MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL
Link for this blogpost:
http://www.publiusroots.org/2023/07/motion-to-vacate-dismissal.html
TABLE OF CONTENTS - look under “Russia” topic
(Note, it is being updated; a more correct version is temporarily on the link provided at the top of the blogpost below) - posted 3/12/2024
https://thunderflower2021.blogspot.com/2024/01/table-of-round-tents.html?m=1
UPDATE 10/7/2023. It has been difficult to access this since wifi was cut by my landlord in January 2023. I have to go elsewhere to use wifi, which is always stressful since my apartment is vandalized so much when I am gone.
The case manager screamed in the phone for two minutes when I called her to follow up on this motion as well as others which the court fails to to process legitimately on. Because I submitted a JUSTIFIED AND FULLY-PREPARED, TYPED, FORMATTED PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, WHICH WAS ERRONEOUSLY REGIRGITATED BY US SUPREME COURT (how dare me to be competent!) - they had to further violate my rights to cover up for their lack of upholding the law, of administering the law, of even showing any proof they doing their job as set forth in their legal responsibilities. INTERNET IS THEIR BLOOD FOR FRAUDING DOCUMENTS!
This is the first time the internet wifi account has worked in 10 months. I am using it in the lobby. I will try to access it in my apartment, as it has always been accessible since I moved here in 2013 - though they did not admit to this amenity. I discovered it on my own.
STORQUEST HAD THE AUDACITY OF SENDING ME A REQUEST FOR REVIEW - rating them - only after I submitted my BBB Complaint on them - most likely to use as an excuse in their response that I did not complete it!
I should have taken a screenshot.
.png)
.png)
UPDATE 8/22/2023
ORGANIZED CRIME, RIGHT IN PLAIN SIGHT!
posted 10/7/2023
REGARDING RETAINING MY POSSESSIONS,
Apparently Storquest took it upon themselves to steal them and CLAIM they auction them off! I tried to speak to someone directly, which requires my having to go there in person. On the 10th, they disappeared, closed office early. It was about 4pm. On the 11th, I was injured on my way there. I shared it on another blogpost. My sandal seemed to have been lasered. Long story-short, I made an appointment with the ortho doctor. Again, no one was available in the office that day, as I hobbled to the office.
Living in Connecticut has been hell.
I called the 2d Circuit Court and instead of a "how can I help you" from the case manager - she literally screamed for two minutes. I kid you not!
The next day I went to Storquest, to no avail! They closed early!
updated 8/4/2023 8:25 a.m - look below
Here is the message sent, see end for the rest.
Re: Bradley V Superior Court New Haven 22cv2741
******* Update 8/4/2023 - this is being hacked but I hope I can head them off at the pass by placing the screenshots here. A total reflection of "BE THE VILLAIN; BE THE HERO"
BTW: A motion to vacate is not simply a second chance and it should not be confused with an appeal. These are very different legal processes. When a person files an appeal, he basically approaches a higher authority and argues that a lower authority had faulty judgment and asks the higher authority to do something about it. When a person files this motion, however, he basically returns to the source of the judgment and claims that he did not have a fair opportunity to present his case and, therefore, requests the court to deem its decision void.
this screenshot goes with the 2 of 3 at the END - due to CYBER CRIME keeping me from accessing this section to upload a 3d image, I have to place it here.
posted 8/4/2023 8:43 a.m.
SCREENSHOT 1
.png)
SCREENSHOT 2
.png)
WTF - SCREENSHOT 3 - hopefully you understand what is happening! Operation "It's not my job" and we can delete everything so nobody will know!
Defendant did not appear in Superior Court; Defendant didht or not appear in Fed District Court - AFTER Judge Haight ordered a full blown trial so he could create MOOT since they wanted to steal my possessions and auction them off right away! The Court ordered to serve the defendant, but did not serve the defendant! This was tacked on to my fee waiver for filing APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION "TAKE PAPERS ONLY" RIGHT ON THE FRONT PAGE - and he made it a full blown trial! THEN HE DISMISSED THE CASE! NOT CORRECTING WHAT HE ENTERED IN THE DOCKET. OBVIOUSLY HE WAS A SHILL FOR SOMEONE ELSE IN THIS CORRUPTED COURT SYSTEM!
Does it even matter they make a rabbit hole of corruption? No, they will make sure I am dead to get away with it! They have tried and tried to kill me! With relatives that just say,
"So what, you're alive. Be grateful to God he spared your life."
With God, all things are possible; it is up to man to maintain balance!
posted 8/4/2023
.png)
This is a follow up of my case originating against Storquest Storage Association
I am not feeling well today. I will have to post the appendix another day.
I wish I could say I will upload all the documents. It may help others. Think for yourself, but don't be ignorant.
These are tough times and someone just deleted what I said here so I better upload this before they change anything else. Am not feeling well today. I will be back with the Appendix, but it is generally referred to in this. I can't upload the documents here.
I hope it may inspire anyone else who is struggling.
Have a good day.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the
SECOND CIRCUIT
July 21, 2023
) Case No. 22-CV-2741
ANNE M. BRADLEY )
)
V. )
)
Superior Court - New Haven,CT )
)
MOTION TO VACATE AND CORRECT RECORD
Appellant Motions the Second Circuit Court to vacate dismissal and to correct the Record/Docket Sheet of aforesaid case in order to reinstate this appeal. This motion is citing FRAP 2 and Rule 27.
RELIEF SOUGHT
1. Appellant has made it very clear that she was wronged by Storquest, which did not even appear on the small claim case; the Superior Court of New Haven frauded various records as well as the docket, yet they only frame themselves with their illegal activity including nonappearance on aforesaid case.
2. Appellant has always claimed the same request: ORDER Default on Storquest; PROVIDE JUST COMPENSATION FOR LEGAL COSTS ON THIS SMALL CLAIM;
a) Federal District Court would not allow Storquest to be part of this lower-court case; which was actually an APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION; which the judge turned into a full blown trial case, ordering the following upon granted fee waiver: a. Counsel of Record, b. SERVICE PROCESS ON THE DEFENDANT New Haven Superior Court, c. Filing Fee, possibly more. (Exhibit Section C)
3. ORDER Storquest to reinstate the breached lease which they additionally and wrongfully terminated; and at that point Appellant would resume paying rent as long as all of her possessions are still in the unit she was renting before they terminated the lease, No. 1103.
HISTORY/GROUNDS FOR RELIEF
1. Note: Appellant was told by the case manager Yana Segal, to motion to open mandumus, which she was obviously told by a supervisor to tell the Appellant. A dismissal is not a mandumus. A mandumus is an injunctive order to the lower court, which in these circumstances nefariously framed the Appellant as a prisoner or on probation for a crime. Common Sense applied, any mandumus to this lower court should be carefully applied and the court should ensure DUE PROCESS OF LAW; including the Appellant obtains a certified copy - none of which occurred during these three months of a broken or rigged phone system, which the Appellant could not get through, though she tried often.
a) According to court rules, there is only a 14-day window of time from when the court issues a dismissal and most likely a fee is required if a motion to open mandumus is issued. This dismissal was issued by the Clerk of the Court, who has limited powers. (Refer to Exhibit on Laws/Orders) It was not served on the Appellant. Case Manager provided the Appellant this dismissal by the court clerk for the first time in the later part of June, at which time Pro Se, indigent, Appellant had to decide what action to take to preserve her rights the most effective way.
2. This year-old case originated in the Superior Court, Case No CV225054091 was assigned to the first of three Small Claims (6/14/2022, 6/20/2022, and 6/30/2022 - yet the court entered this Small Claim on Docket as stamped in on 7/6/2022; which comprised of 46 pages.) Fee waiver which was submitted on 6/14/2023 was granted yet they stamped it so it could not be read on the form, which covered up when it was granted, which is supposed to be within 24 hours of submission. Appearance was submitted separately due to the insufficiency of the Small Claim Form format, including the need to emphasize the problem with NO AGENT OF SERVICE ON THE DEFENDANT. The clerk attempted to return it yet this law-abiding Appellant demanded it be entered with the Small Claim to preserve her rights since there was no Agent of Service on Record, no business registration for Storquest, etc. The Small Claims Court was a constant “Tug Of War”, depriving the rights of the harmed plaintiff of this case. Abuse Of Procedure by the Superior Court interfered with the administration of Justice. Case Name was Bradley vs Storquest Storage, Inc - arising from the Storage facility breaching her lease, terminating it when she was not even delinquent. The manager lied about adjusting the phone pay system so she can timely pay her rent, since insurance was not required on her lease and she never completed any insurance papers. It was not adjusted and she refused to pay for insurance fee. Due to the unlawful termination on June 9, 2022 (Appendix Section A), and refusal to correct this fraud, the Appellant informed Storquest she had no choice but to file a small claim against them and they would have to pay for the legal time and expense in doing so.
2. Storquest failed to appear. According to the State Law of Connecticut, and Connecticut Practice Book 17-20(d) and 24-16, the clerk of the court is required to grant the plaintiff (appellant) Motion For Default Judgment. (Exhibit Section A, Exhibit Section on Laws/Orders) . Constant Cyber Crime caused great difficulty for the Appellant to get her rights on this Breach Of Contract case. Two Affidavits are Provided at Exhibit Section A. Defendant defaulted on 7/28/2022; Court Clerk entered Default yet the court frauded records and kept it out of the docket! (Section on Laws/Orders) The court’s order dated 8/11/2022 was not justiciable to use as reason to dismiss the case. Appellant-Plaintiff considers it with malice and forethought, particularly due to MODUS OPERANDI.
3. Appellant is physically disabled and struggled with both physical pain and emotional stress, including Storquest claiming they would auction her property off for nonpayment which indeed she tried to pay yet they blocked her from paying and refused to process the rent payment in person. The Superior Court nefariously marked most of the Appellant’s motions as “Compliance” or “Motion For Order”; yet prior Motion to Transfer was entered twice, which the Appellant claimed misrepresented the case. Motion For Judgment on Default was entered the day after Defendant-Storquest was scheduled by the court to ANSWER; appearance expected no later than the ANSWER date - neither of which occurred. (Exhibit B)
4. The Superior Court denied the Motion, which broke the law since the defendant defaulted Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book 17-20(d) and PB 24-16; along with a previously-cited state law which requires the court clerk to grant MOTION FOR DEFAULT when defendant fails to appear.
5. Twelve days after submission of Motion For Default, on 8/11, the court made up an order DENYING Appellant’s PRE-TRIAL MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE AGENT OF SERVICE, CLAIMING proof of mailing Motion No. 102, Motion For Disclosure of Agent Of Service, which was entered on 7/6/2023, and sufficiently Certified as mailed FIrst Class on that day and filed into court. In fact, Appellant claimed the court should have made their own motion since the defendant had no Agent of Service and the court failed to cure that with an order before stamping the Small Claim And Writ Form in, which they had for two weeks before stamping in, after granting the fee waiver.
6. (An update to the court that MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE was mailed and emailed again on 7/30/2022 to the non-appearing defendant showing diligence to the court) The judge entered a ruling on the Disclosure, after over a month the submission of this motion, which disrupted the case since it was necessary to satisfy before the Small Claim Writ and Complaint were even docketed. It seemed to the Appellant this motion was a “wild card” to impede justice and make up a frivolous order to delay DEFAULT proceedings, ordering “proof of service” on a motion only required to be mailed FIRST CLASS, or even emailed, which it was also. The motion was certified by the Appellant-plaintiff as being sent FIRST CLASS. This is all on record! It was also emailed to the defendant!
7. Aggressive ‘abuse of procedure’ to harm the Appellant took place continuously at the New Haven Superior Court. Had the court conceived any motion was not received by the apposing party, they are obligated to take that motion off the docket. The party was not even appearing on the case. This was deliberate lack of Due Process of Law.
a) Small Claim Court Judge’s Order on Motion For Disclosure: “Plaintiff’s Motion For Disclosure or to accept Service (No. 102 on case, Exhibit Section B) is DENIED for her failure to attach the Proof of Delivery to the Statement of Service regarding Priority Mail. Plaintiff shall file an updated Statement of Service with the Proof of Delivery attached within 30 days. - 428833, RUTH LOUISE BEARDSLEY (Exhibit B)
i. Motion For Disclosure was sent First Class Mail, which is all that is required by law. Even emailing is acceptable, which plaintiff-Appellant also did, since there was no appearance on the Defendant.
b) Small claim form was unlawfully entered without the Court Satisfying Agent of Service for Defendant Storquest since Appellant-plaintiff is a Pro Se and unable to proceed with legal action herself) The court had this form for two weeks and could have cured the Agent Of Service, which was not even registered in the State Of Connecticut.
8. MOTION FOR COMPLIANCE was submitted by the Appellant-plaintiff in order to get her rights to Due Process of Law; yet it was denied by the Superior Court Judge Beardsley. (Exhibit B, Exhibit Laws/Orders)
9. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (fee waiver) PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. Section 1915 - as ordered by the Federal District Court to submit, which Appellant has complained the Federal District Court framed her as a convicted criminal. (Exhibit Section C). Fee waiver is granted when the applicant proves indigency and the case is shown to have merit.
10. The Federal District Court judge also placed on record orders for a counsel, including granting fee for a public defender, which was not requested in the fee waiver! Additionally, order on using CM/ ECF site to upload documents was included, despite the fact Appellant never requested the attorney, was not an inmate or probationer, was absolutely not interested in securing any CM/ECF or Pacer account.This document was recently discovered, since the court failed to serve her any orders or pleadings on the cases. The judge uploaded them on CM/ECF, issuing an order to be registered on it yet plaintiff-Appellant did not even seek permission to use it. Document 5 of the Docket and Exhibit Section on Laws/Orders.
a) No fee waiver may be granted unless the case is deemed with merit. Yet this judge labled it frivolous in retaliation of Appellant-plaintiff’s letter of November 12 (Exhibit Section C), which he obviously read and received that very day, and a copy was also faxed to Chief District Judge Stephan Underhill. Judge Haight gave it little thought to cure; rather he dismissed the case as if none of his orders for trial, CM/ECF, Serving process on the defendant, and attorney representation paid by the court did not even exist. Yet he allowed them to remain on docket.
1. This abuse of procedure created a most difficult dynamic for which the Appellant-plaintiff needed to continue to uphold her rights, which have been suppressed by judges who did not care to do their jobs.
c) Inmates and probationers are directed to use this form to the Federal District Court. Searching this on Google, it is defined as “IN FORMA PAUPERIS BY A PRISONER UNDER 28 U.S.C. Section 1915” (Exhibit C, Exhibit on Laws/Orders)
11. A thorough application for fee waiver, IFP, along with a completed court-required COMPLAINT, which she re-titled as “Application for Injunction” was sufficiently made. Superior Court is named as Defendant in aforesaid case; in re: Storquest as the Defendant in the referenced Superior Court Case. Appellant reminded the Federal District Court she was previously approved for waiving of fees by the lower court due to her indigency and confirmation the case had merit.
a) Yet the Federal District Judge CLAIMED it was frivolous without having a hearing or citing reason why he changed his mind. Dismissal was based on the Anti-Injunction Act ( See Docket, Section on Laws/Orders) which has no relevance to this case. (See Plaintiff’s Motion to Appeal IFP to Second Circuit Court, Section C)
12. PRIMARY aggrievement of Appellant caused by the Superior Court of New Haven was three-fold: Abuse of Process; Frauding Records; Failure to grant justiciable motions, first being the pre-trial MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE, to complete the Small Claims Writ Form, which they even granted the fee waiver on. The Federal District Court should have issued a mandumus order (for the Superior Court to issue Default Judgment, Cease And Desist on Storquest, to reinstate the lease and pay legal fees to the Plaintiff-Appellant)
13. Superior Court denied Motion For Cease And Desist Order, deprived her rights to DUE PROCESS OF LAW throughout, using ABUSE OF PROCEDURE. There was no hearing on that case, though the Fed District Court marked it for trial with pre-trial proceedings marked. (Section on Laws/Orders) It was wrongfully adjudicated to favor the non-appearing defendant, Storquest.
14. Plaintiff (appellant) motioned for Default Judgment due to the Defendant Superior Court failing to appear, having a notion that they were served a summons by the court, as indicated on the docket. Default was denied or not even acted upon. The Docket, which they claimed to be THE RECORD, should verify if it was heard.
a) The Federal District Court ineptly dismissed the case, using the Anti-Injunction Act which had no bearing on this case. Appellant was seeking an order from the court to order the lower court to apply the law; not abuse the process. Notice of Intent to Plead and later Motion To Appeal IFP to Second Circuit Court were timely entered into Federal District Court,. (Exhibit Section C) Appellant claimed dismissal for “frivolousness” was inept and more, (Exhibit Section C) This Motion To Appeal IFP was denied by Federal District Judge. Yet this district judge at some point entered an appeal “on behalf of appellant” which had not existed and most likely coaxed as a Devil’s Chessboard tactic by the Supreme Court since they did not acknowledge any appeal on this case to be why they could not process her Certiorari. The letter provided no reason as to why. (Exhibit Section C and Section on Laws/Orders)
b) The fact that the case manager sent more forms to the Appellant is proof that permission for IFP was granted. Rules 4 and 5. (Section on Laws/Orders). The federal district judge’s submitted Appellant-Plaintiff’s appeal ‘as a surprise’ and ‘on her behalf’ virtually a month after this judge denied the Appellant’s Motion to Appeal IFP, which corrected his denial on record, yet without informing the Plaintiff-Appellant he had done so. It was not mentioned in his ruling, which would make sense, since he did not place this on record for a month, yet is probably backdated nefariously.
c) For the Second Circuit Court Clerk to thereafter order this Case Manager to heap another number on the same case if there were two cases, was very abusive, and indeed impeded justice. This was not the Case Manager’s fault. He did all he could to make the record correct and was very understanding why Appellant refused to enter more documents on the very same case, using a different number.
d) According to Court Rules, a notice of appeal need not be filed, yet Rule 11 recommends it. Nevertheless, the date when the order granting permission to appeal is entered serves as the date of the notice of appeal for calculating time under these rules. The case is docketed at that point. Appellant’s case was docketed by the Second Circuit Court. “The district clerk must notify the circuit clerk once the petitioner has paid fees. Upon receiving this notice, the circuit clerk must enter the appeal on the docket. The record must be forwarded and filed in accordance with Rules 11 and 12”
15. STORQUEST WANTED TO TAKE APPELLANT’S POSSESSIONS THROUGH FRAUD, BREACH OF CONTRACT
All of this time, Plaintiff - Appellant’s possessions have been in jeopardy, and reminded the court of this, including personally submitting a letter on September 12, 2022 (Exhibit Section C) and faxing a copy to Judge Underhill in Bridgeport, CT - which emphasized her possessions were scheduled to be auctioned off the following day and the court was abusing procedure as a tactic to later mark the case as moot when they illegally auctioned off her possessions - a noted MODUS OPERANDI abuse which Judge John Abrams used as a tactic when Public Storage also did the same thing to her in 2010. Abrams was located in New Britain, which was the court of jurisdiction for that Public Storage Facility in Berlin, CT.
a. Appellant had rented a unit at Public Storage Facility in Berlin, CT for 9 years. The local courthouse was New Britain, to hear Small Claims. Public Storage owed Appellant more money than they nefariously alleged she owed in 2010. Appellant won a small claim court case/countersuit held in a court outside their jurisdiction, an obvious ‘favor’ for Public Storage - located in Manchester, CT on November 1, 2003 - the morning her poisoned cat died and about 6 months after Appellant had experienced a heart attack from having excessive lead in her apartment water, as determined from having her water checked by the EPA. Appellant only gave her cat distilled water, as suggested by a friend who also had a cat. The EPA Water Department was thereafter literally shut down by the Connecticut Government, as told by the Health Department in New Britain.
b. Neither the court or Public Storage would cooperate for her to collect the $450. At the time of this nefarious lien, unsupported by law, 6 years had passed from the prior court case. Yet it involved the same parties. Appellant-Plaintiff argued throughout that Public Storage received her prepaid money order which she, in fact, sent them a copy of to prove she purchased it and mailed it the same way she always did.
16. Though the replacement manager at STORQUEST in aforementioned case (Melanie replaced Jeremy, who TERMINATED THE LEASE) took Appellant’s possessions off the auction block, she said she could not promise what and when the company will do in the future. Plaintiff (appellant) repeatedly reminded her in documentation that all they have to do is reinstate the lease they breached, and she would resume paying rent. No rent would be paid retroactive, since the lease was terminated. They did not want to do that.
c. Defendant Storquest deliberately failed to appear on the Small Claims Case and would not even correct their nonappearance, and had no Agent of Service to complete the information required by the Small Claim Form. (citing CPB 17-20 (d))
d. A thorough CEASE AND DESIST LETTER from the Appellant-plaintiff was sent BY UPS, WITH REQUEST FOR A FULL SIGNATURE, (Exhibit Section A) to the corporate office in California (an address used by 12-36 companies according to researched information) and emailed to the facility she rented at. UPS delivered it and no signature was obtained as requested. The delivery person was just told to enter a first name down as recipient. This letter was also emailed to the Storquest facility at 140 Ferry Street, New Haven, CT (since they had no Agent of Service and the court refused to cure it) NO RESPONSE BY NON-APPEARING STORQUEST WAS MADE. (Exhibit A)
17. FAILURE TO APPEAR AND ANSWER, SECOND CIRCUIT COURT. According to Local Rule 12.3, an Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance Form, Form D-P, is required for both parties to file appearances, which includes proof of service on all parties. DEFENDANT SUPERIOR COURT FAILED TO APPEAR. Plaintiff-Appellant included a Statement of Evidence to her Appearance due in part for non-appearance of Defendant at that point. Second Circuit Court has no right to enter Defendant’s appearance on their behalf any more than it has a right to whimsickly mark Plaintiff-Appellant’s Appearance,which had already been made part of the Record, as a ‘by the way, your appearance is defective and we won’t tell you what we consider defective’. The Second Circuit Court changed non-appearing Defendant appearance information on record THREE times, not even providing completed appearance forms or affirming they were served on the Appellant-Plaintiff. This was not Due Process of Law; it was illegal what they did, as stated by the Plaintiff-Appellant. The court was wrong in entering Appellant’s timely valid Appearance, yet Abusing Procedure when the Appellant entered Motion For Default on the non-appearing Defendant Superior Court of New Haven, marking the Appellant’s valid appearance (Exhibit Section C) as defective, additionally WITH NO REASON (Exhibit Section Laws/Orders). An errata had been created to improve the already-valid Form D-P, by Appellant due to a need for Evidentiary Statement since the Fed District Court had no transcript of the case.
a) According to Court Rules, Rule 27.1, Motions, (b) Notification, disclosure of Opponents Position - there is no appearing defendant. Appellant would have complied, had she had an appearing defendant to communicate to.
18. After Motion For Default Judgment was entered by Appellant, Second Circuit Court case manager claimed the court clerk told him that an attorney who was Solicitor General was entered as representing the Superior Court of New Haven (Solicitor General, Michael Skold, who works only on U.S. Supreme Court cases, oddly replaced an attorney who was marked as TERMINATED - neither of which filed appearances). Appellant requested their appearances; yet she was refused. They also would not respond to her emails.
d) The Court changed the name of who was appearing for the Superior Court of New Haven a THIRD TIME; and again there was no appearance. Three changes took place - the Docket Sheet was frauded, since there was never any appearance form submitted. REMINDER: Appellant-plaintiff is not registered on Pacer or CM/ECF and therefore the court has to be responsible to provide her a venue to check the case online (which they said there was no venue) or send her ALL COURT DOCUMENTATION WHICH IS UPLOADED ON THE CASE, which they also did not do.
19. Rather than remedy this deliberate abuse of procedure, the Second Circuit court disabled the phone lines and would not respond to the emails sent by Appellant. No matter how hard the appellant tried, there was no connection with the Second Circuit Court for three months, which was another form of Abuse of Procedure using CYBER CRIME, since the phones require connection to internet.
20. The Second Circuit court clerk marked the Appearance Form which was already accepted - as defective during the time this court changed case managers and disrupted the phone lines, which lasted at least one quarter of a year. Appellant claimed this was deliberate Abuse of Procedure; including failing to serve any actions on aforesaid case to her, telling her it was on Pacer, when she is not even registered on Pacer or the CM/ECF site - both of which she is required to seek permission for and she reminded the court that she did not seek any permission to use either PACER or CM/ECF. She submitted all documents (but one mailing) to the “prosecases@ca2.uscourts.gov”, “newcases@ca2.uscourts.gov” . They were confirmed as received by the Case Manager. The one not emailed was mailed since appellant considered it important to send these orginals, reflecting fraud caused by the Superior Court of New Haven. It is apparent that various cyber frauds took place in the attached documents, which has caused the Appellant to prepare an Affidavit on Cyber Fraud on this case, explaining as much as she is able, exhausting her whole weekend and more, having begun this project on Thursday, July 13 after attempts to obtain a full copy of this case failed.
SUMMARY
Pro Se has prepared this motion to the best of her ability, upon review of FRAP and FRCP. Yet it is unclear about the structure. She placed RELIEF SOUGHT at the beginning in order to establish the correct thought process as this motion is reviewed. Ideology, changing the system, etc are not why she has appearance on this case. She is not an attorney. She simply wanted a Cease & Desist of charging unlawful insurance so she could retain her possessions and resume paying rent. Abuse of Procedure and Fraud caused much harm in her efforts for this.
As repeatedly stated: All this time, appellant has claimed the same request. Order Default on Storquest; tell them to reinstate the breached lease which they additionally and wrongfully terminated; Review the CLAIM FOR RELIEF and respond/grant/modify; and at that point she would resume paying rent as long as all of her possessions are still in the unit she was renting before they terminated the lease, No. 1103.
Appellant expects CLAIM FOR RELIEF to be satisfied as well as reinstatement of the lease.
APPENDIX IS ATTACHED
This motion was prepared and Submitted by:
FOR THE APPELLANT
__________________________
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se
PO Box 206514
New Haven, CT 06520
Phone: 203-508-0858
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL AND CORRECT THE DOCKET SHEET/RECORD
Prepared 7/21/2023
Aforesaid document has been emailed this day, 7/21/2023 to the non-appearing defendant:
___THE FOLLOWING SUBMITTED TODAY 7/26/2023_________
COPY TO NON-APPEARING DEFENDANT:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the
SECOND CIRCUIT
July 26, 2023
)
) Case No. 22-CV-2741
ANNE M. BRADLEY )
)
V. )
)
Superior Court - New Haven,CT )
)
)
Affidavit on Motion To Vacate and Correct Record To Reinstate Appeal
Second Circuit Court
Case No. 22-2741
!. I am the plaintiff of this appeal and I am over the age of 18. I believe in the power of oath.
2. I consider the judge in the federal district court to be abusive of procedure as well as directly to me. Judge Haight does not follow the law, he acts spontaneously and serves himself.
a) I presented an APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION. A mandamus is an injunction. Just because I did not know this term as a Pro Se, just seeking for my rights, doesn’t mean the court can make up lies and falsify what I submitted.
b) I was being frauded through an unlawful termination of the contract; WHICH HAS NOT BEEN RESOLVED; any time Storquest could auction off my property, though they took it off the auction block and I do not know if all my property is still located in the unit; WHICH HAS ALSO NOT BEEN RESOLVED. Having this legal expense to defend my rights is not only costly but it is ABUSIVE, and causes me much stress. For Judge Haight to docket my APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION as a full-blown case; then ineptly dismiss the case without curing the docket, is complete ABUSE OF PROCEDURE, LACK OF DUE PROCESS, AND possibly with criminal intent if this is the typical way he handles cases, particularly of Pro Se, Indigent parties. I hope this matter is being considered for criminal prosecution by the FBI; yet this government is not working in a democratic, orderly fashion. Instead, this government is operated by Socialists who claim they abide by the US Constitution, which is the farthest thing they do, in my opinion, based on my own experiences.
i. My aggrievement was obvious. My possessions are in jeopardy. Storquest Terminated my lease; I am disabled and with a poverty-level income and cannot afford to move my belongings elsewhere just because this company, which is unregistered as a business and did not even have an Agent of Service, decides to breach the lease and demand I pay them $15 more, claiming it was for insurance which I never even applied for. Months later, they got an insurance company in Indiana, Excor, to claim my insurance was cancelled as of August 2022, when I never took out any insurance. I submitted a complaint to the State of Indiana, after which a THIRD PARTY CONTRACTED BY THE STATE sent me a letter claiming they did nothing wrong, refusing to respond to the issues on my complaint, including their refusal to provide me the insurance documents they claim existed on my alleged file. This third party also claimed that ExCor was located in California, not Indiana, when they use an Indiana address and the letter failed to explain anything else, So it is fraud pancaking on fraud!
3. There is a lot of CYBER CRIME which supports the courts and I have found numerous documents of mine have been frauded. Even the Second Circuit Court is frauding records, to include ordering they will allow me to proceed if I submit an IFP application - WHEN IN FACT I SUBMITTED A MOTION TO PROCEED WITH APPEAL AS IFP - I did not motion to proceed appeal separately from IFP. They were together and had to be ruled together. The real strange thing about this federal court judge is he issued an appeal to the Second Circuit Court a month after he closed the case, which was not pursuant to any law, and case closure is not a case dismissal yet until a law is applied, they are used as wordplay so the judge can alter their intent to fit the occasion.
4. AFTER I submitted an appeal to the US Supreme Court in the form of Petition of Certiorari, I was abused even more by the Supreme Court telling me that they could not take it because I submitted my Emergency Application For Injunction with the Certiorari, and thus they claimed they returned it for inappropriate filing even though I did not have a case number and they would undoubtedly need the same case number. Additional dialogue back-and-forth took place with an office staff who was not an attorney and said she was telling me what she was told to say by the attorney, which were UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I was sent a letter from an attorney at the Supreme Court who simply said, “I cannot help you” and the letter is provided in this Appendix To Motion To Vacate Dismissal.
5. NEVERTHELESS, THIS CASE CANNOT BE RULED AS FRIVOULOUS. IT WAS NOT HEARD. THE DEFENDANT EVEN FAILS TO APPEAR AT ALL JUNCTURES. This is cause for DEFAULT and among other things, the court is supposed to consider it disrespectul to not enter an appearance or answer/objection as well as it provides indication that the non-appearing defendant is AT FAULT.
6. This is a situation where I am being deprived justice because certain judges in the Superior Court are part of the organized crime that undermines this state. Namely:
a) Magistrate Beardsley
b) Judge Kamp
c) Judge Abrams
i. I have provided ample reasons, including my own experiences with these judges; such as an illegal eviction order by Judge Abrams, who for a year, was just making the “rabbit hole” he created in court deeper and reflective of his own corruption. I paid rent into court. Yet he allowed the landlord to enter a small claim lawsuit against me for rent! And the Small Claims Court entered it because Housing Court told them it was legitamate! If anything, the Housing Court should have told the Pro Se landlord to enjoin a complaint for rent to the case, but they did not. This was complete fraud. And when the alleged hearing took place, I was ordered to go to the city offices, not court. I said that was outside the court procedure. Instead, they said, “We do that all the time.” The case was not docketed; they frauded records, and a person who claimed to be an attorney in the city office did not produce any proof they were representing the Court of Connecticut.
Judge Abrams also helped Public Storage steal my belongings in 2010 or 2011 - through an illegal lien. I paid my rent timely. They denied they got my money order, which I was regularly sending them the same way. I faxed a copy of proof I got the money order, including a copy of the money order. They even had owed me $450 for a counterclaim against them, yet for years I was unable to collect, Public Storage was taking advantage of my being Pro Se, and more. The fact that they issued an unlawful lien in 2010, would make what they owed to me a fraudulent matter. Yet I was attending school full time and they took advantage of my efforts to do anything positive in my life. I was illicitly forced out of that school after this too. There was no incident. The administration was just serving the wants of corrupted politicians who run their jobs as socialists, not as free citizens of a federal republic.My property was auctioned off before I even knew. They did not call me. They knew mail was an opportunity to claim they sent me a notice but could backdate the stamped postage.
ii. I could say so much more about this corrupted court system! For Federal District Court to not only refuse to right a wrong, but also take part in corruption, is in my opinion, a great disservice to this country, reflecting deliberate abuse of power and evading the administration of law, which is their job!
7. The issue of continuous CYBER CRIME as a tool to aid and abet the court wants is constant. I do all I can to avoid the need for internet because of it. Uploaded documents on the Superior Court Case have been frauded. NEVERTHELESS, the very fact that the defendant did not appear and the court clerk entered DEFAULT JUDGMENT the same day they received my MOTION FOR DEFAULT, and the Superior Court actually not uploading that judgment onto the case - should have been an immediate reason for the Federal District Judge to issue a mandamus to the Superior Court of New Haven, to grant my motion for default, which is also a state law in Connnecticut.
8. The Superior Court clumped all of my pre-trial motions, some of which they had since June 16, on August 11 - all the same day - was more ABUSE AND ALSO ACTING OUTSIDE THE LAW.
a) Judge Beardsley denied a motion indicating that the matters would be taken up at trial
b) Judge Beardsley dismissed the case on the same day as (a)
c) Judge Beardsley made an unlawful order that I had to give her proof of mailing on a motion which I faxed to the court and not only emailed to the non-appearing defendant’s storage facility but also sent first class to the defendant’s storage facilty - since there was no Agent of Service and they had no appearance. Her husband is Attorney Sansone, and even though she uses Bethany, CT as her home address, he uses Waterbury, CT as their home address. It doesn’t take a genius to wonder if his affiliation with Phil Giordano remained active and what corruption are they up to currently. His receiving an award from the LOCAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, for his alleged “work” in KENYA, AFRICA only raises more of a red flag about wondering what the local CHAMBER OF COMMERCE is up to. They certainly do not care about whether their member companies are even registered as businesses in the state of Connecticut. I got a run-around that Storquest was actually operating as WWG, Inc (William Warren Group, which is in part named after Warren Jeffs, who is supposed to be in prison for life for pedophilia and rape) - yet Storquest is not listed as a member company of WWG in the Chamber Of Commerce, yet other companies have been listed there. Whether they are legitamately or not is in question.
d) The Court ordered that an answer did not need an appearance. THAT IS UNLAWFUL ON ITS FACE. At all times, both parties have to be transparent with their address, phone number, and hopefully email. There was none of this. The Storage Facility just claimed they were sending everything to the corporate office and refused to tell me even what that corporate office’s address was. I had discovered that the co-founder of Storquest was sentenced to life in prison for paedophilia and rape - and he, Warren Jeffs, was a leader of a Mormon sect called “Fundamentalists of Latter Day Saints”, promoting paedophilia and more crimes. I shared it was my opinion the Mormon Church should have sued them for misrepresenting them yet instead I had Mormons tell me, “We are all sinners; they work out their own salvation”, which I considered immoral and unlawful. I also stated that Warren Jeffs may have obtained a change of identity like pedophile -rapist Phil Giordano (former mayor of Waterbury, CT who molested and raped children in his office, yet was sentence in 2007, and a month later CIGNA got a new CEO, who looked like Giordano, calling himself David Cordani and also using the alias Dan Cordani. Here it is 2023 and he is still there, enjoying a salary of $19 million a year or more! Yet they frauded records claiming since 2020, he got most of his wealth from owning stock in the company. An obvious CYBER CRIME to allude his pay was about a million dollars a year, for a job he was not even qualified for. Yet now, they claim he “climbed the ladder” and it was a natural progression, now that they have had opportunity to fraud records and get rid of employees who may care about the fact their CEO is a fugitive from justice. Yet, with Storquest, the employees in Customer Service do not care, just want to keep their own jobs, and will do nothing to ensure they were not working for organized crime, after I made some comments to them, based on the circumstance of my needing to research as much as possible, since Storquest deliberately broke the law by breaching my lease and even though I exposed it for what it was, including sending them a Cease & Desist letter myself - since the Superior Court failed to, I got no response even though UPS has proof of delivery. That very address was used by 12 - 34 company names. The overlapping of words/wordplay on the company titles may have reduced the 34 to about 12.
9. Not only did the Second Circuit Court use CYBER CRIME to disrupt my ability to even connect on the phone from January or February to June 2023, I sent them emails which were sent successfully and they did not respond. They did not call me. My phone number had been the same for over 10 years, yet they recently entered my number in a recently-mailed docket at 203-668-0568. THAT IS FRAUD. In fact, I called that number and the woman who answered told me she gets frequent calls by people who ask for me. I did not ask her for her name because I did not want to pull her into my case. It would be unfair to her. I just thanked her and told her I did not want to know who called her. They are most likely harmful frauds and it was not worth the risk. She was making dinner for her family and the call was ended amicably. My number has been 203-909-9131 for ten years or more. Yet recently, in June, T-Mobile stopped my autopay and when I noticed and called them, they refused to process my payment even though they had the correct bank information. I was more than irritated at that point, due to the constant corruption I experience. I demanded they process the payment because I did not want them to create a circumstance to use to turn my service off. In fact, they continued to refuse, even a store manager kicked me out of his store threatening he would call police if I did not leave, when I was doing nothing to show I was a threat of any kind and emphasized I went to their store to get answers in my billing and why were they not processing my autopay. The other T-Mobile store said, “We do not handle billing questions”. I noticed their store as I had to go to Best Buy to get a sim card since T-Mobile did turn off my service, jeopardizing my safety and security, on June 25, 2023. Though I spent hours on the phone thereafter to get my transfer pin to use the same number I had, they would not provide it, even though corporate office ultimately said I could get it and he would transfer me. I was on hold for over a half hour and by the time I finished with that representative he transferred me to, the corporate office was closed. How handy. CYBER CRIME may have been the culprit there, to make it all “neat and tidy”. So, I had to remain with my new number, of which I am submitting an Errata on my Appearance, since the Court has ordered that any changes to my appearance have to be relayed to the court. I have, since I was able to connect with the court the last week of May, as I recall, and I received some documents from the new case manager, Yana Segal, in June. Those documents came up missing and I had to ask for them again, TWICE. I also emphasized that TWICE - in December 2022 as well as February 2023, I submitted a formal request for the record of this case, since I am Pro Se, Indigent, and there is absolutely no public resource locally which I can access my file electronically to view and print. That very aspect is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, rigged by lawmakers. It is really pathetic they are lawmakers when in my experience, they are lawbreakers, seemingly enjoying a license to break the law rather than administer it.
10. My laptop would not boot up, caused by cyber crime, and I was unable to prepare a Motion For Default Judgment on my laptop for Superior Court Case Bradley vs Storquest Storage Association. (Exhibit A) on 7/28/2023.I claim this was CYBER CRIME. I have relayed most or all of the following in pleadings, affidavits to the court:
1. Appellant had to go to Tyco Copy Center to prepare this Motion For Default and it was faxed by Tyco, to the Superior Court of New Haven during their office hours. The Superior Court also provided her a stamped copy of the first page.
2. Court Clerk entered DEFAULT on 7/28/2023, mailed to Appellant, yet the court refused to enter this DEFAULT, seemingly sure that CYBER CRIME and vandalism in her apartment would take care of its disappearance, as Appellant-plaintiff told the court clerk. This is MODUS OPERANDI. VERY TYPICAL OF THIS COURT.
3. Appellant-plaintiff argued verbally as well as in documentation that the only time proof of service is required in Small Claims is when serving the initial Small Claim Writ, Complaint and any additional documents, iaw Rules of Court (24-10). There is also an option to email those documents, which the Appellant also did (Exhibit B, Small Claim Form Documents) The Court did not reject the Proof of Service in mailing the Small Claim Form, which was attached to the receipt for proof of mailing, and as she did thereafter, though not required since all motions could be mailed FIRST CLASS, yet Appellant was experiencing a very dishonest dynamic as she attempted to get her rights from a deliberately-breached lease. (Exhibit B)
4. STORQUEST FAILED TO COMPLY WITH PROVIDING AN AGENT OF SERVICE, THE SUPERIOR COURT DID NOTHING TO ENSURE THE RECORD WAS SATISFIED AT THE TIME IT WAS UPLOADED ON THE DOCKET AND MADE IT AS DIFFICULT AS POSSIBLE TO IMPEDE THE RIGHTS OF THE APPELLANT-PLAINTIFF, USING ABUSE OF PROCEDURE.
5. Motion For Default Judgment, served by Appellant-plaintiff on 7/28/2022. Ruling, 8/11/2022 (same day as ruling on Motion For Disclosure, No. 102): “Plaintiff’s Motion For Default Judgment (No. 105) is denied without prejudice. See Order regarding Motion For Disclosure or Accept Service”
1. The judge’s order refused to grant default claiming - even admitting - the court uploaded a defective Small Claim since no Agent of Service was satisfied on record and the Court refused to act on the properly-served Motion For Disclosure. Appellant provided proof of service of Motion For Disclosure - issued on 8/11, 12 days after the MOTION FOR DEFAULT was entered, and over a month after the MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE. Appellant-plaintiff claimed the order was unbelievably frivolous, unlawful. No matter what the plaintiff (appellant) submitted to correct their failure of Due Process and abuse of procedure, they would not correct themselves - and Storquest remained non-appearing, with NO AGENT OF SERVICE, and abusive to this Appellant-plaintiff, who was a customer for nine years; with no delinquency!
i. During this time plaintiff (appellant‘s) landlord was again attempting to evict her using CYBER CRIME in the form of fraudulent billing activity and more. Plaintiff (appellant) claimed they were just ganging up on her to keep spinning their corruption.
6. The plaintiff’s landlord disabled wifi in her apartment in January 2023, an amenity which she has had for ten years. Appellant’s washing machine was also remotely turned off in January 2023, after the maintenance supervisor relieved himself in the trash can of her bathroom. Appellant set aside her paperwork on CLAIM FOR RELIEF to stay alert on what these two maintenance employees were doing in her very small apartment. The bathroom door was partially closed when the maintenance supervisor was supposed to be changing the filter to the dryer, a routine job. He told the other employee, who was outside the bathroom, to get him a new screwdriver, saying “My tip broke”. During this time, it was unknown what he was doing behind the door. There are many who are using either a chip or earphone, such as state police use, to do what someone else is telling them to do. Appellant is well-aware of this unhealthy dynamic. Only law enforcement should be doing this. After Appellant issued a complaint about the maintenance manager defecating and urinating in her trash can, she was blocked from wifi - this all occurred in January 2023. Cyber Crime like this has caused great disruption in her ability to work on this aforesaid matter. The landlord has furthered this dynamic by currently claiming their need to remodel this young multi-billion dollar building eracted in 2010, which had been remodeled just 5 years ago.
7. It is apparent that the courts humor themselves, fully knowing that convicted pedophile Phil Giordano (who raped and molested children in his office of Mayor, Waterbury, CT) was made a fugitive from justice by CIA, given new identity and initially plastic eye surgery, yet his Adam’s Apple was also shaved at some point to soften his voice. He is CEO of CIGNA, having referred to himself as both “Dan” and “David” Cordani, and most likely referring himself to being “born again” having over $119 million dollars in wealth and being the highest paid executive in Connecticut without having any experience, let alone skill. This insurance company was Appellant’s prior dental insurance. Appellant concluded CIGNA top management is engaged in organized crime and she changed plans last year because of it. They gave “Cordani” a salary of over $19million/year, which was later frauded on internet, aka CYBER CRIME, to approximately $1.5 million and the rest of the money was earned shares in the company. He was “hired” in 2007, one month after his sentenced was reduced to 37 years from life in prison (which co-founder of Storquest and WWG, Warren Jeffs, was sentenced to yet is probably another pedophile fugitive from justice - most likely “Clark Porter” since Storquest gave him numerous titles to shade his existence)
8. Appellant’s mobile phone service stopped auto pay scheduled for June 4-6 2023; and when appellant called them about the autopay not coming out of her account, they refused to process her payment. They continued to refuse as she called them several times over the course of two weeks. The store manager refused to go over her account and told her to leave or he would call police. They also turned her service off, which is CYBER CRIME and fraud, jeopardizing her safety and security, on June 25. This billing trick was similar to what Storquest has done, and similar to what the Appellant-plaintiff’s landlord was doing - all at the same time. This caused her to have to leave her apartment on Sunday, June 25, to get a sim card and activate it, since T-Mobile refused again to process her payment even though all this time they had the correct bank information to do so. Appellant has to lock as much up as she can since her apartment is illegally entered by the landlord on a continuous basis, including vandalizing and theft.
9. The file containing all scanned documents on this case, as well as the typed motions, were deleted from this laptop. This was more CYBER CRIME. Additionally,
a) Another issue is that there is a second case which this court entered in their system - most likely after they entered 22-2741, yet it was given a lower number, 22-1871, on this very same appeal. Appellant claimed that was deliberate records fraud when they refused to remove it. There was no Notice of Appeal, and the documents on that separate docket were additionally never sent by the appellant. Their refusal to remove the case upon request, using logic, leads the appellant to conclude deliberate records fraud. They claimed thereafter they combined the “two cases” despite the fact there was only one case and never any documents on the other, which was created after 22-2741.
10. Almost daily, the Appellant has to contend with CYBER CRIME on her laptop, when she is using it. Files get deleted, the screen is locked for a time and she cannot do anything until this function stops, and more. It is imperative to re-read everything she types due to words being altered after they are typed and at the time of printing. The US Government only enjoys this dynamic, since the Technocrats are helping fraud records and more. Their legislation almost always helps the Technocrats make more money, fraud the citizens of the U.S.A.
11. There is no Second Circuit Appeal Case #2817. I have not submitted any document on any case other than the one which was issued to me after I contacted them to file MOTION TO APPEAL IFP. It was not a Motion to Appeal and a Motion For IFP. I have said this so many times and they keep frauding records! Yet this Court Clerk continues to submit orders on that case, even denying what I never submitted, and REFUSE TO PROVIDE ME THE DOCUMENTS FROM THAT RECORD, OBVIOUSLY TO COVER UP THEIR FRAUD!
12. All references to “Appellant” are me. My appearance was legitamate and thorough. I included the fact that the defendant was non-appearing. Yet, still, I provided all documents to the New Haven Court as well as emailed them to “externalaffairs”, as noted in the Certification of Service. At no point had “externalaffairs” indicate that this was the wrong email. The emails were confirmed as sent. NOT EVEN THE DOCKET SHEET ON THIS CASE PROVIDES THEIR APPEARANCE FORM.
This Affidavit is 12 pages, Prepared today, June 26, 2023, and numbered in the header because the footer does not print.
Prepared and Submitted,
By the APPELLANT
________________ (notarized)
Anne M. Bradley
Update 6/4/2023
STORQUEST SENT ME A BACKDATED NOTICE OF AUCTIONING OFF MY PROPERTY "BECAUSE THEY CAN" not because it is legitamate! I had to drop what I was doing and go to their facility because their customer service is impossible - total rude idiots! For instance, she said, "Just pay us the $2,000+ and we can join you with your possessions." WTF I said, "That is so weird how you describe that! Here they had a pedophile founder of the company, Warren Jeffs - and apparently they want to excuse why he rapes and molests children. It made him a lot of money, apparently. The Jeffrey Epstein way - and these employees only care about that.
STORQUEST TOLD ME THEY WILL AUCTION OFF MY POSSESSIONS THIS WEEK, I THINK THE 7TH. THEY DID NOT PROVIDE ME ANYTHING IN WRITING! THEY CLAIM I OWE MONEY WHEN THERE WAS NO LEASE! THEY TERMINATED IT AND I SAID, REINSTATE IT SO I CAN PAY RENT! SIMPLE SOLUTION TO THEIR FRAUD! BUT NO, THEY REFUSE AND KEEP FRAUDING! They also wrote off all rent charges and then injected them in recently in their 2023 ledger! Ten charges for one month!
anchor.fm/terra-cotta - there are a few recordings regarding this here. Reminder: I am not seeking monetary help. They or the New Haven Court owe me $5,000 and once they reinstate the lease, I will pay rent from that day forward.
My affidavit and motion referred to the Fed District Judge framing me as a convicted criminal. THEY MADE ME COMPLETE THE FEE WAIVER FORM WITH THE BELOW-LAW ON TOP - I questioned it. I asked them what the law meant. They deceptively claimed it was for those with federal poverty level incomes. Searching online for this law turned up nothing! CYBER CRIME COVERED IT. Once I had time, I was able to find it at the law library and I was steamed! Yet it is typical of this dishonest judge!
Case No. cv-1101 (CSH)
**********************************************************************************************************************************************************
CITATION OF 28 U.S.C. 1915
(a)(1) Subject to subsection (b), any court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such prisoner possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. Such affidavit shall state the nature of the action, defense or appeal and affiant's belief that the person is entitled to redress.
(2) A prisoner seeking to bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding without prepayment of fees or security therefor, in addition to filing the affidavit filed under paragraph (1), shall submit a certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint or notice of appeal, obtained from the appropriate official of each prison at which the prisoner is or was confined.
(3) An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.
(b)(1) Notwithstanding subsection (a), if a prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal in forma pauperis, the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee. The court shall assess and, when funds exist, collect, as a partial payment of any court fees required by law, an initial partial filing fee of 20 percent of the greater of--
(A) the average monthly deposits to the prisoner's account; or
(B) the average monthly balance in the prisoner's account for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint or notice of appeal.
(2) After payment of the initial partial filing fee, the prisoner shall be required to make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month's income credited to the prisoner's account. The agency having custody of the prisoner shall forward payments from the prisoner's account to the clerk of the court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 until the filing fees are paid.
(3) In no event shall the filing fee collected exceed the amount of fees permitted by statute for the commencement of a civil action or an appeal of a civil action or criminal judgment.
(4) In no event shall a prisoner be prohibited from bringing a civil action or appealing a civil or criminal judgment for the reason that the prisoner has no assets and no means by which to pay the initial partial filing fee.
(c) Upon the filing of an affidavit in accordance with subsections (a) and (b) and the prepayment of any partial filing fee as may be required under subsection (b), the court may direct payment by the United States of the expenses of (1) printing the record on appeal in any civil or criminal case, if such printing is required by the appellate court; (2) preparing a transcript of proceedings before a United States magistrate judge in any civil or criminal case, if such transcript is required by the district court, in the case of proceedings conducted under section 636(b) of this title or under section 3401(b) of title 18, United States Code; and (3) printing the record on appeal if such printing is required by the appellate court, in the case of proceedings conducted pursuant to section 636(c) of this title. Such expenses shall be paid when authorized by the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.
(d) The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in such cases. Witnesses shall attend as in other cases, and the same remedies shall be available as are provided for by law in other cases.
(e)(1) The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.
(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that--
(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(B) the action or appeal--
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
(f)(1) Judgment may be rendered for costs at the conclusion of the suit or action as in other proceedings, but the United States shall not be liable for any of the costs thus incurred. If the United States has paid the cost of a stenographic transcript or printed record for the prevailing party, the same shall be taxed in favor of the United States.
(2)(A) If the judgment against a prisoner includes the payment of costs under this subsection, the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of the costs ordered.
(B) The prisoner shall be required to make payments for costs under this subsection in the same manner as is provided for filing fees under subsection (a)(2).
(C) In no event shall the costs collected exceed the amount of the costs ordered by the court.
(g) In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
(h) As used in this section, the term “prisoner” means any person incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms and conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program.
**********************************************************************************************************************************************************
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the
SECOND CIRCUIT
August 2, 2023
) Case No. 22-CV-2741
ANNE M. BRADLEY )
)
V. )
)
Superior Court - New Haven,CT )
)
APPENDIX
MOTION TO VACATE AND CORRECT RECORD
Exhibit Orders, Actions Page No.
Notice of Lease Termination 6/9/2022 1
Small Claims Writ and Notice of Suit 6/14/2022 3
Notice of Suit processed by court 7/6/2022 6
Docket Sheet of NNH-CV-5054091 7
Default Order by Superior Court 7/29/2022 9A
(inserted to correct error)
Order on Doc No. 102 8/11/2022 9
Order on Doc No. 103 8/11/2022 10
Order on Doc No. 104 8/11/2022 11
i
Order on Doc No. 105 8/11/2022 12
Order on Doc No. 106 8/11/2022 unavailable
Federal District Court
“Take Papers Only” Application for Injunction 13
IFP For Application For Injunctive Order IFP -
AS ORDERED BY THE COURT PURSUANT TO
28 USC 1915 14
CITATION OF 28 USC 1915 “Prisoners/Convicted Criminals” 15
Converted to a full blown case by order of the court
Order on Pretrial Deadlines,
Doc 4 of Docket 8/31/2022 18
COURT ORDER regarding CMECF registration “approved” see docket sheet for acknowledgment of order to register CMECF
Form required to seek permission
For CMECF - blank, not submitted 19
Consent for Electronic Notice - email, not CMECF 20
Deadlines/Hearings for court-ordered TRIAL 21
Civil Docket for Case 3:22-cv-01101-CSH 22
Email showing lack of service on plaintiff 29
And lack of transparency; documents could not be opened
Court’s admittance of LACK OF LITIGATING 36
RETURN OF Plaintiff’s Documents
Requested by Plaintiff due to the court’s failure to litigate
ii
“Ruling on Complaint” 9/12/2022 39
Other rulings, case activity
(RULING ON TAKE PAPERS ONLY,
REQ FOR INJUNCTION)
Note, only one pleading was made!
Dismissal of FAKE Case, 12/27/2022 22-2817 60
Case Status Update Notice, 2/27/2023
Filing Fee Required for IFP Appellant, 22-2741 61
Recommended for dismissal since IFP
Did not pay fee - which makes no sense. Case was docketed
After MOTION TO APPEAL IFP was granted!
DISMISSAL OF CASE, NOT SERVED ON APPELLANT 62
Letter to the Court - 7 PAGES 8/2/2023 63
NOTICE OF LIEN, FRAUDULENT BILLING 70
END 81
iii
*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the
SECOND CIRCUIT
August 2,2023
)
) Case No. 22-CV-2741
ANNE M. BRADLEY )
)
V. )
)
Superior Court - New Haven,CT )
)
)
APPELLANT’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR INJUNCTION/MANDATE
Appeal To
Second Circuit Court
Case No. 22-2741
Pursuant to 27 U.S.C. Section 122a (INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT) and any other law or rule to include in FRCP, FRAP, which provides this relief, Pro Se IFP Appellant motions The Second Circuit Court for CEASE AND DESIST order on Storquest Storage Association.
HISTORY
This case arose from Storquest nefariously terminating the lease. Appellant demanded they reinstate the lease. They refused. Appellant informed them she would have to file a small claims lawsuit on them to assert her rights, since they had no legal standing to terminate the lease. It was clearly BREACH OF CONTRACT.
FACTS
1. Superior Court of New Haven repeatedly abused procedure, denied DUE PROCESS OF LAW, and allowed the non-appearing defendant to win on the case; refusing to grant the Appellant’s justified MOTION FOR DEFAULT, pursuant to Rules of Court as well as state law, despite entering DEFAULT on the case, yet deliberately evading from uploading it on the case.
2. Plaintiff Anne M. Bradley found it necessary to seek an injunctive order from the higher court, Federal District Court due to the lawlessness of the Superior Court of New Haven.
3. The Federal District Court framed plaintiff as a convicted criminal, ordering her to complete a fee waiver using their IFP Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915. Due to the landlord of the plaintiff manipulating her use of wifi, she was unable to to verify what this law was and there was no reference to applying to convicted criminals, yet the Court obviously knew what they were doing, which was ilicitly framing her to aid and abet New Haven Superior Court, which breaks laws and rules to serve its wants, aiding and abetting the non-appearing defendant Storquest Storage, which did not even have an Agent Of Service on record, nor was it a registered company. The Superior Court REFUSED to cure these issues though Plaintiff-Appellant motioned for Disclosure in order to make the Small Claim complete and correct. The Superior Court even demanded that the small claim be serve by a marshal, despite the fact they deliberately failed to rule on the Motion For Disclosure. Plaintiff-Appellant REFUSED, citing the court rule in Chapter 24 of the Connecticut Rules of Practice, which allows her to serve it PRIORITY MAIL.
4. The lawlessness of the Superior Court disrupted justice on this case.
5. The lawlessness of the Federal District Court disrupted justice on this case.
6. It would seem conceivable that the Second Circuit Court has the power to order the non-appearing defendant to order a CEASE AND DESIST ON THE SALE OF PROPERTY WHICH STORQUEST UNLAWFULLY SEIZED, BASED ON AN UNLAWFUL TERMINATION OF THE LEASE, BREACH OF CONTRACT.
7. It would also seem conceivable that the Second Circuit Court has the power to order the Federal District Court to issue such mandate for CEASE AND DESIST; yet the Federal District Court has proven to be lawless and abusive to the harmed Appellant.
8. It would seem conceivable that the Second Circuit Court on its own motion may order this CEASE AND DESIST on Storquest Storage Facility, since Appeal is in Re: Bradley vs Storquest Storage Facility, Superior Court of New Haven - directly in order to provide a just and speedy resolution to a case which has been “pancaked” with corruption.
9. Pro Se IFP Appellant Anne M. Bradley emphasizes that she appealed to include Storquest directly as one of the defendants. The Second Circuit Court denied this due to the Federal District Court denying to include Storquest in the Application For Injunction, TAKE PAPERS ONLY, which the Federal District Court ordered to be a full-blown case - obviously using their jobs as a weapon rather than administering justice. The Record was not corrected despite the plaintiff-appellant preparing a typed letter to the federal district court, copying its chief judge in Bridgeport, CT (Stefan Underhill). Rather, the federal district judge abruptly, spontaneously, dismissed the case with no hearing - obviously reflecting he was defending his right to break the law.
10. No judge has a right to break the law; they take an oath to administer it; they take a higher oath as judges to ensure justice, not be traitors to the USA, violating laws and rules of court because they don’t feel like abiding by them.
11. This motion comprises of 8 pages along with the inept NOTICE OF LIEN which Storquest sent AFTER THE FACT by either mailing it to the wrong address to delay receiving it - or frauding postal records to reflect it had been routed that way and thus the certified letter arrived at her postal box “too late”. Note, a forwarding address was issued through the USPS, due to the landlord’s repeated abuse and manipulation of mail. Additionally, Appellant has informed Storquest, her landlord, and Housing Authority that her mailing address is to be her PO Box and her phone number had to be changed due to fraudulent billing by T-Mobile, nefariously stopping her autopay and refusing to process payment. At no point did Storquest email this Lien Notice, though they could have easily done so. Formatting the page numbers had to be placed at the top of the page due to cyber crime abuse by Microsoft.
12. Appendix to MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL, has been delayed in completion, due to unforeseen circumstances not Appellant’s fault. This Appendix is electronically served with this motion today, August 2, 2023.
13. At no point was there a STAY OF PROCEEDINGS, which the Federal District Judge falsified regarding the case, Bradley Vs. Storquest. A Motion For Injunction is NOT a stay of proceedings. The Appellant motioned this to the Superior Court of New Haven for a CEASE AND DESIST order, due to the unlawful termination of lease by Storquest.
14. CLAIM FOR RELIEF has been thoroughly submitted to this court as well as the lower courts. Appellant emphasizes that this has been a most traumatic stress factor, which has been compounded by her landlord and the Housing Authority abusing power with a “kick them when they are down” behavior - to include long-term excessive radiowave frequency attacks in her apartment, which have physically harmed her; and to include continuous vandalism of her apartment by illegal intruders as well as circumstances of burglary, assault, even failure to even change her door lock when she moved in - which the housing judge refused to do anything about because he was set out to help the landlord evict her. Judge Cordani didn’t get away with it because good attorneys pressured him to do his job rather than criminally manage the case.
SUMMARY
The Appellant has found this overall experience seeking justice to be most daunting and reflective of corruption in the courts. She is the one who has been harmed through all this, as a physically disabled Pro Se Indigent litigant who has Federal Poverty Level Income. Rather than the court apply the law as well as be expeditious, they dragged out the case in both lower courts, as if to expect the Plaintiff-Appellant to eventually give up if they could just continue breaking laws themselves to abuse power and serve their wants. As already mentioned, Judge Abrams was in the New Britain Court when he enjoyed helping Public Storage steal the Plaintiff-Appellant’s possessions which covered even her childhood, and also included an antique sewing machine and other valuables - all to violate and exploit - a mission which the Obama Administration was on, to thereafter make a false claim, “If that didn’t happen, she would not be famous, “the world wouldn’t know her/him” This exploitation has only one ultimate, Satanic purpose, which is to deceive the public, devalue the social norms, and use “stupid as a weapon” which was rightfully coined by Joe Imbriano on YouTube. Appellant brings this to light in order to emphasize the public nuisance which the courts have become, rather than professionally doing their jobs. This behavior reflects they are being psyops for CIA, as a suspicion. Yet as a focus on the aforementioned case, Pro Se, Indigent, Appellant emphasizes she has a legal right to her possessions, a legal right for the lease to be reinstated, and a legal right to pay rent from the date it is reinstated only - since Storquest terminated the lease unlawfully and have refused to have any discussion with Appellant since the small claim was issued - despite not even appearing on the case - evading all responsibilities.
WHEREFORE, the Pro Se Appellant moves the Second Circuit Court to order CEASE AND DESIST injunction to Storquest; or issue an injunction, aka mandate, on the Superior Court of New Haven to do so in order to stop Storquest from stealing her possessions and auctioning off her possessions as they stated they would be doing on August 7, not even providing any written notice to the Appellant.
Appendix
A. Storquest Lien, expired Auction date
B. Landlord letter, mandating inspection 8/2/2023 (36 hr notice)
C. Housing Authority letter, expired hearing date
Prepared and Submitted,
FOR THE APPELLANT
______________________
Anne M. Bradley
PO Box 206514
New Haven, CT 06520
Ph 203-508-0858
**********************************************************************************************************************************************************
Anne M. Bradley
P.O. Box 206514
New Haven, CT 06520
August 2, 2023
Second Circuit Court
40 Foley Square
Email: prosecases@ca2.uscourts.gov
New York, NY
Attn: Clerk of the Court, affiliate Judges of the Court
Thru: Yana Segal, Case Manager
Dear Judicial Members of the Court:
Re: Case 22-2741
I am unable to get another statement notarized and therefore I am sending this letter to accompany my many efforts to get my rights, as a storage unit customer whose LEASE WAS TERMINATED AND NOT REINSTATED. Yet this company unlawfully continued to bill me, admitting it terminated the lease.
I am disabled. It is very hard on my legs to walk long distances. I have been greatly harmed by the state I live in. I have no choice but to remain here. I would return to the Midwest if I could.
I have a Federal Poverty Level income. I am subjected with continuous abuse of procedure as a means to get me to stop trying to get my rights.
I filed for an application for injunctive order; the federal district court abused power ordering it to be a full blown case fully knowing my possessions were in jeopardy and they would enjoy causing the case to be moot once my possessions were stolen and auctioned off. This is MODUS OPERANDI of what Judge
1
Abrams did to me in New Britain, as I have already stated. Judge Abrams is now enjoying doing this to me again, conspiring with Storquest. I paid my rent timely. Because I used the phone pay system, they could not lie about not getting my payment, though with Public Storage, they had proof I purchased the money order. I faxed it to them. This should have stopped their abusive billing. Nevertheless, they claimed I owed $260; stealing my personal and private possessions and auctioning them off even though they never paid me the $450 they owed me. This is in particular where the court comes in.
Storquest tacked on an insurance charge - which violated the lease and provided them an erroneous excuse to BREACH THE LEASE. That is always what the legal action has been about! The court is not giving me DUE PROCESS and I have done everything in my power to defend my rights as a Pro Se Litigant, which the court is supposed to liberally allow my documents when they are submitted in good faith. My certifications of mailing have been in good faith. THERE HAS NOT EVEN BEEN AN APPEARANCE BY THE DEFENDANT. I have requested several times for this alleged appearance form; at no point will the court cure this even though I made formal requests, typed, in December of 2022 as well as February 2023 - at which time the court had disabled my connection with them, obviously through abuse of internet powers. Nevertheless, I sent emails informing them that Markus Marshal’s phone was disconnected and I attempted to get through the court several other ways and was informed by a automated system that it was a SYSCO service and disconnected me.
I have made every effort to get my rights!
I now have to submit this EMERGENCY MOTION FOR CEASE AND DESIST due to Storquest’s attempt to steal my possessions, hand them over to a seller, which is unlawful chain-of-custody, and the company was not even a registered company in Connecticut last year when I checked; just as Storquest was not registered and had no AGENT OF SERVICE. The Superior Court of New Haven refused to cure that yet approved my fee waiver and deliberately caused the Small Claims Writ to be defective. This is constant abuse of power, not justice!
2
I completed every form which the case manager provided me. Markus was attentive and responded to my messages. At a later point, around December, a male with a Hispanic accent claimed HE was Markus and disrupted the case by misinforming me, refusing to respond to my request for records since I am not registered on PACER or CMECF (an abuse of procedure which I was subjected to by the Federal District Court, since they refused to mail me anything yet I was not registered in their internet system, which I consider to be more opportunity to abuse power through internet and as Pro Se Indigent litigant who has been greatly harmed from BREACH OF CONTRACT, this has continually been a great burden, a great stress factor to be treated like I am an attorney and have to follow every little rule which is not transparent, when the case is overwhelmingly obvious I am violated and Storquest broke the law.
The co-founder of Storquest, Warren Jeffs, is supposed to be in prison for life for being a pedophile-rapist, promoting polygamy as well, being a leader of an unlawful church, Fundamentalists of Latter Day Saints. I am perplexed why the Mormons do not sue for using their title under this depraved guise.
For the Federal District court to grant my fee waiver, shows my case had merit. For the Federal District Court to issue a full blown case with trial is a great violation to me. It was done deliberately and I resented it, telling them that at the Clerk’s office. Storquest sending me an auction notice at that same time was obvious indication that they talked to both the superior court judge and the federal district judge SECRETLY, without filing an appearance and deliberately evading transparency, conspiring to violate me more in a state where I have been repeatedly violated by corrupted officials.
I did all I could to follow the FRCP and FRAP! I am subjected to continuous vandalism in my apartment, including recently when all my documents for this appeal were found in my apartment by yet another intruder, when I left for a few hours, and what was left was all mixed up! I spent over four hours sorting them out once I was able to use a long table, which the concierge told me was available in the club room after midnight (they have always closed that room at 10 pm) Internet was blocked from me in my apartment, though
3
wifi has been an amenity where I live and continued to be an amenity yet they blocked me, abusing me, just like they did with my washing machine, remotely turning it off when I was in front of it. I called the management and requested the landlord - whoever remotely turned it off - to turn it back on. They would not! And my clothes are still in the washing machine and I have to wash my clothes by hand! Additionally the maintenance supervisor relieved himself - by both deficating and urinating in my trash can in my bathroom. I informed the management office of this. Though I threw out the plastic bag he deficated in, the urine was still at the bottom of the trash can and nothing was done, except they remotely turned off my washing machine!
I do the best I can asserting my rights.
Claiming you dismiss my case because I fail to complete your court form which cites no laws or rules of court on it, is greatly perplexing! Am I supposed to read your minds?
ALLOWING NON-APPEARANCE BY THE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE cause for DEFAULT JUDGMENT. DEPRIVING ME THE RECORD OF THEIR APPEARANCE GIVES ME THE IMPRESSION OF CONSPIRING.
And now my possessions, what little I have, are being stolen right under the eyes of the court and I can only hope that this time Storquest will be ordered to CEASE AND DESIST. They stopped their auction last year - without telling me why, and certainly the court did nothing, except have secret conversations, since they did not even have an Agent of Service or legitimate address. I had to serve the storage facility.
My attached Errata on Appearance was submitted correctly originally - contrary to what the court accused me of. I also remind the court there is no law or rule cited on the form. There was no appearance by a defendant! I submitted the appearance and Form D-P along with my MOTION FOR APPEAL IFP. I completed all the documents which Markus Marshal sent to me and he confirmed everything was received. I did not motion for appeal
4
and motion for IFP. They were synonymous, just as I had prepared to the Federal District Court. Denying my Motion to Apeal IFP and then permitting my appeal was fraudulent by the federal district judge, who I remind you, framed me as a convicted criminal, ordering me to prepare a fee waiver for convicted criminals! Your court should have noticed and corrected this. Rather, I was informed to change my Fed District Case Number to
22-2741 on my MOTION TO APPEAL IFP documents. I complied. Yet this was perplexing and the case manager was telling me to because he was told to do that by his supervisor, so he had no answers he could provide me on why that was. Thereafter I was also hit with a second appeal case, which is deliberate abuse of procedure. Whatever documents on that docket sheet were not entered by me. For the court not to remove that case and include it with 22-2741, is more abuse of procedure, disrupting DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
My phone number has changed due to abuse by T-Mobile stopping auto pay and refusing to process payment, after which they turned off my service. I did not request they turn it back on due to their fraud. I could not even call them because they turned off my service. I got a sim card of a different company, which unfortunately was confirmed by the Best Buy employee, is now owned by T-Mobile. I have one card, one line. It has been tremendously hard for me, particularly since I have no wifi in my apartment and have all these court documents to work on frequently, just to get my rights on a case which has obviously been frauded by the New Haven Superior Court.
The Form D-P was properly completed and submitted! I only submitted a correction due to NO TRANSCRIPT, NO PROCEEDINGS, AND A STATEMENT TO THAT EFFECT WAS ADDED, as your rules of court require - yet there is nothing cited on the form for me to reference. I had to find it myself!
Please do the right thing and order CEASE AND DESIST.
I am emailing this to externalaffairs again. As I have previously stated, there is no appearance of the defendant. I attempted to reach the THIRD party which was added to my case for the defendant, with no appearance for any of them - Michael Skold. I
5
sent him emails. I left voicemail. He would not even have the decency to return my call. I promptly began with a request for him to provide me his appearance, along with other matters reflecting this case. The failure to appear is a serious offense. The court’s
attempt to frame me as a criminal is evading justice, using it as a distraction.
This letter comprises of six pages and was prepared and signed by me, the Plaintiff-Appellant of aforesaid case, Bradley vs New Haven Superior Court.
Respectfully,
FOR THE APPELLANT-PLAINTIFF
_____________________
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se IFP
PO Box 206514
New Haven, CT 06520
203-508-0858
Attached: Emergency Motion for Cease And Desist, Appendix to Motion to Vacate and Correct Record, Errata on Appearance, Certifications of electronic Mailing to non-appearing defendant (since MY appearance includes my email address)
APPEND TO COVER LETTER by Appellant Anne M. Bradley:
1. Document No. 14 is a frauded record of the Federal District Court - there was no notice of appeal submitted by the Appellant
2. As emphasized, the RECORD NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED
3. As emphasized, Motion to Vacate Dismissal is the appropriate action. the Dismissal was unlawful, not served on the Appellant.
4. As emphasized by Appellant, no Motion to Open Mandate can be submitted. According to the FRAP, this has to be submitted within 14 days of the order. The order was not even served on the Appellant.
5. The RECORD IS FRAUDULENT AS IT STANDS NOW. This case was begun with a well-prepared MOTION TO APPEAL IFP. WHERE IS IT? Case Manager Markus Marshal informed the Appellant that it was granted. Yet he was ineptly surprised with yet a second case number - which according to the Second Circuit Record, was initiated the very same day as 22-2741. THIS IS DELIBERATE FRAUD. There is no justice when records are deliberately frauded in the court.
6. THE DISMISSAL WAS UNLAWFUL; APPELLANT HAS THE RIGHT TO MOTION TO VACATE THE DISMISSAL AND SUBMIT THIS EMERGENCY MOTION IN ORDER TO RETAIN HER RIGHTS, WHICH IS WHAT SHE HAS BEEN DOING ALL ALONG, YET HAS BEEN DEPRIVED OF BY THE COURTS. For over three months, the court disrupted connection with the Appellant, yet they obviously received her emails regarding this disruption.
7. REQUEST FOR RECORD STILL STANDS! ALL DOCUMENTS, ALL ACTIONS, ALL ORDERS. TO ALLOW THE FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGE TO ENTER A FRAUDULENT NOTICE OF APPEAL IS DELIBERATE IMPAIRMENT ON THIS CASE.
8. Using internet has become a nightmare due to all the CYBER CRIME. Our economy is failing and this is the main reason why. The Technocracy has cheated the public, to feed the greedy ones who only serve themselves. This too, is another dynamic experienced by me as well as the public at large, contributing to how much this case is of a public concern.
_______________
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se
6
*********************************************************************************************************************************************************
SMALL CLAIM - TWO VERY IMPORTANT RULES WHICH APPLY HERE, OTHERS DO TOO!
Sec. 24-25. —Failure of the Defendant To Answer If the defendant does not file an answer by the answer date, a notice of default shall be sent to all parties or their representatives and if the case does not come within the purview of Section 24- 24, the clerk shall set a date for hearing, and the judicial authority shall require the presence of the plaintiff or representative. Notice of the hearing shall be sent to all parties or their representatives. If a defendant files an answer at any time before a default judgment has been entered, including at the time of a scheduled hearing in damages, the default shall be vacated automatically. If the answer is filed at the time of a hearing in damages, the judicial authority shall allow the plaintiff a continuance if requested by the plaintiff, or representative. (P.B. 1978-1997, Sec. 578.) (Amended June 21, 2010, to take effect Jan. 1, 2011.) Sec. 24-26. —Failure of a Party To Appear before the Court when Required (a) If the plaintiff or representative fails to appear before the court on the hearing date, the judicial authority may dismiss the claim for want of prosecution, render a finding on the merits for the defendant or make such other disposition as may be proper. (b) If the defendant fails to appear before the court at any time set for hearing, the judicial authority may render judgment in favor of the plaintiff based on such proofs as it deems necessary to establish the amount due under the claim, or make such other disposition as may be proper, provided that the plaintiff has appeared at the hearing. (P.B. 1978-1997, Sec. 579.)
There is another significant rule, regarding FAILURE TO APPEAR. MY MOTION FOR DEFAULT IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT WAS DELETED - ALL OF THOSE FILES WERE DELETED. I COULD ONLY SAVE WHAT THE COURT ENTERED, SOME OF WHICH ARE FRAUDED.
Nevertheless, I cannot copy and paste here.
I will resume with that because they apparently altered the RULES OF COURT - removing the FAILURE TO APPEAR RULE. How stupid! Anyone who responds has to appear, that is legal common sense!
I knew it would be hell going back to the East Coast! I had no choice. I just wanted to borrow $200 from my mother (my father told me I had to ask her to feed her narcissism) just for a few days because my check had not arrived. She refused, fully enjoying causing me to be evicted! Everything was very clean when I left and I had the money to rent a Ryder truck. To face over two decades of hell on earth, which I knew would happen because my relatives cannot have peace without harming me - and more. They illegally enter, they are NAZIs - this is the same thing I had when lived in NY. Constant corruption!
================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================
Get this!
Operation "Be The Villain p Be the hero"
So Storquest terminated my lease and stole my possession and auctioned them off! At least that is what their customer service says in Utal and refuse to connect me with the local facility.
Anne M. Bradley
P.O. Box 206514
New Haven, CT 06520
August 2, 2023
Second Circuit Court
40 Foley Square
Email: prosecases@ca2.uscourts.gov
New York, NY
Attn: Clerk of the Court, affiliate Judges of the Court
Thru: Yana Segal, Case Manager
Dear Judicial Members of the Court:
Re: Case 22-2741
I am unable to get another statement notarized and therefore I am sending this letter to accompany my many efforts to get my rights, as a storage unit customer whose LEASE WAS TERMINATED AND NOT REINSTATED. Yet this company unlawfully continued to bill me, admitting it terminated the lease.
I am disabled. It is very hard on my legs to walk long distances. I have been greatly harmed by the state I live in. I have no choice but to remain here. I would return to the Midwest if I could.
I have a Federal Poverty Level income. I am subjected with continuous abuse of procedure as a means to get me to stop trying to get my rights.
I filed for an application for injunctive order; the federal district court abused power ordering it to be a full blown case fully knowing my possessions were in jeopardy and they would enjoy causing the case to be moot once my possessions were stolen and auctioned off. This is MODUS OPERANDI of what Judge
1
Abrams did to me in New Britain, as I have already stated. Judge Abrams is now enjoying doing this to me again, conspiring with Storquest. I paid my rent timely. Because I used the phone pay system, they could not lie about not getting my payment, though with Public Storage, they had proof I purchased the money order. I faxed it to them. This should have stopped their abusive billing. Nevertheless, they claimed I owed $260; stealing my personal and private possessions and auctioning them off even though they never paid me the $450 they owed me. This is in particular where the court comes in.
Storquest tacked on an insurance charge - which violated the lease and provided them an erroneous excuse to BREACH THE LEASE. That is always what the legal action has been about! The court is not giving me DUE PROCESS and I have done everything in my power to defend my rights as a Pro Se Litigant, which the court is supposed to liberally allow my documents when they are submitted in good faith. My certifications of mailing have been in good faith. THERE HAS NOT EVEN BEEN AN APPEARANCE BY THE DEFENDANT. I have requested several times for this alleged appearance form; at no point will the court cure this even though I made formal requests, typed, in December of 2022 as well as February 2023 - at which time the court had disabled my connection with them, obviously through abuse of internet powers. Nevertheless, I sent emails informing them that Markus Marshal’s phone was disconnected and I attempted to get through the court several other ways and was informed by a automated system that it was a SYSCO service and disconnected me.
I have made every effort to get my rights!
I now have to submit this EMERGENCY MOTION FOR CEASE AND DESIST due to Storquest’s attempt to steal my possessions, hand them over to a seller, which is unlawful chain-of-custody, and the company was not even a registered company in Connecticut last year when I checked; just as Storquest was not registered and had no AGENT OF SERVICE. The Superior Court of New Haven refused to cure that yet approved my fee waiver and deliberately caused the Small Claims Writ to be defective. This is constant abuse of power, not justice!
2
I completed every form which the case manager provided me. Markus was attentive and responded to my messages. At a later point, around December, a male with a Hispanic accent claimed HE was Markus and disrupted the case by misinforming me, refusing to respond to my request for records since I am not registered on PACER or CMECF (an abuse of procedure which I was subjected to by the Federal District Court, since they refused to mail me anything yet I was not registered in their internet system, which I consider to be more opportunity to abuse power through internet and as Pro Se Indigent litigant who has been greatly harmed from BREACH OF CONTRACT, this has continually been a great burden, a great stress factor to be treated like I am an attorney and have to follow every little rule which is not transparent, when the case is overwhelmingly obvious I am violated and Storquest broke the law.
The co-founder of Storquest, Warren Jeffs, is supposed to be in prison for life for being a pedophile-rapist, promoting polygamy as well, being a leader of an unlawful church, Fundamentalists of Latter Day Saints. I am perplexed why the Mormons do not sue for using their title under this depraved guise.
For the Federal District court to grant my fee waiver, shows my case had merit. For the Federal District Court to issue a full blown case with trial is a great violation to me. It was done deliberately and I resented it, telling them that at the Clerk’s office. Storquest sending me an auction notice at that same time was obvious indication that they talked to both the superior court judge and the federal district judge SECRETLY, without filing an appearance and deliberately evading transparency, conspiring to violate me more in a state where I have been repeatedly violated by corrupted officials.
I did all I could to follow the FRCP and FRAP! I am subjected to continuous vandalism in my apartment, including recently when all my documents for this appeal were found in my apartment by yet another intruder, when I left for a few hours, and what was left was all mixed up! I spent over four hours sorting them out once I was able to use a long table, which the concierge told me was available in the club room after midnight (they have always closed that room at 10 pm) Internet was blocked from me in my apartment, though
3
wifi has been an amenity where I live and continued to be an amenity yet they blocked me, abusing me, just like they did with my washing machine, remotely turning it off when I was in front of it. I called the management and requested the landlord - whoever remotely turned it off - to turn it back on. They would not! And my clothes are still in the washing machine and I have to wash my clothes by hand! Additionally the maintenance supervisor relieved himself - by both deficating and urinating in my trash can in my bathroom. I informed the management office of this. Though I threw out the plastic bag he deficated in, the urine was still at the bottom of the trash can and nothing was done, except they remotely turned off my washing machine!
I do the best I can asserting my rights.
Claiming you dismiss my case because I fail to complete your court form which cites no laws or rules of court on it, is greatly perplexing! Am I supposed to read your minds?
ALLOWING NON-APPEARANCE BY THE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE cause for DEFAULT JUDGMENT. DEPRIVING ME THE RECORD OF THEIR APPEARANCE GIVES ME THE IMPRESSION OF CONSPIRING.
And now my possessions, what little I have, are being stolen right under the eyes of the court and I can only hope that this time Storquest will be ordered to CEASE AND DESIST. They stopped their auction last year - without telling me why, and certainly the court did nothing, except have secret conversations, since they did not even have an Agent of Service or legitimate address. I had to serve the storage facility.
My attached Errata on Appearance was submitted correctly originally - contrary to what the court accused me of. I also remind the court there is no law or rule cited on the form. There was no appearance by a defendant! I submitted the appearance and Form D-P along with my MOTION FOR APPEAL IFP. I completed all the documents which Markus Marshal sent to me and he confirmed everything was received. I did not motion for appeal
4
and motion for IFP. They were synonymous, just as I had prepared to the Federal District Court. Denying my Motion to Apeal IFP and then permitting my appeal was fraudulent by the federal district judge, who I remind you, framed me as a convicted criminal, ordering me to prepare a fee waiver for convicted criminals! Your court should have noticed and corrected this. Rather, I was informed to change my Fed District Case Number to
22-2741 on my MOTION TO APPEAL IFP documents. I complied. Yet this was perplexing and the case manager was telling me to because he was told to do that by his supervisor, so he had no answers he could provide me on why that was. Thereafter I was also hit with a second appeal case, which is deliberate abuse of procedure. Whatever documents on that docket sheet were not entered by me. For the court not to remove that case and include it with 22-2741, is more abuse of procedure, disrupting DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
My phone number has changed due to abuse by T-Mobile stopping auto pay and refusing to process payment, after which they turned off my service. I did not request they turn it back on due to their fraud. I could not even call them because they turned off my service. I got a sim card of a different company, which unfortunately was confirmed by the Best Buy employee, is now owned by T-Mobile. I have one card, one line. It has been tremendously hard for me, particularly since I have no wifi in my apartment and have all these court documents to work on frequently, just to get my rights on a case which has obviously been frauded by the New Haven Superior Court.
The Form D-P was properly completed and submitted! I only submitted a correction due to NO TRANSCRIPT, NO PROCEEDINGS, AND A STATEMENT TO THAT EFFECT WAS ADDED, as your rules of court require - yet there is nothing cited on the form for me to reference. I had to find it myself!
Please do the right thing and order CEASE AND DESIST.
I am emailing this to externalaffairs again. As I have previously stated, there is no appearance of the defendant. I attempted to reach the THIRD party which was added to my case for the defendant, with no appearance for any of them - Michael Skold. I
5
sent him emails. I left voicemail. He would not even have the decency to return my call. I promptly began with a request for him to provide me his appearance, along with other matters reflecting this case. The failure to appear is a serious offense. The court’s
attempt to frame me as a criminal is evading justice, using it as a distraction.
This letter comprises of six pages and was prepared and signed by me, the Plaintiff-Appellant of aforesaid case, Bradley vs New Haven Superior Court.
Respectfully,
FOR THE APPELLANT-PLAINTIFF
_____________________
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se IFP
PO Box 206514
New Haven, CT 06520
203-508-0858
Attached: Emergency Motion for Cease And Desist, Appendix to Motion to Vacate and Correct Record, Errata on Appearance, Certifications of electronic Mailing to non-appearing defendant (since MY appearance includes my email address)
APPEND TO COVER LETTER by Appellant Anne M. Bradley:
1. Document No. 14 is a frauded record of the Federal District Court - there was no notice of appeal submitted by the Appellant
2. As emphasized, the RECORD NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED
3. As emphasized, Motion to Vacate Dismissal is the appropriate action. the Dismissal was unlawful, not served on the Appellant.
4. As emphasized by Appellant, no Motion to Open Mandate can be submitted. According to the FRAP, this has to be submitted within 14 days of the order. The order was not even served on the Appellant.
5. The RECORD IS FRAUDULENT AS IT STANDS NOW. This case was begun with a well-prepared MOTION TO APPEAL IFP. WHERE IS IT? Case Manager Markus Marshal informed the Appellant that it was granted. Yet he was ineptly surprised with yet a second case number - which according to the Second Circuit Record, was initiated the very same day as 22-2741. THIS IS DELIBERATE FRAUD. There is no justice when records are deliberately frauded in the court.
6. THE DISMISSAL WAS UNLAWFUL; APPELLANT HAS THE RIGHT TO MOTION TO VACATE THE DISMISSAL AND SUBMIT THIS EMERGENCY MOTION IN ORDER TO RETAIN HER RIGHTS, WHICH IS WHAT SHE HAS BEEN DOING ALL ALONG, YET HAS BEEN DEPRIVED OF BY THE COURTS. For over three months, the court disrupted connection with the Appellant, yet they obviously received her emails regarding this disruption.
7. REQUEST FOR RECORD STILL STANDS! ALL DOCUMENTS, ALL ACTIONS, ALL ORDERS. TO ALLOW THE FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGE TO ENTER A FRAUDULENT NOTICE OF APPEAL IS DELIBERATE IMPAIRMENT ON THIS CASE.
8. Using internet has become a nightmare due to all the CYBER CRIME. Our economy is failing and this is the main reason why. The Technocracy has cheated the public, to feed the greedy ones who only serve themselves. This too, is another dynamic experienced by me as well as the public at large, contributing to how much this case is of a public concern.
_______________
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se
6
.png)
Comments