Trial Court Order on Payments Of Rent AC48416
Link for this blogpost:
http://www.publiusroots.org/2025/02/trial-court-order-on-payments-of-rent.html
UPDATE 2/21/2025
Order No. is the same as the judge's Juris No.
ORDER 445561
AC 48416
Defendant-Appellant's Statement On February 11 Order 2025
This is the Order
DOCKET NO: NHHCV246024196S ANSONIA STATE STREET, LLC V. BRADLEY, ANNE SUPERIOR COURT HOUSING SESSION AT NEW HAVEN 2/11/2025 ORDER The following order is entered in the above matter: ORDER: Plaintiff's counsel and Defendant ANNE BRADLEY appeared in-person before the Court. After hearing the testimony of the Defendant and the argument of counsel, the Court hereby orders the Defendant to make MONTHLY use and occupancy payments of $264.00 during the pendency of the appeal. All payments shall be made payable to the Plaintiff, ANSONIA STATE STREET, LLC and shall be tendered on or before the 10th of each month, beginning on March 10, 2025. Per oral record. Judicial Notice (JDNO) was sent regarding this order. 445561 Judge: ALAYNA M STONE This document may be signed or verified electronically and has the same validity and status as a document with a physical (pen-to-paper) signature. For more information, see Section I.E. of the State of Connecticut Superior Court E-Services Procedures and Technical Standards (https://jud.ct.gov/external/super/E-Services/e-standards.pdf), section 51-193c of the Connecticut General Statutes and Connecticut Practice Book Section 4-4.
This is a draft of my statement. I will finalize it tomorrow. It is 11:08 pm. I fell asleep at about 4 while watching a favorite livestream and didn't wake up until just a half hour ago. My days-nights are flip-flopping but I hope to flip-flop them back. So this will be a quick response. I am creating this to refer to on my check payments, beginning March 10, so once I finalize it, I will not change it.
Where has all my money gone? I paid $198 into court for October and November on my Housing Complaint Case. Where is that? They are being appealed for a reason! I can't type my Kung-FU emoji here....
Speaking of "valid" - since the judge based everything on Operation Pancake:
Notice to Quit is valid for this Housing Complaint Case
VALID 101: LEGAL EFFICACY!
1. Notice to Quit is valid for the Housing Complaint Case so she can dismiss the case
2. Notice To Quit is NOT VALID for the Eviction Case, but it doesn't matter what I say because they will alter the recording to fit whims. Huah!
I will find her order about that. DOCUMENTED. Set in Stone. Yet what she said in court at the EVICTION hearing when I said I was motioning for change of venue - was poppycock! That is when she stated "Don't worry. Just because I ruled that the Notice to Quit was valid in that case doesn't mean I will rule that in this case." She made a few other statements that inferred it was not valid to shut me up. I was sitting there with a WTF bunny dancing in my head!
Notice the Order includes the word "validity"....why bother saying anything? She will disect it as a different beast there and make the most retarded statements!
They are already altering this text! I made statements regarding the ruling of Dismissal on the Housing Complaint Case since I motioned to change venue right there in court and she said, "You don't need to do that. This case is just beginning...bla bla bla! She said she did NOT have to state more on why - yet claimed the Notice To Quit was Valid!
DOCKET NO: NHHCV245006875S BRADLEY, ANNE M V. ANSONIA STATE STREET, LLC Et Al SUPERIOR COURT HOUSING SESSION AT NEW HAVEN 11/12/2024 ORDER ORDER REGARDING: 10/18/2024 111.00 MOTION TO DISMISS PB 10-30 The foregoing, having been considered by the Court, is hereby: ORDER: GRANTED Disposition: JDGDACT - JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL Defendant, ANSONIA STATE STREET, LLC, filed a motion to dismiss this housing code enforcement action brought by Plaintiff, ANNE M BRADLEY, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Both parties appeared for oral argument on October 31, 2024. General Statutes § 47a-14h provides in relevant part: "No tenant may institute an action under this section if a valid notice to quit possession or occupancy based upon nonpayment of rent has been served on such tenant prior to the institution of an action under this section . . . ." The notice to quit served on Defendant in Docket No. NHH-CV-24-6024196-S satisfies the statutory requirements for a notice to quit based on the nonpayment of rent. As the notice to quit was served nearly one month before this housing code enforcement action, this action must be dismissed. Judicial Notice (JDNO) was sent regarding this order. 445561 Judge: ALAYNA M STONE This document may be signed or verified electronically and has the same validity and status as a document with a physical (pen-to-paper) signature. For more information, see Section I.E. of the State of Connecticut Superior Court E-Services Procedures and Technical Standards (https://jud.ct.gov/external/super/E-Services/e-standards.pdf), section 51-193c of the Connecticut General Statutes and Connecticut Practice Book Section 4-4.
I have always made my checks out to 360 State Street; as I was told to. Upon a few reviews of my cancelled bank account checks, I discovered that the check was being deposited in VARIOUS ACCOUNTS! I couldn't wrap my head around that one and sent the info to FBI Agent William Aldenburg because I suspected cooking of the books.
Nextly, the LAST AGREED UPON RENT is to be paid into court. Atty PHOOPS argued that "So why did you pay $198 into court if you say this lease we have on file is the determination of your rent amount?"
(The lease he submitted as proof was $171!)
Because my income meets the FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL guidelines, for the housing authority to do a straight 10% of the fair use and value; I have argued that for years and they refuse to grant hearings, blah blah blah.
Nevertheless, I responded: That is because I verbally agreed to $198 even though they would not give me a hearing! I don't consider myself above the law!
The judge then changed the topic.....after all, Atty *FraudulentAppearance Bimbo submitted a ledger which proved that they were ordered by a court to remove almost $14,000 in fraudulent charges. It was just after that when the Housing Authority Reduced their share of HUD = ABATEMENT, not change in my freaking rent! I have said that till I am blue in the face and almost applied to be a member of Blue Man Group!
It is 11:38pm. I need to stay relaxed and get some sleep to trick my body clock. I figure some Geology videos and crocheting will do the trick, take my mind off all this GOVERNMENT WASTE, ABUSE OF PROCESS, AND DELIBERATE DISHONESTY.
...and that is what little HUD's are made of.....
BTW, one of the defendants in my Housing Complaint is BEACHWOLD RESIDENTIAL. The damn name is in the mortgage! It was on my REVISED, but not yet served so should be ORIGINAL, complaint correctly. But it was uploaded as BEACHWOOD RESIDENTIAL on the freaking case before it was even served!!
See this:
And the Housing Eviction was DELAYED a freaking week! Uploaded a day just before the Housing Complaint hearing on October 31 - HALLOWEEN - where the young man who claimed he was Attorney Peter Hoops was identifying himself as obviously his father - and the judge was NOT Alayna Stone but identified herself as Alayna Stone and Alayna Stone ruled on the damn hearing!
People have said: OH, THIS WOULD BE A GOOD MOVIE
BULLSHIT!
This is a situation where I, not an attorney, am trying to survive in a cesspool of corruption and am sick of it! HANDOUTS is how they "build" their economy here; not ACCOMPLISHMENTS!
REMEMBER ENRON, which aligns with economist Dr. Wolf's "End Of The Run" agenda he explained as the last ditch effort for the Deep State and Shadow Government Elites to upturn the economy with more money-quakes and so forth....omg, don't get me started! The word-play is considered by them to be a satanic ritual and I call it CHILDISH!
I will find that Order I wanted to post, regarding dismissal of my housing case, and that is all I am saying for now. This whole thing will be changed in formality because it will be referenced on my check payments, to include
WTF - did the months January and February just disappear? Are they alluding that is my prize for all the shit they have given me - like Attorney Frederick Kendall did to me regarding when the 20 ton truck driver tried to murder me as a consequence for telling Roger Huck the stalking sex trafficker to leave me alone, you're a pig - and these psychopaths were so obsessed about "proving" their power they wasted a god-awful amount of money erecting an restaurant named "Pig's Ear" where I was almost killed. WASTE!!!! All to feed their narcissism that SEX TRAFFICKING MATTERS.
And I am sure the fact that the Irish created the "Pig's Ear" was another "valid" reason, speaking of valid! If I had decent siblings, they would have supported me in getting my rights - at least tell me what the hell the NO FAULT LAW really was because Attorney Kendall was lying to me and they had my father all twisted by giving his flooring company business and I knew they were all connected to organized crime so my father was sitting on a hotbed of nails day in and day out and I didn't want him harmed by them - he already had auto accidents which were rigged! Such as when his coffee wagon was run into by a rock group driving a huge vehicle themselves - destroyed his vehicle and his business! Someone stole his service route to various sites, especially construction sites. And Dad was hurt! A doctor almost killed him by ordering just the opposite of what he needed. Dad had low blood pressure and the doctor said he needed something to elevate it and instead ordered a med to cause him to have a very serious tachycardia and he fell onto the stone driveway from the back of his coffee wagon van!
And my brother had the audacity to excuse why he was making Dad die because "Dad is not good for us anymore" - that comes right out of the ORDER OF BARBARIANS agenda! Tyco Copy Center scanned that small book in for me and I provided a link in the blogposts; one titled Order of Barbarians and the other NWO, I think....someone is hacking me now....
One more thing! Attorney St. Rock signed the MOTION TO DISMISS. The one at the hearing was the punk saying he was his father, Attorney Peter Hoops, aka Phoops - are these names even real? The appearances are even fraudulent!!! I motioned to Strike the Motion to Dismiss, forgetting about the very fact that the motion was signed by a different name who never argued the damn motion in court - I realized this after the hearing!
MOTIONS TO STRIKE allow them to resubmit a valid freaking motion to argue! His was noncompliant and disrupts DUE PROCESS and more!
My laptop is rigged so I cannot do screenshots of full pages, but I show you a few bits and pieces to support my reasoning that the motion was non-compliant. They are supposed to have these sections: HISTORY, FACTS, LAW.....they are supposed to enumerate paragraphs in order to provide proper communication through the court...THE DAMN DEFENDANTS WERE SUPPOSED TO RESPOND WITH ANSWERS SUBMITTED INTO COURT WITHIN 14 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE HOUSING COMPLAINT! HE MOTIONS WITH NO ANSWER AND NONE OF THEM ANSWERED AND CLAIM A NOTICE TO QUIT IS VALID BECAUSE IT IS FREAKING SPELLED CORRECTLY!
.png)
This is luck of the draw here due to CYBER CRIME interfering with my laptop!
I will post a few more...
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
I am getting off this now - what a freaking constant WASTE OF GOVERNMENT MONEY - to support ORGANIZED CRIME! I PAID THE RENT!
DAMNIT, I SHOULD MOTION FOR A REVIEW! OTHERWISE THEY WILL PLAY THEIR GAME OF CATCH-AND-RELEASE. It was okay to catch me like a game and release me as if it doesn't matter that I have been greatly damaged by all this - oh, oh! But they didn't charge me for two freaking months, which HUD did supplement them on and once the damn case is over they will tell me to pay up using the freaking bill collecting attorney who appeared on my Eviction Appeal! And they claim their real name to be something with hammer in it... Obama is probably orchestrating all this since he organized the FAKE SANDY HOOK ELMEMENTARY SCHOOL SHOOTING!
......I will create a formal statement about their bullshit later....
12:42 am 2/14/2025
Motion For Review of Trial Court Order
WTF - I have to paste again - this is actually what happened when I logged into my email created for court purposes. Looks like they were trying to swipe my password. I backspaced even though I did not know where the spacebar was going....I am not tech savvy and would rather be crocheting singing "Make the world go away" ugh!
AC 48416 /
NHH-CV24-6024196-S : APPELLATE COURT OF CT
ANSONIA STATE
STREET, LLC : STATE OF CONNECTICUT
V : HOUSING SESSION
ANNE BRADLEY : February 19, 2025
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REVIEW
TRIAL COURT’S ORDER FROM THE BENCH OF FEBRUARY 11, 2025
PAYMENTS OF FAIR USE AND VALUE INTO COURT
Pursuant to PB 66-6, Defendant-Appellant motions this court to review order from the bench by Trial Court regarding Payment of Fair Value/Apartment Rent into Court pending appeal.
HISTORY
This case arose based on the Plaintiff-Appellee accusing Defendant-Appellant of not paying rent for August and September. There was no letter of arrearage, which the Appellant admitted to. There was no Pretermination letter according to HUD Law, which the Appellant agreed to by not responding, not correcting record, and only ignoring this argument made by the Appellant in numerous circumstances at trial court, to include emphasizing caselaw emphasizes that SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION IS LIMITED TO WHAT IS SET FORTH ON THE NOTICE TO QUIT.
FACTS
1. Hearing of February 11 was ordered by the court to be in compliance with Public Act 24-108, Section 8. Document No 142 of Case Information in Trial Court.
2. Plaintiff-appellee’s trial court attorney used fraudulent appearance as Pro Hac Vice, and also altered the form attaching pages on three occasions, which was argued by defendant in court with no reaction.
3. Appeal Form of Defendant-Appellant Stated the following reasons for Appeal:
a) Lack of Merit
b) Subject Matter Jurisdiction is on nonpayment of rent for August and September 2024. No demand for payment; no Pretermination Notice for Section 8 Defendant who has lived there 12 years, always timely paying rent.
c) Abuse of Procedure; lack of Due Process.
d) Plaintiff has fraudulent appearance as Pro Hac Vice.
e) Five day notice for Eviction on a 65 year old senior who is significantly disabled.
4. Defendant-appellant has only served the appearing attorney on aforesaid case, who is Lloyd Langhammer, who is also using a Pro Hac Vice Juris number yet altered his Juris number on Housing Complaint appeal A.C. 48452. The email which the trial court case used was phoops@hoopslaw.com because Peter Hoops appeared at the Eviction case. A young man who appeared to be Peter Hoops’ son claimed he was Attorney Peter Hoops, which was fraud; impersonating his father. He used his father’s juris number and after the hearing defendant-appellant discovered he entered the BAR in 1987, which would have been before the young man appearing was even born. The court entered Attorney Joseph St. Rock as the appearing individual, which is false. Joseph St. Rock never appeared at any court hearing, though he signed the Motion To Dismiss on the Housing Complaint and the young man who impersonated Attorney Peter Hoops argued that motion in court, which is against the Rules of Court and trial attorneys’ practice and procedure. .
5. Defendant’s statement, Doc No, 143.00 includes emphasis throughout this case, Plaintiff has been subsidized by HUD, which reflects the HAP Contract is still in place. This was confirmed by recently-assigned manager who replaced Tara Jones - at Elm City Communities.
6. ORDER OF THE COURT REGARDING HEARING OF FEBRUARY 11: ORDER The following order is entered in the above matter: ORDER: Plaintiff's counsel and Defendant ANNE BRADLEY appeared in-person before the Court. After hearing the testimony of the Defendant and the argument of counsel, the Court hereby orders the Defendant to make MONTHLY use and occupancy payments of $264.00 during the pendency of the appeal. All payments shall be made payable to the Plaintiff, ANSONIA STATE STREET, LLC and shall be tendered on or before the 10th of each month, beginning on March 10, 2025. Per oral record. Judicial Notice (JDNO) was sent regarding this order. 445561 Judge: ALAYNA M STONE
a) Defendant claims that this order is not compliant, of the following reasons:
i. Pursuant to the Public Act which the court cited:
1. Payments are to be made to the court
2. Last agreed upon rent was $198; which was what was being paid to this same court on the Housing Complaint Case
a) At no point was this amount argued by the Plaintiff, who was party to the Housing Complaint Case
b) Defendant-appellant has stated in trial court that since she meets Federal Poverty Level/Low Income Guidelines as stated in the Section 8 laws, that she should be paying 10% of the rent which is determined by the Fair Rent Commission ($93.20 since Rent is $932)
b) FOR THE RECORD: NOT ONE DEFENDANT LISTED IN THE HOUSING COMPLAINT CASE ANSWERED THE COMPLAINT SERVED ON THEM; ADDITIONALLY THERE WERE PROBLEMS WITH NON-APPEARING DEFENDANTS ON THAT CASE. ADDITIONALLY, THE COURT ENTERED APPEARANCE FOR THE CITY OF NEW HAVEN, LIVABLE CITY INITIATIVE, AS SELF-REPRESENTING, WHICH THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT CONSIDERS TO BE WRONGFUL, PARTICULARLY SINCE NO APPEARANCE FORM WAS ISSUED TO THE COURT. ALL 8 PARTIES WERE DEFENDANTS; TWO OF WHICH WERE AGENCIES, AS REQUIRED FOR HOUSING COMPLAINTS.
i. Motion For Rectification on the Case Information for both AC48416 and AC48452 is expected to be completed by Friday 2/21/2025.
7. Trial Court refused to provide documented order to the defendant-appellant on February 11, responding with “You have all the time in the world”; at which time defendant-appellant demanded it as soon as possible as a matter of right. This order, which was uploaded on the case information on 2/14/2025, was documented by the court as attached on the same day it was ordered in the Case Information, 2/11/2025. Defendant-appellant considers that wrongful.
a) Though transcript for this post-appeal hearing has been ordered, it is doubtful the fee waiver approval can be applied, despite the indigent defendant-appellant paying for transcripts on 10/31/2024 (HOUSING COMPLAINT) and 12/3/2024 (EVICTION CASE) hearings.
i. The court’s documented ruling is Appendixed to this motion.
b) Motion For Rectification on Case Information on aforesaid case has been prepared by the defendant-appellant and will be uploaded on or before 2/20/2025. Attached to that motion is a marked-up Case Information Sheet for reference purposes, labeled in a-z fashion.
8. Defendant-appellant claims this court frequently uses legal malpractice to serve its wants rather than administer justice. :
9. The HAP Contract is the controlling lease. A copy of both the landlord’s lease and HAP were presented to the court in the Appendix of AC48452. There are not two leases. If there was no HAP, there would be no lease. The landlord’s lease may be used as a guide to factor in what issues are important to them only, as long as they comply with HUD. For example, they cannot legally enforce that they are not responsible for the safety and security of tenants, yet that is stated in the lease and against the HAP contract.
10. PROPOSED AMOUNT OF BOND: FAIR USE AND VALUE FOR JANUARY AND FEBRUARY (198.00 x 2) and thereafter by the 10th of every month, beginning in March 2025, to pay $198.00 which was an undisputed amount paid for October and November 2024 in Housing Complaint Case (which is now being appealed) A.C. 48452)
And thereafter until disposition of this aforesaid case; at which time all money received by the court/s will be remitted in accordance with the law; following a hearing with both parties attending. Defendant-appellant emphasizes that the Plaintiff, at the least, has shown to be not credible; has never motioned for the payments to go to them; and is seemingly treating this case like it was a game or movie, rather than a court case.
LAW
PUBLIC ACT 24-108, SECTION 8
(AS CITED BY THE COURT)
(a) When any appeal is taken by the defendant occupying a dwelling unit [as defined in section 47a-1] in an action of summary process, [he shall, within the period allowed for taking such appeal, give a bond with surety to the adverse party] the chief clerk of the Appellate Court, or the chief clerk's designee, shall transmit notice of the pendency of the appeal to the Superior Court that rendered the judgment that is the subject of the appeal. Upon receipt of the notice of the pendency of such appeal, the Superior Court shall schedule and conduct a hearing to guarantee Substitute Senate Bill No. 426 Public Act No. 24-108 payment for all rents that may accrue during the pendency of such appeal. The Superior Court shall schedule and conduct such hearing not later than fourteen days after the date of receiving notice of the pendency of such appeal. After conducting such hearing the Superior Court may order the defendant to deposit with the court (1) an amount equal to the defendant's portion of the last-agreed upon rent, or [,] (2) where no lease had existed, [for] an amount equal to the reasonable value for such use and occupancy that may so accrue. [; provided the court shall upon motion by the defendant and after] After hearing thereon, the court shall order the defendant to deposit with the court payments for the reasonable fair rental value of the use and occupancy of the premises during the pendency of such appeal accruing from the date of such order. Such order shall permit the payment of such amount in monthly installments, as it becomes due. [, and compliance with such order shall be a substitute for any bond required by this section.] If all or a portion of the defendant's rent is being paid to the plaintiff by a housing authority, municipality, state agency or similar entity, this requirement shall be satisfied if the defendant deposits with the court an amount equal to [his] the defendant's portion of the rent. (b) In any other appeal the court on its own motion or on motion of the parties, may fix a sufficient bond with surety to the adverse party in such amount as it may determine. (c) When any appeal is taken by a plaintiff in an action of summary process, the court, upon motion of the plaintiff and after a hearing thereon, shall order the defendant to deposit with the court payments in monthly installments, as each payment becomes due, for the reasonable fair rental value of the use and occupancy of the premises during the pendency of the appeal accruing from the date of such order.
(b) It is with regret that defendant-appellant Pro Se is unable to spend the time to research on caselaw for this matter, as emphasis on what the court has ordered in the past.
SUMMARY
Defendant-appellant, who is indigent, has been illegally evicted by the State Of Connecticut 3 times. She has learned additional information to support her rights. It truly is a disgrace for the Housing Court to use several repeated tactics which reflect Modus Operandi in serving Elites’ wants rather than administer the law.
2003 - Managers, LLC (group of Attorneys in Fairfield, CT) vs Anne Bradley in the Town of New Britain. Defendant-appellant was poisoned by lead and other contaminants in her apartment water; resulting in a heart attack as determined by the paramedics, who reported she had a myochardal infarction; yet falsified by the hospital. She was on Atenylol for at least two years. THE CASE HAD NO MERIT.
2009 - Corey Spruill vs Anne Bradley. Lapse of Time on the lease; the lease stated that it would automatically renew unless it was replaced by another agreed upon lease; and that a 60 day notice was mandatory for the landlord or tenant to agree upon should the tenant leave the premises at the landlord or tenant’s request. THE CASE HAD NO MERIT.
2019 - landlord here at 360 State Street issued a notice to quit with no letter of arrearage; no Pretermination letter at any time prior to the notice to quit, as required by HUD for Section 8 tenants (to be issued 30 days prior to a notice to quit, which only stated “nonpayment of rent”, for a cure period and opportunity for eviction prevention. THE CASE HAD NO MERIT.
This aforesaid case is rooted in fraudulent reporting of not paying rent for August and September. She produced the checks in which she paid rent - pg 5 in Appendix on HOUSING COMPLAINT; and thereAFTER the defendant added more spin, which is illegal and which defendant argued it was illegal since the Subject Matter Jurisdiction is limited to what they entered on the Notice To Quit - which was also insufficiently processed - claiming that a 30-day notice was given as part of the “CARES ACT” which was discontinued in 2022 and the form should not even be allowed by Housing Court, only enforced at whims, if you review the housing court cases on Hoops & Associates. They then added to their Modus Operandi by serving a Summons illegally prepared, with a return date of November 12, when the law specifies that a return date has to be set at three days past the day the Summons is served when non-payment of rent is served.
Nevertheless, the rent was paid, there was no arrearage even documented - which is not only non-compliant with general housing laws but also with HUD Laws which require a Pretermination Notice. Defendant emphasized the fact she pays her rent timely each month and had a right to request a hearing with the housing authority, which she has requested with no hearing. Defendant claims that for this trial court and plaintiff to keep proceeding with an eviction when it fully knows and understands they are breaking the law is indeed a very disgraceful, abusive and harmful issue! This judge took part in allowing someone to impersonate her in the Housing Complaint case, and failed to document that even took place, let alone why. This is abuse of power, abuse of process, and most certainly reflects one who uses deception as a tool in court, which is intentionally illegal. The plaintiff began this scheme in August, refusing to give the defendant-appellant a printed ledger, as she had been requesting when she paid her monthly rent. Additionally, her mother died in August and defendant-appellant is concerned this landlord had something to do with it, figuring she would receive an inheritence they could confiscate with a fraudulent plan since she did not “disappear” on the five-year anniversary of making her appearance (7/2/2019) in the 2019 fraudulent housing case they devised and lost. That was the day the maintenance manager used violence to illegally enter her apartment when she was taking a bath despite her screams.
As a Pro Se litigant who has no aspiration to be an attorney, and is just trying to live her life as a disabled senior citizen, this has indeed caused much suffering, distress, and abuse - all to cover up the fact that the landlord at 360 State Street has breached the lease since she moved there as a HUD Section 8 tenant, with a HAP contract which is the controlling lease. If there was no HAP contract, there would be no lease and it is written right on the HAP Contract.
WHEREFORE, defendant-appellant motions this court for Review of the trial court’s ruling from the bench on February 11, 2025.
Appendix
Trial Court Ruling, Notice of Court Hearing
Copies of checks prepared intended to pay for rent; THESE CHECKS REPRESENT THE UNPAID MONTHS OF JANUARY AND FEBRUARY, since the landlord secretly cashed/deposited the rent check which defendant left on the desk in the management’s office despite the manager, Kyle Huckle, refusing to take it.
Prepared and Submitted,
FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
_________________________
Anne M. Bradley
PO Box 206514
New Haven, CT 06520
Ph. 203-508-0858
CERTIFICATION
This MOTION FOR REVIEW COMPRISES OF TEN PAGES, Pursuant to P.B. §§ 62-7 and 66-3, it is hereby certified that a copy of the foregoing was sent electronically this 19th day of February, 2024, to the Attorney whose appearance on record:
Lloyd L. Langhammer (Appellate)
JURIS NO. Is oddly different than AC 48452 appearance
LAW OFFICES OF LLOYD L. LANGHAMMER, LLC
18A Granite Street
New London, CT 06320
860-440-3340
llanghammer@hotmail.com
______________________
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se
PO Box 206514
New Haven, CT 06520
Ph 203-508-0858
IllegalEviction2024
It is also certified that this document has been redacted or does not contain any names or other personal identifying information that is prohibited from disclosure by rule, statute, court order, or case law. It is also certified that this document complies with all applicable rules of appellate procedure.
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
______________________
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se
PO Box 206514
New Haven, CT 06520
Ph 203-508-0858
IllegalEviction2024
My comment: In my motion I mentioned their trick in skipping over two months paying rent into court - probably so this Langhammer debt collector can collect = WTF....and now another debt collector sent me an email on the court email account I set up....but she fails to indicate a damn thing except she is a debt collector and entered an appearance and something else. I don't have her appearance on my case. I will look on the other associated case to see if she is there. For emphasis: I recommended they have me pay my rent for two months the trial court skipped over as "bond" and for me to pay fair use and value into court - not to these so-and-so's who were even ordered by the court to remove almost $14,000 in fraudulent charges right on the ledger THEY submitted as an Exhibit! When I said that, the manager spoke up (probably listening to the rodent speaking to him in his wired ear!) and said that they removed the balance as a way to give me a clean start! WTF #JudgyWudgyLovesPerjury
===============================
Hold on...
It's a Motion For Rectification on one of the cases - and I think I need to do the same thing yet, for the other one - just because the RECORD IS NOT PROPER FOR APPELLATE REVIEW.....blah blah blah....they could still withdraw the case. @#$%!^&!
HERE IT IS...MOTION FOR RECTIFICATION...AND I SHOULD ATTACH THE 4 OR 5 PAGE CASE INFORMATION. I NEED TO SCAN IT AND COME BACK DOWN....SO BARE WITH ME...BECAUSE ALL THIS SUCKS....
AC 48416
NHH-CV24-6024196-S : APPELLATE COURT OF CT
ANSONIA STATE
STREET, LLC : STATE OF CONNECTICUT
V : HOUSING SESSION
ANNE BRADLEY : February 21, 2025
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR RECTIFICATION
CASE INFORMATION
Pursuant to PB 66-5, Defendant-Appellant motions this court to order TRIAL COURT to rectify and/or articulate the defective case information as labeled by the Defendant-Appellant on aforesaid case.
HISTORY
This case was appealed from an EVICTION case which was initiated by Ansonia State Street, LLC, which claims to be the owner of 360 State Street yet that ownership has not been validated.
Defendant-appellant-a brought a Housing Complaint case (NHH-CV24-5006875-S) against the aforesaid Plaintiff and herinafter, which the court accepted and granted fee waiver on, and also permitted her to pay rent into court yet rejected her motion to pay rent into court, which will be brought up in the upcoming Brief. The primary issues were numerous breaches by the landlord and the fraudulent Notice To Quit, claiming nonpayment of rent for August and September 2024; the court is obligated to reject cases in which a VALID Notice To Quit is served. Additionally, defendant-appellant emphasized no Pretermination Letter was issued by the plaintiff-appellee, adding more reason to determine the Notice To Quit was INVALID . The court accepted these documents, including an Appendix of 246 pages, for legal efficacy and permitted the case to be heard.
In aforesaid case, defendant-appellant first claimed the Notice To Quit is INVALID and additionally the Summons and Complaint were invalid; both having no LEGAL EFFICACY. The Defendant-appellant in trial court case NHH-CV24-5006875-S claimed in court that Bozzuto Management issued a letter in November 2022, which did not indicate any sale of the apartment building took place - yet that Bozzuto Management would no longer be overseeing day-to-day operations, which will be discussed and proven in the Brief. (Note, Pitkin Plaza will also be referenced, since it was cleared to be all one piece of property which the City Of New Haven gave to the Bozzuto Companies for $1 and will also be discussed in the brief) The deed which exists in the City Clerk’s Property Records is one which is defective for purchasing property, and the property records showed no record of the property being cleared for sale. The Appendix on this Housing Complaint Case included both the HAP Contract and the mortgage, as well as a current copy of the landlord lease, obtained from the landlord, Ansonia State Street after they served her a Notice To Quit. (This was stated by the defendant-appellant in court on both cases). That complaint was uploaded prematurely, prior to service on defendants, and the court refused to allow any revision to replace the original which had not been served, claiming it had reviewed the complaint and Appendix at the time the fee waiver was submitted simultaneously and took it upon themselves to upload it as a case a week before it was served, against the defendant-appellant’s wishes, which most likely are also against Due Process of Law. Additionally, as stated in other pleadings and Preliminary Documents, the housing complaint, NHH-CV24-5006875-S) has a lease referring to MEPT Chapel, which was recently dissolved. No addendum to the lease to correct information was provided or recorded by the landlord. This issue and more will be included in the Brief.
A Summons on aforesaid case was served with a DEFECTIVE RETURN DATE, WHICH THE CHIEF CLERK WOULD NOT CORRECT EVEN THOUGH IT IS THE CHIEF CLERK’S DUTY TO according to the state law on duties of the chief clerk. Defendant-appellant mentioned this several times, as well as the fact they failed to attach a letter of arrearage and/or Pretermination Letter as required by HUD law, and only added an Appendix A as advertisement for attorneys.
Defendant-Appellant, Pro Se, claims the lack of Due Process and ABUSE OF PROCEDURE in trial court.
. . Aforesaid Case information was determined to be defective by defendant-appellant to include, but not all, reasons explained in Pages 1 & 2 of 5 pages as set forth in Facts below.
FACTS
1. Case Information is incorrect in the following areas, which are referred to using the Document Numbers as well as other referenced areas on the Case File, such as information on the Parties.
a) NOTE, return date was set by the Chief Clerk for 11/4/2024, and set by the Plaintiff on the Summons for 11/12/2024
i. Date of Summons was filed 5 days after Notice To Quit Return date, 10/23/2024. Document No. 100.30
ii. The law that is even cited on a Summons Form indicates for nonpayment of rent, The RETURN DATE always has to be set at three days after service by marshal.
1. Defendant is required to enter appearance very quickly, by the RETURN DATE, or otherwise lose right to proceed with defense.
2. Defendant-Appellant claims this was one of the several tactics used thoughout to trap her - make her believe that she has “all the time in the world” to appear and answer - and thereafter they could alter the date and she would be considered too late.
3. Defendant-Appellant has learned from many abuses by court officials like this they only have an agenda in mind; not administration of justice, and thus realized they were acting outside of the law.
a) Return Date should be THREE DAYS AFTER THE SUMMONS WAS SERVED, YET IT IS NOT ON THIS DOCKET SHEET or the SUMMONS, WHICH MAKES THE SUMMONS FRAUDULENT ON ONE COUNT OF MANY.
b) APPEARANCE OF PLAINTIFF is untimely filed 6 days AFTER Defendant filed appearance, not knowing the case number since it was not issued by the court for a week AFTER the SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT were served, which was just the opposite of what they did with her Housing Complaint, NHH-CV24-5006875-S.
c) The court marked appearance as entered as both 10/24/2024 and 10/25/2024; which aligns with the plaintiff’s haphazzard filing and using defective dates.
i. Juris number of plaintiff is fraudulent; using Pro Hac Vice, which means they are out of state, yet they are not.
d) Summons is ineptly entered as 10/30, when it was actually - allegedly served on 10/23/2024, discovered in COMMON AREA, outside her door, on the door handle; and the early morning of 10/24/2024 - and thereafter described by plainitff as served on 10/25/2025.
i. Defendant’s disabled neighbor frequently uses her door handle for balance when walking in the hallway to see the other Section 8 neighbor, which is a matter of right since it is a common area.and door handles are responsibility of being maintained by the building maintenance, not tenant.
e) Date of Complaint was 10/23/2024; not 10/30/2024 as placed on record. Doc No. 100.31
f) Notice To Quit Possession was served PRIOR to Summons, not after, yet they have a date of 10/30/2024, which disrupts the record. Doc No. 100.32
g) Doc No.’s 100.33 and 100.34 are deceptively marked the same thing with no indication which RETURN OF SERVICE the individual documents reflect, which also disrupts the record
h) Doc No. 101; Answer and Special Defense by Defendant was taken out of sequence; in fact it was not even on the Docket when hearing of 10/31/2024 on Housing Complaint by Defendant took place (NHH-CV24-6024196). Defendant did not update it on 11/5/2024. Defendant did not update it at all. Yet record indicates it was updated, when in fact that was when the court finally uploaded it on the case record.
i) Doc No. 102.00 Motion to Dismiss was denied with no reason, no response to the pleader, who is defendant-appellant. This seems to be legal malpractice.
j) REQUEST TO CONFORM, Doc 104.00 was nefariously issued by the court in response to Defendant’s repeated comments that the REtURN DATES DID NOT MATCH AND NEITHER WERE LEGITAMATE; seemingly iused as tactics to get the Defendant to enter her appearance and Answer late.
i. Though the Chief clerk called the Defendant indicating that HE, not the Plaintiff, requested to conform to the Plaintiff, he entered this document with no law cited as the Plaintiff’s Request. NO ACTION WAS TAKEN. AGAIN, BOTH THE COURT RETURN DATE AND THE RETURN DATE BY THE PLAINTIFF WERE OUTSIDE THE LAW.
k) Document 108.00 is used by the Plaintiff to excuse why a 30-day wait period was “given”; claiming they were abiding by the CARES ACT, which in fact was discontinued in 2022!
i. Trial court judge Alayna Stone then covered for this mishap claiming thereafter that the Plaintiff gave her 30 days to be compliant with HUD regulations, which is not consistent with HUD Laws. Notice To Quit has a specific purpose, which is cited on the court’s published form. It is not a “wild card” for Housing Court. It is not a Pretermination Letter or Letter of Arrearage. .
ii. This is offered to the court for RECTIFICATION; yet Defendant expects an explanation for this if the court corrects itself, since this is a fundamental part of the Eviction Process and reflective of more Abuse of Procedure, which is why Document 109.00 was entered.
l) Doc No. 110.00, Defendant’s Motion To Strike Plaintiff’s Objection to Motion To Dismiss, yet no hearing on this Motion took place.
i. Motions To Strike may be granted on pleadings, not just complaints, according to American Jurisprudence and in the Rules of Court as an inferrance, which is vaguely written in CPB 10-45 as defendant-appellant Pro Se discovered thereafter.
m) Memorandum of Law; Motion To Strike-defendant-appellant was unable to complete this and stated why, due to Cyber Crime, in this Memorandum on November 15, 2024, having to use the Courthouse Computer. There was no hearing.
n) Defective description of Hearing of Dec 3;
i. FOR THE RECORD, a Motion For Rectification on the Transcript of this hearing shall be submitted forthwith. THE RECORDING WAS ALTERED BEFORE IT WAS TRANSCRIBED. Defendant was confident that a real recording would fully absolve her since she emphasized heavily that the subject matter jurisdiction of the case is limited to the Notice To Quit, which was fraudulently accusing her of not paying rent for August and September; yet she proved she did as she had for years, timely paying her rent AND THIS PLAINTIFF RECEIVED THE SUBSIDY; despite fraudulently billing her for years and being ordered by the Court in January 2023 to remove the fraudulent charges. They removed these charges on Feburary 11, which strangely is the same day and month which Judge Alayna Stone had the chief clerk mark the hearing on Paying Rent into court pending appeal.
ii. Strangely, Judge Stone ordered the rent to be paid to the Plaintiff who is accused of breaching the contract on a regular, frequent basis; was ordered to remove almost $14,000 in fraudulent charges, and even allowed the maintenance manager to relieve himself in her bathroom trashcan in January 2023; thereafter more aggressively vandalizing her apartment by using violence to smash his way in her apartment in retaliation for complaining, including damaging her bed so she had to sleep on the cement floor for 2 years before it was repaired. Additionally, defendant-appellant screamed for her life on July 2, 2024 - same day and month (2019) she filed her appearance in the meritless eviction case brought on by this same landlord-management - which alludes to their intention to make her DISAPPEAR vs appearance.
2. At no point in this case, did the judge cover the HISTORY of the case, which included the Defendant-Appellant paying the rent for August and September; and in addition the failure of the Plaintiff to comply with HUD rules requesting a PRETERMINATION LETTER 30 days prior to a Notice To Quit may be served if there is no resolution after a hearing at the Housing Authority. RECTIFICATION IS REQUESTED ON THIS MATTER.
3. At no point did the Trial Court judge order the Plaintiff to remit the ORIGINAL letter from the Housing Authority, allegedly ordering Defendant to pay a $66 increase in rent; and only entering a letter dated in 2024 with a backdated order for such amount to be in effect two years prior, which Defendant claimed had no legal efficacy and as a valid Exhibit, though defendant-appellant claimed in court was not valid.
4. At no point did the Trial Court judge order the Plaintiff to remit the HAP contract, which is the controlling contract for this Section 8 Tenant; which the Defendant-Appellant (as Section 8 tenant Pro Se) emphasized in court once again, the lease remitted had no legal efficacy.
5. At no point did the Trial Court judge describe what gave this case any merit to be heard, since the limited subject matter jurisdiction was on nonpayment of rent for August and September, with no letter of any arrearage issued, let alone a Pretermination Letter. Insufficiency of Process was an additional reason to the very fact the rent was paid; the Notice To Quit and Summons were frauded documents.
6. Defendant-appellant considers the first two pages of the Case Information as most significant and stopped referencing at that point for this motion. This motion comprises of TEN Pages along with attached Case Information Printed on 2/18/2025
LAW
PB 66-5
SUMMARY
This is an opportunity for the court to correct itself, if it may possibly do so, to justify why this case was even extended to a trial when according to this record, there was no merit to the case.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant-Appellant motions this court to order this record revision as a meant to correct the record for APPELLATE REVIEW..
Attachment: Case Information with (a-n) labels hand-written to align with paragraphs above-referenced.
Prepared and Submitted,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
________________________
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se
PO Box 206514
New Haven, CT 06520
Ph 203-508-0858
ORDER
THE AFORESAID MOTION HAVING BEEN HEARD, IS GRANTED/DENIED
___________________
THE COURT
CERTIFICATION
This MOTION FOR RECTIFICATION COMPRISES OF TEN PAGES, Pursuant to P.B. §§ 62-7 and 66-3, it is hereby certified that a copy of the foregoing was sent electronically this 19th day of February, 2024, to the Attorney whose appearance on record:
Lloyd L. Langhammer (Appellate)
JURIS NO. Is oddly different than AC 48452 appearance
LAW OFFICES OF LLOYD L. LANGHAMMER, LLC
18A Granite Street
New London, CT 06320
860-440-3340
llanghammer@hotmail.com
______________________
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se
PO Box 206514
New Haven, CT 06520
Ph 203-508-0858
IllegalEviction2024
It is also certified that this document has been redacted or does not contain any names or other personal identifying information that is prohibited from disclosure by rule, statute, court order, or case law. It is also certified that this document complies with all applicable rules of appellate procedure.
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
______________________
Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se
PO Box 206514
New Haven, CT 06520
Ph 203-508-0858
IllegalEviction2024
=============================================================
Well, I can post what the Appellate Case manager has entered, which I think is an update of my Docketing Statement already. (Thank you, Case Manager)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Activity | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Oh,,,,,langhammer withdrew and did not even tell me like he is supposed to. He is probably not even an attorney
So Penelope Pitstop is taking his place..I did not see her appearance but I better send her the uploads I made to day. Subject Line: Get a load of this! LOL, not really! Don't tell anybody I said that.
Maybe the Case Info will show when I paste it.....this is the EVICTION CASE....My HOUSING COMPLAINT will be next... but not now....BTW, Does anyone know where I can get more Premier Yarn, color is kickball....I am making an afghan and ran out and apparently Walmart doesn't have it in stock....I hope to get there and check in person but need to be up to snuff on this case....
The motion isn't quite done. I will upload it when it is. 4:45pm 2/23/2025 - HAPPY SUNDAY. BLAH | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Next: Motion For Rectification on AC48452Thanks to CYBER CRIME BY THE TECHNOCRATS, THEY HAVE BLOCKED THE CASE INFORMATION. SO i WILL HAVE TO GO SCAN IT IIN AND POST IT. i need to finish the motion first. You wouldldn't believe how messed up my screen is right now.4:54pmCASE INFORMATION FIRST: ============================================================ Her info is below and I cannot get passed the below crap to upload anything...so the case info may have to land here... ======================================= My blog is disrupted with whatever she has attached to her info: | |||||||||
Karen Pemberton | |||||||||
| |||||||||
| |||||||||
| |||||||||
Do .... |
.png)
Comments