facts proved at trial.” Gerdis v. Bloethe, 39 Conn. Supp. 53, 55, 467 A.2d 689 (1983).
“Although there are three types of injunctions, we find it necessary here to highlight only one, the permanent injunction. A ‘permanent injunction’ issues after a court has rendered a final determination on the merits . . . . Notwithstanding the usual meaning of the term ‘permanent,’ a permanent injunction does not necessarily ‘last indefinitely.’ Instead, it ‘is one granted by the judgment which finally disposes of the injunction suit.’” B & P Enterprises v. Overland Equipment Co., 758 A.2d 1026 (Md. App. 2000).
No temporary injunction shall be granted without notice to each opposing party unless the applicant certifies one of the following to the court in writing: (1) facts showing that within a reasonable time prior to presenting the application the applicant gave notice to each opposing party of the time when and the place where the application would be presented and provided a copy of the application; or (2) the applicant in good faith attempted but was unable to give notice to an opposing party or parties, specifying the efforts made to contact such party or parties; or (3) facts establishing good cause why the applicant should not be required to give notice to each opposing party.
When an application for a temporary injunction is granted without notice or without a hearing, the court shall schedule an expeditious hearing as
71
to whether the temporary injunction should remain in effect. Any temporary
injunction which was granted without a hearing shall automatically expire thirty days following its issuance, unless the court, following a hearing, determines that said injunction should remain in effect.
A cease and desist order is an order by an administrative agency that requires certain practices specified to stop. It is used in Labor and Employment Law, Security Law, Education Law, and a lot of other areas of law. Typically, an administrative judge has the discretion to decide over the issuance of the order. There are two different kinds of cease and desist orders: summary cease and desist orders and final cease and desist orders. A cease and desist order that is issued prior to a hearing or without judicial proceedings is called a summary cease and desist order. The violator must request a hearing within a certain amount of time, otherwise, the order becomes final.
Definition: An injunction is a court order requiring a person to do or cease doing a specific action. There are three types of injunctions: Permanent Injunctions,Temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions. Temporary Retraining Orders (TRO) and Preliminary injunctions are equitable in nature.
A cease and desist order places an injunction on a company or an individual prohibiting an activity that has been deemed suspicious. It typically takes the form of a temporary injunction that will remain in place until the issue is legally resolved. One possible income is a permanent injunction.
2018 Connecticut General Statutes
Title 38a - Insurance
Chapter 706 - Private Employer Workers' Compensation Group Self-Insurance
Section 38a-1019 - Cease and desist orders. Violations. Penalties. License and certificate revocation.
Universal Citation: CT Gen Stat § 38a-1019 (2018)
72
(a) After notice and opportunity for a hearing, the commissioner may issue an order requiring a person or group to cease and desist from engaging in an act or practice found to be in violation of any provision of subsection (e) of section 31-288 or section 31-289b, 31-316, 31-345 or 38a-1000 to 38a-1023, inclusive, or of any rules or regulations adopted pursuant to said sections.
(b) Upon a finding, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, that any person or group has violated any cease and desist order, the commissioner may do either or both of the following: (1) Impose a monetary penalty of not more than ten thousand dollars for each and every act or violation of the order not to exceed an aggregate monetary penalty of one hundred thousand dollars; or (2) revoke the group's certificate of approval for the group or any insurance license held by the person.
(P.A. 96-267, S. 20.)
WHAT’S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE? THERE IS NO PICTURE! NO CHECKS AND BALANCES ON STORAGE UNITS?
ILLEGAL LIENS - which sounds like Illegal aliens - most likely some kind of cypher, code, satanic hex that organized crime rely on.
FEDERAL COURTS CANNOT PARTNER WITH SUPERIOR COURTS
Due to the Supremacy Clause in the United States Constitution, federal law overrides state law in most cases. The Supremacy Clause is closely related to the idea of preemption.
73
PRO SE PETITIONER CITED THE WRONG LAW
YET SOUGHT THIS INFORMATION TO THE BEST OF HER ABILITY; LAWS ARE NOT EASY TO LOCATE ON INTERNET DUE TO ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USED AS A SOCIAL ENGINEERING WEAPON.
IT STANDS TO REASON THAT IF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IS ALLOWED FOR ILLEGAL SALE OF LIQUOR, THIS TYPE OF RELIEF SHOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MAY BRING IRREPARABLE HARM, BESIDES FAILURE TO PAY SALES AND INCOME TAXES AS IN THIS AFORESAID CASE.
27 USC 122a: Injunctive relief in Federal district court
(1) In general
The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction over any action brought under this section by an attorney general against any person, except one licensed or otherwise authorized to produce, sell, or store intoxicating liquor in such State.
(2) Venue
An action under this section may be brought only in accordance with section 1391 of title 28 or in the district in which the recipient of the intoxicating liquor resides or is found.
14th Amendment
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without th e due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
18 U.S.C. Section 1503
74
An act that corruptly or by threats of force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impede the due administration of justice
CONCLUSION
THE FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGE ALTERED THE CASE, CITING THE REASON FOR INJUNCTION TO BE STAY OF PROCEEDINGS, AS DESCRIBED IN 28 U.S.C. 2283 - AS IF THE PLAINTIFF WAS TELLING THE COURT, “I MUST WARN YOU, I AM BREAKING THE LAW AND YOU NEED TO STOP MY PROSECUTION” THIS IS SO FOOLISH, IT IS BEYOND WORDS TO DESCRIBE!
The date of mailing this Petition for Writ of Certiorari is October 5. 2022. On the evening of September 12, 2022, Petitioner discovered upon calling Storquest for the fourth or fifth time that day, that Storquest changed its date of auctioning off possessions BELONGING TO THE PLAINTIFF - NOT THEM - FROM SEPTEMBER 13, 2022 TO OCTOBER 11, 2022. THEY HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHT TO OWNING THE PLAINTIFF’S BELONGINGS; THEY ILLEGALLY VACATED THE LEASE WHEN THE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT EVEN DELINQUENT. THEY SUBMITTED AN ILLEGAL LIEN TO THE PLAINTIFF OVER TWO MONTHS AFTER THEY ILLEGALLY VACATED THE LEASE.
Thereafter, disabled plaintiff did not have the money to move her possessions elsewhere and claims what Storquest did was completely illegal. She should not be required to move them anyway. She had been a customer for nearly ten years. The lease is conditioned be ended on specific conditions - none of which include “We decided to target you and harm you so we are ending the lease using the fake excuse that you owe insurance, which you never had nor is required on the lease”
THIS MATTER IS URGENT DUE TO THE MODUS
75
OPERANDI OF THE SUPERIOR AND FEDERAL COURTS
IMPEDING JUSTICE, THE ILLEGAL DEFENDANT IN SUPERIOR COURT, STORQUEST, BREAKING THE LAW, STEALING PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY AND ABUSING POWER AS A HATE AGENDA, TARGETING THE INDIGENT PLAINTIFF. AS PRESENTED IN THIS THIS PETITION, FOR EMPHASIS, THE SAME JUDGE, JOHN ABRAMS, HAS DONE THIS BEFORE TO HER AND SUCCEEDED - EVEN WHEN AN EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI WAS SUBMITTED TO THE US SUPREME COURT - AT WHICH TIME THE US SUPREME COURT WAITED UNTIL SHE WAS ILLEGALLY EVICTED AND THEN DECLARED THE PETITIION AS MOOT! THE WHOLE POINT OF THE PETITION WAS TO GET HER RIGHTS, YET JUSTICE GINSBERG, WHO PROSYLETIZED PAEDOPHILIA EVEN IN A BOOK SHE WROTE AND SOLD ON AMAZON, WITH APPROVAL BY THE US SUPREME COURT, ENJOYED TARGETING HER INSTEAD!
APPLICANT Anne M. Bradley is not mincing words due to the continuous, deliberate breaking of law by the courts - that is the only real virus that exists in society: LAWLESSNESS.
To describe this federal case as a LAWSUIT and request for
STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
IS NOT ONLY DECEPTIVE/NEFARIOUS, BUT ILLOGICAL.
WOULD A JUDGE ASK A MAINTENANCE PERSON TO DAMAGE THEIR CAR SO THEY CANNOT DRIVE HOME?
The desperate tricks add up to the one thing, which should remove every person who has been involved with such activity from their jobs. They are conspiring, frauding records, PERVERTING JUSTICE.
As a Pro Se, indigent person with only a $13,000 a year income, it is indeed more than pathetic that the Superior Court of New Haven gets away with their crimes WITH the Federal Court of New Haven
76
conspiring rather than correcting, by administering justice!
It is therefore the urgent demand and request for the US Supreme Court to FIRST ORDER THE ILLEGALLY NON-APPEARING STORAGE FACILITY AT 140 FERRY STREET, NEW HAVEN, CT - NOT TO EVER SELL OFF THE POSSESSIONS OF THE APPLICANT, ANNE M. BRADLEY; TO ORDER REISSUANCE OF THE LEASE WHICH THEY ILLEGALLY ENDED ON JUNE 9, 2022; and thereby holding all involved in this PERVERSION OF LAW accountable, and immediately order this fraudulent company, whose acclaimed PAEDOPHILE co-founder of both WWG and Storquest, Warren Jeffs, was sentenced to life in prison (yet may not even be in prison, as what was discovered by PAEDOPHILE Phil Giordano, former Mayor of Waterbury, CT - also sentenced for raping and molesting his child victims and yet obviously getting a new identity by TRAITORS OF USA, and becoming the CEO of CIGNA Insurance Company, located in Bloomfield, CT) TO REMIT THE FULL $5,000 SMALL CLAIM AND ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL LEGAL COST TO THE AFORESAID APPLICANT.
TOTAL HOURS SPENT PREPARING THIS PETITION OF WRIT:
60 X (AVE HOURLY WAGE OF PARALEGAL) $29.36 = $2,160. The postal clerk estimated the cost for mailing this overnight Priority Mail Express to be approximately $68.00
This matter is very urgent. It should have never been carried out this far, causing the Petitioner to suffer. The courts’ abuse reflects serving whims rather than administering the law.
Prepared And Submitted,
FOR THE APPLICANT/PLAINTIFF
_____________________
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se (notarized)
77
.png)
Comments