REMAINING TRANSCRIPTS
Link to this blogpost:
http://www.publiusroots.org/2025/03/remaining-transcripts.html
I apologize; I thought I had shared these. I need to scan the pages in and upload if the court reporters have not yet provided me the electronic versions. Last time I checked they have not. I may have to just go over to the courthouse to have a discussion with the chief court reporter. I submitted the forms, they don't process them.
I don't have the electronic versions. I may upload by scanning each page but that will be AFTER I finish my Motions For Rectification. I requested the electronic versions. I forgot to have done that sooner with the court reporter. I submitted a request but it is not on my case info. And I have that to untangle.
UPDATE - 3/14/2025
I can only share the motion I submitted due to the difficulty I have on internet, due to abuse of the landlord disrupting my internet and even now disrupting my typing.
Nevertheless, despite my motioning the Appellate Court, they had the trial court rule on it. So they violated a motion for injunction. And the law doesn't matter.
It would make a little more sense if they submitted me a notice saying they were remanding the motion to the lower court.
Spare the crap about saying, "She should be an attorney" - I am just trying to survive in a very corrupted place because I have no choice!
DOCKET NO: NHHCV246024196S ANSONIA STATE STREET, LLC V. BRADLEY, ANNE SUPERIOR COURT HOUSING SESSION AT NEW HAVEN 3/13/2025 ORDER ORDER REGARDING: 02/21/2025 148.00 APPELLATE COURT MATERIAL The foregoing, having been considered by the Court, is hereby: ORDER: DENIED AC-48416 Motion for Rectification filed 2/21/25 Denied. 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. NHHCV246024196S 3/13/2025 Page 1 of 1 Notice sent: March 13, 2025 Hon. Alayna M. Stone Clerk, Superior Court, NHH CV24-6024196-S Counsel of Record 245278 PK
===============================================
MOTION FOR RECTIFICATION OF CASE INFORMATION
I MOTIONED APPELLATE COURT AS AN INJUNCTIVE ORDER
They gave it to trial court without any notice they would remand it to trial.
Of Course she would deny it. She is dishonest and corrupted and she is not the only one!
and CYBER CRIME ALTERED THE TEXT!
AC 48416 NHH-CV24-6024196-3 ANSONIA STATE STREET, LLC V ANNE BRADLEY APPELLATE COURT OF CT STATE OF CONNECTICUT HOUSING SESSION 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 rectiff and/or articulate the defective case information as lab0led by the Defendant-Appellant on aforesaid case. t'' HISTORY ,i 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 (NHHCV24-5006S75-S) against the aforesaid Plaintiff and herinafter, which the 1: court accepted and granted fee waiver on, and also permitted her to pay rent ii 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 i August and September 2024; the court is obligated to reject cases in *fri"t J VALIDNoticeToQuitisserved.Additional1y,defendant-appellant emphasizednoPreterminationLetterwasissuedbytheplaintiff-appe1lee, adding more rpason 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 thatBozzuto 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 Plazawill 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 $l and will also be discussed in the brieQ 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 Cbntract 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 defendantappellant 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 1l 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-; 5006875-5) 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 EEFECTIVE : RETURN DATE, WHICH THE CHIEF CLERK WOULD NOT CORRECT EVEN THOUGH IT IS THE CHIEF CLERK',S DUTY TO according to the ,l ..i '-,ti 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 I &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 $n the Parties. lf a) NOTE, return date was set by the Chief Clerk for 111412024, and set by the Plaintiffon the Summons for llll2l2024 i. Date of Summons was filed 5 days after Notice To Quit Return date, 10123 12024. 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 so!. '?.\ at three days after service by marshal. 1 i, l. Defendant is required to enter appearance very quickly, by the RETURN DATE, or otherwise lose right to proceed with defense. I 2. Defendant-Appellant claims this was one of the several ; tactics used thoughout to trap her - make het believe that she has "all the time in the world" to appear and answer - and'i' " thereafter they could alter the date and she would be : considered too late. 3--,t) ur,*. '' 3. Defendant-Appellant has learned from many abuses by court officials like this they only have an agenda in mind; not administration ofjustice, 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 sincg 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 Housingpomplaint, NHH-CV24-5006875-S' ..: , c) The court marked appearance as entered as both 1012412024 and 1012512024, which aligns with the plaintiff s haphazzatdfiling and using defective dates. i. Juris number of plaintiffis 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 : ,l served on 1012312024, discovered in COMMON AREA, outside her, door, on the door handle; and the early morning of lol24l2A24 - *a' : thereafter described by plainitff as served on1012512025. i. Defendant's disabled neighbor frequently uses her door handlei i l 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 arca.and door handles are responsibility of being maintained by ihe building maintenance, not tenant. . , '. e) Date of Complaint was 1012312024;not 1013012024 as placed on record. Doc No. 100.31 ; s) h) i) i) Notice To Quit Possession was served PRIOR to Summons, not after, yet they have a date of 1013012024, which disrupts the record. Doc No. 100.32 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 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 10/3112024 on Housing Complaint by Defendant took place (NHH-CV24-6024196). Defendant did not update it on 111512024. Defendant did not update it at all. Yet record indicates it was qpdated, when in fact that was when the court finally uploaded it on the case record. DocNo.102.00MotiQntoDismisswasdeniedwithnoreason'no response to the pleadei, who is defendant-appellant' This seems to be legal malpractice. 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 Plaintiffls Request. NOl 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 i wait period was "given"; claiming they were abiding by the CARES ACT, which in fact was discontinued in2022l . !_ ., 5--t) r) m) n) i. Trial court judge Alayna Stone then covered for this mishap claiming thereafter that the Plaintiffgave 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 109.0.0 was entered. Doc No. 110.00, Defendant's Motion To Strike Plaintifls Objection to Motion To Dismiss,foet 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. Memorandum of Law; Motion To Strike-defendant-appellant was unable to complete this and stated why, due to Cyber Crime, in this+r ';,i Memorandum onNovember l5,2024,having to use the Courthouse i Computer. There was no hearing. Defective description of Hearing of Dec 3; i. FOR THE RECORD, a Motion For Rectification on the I : Transcript of this hearing shall be submitted forthwith. THE t RECORDING WAS ALTERED BEFORE IT WAS TRANSCRIBED. Defendant was confident that arcal recordin! dould fully absolve her since she emphasizedheavily 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 5--,t) 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 fraudulen( charges, and even allowed the maintenance manager to relieve himself in her bathroom trashcan in January 2023; thereafter more aggressivel&vandalizingher apartment by using violence -.-.i !! 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, defendantappellant 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 *i alludes to their intention to make her DISAPPEAR vs appearanbe. 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 i 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 $66 increase in rent; and only entering a letter dated in2024 with a' . a,i 7-.p backdated order for such amount to be in effect two years prior, which Defendant claimed had no legal efficacy and as a valid Exhibit, though defendant-appellant claimed in court was not valid. 4. At no point did the Trial Court judge order the Plaintiff to remit the HAP contract, which is the controlling contract for this Section 8 Tenant; which the Defendant-Appellant (as Section 8 tenant Pro Se) emphasized in court once again, the lease remitted had no legal efficacy. 5. At no point did the Trial Court judge describe what gave this case any merit to be heard, since the limited subject matter jurisdiction was on nonpayment of rent for August and September, with no letter of any arrearage issued, let alone a Pretermination Letter. Insuffrciency of Process was an additional reason to the very fact the rent was paid; the Notice To Quit and Summons were frauded documents. 6. Defendant-appellant.o$*id"rr the first two pages of the Case :l Information as most significant and stopped referencing at that point for this jr' motion. This motion comprises of TEN Pages along with attached Case Information Printed on 21 1812025 LAW PB 66-5 ,. SUMMARY This is an opportunity for the court to correct itsell if it may possibly do so, to justiff why this case was even extended to a trial when according to this ) record, there was no merit to the case. WHEREFORi, th. Defendant-Appellant motions this court to order this ', record revision as a meant to correct the record for APPELLATE REVIEW.. ' :,r J." t''fl tl .. ; il 1 r Attachment: Case Information with (a-n) labels hand-wriuen to align with paragraphs above-referenced. Prepared and Submitted, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT New Haven, CT 06520 Ph 203-s08-08s8 Ille galEviction2024@aol.com ORDER [1 ,.'I + i i, 'r!. Anne M. Bradley, Pro PO Box 206514 THE AFORESAID MOTTON r*AVnqC BEEN HEARD, TS GRANTED/DENIED THE COURT CERNFICATION 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, 2\24,tb the i Attomey whose appearance on record: r ruRIS NO. Is oddly different than AC 48452 appearance :'a' LAWbFFICES oF LLoyD L. LANGHAMMER; LLC .,i l8A Granite Street New London, CT 06320 --**$'" ' -,fl 860-440-3340 llanghammer@hotmai l. com New Haven, CT 06520 Ph 203-508-0858 IllegalEvictiorD024 IlleealEviction2024@.aol.com It is also certified that this document has been redacted or does not contain any names or other personal identifiing information that is prohibited frtm disclosure by rule, statute, court order, or case law. It is also certified that this document complies with all apglicable rules of appellate procedure. !; ,b, DEFENDANT.APPELLANT New Haven, CT 06520 Ph 203-508-08s8 IllegalEvictiorfl024 Ille galEvicti on2024@aol. com ?,1 1i :t, !1 ,{ I Anne M. Bradley,Pro Se PO Box 206514 Anne M. Bradley, Pro Se PO Box 2A6514 -+r&' to-,f [. i ttdhon ful fua\'ftcalL;4 e[ulpe; Ao404lto t ,.$:. r i}"' tl i ,il ! { ..t ...| ri t *&e'' "f 2118125,10:25 AM Case Detail - NHH-CV24-6024196-5 Slr**ri*r #+;ri. l*:* * i..**k-[t*: i'i i.: ir $ i t1.ri -tr ; r al!l'i-r i.l :: ? ::) ii!i i r{:f ii;:f {q}rHt:)::i:- . .\, rlrlf .-, {,*.;il.:'l .' ,,tS fuir*lh: t*rkrr, # 1..{A"--,.-- ;- . ' lnformation Updated
There is no place safe here!
OCTOBER 31, 2024
I can only pasted the Motion For Rectification. I uploaded one transcript successfully, which was intercepted by cyber crime to upload the shorter ones. I suspected they would do that. This is supposed to be icognito, yet It switched to "free-for-all" access! I did not switch it!
(Case is HOUSING COMPLAINT, Anne Bradley vs Ansonia State Street, et al; which I wanted to title Anne Bradley vs Bozzuto Management, et al since they are the real owners! Ansonia is obviously just leasing it from them for 160 million but got an $89 billion mortgage on it! I have that all in my 246 page appendix! Tyco Print Store actually scanned it for me and made a link out of it and put it on a flash drive for me. DropBox disabled the link and hacked my laptop and destroyed the file on the flashdrive! I should have backed it up but it has been such a struggle to keep up with all this shit - on an eviction case that has no merit. And a Housing Case immensely frauded by the court!
December 3, 2024
(ANSONIA STATE STREET V ANNE BRADLEY)
AC 48416
NHH-CV24-6024196-S : APPELLATE COURT OF CT
ANSONIA STATE
STREET, LLC : STATE OF CONNECTICUT
V : HOUSING SESSION
ANNE BRADLEY : MARCH 3, 2025
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR RECTIFICATION
TRANSCRIPT OF DECEMBER 3, 2025
Pursuant to PB 66-5, Defendant-Appellant motions this court to order trial court to rectify aforesaid transcript.
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 since the Limited Deed does not give them seller’s rights and the transaction was only $160 million, which reflects a type of leasing, not ownership. There was no closing on the property.
SIMILARLY SITUATED CASE:
Defendant-appellant brought a Housing Complaint case (NHH-CV24-5006875-S) against the aforesaid Plaintiff and other named defendants which take part in the management responsibilities of the building. The court accepted and granted fee waiver for this HOUSING COMPLAINT, pursuant laws cited on the form, and also permitted her to pay rent into court yet REJECTED her MOTION TO PAY RENT/FAIR USE AND VALUE, TO RECEIVER OF RENT prior to that, which will be brought up in the upcoming Brief. The primary issues were numerous breaches by the landlord and the fraudulent Notice To Quit, fraudulently claiming nonpayment of rent for August and September 2024, which validated her to enter this HOUSING COMPLAINT. (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, which was allegedly served on October 23, yet not uploaded as a case a week AFTER it was served - October 30, 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) Defendant-appellant claimed in court as well as in pleadings that 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. They had not submitted an adendum to the lease claiming they were the owner. (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 also proved she paid the rent for August and September.
Defendant-Appellant, Pro Se, claims the lack of Due Process and ABUSE OF PROCEDURE in trial court and has appealed.
FACTS
1. Plaintiff-appellee was ordered by the court in January 2023 to remove their fraudulent charges comprising of almost $14,000.
a) Defendant-appellant wanted to see if they were abated by HUD. The fact no one would reply to her on that resulted in her assuming they were.
b) The former property manager, who claims to be the COMMUNITY SERVICES manager for the past year, Kyle Huckle, attended court on January 13, 2025, on behalf of plaintiff-appellee and said that they were not ordered by the court to remove charges, they removed them to be nice.
i. Defendant-appellant claimed that was a lie; yet the court did nothing to ensure accountability.
c) Plaintiff-appellant claimed at that hearing on January 13, 2025, that no one would provide her the order upon requesting it several times, and she considered that they were abated, yet they resumed the fraudulent charging on the ledger, which is only exculpatory proof that they fraud the billing of plaintiff-appellant’s ledger. This behavior continues, as well as numerous other breaches of the lease, to include traumatizing the plaintiff-appellant by violently breaking in her apartment when she was taking a bath on July 2, 2023 - the same day and month she filed her APPEARANCE on the 2019 Eviction attempt (which she won, yet only due to support from public professionals who insisted the judge do his job rather than apply legal malpractice. The opinion was voluminous and unnecessary, being the case was built on a fraudulent Notice To Quit.)
2. Defendant-appellant has provided an affidavit in her own words as a Pro Se litigant, regarding the numerous descrepancies in this transcript.
3. This aforesaid motion is being duplicated for Motion For Rectification on Transcript of January 13, 2025. The Affidavit attached provides details on the aforesaid transcipt; for the court to consider before the lower court is issued its final order.
LAW
PB 66-5
SUMMARY
Statements made by the defendant-appellant are inclusive in the Affidavit attached to this motion.
Appendix PAGE NO.
Affidavit, 13 pages 1
Proof of payment for Transcripts 14
Examples of Cyber Crime while Preparing this 15
Note, screenshots were not printable
Transcript of 14 pages with Certification, Cover Page 16
PREPARED AND SUBMITTED,
FOR THE 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 6 PAGES WITH 32 PAGES APPENDIXED. It is prepared Pursuant to P.B. §§ 62-7 and 66-3, it is hereby certified that a copy of the foregoing was sent electronically this 3RD day of March, 2025, to mleone@ltke.com
Thru: KAREN PEMBERTON
52 Trumbull Street
New Haven, CT 06510
203-787-0275, Ext 227
Fax: 203-401-3343
Email: KPemberton@LTKE.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 perceived by the Pro Se Appellant to be 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
.png)
Comments