Appeal to Second Circuit
https://thunderflower2021.blogspot.com/2021/10/table-of-contents.html?m=1
WTF - I AM APPEALING - SOMEONE HACKED THIS BLOG...I AM NOT APPEALING A HOUSING CASE; THERE IS NO HOUSING CASE. They have illegally evicted me in the past. They requested a nefarious housing inspection recently and disrupted my efforts in filing my appeal documents prior to the day due. No inspection, big HOAX. Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was a hoax! They wil lie and lie and lie! Frauding elections is commonplace also. I will change the color of this text but the depraved technocrats remove my blog widgets if I just type something like here. posted 11/13/2022 The below statement is FAKE - not me!
now the statement is missing - obviously hackers - and maybe Blogger abusing power. posted 1/25/2023
UPDATE 12/22/2022: I am creating a new blogpost, MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - I hope to scan it all in!
A large portion of the below statement is missing. The owner of the building I live in is trying to evict me - you cannot be evicted from a storage unit you rent. EVICTIONS involve residencies. Obama has switched word meanings to alter laws - fraud society. WTF - I did not say "again" referring to the storage unit. They extracted it from the statement where I indicated I have been illegally evicted from my home four times! This is a horrible place to live. posted 1/25/2023
lf they don't successfully evict me on lies again, that is....Yes, this is MODUS OPERANDI in a State that is in deep need of an overhaul.
UPDATE 9 DECEMBER 2022
The hackers moved my uploaded documents here to confuse! These go with Update of December 8, validating that Michael Skold did not exist as an attorney! No Juris number even! You would not believe what the law librarian said to me about that! The objective is to get their pay!
This is the Statement I am emailing today, December 9, 2022:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the
SECOND CIRCUIT
December 9 2022
) Case No. 22-CV-2741
ANNE M. BRADLEY )
)
V. )
)
Superior Court - New Haven,CT )
)
)
Plaintiff-Appellant’s REQUEST
DUE TO COURT’S LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY
The Second Circuit Court Case Manager altered the appearance of the DEFENDANT and ordered the plaintiff-appellant to create all new appellant documents and then submit them to Attorney Michael Skold at 165 Capital Avenue, Hartford, CT. Plaintiff-Appellant claimed the Second Circuit Court does not have a right to be an attorney for the DEFENDANT, who is the Superior Court, New Haven, CT. Plaintiff-Appellant has served the DEFENDANT credibly.
The Second Circuit Court case manager (who also uses the name Markus but is not the same person who has been case manager on this case, who also used the name Markus) claimed it did not
1
matter that Michael Skold was neither listed as an attorney with the Bar Association and no longer has a Juris Number. He, “Markus No. 2”, claimed it was was a minor issue. Plaintiff-Appellant said she REFUSED to send any of these court documents to an attorney who fails to appear, and the court erroneously enters appearance for, and doesn’t even care that this person has no appearance or Juris Number. This was clearly stated in a Statement made by the Plaintiff-Appellant.
Amending the Docket Sheet to include Attorney Skold is nefarious, when there is NO APPEARANCE BY THE DEFENDANT.
The Federal Court’s failure to certify sending its rulings to either Plaintiff-Appellant or the DEFENDANT is another issue which has contributed to why this appeal had to be entered!
No case manager has any right to ORDER. No court case manager can then verbally reverse the nefarious order; and then reverse it again! No case manager should be allowed to use a FAKE NAME!
There is not an order of the court; yesterday the case manager ORDERED by voicemail: “Michael Skold is no longer with the State of Connecticut. You need to call the Attorney General now.” This was after 5 p.m. yesterday, December 8, 2022. Yet the envelope information was timed back to 4:07 p.m. AND the
2
Plaintiff’-Appellant’s phone was right next to her, never having
even rang when the voicemail was placed. THIS IS TECHNOCRATIC FRAUD OF RECORDS. THIS IS CYBER CRIME TO serve the wants of judges who should not be judges because they malpractice law!
The Defendant failed to respond to MOTION FOR APPEAL IFP. THEY WERE SERVED! The Second Circuit Court has the stamped in copy! FRAUDING RECORDS, violating the 14th Amendment, and basically flying off the seat of your pants rather than adhere to court procedures is why a MOTION FOR DEFAULT WILL BE SUBMITTED NEXT WEEK AND SERVED ON THE DEFENDANT SUPERIOR COURT, NEW HAVEN, CT, THIS 3-Page STATEMENT which is emailed today - AS WELL AS YESTERDAY’S WILL BE PART OF THE APPENDIX - UNLESS MORE ABUSE BY ILLEGALLY ENTERING PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S HOME OR USING CYBER CRIME WILL MAKE THEM “DISAPPEAR” . TODAY IS FRIDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2022, UNLESS THEY SUCCESSFULLY MURDER -- OR HARM THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT AGAIN!
Prepared and Submitted,
FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
________________________
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se
PO Box 206514
New Haven, CT 06520
Ph. 203-909-9131
3
 |
| SECOND CIRCUIT COURT Link for this blog, please share: http://www.publiusroots.com/2022/11/appeal-to-second-circuit.html UPDATE 12/8/2022 These are very dangerous times, people! Make sure you have everything in place for an SHTF circumstance! The DEFENDANT on this aforesaid case is SUPERIOR COURT NEW HAVEN. Did the Federal District Court certifify sending orders to them? NO! Because RECORDS FRAUD IS ALL THAT MATTERS! That is what BRETT KAVANAUGH is noted for! The following is the message I sent to the case manager: Note, uploaded documents referred to on December 8 are ABOVE THE PICTURE. MOVED BY A HACKER. posted 12/9/2022 Markus, Re: Appeal 22-2741 - All documents were served on DEFENDANT; THERE IS NO INFO ON MICHAEL SKOLD As per my phone call today. Attached you will find that neither the Bar Association or the Juris Lookup shows Michael Skold as an existing attorney. Contrary to what you say, YES, THAT IS A BIG DEAL. Not only has he not filed an appearance on this case, but the Fed District Court failed to serve DEFENDANT any of its orders. There is no certification. Skold does not have a Juris Number and is not listed in the Bar Association. The Bar Association is set up to serve themselves, not the public. There is no secretary who answers! The Attorney General's Office should know these things but they don't and no one responded to my voicemails. (860-808-5020) I called the Bar Association several times and tried different things to get a person, including keying in SMITH and then JONES - it would not function! (860-223-4400) All of my difficulties reflects CYBER CRIME in my opinion - other than the fact that Michael Skold has no authority to practice as an attorney even if he is not in the system. Nevertheless, you tell me that's no big deal. OF COURSE IT IS A BIG DEAL. I ALREADY SERVED THE DEFENDANT. I WILL PROCEED WITH MY BRIEF AS DIFFICULT AS IT IS TO DEAL WITH ALL THIS. NOT PROVIDING AN ORDER TO CONTINUE MY CASE IS ABUSE OF PROCEDURE. HAVING YOU ORDER ME TO DO SOMETHING THAT IS OUTSIDE OF DUE PROCESS IS ANOTHER COPOUT. They want to stall for time and have no intent to allow me to continue, as is my lawful right. That is my impression! I want a response. At least a phone call back. Regards, Anne Bradley stand by.... it is 4:29 pm 12/8/2022...I need to scan it and will upload. 4 pages Look for Riverside Homestead Life channel - because 40,000 lost power because of VIOLENCE. #What'sNext - also, I posted notes in this December blogpost: https://thunderflower2021.blogspot.com/2022/12/december-2022.html?m=1 The 4 pages are uploaded on the side above. I will upload them again if they are not viewable. Time 4:50pm.... |
For the
SECOND CIRCUIT
December 2, 2022
REVISED December 5, 2022
) Case No. 22-CV-2741
ANNE M. BRADLEY )
)
V. )
)
Superior Court - New Haven,CT )
)
)
Plaintiff-Appellant’s Statement
On
Certification Of Service To Defendant
Has already been satisfied
Emphasis: This aforesaid statement was prepared to submit with court documents which the case manager informed plaintiff-appellant would be sent to her, requesting she mail them to an attorney in Hartford, CT. They were NOT enclosed and instead the Second Circuit Court ordered plaintiff to create new documents, refusing to return what she had submitted already with a “finders keepers losers weepers” type of response, rather than adhere to any sound regulations or laws. The Certification of mailing which the plaintiff-appellant had sent previously in order to appeal was ACCEPTED. The court docketed the case. In fact, the court docketed a “ghost case appeal” as well.
Plaintiff-Appellant claims she has satisfied court requirements and that includes providing the Second Circuit Court stamped copies of the documents which were submitted to the DEFENDANT ON RECORD - SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW HAVEN. THERE WAS NO MENTION OF AN IMPROPER DEFENDANT; and in fact the Federal District Court set the case up that way!
The Second Circuit Court also received certification of mailing on her appeal documents and accepted them as proper. There is no validation of what it claims is improper; their refusal to return copies is beyond absurd, considering they provided plaintiff-appellant a copy of a case example for her to prepare her brief.
This case has come to a complete standstill and at no point is their an order for continuance by the court when the court is actually causing the delay!
If this court wants a new case created, it must justify why and also return all documents on aforesaid case!
This aforesaid statement was created to complete in hand-writing and go to Tyco Copy Center a few blocks from the post office, make copies and then return to the post office and mail to the attorney which the Second Circuit Court claimed should be mailed to, as illogical as it seemed to the plaintiff-appellant.
The Superior Court is obligated to provide that inormation!
The Second Circuit Court should not be acting in defense of the Superior Court!
Though Markus or someone else in the Second Circuit Court mailed these envelopes, post-dated November 23, they did not arrive in plaintiff-appellant’s mail until the following week. She checked her mail on Friday, December 2, prepared to include her Statement of Service with the returned documents. Plaintiff-Appellant left 2 voicemails to the case manager Markus, informing him she did not receive the returned documents and she was going to the federal district court to print documents. After this, the plaintiff-appellant again called Markus and they spoke. He explained he was not in the office that day but would be happy to speak to Plaintiff Monday after he views the email she sent him through the email to prose cases. Attached are printings of emails.
Plaintiff-Appellant discovered “Appeal Closed” when printing the case information and planned to return to the federal district court today to discuss this and other matters with “Fre” yet the need to prepare this statement took precedence.
A “Missing Information Statement, T-080” (common game term used on AMAZON, which sooths consciences) is NOT even a part of the list provided in one copy of NOTICE OF DEFECTIVE FILING, yet in the same envelope this form was submitted again, inferring RECORDS FRAUD, since it was altered. There is no FRAP 27.10, which was cited! There is only a FRAP 27! It is regarding motions. There was no mention of the Petition for appeal and motion for IFP as prepared improperly! Plaintiff-Appellant had valid reason to claim it was absurd and abuse of procedure to consider a motion for IFP to be arguable and Petition to Appeal not arguable. There is only a 30 CFR 27.10 - that involves the CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, REFLECTING CONDUCT OF INVESTIGATIONS. What relevance does that have to do with a Pro Se case which was very explicit on the purpose of the harmed Pro Se, what she was seeking: 1. Restore the lease which the defendant Storquest breached; 2. Reimburse the $5,000+ to the plaintiff-appellant for court costs; and 3. Ensure no more breaches occur. She is NOT AN ATTORNEY. She cannot prosecute criminal activity, though the criminal activity is obvious!
The assigned attorney by the Second Circuit is a SOLICITOR GENERAL. THIS IS UNLAWFUL FOR ATTORNEY SKOLD TO REPRESENT THE SUPERIOR COURT ON THIS MATTER. He should have sent a letter to the plaintiff-appellant informing her and why he was.
The Case Manager told plaintiff-appellant that Attorney Skold was the only attorney in the Attorney General’s Office, who is registered at the Second Circuit Court. He was appointed SOLICITOR GENERAL THIS PAST YEAR AND HAS NO LEGAL RIGHT TO BE REGISTERED IN THE SECOND CIRCUIT COURT. In fact, he should have taken it upon himself to withdraw his registration and be replaced by another attorney! Why this state only has one person in the Attorney General’s office to be registered in the Second Circuit Court only reflects backdoor dealings - a common practice in the State of Connecticut!
This is NOT a case of nonsuit, which involves voluntary dismissal of a case by the plaintiff for failure to comply. It is a case involving Default Judgment and malpractice of law by the Superior Court of New Haven, which plaintiff claims the Federal District Court partnered with. Motion for Injunctive Relief due to the deliberate failure to abide with even the US Constitution; namely the 14th Amendment of Due Process of Law and other matters was entered in the higher court, Federal District Court (since Small Claims Cases cannot be appealed), Injunctive relief sought was similarly-situtated with the motion entered in Superior Court: CEASE AND DESIST. Additionally, Superior Court failed to process Motion For Disclosure to establish the record satisfied for administering the
law, since Storquest had no Agent of Record and was not a registered company in the state of Connecticut.
PLEASE REVIEW THE APPEAL DOCUMENTS WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN STAMPED IN BY THE SUPERIOR COURT, yet they failed to inform the Plaintiff, Pro Se, of any attorney contact, including filing its appearance. Today, December 2, 2022, the Plaintiff expects the Second Circuit has returned these documents to be forwarded to an attorney in Hartford, CT, along with completion of Certificate of Service Forms, which they are providing. REVISED: SINCE TODAY IS DECEMBER 5, 2022.
The continuous violation of Rules Of Court, Abuse of Power and Procedure, and targeting the aforementioned Plaintiff, Pro Se, is why the Plaintiff, Pro Se has had to appeal to get her lawful rights.
The Superior Court Case was to attain SWIFT remedy on fraudulent practices, including breaches of contract, by Storquest. Instead, the court enjoyed abuse of procedure, violation of the 14th Amendment, and more - to aid and abet Storquest and Target the Plaintiff, as this state does on a continuous basis.
Plaintiff approached the Federal District Court in order for aggrieved and physically-disabled Plaintiff-Appellant to:
1. RESTORE HER LEASE, which Storquest terminated, and retain her storage unit, ensuring her possessions have not been tampered with.
2. Reimburse Plaintiff-Appellant for over $5,000 incurred in legal fees, and
3. Ensure that Storquest cannot get away with any further breaches of the lease.
The following Documents are enclosed today, December 2: NONE
REVISED 12/5/2022: there were none. As provided in this revised statement, the plaintiff-appellant did not receive any of the documents where were referred to by the case manager, by whoever prepared the mailing.
SUMMARY
This abuse of procedure is absolutely ludicrous! Judges break laws and conspire with a criminally-run, multibillion dollar company, Storquest, which was founded in part by Warren Jeffs, who is in prison for life for raping and molesting children, yet his church, Fundamentalist MORMON Latter Day Saints, still supports him and allows him to lead them from his prison cell! He is also a polygamist, which automatically categorizes him as a DEPRAVED sexual abuser! Is he even in prison - or a fugitive from justice like former Waterbury, CT, Phillip Giordano, who was originally sentenced to life in prison for the same thing, even assaulting children right in his office of the mayor! He is obviously the multimillionaire CEO of CIGNA! Not because he deserved it, but FORCE by organized crime caused this! And all around him, he was protected, just like September 11 when Americans mass murdered Americans and got away with over 3,000 counts of murder and thousands of victims of injury, destruction of property, and massive financial fraud! Does someone need to rub the Attorney General’s and Superior Court’s judges’ noses in it, to give this attention? This is so disgraceful! Plaintiff-appellant has done all she can to just continue to be a Storquest customer and get them to stop breaching the contract! Having to file a lawsuit was nothing she even cared to do, yet the Superior Court could have remedied the case probably, just by granting the Motion For Cease & Desist Injunctive Order! They would not even hear the motion for over a month! And denied ALL motions the same day, August 11, to make it as difficult as they could for the plaintiff-appellant! HIGHER COURTS WERE MADE FOR A REASON! And the main reason is to oversee the lower courts! Remove the criminal activity, and be a court! This is just beyond any logic - and this organized crime must be stopped once and for all in the US Government!
Aforesaid statement of NINE pages has been prepared by the plaintiff-appellant in aforesaid appeal - all documents of which she has satisfied LEGALLY, in the eyes of the court. The failure of appearance by the defendant only results in another DEFAULT, of which this court is obligated by law to grant upon the motion of Default by the plaintiff-appellant; thereby satisfying the three requests: 1. Restore the Storquest Lease on Record; 2. REIMBURSE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT THE LEGAL EXPENSES IN PROCEDING WITH THIS CASE WHICH WAS COMPLETELY AVOIDABLE, AND 3. ENSURE STORQUEST IS WARNED A HEAVY PENALTY SHOULD THEY BREACH THE LEASE AGAIN.
____________________________
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se
PO Box 206514
New Haven, CT 06520
Ph. 203-909-9131
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
Plaintiff-Appellant’s Statement
On
Certification Of Service To Defendant
I, Anne M. Bradley, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that on 12/5/2022, I served a copy of this aforesaid Statement of 9 pages, by email (Michael Skold, SOLICITOR GENERAL, who refuses to respond to voicemails and tells people in his voicemail to email him at michaelskold@ct.gov) and PERSONAL DELIVERY on the
Superior Court of the State of Connecticut, 235 Church Street, New Haven, CT 06510
ATTORNEY (no appearance) contact information as presented by Second Circuit Court rather than the Defendant:
Attorney Michael Skold
Juris No. 429487 A
Juris No. 431228 G
Suite 5000
165 Capital Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106
Using the receptionist number as his office number: 860-808-5020
At which time the receptionist REFUSES to give out his number and transfers to his extension, at which time he says in voicemail that he is not answering calls and to only send him an email.
_12/2/2022___ _________________________
Today’s Date Signature
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the
SECOND CIRCUIT
November 10, 2022
)
) Case No. 22-CV-1101
ANNE M. BRADLEY )
) 11/13/2022 for blog: The case
V. )
) number is 22-cv-2741
Superior Court - New Haven,CT )
) a hacker altered the number
)
)
) I manually corrected it before
scanning it, serving it
Plaintiff-Appellant’s Motion For Permission to Appeal
Federal Judge’s Ruling of September 12, 2022
As an IFP, Pro Se Appellant
HISTORY
1. Plaintiff -Applicant, Pro Se, filed COMPLAINT, as instructed by the court clerks at the Clerk’s Office, along with an IFP and TITLED it as an Application For Injunction.
1
2. The Federal District Court thereafter entered this Application as a Lawsuit and docketed it along with scheduling when briefs and other documents were due.
a) It was obvious the IFP was granted although the court failed to provide its approval from a magistrate
b) The Clerk’s Office told the Applicant-plaintiff that her case had to be treated as a lawsuit; there was no other action she could take. Documents were completed and submitted.
3. Thereafter, Applicant-Plaintiff submitted a letter to the Chief Judge of Federal District Court, Hon. Stefan Underhill. Though there was no answer from that office to her, the District Judge who was assigned to this docketed lawsuit dismissed her case for lack of merit.
a) The IFP was obviously granted since they docketed the case
b) They scheduled future hearings and due dates
i. There was no service of papers as a summons
ii. There was no Due Process Of Law
iii. Plaintiff was “backed into a corner”, unable to take action since no case should be managed in this way
4. The emailed dismissal was brief and provided no information
2
that there was a 6-page ruling electronically
a) Plaintiff submitted a Notice of Intent to further plead on September 14, 2022. The Clerk’s office closed early with no explanation and plaintiff had to file this notice in the document box where the federal police station is, along with stamping it in using their date-stamping machine.
5. The next time which the plaintiff went to the Clerk’s Office, most likely Thursday 9/15/2022, she sought to print the court information on this aforesaid matter. She had to pay for it. At that time she discovered that a 6-page ruling was issued, which she had no knowledge of.
6. Plaintiff discovered she was unable to Motion For Review to the 2d Circuit Court; they only allowed reviews of agency decisions.
7. Plaintiff filed a Petition For Writ of Certiorari to the US Supreme Court along with IFP, yet this Certiorari needs to be amended prior to resubmission.
8. Though plaintiff continues to communicate with US Supreme Court, she is still pursuing for them to review this matter, which was emphasized as a public importance with special emphasis on FAILURE OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
3
9. Applicant-Plaintiff submitted Notice of Intent to Appeal to New Haven Superior Court and Federal District Court on 10/16/2022, which was two days after she read the 6-page decision by the Federal Court, which was not sent to her and printed off the Federal Court’s computer. She considers this reflective of Abuse Of Process; a tactic commonly used by the judges in New Haven Superior Court.
FACTS
1. This appeal is within the 60-day limit. US Officials are involved.
2. Entering individual names of the court infers they are to be treated as ordinary citizens when it is determined these certain ones listed acted under color of the law; even applying an unconstitutional law - as so stated in a US Supreme Court Ruling.
3. There are no specific names on this case for the following reasons:
a) Pro Se Plaintiff is not in a position to personally prosecute a criminal matter involving under color of law, violation of the 14th Amendment though she has been harmed by this activity and other related activity, which she considers to be under color of the law.
4
i. Though the US Supreme Court has claimed that judges are determined to be private citizens in cases where they have administered an unconstitutional law; plaintiff considers this illogical since no law should be unconstitutional. If it is, the lawmaker is at fault and will not pass any constitutionality test before it is passed. As a Pro Se, Plaintiff-Appellant is aware there would be exceptions in which circumstances arise which may reflect a law is unconstitutional when applied. Yet the law itself is most likely constitutional. In addition, Plaintiff-Appellant considers Executive Orders are not laws, do not necessarily have to be carried out, and are disposed when the President leaves office.
4. Plaintiff-Appellant is still harmed by Storquest demands that she has to remove her possessions from the unit which she had rented for nearly ten years and they have costed her over $5,000 in legal fees as a Pro Se, doing work equivalent to a Paralegal. Plaintiff-Appellant expects to be reimbursed for these costs and has been keeping track of them. She has nothing on record on Storquest - a company which is not even registered or legitamate on many issues including not having an Agent Of Service, are all
5
unresolved despite the direct efforts by the Plaintiff-Appellant to resolve it quickly by motioning for disclosure and motioning for Injunctive Relief: Cease & Desist - neither of which the Superior Court even filed or ruled on for over a month. This therefore created an even more stressful situation which Applicant-Plaintiff had to file more motions since the court was not acting on anything.
a) The Superior Court has the power to remand Small Claims Cases to a regular Civil Docket should they consider a hearing necessary before issuing a TEMPORARY INJUNCTION. Yet by law, no hearing is required for a Temporary Injunction, which may in itself resolve the matter.
i. The Superior Court did nothing. Their rulings were frivolous and failed to show legitamate reasons for their rulings - which were all grouped on the same day, August 12, Should be August 11 (11/25/2022) with no phone call to the plaintiff to let her know what they did.
1. Appellant-Plaintiff’s impression was the court was not administering the law; they were being deceitful and unlawful, acting under color of the law.
2. While Appellant-Plaintiff was waiting for a clear
6
determination of proceedings on the Federal Level, she filed a Motion For Compliance into the Superior Court, which the Court nefariously entered five times.
3. Upon the ruling of the Federal Judge, he described her pleading as FIVE separate requests rather than acknowledging the deliberate records fraud that took place throughout that case, as one of the issues which was brought up in the Application for Injunction/Complaint with Requested Relief for Injunction due to failure of Due Process of Law
4. Additional Records Fraud:
a) Superior Court Failed to upload documents in order, as paginated by the plaintiff
b) Superior Court replaced documents with those entered in the Federal Court or elsewhere. i.e.,
c) Motion For Disclosure, entered 6/16/2022 -
altered (last page has a note it was recertified 7/30/2022 - that note was either forged, copied and the word is "or"; not "and" (posted here 11/25/2022) scanned from another document, taken from plaintiff’s home since it was obviously not
7
intended for the court, or cleverly written by a forger. This along with no date stamp invalidates the motion on record, which is obstruction of justice by the Superior Court.
d) Plaintiff made an arduous attempt to disclose the court’s nefarious document-altering activity in her Petition Of Writ of Certiorari, which needs to be resubmitted after being corrected. She has discovered that the scanned file which she meticulously validated page by page, has been altered and she will be scanning this again before she submits her corrected Petition For Writ of Certiorari. This has to be worked on during the midst of landlord problems detaining her from being able to work on aforesaid material, such as fake inspection notifications - never showing up. Defendants listed in the Petition For Writ of Certiorari are the same for aforesaid appeal. Plaintiff-Appellant is motioning this court separately to include Storquest and Federal District Court as Defendants. Again, technocratically altered - CYBER CRIME - there is one defendant on this case: New Haven Superior Court (posted 11/25/2022)
8
5. Storquest failed to even appear on the case. This is,
by law, an automatic DEFAULT in the favor of Applicant-Plaintiff yet the Superior Court deliberately broke the law, denying her rights. (Should be OMITTED! CYBER CRIME! This was fixed before submitting to 2d Circuit Court, yet may have to be submitted as an Errata or Amended Motion due to this cyber crime! posted 11/25/2022)
QUESTION FOR CONSIDERATION:
IS THE AFORESAID MATTER A VIOLATION OF THE US CONSTITUTION? THE 14TH AMENDMENT IS A GUARANTEE OF RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS; YET BOTH FEDERAL AND LOWER SUPERIOR COURTS DISRUPTED THE LIFE OF THE PLAINTIFF INSTEAD; ABUSING PROCESS, TO INCLUDE INEPT RULINGS AND ABUSE OF PROCEDURE. THIS REFLECTS A MODUS OPERANDI - SINCE THE CIVIL JUDGE WHO IS SUPERVISING IN THE NEW HAVEN COURT, JOHN ABRAMS, NOT ONLY PREVIOUSLY ILLEGALLY EVICTED HER BUT HE ALSO AIDED PUBLIC STORAGE TO STEAL ALL OF HER POSSESSIONS IN HER STORAGE UNIT, COVERING MANY KEEPSAKE ITEMS OF WHICH CANNOT BE REPLACED - ITEMS WHICH SHE HAD FOR YEARS, EVEN SINCE HER CHILDHOOD. THE COURT WAS AWARE THAT
9
PUBLIC STORAGE OWED HER OVER $400; AND
PUBLIC STORAGE HAD FRAUDULENTLY CHARGED HER $250 JUST BECAUSE THEY HAD TO WAIT 60 DAYS TO GET A REPLACEMENT FOR THE MONEY ORDER WHICH THEY CLAIMED THEY NEVER GOT EVEN THOUGH THEY GOT THE MONEY ORDER EVERY MONTH FOR YEARS.
5. Cyber Crime disabled plaintiff’s notebook/laptop for over a month. Though the store she purchased it at told her she had to get a new one, she could not afford it and had to use the facilities at Tyco Copy Center and pay for them and also go to Milford Court Service Center when she could. The Court Service Center was rude to her and the notary refused to notarize anything - an obvious tactic that was devised with the court clerk, regarding a document on the nefarious bill collection case, reflective of more MODUS OPERANDI by the Superior Court in New Haven - on MEDICAL BILLS which Judge Kamp at that Superior Court ruled in LVNV’s favor even though in the trial they confirmed that she owed for Amazon, which was also a lie and unsubstantiated with since they used several blank pages and claimed they “had to” redact information. They also created other illegal dynamics, such as filing Pro Hac Vice when they were in-state attorneys. Additionally,
10
Stillman Law unlawfully mailed the small claim - which was a federal offense, placing a Priority Mail envelope in her mailbox when it had no tracking history. No mail clerk would have been able to do that since their scan machine would alarm them. They were all reasons NOT to docket the case, LVNV Funding, LLC vs Anne M. Bradley, as one with merit. The judge was John Kamp, who has also taken part in approving the Fee Waiver on this matter at the Superior Court juncture. The Fee Waiver Application in Superior Court appears to be frauded, though eventually was approved after about two weeks, rather than the standard 48-hour window, which is a regulation of the court.
RELIEF SOUGHT:
1. Plaintiff seeks reimbursement of legal costs
2. Plaintiff seeks court order to ensure that Storquest will not breach the lease again
3. Plaintiff seeks to restore the lease which Storquest unlawfully terminated, remain as a customer; and assurance they have not tampered with or stolen any of her possessions since they began this fraudulent billing in June 2022.
11
This concludes this Motion for Appeal. IFP Affidavit is
simultaneously presented, as required.
The Federal District Court previously denied Plaintiff-Appellant’s Motion to Appeal, which should be included in the Record which the Clerk in Federal Court is required to create. This violates Due Process of Law since the opposing party is to have time to respond/object as they so wish. Plaintiff was not able to serve the Superior Court the day it was presented to the Federal Court, as planned. Yet the Federal Court ruled on it before It was going to be delivered to the Superior Court the following day which Plaintiff-Appellant considers wrongful and leaving her in a serious state of aggrievement - all based on a storage facility that fraudulently billed her and further breached the lease by terminating it when the rent was not even delinquent, refusing to correct their actions.
Wherefore, Plaintiff-Appellant, Pro Se and Indigent, seeks approval to proceed with her appeal through the Second Circuit Court.
Appendix Attached
Prepared and Submitted,
12
FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
____________________________
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se
PO Box 206514
New Haven, CT 06520
203-909-9131
=============================================
This Statement is a supplement to Form D-P since there is no transcript I can order. Hopefully Microsoft or some other dirtbag TECHNOCRAT has not corrupted the document as I am pasting it - it is late and I will verify from another device. A quick go-over appears they have not corrupted it:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the
SECOND CIRCUIT
November 17, 2022
)
) Case No. 22-CV-2741
ANNE M. BRADLEY )
)
V. )
)
Superior Court - New Haven,CT )
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff-Appellant’s Statement of Evidence
When The Proceedings Were Not Recorded
Form D-P Referenced
Aggrieved and physically-disabled Plaintiff-Appellant seeks:
1. RESTORE HER LEASE, which Storquest terminated, and retain her storage unit, ensuring her possessions have not been tampered with.
2. Reimburse Plaintiff-Appellant for over $5,000 incurred in legal fees, and
3. Ensure that Storquest cannot get away with any further breaches of the lease.
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, Case No. (written in)
1. Superior Court Case, NNH-CV-22-50540919-S, (Case Type S25, Contracts) was NOT a case of nonsuit. It was a case of DEFAULT by the DEFENDANT for failure to either appear or plead on the Small Claim Lawsuit. Additional Lack of Proceedings by the court existed.
a) Connecticut Practice Book 17-20 (d)
b) Superior Court failed to conduct a hearing on the DEFAULT to determine the total owed by Storquest, as required
i. Superior Court attempted to order Plaintiff to NOT enter any documents of proof; that they will view them at the hearing. Plaintiff claimed it was her matter of right; they could not order that.
1. There was no hearing
2. Court further abused procedure by claiming they did not have enough proof to allow DEFAULT
3. This is another proof of malpractice of Law
2. THERE IS NO OFFICIAL ADDRESS OF RECORD OF THE DEFENDANT; they do not have an Agent of Service. The Federal Court did not issue remedy despite the obvious violation of Due Process of Law by Superior Court.
a) The Small Claims Form was frauded by the Superior Court. A hand-written “x” was entered. Plaintiff said she could not mark off anything and stated why in the form.
b) Numerous documents on record were either frauded or removed, or uploaded on the wrong pleading
i. The fraud is so obvious in some circumstances that any lay person would notice it; due to the dates of the documents and entering a pleading in with documents dated BEYOND the pleading date/date of entry
ii. A number of documents lacked the stamped date, which the plaintiff claims in almost all circumstances the documents were altered/frauded.
3. Plaintiff sought INJUNCTIVE RELIEF since the Superior Court violated Due Process of Law, deliberately malpracticing law.
a) ORDER Superior Court to issue Granting of MOTION OF DEFAULT; JUDGMENT OF DEFAULT. Superior Court failed to proceed on:
i. Cease & Desist unlawful billing and auction of plaintiff-appellant’s possessions
ii. Order Storquest to stop breaching the lease
iii. Order Storquest to reimburse Plaintiff-Appellant for all legal fees and expenses
1. Federal Law 28 U.S. Code, Section 1655
2. CPB 17-20(d)
a) FRCP Rule 55
3. 28 US Code Section 1655
4. Lease Contract which was on record at Storquest
4. The Federal District Court Ordered the case to be a lawsuit against Superior Court of New Haven, disregarding the very fact that Storquest scheduled to unlawfully auction off Plaintiff-Appellant’s possessions, which in fact is the very basis of aggrievement.
a) There was no service process on Superior Court, New Haven; the Federal Court neither ordered it or granted a fee waiver for it.
b) Aforesaid Federal Case was docketed and scheduled pleadings were made for October and in 2023
5. The Federal District Judge inadvertently dismissed the case; failed to correct any schedulings of the case
a) The six page ruling was not presented to the Plaintiff-Appellee; only an email indicating that the case was dismissed with a brief statement was sent to the Plaintiff-Appellee; not knowing there was a 6-page dismissal. She was not using the CMECF system and considered it to be even more of a threat to her security; having to be without her own laptop for over a month due to CYBER CRIME.
b) The six page ruling falsely described the case and ruled on a law which had no relevance, of which the Plaintiff will further go into in her brief. Caselaws cited also had no relevance. THERE WAS NO STAY OF PROCEEDINGS. The fact that the Superior Court Failed to proceed is certainly no motion for Stay of proceedings!
c) The six page ruling was a complete mockery of the Plaintiff’s efforts to get her rights from unlawful billing, and other breaches of contract, to include literal theft of her property. There is no cure for any of these issues on record, though for the time-being the auction has been cancelled.
This concludes this 4-page Statement of Evidence and Facts to supplement Form D-P, to the best of my ability as Plaintiff-Appellant, Pro Se, IFP-applicant, on this day, November 17, 2022.
____________________
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se
PO Box 206514, New Haven, CT 06520 / phone: 203-909-9131
posted 11/18/2022
13
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the
SECOND CIRCUIT
November 10, 2022
)
) Case No. 22-CV-1101
ANNE M. BRADLEY )
)
V. )
)
Superior Court - New Haven,CT )
)
)
)
)
APPENDIX
Plaintiff-Appellant’s Motion For Permission to Appeal
Federal Judge’s Ruling of September 12, 2022
As an IFP, Pro Se Appellant
Attachments PAGE
A Affidavit Accompanying Motion For Permission To 1
Appeal In Forma Pauperis &
Notice of Appeal, Form 1B
i
B Ruling of Federal District Court on aforesaid case 10
C Applicant’s Request For Immediate Return of File 17
D Default Order - not uploaded by Superior Court 24
E Court Order, 8/11/2022: MOTION FOR CEASE AND DESIST 26
F MOTION FOR CEASE AND DESIST, entered 6/16/2022 28
G Court Order, 8/11/2022 - Motion For Default Judgment,
File No. 105.10 38
H Motion For Default Judgment, 40
submitted July 29, 2022 - stamped by the court with date of 7/28/2022 (as appeared on fax); typed using the copy center’s
public computer which was obviously hacked by Microsoft or Apple since the date is July 31, 2022 - which is a Sunday. Certification of Mailing, date was not altered, July 29, 2022. This was typed swiftly due to concern with hacking and other matters.
Fraudulent Notice of Insurance Cancellation
ii
Notice to Plaintiff of File date - three weeks after the small
claim was submitted (6/16/2022)
Fax Cover Sheet, 7/29/2022
Attempt to submit Motion For Default Form - Search was
unsuccessful - printed search - oddly stamped by court 7/28/2022
I Order, 9/15/2022, JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL - 49
for failing to abide by an unlawful order of the court. All motions had valid proofs of service. In fact, due to the fact that defendant
had not filed appearance, no proof of service was even
required by law. This was a very expensive and time-consuming attempt to obtain lawful rights by the plaintiff, Anne M. Bradley.
J Order, No. 102.10, dated 8/11/2022 - MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE 51
K MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE, entered in court on 53
6/16/2022 yet this document was frauded since there is a note dated 6/30/2022. Either documents submitted in the Federal District Court were stolen out of Plaintiff-Appellant Anne M.
iii
Bradley’s apartment, or Federal District Court partnered with
Superior Court to fraud records Paginated as pages 39, 40, 41, 42 - most likely from the Federal Case seeking INJUNCTIVE ORDER.
Prepared And Submitted,
For Applicant-Plaintiff, Pro Se
________________________
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se
iv
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. Section 1915
MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL TO SECOND CIRCUIT
Anne M. Bradley Case No. 3:22-cv-011-CSH
V should be ONLY Superior Court, New Haven!
Superior Court, New Haven
Storquest Self Storage Association - I strike through it and thanks to TECHNOCRACY MANIPULATING, it does not show! I submitted the revised document and had such a hell of a time submitting documents into Superior Court that I am literally traumatized by their in-your-face corruption! They took my documents and left for 20 minutes, altering them! Returning and saying I did not have them in order, which I did, and lying about other dynamics - WHICH THEY CREATED.
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
Aforesaid Motion For Permission To Appeal In Forma Pauperis has been served in person on the Superior Court of New Haven, CT on November 10, 2022.
_________________
Anne M. Bradley
11/15/2022
I entered ERRATAS; the court took them and messed with the documents for 20 minutes and said "You made a mistake; why did you give us two of everything?" and more ....I made copies for myself, telling them to attach the STAMPED COPY TO MY COPIES, WHICH WERE ALL IDENTIFIED WITH POST-IT-NOTES!
They just couldn't put up with that neat-and-tidy submission!
I am returning there tomorrow. I could not take another day of such trauma from their fraud!
===========================================
An inmate from SOMEWHERE wants me to connect? WTF
It is probably a set-up. No mention where that inmate is located.
Subject:
| Inmate : MOORE, COLUMBUS |
| CorrLinks <info@corrlinks.com> | Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 5:21 PM | |
| To: bradley.annemarie@gmail.com | ||
.png)
.png)
Additional blogpost to reference:
THIS WAS MOVED BY A HACKER 12/8/2022
.png)
Comments